Issues with FEMEN

FEMEN - Saving Muslim women one bra strap at a time

Muslimah Pride: We Reject Femens Islamophobic and Neo-Colonialist Crusade to Save Us

I have been following the exploits of Femen for a while now and have become increasingly frustrated with the way in which they carry out their campaigns. What Femen are doing is highly counterproductive and detrimental to Muslim women across the world. For me and hundreds of other women who have got in touch with me over the past few days, their tactics are a part of the ideological war that is going on between neo-colonial elements in the West and Islamic societies. Their aim is not to emancipate us from our presumed slavery, but instead reinforce Western imperialism and generate consent for the ongoing wars against Muslim countries. 

Despite my personal views about the effectiveness of Amina Tyler's actions, I hope that she is safe and well. However, I fail to see how declaring 'Topless Jihad Day' in 'support of her' will have any positive effect on her fate. A policy based on "Muslim women, let's get naked" is counterproductive and bordering on insane. This is what prompted me to launch 'Muslimah Pride Day'.

It seemed that many other Muslim women across the world agreed with my stance and what followed was a defiant and vocal rejection of Femen's invitation. Instead of 'getting naked' Muslim women from across the world tweeted and uploaded pictures of themselves to Facebook in their hijabs, niqabs, and western attire. They held up signs telling the world why they were proud of their identities and did not need racist Islamophobic women to dictate to them on how they should dress. The sheer number of participants and support was indicative of the level of anger and frustration that Muslim women feel toward being perpetually infantilised and patronised by Femen and other such groups. 

In our open letter to Femen we referred to them as 'colonial feminists' to describe Femen's activities. I believe it is the most apt term to describe their particular brand of feminism. From Helen of Troy, the face that launched a thousand ships, to the pretext of female liberation surrounding the invasion of Afghanistan, women have always been used as pawns by men as an excuse to wage war. Femen are just the latest chapter in the long history of gender imperialists that manufacture consent and provide ideological foregrounding to justify going to war. By dismissing the role of western countries in the oppression of Muslim women and focusing solely on Muslim men they are only working to demonise Islam, not liberate Muslim women. 

In her latest piece in the Huffington Post UK, Inna Shevchenko suggests that we have "bearded men with knives" behind us that have pushed us to launch this campaign. In doing so she is dismissing our right to self-expression as impossible.

What she is implying is that Muslim women are incapable of speaking for themselves. It is a blatant attempt at denying that we have agency in our own lives. This kind of inferiorising is symbolic of why so many Muslim women are so angry with Femen.

The lead up to the Afghanistan war is a prime example of how feminism is used to construct and disseminate negative stereotypes about Muslim women to whip up support for warmongers. Former First Lady Laura Bush provided the speech act on the so-called plight of the women in Afghanistan, which turned a referent object like the Burkha into an obstacle to freedom. The reported plight of Afghan women was used to manipulate the public in to believing that this war was a well-intentioned feminist crusade to free them. The crude/sick reality that the chosen method of liberation for these women was by bombing, killing and raping them was cynically eclipsed by the fervour to save them from their own 'evil' Muslim men. 

In a climate where we are constantly warned about a 'clash of civilisations' and the West's state of perpetual war with Muslim countries, there is a fundamental need to dehumanise the 'enemy'. The overemphasis on the Muslim man's perceived misogyny overshadows the complete lack of scrutiny of the West's oppression against Muslim women. Femen's reliance on the overused media tropes of the modern western values versus traditional Muslim values is creating a dichotomous representation of the 'self' (West) and 'other' (Muslims). 

Discourses based solely on the way women dress has historically been used to justify oppression against all dominated groups in history. The French colonialists would physically rip the veil of from women's heads during the Algerian Revolution. In his essay Algeria Unveiled, in which he examines the role of women in colonised societies, Frantz Fanon quotes the French colonial authorities in saying: "If we want to destroy the structure of Algerian society, its capacity for resistance, we must first of all conquer the woman; we must go and find them behind the veil where they hide themselves and in the houses where the men keep them out of sight". Neo-cons and Islamophobes use the same approach to keep the Muslim woman subjugated.

