Book review: Jewels of Allah by Nina Ansary

This article was first published on Muslimah Media Watch.

When I first heard the title of Dr. Nina Ansary’s latest book, Jewels of Allah, on the life of women in Iran, I must admit I had to restrain myself. In general I’m pretty wary about labelling women as two-dimensional objects, whether in a negative (‘lollipops’) or positive (‘pearl in its shell’) way. Ansary explains that the title is “meant to convey that women, who have been ordained as inferior [by hardline conservative factions] are in fact the jewels of the Creator”.

The book promises to tell the “untold story of women in Iran,” and it doesn’t disappoint in some ways. The first chapter begins with a determined tracing through centuries of history aiming to correct misconceptions about the popular narratives about women’s lives in Iran over the last 40 years. The popular narrative, according to Ansary, is one that creates a dichotomy between the free/modern/active/miniskirt-wearing Iranian woman during the Pahlavi monarchy and the gender-segregated/restricted/veiled Iranian woman in post-1979 Islamic Revolution Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini.

I feel optimistic when Ansary writes, “The real story is usually much more complicated, nuanced and less tidy.” These are the misconceptions she addresses in her book (one point per chapter):

1. Before the Pahlavi monarchy, Persian women were always suppressed by the religious and political establishment.
2. Iranian women didn’t advocate for their freedom until recently.
3. During the Pahlavi era, all women were liberated.
4. During the Khomeini era, women were totally oppressed.
5. There is a lack of common ground between secular and religious women in Iran.
6. There is not much of a women’s movement in modern-day Iran.

Chapter 2 looks at Ancient Persia and the then prevailing religion of Zoroastrianism, which she describes as egalitarian and progressive. Then, the 7th century Arab invasion and the “eventual infusion of Islamic values” into Persian society results in the loss of women’s equal status with men and their social separation, loss of educational opportunities. In the chapter, one hadith about women’s “brains [being] incapable of retaining knowledge” is quoted as if it were a widespread Islamic belief. Next, the chapter argues that women were granted a brief respite from oppression under the Iranian and Turkic dynasties from 9th to 13th centuries. However, the Safavid dynasty brought back the patriarchy, packaged in conservative Shia doctrine and persisting to this day.

Chapter 3 and 4 look at the nuances (as promised!) behind the Pahlavi and Khomeini eras. She argues that (conservative) rural women were not empowered under Pahlavi because their families kept them at home from school, while under Khomeini, a “failed gender ideology” resulted in women being empowered through education, despite legal and social efforts to oppress them. Chapter 4 contains a few rather extensive analyses of gender roles in elementary school textbooks, which read like standalone research essays.

Chapter 5, 6 and 7 look at the ups and downs of alliances between secular and religious feminists by tracing the development of various feminist publications and magazines.

The good

In the epilogue, Ansary highlights about 100 historical and contemporary Iranian women, over centuries, who espoused the feminist ideology of their times (these were previously posted on her Facebook page from March 2014 to May 2015). These women include scientists, artists, professionals and even a Paralympic athlete; this incredible collection is great for showing that Iranian women are not oppressed, have done many amazing things, and come from all walks of life – in short, they’re real people.

I also liked that she started the book with a story of her two grandmothers. Bringing in the personal helps give more context and motivation for why she wrote the book, something that authors should but rarely do.

Chapter 5 also includes a great explanation of Islamic feminism, and how religious and secular feminists in Iran work within a religious framework to advocate for women’s rights. A list of “Iran’s Islamic feminist movement” includes professor Dr. Jamileh Kadivar, journalist Parvin Ardalan, human rights activist Mehrangiz Kar, Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi and founder of Zanan magazine Shahla Sherkat. Other scholars mentioned include Nayereh Tohidi, Afsaneh Najmabadi, Haleh Afshar, Valentine Moghadam and Ziba Mir-Hosseini. A selection of quotes from these women indicates that they differentiate Islam as a religion from interpretation of Islamic laws and regulations – a point which is not so clear in the rest of the book.

The bad

One problem is the romanticisation of history and, in particular, of Zoroastrian culture as being a gender utopia. Further, the framing of the Arab invasion and Safavid dynasty as being severely gender unequal serves to frame the empires in between as seemingly more egalitarian. In reality, analyses of these periods deserve just as much nuance (based on other intersectionalities such as sex, race/tribe, class) given to the Pahlavi and Khomeini eras. While there were certainly female leaders and commanders in Persian cities and states in 6th century BC, what class of women could reach these ranks? Most probably educated women of noble lineage.

Walter Benjamin wrote in On the Concept of History (1940) about a painting called Angelus Novus by Klee. The painting teaches us that our view of history as a sequence of events only serves to justify a certain narrative.

“Where we see the appearance of a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe, which unceasingly piles rubble on top of rubble and hurls it before his feet (…) The storm drives him irresistibly into the future, to which his back is turned, while the rubble-heap before him grows sky-high. That which we call progress, is this storm.”

Furthermore, there were other problematic themes that kept popping up throughout the book. One was the framing of women who ‘veil’ as being conservative and those who don’t veil as being free. One of the first notable women Ansary features in her book is Sadiqeh Dowlatabadi (1882-1961), “one of the most distinguished advocates for female education” (p.28). She reportedly said on her deathbed: “I will never forgive anyone who visits my grave veiled”. This quote is not explained or given any further context or nuance, leaving the reader to conclude that veiling can only be an unfeminist and unempowered act. (In her epilogue she also features Masih Alinejad, creator of My Stealth Freedom Facebook page for women to post photos of themselves without a headscarf.)

Compare this to a description of ‘Rejected Princess’ Naziq al-Abid, Syria’s first female general in history, and for whom going veil-less was also a big part of her life.

“She’s seen here ripping off a veil, since going veil-less was a big part of her life. Not that there’s anything wrong with choosing to wear a veil — she just didn’t have that choice for the most part, although she wanted it badly.”

The conspicuous lack of context is odd, as Ansary seems aware that there is more symbolism to the veil than the oppression-freedom dichotomy. The book shows that she is aware that there are other bigger factors that determine a women’s empowerment, such as laws and educational opportunities. This is evident in how she describes Khomeini’s ‘Islamic Government’:

“a misogynistic regimen […] embedded in a constitution reinforcing the primacy of the Sharia (Islamic law) over civil law and the absolute leadership of a Shiite jurist over popular sovereignty.” (p.200)

So it is puzzling why she does not give more nuance where it is so crucially needed.

This lack of linkage to larger political factors and global processes can result in readers making problematic conclusions. Gina B Nahai, in her review of the book, laments the lack of a “satisfying explanation” as to why “an estimated million women actively took part in the overthrow of the Shah and the return of the ayatollahs to Iran”. Nahai ends up blaming Islam as a monolithic patriarchal force, and Allah as a patriarchal god, for the problems of Iranian women. (Perhaps she didn’t read the final chapters where religious and secular Iranian women show how they are able to articulate gender equality in laws within an Islamic framework, through an ideology otherwise known as Islamic feminism.).

