A Muslim Response to:
Nine Parts of Desire by Geraldine Brooks
As Ms. Brooks narrates her memoirs, an attitude surfaces. Her descriptions
of things Islamic are filled with inflammatory adjectives and terms carefully
chosen to elicit a negative response in the reader. Details of the Saudis not
allowing a women traveling alone to have a hotel room sound harsh, yet the
author neglects to explain how she got as far as that hotel lobby -- traveling
with a male family member is a requirement of Saudi law and necessary to prove
even to get a visa to enter the country. She describes the call to prayer
as it "shatters" the peace of early morning. She makes the arrow pointing to
qibla (the direction Muslims face when praying) seem invasive, as if it
offends her eyes.
The author appears to set out on a self-designated mission to advocate the
rights of the supposedly oppressed. Taken from an uncited source, the title of
the book indicates that Imam Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Prophet
Muhammad, says that nine out of ten portions of desire have something to do
with women. For the author, that's why some are allegedl= y oppressed and
secluded. The Islamic code of attire doesn't keep women from education or
entering the work force. If Ms. Brooks is indeed on women's side, she should
rejoice in the fact that Muslim women enjoy such freedom. Sahar (the Harvard
candidate) said it makes her feel free and respected as an intellect, not a
body. Asya (the Oxford candidate) says that when she opted to wear hijab all
her fears disappeared. These women move freely on their campuses, unafraid of
the likes of `date rape' and `stalkers', are treated as equals based on
their intellect not as `se= x objects' -- things many American female students
wish for. As Ms. Brooks shifts abruptly (at times incoherently) in time and
place, she struggles to prove that Islam is holding women's progress back.
Yet she cannot restrain from including examples of Islam's women
achievers, starting with the Prophet's wives and ending with the Turkish
and Kurdish women. Even in Iran, amid absolute seclusion of the sexes, women
have entered every aspect of the work-force and education. Chadors do not
inhibit them from driving motorcycles to work. Saudi laws ban women from
driving not because Islam says to, but because it is the law of the land.
Men, Ms. Brooks says, suppress their wives. But she
also says that Khadija (Khomeni's wife) played a key role in his political
decisions. So do all the wives of political leaders and not only Queen
Noor, the American-raised queen of Jordan. Muslim men do respect and include
their wives' opinions= , following the example of Prophet Muhammad himself.
When Ms. Brooks talks about polygamy in Islam, she takes the reader on
a roller coaster ride between the positive and negative. In the time preceding
Islam, Arabs considered women as property...a man could have as many wives as
he could afford. So when the Quran permits men to have four wives it is
actually limiting them to four, and adds the stipulation that they must be
fair to all the women involved. In another verse the Holy Quran says no man
can be completely fair, gradually bringing men to realize monogamy is their
best choice. But, human nature being what it is, some men may not be satisfied
with one woman year after year. By choosing to take on an additional wife, the
man must take the permission of the first wife and must support all his wives
and children. No abandonment...no single motherhood...the man is held
accountable and financially responsible throughout. The noble symbol of
motherhood, the Palestinian Rahma, is a good example. As her husband falls
out of love with her and in love with Fatin, he offers her the opportunity
of divorce. She chooses to stay with him. She pleasantly dances in his wedding
and lives in peace with Fatin as they both raise the growing family together.
Female genital mutilation (FGM) to reduce sexual desire is another issue
Ms. Brooks frequently mentions. The practice of FGM is a sub-Saharan African
custom that predates Islam and by no means has anything to do with Islam.
It is a cultural practice in some primitive communities, which is gradually
diminishing, thanks to the efforts of Muslims in educating the people and
applying Islamic law rather than clinging to cultural practices with no
foundation in Islam.
As a supposed advocate for women's rights, the author indulges in
politic= s. As she singles out the Palestinians as objects of her and her
husband's admiration, she makes sure to include negative comments about Hamas
or a Palestinian man who allegedly tries to rape her. When visiting Palestinian
`friends' she contrasts the impoverished Palestinians against the moder=
n `settlements' and `high-rises' of their Israeli occupiers. She tur= ns
western (especially American) mentality against Islam and Muslims with images
of Iran during the revolution, chanting that America is the devil and the
embassy a nest of spies. She degrades King Hussein of Jordan, making him appear
as a barbaric Bedouin by her gory description of the slaughter of a camel.
Egyptian artists (belly dancers and singers) who opt to retire and wear hijab
are depicted as being part of a conspiracy, supposedly bribed by influential
Saudis. Islam, the author says (and Muslims agree) means "submission" yet it is
submission to God and only to God, not submission of woman to man as Ms.
