Fitna

[cathy]

Fitna is another term I think worth discussing.

I think I have read that "fitna" means both "beautiful woman" and "chaos."

See part 4 of this essay:

Islam and gender

Van Nieuwkerk writes:

"Mernissi argues that implicitly in the religious discourse women are feared for their disruptive potentials. Women are capable of creating fitna (4) chaos provoked by sexual disorder. According to the implicit religious discourse, both sexes have an active sexual nature and female desires should be gratified as well. If women are not sexually satisfied they create fitna by enticing other men than their husbands. Hence: "The virtue of the woman is a man's duty. And the man should increase or decrease sexual intercourse with the woman according to her needs so as to secure her virtue" (al-Ghazali in Mernissi 1975)."

Thoughts?

Cathy

 

[Aisha Azar]

Women etc.

Fitna is another term I think worth discussing.

I think I have read that "fitna" means both "beautiful woman" and "chaos."

See part 4 of this essay:

Islam and gender

Van Nieuwkerk writes:

"Mernissi argues that implicitly in the religious discourse women are feared for their disruptive potentials. Women are capable of creating fitna (4) chaos provoked by sexual disorder. According to the implicit religious discourse, both sexes have an active sexual nature and female desires should be gratified as well. If women are not sexually satisfied they create fitna by enticing other men than their husbands. Hence: "The virtue of the woman is a man's duty. And the man should increase or decrease sexual intercourse with the woman according to her needs so as to secure her virtue" (al-Ghazali in Mernissi 1975)."

Thoughts?

Cathy

Dear Cathy,
Helen of Troy
Cleopatra
Marilyn Monroe
Mata Hari

However, I think that men are capable of doing the same thing. Women just get blamed more!!
Elvis the Pelvis
Abdulaziz Ibn Saud
Liam Neeson
Che Guiverra


Regards,
A'isha

 

[cathy]

Dear Aisha,

Thanks, these are good examples of people who through personal charisma, looks, force of personality, whatever means, provoke or provoked disorder in others--the urge to start wars, scream in a Beatlemania manner, and so forth.

But I wonder whether there was any kind of dissatisfaction in THEM that caused them to either be the way they are in that they became the object of this kind of lust or devotion. The passage I quoted suggests that the orthodox Islamic view is that women who go out and deliberately incite lust in others are not sexually satisfied by their husbands.

I don't know for sure of course but I have the feeling that Elvis, Che, Cleopatra and the others you mention got about as much sexual gratification as they could possibly handle.

To my way of thinking they had drives or whatever we want to call them, that led them to do or be the people they were, but these weren't necessarily connected to sexual dissatisfaction.

Are people who create fitna potentially dangers to society then?

Cathy

 

[Aisha Azar]

Qur'an, etc.

Dear Cathy,

Dear Aisha,

Thanks, these are good examples of people who through personal charisma, looks, force of personality, whatever means, provoke or provoked disorder in others--the urge to start wars, scream in a Beatlemania manner, and so forth.

I think that this is what Fitna sort of means. I think that the concept, as it is interpreted to English, sort of loses something important, nearly as I have been able to tell. I do not entirely understand it, but my point was sort of that we only hear about famous people having this sort of power, when in reality, all kinds of people have it, both male and female. It is often sort of swept under the rug that in the Qur'an and in other Muslim religious literature, there is also much mention of men being modest and controlling their sexual behaviors. All of these people I mentioned, on some level, had a sexuality that is legend.... and disruptive. Abdulaziz used to leave in the middle of meetings, and the rumor was that he would go and have sex with one of his wives and then return.

But I wonder whether there was any kind of dissatisfaction in THEM that caused them to either be the way they are in that they became the object of this kind of lust or devotion. The passage I quoted suggests that the orthodox Islamic view is that women who go out and deliberately incite lust in others are not sexually satisfied by their husbands.

