The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam (3 page)

In the final analysis, Muslim women in the West will benefit more from the dominant Western culture that is adhered to by the majority of the population and that offers them good opportunities to shape their lives according to their own insights. I am the living proof of this. This is also why I feel responsible for preserving and protecting the democratic system to which I personally owe so much. In principle, all Dutch Muslims have the same human rights, but owing to outdated religious opinions, they are scarcely capable of implementing these rights. It is mostly women who are affected, and this is what I find distressing.

People who
have
been successful in Western societies, who share the faith of the repressed women (their numbers, incidentally, are not very large), should stand up more for their sisters and brothers. I would like to encourage women such as Naima El Bezaz, who writes openheartedly about women and sexuality, to rise above the religious barrier to question the source of the culture of virginity (Koran, Hadith, a collection of the Prophet’s sayings, traditions, and the resulting practices) rather than to continue to take for granted established tradition. This would be to their own advantage
and
to that of those who share their fate but who have thus far had fewer opportunities to develop themselves. I call to account members of parliament such as Khadija Arib, Nebahat Albayrak, Naima Azough, and Fatima Elatik. The logic of establishing priorities demands that first things be put first. Less serious issues like the “image of Islam” must yield as a consequence. Is it not absurd to imagine that Allah, in all His greatness, would be worried about His image?

I invite the advocates of the multicultural society to acquaint themselves with the suffering of the women who, in the name of religion, are enslaved in the home. Do you have to be mistreated, raped, locked up, and repressed yourself in order to put yourself in someone else’s position? Is it not hypocritical to trivialize or tolerate those practices, when you yourself are free and benefit from mankind’s progress?

A multicultural society is not a goal in itself. We in the West need to make a concerted effort to counter Islamic education and all those other Islamic institutions that lead to self-segregation and thus contribute to the continuation of a hopeless tyranny over women and children.

I
t has been pointed out ad nauseam that a single Islam does not exist. There are as many Islams as there are Muslims. One Muslim considers Islam to be an identity; another, a culture; a third, purely a religion. For yet another, Islam represents everything at once: identity, culture, religion, as well as a political and social guide. But despite these discrepancies, all Muslims share the conviction that the fundamental principles of Islam cannot be criticized, revised, or in any way contradicted. The sources of Islam are the Koran and the sayings and deeds of the prophet (the Sunnah), and every Muslim has the duty to emulate these words and deeds as closely as possible in his morals and daily life. In this context I wish to pose the question, Should we fear Islam? I ask that we
do
question the fundamental principles.

Following the horrendous attacks of September 11, it became known that the name of the suspected chief perpetrator was Mohammed Atta. The young man left behind a note in which he declared that he committed his act of terror for Allah, and for the reward awaiting him in paradise. The letter also included the text of a prayer in which he asks Allah to give him strength and to stand by him and his act.

A short time later, Mohammed Atta’s father appeared on television. When confronted with his son’s act, Father Atta was enraged and, at the same time, sad. He appeared confused; he couldn’t and didn’t want to believe that his son was guilty of the mass murder on September 11. His son was, he said, a thoughtful, peace-loving boy. Moreover, he had no reason whatsoever to take part in such an act of terrorism. He was, after all, highly educated by Egyptian standards. His German professor confirmed that Mohammed Atta was a very promising architect. In short, Mohammed had all the qualities of a successful young man with a wonderful future ahead of him; his father was extremely proud. No, no, Father Atta cried, my son has nothing to do with it: the Jews, the CIA, everybody and everything is guilty, but not my son. Ill-intentioned people want to give my son and me a bad name and tarnish our honor.

At the same time, during those early days after September 11, Muslims writers, theologians, imams, as well as ordinary Muslim men and women, were confronted with the same questions: How could nineteen committed Muslims carry out such a despicable act in the name of their religion? Why does Bin Laden call on all Muslims to participate in a war against nonbelievers in the name of their religion? Why do Indonesian, Pakistani, and even British Muslims want to comply with Bin Laden’s call and sacrifice their lives in the name of their religion?

The reactions of these Muslims were similar to that of Father Atta: both shock and indignation at the idea that Islam was being linked to terrorism. No, they cried emphatically and in unison: the perpetrators were not Muslims; some boys might drink and visit prostitutes, but these are non-Islamic habits that they picked up from the decadent West; they cited verses from the Koran completely out of context. No, Bin Laden is not a Muslim. No, all those shrieking young men celebrating 9/11 in the streets of cities in Muslim countries have misunderstood Islam: Islam is a peace-loving, tolerant, charitable religion. Whoever loves Allah and honors the bearer of His tidings will never want to cause trouble for other believers and nonbelievers, let alone kill them or participate in terrorist activities.

