بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Tag: Liberation

  • World Hijab Day: Modesty Is Not the Opposite of Freedom

    World Hijab Day: Modesty Is Not the Opposite of Freedom

    Non-Muslims often use the word “oppressed” to describe Muslim women. It is such a ubiquitous term that you will find right-wing Islamophobes, left-wing social justice warriors, and average people applying it regularly, as if it is a de facto aspect of being a Muslim female. The people who use this terminology usually do not know anything about Islam, nor have they asked a single Muslim woman how she feels about her religion and her wardrobe.

    The word “oppressed” carries a lot of weight. It implies that Muslim women are perpetual victims without agency or choice; that they are coerced or brainwashed into following their faith; that they are inherently different from the rest of women, who are assumed to be liberated; that there is some sinister power forcing them into submission; that Muslim women are prevented from living a full life.

    If they bothered to ask Muslim women why they cover their hair and body, people would find that the vast majority do so willingly, as a wayof practicing their faith and obeying their Creator. Far from being imposed on women by nations or governments, the Islamic dress code is currently only mandated in three nations– Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Iran. In the rest of the world, including Muslim-majority nations, the Islamic headscarf is optional or even illegal. In some countries like Tunisia and Turkey, where Islam is the predominant religion, women still had to fight for the right to wear a headscarf in public because it had been banned in all state institutions and government facilities. There are rules explicitly prohibiting Muslim women from wearing outward signs of their religious beliefs in France and Belgium, where Islam is the second most widely professed religion. So, for women who choose to dress in accordance with Islamic guidelines, it is a decision that they make freely and, in fact, courageously.

    Modest or Revealing Attire: Which Is Liberating?

    Interestingly, the term “oppressed” is almost always applied only to the Muslim women who choose to cover their hair. Those who do not are very rarely characterized as being oppressed. Even if they follow all the other tenets of Islam (praying, fasting, striving for a wholesome character, avoiding pork and alcohol, etc.) but leave their hair exposed, these women are much more likely to be considered “modern” or “liberated” because they look more like the non-Muslim women around them. But why has covering one’s body, and particularly one’s hair, been equated with oppression, while revealing them is considered liberating and progressive?

    On the most basic level, many non-Muslims simply assume that modest Islamic attire is limiting – that it prevents women from living a full life because it is too bulky or restrictive. They doubt that Muslim women can do things like play sports, fulfill their job requirements, and function in the real world while wearing modest clothing. They are unaware of, or possibly ignore, thousands of examples of successful Muslim athletes, professionals, world leaders, and activists who pursue their interests and careers while modestly dressed. Instead, they point to extreme and isolated examples, like burqa-wearing women living under Taliban rule. Choosing an extreme example and ignoring the reality of millions of women is a very common tactic. This article on seeker.com, called “Life behind the burqa in Afghanistan” is typical of mainstream media:“Afghanistan was once seen as a fairly progressive country for women’s rights. According to Amnesty International, in the 1970’s, Afghan women not only went out in public without covering their heads, they also wore short skirts and high heels. They dressed quite similarly to women in western countries.”

    Let’s look at what the author is doing in this paragraph. She is assuming that short skirts + high heels + western countries = progressive. And clearly, in her mind, “progressive” here means something good, liberal, and enlightened. This is the narrative that most people believe, and few bother to question it or think too deeply about it. It is rooted in ethnocentric ideas, ignorance, and arrogance.

    Is it more liberating to wear short skirts and high heels? Most of us in the West have been programmed to think that. But why do the majority of women dress the way they do? Is it because they truly long to wear impractical shoes that force their feet at an unnatural angle and pull muscles and joints out of alignment? Is it because they love to spend their life chasing the elusive dream of a perfect, bikini- or miniskirt-worthy body that has no excess fat or signs of aging or imperfection?

