Diary of an Arab Woman For a Humanistic Islam, by Elham Manea; Middle East Transparent, November 02, 2006

  • 0

So what was it that made me angry? That is the funny part. I know it was a Fatwa (an Islamic religious edict issued by a Sheikh) that made me decide to write “Diary of an Arab Woman”, but I do not seem to remember exactly which Fatwa it was. Is not that strange? I wrote a book and the very reason that made me decide to write it escapes my memory.

Was it the Fatwa that decreed that a married couple should not make love while naked? If they do so, they have committed an act that turns them into heretics! Perhaps that was it. Or was it the one that answered the question of a worried woman who did not know whether she can undress in front of her dog. The Sheikh who answered her question came with an ingenious question of his own: is your dog male or female? No. It was not this Fatwa either; this came later.

Regardless of which Fatwa it was, I felt angry. So angry that I made a decision at that very moment: silence no more. I had enough of observing and not responding. I had enough of listening to this nonsense and not calling it by its own name: nonsense! And I had enough of hearing the argument: this is how Islam is, take it or leave! Well, I am not leaving it, but I am not accepting it either! Time is ripe for a new discourse. The next day I started to write the diary which was published in a series of articles in the reformist liberal Arab website “Middle East Transparent”. That was in September 2005.

Message of Four Components

In the “Diary of an Arab woman” I had a message. We live in a time where a version of Islam, Wahabbi Islam exported from the heart of Saudi Arabia, has become dominant in the Arab world. It is dominant in the mosques, dominant in the media, and it is propagated actively with the support of Saudi oil money.

Another version of Islam, Shi’ti Islam, exported from the Islamic Republic of Iran, is also being disseminated in parts of the Islamic world though on a lesser scale than its former Sunni counterpart. Both are expressions of a religion that has become politicized. While the two countries needed religion to legitimize their political systems, a re-Islamization of secular Arab societies was taken place as a result of the failure of the Arab state in fulfilling its promises made after the end of the colonial era.

Secular Arab States failed to fulfill their promises to launch a successful development process (Arab countries are lagging behind other regions in their development); to improve people’s lives (it will take an Arab citizen 140 years to double his or her income in comparison to 10 years in Asian countries); and to restore by force what the Arabs consider as the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people (the 6 days war of 1967 put an end to such claim).

Since democracy has been also postponed by Arab regimes with the pretext that development has the priority, a real sense of betrayal was disseminating fast in the region. Failure bred a sense of dissatisfaction, deeply intensified with the lack of future prospects. Religion became a refuge.

The re-Islamization of Arab societies gave ground to the belief that there is indeed only one version of Islam, the one exported from the heart of Saudi Arabia, Najdi Wahhabi Islam. People seem to have forgotten how colorful and divers Islamic traditions were. Islam in Tunisia or Morocco was different in its interpretations and scope from that of Oman or Yemen, and Egyptian Islam was certainly different in its spirit from that of Saudi Arabia. People also seem to have forgotten that their identity was rarely revolving around their religious beliefs as one made to believe today. They were Arabs or Kurds, Egyptians, Yemenis, or Tunisians, not Muslims in the first place.

This re-Islamization of Arab societies was combined with constant calls, made by Islamic parties who have become a powerful political force in Arab political landscapes, for the implementation of Shari’a laws. “Islam is the solution”, so was the new motto espoused by these Islamic political parties. Society seems to have bought this claim. It was time to challenge this claim. It was time for a humanistic Islam.

This humanistic Islam presented in the Diary bases its argument on four components:

Identity; a free and rational Islam; forbidden areas of thinking; and the woman – a human.

1) A Complex Identity

Identity is complex. Islamists would like us to believe that we are Muslims, full stop. Europe and the Unites States have started to adopt this perception after the September 11, 2001 attacks. A humanistic reading of Islam, on the other hand, considers the identity of a person as far more complex than to limit it on its religious dimension.

Explaining this in personal terms I am an individual with several identities.

The first of these identities is simple and straightforward: I am a humanist. And I am not saying this because it sounds good. I believe in it. That is, I believe that the well being of the human is the ultimate goal; that there are universal values which transcend every race, colour, culture, and religion; that these values allow me to look in the eyes of the person talking to me, regardless of his or her identity, and see something very valuable, something to cherish.

The second of these identities is more cultural oriented: I am an Arab. You might have expected me to say that I am a Yemeni. This is also an accurate observation. Being a Yemeni is the nationality that I was born with. But again it does not describe correctly who I am.

Born to a Yemeni diplomat, I travelled with my family around the world. I have lived in many Arab, Islamic, as well as Western countries.

The experience allowed me to recognize how people are similar in many ways. Their life styles, customs, and standards may be different, but in the end they love, they hate, they have their worries, and certainly, they have their prejudices.

It also enabled me to recognize how Arab countries differ from each other. Yemen is not Egypt, and Egypt is not Morocco, and the latter is not Kuwait or Syria or Oman, etc. But as much as they differ, something brings them together: a rich language, high culture and civilization. This Arab identity represents the second layer of what I am. I relish it in the literature that I read, the music I listen to, and certainly the food I take time to cook.

Now comes the third layer of my identity, which is: I am a Muslim. This is the very private identity of all of the above. It is where I experience my spirituality, and where I feel I have a soul as a contrast to the material flesh. But it does not encompass the whole of my being; it is not “the identity”.

2) A Free and Rational Islam

If being a Muslim represents my third layer of identity, which Islam I adopt then? A free and rational Islam.

Free, means that it respects the choice of the human being, and situates the well being of this human as its ultimate goal. The human is born free; free to choose the life he or she wants; and free to choose his or her religion. And his or her freedom is his or her responsibility; it is also his or her right. A natural right imbedded in him or her by the mere fact of being born human.