The hyper-sexualisation of Femen's campaign and the insistence on Muslim women to strip naked as a gesture of emancipation is a tell-tale symptom of Orientalist fantasies. When puritanical, prudish Christians from Europe first came across the Muslim world, Muslim women were off limits to the western man but that did not stop writers of harem literature fabricating their fantastical sexual encounters and present them as reality. Muslim women were depicted as the sex slaves lounging around in harems, there for the sexual pleasure of Muslim men. This has led to a construction of the 'Muslim Woman' as a submissive sexual object. Femen's tactics suggest that this mentality has not changed. Now that the West has become supposedly sexually liberated, the Muslim woman (the 'Other') represents covered up sex slaves trying desperately to clamber out of their stifling burkhas and forced marriages. 

I am not dismissing the fact that there are problems in the Muslim world. However history has shown that the West has directly (through slavery, colonialism and neocolonialism) and indirectly (through the propping up of misogynistic and oppressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia) done far more damage to Muslim women than Muslim men have. That is why I vehemently oppose Femen's universal imposition of the neocolonial agenda. If Femen really want to help Muslim women they should address the fact that for far too long now, Muslim women have been marginalised, bombed, raped, killed, and enslaved by men from the western world. They should work within their own countries to try and subvert future wars against Muslim countries and help break down barriers. Or perhaps they should stick to trying to liberate women in the west. 

We have been overwhelmed and are extremely appreciative of the messages of support and encouragement we have been getting from non-Muslims around the world. A woman from the US sent us a picture in which she had fashioned a hijaab out of a piece of cloth and headband in solidarity of our right to wear it. Western feminists such as Those Pesky Dames have also come out in support of our campaign. This is indicative of the ability to look past historically ingrained attitudes and the willingness of none Muslims to try and understand this misrepresented religion. 

Despite the popularity of our campaign and the strong message that it sent out, Femen have continued to display a flagrant disregard for our agency and have consistently tried to downplay the legitimacy of our collective voices. Femen have tried to dismiss our campaign using conspiracy and conjecture, and there has been no sign of intellectual debate or a constructive argument against the points that we have raised. They have made no attempt to approach us directly, nor have they provided a response to our open letter. Instead Inna Shevchenko has said that's she will see us on the "battle lines", but we do not wish to engage on those terms.

For us this is not about a spat with Femen. Rather we are concerned with the bigger picture, of changing attitudes and perceptions and to foster a better understanding between Muslims and the West. This is our opportunity to tell our stories, let our voices be heard and take control of our own narratives. Femen should hope for a warm summer, they can get naked every day for all we care, the vast majority of Muslim women have shown that we won't be joining them anytime soon. 

Twitter @_MWAF
Facebook Muslim Women Against Femen 
Follow the #Muslimahpride tag on Twitter

 

Follow Sofia Ahmed on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sofiaahmed1

source 

Why I, As a Muslim Woman, Don't Support FEMEN

The FEMEN movement has been gaining momentum all across the globe, with April 4 being declared the official “International Topless Jihad Day.” In response, however, Muslim women — both, those who wear hijabs and those who do not — launched an online campaign called “Muslimah Pride Day” to show that contrary to what many non-Muslim women are claiming, they aren’t being oppressed by Islam but instead, are offended by FEMEN using them to propel their own Western-liberal agenda. And as a young Muslim woman growing up in the United States, I fully agree with latter group. By making it seem like the hijab is a symbol of oppression, FEMEN isn’t giving the millions of Muslim women around the globe who choose to cover their heads and their body’s freedom. Instead, it is stigmatizing them for making their own choice and their own decision regarding what to wear.

