In yesterday’s protests, Palestinian women showed that they have the spirit of a fighter, yet the heart of a protective mother.

Young Palestinian women took the initiative to be in the front line of the March 15 protests in Palestine to protect the protesters. With their bodies they created a human shield in an attempt to prevent any expected fights. Some of the protesters were on hunger strike for the third day.  They simply called for an end to Palestinian division.

The “thugs” who attacked the peaceful protest in Ramallah intentionally targeted those women. They turned to violence against the unarmed women. Many were beaten up, pushed to the ground and two of them were sent to the hospital in Ramallah.

More shocking news came later on from Gaza, when we heard that the journalist Samah Alrwag was stabbed. And other women activists were arrested, such as Asma’a Al-Ghoul. She was also arrested a few weeks ago with five other women. They were beaten during their detention period.

These scenes represent the harsh reality of the dual oppression that Palestinian women go through. They suffer from the Israeli occupation on one hand and the social and political oppression in Palestine on the other.

We demand the Palestinian Authority condemn the violations conducted by some “thugs” from both sides, Fatah and Hamas in Gaza and Ramallah. The authorities must prosecute the attackers as soon as possible. The Palestinian Authority is responsible for protecting these women and all the other protesters.

(This was originally posted over at my own blog – you can read the comments – negative and positive – there)

Last week, I read Judy Bacharach’s “Twice Branded – Western Women in Muslim Lands” (bint battuta already dug into it here). You may also want to take a gander at the growing catfight between Phyllis Chesler and Naomi Wolf (documented pretty clearly on Chesler’s site)

The article, which you ought to go read before continuing here, basically outlines how western* women are treated in Muslim countries – according to Bacharach, we are forced into marriages, or if we choose to marry, our husbands will turn on us Not Without My Daughter style, or if we don’t marry, we’ll be branded as loose women. Real thoughtful stuff.

Okay – let’s get the truths out of the way first. Yes, there have been cases of women moving to certain Muslim countries with laws on the books that take away former nationality upon marriage (Iran has done this, whether you’re a believer of Betty Mahmoody’s story or not). Yes, there have been some highly publicized cases of forced marriage in Egypt. And yes, there is a prevailing attitude among some young men in some countries (including non-Muslim ones – anyone been groped in Italy?) that western – especially American – women are loose. Acknowledged, moving on.

That said, the first rule when writing about Muslim countries is to lump all Muslims together, as if they are one brainless homogeneous blob. The second rule, of course, is to ignore all of the happy, positive, and successful marriages between western women and Muslim men (or, assume that if there is a divorce, that it must have been because the man was Muslim…because, you know, no two people from the same culture ever divorce!) And while you’re at it, simply ignore any positive experiences in general from women in the Middle East and North Africa that don’t fit your agenda. The third rule is that you must never, ever, place blame on the poor western woman who went to a chatroom, met her husband-to-be, fell in love without ever hearing his voice or seeing his face, then flew a thousand miles to marry him and then – oh noes! – found that he wasn’t who he said he was. The fourth is that you must only trust the viewpoints of “Muslim reformers” and apostates: Muslim women are never to be trusted. And of course, never forget the most important rule of writing about Muslim countries – you must, must take every anecdotal incident as gospel.

Let’s go through these again, with examples.

Rule #1: All Muslims Are the Same.

Because of her experience, the occasional young American woman who is thinking of marrying a Muslim with an urge to return to his own country visits Chesler for advice. And she tells them what she knows: “This man you love will change overnight before your eyes. You will live but you will wish you were dead.”

Oh yes, Phyllis Chesler. The same Phyllis Chesler who says things like:

Most Muslim girls and women are not given a choice about wearing the chador, burqa, abaya, niqab, jilbab, or hijab (headscarf), and those who resist are beaten, threatened with death, arrested, caned or lashed, jailed, or honor murdered by their own families.

Ahhh yes, the ol’ argument that Muslim women are forced to wear hijab. Exempting Iran and KSA, which both have laws on the books, I fail to see how Chesler could arrive at the conclusion that “most” Muslim women aren’t given the choice. Is she privy to some information that I’m not? Has she entered the households of Muslim men and women to determine who is, and is not, forced by their families? Even if she had, would she listen?

But let’s move on, to Rule #2: Ignore Positive Examples

My friend Nasser says that he was told by “a leading female American journalist” that the press is “not interested by success stories of western women.” I don’t disagree. Take this lovely story in Saudi Aramco World: Nancy Abeiderrahmane is a British woman who has lived in Mauritania with her husband for 30 years and is responsible for commercializing camel milk in the country. Of course, the story doesn’t even touch on Nancy’s marriage (why would it?), making it totally uninteresting to western feminist journalists. Even if they were to pay attention, Nancy’s success in Mauritania would be treated as an anomaly.

