Read Online Inside the Gender Jihad: Women's Reform in Islam by Amina Wadud - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: Amina Wadud
Tags: Religión, General, Social Science, Islam, womens studies, Feminism & Feminist Theory, Sexuality & Gender Studies, Islamic Studies
Ads: Link
the syllogism in column A, which is only technically correct as articulated. The fact that Fatima, for example, is also human but not a
man is hidden in the first syllogism. To ascribe
humanity
to a man
overlooks women’s humanity. Both syllogisms stand upon a fundamental logical error. The double-talk discourse housed within the rhetoric of human equality disguises the intention of legitimate exclusion or inconsis- tencies that keep women inferior. As housed this way, however, a woman’s objection would seem both irrational and un-Islamic.
Like the man from the halqah who began speaking about male–female equality only to follow it with “men have a degree over women,” there is no simple mechanism to correct the self-contradiction. It’s a set-up. While actual inequality cannot be corrected by language alone, at least examining the language used to create imbalance is useful in proposing a theory to create and sustain balance. The following theoretical question motivated my search: how can relations between women and men be maintained along a horizontal axis of equality and reciprocity?
Only a few of the most arrogant Muslim men would openly express their underlying belief that men are and must remain superior to women. Instead it is more common to contribute to the victimization of women and other men by the ambiguity of double-talk. In the end, it is also intended to impress upon the woman that if she is truly Muslim, she must remain satisfied with her rightful status – even if actually second-class. The use of the word “equal” in accordance with a definition that keeps men superior simultaneously confirms male superiority and silences analysis and opposition.
“Islam” among neo-traditionalists, neo-conservatives, extremists, and some Islamists 17 is selective use of primary sources and the Muslim intel- lectual legacy for the purpose of exclusion. Islamist discussion of the
vertical rhetoric of equality extensively employs the word complementarity. Each person, male or female, plays significant yet gender-specific roles. All roles are necessary and good; however, their distinctions must remain beneficial to each other only within the stasis of particular determinations of “natural complementarity.” This is tantamount to saying that women’s
What’s in a Name? 27
roles complement men’s nature. This is not only harmonious and organic, such thinking asserts, it is divine. But such complementarity has an unequal power dimension. A woman can complement a man like a tie complements a suit. The relative value of men’s roles and women’s roles in this fixed system says nothing about values attributed to those roles in the larger context of gender relations in family, community, and ultimately in geo- politics. It rhetorically and actually constructs an unequal relationship which, if disrupted, destroys something inherent to “Islam.” Thus com- plementarity discourse is a direct by-product of double-talk. While positively stressing relationships, it keeps their inequality central, by evalu- ating each player on a separate and unequal standard, leaving the relative power and privilege to men and male roles. It further concludes with the consequence and significance of the relationship as a whole by establishing it as fundamental to family bonds and community continuity. Particular roles played by members in the family are unevaluated, especially women’s morally voluntary contributions as nurturers and care-takers. Women continue with the double burden of supporting men’s autonomy as a means for honor in the patriarchal family. 18
No matter how Islam is defined, its foundation is tawhid . More than mere monotheism, the many nuances of tawhid have been and continue to be subjects of Islamic discourses. 19 In unique ways, many modern
Muslim thinkers have also contributed toward a greater understanding of the significance of tawhid as a major cornerstone of Islamic reform. 20 Yet all
man is hidden in the first syllogism. To ascribe
humanity
to a man
overlooks women’s humanity. Both syllogisms stand upon a fundamental logical error. The double-talk discourse housed within the rhetoric of human equality disguises the intention of legitimate exclusion or inconsis- tencies that keep women inferior. As housed this way, however, a woman’s objection would seem both irrational and un-Islamic.
Like the man from the halqah who began speaking about male–female equality only to follow it with “men have a degree over women,” there is no simple mechanism to correct the self-contradiction. It’s a set-up. While actual inequality cannot be corrected by language alone, at least examining the language used to create imbalance is useful in proposing a theory to create and sustain balance. The following theoretical question motivated my search: how can relations between women and men be maintained along a horizontal axis of equality and reciprocity?
Only a few of the most arrogant Muslim men would openly express their underlying belief that men are and must remain superior to women. Instead it is more common to contribute to the victimization of women and other men by the ambiguity of double-talk. In the end, it is also intended to impress upon the woman that if she is truly Muslim, she must remain satisfied with her rightful status – even if actually second-class. The use of the word “equal” in accordance with a definition that keeps men superior simultaneously confirms male superiority and silences analysis and opposition.
“Islam” among neo-traditionalists, neo-conservatives, extremists, and some Islamists 17 is selective use of primary sources and the Muslim intel- lectual legacy for the purpose of exclusion. Islamist discussion of the
vertical rhetoric of equality extensively employs the word complementarity. Each person, male or female, plays significant yet gender-specific roles. All roles are necessary and good; however, their distinctions must remain beneficial to each other only within the stasis of particular determinations of “natural complementarity.” This is tantamount to saying that women’s
What’s in a Name? 27
roles complement men’s nature. This is not only harmonious and organic, such thinking asserts, it is divine. But such complementarity has an unequal power dimension. A woman can complement a man like a tie complements a suit. The relative value of men’s roles and women’s roles in this fixed system says nothing about values attributed to those roles in the larger context of gender relations in family, community, and ultimately in geo- politics. It rhetorically and actually constructs an unequal relationship which, if disrupted, destroys something inherent to “Islam.” Thus com- plementarity discourse is a direct by-product of double-talk. While positively stressing relationships, it keeps their inequality central, by evalu- ating each player on a separate and unequal standard, leaving the relative power and privilege to men and male roles. It further concludes with the consequence and significance of the relationship as a whole by establishing it as fundamental to family bonds and community continuity. Particular roles played by members in the family are unevaluated, especially women’s morally voluntary contributions as nurturers and care-takers. Women continue with the double burden of supporting men’s autonomy as a means for honor in the patriarchal family. 18
No matter how Islam is defined, its foundation is tawhid . More than mere monotheism, the many nuances of tawhid have been and continue to be subjects of Islamic discourses. 19 In unique ways, many modern
Muslim thinkers have also contributed toward a greater understanding of the significance of tawhid as a major cornerstone of Islamic reform. 20 Yet all
Similar Books