While FEMEN’s intentions are good and admirable — granting the freedom of choice to all women — the way they have gone about it has been completely wrong and misconstrued. In an effort to afford women choice, they’ve made it seem like all women who wear the hijab are oppressed and that simply is not the case. Rather than singling out governments who wrongfully enforce modest dress codes and hijabs as they should have, they have made it seem like this is a global problem and any woman who chooses to cover her head or her body isn’t actually doing it by choice, but is being forced to. Moreover, in many ways, they have ridiculed the millions of women who do wear hijabs and cover their bodies out of choice by making it seem like they’re too naïve to know any better.

I am not too naïve to know any better. But I also don’t wear a hijab. I do, however, cover my arms to my wrists and my legs to my ankles — and yes, I dress this way in the summer too andwhen I go down the shore. I don’t do this because I am oppressed or because my family or my religion forces me too — in fact, wearing full sleeves and pants puts me in the minority in my family. Not everyone follows the same dress code, and they shouldn’t have to unless they feel that they want to. I do it because it is what I feel comfortable in and what I feel most in my element in. Similarly, I have cousins who wear the hijab solely out of their own choice. Their mother’s don’t cover their head, nor does my grandmother. But upon reading the Quran and other religious texts, they made the decision to wear the hijab on their own. And neither my cousins nor I need FEMEN to fuel their savior complex by “liberating” us.

A group of student activists in Birmingham, UK made this abundantly clear as well on Friday,saying that "Femen does not represent a large number of Muslim women although they claim they want to 'free' us from our religion. They argue for liberation and speak for us but do it in the wrong way … For them, the more you strip the more of a feminist you are — that's Western feminist ideology. That's not liberation for us, but that doesn't make us anti-feminist."

"Femen is essentially saying that Western feminism knows best for women all over the world … We see Islam as a form of empowerment and a sense of freedom, so we don't need Femen to speak for us. They have stolen our voice,” she added.

Muslim women also took to Twitter to further voice their opinion — and the message was clear. Femen does not represent us.  

Source

Muslim Women Shockingly Not Grateful for Topless European Ladies Trying To ‘Save’ Them

FEMEN, the "sextremist" feminist group known for staging topless protests, declared yesterday "International Topless Jihad Day" in solidarity with Amina Tyler, a 19 year old Tunisian activist who had received death threats after posting topless pictures of herself to Femen's Tunisian Facebook page. She had written "Fuck your morals" and "My body belongs to me is not the source of anyone's honor" in Arabic on her chest, causing religious officials to call for her to be punished by 80 to 100 lashes or even, horrifyingly, by being stoned to death. Following reports that Amina had been admitted to a mental hospital, FEMEN called upon its supporters to protest the "lethal hatred of Islamists – inhuman beasts for whom killing a woman is more natural than recognising her right to do as she pleases with her own body" at Tunisian embassies around the world. Protests occurred in Sweden, Italy, Ukraine, France, and Belgium.

While it is unquestionably necessary, brave, and noble to stand with Amina (who is reportedly not free to move or speak safely), the protests were distressingly and distractingly Islamophobic. A photo from one of shows a white woman with crescent moons covering her nipples, wearing a fake beard, a unibrow penciled in with eyeliner, and a bath towel on her head. Another photo, highlighted on FEMEN's Facebook page is of a topless woman protesting at a mosque in San Francisco (because, when you're fighting the good fight of "TITS AGAINST ISLAMISM," standing topless in front of any mosque anywhere will do) with the following caption:

TODAY IS AMINA TOPLESS JIHAD DAY. I was at the Islamic Mosque in San Francisco. Some Arab guy tried to grab my sign and pushed me in a violent way. My friend stopped him. MY BODY IS MY TEMPLE.

Further down is a cartoon of a woman crawling out from under her burqa to light on fire the beard of a caricature of a Muslim man (or should I say "some Arab guy"?). In the comments, a woman posted a link to an Al Jazeera article about Muslim women counter-protesting the protest, as they rightfully feel that it was condescending and imperialistic in both tone and intent. FEMEN fans responded to her link in the following ways:

"Stupid muslim women. Made brainless by Quran."