Or at least the way it is translated... I have to admit I am not sure. From what I have read and what I remember, the Qur'an states that both genders have sexual feelings that must be met. The idea, I think was to tell men they must treat women as if their feelings count and not just satisfy their own sexual desires in needs, but be mindful of their partners as well. I sort of got something different out of it than Von Neiwkirk.... She told one side of that very complex story and did not include any passages concerning the behaviors of men from the Qur'an. I also think it is human nature to look beyond one's boundaries, and this might be an admonition against that and a way of dealing with it. Basically of course, the goal is a more calm and reasonable society. We must also think of the times and situations that were going on. The Prophet Mohammed ( Peace be on him) seemed to try to cover human nature in general and relate situations to the realities of life, no matter how small or big, giving guidelines about many things. I think he had a depth of understanding about the power of sexuality, for positive and negative.

I don't know for sure of course but I have the feeling that Elvis, Che, Cleopatra and the others you mention got about as much sexual gratification as they could possibly handle.

But physical sexual gratification is not the same as sexuality...... And just having sex is not necessarily gratifying, depending on the psychology of the people involved. Usually the sex act does not happen in a void, and most of the sex happens in the head as well as the sexual organs and the rest of the body.

To my way of thinking they had drives or whatever we want to call them, that led them to do or be the people they were, but these weren't necessarily connected to sexual dissatisfaction.

Maybe if we are only talking about the physical sexual act, but there is much, much more to sexuality than that. I think that is what the translation in Von Neiukirk is not considering.

Are people who create fitna potentially dangers to society then?

I think there is the constant potential for fitna, and that was more the point, that being the reason why men and women must be modest. And fitna is dangerous to society because it puts personal desire and gratification above every other thing, the martial relationship, the children, the parents, the extended family, the village, the city, the entire society. Muslim society is a communal society and thus, if a rock is pulled out of the foundation, it is not just your life you crumble, but the lives of many. I think this is the macrocosmic message.

I hope some of our Muslim friends will contribute here because I have a limited knowledge.
Regards,
A'isha
Cathy

 

[Sita]

Just a little something that may be useful to you here:

I feel this essay is a bit simplistic and slightly misleading in that this theory is traced back as far as Mernissi. However Mernissi's theory draws on the work of Qasim Amin it he who makes this connection with the word fitna. In her book she quotes him and develops his argument e.g:
'In his attempt to grasp the logic of seculsion and veiling of women and the basis of sexual segragation, the Muslim feminist Qasim Amin came to the conculsion that women are better able to control their sexual impluses than men and consequently sexual segragation is a device to protect men, not women'.
'Fitna: disorder or chaos (Fitna also means a beautiful women - the connatation of a femme fatale who makes men lose their self control. In the way Qasim used it fitna could be translated as chaos provoked by sexual disorder and initiated by women'That's the basis for the theory however she then develops it and goes onto Imam Ghazali and Freudian theory basically suggesting that European and Islamic theories place women as distructive to the social order their theories just invert each other.
Basically it boils down to this:
Freud/European: Female sexuality is passive turned inwards making her maschoistic
Ghazali/Islamic: Female sexuality is active turned outwards making her aggressive
This then governs how each society viewed both women and sexuality. Thus how they dealt with the two forms. This draws on George Murdock's theories of societies. And she uses this to ground the Muslim concept of active female sexuality before going into depth on the gender dynamics in modern society.
This however is just the first chapter of her her doctorate thesis (she is a sociologist). I just picked out some bits from it. To truly understand her argument you'd need to read the whole thing. It's in her book behind the veil, male-female dyamics in Muslim society.


Sita

The book she draws on for the fitna associatation is Qasim Amin The Liberation of Women
Leila Ahmed also has a book on this type of topic:Women and Gender in Islam (1992) have yet to read it
I find Fadwa El Guindi (she's an anthropologist) Veil: Modesty, Privacy, Resistance very good mainly because she tends to seprate in regards to country as well as religion.It seems she did ethnographic study on Nubian culture as well - love to get my hands on that! actually all her books look good. Mernissi is Morrocan and her fieldwork for this book was performed there.