The final chapter also comes to an odd conclusion as to how women in Iran can achieve equality. It mainly argues for a reform of Islam based on “theological reform in Western nations”, based on the work of German priest Martin Luther and Friedrich Nietzsche. There is no mention at all of Islamic laws in other countries that do not have the same outcomes as Iran. Even a cursory look at other Muslim majority countries such as Tunisia or Indonesia could show how gender equality is not solely determined by laws or religion, but also other factors like increased employment or improvement in standards of living.

A public relations sheet that came with the book highlighted some publications and organisations that have featured her book. One organisation that stood out was The Clarion Project, which has infamously produced several Islamophobic films, the most recent being Honor Diaries. This rightwing organisation aims to “challenge extremism”, but in reality it provides a simplistic view of ‘Muslim extremism’ in order to perpetuate a cruel and oppressive image of an all-monolithic Islam. 

Despite this, in her interview with The Clarion Project, I think Ansary has bravely attempted to include some nuance about Iran’s gender inequality, highlighting that the West has its own gender inequality issues too.

Final thoughts

The language in Ansary’s book is easy to read, but it is held back by its pace. I felt like I was reading different essays cobbled together: some delving into too much detail in some topics (analysis of elementary textbooks) and some skimming over topics that needed more analysis (tracing of feminist alliances, Muslim reformers from within).

Most importantly, when I finished the book, I realised that state-sponsored terror existed under both Pahlavi/free and Khomeini/oppressed regimes. Not many readers may know that under Pahlavi, police beat up veiled women and forcibly removed their veils. Today, the basij or religious police do the same to women who are ‘improperly’ veiled. It’s an authoritarian state that imposes a regime on its people that creates oppression, not religion or a veil.

While Ansary extensively looks at the actions of the Iranian state (censorship of feminist magazines, changing of laws, the overall impression that her book gives is that patriarchy/male supremacy/culture/religion is to blame for the oppressive and misogynist laws in Iran’s history. I think she could have done a better job in differentiating Islam as a belief system from Islam as a set of legal interpretations that vary across time and space. Similarly, I think Ansary should have clearly explained that there are a multitude of meanings behind a veil or hijab; that women may wear it for many reasons that are not immediately visible from the outside.

This book may be useful to those looking for historical references and a simple discussion of Iran’s political environment; however, the book can be heavily critiqued from various feminist perspectives and is a limited contribution to the work of Islamic and Muslim feminists.

On feminist alliance and participatory media-making.

This post was first published on Muslimah Media Watch.

--

Writing (for Muslimah Media Watch and other platforms elsewhere) has opened up many opportunities to collaborate with other activists from around the world. In particular, some articles I wrote on female circumcision (and also male circumcision) a few years ago attracted a lot of attention from activists and filmmakers, and a fresh round of conversations about these articles prompted me to gather and reflect on these transnational interactions.

A few years ago, while I was still living in the Netherlands, a Dutch non-government organization contacted me. They were looking for a gateway into the homogenized ethnic group of “Islamic Indonesian or Malaysian background”. Even though I specifically identified myself as being a Malay (ethnic group) Singaporean (nationality), they mistook me for an Indonesian. Indonesia and Malaysia are two different countries, and Indonesia alone has over 15 ethnic groups – facts that I would have hoped an NGO would be aware of if they were targeting this demographic.

Dispersing the misconceptions about ethnicity, nationality, and diasporic communities was work enough. Then they asked me to help them find other recent immigrants who “may not be informed about the consequences if they have their daughter circumcised.” Their assumptions about immigrant Muslim women and their culture(s) were ominously foreshadowing the recent Dutch policy to teach “gay rights” in refugee centres. Both parties paint immigrants and refugees as being inherently misogynist and homophobic.

(Can we get #NotallMuslimwomencircumcisetheirdaughters trending?)

Soon after, I received a request from an filmmaker working on the issue of routine male infant circumcision (MC). She was looking for doctors or parents in either Malaysia, Indonesia, or Singapore (though anyone from “Africa or Asia” would do) who supported the less invasive forms of female circumcision (pricking, slitting) – and she wasn’t planning on portraying them in a negative light. The purpose of juxtaposing FC (which is normally considered abhorrent) in other countries to male circumcision in the US was to help point out to Americans of their “cultural blind-spots” and “double standard”.

However, it would make more sense to change just one variable instead of two. For example, how about comparing “American” forms of genital cutting such as labioplasty/vaginoplasty to male circumcision? Instead of you know, using the rest of the world as a setting to help Americans learn more about themselves.

Most recently I was asked, by an photographer-filmmaker, to find some women or girls who had been through FC. More specifically, she wanted to film the procedure and some interviews – keeping all parties anonymous. Then: “They can wear their burqas if they want to.” #NotallMuslimwomenwearburqas

In all of the above interactions, I felt conflicting emotions. On one hand, I wanted to raise awareness about FC and MC. However, on the other hand, I felt like the person’s interpretations of the topic were being forced on me. In the case of being asked to provide contacts, I felt like they were forcing their way into an extremely intimate subject – information which had required time and emotional effort on my part to obtain – making me feel like an unwilling ‘native informant’.

As a result of feeling coerced, I curiously started to become defensive. In my mind, I even wanted to defend these practices – FC in particular because of the ‘milder’ nature more prevalent in Southeast Asia – against the onslaught of eager activists. It was a wholly reactionary defense mechanism.

Multiracial alliances can fail or be productive. As in all relations of power, there are lines of privilege to consider. I feel that immortalising representations of Muslim women through the making of media (books, films, policy papers) is something to be especially careful about. What would make me want to collaborate? What would make it worthwhile?

There was one more request by an European activist, who requested me to answer a series of questions on FC. Initially suspicious (seriously you can’t blame me though), I asked her many questions about her background, work, motivations and objectives, to get a better idea about how she was planning to represent the situation in Southeast Asia. In the end, our interactions were open, pleasant and productive, so I ended up contributing my experiences.

In her book Power Lines: On the Subject of Feminist Alliances (2008), Aimee Carillo Rowe writes:

“There’s the colour of the body, and then there’s the colour of the commitment that burns like hot blue flame in our hearts… Our work is to turn ourselves inside out. To locate ourselves through our loyalty and our bravery and our willingness to fight for radical visions.”

The only project I ended up contributing to was one that I felt I had the most control over. Not only did the collaborating activist ask mostly open-ended questions, the published text is also made up mostly of quotes. This shows a willingness to let people speak for themselves (as far as it is possible in a textual form). I suppose then, what makes a collaboration worthwhile is if we can control our own representations and get our message across at the same time.