"Stupid slaves!"

You know that there's something wrong with your protest when its ardent supporters find it appropriate to repeatedly call the women they are "saving" stupid and to affirm that they have no capacity for making decisions of their own.

The counter-protest, Muslimah Pride Day, calls for women to speak out for themselves on social media:

[P]lease post pictures of your beautiful selves, whether you wear hijaab, nikaab or not. This is an opportunity for Muslim women to get a say and show people that we have a voice too, that we come in many different shapes and sizes that we object to the way we are depicted in the west, we object to the way we are lumped in to one homogenous group without a voice of agency of our own.

FEMEN needs to recognize that Muslim women do in fact have agency, and the idea that Muslim women are helpless, passively indoctrinated by the alleged evils of Islam, and desperately need of Western feminist help is oppressive and orientalist. Patriarchy is not specific to Islam — although there are inarguably extreme and truly saddening examples of misogyny in the Muslim community, patriarchy is a global issue. Furthermore, feminism is not only a Western institution — to assume that Muslim women need someone to "speak for" them is insulting to all the grassroots political organizing and activism that Muslim feminists have done. It's disturbing how a the rhetoric of "women's liberation" has been co-opted to justify aggression, violence, and prejudice against Muslim communities. In what way is it appropriate to "rescue" women by indulging in and re-circulating essentializing, stereotyped, and offensive depictions of their culture?

Source

Failure of feminism in the Muslim community

The Muslim community seems to be decades behind British society in the treatment of women¹ with Western values not yet permeating our mosques and community centres. Independently of whether this is a good or bad thing, the question is why? In my personal view, it is due to Islam and Muslims.

Firstly, Islam – or the mainstream interpretation of Islam – is naturally conservative. It is most closely understood as being supportive of “traditional family values”. Major scholars from all schools of thought, are united in their belief that men are and should be the financial breadwinners; men are and should be the natural leaders; and men are and should be the interpreters of the law. At the same time, it is women who must be available to their husbands; it is women who must cover their bodies; and it is women who must be segregated from the rest of the society (unless there is a reason not to). In this climate, is there much reason to expect a different outcome?

There are some who are challenging the status quo – and are referred to derogatorily as “progressives”, “liberals” or “reformists”. Whatever the label, it is of utmost importance that any such discussion is done:

• In a holistic manner: women’s rights cannot be discussed without discussing responsibilities e.g. if one were to argue for the rights of women to have a career and not be at the husband’s beck and call, this cannot be done without also considering financial responsibility of women in a family setting.
• With due deference to those with differences of opinion: in any culture or religion, major scholars live(d) in societies which are very different to our own. It is not fair to blame them for not seeing the world in the way that the progressives of today do!

Secondly, we come to Muslims. Regardless of religious viewpoint, even the most conservative believers would find it hard pressed to justify the misogyny and idiocy that fills many of our religious institutions. For example, the space for women in mosques is always worse than that of men; many institutions do not even allow a space for women at Jum’a or Eid prayers; and women’s views are rarely taken into account in mosque decision-making (other than areas which are solely to do with women)². Naming all the injustices that are done to the mothers, sisters and daughters of our community, would take forever. So why are Muslim institutions (as a whole) getting away with this type of nonsensical and unjustifiable misogyny? In my view, there are three key reasons:

• Old people: Those who run our institutions, are in general, the older generation, who primarily are immigrants and have brought their patriarchal culture with them – this is very difficult to change, other than by democratising our mosques, and allowing a greater say to all.

• Men: If you are in a position of power or superiority, there is little reason to fight to give that up, whether or not you think it is right. Just put yourself in the position of the men in the marriage process – would you prefer to have a situation where the society supports your freedoms and does not judge you? Self-interest drives societies, and from a pure political perspective, it is not in men’s interest, to drive the feminist agenda. To change this, must be done by aligning all our interests in a collaborative manner where possible, building coalitions rather than being antagonistic and always wanting a fight!