In other words, nobody hears about the tons of western women who have successful marriages with Muslim men. No one hears statistics at all, let alone personal stories. That would simply blow their minds, and screw up their perspective that allows them to keep their hate nice and fresh.

Rule #3: It Is Always the Muslim’s Fault

There are lots of horror stories – some of which I’m sure are true – of western women marrying Muslim men, going to live in their country of origin, and finding out that things were not as they previously seemed. As much as I can’t stand Phyllis Chesler, I don’t doubt her life story (she married an Afghan peer in the U.S., moved to Afghanistan with him, and was mistreated by him and his family). And yet, I can’t doubt her naiveté: Who moves to a foreign country on a lark without doing their research? Same goes for Betty Mahmoody, who was blissfully unaware that Iranian law would consider her an Iranian, not an American. I feel sympathy for these women and how they were treated, but I also question the lack of blame placed on them – and the surely hundreds of women since – who have gone to a country with their husband or to marry someone, not learned the language, not studied the culture, then placed all of the blame on Islam, capitalizing on their stories in the process.

As one commenter on Bint Battuta’s post remarks:

The women I have tried to help in Jordan had no clue what they were getting into. Some of them were just plain uneducated and not smart. Some were mentally imbalanced or so thoroughly victims their marriages never would have made it in the US.

I’ve seen plenty of this myself, too. It’s becoming very common for Canadian and American women to meet Moroccan men online then travel there to live for a time, get married, and return home with their new husbands. Some of these marriages are successful – typically when the woman lives in Morocco for awhile before the wedding – but plenty of others fail precisely because the woman goes into it without bothering to understand her husband’s culture, or find out what he believes about things like religion and children, or assumes that she can change him.

Rule #4: Only Trust Muslim “Reformists.”

When was the last time you heard the opinion of a woman wearing hijab cited in popular media? Never? Exactly. That’s because all women are forced to wear hijab, of course!

What I find particularly funny is how these criticists (what else can you call them?) frequently remark upon how Muslim women are oppressed and silenced by Muslim men, then continue to oppress and silence them by not considering their voices in the media.

The rule, of course, is that you can only consider the voices of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji, Wafa Sultan, and Mona Eltahawy. Theirs are the only valid voices of Muslim women, because they’ve realized the error of their ways.** Never trust a woman wearing hijab – obviously someone put her up to it. Which brings me to the last rule…

Rule #5: Take Every Anecdote As Gospel

In her piece, Bachrach shares an anecdote about being told she should take her hamburger to her room rather than eat it in the hotel’s restaurant as if it were gospel. Chesler, in a recent piece, uses sweeping generalizations like “It is well known that the Arabs and Muslims kept and still keep sex slaves” and “A fully ‘covered’ girl-child, anywhere between the ages of 10-15, may still be forced into an arranged marriage, perhaps with her first cousin, perhaps with a man old enough to be her grandfather, and she is not allowed to leave him, not even if he beats her black and blue every single day.”

It’s important, of course, that whenever you have a negative experience in a Muslim country, you make general, sweeping statements about how that experience is the norm. Nevermind the thousands of Muslim women who are waiting until they finish their educations to get married. Nevermind the legal reforms. Obviously, only negative experiences count. Because…

Remember: All Muslims Are The Same

And don’t forget – all Muslims are exactly the same. If one forces his daughter to wear hijab, they all must. If one beats his wife, it must be because the Qur’an told him to do it. And if one young Muslim woman gets a PhD and then chooses a husband…oh wait, no…that would obviously never happen.

*I hate the term “western” but until somebody finds a better way to reference a population, I will continue to use it. But let it be known…I think it sucks.

**My opinions on these four women differ; I am grouping them together because the mainstream “feminist” pundits do.

A few good women are missing from this year’s competition. Though it’s fewer than ever before, it’s still too many. In 2008, 3 countries lack a single woman competing for their team: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait. Of those three, only one has ever sent a woman to the Olympics (that would be Kuwait, represented in ’04 by 16-year-old runner Danah Al-Nasrallah). Afghanistan also sent its first female competitor to Athens, while female Omani, Bahraini, and Emirati Olympians are appearing for the first time in Beijing.

While it’s unfortunate for any team to lack female representation, however, Saudi Arabia is the only country which outright bans women from competing. That’s their prerogative, perhaps, but shocking that the IOC, the Olympic governing body which prohibits “any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, sex or otherwise” would allow them to compete; that’s the same IOC that barred South Africa from the Olympics in the 1960s during the apartheid era. And South Africa actually offered to send black athletes. It was for their refusal to allow interracial sporting at home that they were barred; Saudi Arabia’s situation is actually much worse, as women aren’t allowed to compete at home or abroad.