PS: I almost forgot about the random White male law student who had written a paper about FC and was looking for my feedback. When I asked him why he wanted to send it to me, he said he thought it would be ‘as much for my benefit’ as others had been ‘extremely appreciative’. I think I forgot to give him any feedback.

Rushing for Morocco’s “liquid gold”? Here’s how to get the best argan oil

Estée Lauder. Dove. L’Oréal. These brands have marketed a series of products containing argan oil, rich in vitamins E and C and often touted as a “wonder oil” to cure everything from split ends to acne. Unfortunately, these products usually contain only small amounts of argan oil.

Such advertising is often misleading since these products often contain much more of other ingredients that make hair feel smooth, such as silicones. I believe there are better forms of argan oil products, and better ways to obtain them.

“Liquid gold”

Argan oil has a strong but refined odour: a perfume that can be described as somewhere in between toasted hazelnut, almond, and sesame. In terms of appearance, it is a rich golden-brown colour with highlights of amber. Outside of Morocco, where it has been a traditional food of Berber communities for centuries, not many people know that argan oil also has precious nutritional properties.

According to various scientific studies, the nutritional and dietary properties of argan oil are superior to those of extra virgin olive oil. Argan oil consists of 80 percent unsaturated fat, just like olive oil, but has more essential linoleic fatty acids (omega-6) with an anti-inflammatory effect that helps our joints, circulation and immune system, plus it supposedly aids in fertility, too. There is also preliminary evidence that it can increase insulin sensitivity and therefore, it may have an anti-diabetic effect.[i]

Edible argan oil (pressed from toasted kernels) enhances the flavour of dishes like tagines, couscous, salad dressings, roasted vegetables and fish. A few drops on a green salad are enough to give a delicious flavour to a dish. But the simplest (and my favourite) way to eat it is as amlou, a mixture of argan oil, nuts and honey poured over a piece of bread, which makes for a nourishing breakfast.

Gold rush?

Also known as louz el-barbary or Berber almonds, the fruits of the argan tree resemble olives on the outside, and almonds on the inside. The traditional and more labour-intensive method of extracting oil from the kernels involves women who dry, de-pulp, break, roast, grind, and knead the final paste.

When bought straight from the source, pure organic argan oil costs around US$200 per litre (but luckily, they are also sold in small bottles at the affordable price of around US$4 to US$8 each). It is pressed from the kernels of the Argania spinosa plant, a thorny and evergreen tree unique to Morocco. It only grows within the Souss plain, a hot and dry 800,000 hectares in the country’s southwest, extending from the coastal city of Essaouira inwards towards the high Atlas mountains.

Since 2002, the growing demand for argan oil outside of Morocco, especially by cosmetic companies, has resulted in the creation and organisation of women’s cooperatives by the government. These cooperatives, set up by individual women, provide employment for Berber women, offer business and literacy training, and the collective revenue helps to drive village development projects and regional tourism.

Over the last decade or so, argan oil was so popular that prices have soared internationally and locally. This rapid price increase was partly due to international demand, and partly due to the reduced supply of fruit from two or three years of drought.

Today, in some areas, traditional methods of preparation have been replaced by modern manufacturing where machines are used to do the tasks, except crushing the nuts (which is still usually done by hand). This new method reduces the labour on women and increases the shelf life of the oil and its purity.

Faced with this international surge in demand, many women cooperatives are equipped with modern extraction equipment and have established organic production and certification processes (such as Ecocert for example), which have allowed them to gain significant access into the international market.

Today, there are more than 150 argan cooperatives all over Morocco, run almost exclusively by women. A number of organisations regulate and confirm the quality and origin of the oil, such as the Moroccan Association of Geographical Indication of Argan Oil (AMIGHA), which fulfils a function similar to the French appellation d’origine contrôllée for cheeses and other agricultural products.

Visiting a cooperative

The Women’s Cooperative of Argan Oil Produced by Women of Taddart is one of the numerous organisations all over the Souss plain. This cooperative was started in 2005 as a way to provide the Berber women in this small mountain town with literacy classes and alternative ways to supplement their family incomes. On a trip to Morocco a few years ago, I had the opportunity to drop by and see how this cooperative worked.

As I entered the small and cosy shop, women busy pounding argan kernels looked up and gave me tired smiles. A middle-aged woman named Aicha, who was managing the sales that day, cheerfully pointed out to me the variety of argan oil products made on-site: edible golden-brown amlou in small clay tagines, cosmetic oils in delicate glass bottles marked with a use-by date, soaps, and shampoos. I asked Aicha to tell me more about this cooperative.

She explained that at first, the men in Taddart were not keen on this organisation of women because they had traditionally been the only breadwinners. They were also sceptical about women working outside of the home. However, with time and increased family incomes, the men became more accepting.

Unfortunately, by trying to grab some of this lucrative income for themselves, Aicha conceded that the argan oil industry in Morocco is facing problems of fake cooperatives, diluted oil, bogus accreditation, and degradation of argan forests.






Fair trade
Should you buy that expensive bottle of argan oil, whether it’s pure or not? As with any product in today’s highly globalised world, one woman’s daily bread is easily another woman’s exclusive hair serum. If you wish to use or consume argan oil, it is best to go straight to a certified organic and fair-trade source such as Tounarouz in Agadir, or find a reliable international supplier like Saadia Organics.

It is important to look at the complex interactions between our consumption and the livelihoods of others, to help balance issues of biodiversity, fair trade and thriving livelihoods.

[i] Samira Samane, Josette Noel, Zoubida Charrouf, Hamid Amarouch and Pierre Selim Haddad, ‘Insulin-sensitising and anti-proliferative effects of Arganisia spinosa seed extracts’, Sep 2006, available here.

--

This article was originally published at Aquila Style

Budding Bedfellows: Islamists and Feminists against Beauty Pageants

This post was originally published on Muslimah Media Watch on 11 Sep 2013

This last week has seen protests in Jakarta, Medan, Surabaya and Jogjakarta over the Miss World 2013 beauty pageant to be held in the next few weeks. Recently, I wrote a post about a similar debate in Malaysia where their Muslim participants were eventually dropped. The Miss World 2013 protests numbered in the thousands and were made up of members of small Islamist organizations such as the Front Pembela Islam (Islamic Defenders Front or FPI) on the island of Java, and Muslimah Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (MHTI) in Sumatra. The protesters were described as ‘conservatives’ and ‘Muslim hardliners’ (here and here).

‘Miss World is not of our culture’ and ‘Miss World destroys women’s character’
Source: Demotix

The main reasons given for rejecting the beauty pageant, as expressed by the Majlis Ulema Indonesia (Indonesian Ulama Council or MUI) was that it was not in line with ‘Eastern’ culture:

“Muslims should protest strongly against this event, especially as it is linked with the self-worth of the Muslim community and our Eastern culture.”

