Who Speaks for Islam?

Today’s blog is a revision of a paper I wrote which analyzed the issues raised in Who Speaks for Islam using the tools articulated for such analysis in Moral Understandings.  Who Speaks for Islam is a report of a Gallup poll of approximately 90% of the world’s Muslim population.  It is a must read for all Americans.  I would love to say more on this…if you’re interested I can do a multi-part series analyzing the issues in deeper detail, just say the word.

Stereotyping of Muslim men and women which conceals their true personhood is accomplished by covert government operations to “protect” Westerners and Muslim women from allegedly Muslim “traits” of religious fundamentalism and sexism.  The United States government has participated in coups in the Middle East which have ousted democratically elected leaders whose political and religious views were not in alignment with American interests. Privatization is facilitated by the assumption that issues of “national security” require secrecy, which allows our government to intimidate and terrorize other nations without our awareness. As pointed out repeatedly in Who Speaks for Islam, such control by the U.S. results in increased extremism in Muslim countries.

This extremism has taken the form of terrorist tactics such as suicide bombings.  The “normal” response to these actions is military retaliation. “When practices that would otherwise look bad are rendered normal in these ways for certain contexts or people in them, those who rebel against what “everyone” accepts appear as irrational freaks, malcontents, unstable deviants” or terrorists (Walker 2007 p. 182).  We mistakenly view suicide bombings as acts of unprovoked aggression. 

Western refusal give credence to the stories of Muslims seals off “recognizable injuries and credible complaints” (Walker 2007182).  Maintained by restriction of information to U.S. citizens, the stereotypes garner our support for war against Islamic nations.  Americans are kept uninformed about the realities and complexities of the Muslim world or the consequences to Muslims and support these actions out of ignorance.

Stereotypes lead to “The rise of religious fundamentalisms in conjunction with conservative nationalisms, which are also in part reactions to global capital and its cultural demands,” which “has led to the policing of women’s bodies in the streets and in the workplaces” (Mohanty, 2003).   Esposito and Mogahed clarify that fundamentalist oppression of women is worsened by American attempts to control Muslim nations.  Oppression of women under Muslim rule is used as justification for American military aggression.  The US government is fueling the very behaviors it is using as an excuse to engage in military action; this may be intentional. 

Muslim women prioritize economic development and political stability over gender issues (Esposito and Mogahed 2007, 133).  They would like us to stop killing their brothers, husbands, fathers and most of all their children.  Creating space for truth telling would be a welcome step toward the healing the discord between Muslims and Westerners. It would allow Westerner’s to learn how to support Muslim women by using the tools inherent within the framework of their religious views, which are of utmost importance to them.

Religion has been usurped by the state, but nonetheless provides compelling mandates against greed and corruption.  Perhaps that is the primary reason that power holders are so eager to appropriate religion for themselves. This tendency is seen not only in the Muslim faith, but in the Christian faith as well.  Analyzing the process of this appropriation of meaning in the context of oppression using Walker’s tools has helped me to articulate what I have previously only been able to grasp intuitively.  As I said above, I can say a loooot more on this…just say the word!

REFERENCES

Esposito, J. and Mogahed, D. 2007. Who Speaks for Islam?  What a Billion Muslims Really Think. New York: Gallup Press.

Mahmood, Saba. “Feminism, Democracy, and Empire: Islam and the War of Terror” in Women’s Studies on the Edge, editied by Joan Wallach Scott, 81-114. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2008.

Mohanty, C. 2003. “Under Western Eyes” Revisited: Feminist Solidarity through Anticapitalist Struggles. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 28, no. 2 (Winter, 2003): 499-535.

Walker, Margaret Urban. (2007).  Moral Understandings: A Feminist Study in Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Consider This My Purple

I’ve been meaning to write this blog for two weeks, and putting it off about that long.  Two weeks ago I went to a panel discussion on Christianity and homosexuality.  The panel discussants suggested that the best defense against the religious right was to actually read the Bible.  I agree.  One of my favorite quotes is

The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals, and 362 to heterosexuals. This doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals, it's just that they need more supervision.
Lynn Lavner

That one cracks me up every time. The clearest admonishment against homosexuality is in Leviticus.  Chapter 20:13 says that if two men lay together both should be put to death.  It also says, in an adjacent passage, that if a man lays with an animal as with a woman both the man and the animal should be put to death.

Ironically, the religious right quotes Leviticus on homosexuality, but overlooks Leviticus when it comes to the immigration issue.  Leviticus 19:14 says “The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself.”  Yet the religious right insists on supporting draconian anti-immigration laws (i.e. SB1070 in Arizona).  Apparently Biblical literalism should stop short of endangering favored legislation or preventing narrow-minded meanness. 

It’s important to contextualize the anti-homosexuality clause.  In general, the priests who wrote Leviticus were very concerned with purity and separation and not morality per se.  If a field is used for wheat, it should not be used for barley.  They forbid the wearing of mixed fibers, believing that mixing fibers was risky business.  My Hebrew Bible professor, Dr. Fontaine, suggested asking those right wingers what they do about the elastic in their underpants.  But at any rate, the concern was not a moral one, but an issue of mixing things that the priests felt shouldn’t be mixed.

Along with asking the audience to read the Bible to help us stand more firmly against the religious right (who are most often wrong), the panel members suggested we all be out as either queer or queer allies because people who know someone gay are twice as likely to support gay rights (including the right to life free from bullying and humiliation). 

And that’s why I’ve been avoiding writing this blog.  Because I’m bisexual, and not everyone who reads my blog has known that until right now.  I’ve known this since I was 12, and some of you have known me even longer than that and never knew I was bisexual.   The most common middle school taunt was to call someone ‘gay’ and I was afraid I’d lose friends if anyone found out I was attracted to girls.  So I didn’t come out, and I wanted to never come out.  When I finally did come out, I came out in a lesbian community that was fairly hostile to bisexual women, so I came out as lesbian instead of bi, which amounted to trading closets. 

When I came to seminary I was going to go back in the closet.  Bisexuality is complicated, and I didn’t want to deal with it. Luckily I attend a seminary that supports queer clergy in tangible ways, including supporting queer student groups, classes on pastoral care of LGBT persons, and prayers of support for the recent victims of suicide due to being bullied about being gay.  So I decided to come out, because I need some sanity in my life and as Jesus said, “the truth will set you free.”

So here I am, coming out very publicly in my blog in support and solidarity with other queers.  The Bible has been used against us and I’ve had enough of it.  The hypocrisy is killing me.  Gay sex didn’t make the top ten and Jesus didn’t address it at all.  Whereas adultery was mentioned in both the Ten Commandments and Jesus’ own words, yet 65% of people in this country commit adultery at some time in their life.  So let’s tackle that problem first, y’know, “first remove the beam from your own eye so you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

Since you’ve read all the way to the end of this blog, begin reading the Bible.  Arm yourself with facts and find the quotes that support you in your liberal values, because they’re in there.  Wear purple today even though today is almost over with.  Be vocal in your support of gay rights and same-sex marriage, even if you’re not gay.  We all need a little help from our friends. 

Peace, love and blessings,

Shelley