I am optimistic, and I normally would have looked to the West for help in reforming Islam, from secular liberals, Westerners who are traditionally opposed to the enforcement of religious beliefs and customs. In certain countries, “left-wing,” secular liberals have stimulated my critical thinking and that of other Muslims. But these same liberals in Western politics have the strange habit of blaming themselves for the ills of the world, while seeing the rest of the world as victims. To them, victims are to be pitied, and they lump together all pitiable and suppressed people, such as Muslims, and consider them good people who should be cherished and supported so that they can overcome their disadvantages. The adherents to the gospel of multiculturalism refuse to criticize people whom they see as victims. Some Western critics disapprove of United States policies and attitudes but do not criticize the Islamic world, just as, in the first part of the twentieth century, Western socialist apologists did not dare criticize the Soviet labor camps. Along the same lines, some Western intellectuals criticize Israel, but they will not criticize Palestine because Israel belongs to the West, which they consider fair game, but they feel sorry for the Palestinians, and for the Islamic world in general, which is not as powerful as the West. They are critical of the native white majority in Western countries but not of Islamic minorities. Criticism of the Islamic world, of Palestinians, and of Islamic minorities is regarded as Islamophobia and xenophobia.
I cannot emphasize enough how wrongheaded this is. Withholding criticism and ignoring differences are racism in its purest form. Yet these cultural experts fail to notice that, throught their anxious avoidance of criticizing non-Western countries, they trap the people who represent these cultures in a state of backwardness. The experts may have the best of intentions, but as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
My own criticism of Islamic religion and culture is felt by some to be “harsh,” “offensive,” and “hurtful.” But the attitude of the cultural experts is, in fact, harsher, and more offensive and hurtful. They feel superior and do not regard Muslims as equal discussion partners, but as the “others” who should be shielded. And they think that criticism of Islam should be avoided because they are afraid that Muslims can only respond to criticism with anger and violence. These cultural experts are badly letting down us Muslims who have obeyed the call to show our sense of public responsibility and are speaking out.
I have taken an enormous risk by answering the call for self-reflection and by joining in the public debate that has been taking place in the West since 9/11. And what do the cultural experts say? “You should have said it in a different way.” But since Theo van Gogh’s death, I have been convinced more than ever that I must say it in my way only and have my criticism.
One
Stand Up for Your Rights!
Women in Islam
I was born in Somalia in 1969 and raised in an Islamic family. My father, Hirsi Magan, is a well-known opposition leader who challenged the dictatorship of Mohamed Siad Barre. Probably in 1975 or 1976, he was forced to flee Somalia, and our family followed him. Via Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia, we reached Kenya.
At age twenty-two, as a Muslim young woman, I was given in marriage to a distant cousin, a nephew of my father’s. Had we been married, I would have lived out my days in isolation as a housewife and mother. But I refused to attend the wedding ceremony, which was to be held in Canada, and shortly afterward I escaped to the Netherlands. There, I applied for and was granted asylum, learned Dutch, worked as an interpreter in a number of places—including abortion clinics and women’s refuge centers—and took a degree in political science.
That was ten years ago. In the Netherlands, I am able to study and work. I can also voice my opinion here. Through newspapers, magazines, television, and radio, I have criticized Islam and the Islamic community. My comments stir up strong feelings. The attention I strove to give to the plight of Muslim women in the Netherlands and Western Europe led to my becoming a parliamentary representative, at first for the Labor Party and, after October 2002, for the Liberal Party. My change of parties also stirred up strong feelings. In the United States, it would have been analogous to switching from the Democratic Party to the Republican. Some of my former party felt betrayed by my switch, but I viewed it as a practical matter. I believe I have more support in the Liberal Party for my mission to help Muslim women.
I am often asked why I, in particular, am so critical of Islam and of the position of women within Islam. I am accused of discrediting that religion through my opinions and comments. Allegedly, I portray all Muslim men as “stupid and violent louts who repress their women.” I am further blamed for playing into the hands of populists and racists, who will misuse my opinions to repress Muslims. Yet I continue to feel compelled to speak out against the way women are treated within the Muslim community. There are four reasons that I do this.
I hope to be able to make a contribution to ending the degrading treatment of Muslim women and girls by using my knowledge and experience of the Muslim faith. I am a passionate believer in universal human rights. As a member of the board of directors of Amnesty International, I am distressed that the vast majority of Muslim women are still enchained by the doctrine of virginity, which requires that women enter marriage as green as grass: experience of love and sexuality before marriage is an absolute taboo. This taboo does not apply to men. Furthermore, men and women do not have equal rights or opportunities in any way within their specific Muslim culture. Many women simply lack all opportunity to organize their lives independently or as they see fit.