 

[cathy]

Thanks Sita!

Two more books to add to my reading list!

Interesting that the way she frames it, both sides explain female sexuality in negative terms--either active/aggressive or passive/masochistic.

I read a different book by Mernissi--Scheherazade goes West.

Cathy

 

[Sita]

Thanks Sita!

Two more books to add to my reading list!

Interesting that the way she frames it, both sides explain female sexuality in negative terms--either active/aggressive or passive/masochistic.

I read a different book by Mernissi--Scheherazade goes West.

Cathy

Your Welcome your post interestingly co-incided with my dissertation research.

I do agree it's a very interesting theory - although in this book it is literally only a chapter worth. They book is focused on gender dynamics in Islamic society more than anything although I think it's an important point to make. It erradicts any idea of Western supriority in regards to women rights which is incidently one of the West biggest weapons against the Mashreq and Maghreb - throughout history the rhetric remains unchanged.
Interestingly I think she explores this comparison of the two societies in depth in Scheherazade Goes West. This is kind of the basic theory behind it and provides a more insight into that issue.

Sita

 

[shiradotnet]

It seems the one common ground is that many men feel threatened by female sexuality and the power that a beautiful woman who behaves enticingly has over them. Why else would we have a term for the femme fatale and no corresponding term for homme fatale? Why else do we not have any epic legends about a man whose face launched a thousand ships?

A socio-biologist would tell you that it's for reproductive reasons. A man wants to spread his seed as widely as possible, so he responds to every woman who invites him. Whereas (so the theory goes) women are more selective - knowing they'll be stuck with raising the baby once it's born, they are much more selective about whom they choose to father it. And so, this line of thinking goes, a man tries to place boundaries around the sexual behavior of a woman because he wants to be sure it's his own seed, and not somebody else's, that produces her babies. Also, in a society where inheritance is patrilineal, a man wants to ensure that his wife's baby is one that he sired.

 

[Aisha Azar]

fitna

Dear Gang,
I probably should have added this before, but I wanted to see if it came up of its own accord first.
Looking at things from the Islamic point of view, fitna is a lot about following the desire of and for God and looking to God and being obedient to God as opposed to following a desire and being obedient to that. This , on top of what I said in my other post about the disruption of the society is really what it is allabout. Again, there actually are dictates in Islam about the conduct of men. Fitna is not something, when we look at the Qu'ran that only applies to the desiring of women, or women causing havoc by being sexual creatures. It is about keeping an eye on the bigger prizes, if you will, of a orderly society based on concentrating on God, without letting anything else be more of a need or desire than that. Keeping peace in the society leads to this perfected state of being.
I feel that Von Neiwkirk did not address this at all, but kind of bent it towards proving a point. Fitna as viewed by the West seems to be specifically about sexuality and females, whereas in the Qur'an, it seems to be more about civil disobedience and also war.
Regards,
A'isha

PS: Shira there are and have been male versions of the Femme Fatale. Don Juan comes immediately to mind and there was that Italian guy whose name escapes me at the moment. Rudoplh Valentino was another, and the list does go on. The situations are different, as in very few men ever incite women to go off to war or to conquer countries, etc, but the certainly do incite them to riot, the Beatles being just one example!

 

[Makeda Maysa]

I can think of quite a few male names to add to the "fitna" list ...

 

[masrawy]

don't know much biology ..

Dear A'isha,

you're right, again during the prophet time there was one guy who fit the profile of "fetnah". He was asked to grow a beard but he looked even better he was asked again to to shave his head, it did not make a difference. he just had it what ever it ... is.
At last, he was asked to cover his face when he is in public ...

his name skips my mind right now, it is well-documented story ..

In general, the rules is equally apply for men and women with some exceptions sometimes when it comes to issue of biology.