• Women: A significant proportion of those who want change are women who have experienced the discrimination, whether directly or indirectly; whether intentionally or unintentionally; and whether at a small or large scale. Yet how many actually do anything about it or support those who do? In reality, who are the ones who put down those who speak up?

We can all talk about how society is at fault for not providing the space for this debate, and to an extent this is true – but really? Why not create the space? Did Bibi Fatima (AS) stay silent as her rights were ignored, whilst living in the most ignorant of all societies? The response is often – “but what will people say” (in a whingeing tone, and most often worrying about marriage). Grow up people! If you believe in this cause, then “won’t somebody please think of the children” and the next generation? Who will be the role models: will it be those who sat on the side; or those who did something? Did the Suffragettes make the change in the Western world without sacrifice?³

For those who believe in a more equal society, there are three key principles:

• Be strategic, build coalitions and understand politics: work differently and appropriately on the levels highlighted above, building an argument based on the audience’s specific issues; and do so in a sensible manner, not alienating those who support your cause!

• Pick your battles and do not fight irrelevant points when the broader narrative is being written. In the last week when discussing similar topics, I have seen women ignorantly referred to as “females”, “womenfolk” and “the female gender”. This complete ignorance as to suitable language, is an important issue but the right response is not to get mad at anyone who says “men/women” and insist on using terminology like “wo/men” to ensure women are put first. This kind of nonsensical behaviour (although hilariously funny) just undermines the cause that is being fought

• Do something about it and be ready to sacrifice: when there is change, there is inertia and opposition to change. Without people willing to stand up and take the expected abuse, society will not move forward. I am not saying that we need a sacrificial lamb (or ewe lamb!) but we have to realise the necessity of sacrifice and abuse; and therefore, the requirement for this to be a collaborative effort with mutual support to mitigate this as much as is reasonable / possible.

And really, we cannot sit back and let this continue. We have to all identify where there is patriarchy and misogyny, and strategically do something about it, not only to solve the issues of today but also for the longer term.

(1) Personally, I think that this statement itself is relatively patronising, as it is talking about treatment of women, considering women to be the “other”. The reality, however, is that given the men run the mosques, the “treatment of women” seems to be the only statement that captures the idea I am trying to address

(2) There are so many institutions who still do not provide a vote for women, or do so in a ridiculous way – I can’t believe that this still happens in the 21^st century, and nobody seems to care!

(3) I know that this is a simplification to some extent, and ignores the strides being made in the community. I know also that there are other causes I have not mentioned but I genuinely consider these to be the biggest reasons.

Source

Yes we can :)

Daughters of the brothel

Filmmaker Gautam Singh explains how he came to make Daughters of the brothel.

India's handwritten magazines have long fascinated me. But while researching the subject for a blog, I came across one in particular that stood out. Jugnu is a 32-page monthly magazine that has been written and published by the sex workers of the Chaturbhuj-sthan brothel in Bihar, near the border with Nepal, for the past 10 years. 

Home to about 10,000 women and children, the whole area - named after the Chaturbhuj-sthan temple, which is located inside - is essentially one large brothel. Historians believe it was first established during the Moghul era. Prostitution has become a family tradition there - passed down from generation to generation. 

Intrigued, I contacted the magazine and as more details emerged about this extraordinary publication and the women behind it, I realised that this story was much bigger than a blog.

The magazine had been set up by a group of sex workers led by one girl - Naseema. Born into Chaturbhuj-sthan, Naseema was abandoned by her mother and raised by a woman she calls her 'grandmother'. Although not actually related to her, this woman used the money she earned as a prostitute to raise Naseema and send her to school. Naseema became the first girl in the brothel's 300-or-so-year history to receive an education.