Similarly, the spokesperson of MHTI, Honriani Nasution, used the protest as an opportunity to push for Islamic law:

Miss World = A Cultural Liberalization Campaign’
Source: The State

“At the North Sumatra governor’s office, we sent a delegation to convey our opposition to the organization of the 2013 Miss World and other similar contests and urged the government to immediately implement Islamic law because only under Islamic values are women honored deeply.”

I did not find it surprising that the pageant was constructed as a ‘liberal Western’ import and that opposition to it should come in the form of supporting ‘conservative Eastern’ culture. However, I was interested in the fact that most of the pictures featured women. I was also interested that some placards appeared to indicate other reasons for being against the pageant, such as anti-corporation or anti-capitalism, and the objectification and exploitation of women’s bodies.

Poster suggesting that participants are being ridiculed, with the hashtag #RejectMissWorld
Source: The Wall Street Journal

These other reasons for opposing pageants seemed to make more sense, especially since it had already been confirmed by the chairwoman of the Miss World Organization, Julia Morley, that there would be no bikinis in the swimsuit segment; instead, participants would wear a one-piece suit and a showcase of sarongs.

While browsing the hashtag #RejectMissWorld on Twitter, I came across several tweets that highlighted a 2011 protest in London by the London Feminist Network at the 60thanniversary of Miss World. The founder of the feminist organization UK Feminista, Kat Banyard, made an argument against Miss World that similarly pitted the ‘backwards’ culture of female objectification with ‘modern Britain’:

Source: Twitter @hidcom

”We’re here because Miss World has absolutely no place in a world that treats women and men equally. It perpetuates the beauty myth [and] indoctrinates people across the world with its toxic ideals, We know that [those ideals] have a very harmful effect.”

This is essentially the same argument as the ‘Muslim hardliners’ in Indonesia. While the conservative Muslims point towards the superiority of Islamic values and Islamic law in deeply honouring women (but not necessarily considering them as being on equal footing to men in all aspects), secular feminists point to the notion of the modern, egalitarian nation-state that rejects female objectification (but not necessarily acknowledging or appreciating any material or spiritual differences between sexes).

It is indeed fascinating to see two groups who would hardly consider each other allies, or work together in solidarity, somehow agree that Miss World (and perhaps beauty pageants that show women’s bodies in general) is an event worth protesting against.

Women that identify themselves as Muslim feminists, such as Asma Lamrabet and Ziba Mir Hosseini (and perhaps some of the writers on this site) often find themselves at the intersection of this debate: do they oppose or promote an issue because they are Muslims, or because they are (secular) feminists? The recent troubles with Femen’s anti-Islam actions seem to further divide these two groups. Nevertheless, the protests against Miss World suggest that female objectification is certainly one issue that both groups could agree on.

Dutch Muslim Women Make a Mark on Society

This article was first published in Aquila Style.
--
A few months ago, the former Queen Beatrix (who is now known as Princess Beatrix) of the Netherlands announced that she would abdicate the throne on April 30, and her son Willem-Alexander IV would be the new king (and the first since 1890!).

Also known Koninginnedag, or Queen’s Day, this date is a much-loved holiday for Dutch people involving dressing up in orange, flea markets, street performances and making merry.

Many Dutch companies responded with special offers and discounts on their goods to celebrate this last Queen’s Day. Al Nisa, an organisation for Dutch Muslim women, saw this as an opportunity to promote their organisation and send a message of appreciation and thanks to the royal family. Al Nisa’s warm relationship with the royal family has been expressed in the form of invitations to dinners and New Year gatherings, to recognise and acknowledge the importance of the organisation’s work.

But one incident in particular made the deepest mark on Al Nisa. In 2012, Queen Beatrix made a diplomatic visit to the United Arab Emirates and Oman, where she visited some mosques. As a mark of religious respect for these places of worship, she wore bright blue and red headscarves over her trademark wide-brimmed hats.

In a debate in the Dutch parliament after her return, right-wing politician Geert Wilders claimed that she was ‘legitimising women’s oppression’ by wearing a headscarf. Queen Beatrix was said to have heaved ‘a deep sigh’ and in a most politically incorrect way, dismissed these comments as ‘nonsense’ – a highly exceptional response that was much appreciated by Al Nisa. The Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, supported her actions as a mark of respect for a house of worship.

Al Nisa’s campaigns have historically aimed to react quickly to comments made by politicians in the public domain, to avoid a negative political climate by clearing up misconceptions in an informative and unique way. Previous campaigns have focused on the debates to ban the burqa (‘Get Real’), and the mistrust and misconceptions surrounding Muslim women (‘Real Dutch’ and ‘Do You Know Me?’)

Al Nisa hoped that the new monarch, King Willem Alexander, and his wife, Queen Maxima, would continue the open-minded attitude of his mother. So they decided to send them a message to bring society together with a new campaign.

A change of royal rule is usually characterised by issuing a new set of coins or stamps. The new king has just been celebrated with his own set of stamps. How crazy would it be to see a stamp with a Muslim woman, majestically radiating with a vision?

Al Nisa got a designer to make a Moroccan dress known as a kaftan, with silver details on the buttons and belt. For the colour, they chose orange – the colour of the Dutch royal family. In the final image, the model wears a bright orange hijab complete with a tiara. She looks off into the distance, arms akimbo, with confidence and poise.

The stamps were launched on April 30 to celebrate the royal abdication and coronation, as the country celebrated nationwide. The royal family also received a set of stamps as a sign of appreciation from Al Nisa.

In the first few days of the campaign, there was an immense wave of positive comments through social media. The campaign was covered by local Dutch newspapers and radio, and did not escape attention from Austrian and French media as well.

One thousand two hundred-fifty stamps have been sold so far, with orders still being taken. One supporter is even planning to use these stamps for his wedding invitations!

With only a few weeks to work on and execute their pro-bono campaign, Al Nisa inspires us to see just how much can be achieved with the creativity, passion and commitment of a few Muslim women.

--

If you’d like to buy some stamps to support this campaign, send an email to info@alnisa.nl.

Muslim Women in Development Literature

This post was originally published at Muslimah Media Watch.

I recently came across a publication by Cordaid, a Dutch development organisation, called "Looking for That Other Face: Women Muslim Leaders and Violent Extremism in Indonesia" (available here). This publication recounts the stories of six quadragenarian Muslim feminists from three islands of Indonesia (Aceh, Java and Lombok): Ibu Umi Hanisah (Meulaboh), Badriyah Fayumi (Kota Bekasi), Enung Nursaidah Ilyas (Tasik Malaya), Inayah Rohmaniyah (Jogjakarta), Nyi Ruqqoyah (Bondowoso), and Aini Masruri (Lombok).

