Women’s Rights and Political Islam
November 2007
The following is a speech given by Donna M. Hughes, Professor and Carlson
Endowed Chairperson of the University of Rhode Island Women's Studies
Program.
Thank you to the URI College Republicans for organizing this week of awareness about
a major threat to world peace and freedom. Thank you for inviting me to speak about
how this global political movement threatens women’s freedom and rights.
I’ll start out by addressing terms. There are a number of terms that are used to refer to
the global political movement I want to talk about: Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic
extremism, Islamo-Fascism, Islamism, and Radical Islam.
I chose the term “political Islam,” a more neutral term, for the title of my talk, not
because I think one can equivocate about this global threat, but to emphasize that we
are talking about a political movement — a political movement based on selective
interpretations of the Koran.
I am not talking about all of Islam or all Muslims. Although as with any political
movement, it is built on particular traditions, culture and views; otherwise the movement
would have not appeal to the base from which the movement leaders want to draw their
support. I am talking about a political movement with an ideology, goals, and methods
for achieving their goals.
The term Islamic fundamentalism seems to imply that we are talking about a
conservative or traditional practice of Islam. When I use the term, I am referring, not to
conservative or “fundamentalist” interpretation of Islam. I am referring to a political
movement.
The term Islamic Fascism clearly links the phenomenon that we are talking about to a
political movement — fascism. Although the goals of radical Islam are not exactly like
those of Mussolini’s fascist movement, it evokes an authoritarian political goal and
differentiates the movement from a purely religion one. It does have a more harsh
sound to it and it doesn’t roll of the tongue very easily.
The term Islamic fascism was coined by moderate Algerian Muslims who were under
attack by Muslim extremists who wanted to impose Islamic or Shari'a law in Algeria.
Helie Lucas, the founder of Women Living Under Muslim Laws, explains that Islamofascism means the “political forces working under the cover of religion in order to gain
political power and to impose a theocracy … over democracy.”
Islamism is the word closest to what the advocates of this political movement use
themselves. Islamism is not the same thing as Islam. Islamism, with an “ism” on the end
connotes a political belief system, like feminism, communism, Nazism. And a supporter
of Islamism, is an Islamist, as in feminist or communist. This term is by far the easiest to
use, but I am hesitant to use it, 1) because it is easily confused with Islam or someone
who observes the Islamic faith, and 2) I have Muslim, pro-women’s rights, pro-freedom
supporters who consider themselves Islamists. They think that Islam is compatible with
democracy. They support a type of political Islam that recognizes the rights and
freedom of all people, and they are working to create such as state.
I will use all these terms in my talk. The important thing to remember is that I’m talking
about a political movement, not a whole religion or all Muslims. I’m talking about a
political movement with a set of beliefs and political goals, practices that put those
beliefs into action, and methods that impose their rule and belief system on others,
whether they are willing or not.
SOURCES
I want to tell you how I came to understand the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to
women, girls, and their rights. This occurred long before 9/11.
In 1994 to 1996, I worked as a Lecturer at the University of Bradford in England. The
city of Bradford has the largest population of Pakistanis outside of Pakistan. The loudest
sound in the city was the call to prayers broadcast from the mosque on the edge of
campus.
I learned that after Ayatollah Khomeini, the Supreme Religious Leader of Iran (i.e.
religious dictator) issued a fatwa calling for the murder of British author Salman
Rushdie, there were demonstrations in Bradford is support of the fatwa. Soon after I
arrived in Bradford, a young Muslim woman was murdered. She was run down by a car
driven by a family member as she was walking on the sidewalk to work. This was what
is called an “honor killing,” in which women and girls are killed by family members for
disobeying their fathers or for being too independent. She wanted freedom from an
arranged marriage and rigid cultural constraints on her life as a woman.
I joined an organization called Women Against Fundamentalism. It was formed by
mostly Muslim women of Asian descent after the fatwa to murder Rushdie. Its goal was
to oppose the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in England and its threat to women’s
freedom.