I do not despise Islam. I am thoroughly conscious of the noble values that the religion promotes, such as charity, hospitality, and compassion for the weak and poor. But for women, the situation is very different. In the name of Islam, women are subjected to cruel and horrible practices, including female genital mutilation and disownment, the latter a common practice in which women are cut off from their families both emotionally and financially for any perceived misbehavior.
Obviously, far from all Muslim men are disrespectful or violent toward women. I know countless wonderful Muslim men who treat their mothers, sisters, and spouses decently. Moreover, men are every bit as much victims of the culture of virginity as women, albeit indirectly. As a result of this repressive culture, boys and men are not raised by healthy, balanced, and well-educated mothers. This in turn puts men themselves at a disadvantage when pursuing education, employment, and social development.
Because of the disproportionately strong emphasis on “manliness” in the Muslim upbringing and because of the physical and mental separation of the sexes, men hardly have the opportunity to develop the communication skills necessary for living harmoniously within a family. It is therefore not surprising that many Muslim women in the Netherlands complain that their husbands seldom talk to them. Muslim marriages, prearranged by the family when the daughter is very young, give men heavy responsibilities that are not of their own choosing—for girls they scarcely know.
These expectations often breed a lack of self-understanding and a lack of understanding of women. Feelings of anger and powerlessness are common among men. Moreover, if, as a man, you are raised with the idea that it is all right to hit a woman, then the step to using violence is only a small one. At the present time, women’s shelters in the Netherlands have a large influx of Muslim women seeking refuge from violent husbands. Separate shelters for Muslim girls escaping their parental homes have also been set up.
Ironically, the repression of women is maintained to a large extent by other women. Here is what Fatma Katirci, a Turkish imama (the female worshiper who leads the prayers of women who pray together—on the occasions when they can) in Amsterdam, says about the verse in the Koran that gives men the right to beat their wives: “The conflict cannot be about what will be on the table that night. It has to be about a serious issue, like a question of honor, such as infidelity. If a woman harms the family’s reputation through her behavior…You see,
some women learn from just a good talk; others only think better of their actions if the beds are separated, and some are truly neurotic. For the latter, a little slap can be the very last resort to get them to see the error of their ways. Don’t misunderstand me: I’m against it. Beating is degrading, but if there’s really no alternative, then it has to happen.”
This statement reveals that even educated women often have difficulty relinquishing ideas that have been instilled in them since childhood. In the traditionally oriented Muslim communities, it is often the mothers who keep their daughters under their thumbs and the mothers-in-law who make the lives of their daughters-in-law unbearable. Cousins and aunts gossip endlessly about one another and about others. The effect of this social control is that Muslim women maintain their own repression.
The second reason for my critical stance is the danger that, without the emancipation of Muslim women, the socially disadvantageous position of Muslims will persist in Western countries as well as the entire world. I see a direct link between the poor situation of Muslim women, on the one hand, and the lagging behind of Muslims in education and the job market, their high rate of juvenile delinquency, and their heavy reliance on social services on the other. In reality, the upbringing of Muslim girls denies them personal independence and their own sense of responsibility, values that are essential for getting ahead in a Western country.
It is a dangerous development that the age at which girls can be married off in a country like the Netherlands, and in every Western country with a major Muslim minority, has dropped in the past few years. To marry someone off is to make a girl or young woman available to a man unknown to her who is then allowed to use her sexually. The younger the bride, the greater the chance she will be a virgin. In essence, what is involved here is an arranged rape approved of by her entire family. Marrying off usually implies the girl is not able or allowed to complete her education. Tragically, countless Muslim girls still have to comply with this practice.
Girls who are not successful in preserving their virginity or who are afraid (despite the fact that they have never had sex) that they won’t bleed on their wedding night resort to medical interventions that restore their hymens. Approximately ten to fifteen of these operations are performed in Dutch hospitals every month. As a result of the taboo on sex—and thus on sex education—Muslim girls and women end up with undesired pregnancies or infected with sexually transmitted diseases. The increase in abortions is directly related to the influx of Moroccan and Turkish women.
The third reason I am determined to make my voice heard is that Muslim women are scarcely listened to, and they need a woman to speak out on their behalf. Their official spokespersons are nearly all men. Given the widespread suffering of Muslim women, there are too few social organizations and political parties actively devoted to improving their lot. Spokesmen of Muslim organizations and immigrant politicians with Muslim backgrounds, along with other advocates of “group rights,” excel in denying, trivializing, or avoiding the enormous problems of Muslim girls and women in the West.
In a June 2002 interview, the member of parliament for the Socialist Party, Khadija Arib, said the following about the position of Muslim women: “People seem to think that immigrant women want to sit home alone all day, but this happens mostly because there is nowhere for them to go.” At the opening in spring of a mother-and-child daycare center in an Amsterdam suburb, she proposed establishing a special facility where women could attend activities all day long. In doing so, she denies the essence of the problem. In a large segment of the Muslim community, the notion still exists that women should not have any freedom of movement or work outside the home. Muslim women will benefit more from harsh criticism of this idea than from the creation of special women’s activity centers.