    When women’s clothing is designed to reveal their bodies, and society simultaneously promotes unrealistic ideals of female beauty, making a woman’s physical appearance her most salient characteristic, it is a perfect storm. Women will feel compelled to wear those fashionable styles – no matter how impractical– and will invest a great deal of time, money, and energy into molding and manipulating their body to fit the ideal. Preying on women’s insecurities and making them feel never quite attractive enough is a multi-billion-dollar global industry. Hair products, makeup, cosmetic surgery, diet pills, supplements, and weight loss programs are all part of the system that shackles women to the idea that their worth is tied to their outward appearance. If women didn’t care so much about how they look in revealing clothing, it would cause a monumental, earth-shattering financial upheaval.

    Who Is Brainwashed?

    Non-Muslims sometimes accuse modestly dressed Muslim women of being brainwashed. Perhaps they should consider whether they themselves are brainwashed by a sick global mentality that regularly exploits women’s bodies, focuses on their physique rather than their minds and souls, objectifies the female form, and makes women slaves to an unattainable version of female physical perfection.

    Muslim women who choose to dress modestly believe they are following the commandment of God. Their motivation is to make their soul their first priority and to privatize their body, making it inaccessible to public scrutiny. For most Muslim women, therefore, modest clothing is indeed liberating.

    Whether we realize it or not, we are all slaves to something. There is always at least one force that influences our actions and motivates our behavior. Most people’s primary goal is to be seen as fashionable, or beautiful, or popular, or wealthy, or admired. For many women, the desire to be considered attractive above all else has been programmed into them since childhood. But a person cannot be liberated until they willingly choose what they submit to. Muslim women choose to submit to God and His commandments. Whether or not those rules correspond to society’s current trends does not matter to the devout Muslim because man-made beliefs are inherently inferior to divine decree.

    Muslim women are not trying to force non-Muslims to dress modestly or to think the way we do. We simply want the right to dress according to our own religious beliefs, and to do so safely and with dignity. Ignorant people will undoubtedly continue calling us “oppressed.” But whether society chooses to recognize our agency, competence, and free will is irrelevant because our true liberation lies in our indifference to the whims of the world.

  • The ‘Liberation’ of Libya: Death of a Nation

    The ‘Liberation’ of Libya: Death of a Nation

    Much of the world was aghast as CNN broadcast the gruesome images of Black Africans, bound and tethered like animals, being prepared for sale in a stockyard bustling with potential buyers. This market in the former Italian colony of Libya was auctioning not camels or goats, but people, human beings to be bought and used as slaves. The assault on one’s sense of reality and justice continued as scenes of captive men, and some women and children, were terrorized by goons wielding guns, sticks, batons, and even machetes.
    As if media-captured scenes of flesh peddling were not revolting enough to jar human sensibilities, some former captives related that their organs had been harvested, against their will and with little to no regard for sanitary conditions or anesthesia. Libya has become the major transit point for illegal immigrants trying to flee griping poverty in their home countries such as Nigeria, Gambia, Ghana, and Ethiopia. Even though over 3,000 Africans have perished each year since 2013 in the journey to Europe to pursue a better life, according to the UN agency, the International Organization for Migration, thousands continue to embark on this perilous trek. After arriving in the North African nation, migrants are crammed into detention centers that are grossly over-crowded, festering grounds for robbery, rape, and murder, as detailed in a recent United Nations report.

    Libya today is a failed state, mired in chaos, destruction and killing by warring factions, and infiltration of ISIS and other extremist fighters

    Libya today is a failed state, mired in chaos, destruction and killing by warring factions, and infiltration of ISIS and other extremist fighters. The political turmoil and lawlessness follows Western intervention in 2011 when NATO forces, in conjunction with strategic and intelligence support, and naval missiles from the United States, bombed Libya in a concerted effort to defeat the Libyan military and remove the longest, continuously-reigning leader on the African continent, Muammar Qadhafi. In the aftermath of NATO’s unrelenting aerial assault, government buildings, residents’ housing, infrastructure of the capital, Tripoli, as well as in Benghazi, Sirte, and other population centers, suffered near-total devastation. Libya’s sophisticated desalinization system, high-tech, elaborate irrigation network, extensive telecommunications, and transportation systems were reduced to rubble by the constant bombardment of the country by NATO.
    Colonel Qadhafi led the Free Officers Movement in the September 1, 1969 ouster of Libyan King Idris I. King Idris ruled Libya from the time the nation received its independence in 1951 to his 1969 overthrow. In 1951, Libya was deemed the poorest nation in the world. Six major oil fields were discovered in the country in 1959, with 40 countries given concession contracts to drill and explore for the precious crude. At the time of NATO’s destruction of Libya and the subsequent capture and murder of Qadhafi in the streets by Libyan rebels, Libyan crude was highly valued because of its unusually low sulfur content. Ninety percent of Libya’s oil was sold to Europe, and some political observers contend that NATO’s bombing campaign against Libya was more about securing the sweet Libyan crude for European oil oligarchs than removing a declared dictator.

