Fury of (Muslim) Feminists Scorned

London Slutwalk

by Lenna

Muslim Matters recently published an article by Daniel Haqiqatjou entitled, “The Hypocrisy of Feminist Outrage.” It isn’t easy challenging feminist orthodoxy, and I commend Haqiqatjou for daring to do so, and for standing his ground. He kept his composure in comments, where I found his arguments well reasoned, just as they were in the article itself. I would characterize Haqiqatjou’s article mainly as an expression of common sense and recommend reading it in full.

Predictably the author faced an onslaught of critical comments from angry feminists and their allies. The post also prompted a rebuttal on Muslim Girl entitled, “Muslim Feminists Respond: The Hypocrisy of the Male-Centric Narrative.” The rebuttal is emotionally charged, much longer than the original article, and packed with vaguely related tangents. Filled with easily recognizable feminist lexicon and talking points, it is signed by several women, who say they are:

…responding because we have seen a dangerous trend of Muslim men speaking on behalf of women and chastising women for violence that is mainly perpetrated by men…the author centers male opinions and experiences on a form of violence that disproportionately impacts women. He purports to speak as an expert on a form of violence he hasn’t himself faced on a daily basis, and which he benefits from as an extension of his male privilege.  ~ Muslim Feminists Respond

Except that Haqiqatjou doesn’t “purport to speak as an expert” on street harassment, nor does he claim to speak on behalf of women. He explains that these issues do impact him on a daily basis as well:

Let me be frank. As a Muslim man, it is not easy walking through the streets these days. Women’s fashion continues to get increasingly sexy and provocative, and, in effect, public spaces are increasingly sexualized. From an Islamic perspective, the harm caused to individuals by this is clear and inarguable. Even from a non-religious perspective, constantly bombarding men with sexiness can be tortuous. Think of men or adolescent males who for whatever reason cannot find a sexual partner. Or think of married men being endlessly tempted by strangers as soon as they step out of the house. And, of course, the same or analogous harm can be inflicted on women by provocatively dressed men.

So, given the extent of this harm, why can’t concerned members of society raise their voices and say, enough is enough? ~ The Hypocrisy of Feminist Outrage

Even though he has clearly explained that being bombarded with sexiness can be “tortuous” for men, his detractors dismissed his concerns, implying “male opinions” simply don’t count:

…..The author contends, why don’t we accept that sexual harassment goes both ways? Because the truth is, it doesn’t go both ways

His entire argument is that it does go both ways. Catcalls are not the only form of harassment. Harassment: “to disturb persistently” or “bother continually.”  Did he not just say being bombarded with sexiness can be “tortuous”? Women should be able to walk the streets in peace, and he is asking for feminists to consider giving men that same right. But his detractors make it clear he doesn’t get a say in the matter:

When addressing women’s issues, rather than having women participate in the dialogue and asking women for the solution, men constantly seize the public platform to discuss issues they cannot speak to and issues that do not punitively affect them. ~ Muslim Feminists Respond

Why can’t men share the public platform? Shouldn’t it be up to men to decide how these issues impact them? Instead of taking into account his views, his critics level serious accusations about his motives for writing the article:

…the most dangerous piece of the author’s article is tacit approval of male aggression and violence against women as “deserved,” given that he believes that women are asking for it by their choices of self-expression…

…We must move beyond the excuses used to condone sexism. ~ Muslim Feminists Respond

Here is what Haqiqatjou actually wrote:

Does this mean that the woman in the viral video deserved the disrespectful treatment? Does this mean that a scantily dressed woman (or man) deserves to be sexually assaulted?

Absolutely not. Such harassment is never justifiable. ~ The Hypocrisy of Feminist Outrage

Now we arrive at the crux of the matter. Feminists attempt to shut down the discussion anytime someone suggests the way women dress is relevant by hurling accusations of “victim blaming” or “slut shaming.” Any man who persists in this line of discussion is likely to be deemed a “rape apologist.”

…the author’s point also plays into the dangerous myth that Muslim women who abide by “modest” dress codes don’t really experience sexual violence at the same rate that “less modest” women do...