Respect ~Mahmoud

 

[Aisha Azar]

Dear Mahmoud,
I have had good teachers about Islam for the last 30 years. If we want the truth of an Islamic issue, we need to go to those who practice the religion to see the whole picture, not just the part some western voice wants us to see to support their own theories.
I have a lot of respect for Von Neiuwkirk ( even if I can't spell her name!!), but when I read the book, I also saw that she sometimes did not seem to get the whole story behind an idea, such as fitna.
Regards,
A'isha

 

[Sita]

Dear Gang,
I probably should have added this before, but I wanted to see if it came up of its own accord first.
Looking at things from the Islamic point of view, fitna is a lot about following the desire of and for God and looking to God and being obedient to God as opposed to following a desire and being obedient to that. This , on top of what I said in my other post about the disruption of the society is really what it is allabout. Again, there actually are dictates in Islam about the conduct of men. Fitna is not something, when we look at the Qu'ran that only applies to the desiring of women, or women causing havoc by being sexual creatures. It is about keeping an eye on the bigger prizes, if you will, of a orderly society based on concentrating on God, without letting anything else be more of a need or desire than that. Keeping peace in the society leads to this perfected state of being.
I feel that Von Neiwkirk did not address this at all, but kind of bent it towards proving a point. Fitna as viewed by the West seems to be specifically about sexuality and females, whereas in the Qur'an, it seems to be more about civil disobedience and also war.
Regards,
A'isha

PS: Shira there are and have been male versions of the Femme Fatale. Don Juan comes immediately to mind and there was that Italian guy whose name escapes me at the moment. Rudoplh Valentino was another, and the list does go on. The situations are different, as in very few men ever incite women to go off to war or to conquer countries, etc, but the certainly do incite them to riot, the Beatles being just one example!

Dear A'isha

In regards to the West I don't think Fitna even means that, it is unknown for the most part. Indeed at the moment the word evokes a controversial Anti-Islamic film more than anything, at least in Europe.
But to just make clear my position here in general:
Fitna in regards to female sexuality as I quoted comes from the Egyptian Qasim Amin and his book. Even Mernissi as I have quoted her, suggests this was how he 'used' the word to possibly be interpreted as meaning this. Also
My post was not about Islam, I was just addressing the root of this connection and explaining where this theory came from. It is a theory, more so it is not a theological or religious study, but a sociological one. So the idea either Mernissi or Qasim Amin is speaking for 'Islam the religion' is a misunderstanding. Neither one is or was a religious scholar. Indeed to support this Mernissi really only relies on one Islamic scholar's reading of the Qu'ran - which considering the different schools/sects (not sure the right phrase here) would probably be destroyed within a religious debate.
Indeed Western thought is represented by Freud's theories alone - much of which have now been discredited. Mainly because this is not the main argument of the book but also because this theory already derives from the anthropologist George Murdock's theories of the two types of societies in regards to how they regulate sexual instinct (internal/external). She just expands upon it with the focus not on sexual regulation but on their concepts of female sexuality.
Von Neiwkirk places herself in a very complex and troubling position(stupid is another word) when she suggests this is the religious connotation of the word. She I assume cannot read the original Qu'ran and did not go to one cleric or even many for their positions ? It's misleading. I for one know little to nothing about Islam the religion that could allow me to comment on a religious discussion of that nature.
Sita

P.S Language, grammar very bad but I'm in a hurry.

 

[Aisha Azar]

Dear Sita,

Dear A'isha

In regards to the West I don't think Fitna even means that, it is unknown for the most part. Indeed at the moment the word evokes a controversial Anti-Islamic film more than anything, at least in Europe.

I was referring to people who know something of Islam and how they veiw it, not the general West, but those who have some sort of convoluted knowledge, or a small amount of knowledge from one or two sentences out of the Qur'an and not much more.

