history: July 2008 Archives

Do Muslim women need liberating? is an interesting article*; although I cannot say I'm as involved with the struggle regarding femiinism in Islamic cultures as I might like to be (or should be?), it well reflects a number of isues I've heard/read over the years. It also reflects much of the trension regarding women who preform raqs sharqi "over there":

Merve Kavakçı - the former Turkish politician - claimed the modern evaluation of the situation of Muslim women was inherently biased. She believes there is a Western assumption that Muslim women are subjugated, which is attributed to Islam - a non sequiteur in her view, since while Muslim women do need to be liberated, it is not from the religion but from their indigenous culture. This is a crucial point: it's worth noting, for example, that female circumcision - the biggest stain on Islam's reputation - is predominant in Egypt, a secular country, and virtually non-existent in Saudi Arabia. The distinguishing factor is the different cultures in both countries.

She should have been more mindful of the reasons why Islam is seen as
oppressive by non-Muslims - she failed, for instance, to tackle the question of whether the Qur'an and the hadith may have inherent qualities or messages that lend themselves to a male dominant interpretation, a monopoly she herself acknowledged. Women from the very beginning of Islam participated in military combat and were given rights of divorce, alimony and so on, but such scriptural verses which compromise women's credibility in testimony, raise issues surrounding women's inheritance rights in addition to controversial texts in the Qur'an cannot be ignored in any debate about whether Islam subjugates women

I would add that my personal opinion is that women's rights were eroded over time; looking at descriptions of women being shrouded in the public sphere in the 'Abbasid era differs mightily from what we read about women in the time of the Four Righteous Caliphs. I've read, and personally think, that the incorporation of Persian culture, primarily for administrative purposes as the Empire grew, has a great deal to do with this, but I have no doubt there were other influences as well.
And yet, this is the critical take-away; these issues are, indeed, tied to underlying cultures, and the evolution of those cultures, as much as any other source. Islam was reinterpreted just as Christianity was reinterpreted; the man who drove moneylenders from the temple, and who's early followers lived in a communal style, might not recognize the Prosperity Gospel so prominent now, not to mention certain high-living, politically astute pastors. You cannot assume that practices in one culture apply to all of Islam, over all of it's long history.
Indeed, aside from the 5 Pillars of Faith, there is great variation in the religion, esp. in regards to laws, and the enforcement thereof. Shari'a is not always harsh and unforgiving, and in fact, even with the law, the pratical application may differ. I'm mindful of a paper I have that tracked down actual Prostitution cases in period Ottoman Istanbul, and found that the actual punishment was never carried out, in any recorded case. Those familiar with "50 dollars and time served" get the jist of what the reality was.
Too often do I hear people -- including fellow dancers! -- describe Islam in terms that are monolithic. And we must guard against these things, for it is no longer enough to defend our dance; we must defend it's cultures in a time where many people seek to dismiss us via dismissing any good coming from those cultures. This is the minefield we must traverse to gain more, and stronger, mainstream acceptance for raqs sharqi, and it's related forms.






*(h/t) LiveJournal's islam_feminism community

[MEA CULPA: In my haste to write, I made commentary about fan dancing that, in retrospect, is not supported by the article or the facts. I feel crappy about it, I've pulled that section, and I submit my humble apologies to the readers who might have thought I've gone bloody mad.]

This news item came across my "raqs"/"bellydance" feed, and managed to pack so many bits of sterotyping in that it was painful to read.  Worse, the stereotypes came (so far as I can tell) not from the dligent report, but from the dancer interviewed:

A fifth-century favorite form of entertainment will be performed as Kisa Dance presents “Welcome to My Harem” on Saturday, July 12, in Memorial Park.
Kisa Dance, featuring 20 Kisa Girls with veils, will open with a dance to an opera in the free program at 7 p.m. at the band shell. The two-hour show features Egyptian, Spanish, cabaret, sword, zill and tribal dances, many set to popular music.
“There’s even a fan dance,” Carol La Bau said.

[...]

According to La Bau, traditionally, the belly dances were performed by Arab Islamic women, primarily for their own amusement and exercise, and were largely ignored by men. But outsiders viewed the dances and learned them, and when they traveled from Persia to Egypt after the fifth century, they continued to perform them. Belly dancing became public entertainment, often performed by Gypsies. The dance soon grew to be a favorite of Western performers.

Mmm.   Let's just tackle words and phrases:

Harem:  No, just no.  Harems are, in reality, places where women are cooped up and protected from the real world.  The only reason women dance there, is because they can't dance anywhere ese. This is a horrible model to emulate.

Fifth-Century Entertainment: Why do I have the horrible suspection that she's trying to talk about the Ghawazee? Does she realize that Persians aren't Arabs?  Is she saying these "outside observers" learned them in "Arabia", ended up in Persia, then moved to Egypt?  Verra confusing.

OK, guys. Let's tighten up this stuff. We already struggle with error-ridden commentary, no need to fuel the fire ourselves, right?