The literature hasn’t found that the leading reason for sexual harassment is women’s clothing. That is the personal opinion of the author …~ Muslim Feminists Respond

We don’t have to depend solely on the “opinion of the author,” because he linked to a highly relevant video to substantiate his case:

10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman in Hijab

A single video isn’t proof, but it is evidence of some correlation between the way women dress and the way men react. Walking down the street in a burqa is not going to elicit the same reaction as walking down the street in a string bikini. Do we need more than common sense to recognize this obvious reality?

What is the root cause of sexual violence? The feminist authors actually list three causes:

The author mischaracterizes sexual harassment as stemming from women’s dress, but, in fact, research on the causes of sexual harassment has found that there are three driving reasons for sexual harassment of women:

  1. Harassment for individual male sexual gratification: called predatory harassers;

  2. Harassment to assert male dominance and power over women: called dominance harassers;

  3. Harassment to protect male spaces from women: called strategic/territorial harassers.

How can it be that “individual male sexual gratification” is completely untethered from women’s sex appeal? Human behavior is complex, and there’s no doubt rape is about more than just sex, but feminists consistently downplay sex as a factor in sex-related crimes such as rape. If the “root cause” of rape is power and dominance, this bolsters the point women’s dress has absolutely nothing to do with the matter of sexual assault. But is it true?

The feminist magazine Jezebel has inadvertently offered a glimpse of reality in an article entitled Can You Tell The Difference Between A Men’s Magazine And A Rapist? The point of the article was not to question feminist orthodoxy, but to show how men’s magazines allegedly “[normalize] the treatment of women as sexual objects”:

Well, this is upsetting. According to a new study, people can’t tell the difference between quotes from British “lad mags” and interviews with convicted rapists. And given the choice, men are actually more likely to agree with the rapists. ~ Jezebel

The article then intersperses quotes from rapists with those from a men’s magazine. Here are some of the quotes from rapists:

1. There’s a certain way you can tell that a girl wants to have sex . . . The way they dress, they flaunt themselves.

2. Some girls walk around in short-shorts . . . showing their body off . . . It just starts a man thinking that if he gets something like that, what can he do with it?

5. What burns me up sometimes about girls is dick-teasers. They lead a man on and then shut him off right there.

11. Girls ask for it by wearing these mini-skirts and hotpants . . . they’re just displaying their body . . . Whether they realise it or not they’re saying, ‘Hey, I’ve got a beautiful body, and it’s yours if you want it.’

14. I think if a law is passed, there should be a dress code . . . When girls dress in those short skirts and things like that, they’re just asking for it. 

Feminists may say this only confirms their claims that men shift the blame to victims. But the fact remains this is how men react to women, and obviously, the way women dress has an impact. The sexual crime of rape is about violence and it’s also about sex.

Feminists can insist men should not react this way but to argue they do not react this way is to deny reality.

Jezebel also published an article entitled Rapists Explain Themselves on Reddit, and We Should Listen:

Rapists and would-be rapists are opening up about “the other side of the story” — theirs — on a massive Reddit thread about the motivations behind sexual assault. The conversations range from exasperating to disturbing, and the whole of it may make you want to roll your eyes in disgust. But you shouldn’t dismiss the thread as mere rape apologia. There’s plenty of that, sure, but there’s also a lot more to it. ~ Jezebel

Here are some relevant quotes:

I was a freshman and hooking up with this girl who got naked in bed with me, then said no. I think she just wanted to do oral. I was extremely horny and already close to doing it, so I ignored her and did it. She realized what was happening and tried to clamp her legs shut, but it was too late and I was much stronger than her…

…It was then I looked at her face. She was petrified. I at that point pulled myself together, rolled off her and apologized. My hormones were RAGING. I asked her why she didn’t want to. I told her what I thought above. She started to cry…

…Most girls don’t really understand how horny guys are, how much stronger guys are, how guys will rationalize what they do. I see feminists and women on the Internet saying that no means no and women should be able to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted, and I couldn’t agree [more]. But the reality of the situation is that women have to be careful because guys are one way when they’re hanging out and another way when they’re horny or worse drunk and horny. That doesn’t make what happened okay, but it is what it is.