Brooks leads the reader to believe. Such misinterpretations and half-truths
are too numerous to menti= on. It seems that, in the eyes of the author, Muslim
women are `damned if th= ey do and damned if they don't'. While Ms. Brooks hails
the achievement o= f Egyptian Muslim women, she counters with images of them
being crushed between their jobs and selfish, demanding husbands. At Gaza
University the Palestinian women are depicted in cumbersome hijab, yet the
author neglects to remind the reader that the nearby Israeli (Orthodox Jewish)
women also cover in much the same way. The American Muslim converts in Iran are
happy and content in their new environment, but the author makes heed to remind
us of Margaret and Betty Mahmoudy. While touting the Emirate women proven
capable in the army, the author expresses her sorrow for them for acquiring
`the right to kill and be killed'. The Women'= s Olympics are shown as an
achievement for Muslim women, but somehow less so because of the exclusion
of men and the ban of makeup. Not a single woman seems to meet the author's
approval. A tabloid and gossip-oriented approach also prevails throughout the
book. As she discusses the daily life in Prophet Muhammad's home, Ms. Brooks
talks of scandals and competition. Throughout there is a tone of sarcastic
disrespect. She portrays the wives of Prophet Muhammad as opinionated and
influential; ranging from Khadija who allegedly `paid his bills', to Ai=
sha, shown as terribly cunning -- the author neglecting to remind the reader
of the time frame -- this `cunning' wife was only a teenager at the tim= e.
Khadija was a strong businesswoman and Prophet Muhammad was her employee
yet Khadija proposed marriage to him -- quite an unusual thing at that time
and still an unusual turn of events in any society. Their strengths are negated
by innuendo and the author's own renditions of Islam's early history.
Ms. Brooks is aware of human, particularly `western', cravings on the
i= ssue of sex. She does admit that Islam respects women as equal partners in
sexual pleasure. Interestingly though, she depicts Islam in a misogynistic
light, yet foreplay is actually a right ordained for all Muslim women.
Ms. Brooks misinterprets the hadith as saying "play with your women, don't
approach them like birds"...the actual translation is "don't approach them like
beasts" -- Islam's injunction against spous= al rape. The positive aspects of
Islamic sexual injunctions (such as not having intercourse during
menstruation, both partners washing their genital regions thoroughly after
intercourse, etc.) are not highlighted, yet medical evidence continues to prove
these to be sound and effective practices. Instead the author chooses to focus
on the pain of stoning a small minority of adulterers.
In her conclusion Ms. Brooks claims she wasn't `raised as a bigot', y= et
she is bitter against women she sees wearing hijab in an Australian airport.
She appeals to the feminist and human rights advocates to do what they can to
`save' Muslim women, yet she cannot deny that those "shadows" wearin= g
"shrouds" enjoy the privilege of career, education, and financial independence
that is beyond that guaranteed to `western' women. Muslim women have always
had their own names - not their fathers or their husbands. Muslim women have
always had an equal say in political issues and the right (Islamically)
to vote - something even American and European women struggled for generations
to obtain. Muslim women in the workforce in Muslim communities are on equal
grounds with men in both pay and career growth, yet women in the U.S. still
make 57 cents to the dollar in realation to their male coworkers. Muslim women
veterans have been glorified throughout Islamic history, whereas only very
recently have American women veterans even been recognized. Though the author
implies extensive abuse of Muslim women, she neglects to provide any statistical
proof to back up her statements. Due to the heavy penalties for abuse they are
few in comparison to the U.S. where 1 in 22 women is the victim of physical
abuse, 1 in 3 women murdered are killed by their husband or boyfriend, 1 in 7
the victim of spousal rape, and where 1.3 women are raped per minute!
Ms. Brooks need not bother to strive for Muslim women's rights to bare
their bodies if they chose to spiritually rejoice in covering them. Women's
right to drive is not questioned anywhere outside Saudi Arabia, a= nd even
those Saudi women who would be able to own cars and drive are comfortably
chauffeured in top of the line automobiles. (One wonders how many American
women might give up their `right' to drive in lieu of bei= ng so pampered.)
The short comings of specific Muslim individuals or politicians only stands
as proof of human limitations. It would be absurd to hold a few random Muslims
the author happened to meet as the standard, judging all Muslims on the basis
of the actions of those few, or even to presume that those few are
representative samples of that particular culture. It is equally preposterous
for Ms. Brooks to visit a country for a short period of time yet write of the
people as if she had a complete, unequivocal understanding of the
culture, people, history, and language that makes them who they are.
At best Ms. Brooks has glimpsed the life of some Muslims...a far cry from
understanding or appreciating the depth of their Islamic faith and culture.
Finally, Ms. Brooks sums up the book by admitting that her own emotions
are complex, and purportedly accepts every woman's right to choose her own
lifestyle. Mentioning the Muslim woman on the Australian beach
"...had made her choice. It was different from mine. But sitting there sharing
the warm sand and the soft air, we accepted each other. When she raised her
face to the sun, she was smiling." So much for contradiction. The reader is
left wondering then...what was the point of the book?
|