At the University of Bradford, I was in charge of a women’s studies major. We had
several Asian women, as the Pakistani and Indian women were called, on the course. I
soon learned that all of them were being pressured to drop out of school and accept
arranged marriages. They were guilt-tripped, threatened, and sometimes beaten.
I soon realized that staying enrolled at the university was the only thing that helped
them maintain a moderate level of freedom and independence. If they dropped out, they
would be forced into marriage.
A couple of the women couldn’t resist the constant pressure. They came to my office
and told me they were dropping out of school and accepting their family’s plans for
them. They tried to put a good face on it.
Some women were beaten by their families to force them out of school. I learned how
common this was when I made inquiries on how we could help a frightened, exhausted
young woman. The University maintained a set of rooms in the halls of residence for
women who needed emergency shelter each semester.
On a regular basis, I saw the political campaigns of the Islamists. Groups, such as Hizb
ut-Tahir, which is now banned, had literature tables in the lobby of the building where I
worked. I often stopped and picked up the pamphlets. I was particularly interested in
what they said about women and women’s rights. Their goal was, and is, to unify all
Muslim countries into one Islamic state ruled by Islamic or sharia law. They predicted
that in the near future, they would take over the UK and turn it into an Islamic state.
Their literature stated that they would advance women’s rights by protecting them from
the kind of harassment and violence that western women are subjected to. Wearing the
veil or hijab would protect them from sexual harassment and sexual assault. The
political tracts stated that they respected women and would allow women to stay in the
home and take care of their families where they would be protected by their fathers,
brothers, and husbands. These were not presented as choices for women, but their
roles and destinies under Islamic rule.
I believe that people mean what they say and write about. I took the Islamists at their
word. I showed the pamphlets to my colleagues, asking “Have you read these things?
Do you know what they say they are going to do?”
Two years ago, when the world learned that the suicide bombers on the London
underground were from Leeds, a city just ten miles east of Bradford, I was not
surprised, as some were, that the terrorists were homegrown. I had read their literature
ten years before.
In 1996, my education about Islamic fundamentalism expanded from the local level to
the global when I met groups of Iranian exiles living in Europe, the U.S. and Canada.
They were survivors of the Khomeini revolution in Iran, which brought to power the first
modern theocracy, which means "rule by religious leaders." They (the Iranian exiles)
had supported a liberal interpretation of Islam, freedom, democracy, and rights for
women. Many of them had been arrested for opposing the rise of Islamic
fundamentalists to power in Iran. Some had been tortured. Many of them had friends
and relatives who were executed by the Iranian regime.
For the past 11 years, I have continued to learn about Islamic fundamentalism from
them and have supported their conferences for women’s rights, democracy, and
freedom.
I learned from them what happens to women when religious fascists — a term used by
my Iranian friends — come to power.
I have also learned about the fate of women under Islamic fundamentalism from groups
like Women Living Under Muslim Laws and the Revolutionary Association of Women of
Afghanistan.
ISLAMIC FASCISTS, POLITICAL IDEOLOGY, AND PRACTICE
When Islamic fascists put their political ideology into practice, they use methods we call
terrorism — the systematic targeting of civilian populations using violent means. The
first place they exert their power is on the local level. I like to say that terrorism begins at
home. The first victims are usually women and girls.
Islamic fundamentalist ideology rejects universal equality and rights as set out by the
UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the basic principles and rights on which
democracies are based.
The Islamic fundamentalism ideology rejects liberalism, women’s rights, moderate and
liberal interpretations and practices of Islam, and promotes discrimination against nonMuslim religious groups, particularly Jews.
The political goal of Islamic fascists is to create a religious dictatorship, based on their
version of Shari'a or religious-based law. They oppose democracy and the western
concept of freedom, claiming that Western democracies and laws are man made, and
only the laws of God or Shari'a laws are valid.