But if this is true, how then are we to explain the facts? What am I, as a Muslim, to think when I read that:

 

Muslims were responsible for eleven, and possibly twelve, of the sixteen major international terrorist acts committed between 1983 and 2000;

 

 

Five of the seven states that support terrorists, and as such appear on the U.S. State Department’s list, are Muslim countries, and the majority of foreign organizations on that same list are Muslim organizations;

 

 

Muslims were involved in two-thirds of the thirty-two armed conflicts in the year 2000, while only one-fifth of the world population is Muslim, according to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.

 

If nothing is wrong with Islam, why then are so many Muslims on the run? Of the top ten countries from which people have emigrated to the Netherlands, nine are primarily Muslim. Why do we Muslims move to the West, while at the same time condemning it? What does the West have that we don’t? Why is the position of women in Muslim countries so abominable? If we Muslims are so tolerant and peaceful, why is there so much ethnic, religious, political, and cultural strife and violence in Muslim countries? Why can’t or won’t we acknowledge the seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves? Why are we Muslims so full of feelings of anger and uneasiness, and why do we carry so much hostility and hate within us both toward ourselves and toward others? Why are we incapable of criticizing ourselves from within?

If I had to characterize Islam, I would say that it has become like Father Atta: incensed, traumatized, shattered, and living in an illusion. Just as Atta fathered his son Mohammed, so Islam has fathered a branch that we alternately call fundamentalism or political Islam. Just as the father didn’t see that his son had a darker side, so too, for a long time, we Muslims have refused to acknowledge that a once peaceful, powerful, and robust religion carried within it elements of fanaticism and violence. We wanted, and still want, a Muslim solution for everything. We have always left the course of our lives, the organization of our society, our economic policy, the education of our children, and the relationship between men and women in the hands of God.
Insha’allah
(if God [Allah] wills it) is the most common expression among Muslims.

We Muslims have completely lost sight of the balance between religion and reason. Poverty, violence, political instability, economic malaise, and human suffering are the result. Just as Father Atta is proud of his son, so we Muslims are proud of our Islam; we are unwilling and unable to believe that Allah no longer has the answers to all our questions, or if He does have them, He doesn’t want to share them with us.

Yet there are a number of Muslims who do have doubts and who have already cautiously embarked on a process of self-examination and a quest for a way out of the labyrinth. They are a small minority and they still have to overcome both their own suffering and the fundamentalists’ antagonism. But that is not all. They also have to fight the reactionary forces that have become so adept at using the constitutional freedoms of well-functioning democracies like the Netherlands to maintain the illusion in which the Muslim masses find themselves.

We can rephrase the question Should we fear Islam? to Should we fear Father Atta? How well founded is the fear we feel, and what do we do with that fear? It is human to fear the dangerous sides of a religion such as extremism and fanaticism, but it is also human to understand the pain of Muslims and to want to help them.

The reactionary regimes in the Middle East have been successful in convincing the United States that the only evil to be fought is the terrorism stemming from Islamic fundamentalism. The United States fails to see that it is precisely these regimes and the clergy who keep them in power that are the secondary causes of fanaticism, or
Wahhabism,
as Saudi Arabia calls it. Given that the fundamentalists are the only opposition to the reactionary regimes, the policy of the United States will have the wrong effect. The “enemy” concept of fanatics like Bin Laden is reinforced by the actions of the United States. This is the bitter reality: the Muslim population is using Islam as a political tool by which to dispose of the repressive regimes, but the promises made by Muslim fundamentalists to the people offer no prospects of success whatsoever. This is why it is absolutely essential that Muslims begin to be critical of their religion and to review it from the inside, with help from the outside.

The West needs to help Muslims help themselves, and not support them in their illusion by avoiding the underlying questions. Despite the compassion and understanding one may feel for personal suffering, one cannot lose sight of the fact that this personal suffering is the inevitable result of the form Islam takes at home, at school, in everyday life, and in the media. Many Muslims lack the necessary willingness and courage to address this crucial issue. There is an essential difference between Father Atta’s situation and that of Islam. Father Atta’s son is dead; he can allow himself time to grapple with his trauma slowly. Unfortunately, Islam—we Muslims—do not have that luxury of time.