Their life histories on how they oppose patriarchal dominance and other oppressions, and fight for social change and justice within their own communities, are told in individual chapters. For example, the first chapter is dedicated to the story of Ibu Umi Hanisah, 44, the head of a pesantren (Islamic boarding school) for girls. She recounts how her pesantren grew to be the go-to centre during the Acehnese struggle for self-determination and later on, the tsunami disaster in December 2004.

The authority she earned during these two events gives her credibility as a female community leader, which she uses to mediate cases of rape, domestic violence, and other social and interpersonal conflicts -- always following up on criminal cases. One of the ways she guards against future abuse is by ensuring that for example in the case of domestic violence, the man will sign a written contract to not abuse his wife, in the presence of representatives from their families, police, village, government, and social organisations.

These six chapters are amazing examples of how to portray Muslim feminists: let them say what they want to say. Apart from a few introductory paragraphs that summarise the life history of the featured woman, most of the chapter's text is in the form of quotes, which allow us to hear their story first hand (albeit translated from Bahasa Indonesia into English). Devoting an entire chapter to the story also allows for nuance and a tracing of their thought processes, which were not a result of the "West". As Enung Nursaidah Ilyas, a head of a school and a crisis centre for abused women, says:

"I am not a westerner. I am an Indonesian Muslim woman standing up for social justice."

However, I had the general impression that there was a clear difference in what the author had to say (in the form of his own text), and what the women themselves had to say (in form of quotes). Despite the clear inspiration of Islam for these women's feminist activism, the author seemed to insist on pigeonholing their actions into a liberal feminist framework. Freedom is only legitimate when one is "liberated" (p.73), when marriage is "self-chosen" (p.64), or when one is not sexually "prudish" (p.79). The author only highlights the importance of the Islamic framework only when talking about "increas(ing) women's sexual freedoms" (p.33).

For example, the author emphasises the individual choice of Inayah Rohmaniyah in choosing her own path in life even when she had already stated that her choices were influenced by her father's egalitarian ideas and the works of two prominent Indonesian scholars, Fazlur Rahman and Nurcholis Madjid.

The more important issue of the gendered and classist application of interpretations of sharia law, in the example she gives of poor girls being picked up for the offence of khalwat (close proximity between unmarried couples), but not elite women in cars. However, the author gives a hypothetical situation of a woman being arrested for wearing tight pants!

Another concern was textual accuracy. I was troubled by one of the quotes which wrongly attributed to the Quran a story about a pregnant woman asking to be stoned for adultery. This quote by Ibu Umi Hanisah is used to explain the "heart of our faith" as being "education and nurturing", not harsh punishment. The author then implies that praying and repentance were the true aims of sharia law.

His own interpretation of her words shadows the nuance from Ibu Umi herself. The text before and after the quote is more nuanced about sharia, emphasising that the real problem is the institutionalisation and unjust application of sharia, since sharia "is in everything we do" (p.20). As the publication was mostly targeted to the European donor and development industry, it would have been more useful to explain the misconception around the definition of sharia, in the light of recent right-wing fears of the "tsunami of Islamisation" of Europe, similar to the fear of 'creeping sharia' in the US.

Finally, I was concerned about the amount of self-reflexivity put into the publication. As a white Dutch man interviewing these women through a local woman translator, he seemed rather unaware of local social and religious norms. When a 14 year-old  girl in Nyi Ruqqoyah's pesantren refused to shake his hand just before maghrib prayer, he retells the incident in a condescending way.

"Goodness -- almost touched an unknown man! That would have undone her wudhu, the ritual hand-washing before prayer." (p.83)

Being a publication of one of the most well-known Dutch development organisations, it seems to target the Dutch development industry in general (since words that are similar to Dutch like "misi sosial", or social mission, are not translated). Despite some factual errors and a lack of self-reflexivity from the author, I think that the stories of these women collectively form a valuable resource to promote greater understanding of how feminism can work within an Islamic framework.

Sex education, not 'sex parties': Protesting Valentine's Day in Indonesia

Cross-posted on Muslimah Media Watch.

--

In recent months, Indonesia has been making the Asian news every time there is a non-Muslim celebration. I first noticed this with the debates on wishing "Merry Christmas" by Muslims to Christians, on Christians holding Christmas mass, and the accounts of violence done to churches in December 2012. A few weeks ago, the same debates were repeated on the occasion of Imlek, or Chinese New Year, on the mistaken basis of it being a Buddhist tradition, even though it is a national holiday. Now, the latest controversy -- which repeats itself each February -- is Valentine's Day, deemed a "foreign" and "infidel celebration", and an excuse for teenagers to engage in premarital sex.

Several groups in particular prominently voiced their opposition to Valentine's Day: Nadhlatul Ulama, Indonesia's biggest orthodox Muslim organisation; the hardline Islamic Defenders Front (Front Pembela Islam or FPI), and the Indonesian Council of Ulema (Majlis Ulema Indonesia or MUI), a clerical body that includes the previous groups among others. This year, government officials and clerics from various cities   called for boycotts and in response, students (even those from elementary schools, which shocked some readers) from various cities and islands across Indonesia organised Valentine's Day protests on 13 February.

Kids rejecting Valentine's Day. Source: The Jakarta Post

Despite the headlines identifying these calls against Valentine's Day as coming from "conservative" and "radical" "clerics", the accompanying photos all show, without fail, Muslim women with hijab and some in niqab protesting and holding placards.

Muslim women shouldn't celebrate Valentine's Day. Source:  AFP/Tengri News

More Muslim women not celebrating. Source:  AFP/The Telegraph

Not celebrating. Source: Toronto Star

Still not celebrating. Source: Onislam.net

According to one of the clerics in Aceh's Ulema Council, one reason why celebrating Valentine's Day is wrong is that it is endogenous to Indonesia and Islam, which is thus the same as "promoting faiths other than Islam". Even accepting the idea that to celebrate Valentine’s Day is to proselytize for a faith other than Islam, the last time I checked, Indonesia is constitutionally a secular country where promoting any religion is allowed. Despite laws protecting freedom of religion, the growing influence of extreme Islamic opinions and intolerance of the activities of religions other than Islam is becoming increasingly common and visible – as shown by the recent violent incidents (here, here, and here).

Another reason to not celebrate Valentine's Day, according to Depok's deputy mayor, is that "expressing love freely... could lead to forbidden sexual relations." He specifically felt that teenagers should not celebrate it because of their tendency towards having premarital sex. A representative from Nadhlatul Ulama even claimed that teenagers who "express love and affection" on this day would end up in a "sex party". This day has been described as a "channeling of lust between unmarried couples", "promiscuity" and "pregnancies out of wedlock".

Indonesia's National Family Planning Coordinating Board (Badan Kependudukan dan Keluarga Berencana Nasional or BKKBN) has identified 'free sex' (seks bebas or premarital sex) as a major youth problem alongside drugs and HIV/AIDS. The link made between premarital sex and Valentine's Day shows that "the West" and "Western culture" are  convenient abstract scapegoats for social issues, because 'free sex', or consenting sexual intercourse between unmarried persons is in fact legal, since the law only penalises adultery committed by married persons.