It is what it is. Or is it? Can anyone read these quotes from actual rapists and say that sex is not a prime motivator for rape? Not the ONLY one, but certainly not irrelevant. Women do have sexual power over men, and yes ladies, rape IS about sex. We know that because rapists say so, and I see no reason to take the word of a feminist over an actual rapist when the topic is what motivates rapists to rape. Yet feminists continue to downplay sex as an aspect of sexual crimes and insist the way a woman dresses it “irrelevant”:

…We must understand that perpetrators of sexual violence seek to exact power and control over women, and that what a woman wears is irrelevant…To diminish all forms of sexual violence by making it all about the wardrobe is an insidious lie used to veil [dual usage of the word intended] the root causes…

…How simplistic is it of us to think that sexual violence, including street sexual harassment, can be prevented by pieces of clothing as if there is a magical guard? ~ Muslim Feminists Respond

Haqiqatjou never claimed pieces of clothing are a “magical guard.” What he wrote is this:

No one claims that dressing modestly will completely foreclose on the possibility of receiving negative attention. The claim is simply that, all else being equal, modest dress, e.g., hijab, significantly reduces the likelihood of such harassment. In fact, a recent youtube video demonstrated precisely this claim in spectacular fashion. So, yes, while women in hijab are, unfortunately, frequent victims of catcalling in Cairo’s busy streets, for example, the undeniable fact remains that the harassment would be much, much worse if these same women were dressed in yoga pants, tank tops, and other common Western styles. ~ The Hypocrisy of Feminist Outrage

Critics accused Haqiqatjou playing into a “dangerous myth” that “Muslim women who abide by ‘modest’ dress codes don’t really experience sexual violence at the same rate that ‘less modest’ women do.” Is that really a myth? If it is not a myth but a fact, then could it be that feminists are promoting a “dangerous myth” that suggests to potential victims the way they dress is “irrelevant”?

Whose conclusion best fits with the facts? If the question is what motivates rapists, who better to ask than rapists? If the question is about how men react to women, who better to ask than men? Yet feminists insist men should listen to them and refrain from imposing their “male-centric narrative.” Feminists appear steadfast in their insistence that because they believe appearance should not impact they way people are treated, that alters reality so that appearance actually does not impact the way people are treated:

The author of “The Hypocrisy of Feminist Outrage” asks, “Is it completely outlandish to suggest that the way a woman (or man) dresses has an impact on how others treat her (or him)?” And to him, we answer: That is absolutely an outlandish suggestion. The question we instead need to ask as a society is “Why does a woman’s appearance, or anyone’s appearance, impact the way they are treated by others?” ~ Muslim Feminists Respond

Feminism demands the right for all people to be respected as human beings, and not to be judged or punished for individual choices of self-expression. ~ Muslim Feminists Respond

This high-sounding preaching doesn’t square with the feminist’s reaction to Haqiqatjou’s request that his sensitivities also be considered. How can men be excluded from “all people” who deserve to be “respected as human beings”? If he says it’s “tortuous” to be bombarded by women in sexy clothing, why is that so easily dismissed? Why don’t men also have a right to neutral space? Asking women to dress decently and understand the sexual power they have over men is not “misogyny.” It’s reciprocity.

The author makes the assumption that it is women’s dress choices that have resulted in the sexualization of public spaces. He ignores the fact that systems of power (e.g. media, government, the economy) are controlled by men who exploit women’s bodies and profit off dehumanized and hyper-sexualized images of women…

The author didn’t point to women’s dress choices, but rather the Sexual Revolution, as resulting in the sexualization of public spaces. Also, he did criticize the “hyper-sexualized images of women”:

If anyone can be blamed for the erosion of basic norms of sexual propriety as seen in the catcalling video and elsewhere, some of the blame must fall on the “Sexual Revolution” itself. What is obvious is that the hypersexualization of the public space in modern times, driven by the “sexual revolutionaries” of the past 50 years, is directly contributing to the catcalling and harassment happening on the streets of our cities, among other things.

How so?

The 20th century Sexual Revolution in the West was meant to subvert sexual norms and standards of behavior between the sexes — norms and standards deemed coquettish at best, oppressive at worst. What feminists, modernists, and sexual revolutionaries failed to realize in their haste to overturn the old rules is that some of those mores might have actually served a crucial purpose. 

…..The lasting effects of the Sexual Revolution are reverberating in the street, in our homes, and in our psyches. Young people are the unfortunate victims. Things are so confused that girls are having trouble understanding if they have been victims of rape or not. Boys are insecure if they have not lost their virginity by the end of middle school.