So what must happen? The primary task of both Muslims and non-Muslims is to face the malicious extremism manifest in the attacks of September 11. Do not underestimate it. Fear of that kind of Islam is valid. Fanaticism in Islam is a reality, and its following is growing steadily. Westerners and Muslims should stand together in their shared rejection of fanaticism, instead of blaming each other and cultivating mutual distrust. That solves nothing, and the fanatics may benefit from it.

The second task, for Muslims themselves, is that of enlightenment. We Muslims must realize the importance and urgency of restoring the balance between religion and reason, and work exceedingly hard at achieving it. Religion offers no appropriate solution for the clamorous situation in which Muslims find themselves worldwide. We must structurally drive religion back to the places where it belongs: in the mosque and in the home. We Muslims are inclined to view universal values, such as freedom of the individual and the equality of men and women, as exclusively Western values. This is wrong. We need to apply these values to ourselves and start creating political and legal institutions that can protect and promote those values. We also need to begin to engage in rational and scientific analysis. It is true that these values and methods were born out of Western tradition, but that does not mean they are any less pertinent for people in other parts of the world. If they were not, people would not be fleeing to the West in such large numbers. To achieve the aforementioned goals requires a fundamental shift in Muslim mentality. This change can only begin by subjecting the sources of Islam to thorough critical examination.

The third task is primarily one that pertains to Western non-Muslims who have already benefited for a long time from the fruits of the Enlightenment. Intellectuals and authorities must assist us in our pursuit of reason. This undertaking holds within it a dilemma: how can the West preserve an open, tolerant society based on the notion of rights and combat rightist extremism and religious intolerance, while helping Muslims with their process of enlightenment? Thus far, politicians and policy makers, as well as intellectuals, have been afraid to confront Muslims about the opinions, customs, and practices arising from their religion that severely damage Muslims themselves and society. At present, the reactionary forces within Islam continue to gain power. Just as the regimes in the Middle East are manipulating the United States in order to consolidate their own power, so too are countless Muslim organizations in the Netherlands managing to maintain their conservative opinions and practices, in particular regarding the position of women in their culture. The Dutch government is among those who pay heed to these reactionary forces in misguided ways. For example, the mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen, called on secular people to respect the unifying power of religion. As is typical of so much muzz-headed, empty political rhetoric, it is unclear what he was really asking, but he apparently believed that Islam is primarily a religious practice that provides comfort to immigrant followers by drawing them together in a community. He seemed to be making an appeal to the Dutch people to adopt an unreflective, unexamined tolerance of Islamic communities and their activities. With this “appeal,” however, he blatantly ignored the desperate situation of Muslim women in his own city. And he seemed to believe—mistakenly—that this “benevolent” sentiment and attitude would help the integration of Muslims into Dutch society.

It will not. It does exactly the opposite: it makes a virtual institution of Muslim self-segregation and isolation. The mayor’s misguided, benighted complicity with the Islamists’ agenda has earned him the honorary title of “sheikh” among reactionaries. Similarly, in another example of fuzzy thinking, Roger van Boxtel, the Dutch Minister for Urban Policy and Integration of Ethnic Minorities, stubbornly persists in defending Islamic education, which is precisely what perpetuates the poverty and alienation of Muslim peoples. For his knee-jerk support, van Boxtel earned the title of “mullah” among reactionaries.

Whatever the mayor’s point in his supposed humanistic appeal, he and other Westerners have to understand that we Muslims have religion inculcated in us from birth, and that is one of the very reasons for our falling behind the West in technology, finance, health, and culture. Sheikh Cohen and Mullah van Boxtel should realize that we Muslims are already imbued with faith and superstition. What we need are schools of philosophy and the liberation of our women. Has Sheikh Cohen ever visited a women’s refuge center in his city? If he had, he could not have failed to see some of the chiefly hidden yet omnipresent and undeniable suffering of Muslim women. Neither the Islam and Citizenship Society nor the Muslim community says anything about their women’s suffering, and every one of the 753 subsidized Muslim organizations in the Netherlands also remains silent about it. Only aid organizations such as the Regional Institute for Mental Welfare, the Child Welfare Council, and the Central Registration for Child Abuse recognize the suffering. Muslims report there in large numbers. But these and other aid organizations are also unable to speak out because of their duty to respect confidentiality.