The worries voiced by opponents of Valentine's Day, such as sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies out of wedlock, reveal  the inefficacy of and confusion surrounding sex education. For example, during last year's resistance, one opponent from Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia made the opposite correlation between contraception and "social evils":

Siti Nafidah, the head of the HTI’s provincial women’s chapter, said the threat of youths engaging in premarital sex as part of the Valentine’s Day spirit was “right before our eyes.”
“There’s even a convenience store giving away condoms with purchases of chocolate,” she said. She said this could eventually lead to a host of social evils, from unplanned pregnancies and abortions, to the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

The state of sex education in Indonesia is woefully lacking and there have been calls for more comprehensive sex education in schools -- one that teaches the difference between love and sex, diseases, contraception, and what constitutes harassment. The lack of effort to rectify this is shown by the conservative and flimsy response of the Minister for Education and Culture (who had earlier suggested that rape victims enjoy being raped) towards these calls:

"According to our traditions, it is indecent to talk about it, and that is my standpoint. I don't believe we need that yet. (...) I am sorry, mentioning s-e-x is already taboo to me," he said.

One counter-movement to Valentine's Day was a movement for a Cover Aurat Day (the official Gerakan Hari Menutup Aurat Facebook page), started in 2012 by Herry Nurdi, together with a teachers working group. The aim of this movement is to reject Valentine's Day and replace it with Cover Aurat Day in order to fight 'moral problems', denounce (commercial) stakeholders, encourage society to cover up and avoid 'free mixing' and 'free sex'. To achieve this, activists protested on the streets and in groups on motorcylces, handing out headscarves and posters to the public.

Promoting Cover Aurat Day in 2012. Source: Demotix

On a more optimistic note, there have been several events that demonstrate how Valentine's Day could be used to promote love and understanding. Some examples are an event for female inmates in a prison in Denpasar, Bali, designed to instill an "atmosphere of love", and a campaign to "promote love and reduce smoking" on Valentine's Day in 2009. A reader's letter to the Jakarta Post emphasised the need to apply the rhetoric of "expressing love to followers of other religions" instead of branding them as heretics, pointing to Valentine's Day as a positive opportunity. Some counter-protests focused on eliminating "radical" groups and associated violence such as the Islamic Defenders Front.

As these contrasting events show, how Valentine's Day does not mean anything by itself -- it is the way that we choose to celebrate it that has meaning. The assumption that it is only about sex reveals a deep-rooted fear and insecurity on the part of the traditionalists on how to raise the next generation of Indonesians in a time of high unplanned pregnancies, rape, and HIV/AIDS, and a lack of sex education. At the same time, deflecting the blame onto an abstract concept such as "the West" and "infidel culture" is unfortunately always useful in distracting people from focusing on real solutions for Indonesia's teenagers.

Why McDonald's is not halal: Part 2

In Part 1, I suggested three guidelines to eat halal, according to how eating and drinking are spoken about in the Quran.

#1: Halal is moderation.
#2: Halal is good, clean, and pure food.
#3: Halal is local, organic, and/or fair trade.

I find this topic important because debates around fast food and halal only talk about whether the meat was slaughtered in a halal way (by hand, with a knife, with the name of God pronounced on it), or grilled on separate grills from bacon, or whether it is permissible as Muslim minorities to say bismillah before eating any kind of non-pork meat. For an example of this dominant kind of reasoning, see how Jamal Badawi answers a question as to whether fast food is halal.

Hint: The answer starts with 'N' and ends with 'O'.

But now I want to get into the dirty business of showing why McDonald's and other fast food corporations do not follow the Quranic guidelines for halal (lawful) and tayyibat (good, clean, pure). Almost every aspect of global fast food corporations like McDonald's is neither halal nor tayyibat, from the content of their food to the very philosophy that drives their business. 

Violation of #1: McDonald's items are all excessive in calories, saturated fat, salt, and/or sugar.

This is no secret. Even an internal memo once popped up stating that "We can’t really address or defend nutrition. We don’t sell nutrition and people don’t come to McDonald’s for nutrition." A Big Breakfast is already a whopping 560 calories, with barely any precious micronutrients from fruits and vegetables. An average burger is around 300 to 400 calories, with almost half an average adult's saturated fat intake. You could eat all of these fruit and vegetables below for less than 300 calories, no fat and tons of vitamins and minerals (but most people wouldn't).

A burger or papaya, carrot, apple, orange, dragonfruit, cucumber, chye sim?

Diabetes, hypertension and heart disease are the top diseases among Singaporean Muslims. These conditions are also very highly correlated to our diet, fitness and weight -- and therefore inarguably preventable. Our body has it's God-given laws. Eating excessive amounts of fat, salt and sugar is a transgression of those laws, resulting in clogged arteries, high blood pressure, low energy, and so on.

In high school I knew a friend who ate McDonald's every day. Check out the documentary Supersize Me by Morgan Spurlock and Food Inc. for the effects of that.

Verdict? An average serving of fast food fails the principle of moderation. However, you could limit the damage to your body by severely limiting fast food to say, half a burger, once a month.

Violation of #2: McDonald's items contain highly-processed foods: high-fructose corn syrup, processed meat with additives, and refined and bleached flour. 

Even if you try to minimise the amount of fat and sugar by adding more lettuce and tomatoes on a McChicken, or having a McGrill without sauce because it "seemed so healthy", the problem lies in the very ingredients and processed nature of these foods. With the exception of lettuce and tomato, everything you see in a burger has been refined in one way or another. (Well maybe fries, but they have never pretended to be healthy.)

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is basically a man-made sweetener which has been linked to obesity. While there is nothing wrong with sweet foods (our bodies do crave something sweet now and then), there is a vast difference between natural sweeteners like raw, organic honey or blackstrap molasses and HFCS. The former contain many trace nutrients and minerals (taking a tablespoon of organic molasses each day can even eliminate menstrual pain), while HFCS is pure sugar, with nothing else of benefit to your body. (Fun fact: a 500ml cup of iced Milo is an insane 600 calories of sugar.)

Processed meat is another set of problems. Compare a cut of meat from the butcher to the meat patty in your Prosperity Burger -- does it look anything alike? Even though McDonald's boasts of using 100% beef in its patties, this could come from any part of the cow, including fat, gristle, offal -- you just don't know what you're eating. Add to this mystery meat a whole list of additives, flavourings, and chemicals, some of which we know are harmful, some of which we don't know yet. The fish used in Filet-O-Fish is a combination of white fish, including a mostly tasteless pollock that requires added chemical flavourings.