    Qadhafi: Pariah or Liberator?

    Muammar Qadhafi was considered a political pariah and supporter of terrorism by most Western governments during his 42-year rule in Libya. But to most African, Latin American, and Asian liberation movements, and countries attempting to throw off the yoke of colonialism and neo-colonialism, Qadhafi represented a valued financial and ideological supporter of their political ideals. To many Libyans, Qadhafi was a brutal dictator who abused his power while entrenching his family members and loyalists in power. Other Libyans chose to emphasize the fact that during his rule, Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa; that before Qadhafi, Libya’s literacy rate was 20 percent and under his rule literacy rose to 83 percent of the population; that health care was free and of high quality to every country resident; that housing was considered a human right; that electricity was free; that newly married couples received $50,000 from the government; that the government paid 50 percent of the cost of automobiles for any Libyan; that the government provided free secondary and college education; and that Black Africans were given positions of responsibility in all sectors of Libyan society.

    Shortly after Qadhafi’s extrajudicial execution, freelance and mainstream journalists from around the world began reporting that Black Libyans and Black migrants from sub-Saharan countries were being summarily dismissed from their jobs, harassed, beaten, and even killed by mob violence. NPR’s West African reporter was told by a Turkish oil worker in 2011, “We left behind our friends from Chad. We left behind their bodies. We had 70 or 80 people from Chad working for our company. They [Libyan rebels] cut them dead with pruning shears and axes, attacking them, saying you’re providing troops for Qadhafi. The Sudanese, the Chadians were massacred. We saw it ourselves.” One of the ironies of the “liberation” of Libya by rebels is that many of these same rebels hunted down, lynched, and even massacred Black Africans across Libya, many of whom had been living in the country for decades. These paroxysms of racism and violence were unleashed when the established law and order were destroyed by the removal of Qadhafi.

    In a poignant essay written by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, entitled “The Racialization of the War: Libya and the ‘Clash of Civilizations,’” found in the book “The Illegal War on Libya,” edited by Cynthia McKinney, Nazemroaya writes, “In the eyes of NATO and the so-called West, Libya’s crime was how it distributed and used its wealth, its lack of external debts, and the key role it was attempting to play in continental development and curtailing of external influence in Africa. Tripoli was a spoiler that effectively undermined the interests of the former colonial powers. The Jamahriya (Libya) had taken on some hefty pan-African development plans intended to industrialize Africa and transform it into an integrated and assertive political entity. These initiatives conflicted with the interests of the external powers competing with one another in Africa, but it was especially unacceptable to Washington and the major EU countries. Accordingly, Libya had to be crippled and neutralized as an entity supportive of African progress and pan-African unity.”

    Whatever one thinks about Qadhafi, nothing justifies the disintegration of a viable sovereign nation into a cauldron of violence, disunity, racism, and suffering — a true humanitarian crisis — because another nation or a coalition of nations decided that the leader had to be taken down. While the West spouted noble intentions – “to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack,” taking out a dictator and sending a message to dictators everywhere, or supporting the Libyan “freedom fighters” — these were pretenses intended to conceal much more crass motivations, always revolving around supremacism (exceptionalism, racism, sexism, elitism), greed, and lust for power. Supremacism in all its forms is a virulent cancer, whether it’s used to justify regime change or the enslavement of a human being. Who could believe that in the 21st century we would see images of chattel slavery in real time? But then who would have believed that a man who stokes the fires of racism, fanatic patriotism, sexism, and xenophobia would be elected president of the United States!