Reinforcing presumed religious identities: where are > women and secularists of Muslim countries in Obama’s > speech in Cairo? > > by Marieme Helie Lucas > > Friday 5 June 2009 > > http://www.siawi. org/article791. html<http://www.siawi.org/article791.html> > > > > > > Marieme Helie Lucas is an Algerian sociologist, > founder and former International Coordinator of the ’Women > Living Under Muslim Laws’ international solidarity > network. Marieme is also the founder of ’Secularism Is A > Women’s Issue’ (siawi.org) > > > > It is beyond doubt that many people around the world, > of various political opinions and creeds, will feel relieved > after the discourse the President of the USA delivered in > Cairo today. It is apparently a new voice, a voice of peace, > quite far from Bush’s clash of civilisations. But is it > so? > > > > I presume that political commentators will point at > the fact that Obama equates violence on the side of occupied > Palestinians to violence on the side of Israeli colonizers, > or that he has not abandonned the idea that the USA should > tell the world how to behave and fight for their rights, or > that the Israelo-Palestinian conflict is reduced to a > religious conflict, or that he still justifies the war in > Afghanistan, etc… > > > > All those are important issues that need to be > challenged. However, what affects me most, as an Algerian > secularist, is that Obama has not done away with the idea of > homogeneous civilisations that was at the heart of the > theory of the ’clash of civilisations’. Moreover, his > very American idea of civilisation is that it can be equated > to religion. He persistantly opposes ’Islam and the > West’ (as two entities- civilisations) , ’America and > Islam’ (a country vs a religion); he claims that > ’America is not at war with Islam’. In short ’the > West’ is composed of countries, while ’Islam’ is not. > Old Jomo Kenyatta used to say of British colonizers: ’when > they came, we had the land, they had the Bible; now we have > the Bible, they have the land’. Obama’s discourse > confirms it: religion is still good enough for us to have, > or to be defined by. His concluding compilation of > monotheist religious wisdom sounds as if it were the only > language that we, barbarians, can understand. > > > > These shortcomings have adverse effects on us, > citizens of countries where Islam is the predominant and > often the state religion. > > > > First of all, Obama’s discourse is addressed to > ’Islam’, as if an idea, a concept, a belief, could hear > him. As if those were not necessarily mediated by the people > who hold these views, ideas, concepts or beliefs. As Soheib > Bencheikh, former Great Mufti of Marseilles, now Director of > the Institute of High Islamic Studies in Marseilles, used to > say: ’I have never seen a Qur’an walking in the > street’… > > > > Can we imagine for one minute that Obama would address > himself to’ Christianity’ or to ’Buddhism’? No, he > would talk to Christians or Buddhists… to real people, > keeping in mind all their differences. Obama is > essentializing Islam, ignoring the large differences that > exist among Muslim believers themselves, in terms of > religious schools of thought and interpretations, cultural > differences and political opinions. These differences indeed > make it totally irrelevant to speak about ’Islam’ in > such a totalizing way. Obama would not dare essentialize, > for instance, Christianity in such a way, ignoring the huge > gap between Opus Dei and liberation theology… > > > > Unfortunately, this essentializing Islam feeds into > the plans of Muslim fundamentalists whose permanent claim is > that there is one single Islam - their version of it -, one > homogeneous Muslim world, and subsequently one single > Islamic law that needs to be respected by all in the name of > religious rights. Any study of the laws in ’Muslim’ > countries show that these laws are pretty different from one > country to the other, deriving not just from different > interpretations of religion, but also from the various > cultures in which Islam has been spreading on all > continents, and that these supposedly Muslim laws reflect as > well historical and political factors including colonial > sources [*] - obviously not divine. > > > > This is the first adverse consequence of Obama’s > essentializing Islam and homogeneizing Muslims: as much as > he may criticize fundamentalists - which he calls ’a > minority of extremists’-, he is using their language and > their concepts. This is unlikely to help the cause of anti > fundamentalists forces in Muslim countries. > > > > It follows suite that Obama talks to religions, not to > citizens, not to nations or countries. He assumes