The buns used on burgers contain 32 or more ingredients (in comparison, bread only needs flour, yeast, water, and salt). These superfluous ingredients are basically describe additives, preservatives and emulsifiers (those 'E' numbers).

The cells in our body are built from whatever we put in it. In other words, what we eat now becomes our body later. Eating additives and chemicals will produce low-quality cells and our liver spends precious energy to process all these strange chemicals. Eventually, our immune system weakens from not getting enough vitamins and minerals.

Immortal cheeseburger = not halal.

Verdict? A sign that a food is pure, clean and good is that it rots quickly, because other organisms, which instinctively follow God's laws, actually want to eat it. Another sign is if it's something that your grandmother would serve. If your cheeseburger doesn't rot, chances are it's not good to eat. McDonald's meat may be ritually slaughtered, but as you can see this is not the only criteria.

Violation of #3: McDonald's imports its french fries and other frozen products in from USA.

Importing any kind of food from around the world has its environmental costs. While their vegetables and beef could be sourced from closer to home (e.g. Australia, Malaysia), all of its french fries are imported frozen from USA, and processed from the same kind of potato (Russet Burbank). That's why their french fries always taste the same, no matter which outlet you go to in the world.

Violation of #3: McDonald's supply chain is linked to rainforest destruction, animal cruelty, child labour, unsustainable fishing, and reduction in biodiversity. 

Enough said. Why do you want to support a company like this? Every burger you buy is a vote for their destructive global actions. A bite-sized summary on environmental damage and animal cruelty here.

Verdict? These are definitely examples of 'abuse on earth' (2:60), which we have been warned against.

Violation of #3: McDonald's workers are underpaid and work long hours.

While there is no minimum wage anyway in Singapore and no possibility to unionise, McDonald's pays the lowest out of all fast food restaurants at S$3.50 to S$4.00 per hour. They also show a preference for young workers, who can show enthusiasm and energy to their customers. This discriminates against the elderly and traps young people into a precarious, low-paying, part-time job with no extra benefits.

For every McDonald's or fast food chain that opens in a town, a small local independent business does not get the chance to establish itself. The 'specialised' menus in different countries also aims to get people to stop eating healthier traditional foods by creating sad, industrialised substitutes. (See the 2012 ad for the Prosperity Burger.)

More information about worker exploitation and neocolonialism here.

Verdict? Definitely 'oppression of others' (20:81), which we must consider and strive against. The whole concept of industrialised food is to create as much profit in as little time as possible. The care and consideration of humans, animals and our environment is far down the list. This is the opposite of what we are encouraged to do in the Quran.

Source: mcspotlight.org

Now what?

I hope I've convinced you that no matter what legal certification McDonald's or other fast food corporations have, the quantity, quality, and sourcing of its ingredients, together with its relationships to people and nature, show that their food is far from being tayyibat and halal.

You can make changes! Just like the different levels of fasting, we don't have to jump to the third level. We can always start with whatever we are eating, and apply the first rule of moderation. Once we're used to not eating so much, we can start by changing the kinds of food we eat. Finally, try to improve the sources of your food.

As stewards of the earth, we can eat our way to a better life, inshallah!

Why McDonald's is not halal: Part 1

During my recent interactions with Singaporeans encouraging them to boycott some of the world's largest global corporations linked to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, some protested with the argument that these fast food joints have been given the sticker of halal approval by the MUIS, the Islamic Religious Authority of Singapore. So what right did I have to say that people shouldn't eat food that is state-endorsed halal?

Hard to argue with this.

Most of what I knew about fast food corporations such as McDonald's, I learnt in a sociology class in undergrad. After that class, I was convinced that nothing about their food (and fast food in general) could possibly be halal! I previously wrote about the ethics of eating halal, and in this post I will include two general Quranic guidelines on eating well and halal.

On food consumption in general, this article beautifully summarises the importance of quantity and quality. We should not be extravagant when nourishing ourselves (7:31), even when eating healthy foods (6:141). The root of extravagance or excess (s-r-f) appears 23 times in the Quran, referring almost equally to transgression. Eating or drinking too much connotes the idea of transgressing the limits of your God-given body, or disobeying physical laws. Hence, we come across our first Food Rule:

#1: Halal is moderation

As for the quality of food, we should be eating foods which are tayyibat, or good, clean, and pure (2:172, 20:81). 

Tayyibat foods can be unlawful, as mentioned for Jews (4:160). But for us, whatever that is tayyibat is halal (5:5) and we should not prohibit ourselves from good and pure food (5:87). I therefore argue that whatever that is not good for our bodies and minds is not lawful: halal = tayyibat, the second Food Rule!

#2: Halal is good, clean, and pure food

Eating and drinking is also mentioned together with a warning to not commit abuse on earth (2:60), alluding to the source of our food. Eating good food is mentioned together with not oppressing others (20:81) but instead, doing good works (23:51). This means that we must pay attention to the source of our food. It should not be causing abuse on earth (e.g. air/land/water pollution, rainforest destruction) or the oppression of others (e.g. exploited farmers, underpaid workers).

Organic fruits, vegetables and other products, means that they are grown without the use of synthetic fertilizers (read some of its environmental effects here) or chemical pesticides (here). Organic fertilizers (e.g. compost) and pesticides (e.g. vinegar, lemon juice) could still be used, as they achieve the intended effect without 'abusing' the earth.

Locally-grown means that less fuel is used to fly in products from other countries. I've never eaten a juicy, ripe, sweet, tomato in Singapore. (I recently learnt that many Singaporeans, about to travel, were forewarned of the gastronomic awesomeness of tomatoes grown in temperate climates.) I've also never eaten a juicy, ripe, sweet lychee in Holland. Local organic tastes best and is much cheaper. A quick survey of Cold Storage and other local supermarkets proved to be scarily expensive non-Asian vegetables imported from far away.


Singaporeans, check out Bollywood Veggies and Green Circle for organic, local, Asian vegetables! Look for key words like kampung (lit. village, refers to free-range) chicken or eggs. Better still if you have a banana or guava tree in your garden, or in your relatives' gardens in Malaysia!

Source: Green Circle Eco-Farm online store

Okay, now what about not exploiting humans or animals when trying to find something to eat? There are certain brands (e.g. Dole), products (e.g. tiger prawns, coffee), and provenances (e.g. Israel) that you could look out for. Recently I discovered that a brand of vegetarian products was in fact an Israeli settlement company (hence produced on stolen land and water and all that nasty stuff), and I promptly gave it up.

Here is some information about the conditions in halal farms in Australia (where most of Singapore's beef comes from). Surprisingly, not many people know that stunning is used regularly as part of ritual slaughter -- not every halal farm can do things the way this Texan ranch does. Recently there was a focus on the paltry conditions of live-export sheep to Singapore for Eid ul Adha slaughter. Is the meat from scared, cramped, stressed sheep halal?