My final motive is my firm belief that the emphasis on a Muslim identity with corresponding “group rights” is detrimental to Muslim women. In 1999, Susan Moller Okin, a professor of political science and a feminist, launched a discussion in the United States between the advocates of multiculturalism, who favor the advancement and preservation of Islamic (or other) group cultures, and the opponents of multiculturalism, including Okin herself. In her view, the fact that many Western governments pursue a policy geared to the preservation of group cultures is in conflict with their constitutions which, after all, set down the principles of individual freedom and the equality of men and women. Among other criticisms, she points out that multiculturalists take no heed of the private lives of the cultures they are defending. And it is precisely in private life that differences in power and the repression of women manifest themselves most clearly.
In the final analysis, Muslim women in the West will benefit more from the dominant Western culture that is adhered to by the majority of the population and that offers them good opportunities to shape their lives according to their own insights. I am the living proof of this. This is also why I feel responsible for preserving and protecting the democratic system to which I personally owe so much. In principle, all Dutch Muslims have the same human rights, but owing to outdated religious opinions, they are scarcely capable of implementing these rights. It is mostly women who are affected, and this is what I find distressing.
People who have been successful in Western societies, who share the faith of the repressed women (their numbers, incidentally, are not very large), should stand up more for their sisters and brothers. I would like to encourage women such as Naima El Bezaz, who writes openheartedly about women and sexuality, to rise above the religious barrier to question the source of the culture of virginity (Koran, Hadith, a collection of the Prophet’s sayings, traditions, and the resulting practices) rather than to continue to take for granted established tradition. This would be to their own advantage and to that of those who share their fate but who have thus far had fewer opportunities to develop themselves. I call to account members of parliament such as Khadija Arib, Nebahat Albayrak, Naima Azough, and Fatima Elatik. The logic of establishing priorities demands that first things be put first. Less serious issues like the “image of Islam” must yield as a consequence. Is it not absurd to imagine that Allah, in all His greatness, would be worried about His image?
I invite the advocates of the multicultural society to acquaint themselves with the suffering of the women who, in the name of religion, are enslaved in the home. Do you have to be mistreated, raped, locked up, and repressed yourself in order to put yourself in someone else’s position? Is it not hypocritical to trivialize or tolerate those practices, when you yourself are free and benefit from mankind’s progress?
A multicultural society is not a goal in itself. We in the West need to make a concerted effort to counter Islamic education and all those other Islamic institutions that lead to self-segregation and thus contribute to the continuation of a hopeless tyranny over women and children.
Two
Why Can’t We Take a
Critical Look at Ourselves?
It has been pointed out ad nauseam that a single Islam does not exist. There are as many Islams as there are Muslims. One Muslim considers Islam to be an identity; another, a culture; a third, purely a religion. For yet another, Islam represents everything at once: identity, culture, religion, as well as a political and social guide. But despite these discrepancies, all Muslims share the conviction that the fundamental principles of Islam cannot be criticized, revised, or in any way contradicted. The sources of Islam are the Koran and the sayings and deeds of the prophet (the Sunnah), and every Muslim has the duty to emulate these words and deeds as closely as possible in his morals and daily life. In this context I wish to pose the question, Should we fear Islam? I ask that we do question the fundamental principles.
Following the horrendous attacks of September 11, it became known that the name of the suspected chief perpetrator was Mohammed Atta. The young man left behind a note in which he declared that he committed his act of terror for Allah, and for the reward awaiting him in paradise. The letter also included
the text of a prayer in which he asks Allah to give him strength and to stand by him and his act.
A short time later, Mohammed Atta’s father appeared on television. When confronted with his son’s act, Father Atta was enraged and, at the same time, sad. He appeared confused; he couldn’t and didn’t want to believe that his son was guilty of the mass murder on September 11. His son was, he said, a thoughtful, peace-loving boy. Moreover, he had no reason whatsoever to take part in such an act of terrorism. He was, after all, highly educated by Egyptian standards. His German professor confirmed that Mohammed Atta was a very promising architect. In short, Mohammed had all the qualities of a successful young man with a wonderful future ahead of him; his father was extremely proud. No, no, Father Atta cried, my son has nothing to do with it: the Jews, the CIA, everybody and everything is guilty, but not my son. Ill-intentioned people want to give my son and me a bad name and tarnish our honor.
At the same time, during those early days after September 11, Muslims writers, theologians, imams, as well as ordinary Muslim men and women, were confronted with the same questions: How could nineteen committed Muslims carry out such a despicable act in the name of their religion? Why does Bin Laden call on all Muslims to participate in a war against nonbelievers in the name of their religion? Why do Indonesian, Pakistani, and even British Muslims want to comply with Bin Laden’s call and sacrifice their lives in the name of their religion?