But to just make clear my position here in general:
Fitna in regards to female sexuality as I quoted comes from the Egyptian Qasim Amin and his book. Even Mernissi as I have quoted her, suggests this was how he 'used' the word to possibly be interpreted as meaning this.

I do not know alot about Amin other than that he was a feminist and often thought that women were treated hideously within the Islamic system. (We are talking about the scholar, contemporary of Hoda Sharawi is that correct?)
Mernissi often has a rather sideways view of Islam herself, reporting on Persian miniatures and such as "proof" that women were warriors, etc.

Also
My post was not about Islam, I was just addressing the root of this connection and explaining where this theory came from. It is a theory, more so it is not a theological or religious study, but a sociological one. So the idea either Mernissi or Qasim Amin is speaking for 'Islam the religion' is a misunderstanding. Neither one is or was a religious scholar. Indeed to support this Mernissi really only relies on one Islamic scholar's reading of the Qu'ran - which considering the different schools/sects (not sure the right phrase here) would probably be destroyed within a religious debate.

One can not discuss the sociological issues within Islamic countries without discussing Islam. There is no separation of religion and state as is often touted in western countries. One is supposed to reflect the other and often does, for better or worse. In Egypt, even identification cards state the religion of the bearer, or at least this was true about 7 years ago.

Indeed Western thought is represented by Freud's theories alone - much of which have now been discredited. Mainly because this is not the main argument of the book but also because this theory already derives from the anthropologist George Murdock's theories of the two types of societies in regards to how they regulate sexual instinct (internal/external). She just expands upon it with the focus not on sexual regulation but on their concepts of female sexuality.

Or on concepts as she chose to relate them to her work.... I think this is much more accurate.

Von Neiwkirk places herself in a very complex and troubling position(stupid is another word) if she suggest this is the religious connotation of the word. She I assume cannot read the original Qu'ran and did not go to one cleric or even many for their positions ? It's misleading. I for one know little to nothing about Islam the religion that could allow me to comment on a religious discussion of that nature.

Fitna is a socio/religous concept and can not be fully understood without some wawareness of Islam as not only a religion, but as a civil code and map for living . It is more than a religion in the usual western sense of the word. The way in which people with whom she spoke interpreted the word "fitna" has everything to do with the religion and why chaos is not a good thing. It is not separated out. (The word means something like "Chaos" in Arabic) She did not give the full story, as Mahmoud pointed out also, that this concept does not just apply to women, but men as well. She led the reader to believe that this was another repressive Islamic measure toward women. Considering the already prejudiced view of westerners toward Islam, I consider this a serious omission.

( Grammar, etc.; we all do the best we can. I sometimes find myself wording things like my mother would and French was her first language, so you can imagine.)
Regards,
A'isha

Sita

P.S Language, grammar very bad but I'm in a hurry.

 

[Sita]

Dear Sita,

I was referring to people who know something of Islam and how they veiw it, not the general West, but those who have some sort of convoluted knowledge, or a small amount of knowledge from one or two sentences out of the Qur'an and not much more.

Understood.

(We are talking about the scholar, contemporary of Hoda Sharawi is that correct?)
Mernissi often has a rather sideways view of Islam herself, reporting on Persian miniatures and such as "proof" that women were warriors, etc.

Yes, that is the same Qasim Amin. As for Mernissi well she has her approach... fans and critics, although my major issue with her is actually that her fieldwork is normally only based in Morocco she is focused mainly there yet uses that data to represent a general view of Islamic culture, she makes no real distinction between geographical difference and situation. Which is why I prefer Fadwa El Guindi, she does make such distinctions.

One can not discuss the sociological issues within Islamic countries without discussing Islam. There is no separation of religion and state as is often touted in western countries. One is supposed to reflect the other and often does, for better or worse. In Egypt, even identification cards state the religion of the bearer, or at least this was true about 7 years ago.