Here's a resource about fair trade in Singapore, and fair trade and Islam in general. If you go to Malaysia often, pasar tani or farmer's markets are also good places to start.

Now that you know how to find what is considered respect for nature and other people, we arrive at the third Food Rule! (You can't always find something that fits all 3 criteria, but please always try!)

#3: Halal is local, organic, and/or fair trade

As for the kinds of food, fruit is explicitly stated as provision sent from God (2:22, 14:32, 28:57)! There's a hint if I ever saw one. The colours and growth cycles of fruits are signs of God (6:99, 35:27, 41:47). Aspiring traditionalists can also take a hint and start eating grains, grapes, palmfruit, pomegranates, figs, dates, olives, quails, and seafood. (Rather than conveniently giving a lecture on how we should dress and then heading out for burgers and Coca-cola). Just kidding.

What else is good, pure, and clean? If you have some time, watch this documentary and ponder that question.

And then read Part 2.

Reinforcing the second shift: Malaysian PM Najib Razak talks about women in the New Economy

Who would choose, on a day dedicated to honouring women in his country, to completely discount all previous work done by its women?

That’s exactly what Najib Razak, the incumbent Malaysian prime minister, said during his speech during the National Women’s Day celebration on October 2. In addition to being the prime minister, Razak also holds the portfolio of Women, Family and Community Development – one of the few male ministers in the world (alongside Samoa) to head a ministry dedicated to women.

Razak has a record of saying contradictory things: after launching a “new economic model” in 2010 to shift the basis of affirmative action to class instead of race, he then launched a program to help increase the economic participation of the indigenous Malays.

Malay leaders in the region are only starting to speak about the need to formally acknowledge women’s political and economic participation. While Brunei’s minister of Youth, Culture and Sports recently spoke about the need for Bruneian women in addressing environmental sustainability, Razak spoke about how Malaysian women are needed to work in both the private and public spheres.

Below is a loose translation of his speech in English from Malay, as edited in this video (with emphasis added):

“If we look back in our country’s history, women in Malaysia are different from women in many countries… no need to fight for women’s rights directly, as a united movement… because from early on we had already decreed the equality of women in our country (by giving them voting rights).

We chose the theme ‘Women as Catalyst for the New Economy’. Women shape families, healthy families. Not only from the aspect of physical health, but mental health, moral health, healthy values, healthy manners…Women play an important role…At home they nurture with love, but in this love there is firmness.

In empowering women there are three important aspects. First is education. Education must be provided to the highest level possible. Second is skills and capabilities, we must stress this. Third is that women competing must have capabilities to compete. Definitely not women who think they cannot succeed. We want women who dare to be competitive.

Private sector gets a RM10000 grant, double tax deduction, and allowance for building and so on. We reduce their tax burden so they can build crèches so that women if they want to work they can bring their child to their workplace. Hope to get another RM1000 soon. Each company and government office must have their own crèches. The Chief Secretary can encourage this, send a directive to all Ministry Offices to set up crèches.

Based on the theme ‘Women as Catalyst for the New Economy’ and with the hope that all of us in and outside this room today because of our work to honour women, there must be sharing and partnership between the government, women’s groups, NGOs, and the private sector. Everyone should join forces, because this is an important part of the national agenda.”

Source: The Choice

As Razak’s speech was edited and then posted on Youtube by a government agency, I find it a good representation of what Malaysian women are supposed to be according to official political rhetoric. A quick summary:

1. Malaysian women are equal to men because they have the right to vote.
2. Malaysian women shape the economy by nurturing future citizens and economic actors to be healthy, moral, polite, responsible, etc.
3. Malaysian women are empowered women if they are educated, skilled, and confident.
4. Malaysian women should work if there are childcare options available.

First of all, I think it’s a great starting point that the economic contributions and potential of women are recognised to be important for Malaysia’s economic development. I think, in the context of Southeast Asia at least, it would just be really naive to ignore this because of the historical record of women working alongside men in this region. Women staying at home is likely a luxury for most families today.

It’s also a good to recognise that Malaysian women enjoyed voting rights ahead of other countries. Like many Muslim communities, Malays tend to look to the Middle East as the standard, so yes, Malaysia is way ahead of Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates and especially Saudi Arabia (but of course!) when it comes to giving women suffrage. But even other Malaysian women can tell you that gender equality encompasses more than just the right to vote.

This representation of Malaysian women only becomes problematic because of the multiple roles that women are expected to play. Besides calling to women to work outside the home, he still calls on the notion of women as primary caregivers, in a society with strict gender roles – men only work in the public sphere. However, while women are encouraged to be both workers and mothers, men are not similarly encouraged to take on their share of housework and childcare.

The solution proposed by Razak is more childcare centres in public and private businesses. This scheme was started under the economic plan of the previous government; families with lower incomes cannot afford to place their children in a high-quality childcare, depending instead on informal childcare networks like relatives and grandparents.

Razak makes the argument that the only successful and empowered working women are those who “dare to be competitive.” A recent event on women’s leadership in Indonesia highlighted the individual woman in the same way. By focusing on individual factors of success, Razak is indirectly blaming ‘unsuccessful’ women for not having enough self-esteem or confidence. Less focus is put on addressing larger structural factors, such as the lack of affordable childcare or insufficient male household participation.

Encouraging educated women to participate in the labour force requires a re-shuffling of larger society; otherwise, women will be still be stuck with the “second shift.” Malaysian men could be encouraged to participate in household work and childcare and to be allowed paternity leave. The socio-religious basis of excuses allowing women to work only if their “primary” caregiving roles have been fulfilled should also be addressed.

Women’s organisations in Malaysia were in uproar (here, here and here) over Razak’s comment that a women’s movement was no longer needed. Since the Malaysian women’s movement has a strong track record of lobbying for and achieving formal rights for women (details here), Razak’s comment only served to make Western women the “Other.” By telling Malaysian women that they are “different” from those in “developed countries,” Razak implied that they should not “ape their Western counterparts.” In other words, Malaysian women should not organise for gender equality because these are “Western” concepts.

Female political and economic participation is already fraught with multiple and intersecting issues – confused politicians are an additional burden. It is ironic that Razak dismissed the efforts and achievements of women’s groups in obtaining legislative equality for women in marriage, child custody and employment, while at the same time he lauds the liberal feminist goals of equal voting rights and promotes equal economic participation.

Razak wants Malaysian women to be workers, just like Malaysian men, to contribute to the country as a “Catalyst for the New Economy.” But Malaysian women still have to be mothers, according to Malaysia’s traditional/Islamic/Asian values, while Malaysian men don’t necessarily have to be fathers. Without addressing Malaysian men as a “Catalyst for the New Family,” there seems to be no way out of the “second shift” for Malaysian women.
--
Cross-posted at Muslimah Media Watch.