What’s worse is the apologists for Saudi Arabia; among them Ray Hanania, who argues:

Newscasters make a point of always saying its team is “all male.” Women are prohibited by Saudi Arabia’s government from participating, but many other nation’s [sic] also have teams that are also only all male.

Many other nations, no. It’s now down to two, in fact – so when will Qatar and Saudi Arabia step up to the plate and join their neighbors? Hijab is clearly not the problem – Egypt, Iran, Yemen, Bahrain, and Afghanistan all sent hijab-clad athletes this year, and development in athletic clothing for Muslim women is improving all the time.

Little girls in Saudi Arabia (which I will use as an example from now on, given that Qatar’s population equals that of Boston) deserve to have strong heroes too. Girls in Morocco idolize Nawal El Moutawakel the same way young Romanian girls have idolized Nadia Comaneci and Americans Mary Lou Retton. The next generation of young Muslim women might grow up to idolize Bahrain’s Ruqaya al Ghasra (pictured) or Lebanon’s Nibal Yamout.

So until Saudi women are allowed to play sports, and compete in the Olympics, the IOC should hold to its standards and simply ban the country from competition. Full stop.

Noor is a modern fashion designer. She is married to Mohannad, romantic, attentive yet also supportive of her ambitions — making him a perfect husband and headache for many Arab men. Yet, they are the product of an arranged marriage and show some signs of social conservatism. It’s a microsm of Turkey’s own blend of secularism and tradition, allowing for an organic, even if fictionalized, feminism, that many Muslim women can relate to.

The show is having social implications in the Arab world. It is fueling the flames of marital tension. According to Reuters, “many Saudi women explained their devotion to the show as a form of escapism from stifling, love-less marriages.”

“Our men are rugged and unyielding,” quipped a 26-year-old house-frau who preferred to remain unnamed. “I wake up and see a cold and detached man lying next to me, I look out the window and see dust. It is all so dull. On Noor, I see beautiful faces, the beautiful feelings they share and beautiful scenery.”

And I thought women liked rugged men.

The show, which is dubbed in colloquial, rather than formal, Arabic, is also a huge hit in Palestine. One friend noted seeing postcards of Mohannad and Noor on sale in the streets, which the picture above also shows.

A family in the Shati refugee camp in Gaza City soaking in Noor.

KABOBers had a brief but illuminating exchange about the series, mainly confirming the obsession with it in Palestine, but also expressing some general condescension towards the masses. I preferred to see it as a Turko-Israeli-Americo conspiracy to propagandize a vision of husbandism that no culture knows.

WILL: I think this is a plot to destroy the Arab family… Mohannad’s attentiveness to his wife is likely to be evoked in many spousal tifts.

FAYYAD: I’ve been here two days and it’s already driving me nuts. It’s cheesy, empty, and has less content than the bold and the beautiful, not to mention of similar storyline. And the place here shuts down when it’s on, even my dad, the most skeptic and suspecious person of imported foriegn culture watches it.

Will’s predictions already materialized, several divorces in Jenin are blamed on it already.

DIANA: Oh come on. You mean that you don’t find Muhannad the dreamiest spouse on earth? You don’t find Nur the kindest person ever created? Oh Fayyad – the west has changed you. I am nearly on Ramadan countdown at; this point – Nur will be over only to be replaced by something just as stupid.

MOHAMMAD: God I hate this stupid show. And I hate how easily impressionable our
people are. Its beyond the point of pathetic…Fayyad isn’t exaggerating. People are getting divorced over this load of shit.

DIANA: I have witnessed the Nur addiction firsthand: my niqab-wearing cousin and her pre-teen hijab wearing kids watch it 3 times a day. They have even subscribed to a new channel that shows uncut versions of Nur all day. Her freaky Sheikh husband is also addicted but claims to watch it for ‘educational’ purposes. The cuz has told me hair raising stories about her neighbour (who was beaten by her hubbie for mentioning how charming Muhannad is). I am sure this was just his excuse but Nur is now being blamed. Alas.

On one hand, the more men beat their wives, or neglect them, the more attractive escapist fantasies will be. This goes for all cultures. On the other, life is never so simple as a TV show.

However, is fandom for this show expressing aspirations we cannot ignore — the screams of Arab women for more?