that > anyone has to have a religion, overlooking the fact that in > many instances, people are forced into religious identities. > In more and more ’Muslim’ countries, citizens are forced > into religious practice [**], and pay dissent with their > freedom and sometimes with their lives. It is a big blow to > them, to their human rights, to freedom of thought and > freedom of expression, that the President of the USA > publicly comforts the views that citizens of countries where > Islam is the main religion are automatically Muslims (unless > they belong to religious minority). > > > > Regardless of the fact that one is a believer or not, > citizens may choose not to have religion as the main marker > of their identity. For instance to give priority or > prominence to their identity as citizens. Many citizens of > ’Muslim’ countries want to leave religion in its place > and delink it from politics. They support secularism and > secular laws, i.e. laws democratically voted by the people, > changeable by the will and vote of the people; they oppose > unchangeable, a-historical, supposedly divine laws, as a > process that is alien to democracy. They oppose the > political power of clerics. > > > > Obama is claiming to defend democracy, democratic > processes, and human rights? How can this fit with > addressing whole nations through their supposed, hence > imposed, religious identities? > > > > Where is the place for secularists in Obama’s > discourse? For their democratic right to vote laws rather > than be imposed laws in the name of God? For their human > right to believe or not to believe, to practice or not to > practice? They simply do not exist. They are ignored. They > are made invisible. They are made ’Muslims’. Not just by > our oppressive undemocratic governments - by Obama too… > And when he talks of his own fellow citizens, these ’7 > million American Muslims’, did he ask them what their > faith was or is he assuming faith on geographical origin? > > > > In this religious straight jacket, women’s rights > are limited to their right to education - and Obama > distances himself from arrogant westerners by making it > clear that women’s covering is not seen by him as an > obstacle to their emancipation. Especially, if it is > ’their choice’… Meanwhile, Iran is next door, with its > morality police that jails women whose hair slips out of the > said-covering, in the name of religious laws… And what > about Afghanistan or Algeria where women were abducted, > tortured, raped, mutilated, burnt alive, killed for not > covering [***]? > > > > At no point does he raise the issue of who defines > culture, who defines religion, who speaks for ’the > Muslims’ - and why could not it be defined by individual > women themselves - without clerics, without morality police, > without self appointed, old, conservative, male, religious > leaders - if their fundamental human rights were to be > respected. Obviously, Obama trades women’s human rights > for political and economic alliances with ’Islam’… > ’Islam’ definitely owns oil, among other things. > > > > No, this discourse is not such a change for an > American President: Obama remains within the boundaries of > clashing civilisations- religions. How can this save us from > the global rise of religious fundamentalism, which this > discourse was supposed to counter? He claims that ’as long > as our relationship is defined by differences, this will > empower those who sow hatred…/… promote conflict…’, > but the only thing he finds we have in common is ’ to love > our families, our communities, our God’… Muslim > fundamentalists will not disown such a program. > > > > In God we trust…. > > > > Reinforcing presumed religious identities: where are > women and secularists of Muslim countries in Obama’s > speech in Cairo? by Marieme Helie Lucas is licensed under a > Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial- No Derivative > Works 3.0 United States License. You may republish it free > of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes > following these guidelines. > > > > Footnotes > > [*] for instance, from 1962 to 1976, the source for > Algerian laws on reproductive rights was the 1920 French > law; or, in 1947, the source for Pakistani law on > inheritance was the Victorian law that the UK itself had > already done way with. > > > > [**] One Malaysian state made daily prayers > compulsory; Algerian courts condemned to prison non fasting > citizens in 2008; Iranian courts still jail women for > ’unislamic behavior’. > > > > [***] *** Shadow Report on Algeria. wluml.org > >
-- Maya S. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to greenyouth@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