And rational means that this Islam does not only call for reading the religious texts within its contextual and historical settings; it does not only call for a careful and critical scrutinizing of these religious texts and how they were gathered and came about; nor does it content itself with putting rationality first before the holy texts. It takes these arguments a step further and stipulates that Quranic doctrines or Shari’a laws should be disregarded if they stood against Human Rights as we understand them today, citizenship rights, or gender equality.

This perception requires that we distinguish between two levels of the Islamic religion:

a) A spiritual side, which regulates the spiritual relationship of the human with God.

b) A legalistic and Shari’a side, whose provisions should be seriously reviewed and put to questions.

This free and rational reading of Islam needs a secular and democratic state to thrive in. Separation between religion and the state gives the human the freedom of believing or not believing. Only a secular and democratic state can protect the human and his or her dignity, respect him or her as an adult capable of making his or her own decisions, and treating him or her as a free and rational being.

3) Forbidden Areas of Thinking

A free and rational reading of Islam requires that we do not believe in the existence of “forbidden areas of thinking” nor should we confine ourselves with thinking within the “safe boundaries of thoughts”. Over the history of Islamic thoughts certain accepted ways of thinking have developed, became formed, ready to be used for anyone who would like to think about a certain Islamic issue.

If we examine the way ideas are being produced in the Arab world especially when it comes to issues that are fundamental to Islam, we realize that any intellectual endeavor has been inherently constrained by the “forbidden areas of thinking” and the “safe boundaries of thoughts”.

How the Quranic verses were gathered and the role played by the Prophet and his companions in this process is one forbidden area of thinking. To say that this human role only managed to protect the Quran as “God’s literal word” is how to discuss this issue within a safe boundary of thought. But if you dare to discuss the “humanistic nature” of Quran, you will be treading outside of that boundary, stepping inside a dangerous area of thinking – one that could lead to your death.

The existence of these areas, boundaries, and accepted ways of thinking, and the fears that accompany the process of thinking, has been symbiotic of our inability to set the basis of an enlightenment movement. How can you possibly dare to think if you are constantly threatened with death as a punishment?

This humanistic Islam does not accept these restrains on thinking. It rejects them, and insists that everything including the holy texts is subject to critic and scrutinizing.

4) A Woman = A Human

The status and treatment of women belongs safely to these forbidden areas of thinking. The issue of women rights have been subject to much discussion in the Arab world and in international media specifically after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The Islamists’s argument regarding the status of women in Islam is straightforward: Islam respects women’s rights; the problem has mainly to do with the society that is implementing these rights. My argument on the other hand is of twofold.

First, while Quranic verses treated women as equal to men in front of God, these verses put women at a disadvantaged position legally. In other words, men and women are not equal in front of the law according to Quranic verses. This could be simply proven by looking at the provisions regarding divorce (a man can divorce a woman without her consent by repeating the sentence “you are divorced” three times); inheritance (the sister inherits half of what her brother gets); testimony (the testimony of two women equal that of one man); Polygamy (a man has the right to marry four women); and the list could go on. Some of these provisions may well have been logical and progressive 1400 years ago. Today they are not. It is past time for secular family, inheritance, and criminal laws that treat men and women as equal.

Second, if we set Quranic verses aside and look at the actual perception to women, it is imperative to emphasize that a woman is a human being just like the man. She is equal to him in front of God. This may sound as a matter of fact and you may even reproach me for stating such as obvious thing. But is it really that obvious? If a woman is not allowed to pray with men in the mosque for fear of distracting them, if she is required to cover herself when she prays even if she is praying alone, and if she is not allowed to pray or even touch the Quran when she has her period, do all these provisions make her equal to the man in front of God? Not really.

All these provisions simply state that she is a “female”. She is not a complete being like the man; for he prays everyday, and he prays as he is (no need to cover his hair). In short, he is treated as equal to a God, while the latter is perceived as male in gender.

Precisely because of that I insist that women have the right to pray with men in the mosque; they have the right to pray without veiling their hair; and they should pray during their ministration period.

Again, these are no trivial matters. The fact remains that one saying (Hadith) of the Prophet which has become instrumental in Islamic conscious states that “women are less in their brain and religion”. The Hadith explains this statement by saying that her testimony equals half of that of a man, and her ministration period forces her to stop praying and fasting in certain times.

Conclusion

These are the four basic components of the humanistic reading of Islam presented in Diary of an Arab Woman.

Though I still can not remember the content of the Fatwa that compelled me to write the diary, one thing remains unchanged as before: Time is ripe for a humanistic reading of Islam. This humanistic reading of Islam emphasizes that no religion is perfect when it comes to the matter of human rights. Every religion on the other hand, including Islam, is capable of reform. The reforms espoused by this reading puts religion at its proper place: at the spiritual side. At the same time it insists that no religion can be a solution to our daily lives or political matters. Islam is not the solution. The human is the solution.

elham.thomas@hispeed.ch

Dr. Elham Manea is of dual nationalities, Yemeni and Swiss. She is Post-Doctoral Fellow and a Lecturer at the Political Science Institute, Zurich University.

Article first published at:

http://www.sicherheit-heute.de/gesellschaft,Tagebuch_einer_modernen_arabischen_Frau.htm

Diary of an Arab Woman For a Humanistic Islam, by Elham Manea; Middle East Transparent, November 02, 2006

  • 0
AUTHOR

SPME

Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) is not-for-profit [501 (C) (3)], grass-roots community of scholars who have united to promote honest, fact-based, and civil discourse, especially in regard to Middle East issues. We believe that ethnic, national, and religious hatreds, including anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism, have no place in our institutions, disciplines, and communities. We employ academic means to address these issues.

Read More About SPME


Read all stories by SPME