Just look at the contradictions in the field of fashion itself. Girls as young as 10 are encouraged to dress sexy, but what does this amount to other than attracting sexual attention from others? Obviously certain kinds of attention are socially acceptable and others are not, but what are these standards grounded in?…

Now we arrive at a key question. What is the basis for present-day standards about what is socially acceptable? In a purely secular context where religion has been marginalized to near irrelevance, we are left with little more than competing narratives that may shift with the winds. But in this case, Haqiqatjou’s critics are not secular feminists. They claim to be Muslim feminists who presumably look to Islam for guidance. In fact, to bolster their case, the Muslim feminist authors included snippets from Islamic doctrine, including a verse from the Qur’an:

Islam doesn’t condone violence against women. On the contrary, the issue is in the incorrect interpretations of the Qur’an. Islam is clear on asking men to lower their gaze and protect their modesty:

“Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that is more purifying for them. Surely Allah is aware of what they do. “ Surat an-Nur 24:30-31

If Islam asks men to lower their gaze in order to respect their own modesty, we can logically infer that sexual harassment isn’t permissible under Islam. If even the male gaze that sexualizes women is seen as problematic within our religion, we highly doubt there is any permissibility for intimidating, objectifying, and harassing women.

Although at the time of this writing, the quote is cited as 24:30-31, the second verse is actually missing, despite its obvious relevance to this discussion:

24:31 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity, and not to display their charms [in public] beyond what may [decently] be apparent thereof; hence, let them draw their head-coverings over their bosoms. And let them not display [more of] their charms to any but their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands’ fathers, or their sons, or their husbands’ Sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their womenfolk, or those whom they rightfully possess, or such male attendants as are beyond all sexual desire, or children that are as yet unaware of women’s nakedness; and let them not swing their legs [in walking] so as to draw attention to their hidden charms And [always], O you believers – all of you – turn unto God in repentance, so that you might attain to a happy state! 

Qur’an 24:31

With this in mind, why not turn their statement around? They wrote:

If Islam asks men to lower their gaze in order to respect their own modesty, we can logically infer that sexual harassment isn’t permissible under Islam.

Here is the parallel:

If Islam asks women to lower their gaze in order to respect their own modesty, we can logically infer that immodest dress isn’t permissible under Islam.

Refusal to accept this parallel would reveal a double standard. Was the second verse left out by mistake, or was it deliberately excluded because it clearly contradicts the secular feminist agenda?

…“The Hypocrisy of Feminist Outrage” ignores these issues because it purports that women would be seen as worthy of respect as long as they fit men’s criteria of respectability — a key element of patriarchy. According to the author, all other women aren’t deserving of respect. ~ Muslim Feminists Respond

Nowhere in Haqiqatjou’s article does he say “all other women aren’t deserving of respect.” He expressly stated disrespectful treatment of women is never justified. He also never said women need to follow men’s criteria of respectability, but rather lamented the erosion of traditional moral authority after Sexual Revolution. Muslims are not asked to fit criteria set by men, nor the criteria set by feminists, but the criteria set by Allah, which brings us to a fundamental problem.

I am going to make the bold assertion that the modern political ideology known as feminism is fundamentally incompatible with Islam.

This is not to say that Islam is fundamentally against women’s rights. Islam granted rights to women centuries before the word “feminist” existed. But like feminism, Islam is a framework for social order, which clearly assigns complimentary roles to men and women:

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Muslim feminists gloss over this verse, which would obviously be difficult to reconcile with their incessant rants about “patriarchy,” described in feminist parlance as “a global system of women’s devaluation.” Such notions are not rooted in Islamic doctrine.

Muslims are bound by Sharia. If you knowingly deny Sharia and act in deliberate defiance, that is clear kufr and many Muslims would argue you are no longer a Muslim. Nevertheless, in their rebuttal, the authors attempt to integrate Islamic doctrine and secular feminist framework through the concept of “intersectionality,” an avenue through which they try to normalize homosexuality in accordance with core feminist ideology:

The struggle for the equality of women is neither holistic nor effective if it does not take into account that all systems of oppression are interconnected. Institutions like racism, xenophobia, ableism, homophobia, and classism all play into sexism. As far as we are concerned, you cannot truly be a feminist if you do not recognize the far-reaching consequences of each of these systems of oppression and how they’re interconnected.