When she returned to Chaturbhuj-sthan it was not to sell her body. With the help of local banks, Naseema established small industries inside the brothel - making candles, matchsticks, bindis and incense - offering many prostitutes an alternative form of employment. And she set about persuading the sex workers to send their children to school. Now almost every child in Chaturbhuj-sthan is in full-time education. 

More than 50 former prostitutes now work with Naseema, who taught them how to read and write. As well as running the magazine - which is sold across India and also sent to subscribers elsewhere - Naseema and the other women work to prevent others being trafficked, mainly from neighbouring Nepal and Bangladesh, into prostitution. In the last year alone, they have been able to send at least 20 new girls safely back home.

But their work has brought them many enemies; the most feared being Rani Begum. As chief of the brothel, Begum's finances have suffered a blow as a result of Naseema's activities. Her thugs have publicly harassed and beaten Naseema and the other women who work with her. Naseema has also had to fight pimps, as well as some police officers and clerics who were unhappy about her work. 

With a clearly identifiable hero, a suitably sinister villain and plenty of action guaranteed as they face off against one another, I felt I had come across a story worthy of a novel. I was hopeful that we could produce a perfect film, but shooting inside a brothel was never going to be easy. I deliberately chose a very small crew of just three people so that we might remain as invisible as possible. We used a Canon 7d camera. Its small size and light weight meant that we were able to move quickly from one place to the next - something that was to prove useful when Begum's thugs were sent to threaten us.

Before starting the shoot, I met Begum, hoping that this would reduce the likelihood of any problems arising at a later point. About 65 years old, she lives in a huge mansion inside Chaturbhuj-sthan. Polite and courteous, she sought to portray herself as somebody running a kind of welfare institute for destitute girls and referred to her brothel as a 'social heritage'. A former dancer herself, she stressed that every girl in the brothel is taught classical music and dance.

Begum grew less friendly when I started questioning her about Naseema and her work, but nevertheless promised not to trouble us as long as we filmed indoors. One day, however, while eating lunch, some men came to tell me that Rani Begum wanted us to leave. We eventually had to call the local police to enable us to complete our shoot.

For me, the most emotional scene in the film is when we meet Roma. A 19-year-old Bangladeshi girl, Roma thought she was coming to India to marry a friend of her brother-in-law. She was rescued from the brothel by Naseema and taken to live in a government shelter. But her family still refuses to allow her to return home for fear that she will give them a bad name. We were able to watch the heartfelt telephone conversation between Roma and her family as she pleaded with them to take her back.

And then there is the story of Boha Tola - a red light area in the neighbouring Sitamarhi district that was burnt down when local government officials conspired with villagers to eradicate it. Unofficial sources say that at least 100 women, men and children went missing as a result of the fire. As they were never officially registered by the government, no effort was made to find out what had happened to them.

Naseema and some of the other women recorded the incident on their mobile phones and gave me the footage to use exclusively in the film. They told horrifying tales of gang-rape, children being thrown onto fires and police brutality. Some of the women from Chaturbhuj-sthan went on hunger strike to show their solidarity with the people of Boha Tola, but the hunger strikers and their supporters were all put in prison. 

Now 32 years old, Naseema is an amazing character who is proud to call herself "a daughter of the brothel".

Source

Palestinians protest murder of battered wife

The brutal killing of a battered wife in front of horrified witnesses in an open-air Bethlehem market has prompted angry accusations that Palestinian police and courts ignore violence against women.

Nancy Zaboun, a 27-year-old mother of three, had her throat slashed on Monday after seeking a divorce from her abusive husband of 10 years.

On Wednesday, several dozen women staged a memorial for Zaboun in the Bethlehem market alley where she was killed, holding signs and chanting, "No to violence against women." One sign read, "Shame on us Palestinians for killing our women."

The husband was arrested at the scene and is the prime suspect, West Bank officials said.

The case reverberated across Palestinian society because of the brutality of the attack.

However, violence against women continues to be overlooked, as in other parts of the Arab world, and women's rights activists say abusive husbands are rarely punished.