That is not my meaning, there is a difference between discussing the effects, role of religion on a culture, country etc and vice versa, and having a highly in-depth academic theological/philosophical debate on Islam. For example not all Islamic cultures are the same because of the background of the country and it's history, traditions before that. Yet they are all fundamentally Islamic. Even people who are not practising Muslims will have an Islamic culture. I am not an Islamic scholar neither were the two people I was discussing: that is my point. Their work should not be read as a reflection of Islamic doctrine. Or as a religious studies piece of academia the debate, methodology, approach would be different. In a hurry perhaps I expressed it wrongly.

Or on concepts as she chose to relate them to her work.... I think this is much more accurate.

I am not defending her work my issue is that I simply explained where the theory quoted really originated from. A 'theory' does not mean it is fact or that I view it as such. It is a theory: one of many.

Fitna is a socio/religous concept and can not be fully understood without some wawareness of Islam as not only a religion, but as a civil code and map for living . It is more than a religion in the usual western sense of the word. The way in which people with whom she spoke interpreted the word "fitna" has everything to do with the religion and why chaos is not a good thing. It is not separated out. (The word means something like "Chaos" in Arabic) She did not give the full story, as Mahmoud pointed out also, that this concept does not just apply to women, but men as well. She led the reader to believe that this was another repressive Islamic measure toward women. Considering the already prejudiced view of westerners toward Islam, I consider this a serious omission.

:clap:
I fully and completely agree. My issue was not to define or explain what fitna is or isn't, only to explain and correct the quote I was presented with, which had misleading information on the root of the theory she was discussing. I do not have the Book in question-never read it- the section I read was that linked on the OP. My point was that I am not a Muslim, I have read books on Islam, celebrated feasts and events with Muslim families, read fragments of the Qu'ran (translated into English of course). As such my position is one of very limited knowledge, of such that I would never try to explain a concept, I am not capable of. In a debate on Islam I would be asking the questions and listening to the answers.

( Grammar, etc.; we all do the best we can. I sometimes find myself wording things like my mother would and French was her first language, so you can imagine.)
Regards,
A'isha

I hope that explains what I was trying to express more eloquently.
yours,
Sita

 

[Aisha Azar]

fitna

Understood.

Yes, that is the same Qasim Amin. As for Mernissi well she has her approach... fans and critics, although my major issue with her is actually that her fieldwork is normally only based in Morocco she is focused mainly there yet uses that data to represent a general view of Islamic culture, she makes no real distinction between geographical difference and situation. Which is why I prefer Fadwa El Guindi, she does make such distinctions.



That is not my meaning, there is a difference between discussing the effects, role of religion on a culture, country etc and vice versa, and having a highly in-depth academic theological/philosophical debate on Islam. For example not all Islamic cultures are the same because of the background of the country and it's history, traditions before that. Yet they are all fundamentally Islamic. Even people who are not practising Muslims will have an Islamic culture. I am not an Islamic scholar neither were the two people I was discussing: that is my point. Their work should not be read as a reflection of Islamic doctrine. Or as a religious studies piece of academia the debate, methodology, approach would be different. In a hurry perhaps I expressed it wrongly.



I am not defending her work my issue is that I simply explained where the theory quoted really originated from. A 'theory' does not mean it is fact or that I view it as such. It is a theory: one of many.



:clap:
I fully and completely agree. My issue was not to define or explain what fitna is or isn't, only to explain and correct the quote I was presented with, which had misleading information on the root of the theory she was discussing. I do not have the Book in question-never read it- the section I read was that linked on the OP. My point was that I am not a Muslim, I have read books on Islam, celebrated feasts and events with Muslim families, read fragments of the Qu'ran (translated into English of course). As such my position is one of very limited knowledge, of such that I would never try to explain a concept, I am not capable of. In a debate on Islam I would be asking the questions and listening to the answers.