Either you’re against structures of inequality, see the logic that all forms of oppression are interconnected, and embrace equality for women as tied to your own liberation, or you aren’t about justice but rather individual liberation.

Islam forbids homosexual activity, and all sexual activity outside of marriage–an institution confined to joining people of the opposite sex. Islam also prescribes a dress code which sets boundaries for both men and women, and maintains a social order which emphasizes community interests over the unbridled rights of the individual. I would argue those points are non-negotiable.

Islam absolutely does legislate morality.

There is no “Islamic feminism” just as there is no “Islamic homosexuality, ” for the same reason there is no “halal pork.” These concepts are oxymoronic. It’s quite clear the arguments in the rebuttal signed by self-proclaimed Muslim feminists are far more rooted in secular feminist dogma than in Islamic doctrine.

Of course Muslim feminists have the “right” to join “Gay Pride” parades and “Slut Walks” in Western capitals. Go ahead ladies, and fly that freak flag high. But if you insist on doing so under the banner of Islam, expect other Muslims to challenge you relentlessly, despite your tantrums. Daniel Haqiqatjou was brave to publish his article exposing feminist hypocrisy, and I hope he continues despite opposition from feminists.

We are not going to let Muslim feminists hog the public microphone when the integrity of Islam is at stake.

***
What did you think of this article? Let me know below in comments. You also reach me via email at lenncat@protonmail.com or find me on Twitter: @LennCat.

8 comments

  1. Sobering and acute response to liberal Muslim women whose actual Sharia now comes from 15 to 20 years of liberal education.
    Typical feminist tactic: to attack hysterically and emotionally anybody who dares raises an eyebrow of a critique of this fraudulent ideology.
    Feminism makes women feel more helpless and distress then anything else, because it seems to offer the only solution, i.e. without it women are too dumb to know what is what.
    Maybe your next article can tackle Feminisms’ inbred misogyny.

    Like

      1. Feminism purports that it ‘is a simple manner of giving women equal rights’. Ignoring what equal rights those might be, F makes a conclusion that a. only it can give women those rights and b. that without women are not ‘enfranchised’. Therefore, if a woman makes a CEO or leading doctor or scientist or leading professional in her field, she must be because of her being an F or that at least it is because F that helped her paves the path to her success. So from this logic if a woman has all that “success” and does not attribute it to F, then she must still be ‘disenfranchised’ or certainly, she is still ‘helpless’. Even more if she pertains the dais of being an anti F, then she is contributing to the problem of ‘not giving women equal rights’. Either way, it is one deal with F. It seemingly likes the black Spiderman [Venom]; it consumes a women’s integrity to actually be herself. Hence all women MUST be F or they are misogynist.
        So
        If F purports to help ‘victimized’ and helpless poor women be treated equally then IT must see that women by default her victims of the dreaded male patriarchy and thus if anyone does not support that definition or standard, they are misogynist and want to continue ‘female oppression’. Thus in order to be an F, YOU must accept that women are by default ‘hapless village idiots’ who are too dumb to know what is good for them?!

        Like

    1. Thus in order to be an F, YOU must accept that women are by default ‘hapless village idiots’ who are too dumb to know what is good for them?!

      Okay, now I understand, all too well. Because I’m a woman critical of their ideology, I very often get the “you’re too dumb to understand” bit from the Disciples of Feminism. They are apparently fail to see the contradiction–though I don’t take a page out of their handbook and likewise tell them they’re dumb. 🙂

      Like

  2. Great job! Jazakallahu khairan for tackling the reality of male-female interaction and not a nonsensical philosophized mental construct of male-female interaction.

    In surat Al-Ahzab 33:59 Allah orders the women to draw their cloaks down around them, ‘so that they may be known and not harmed.’ i.e. that they be known as respectable women who have self respect, off limits to random men on the street. This understanding is confirmed by the exegetes.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you for sharing this alternative perspective. I respectfully disagree with this interpretation of the Islamic dress code, which is not consistent with scholarly opinion I have read. Apart from that, it seems to me this bare minimum requirement (cleavage and thighs covered) allows for such broad latitude as to be meaningless.

      Like

    2. Interesting analysis, but the niqab is not and never has been mainstream in Islamic societies (purdah was another variation but certainly not the same) and what about the fact that beauty of a woman is in her hair ?(pixies excluded)

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s