Zaboun was regularly beaten by her husband, 32-year-old Shadi Abedallah, at times so severely that she had to be hospitalised, said Khaula al-Azraq, who runs a West Bank counselling centre where Zaboun sought help.

Even so, Abedallah was never arrested. Police only made him sign pledges he would stop hitting his wife, said Azraq, adding that Abedallah himself is a former police officer.

'Family honour'

Zaboun was killed after attending a hearing in her divorce case. She was walking on the steep paths of an open-air market, not far from the Church of the Nativity, marking the traditional birthplace of Jesus, when she was fatally slashed.

Women have scored some breakthroughs in traditional Palestinian society in recent years, including gaining a greater role in public life.

However, tribal laws still remain strong, and violence against women is generally viewed by police as an internal family matter.

Azraq said violence against women appears to be on the rise because of a deteriorating economic situation and because abusers do not fear punishment.

Last year, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas signed a decree that ended a long-standing practice of treating killings within a family with leniency.

Justice Minister Ali Mohanna said such killings are now treated as any other slaying, and claims of assailants that they were protecting "family honour" are no longer taken into account.

Zaboun's husband could face life in prison if convicted, the minister said.

'Slaughtered like a sheep'

Thirteen women were killed by family members or in suspicious circumstances blamed on relatives in 2011, said Farid al-Attrash of the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights.

In 2012, 12 women were killed by relatives, including three in "family honour" cases, he said. Those include suspected adultery and similar cases.

Zaboun was married at age 17, and the couple have three children, aged eight, six and three. Azraq said the beatings began immediately after the wedding.

Abdel Fattah Hemayel, the district governor of Bethlehem, said the authorities stepped in at some point, attempting to solve what he described as a family dispute.

He confirmed that the husband was asked to sign pledges to stop beating his wife.

Rabiha Diab, the women's affairs minister in the Palestinian self-rule government, said the killing of Zaboun, and the failure to prevent, it were troubling.

"Every once in a while, there is a case that makes us feel worried and afraid that we are going back to square one [as women]," she said, noting that law enforcement agencies need to look at what they can do to protect women.

She called for harsh punishment of Zaboun's killer. "We should set an example because... he slaughtered her like a sheep," she said.

Source 

Satyamev Jayate

‘Bol’: a feminist film

A student of mine whose father is a film distributor in the Middle East was able to hold a private screening for her friends (and me!) of the Indian/Pakistani film ‘Bol’ (speech/words/speak) that I mentioned here on Facebook. I am very happy that I was able to watch it and encourage every Muslim who calls themselves feminist to watch it. Bol is a Hindi/Urdu word that is often a noun meaning speech or words, even lyrics but can also be an imperative to mean ‘speak!’

Bol is Pakistani film producer and director Shoaib Mansoor’s brilliant work. Mansoor has very artfully raised almost all the issues that Muslim feminists address regularly. I would call Bol a bold Muslim feminist film. Some of the general and feminist themes that I noticed Mansoor tackle are:

Deep rooted and menacing desire for a male child
Scorn and hatred for the “third gender” (as has now been officially accepted in Pakistan)
Polygamy
Prostitution
Desire for the female child by the segment of society that lives off prostituting women
Honour killing
Forced marriages
Giving young women in marriage to much older men
Sectarianism
Wife beating
Theft and its micro and macro effects
Extortion and bribery
Denial of education to women
Lack of use of contraception
Scorn for rationalism
Rape
Disregard for public by politicians
Belief amongst the under-educated class that gender of the fetus is determined by the mother
Superstitious belief in tarot reading

The desire for a male child is a theme that runs throughout the film and is one that gives rise to other themes. The “patriarch” (I seem to be really milking this term!) of the family, Hakim Sahab, wants a son and this desire causes his wife to become pregnant fourteen times. The eldest daughter, Zainab, is the protagonist of the film who yells towards the end “why is it that only killing someone is a crime while giving birth isn’t?”