Denied not because she can’t speak French, or doesn’t correctly understand the french code of secularism, but rather, due to the way she expresses her religious beliefs using her own body. What baffles me most, reading about this episode in Le Monde the reputable French daily, is the amount of journalistic negligence that seems to be permissible for Arab-interest stories when compared with the average fare. That day’s editorial only briefly suggested that French Muslims might find fault with the state judging their religious practice as a barometer of citizenship. The rest of the page described all the myriad ways in which this voiceless woman was indeed thoroughly oppressed, in submission to her husband and male relatives, and worst of all, so dominated that she could not even realize the fact of her submission. The classic false consciousness narrative that has existed as long as the white man’s burden. “How can one disagree with such a critique?”, read the last sentence.

Part of the problem with this woman being “voiceless” was the newspaper’s own fault: neither the editorial nor the accompanying news article contained a single quote attributed to her. For that, we had to wait for the New York Times article, where Faiza finally spoke in her own name. She repeated ad nauseam that the burqa was her own choice, and not in any way her husband’s. The female NYT journalist, who saw Faiza unveiled, took pains to suggest that the woman was not, to her understanding, oppressed, being instead of very sunny disposition, and in clear possession of her rational faculties. She even said, somewhat bizarrely, that Faiza had a happy, “moon-shaped” face. Her motivation for wearing the burqa, Faiza stressed, was modesty, to prevent men from leering at her.

To add insult to injury, the Le Monde article quotes only one “expert”, the very opinionated Olivier Roy, who seems present in the article only to concur that yes, this woman is clearly oppressed.
Of course, detail and nuance fade in importance when compared to the unspoken requirement of french citizenship, or rather, an outmoded French feminism: be girly, be sexy, show your skin, be like us, or leave. A civilizational test that has little to do with equality or justice and everything to do with cultural, and dare I say it, sexual anxiety.

The other story here is Fadela Amara, the Maghrebian female minister and Secrétaire d’état in charge of Politique de la Ville, or Urban Politics. She is one of the leaders of the group Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Sluts nor Submissives) which lobbies for women’s rights in the underprivileged suburbs. The front page of their website carries a banner expressing “extreme relief” that Faiza was denied citizenship. Formerly, this group was instrumental on the public relations front in getting the veil ban passed. The French media and unfortunately also the New York Times have over-promoted her as a Muslim voice at the expense of all others, when in fact she declares herself a militant secularist. Not that there’s any contradiction there– many French citizens call themselves secular Muslims– but she is hardly an authority on Muslim affairs. Yet every single article about this case mentions that Fadela Amara, a practicing Muslim, approved of the citizenship denial, so there. This is like quoting Khalilzad for the opinion of ordinary Iraqis. Such is the lax journalism allowed when the subject is Muslim, about whom anything can be believed.

I don’t have an opinion on the burqa because it’s simply not my issue to judge, but I understand why it makes people uncomfortable, or is an obstacle in municipal affairs like photo IDs or security checks. This episode, however, goes beyond these petty technicalities and dangerously enters the terrain of regulating women’s bodies, in a way that feminists should be more alarmed about. I say this as someone with a foundation in queer politics, and an anti-sexist.

I had the honor of attending the first annual Bay Area Arab Women’s Conference this past Friday, March 14, in Mountain View, California. This event was organized by the Arab Cultural and Community Center of San Francisco and featured a diverse compilation of speakers and subject matters. Topics ranged from discussions on Arab women in the realm of politics, health, media, community activism, identity, and cultural expression.

Although the speakers all articulated themselves well and shared rich perspectives and vital information, I felt the heart of the conference came from the mere fact that Arab/Arab-American women gathered together in one room. This act alone garnered an overwhelming sense of solidarity, especially as every participant could identify with battling warp perspectives non-Arabs hold of Arab women, and the very personal struggles Arab women have in dealing with their own community.

Dr. Suad Amiry touched upon an element of these two struggles in her speech titled after her book, “No Sex in the City: The Generation of Secular Women in the PLO.” Dr. Amiry expressed her frustration derived from the labeling of Arab women as either the subservient/oppressed type, or the overly emotional/mourning type. Those having such limited views of Arab women do a great injustice, as the contributions, lifestyles, and points-of-view of Arab women get overlooked. The exploration of these eclectic and unique differences among Arab women can give others great insight and understanding into a people often misunderstood.

Dr. Dina Ibrahim, in her talk about Arab women in the media, chimed into this subject as well. Her simple statement of how often people assume her to be “Mexican” or something other than Arab, as she doesn’t fit the stereotypical look of an Arab (i.e., not wearing a hijab), emerged a powerful testament to the daily struggle of the Arab/Arab-American woman. The collective chuckle at the presumption of being an ethnicity other than Arab proved Dr. Ibrahim was not alone! I can most definitely relate, as can every one of my Arab cousins/friends.