According to Shari'a law, Jews and other non-Muslims, such as Christians and Hindus,
can only have secondary status as citizens. There is no freedom of religion. For
example, under Shari'a law, if a Muslim converts to another faith, he or she can be
punished by death.
Under Islamic fundamentalist ideology and law, men and women are not equal. Women
are considered to be physically, emotionally, intellectually, and morally inferior to men.
Under Taliban rule in Afghanistan, women were not permitted to go to school or to work
or to leave the house unless accompanied by a male relative and had to wear a burqa
— a bag-like garment that covers the whole body and has only a mesh opening to see
out.
In Iran, women are not permitted to run for president or be judges because they are not
emotionally capable of making decisions. Women and girls are not permitted freedom of
movement or freedom of dress. They are required to wear the covering chosen by the
religious leaders.
Women and girls are seen as morally weak and must be prevented from having contact
with men who are not family members. Sexual misconduct, which can be an act as
simple as a girl talking to or meeting a man from outside her family, is considered to be
a violation of her family’s honor. The shame she has brought on the family can only be
wiped out by killing her. This is the basis of “honor killings.”
In Iran, there are official “crimes against chastity,” which includes things such as having
a baby without being married. For violations of these laws, a woman or girl can be
flogged or even hanged.
The most torturous form of punishment in Iran is stoning to death. Currently, eight
women are imprisoned, waiting to be stoned to death in Iran. This form killing is not
found in the Koran, it is a barbaric form of killing used centuries ago and brought into
modern times by Islamic fundamentalists. [Editor's note: While it is strictly true that
stoning is not mentioned in the Koran, it is not prohibited, and it says in the Koran many
times that Muhammad should be used as an example to imitate, and Muhammad
endorsed stoning as a punishment.]
Under Shari'a law, all public facilities, such as hospitals, classrooms, and buses, are
segregated. These laws make women officially second class citizens without equal
rights. A Muslim, Iranian woman coined a name for this system — gender apartheid.
This kind of misogyny, or woman-hating, is at the heart of Islamic fascists’ control of a
population. If you suppress 50 percent of the population, and systemically punish
violators by public stonings, hangings, and whippings, you can terrorize an entire
population.
IS CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM THE SAME AS ISLAMIC
FUNDAMENTALISM?
Frequently, when I speak about Islamic fundamentalism, someone suggests that
Muslims may have Islamic fundamentalists, but the U.S. has Christian fundamentalists.
The implication being that they are the same. This equivalency is flawed thinking.
The U.S. is a democracy that guarantees fundamental freedoms and rights. The
Christian Right is a political movement of conservative Christians. They may have
political and social views and goals that you may not agree with, but they operate within
a democratic framework. To influence policy and laws, they use their rights as citizens
to form advocacy organizations, lobby, and vote.
When adherents to these views resort to violence, such as the bombing of abortion
clinics, it is treated as an act of violence, and the perpetrators are arrested and
punished. And most leaders of Christian Right organizations condemn these acts of
political violence.
I’ve never heard a Christian fundamentalist call for the takeover of the U.S. government
by radical preachers or priests, or to have Christian or Biblical law replace the U.S.
Constitution.
That’s the difference between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism:
One respects democracy, fundamental rights and freedoms, and the democratic
process, the other doesn’t, and its goal is to destroy democracy, freedom, and the
democratic process.
MULTICULTURALISM VS. UNIVERSALISM
I want to talk about why this flawed equivalency between Islamic fundamentalism and
Christian fundamentalism has become so popular and why it seems to have become so
hard to differentiate between oppressive political systems and practices and democratic
political systems and liberal practices.
Today, advocacy for multiculturalism has replaced support for universalism.
Universalism is based on universal principles of human rights, equality, freedom, and
democracy, as laid out in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and before
that the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
Other democracies have their own constitutions and founding sets of documents.
