Only the fanatic can ever win in this Not Muslim Enough game
Maajid Nawaz had an excellent piece on the “burkini” issue at the Daily Beast yesterday. He says the ban is absurd and petty, and also playing into the hands of the Islamists, who want to see a religious war cleaving the world into two factions. But he also says that the whole “modesty” thing is terrible.
There is no better way to kickstart dividing people along exclusively religious lines than by committing atrocities in the name of Islam. Their hope is that everyone else also begins to identify Sunni Muslims primarily by their religious identities, in reaction to the atrocities. In this way, religious identity has won and citizenship becomes redundant.
But the backward trajectory of contemporary liberalism is matched by a backward trajectory within Islam today.
In modern Muslim-majority contexts and up until the 1970s, the female body was not shamed out of public view. As one Egyptian feminist asserts, this was mainly due to the social dominance of the relatively liberal, middle-class elite in urban centers.
But throughout the ’80s, theocratic Islamism began replacing Arab socialism as the ideology of resistance against “the West.” As is always the case with misogynist dogma, the war against the “other” necessitated defining what is “ours” and what is “theirs”—and our women, of course, were deemed “ours.”
Suddenly, women’s bodies became the red line in a cultural war against the West started by theocratic Islamism. A Not Muslim Enough charade was used to identify “true” Muslims against “Western” stooges. Religious dress codes became a crucial marker in these cultural purity stakes. Only the fanatic can ever win in this Not Muslim Enough game. Any uncovered woman was now deemed loose, decadent, and attention seeking.
Too on the wrong side of that cleaving of the world in two.
In the worst of cases, misogyny disguised as modesty has led to mass sexual harassment on the streets, most recently by gangs of Muslim migrants in Cologne. In Egypt, it has even given rise to a mass public rape phenomenon. As Muslim feminists note, violating Muslim cultural “honor codes” (‘irdh) and modesty theology (hayaa’) can lead to heinous legal and societal reprimand and the gross fetishization of a woman’s body.
Just like any other practice rooted in religiously inspired misogyny, the burkini cannot be detached from the body-shaming tied to its origins. Aheda Zanetti continued to insist that her product is “about not being judged” as a Muslim woman, yet she is wedded to a practice that inextricably judges the female form as being “immodest,” as she, too, did in her own piece.
“I don’t think any man should worry about how women are dressing,” she argued.
OK. But it has only ever been conservative-religious Muslim men telling Muslim women how to dress.
Over the course of my years immersed in Islamic theology and Arabic, I remain unaware of any medieval female Muslim exegete used as authority by Muslim women for the “duty” of wearing a hijab. It is only ever male exegetes of the Quran who are cited preaching for the duty of female “modesty.”
And it is simply an undeniable fact that most Muslim women judged and attacked around the world for how they dress are attacked by other Islamist and fundamentalist Muslims, not by non-Muslims. These are religious fanatics playing the Not Muslim Enough game.
It’s a choice, he says. Let people make their own choices. But, as a reforming secular liberal Muslim, he’s not going to stop criticizing it.
As a liberal, I reserve the right to question religious-conservative dogma generally, just as most Western progressives already do with Christianity. Yet with Muslims, Western liberals seem perennially confused between possessing a right to do something, and being right when doing it.
Of course American Christian fundamentalists of the Bible Belt have a right to speak, but liberals routinely—and rightly—challenge their views on abortion, sexuality, and marriage. To do so is not to question their right to speak, but to challenge their belief that they are right when they speak. I ask only that secular liberal Muslims are also supported in challenging our very own “Quran Belt” emerging in Europe.
This is the real struggle. It is intellectual and it is cultural, more than it is legal.
I support the secular liberal Muslims and ex-Muslims and non-Muslims. Challenge away.
“…Western liberals seem perennially confused between possessing a right to do something, and being right when doing it.”
That is so true!
I really can’t take this guy seriously sometimes.
The early post-war period in the Islamic world was characterized by a residue of western colonialism, one in which elements of western social culture still persisted, particularly among the liberal, middle-class elites. Nawaz mistakenly refers to the residual atmospherics of western imperialism as “Arab Socialism” As those atmospherics faded, Islam once again regained its place as the central pillar of society. Things went back to their default position…back to normal.
There’s no such things as theocratic Islamism. It’s a neologism that didn’t even exist just 40 years ago. Islam’s core texts are to be taken literally. There is just Islam. The only differences of opinion revolve around the different methods regarding its imposition.
I ask only that secular liberal Muslims are also supported in challenging our very own “Quran Belt” emerging in Europe.
Yeah, so if that Belt goes all ‘splodey’, it will only be because we haven’t supported the right groups of moderates. The authors of ‘splodey’ have no agency, and therefore can only react violently to our failures. We must always be the focus. Nice is ultimately OUR fault.
I will only support those secular Muslims who would openly question the wisdom of importing a “Quran Belt”…as though such a thing even stands in contrast with or contradicts Islam as it’s practiced by the vast majority of Muslims. The fact is, the ENTIRE Muslim world is the “Quran belt” and its girth is growing.
I fear that Nawaz, like other celebrated ‘moderates’, acts in the capacity of both arsonist AND fireman.
And by the way, the beach incident that triggered this latest ink-spill may well have been staged.
You’re not the first I’ve seen saying that about the beach incident. Oh, she expected it, and had a friend film the whole thing.
Rosa Parks expected to get into trouble for refusing to give u her seat on the bus, too. She wasn’t just too tired to move. She engaged deliberately in civil disobedience to create a rallying cry against her status as a second class citizen.
So yes, the burkini-wearer could have obeyed the law and not gone to the beach in her swimwear. But obeying a law that harms you doesn’t get things changed. The police weren’t fakes, so there was nothing phony as “staged” seems to imply. The sneering crowd wasn’t planted. The incident was real, it was merely anticipated by the victim.
I agree in principle generally that religious clothing should be neither forcibly imposed nor forcibly removed. The spectacle of a group of officials forcibly removing a woman’s clothes on the beach was absolutely stomach-churning. However, what about the case of nude beaches? If some stretches of beach are dedicated to nude bathing only, couldn’t we likewise have some stretches of beach that are dedicated to different amounts of covering? I guess it’s kind of divisive, but it seems to makes sense. Personally I’d prefer to swim in an area with more covering rather than less: I burn easily and find women’s swimwear unattractive and unflattering, and of course sexist in the way it is designed in comparison to men’s. Men who think women should cover their bodies would likewise have to wear as much clothing as women for those sections of beach which required more clothing, and the same for those sections which allowed less.