The conference attendees also found unity when discussing issues plaguing women within the Arab/Arab-American community. Dr. Suad Amiry talked about her having to take great strides to conceal the identity of the women featured in her book, who spoke about their first loves, other romantic relationships, and their sex lives. These women feared “gossip” would construe as a result of their stories. Discussions related to health were also a cause of fear, which Dr. Sally Al-Daher and Nadiah Mshasha, MPH, reflected upon. For example, a result of the extensive survey they conducted on Arab/Arab-American women exposed that they tend to not conduct monthly breast exams as recommended by their gynecologists. The reason for this comes from being embarrassed to touch oneself; these acts are considered “aib,” or shameful in Arabic.

Whether we discussed our strengths or areas of improvement, it felt empowering to have a forum focused on Arab/Arab-American women. Rarely does this outlet exist in the community, so being surrounded by women that could whole – heartedly empathize, relate, and most importantly, care – just felt good. I only hope this sort of momentum continues and escalates to an even grander, more encompassing scale in the future.

Barack Obama has to face e-mail chain letters suggesting he is an atheist, and others that he is a Muslim.

This Chicago Sun-Times article illuminates the whispering campaign being used to discredit Barack Obama. It is based on accusations apparently most detrimental to an American politician: being godless or worshiping “Allah.”

While the media raves about the historic possibility of a woman or African-American as President, and a Latino candidate (Bill Richardson), this shows that the American public still has several psychological, prejudicial hurdles to go, this is, if an African-American and a woman are actually electable. I would like to think that given their leading positions now, it is possible, at the least. Time will tell.

DES MOINES, Iowa — Just hours before Thursday night’s caucuses, White House hopeful Barack Obama did interviews on five networks and plenty of local television stations this morning, then hoarsely greeted diners at a downtown Des Moines food court.

And he faced a surprise question from one woman who asked him if he was an atheist.

“I’m a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ. I’ve been a member for 15 years,” Obama replied, adding, “Don’t read e-mails.”

E-mails have circulated in recent weeks saying Obama is a Muslim or an atheist or took his oath of office on a Quran instead of a Bible, none of which is true.

“I hated having to ask him that,” the woman, Zanetta Moore-El, said. “But I heard he was like an atheist. I don’t want a president who’s an atheist. I’m a firm believer in God. I just really wanted to make sure because I really wanted to vote for him and he has some good topics and everything.”

Charismatic, striking and politically sly, Benazir Bhutto, 54, was reared amid the privileges of Pakistan’s aristocracy and the ordeals of its turbulent politics. Smart, ambitious and resilient, she endured her father’s execution and her own imprisonment at the hands of a military dictator to become the country’s – and the Muslim world’s – first female leader.

The Muslim world’s first female leader? Really? Are they serious? Maybe the first democratically elected prime minister of a modern nation-state that is majority Muslim, but to make the jump to say the first leader in the entire history of the ‘Muslim world’ is misleading and incorrect methinks.

What an incredibly misleading way to begin a story. I said as much to someone, and they said, why is that misleading? So I said umm, Aisha led politically (right?) after the death of the prophet. The person said, “Well I didn’t know that.” And she’s right- no one does, which is why major respected papers with international readership can get away with making such a statement (which really has not much to do with the rest of the article). Notice how the author can write a biography of a female leader of a Muslim modern nation, something that would contradict the stereotypes of most of the readers, without actually challenging the stereotype. With that sentence they reinforce the idea that women can’t lead- she must have been the first.

Can we please note here that there hasn’t been any non-white non-male president in the US?

Here are some of the FEST’s favorite Muslim women leaders (min zamaan and in this current zaman):

Khadija: The first wife of Muhammad. Also his elder, his distant cousin, and his financial sponsor. She was the first person to convert to Islam, and the prophet didn’t marry any other wives until after her death. She is remembered as having a leading role in early Islam.

Aisha: A later wife of Muhammad, remembered as having had a special relationship with him, who after his death was respected for her accounts of the prophet’s sayings and actions. Up to a quarter of Islamic law may be attributed to her explanations. In the battle that split Islam into Sunni and Shia, she raised up and led an army.

Najah Al-Attar: Syrian Vice President as of 2006 and former Minister of Culture. Don’t let her fake wig distract you from her accomplishments.

Khaleda Zia: Bangladeshi Prime Minister from 1991-1996 and 2001-2006. Also she was Forbes’ 33rd Most Powerful Woman in 2006.

For a plethora, see here.

Tarboush Tip: Nadeem, May, Fadi