Today, these visions and commitments to universal equality among people have
become secondary to advocacy for multiculturalism. Embedded in multicultural ideology
is cultural relativism, the principle that all cultures are equal, must be respected, and
cannot be criticized. Or if one does criticize another culture or religious practice, the
speaker must immediately point out deficiencies in other cultures and religious
practices, or at least those of his or her own, in this case, the U.S.
One cannot advocate for relative rights and freedoms without rejecting universal
principles of freedom and rights. If you unconditionally accept and respect other cultural
and religious practices, the first group that always loses is women. Most discriminatory
attitudes and practices are based on culture, tradition, and religion. Women’s greatest
hope for freedom and rights comes with the promotion of universal principles of freedom
and rights; then women can claim their equality.
Today, I see students in class being fearful of discussing types of violence against
women or the oppression of women. Although they may be horrified by honor killings or
female genital mutilation, they feel they have to accept it because it’s someone else’s
culture or religion.
They think it is unacceptable to advocate for other women’s freedom and rights because
it might violate the others' cultures or religions, and that would be imposing their view on
another culture or religion. While at first glance this may sound respectful, it translated
into remaining silent and accepting some of the worst human rights violations against
women.
Following acceptance of multiculturalism, they withdraw into isolationism. If we must
respect all other cultures and religious practices, then there is nothing to do about
violations of women’s rights around the world. They often oppose any efforts to improve
the lives of women in other countries. They justify this isolationism by saying they have
enough work on women’s issues here at home and they should concentrate on that.
WHAT DO MUSLIM WOMEN WANT?
Women join political movements. There are Muslim women who have joined the Islamic
fundamentalists. There are women who voluntarily put on the hijab and support the
oppression of other women.
There are probably some women who just want to be left in peace to live a quiet life.
But there are also women who want freedom and rights, who strongly reject IslamoFascism, and who have organized to oppose Islamic fundamentalism.
I believe we have a responsibility to differentiate between Islamic fascist and prodemocracy groups. I don’t believe there is a moral equivalency between them. I don’t
believe it is disrespectful to judge other systems and practices and to condemn human
rights violations and the oppression of women. I don’t believe it is "imperialistic" to
support other women’s struggles for freedom and rights.
I believe that rights come with responsibilities. The people in this room are among the
freest in the world. I believe we have a responsibility to not turn our privileged backs on
other women. I believe we have a responsibility to use our freedom and rights to help
others.
I believe we should be using our freedom of speech, our freedom of association, and
our educations and access to communications technology to assist other women to
achieve the same set of rights and standards of well-being.
You can start by learning more about the conditions for women under Shari'a law. You
can research how Islamic fundamentalism is spreading and the impact that is having on
women. You can research different Muslim women’s groups. You can find out how to
get involved in supporting different organizations.
I’ll end with a quote from Maryam Rajavi, a leader of the opposition against the
theocracy in Iran. In a text entitled The Price of Freedom, she says:
The Iranian woman is today engaged in the most serious, most difficult and most
decisive battle of her destiny … Women are the prime victims of oppression under the
clerical regime and they have the highest explosive potential against the regime. The
survival of the clerical regime is also intertwined with the suppression of women. …
[Women] are humiliated and tortured every day, only because they are women. Yet they
have never surrendered. They use every opportunity to voice their protest against the
clerical regime and stage demonstrations.
And further, to those who think that Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week is intolerant,
bigoted, and anti-Muslim, I will again return to The Price of Freedom by Maryam Rajavi
as she describes the process of liberation of women from Islamic fundamentalism:
One must, first and foremost, confront such a mentality, particularly in light of the fact
that this interpretation or reactionary spell has a historical precedent for women. It is
said that the situation of women has always been like this and that she must be grateful
to anyone who offers her compassion and mercy. Only when you rebel against this trap
and understand the futility of this spell, the deadlock is broken, the road becomes clear,
and you take the next steps. I do believe that a woman’s emancipation begins the
moment she breaks this spell and believes that rebellion and resistance against tyranny
are her inalienable rights. It is from this moment that no power in the world can prevent
the liberation of a woman who has decided to be free.