I hope that explains what I was trying to express more eloquently.
yours,
Sita

Dear Sita,
I think I do understand your position now, as one of neutrality and a discussion of analytic theory as opposed to an explanation of fitna from any particular position. I, too feel that I have a limited knowledge of Islam. If I remember correctly there are only a couple of references to fitna in the Qur'an, one at least not attched to a specific gender and having to do with war. ( I truly wish I could remember more than that, but I con not, and I do not know how to find it in my Qur'an. ) Yet it is a big deal with westerners as a means to define certain gender specific concepts in incorrect ways. I do know that much!!
Regards,
A'isha

 

[Sita]

Dear Sita,
I think I do understand your position now, as one of neutrality and a discussion of analytic theory as opposed to an explanation of fitna from any particular position. I, too feel that I have a limited knowledge of Islam. If I remember correctly there are only a couple of references to fitna in the Qur'an, one at least not attched to a specific gender and having to do with war. ( I truly wish I could remember more than that, but I con not, and I do not know how to find it in my Qur'an. ) Yet it is a big deal with westerners as a means to define certain gender specific concepts in incorrect ways. I do know that much!!
Regards,
A'isha

Dear Ai'sha

Yes that is exactly my position.
Sorry it was my fault for rushing and not taking enough time to consider how I was expressing myself. Interestingly the only other time I have come across the word Fitna was historically in regards to Internal Wars/Battles (?) within Islam. Although I can't remember the book :wall: I shall sleep on it and come back to you. Perhaps ask someone I know who might help - unless anyone else here knows?
I always think it's the one of tragedies - that in terms of religions you can only completely understand and see it's complete spectrum of beauty from the inside. From the outside their will always be some limitations. However learning is always a blessing in itself and I'm hooked

Yet it is a big deal with westerners as a means to define certain gender specific concepts in incorrect ways. I do know that much!!

Yes, and because of it any writer of their worth has to shoulder that responsibility and make sure their writing is not going to be degraded in such a way. Although I don't know if perhaps this writer wanted this to happen? I do not know of her.
in regards to your point about gender specific concepts - I could not agree more - take Veiling - the Oriental discourse of either making it a an issue of female oppression or making it a sexual form of titillation and sex in their cultural products. Yet not one word written about the Tuareg men who veil, unlike their women, and traditionally don't even unveil while sleeping. I'd like to see them tell those men their oppressed (by their women?) No, the veil or the numerous different forms of clothing that come under that umbrella are gendered as 'feminine only' in the West.

Anyway I don't wanna bore everyone with that rant - I will never stop if I start
regards,

Sita

 

[cathy]

in regards to your point about gender specific concepts - I could not agree more - take Veiling - the Oriental discourse of either making it a an issue of female oppression or making it a sexual form of titillation and sex in their cultural products. Yet not one word written about the Tuareg men who veil, unlike their women, and traditionally don't even unveil while sleeping. I'd like to see them tell those men their oppressed (by their women?) No, the veil or the numerous different forms of clothing that come under that umbrella are gendered as 'feminine only' in the West.

Anyway I don't wanna bore everyone with that rant - I will never stop if I start
regards,

Sita

Hi Sita,

I have heard something about the Tuareg men who cover their noses and mouths with the ends of their taglemousses (sp?) supposedly because the women know the "secret of life" because they give birth and the men are therefore more susceptible to evil spirits that enter through those orifices? From what I heard the Tuareg are in some ways matrilineal. And they are Muslim but still retain some aspects of their previous religion.

So I would not be bored if you care to expound further. I am not quite sure what you were getting at with "Oriental discourse" and gendering clothing.

Cathy

 

[gypsy8522]

I think I have read that "fitna" means both "beautiful woman" and "chaos."

Fitna is a noun, not a description.

 

[gypsy8522]

Anyway I don't wanna bore everyone with that rant - I will never stop if I start
regards,

Sita

Sita, your 'rants' are never boring. In fact, your posts are of the few I've seen so far that are based on an educated, informed thought.