Sometimes indirectly and often directly Mansoor tries his best to educate people about issues that plague many societies especially his Pakistani society. There are some points I found powerfully poignant in the film. For example, in one scene Zainab engages in an argument with her father who is abusing her for making her mother undergo tubal litigation after her fourteenth pregnancy that had made her very ill. Hakib Sahab tells his daughter that even though they are deathly poor this should not stop him from having more children and trying for a son because it is Allah who “gives food if He gives mouths” and that the Prophet had once shown his desire to have “the greatest ummah (following) on the Day of Judgment.” At this Zainab retorts that if the first argument was true people wouldn’t be dying from hunger and poverty in many parts of the world and questions why Muslims always understand “greatest” as in population?! Why couldn’t the Prophet have desired a following greatest in wisdom, honesty and prosperity?! Zainab shows her doubt that the Prophet could have wanted a populated ummah that was poor and “as stupid as an ass”! At this Hakim Sahab slaps Zainab for doubting the words and intentions of the Prophet that only he can understand better.

At another point in the film Hakim Sahab is being interrogated by police for murdering his son (who was not a problem for Hakim Sahab to kill since the child was a hermaphrodite and a tarot reading had allowed the father to make this easy decision). The police officer asks Hakim Sahab what prompted him to kill his own son and the latter replies that it was an “honour killing” (the child had been gang raped!). At this the police officer comments very matter-of-factly that “it is only daughters that are killed in the name of honour.”

Hakim Sahab also takes on another wife without the knowledge of his first wife. The second wife is a prostitute and part of his decision to remarry is his desire to have a son since his first wife is “only good at two things: cooking and producing girls.” Nevertheless, he is almost forced into marriage by his new father-in-law, a pimp by profession, who wants a granddaughter that he could prostitute since he has five “useless sons” of his own and he had learned that Hakim Sahab has seven daughters. It is this pimp who educates Hakim Sahab that science (which he says is often disregarded by homeopathic doctors and religious people) has proved that gender of an unborn child is determined by the sperm and not the egg. He is convinced that Hakim Sahab would be able to give him a granddaughter whereas the former doesn’t believe “faulty science” and is hopeful that the new and young wife would give him a son. He has another daughter.

Hakim Sahab who is portrayed as a deeply-religious man is shown having no inhibitions in marrying again without the knowledge of his first wife. He beats her at one point – quite mercilessly, losing his senses in a fit of rage and kicking her in the stomach several times. He kills his child in the name of honour when he is raped and beats Zainab several times in the film for “raising her voice” and “doubting hadith.” His beliefs are often naïve but also very common. He hates his Shite next-door neighbour, doesn’t believe in birth control, doesn’t believe in educating daughters, dislikes modern science, and holds superstitious beliefs. All this makes him a very strict, unhappy and angry man. The only two times he smiles in the film are when he thinks his wife has given birth to a son (who then is revealed by the doula to be a hermaphrodite) and when he is in the private chamber of his prostitute second wife. His innocent son notices his father’s behaviour very early on in his life. When Zainab encourages him to “act like a man” he says, “how hard is it to be a man? All you have to do is yell at your family and be angry.” Zainab corrects him that not all men are like their father.

That is the bottom line – while there may be many terrible men in this world, not all men are terrible. This world is beautiful because there are beautiful women and beautiful men. Good men like Hakim Sahab’s Shite neighbour and his son are also shown in the film. I think Shoaib Mansoor himself is a remarkable man for not only identifying but also boldly highlighting such disturbing issues.
Bol is a film that will leave you asking yourselves many questions. It is a film that has a hard throbbing feminist vein and since it is based on the life of a common Pakistani and Muslim family it may prove a valuable resource to those who are interested in exploring the lives of Muslim women in developing Muslim countries who don’t have the luxury, means or even the permission to know Islamic Feminism and what the movement is doing for their rights.

source

Women in Islam: Interview with Dr. Ingrid Mattson