Television: How Muslims Live Now

Not all stereotypes are inaccurate, and the ingrained view of the Muslim world to which the West subscribes is, in fact, more true to life than not. We regard Muslim societies, on the whole, as places where women are oppressed and other religions anathematized, where laws and punishments can be primitive and cruel, and where the ability to reason in a modern manner (especially in theology and science, not to mention relations between the sexes) is impaired by the irreducible Word of the Quran.

Nothing I saw in "Muslims," a "Frontline" documentary film of impressive length and detail, gives me reason to depart from the Western script. That does not mean, for a moment, that watching it was a waste of time. On the contrary: I found that the batteries, as it were, of my Muslim stereotype were fully recharged by this two-hour program. This may not have been the intention of the film's producers, who appear to have set themselves the task of promoting the idea that Islam is not all bad -- which, of course, it is not. But much of the good that one can detect in the religion appears to lie in precisely those parts of Islamic doctrine that are ignored by its practitioners.

Take the case of Aida Melly, a vivacious young Malay woman whose husband will not give her a divorce. He has taken up with another lady (indeed, has married her as the Quran permits him to do, until he reaches a total of four women at once) and lives apart from Ms. Melly. He pays nothing for his estranged wife's upkeep, and is physically violent when she asks him for money. So why can't she divorce him? Good question.

In a moving sequence -- in which Ms. Melly is, by turns, bitter, stoical and good-humored -- she explains that she would like to get married again, but her husband simply will not give her a divorce. Under Islamic law, all he need do to annul their marriage is to say "Talaq, talaq, talaq" (or "I divorce thee," three times). But being a cussed sort of fellow, and rather unfeeling, he won't do that, and so Ms. Melly must appeal to the discretion of the local Shariah court, which administers Islamic law, to obtain a divorce to which she has no automatic right.

Over a year after she initiated proceedings, she is still foundering. A relationship with another man, by definition adulterous, would be impossible until the matter is resolved. As her lawyer, also a Muslim woman, points out, Islamic practice through the centuries has codified the permissive aspect of the Quranic law that gives a man the right to four wives, but it has deliberately left out the caveat that accompanies the grant. The Quran says: "…marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice [between them], then [marry] only one…." Where, Ms. Melly's lawyer asks, is the enforcement of the requirement of "doing justice," the good bit of this particular Quranic rule?

If the circumstances of an educated Muslim woman in a relatively advanced society like Malaysia can be so bleak, imagine the position of her sisters-in-faith in the Arab world, where the prevalent creed is Wahhabi Islam, an unyielding form of theism that reduces women to ciphers. The filmmakers do not take us to Saudi Arabia, the cradle of this brand of Islam. One presumes that they were not granted permission to work in the kingdom. Instead, for a flavor of Arab Islam, we go to Egypt -- and to Cairo's al-Azhar University.

The world's oldest extant university, al-Azhar predates its earliest counterparts in Europe by a good three centuries. But while labs today at Cambridge University, say, are at the forefront of scientific research, al-Azhar is still stuck in a theological murk; many of its present faculty, and the matters on which they give instruction to students, would fit right in with those who founded the place in the year 972, and with their teachings. (There are some differences, of course: Sheik Abdul Mauwith, the head of the university's "Fatwa Committee," issues his religious rulings over a sleek telephone.)

Those parts of the Muslim world that have been able to embrace contemporaneity have done so only by distancing themselves from Islam, and not always delicately. Turkey, on which the "Frontline" documentary focuses much attention, is one such place. We are shown scenes where a female member of parliament from an Islamic party is expelled from the Turkish legislature for wearing a headscarf. To Western eyes, this compulsory public secularism would appear to be no less intolerant than the Islam that it seeks to keep in check.

But educated Turks will have none of this Western squeamishness (and after Sept. 11, we have less of it too). "If we allow them to cover their heads," says a retired psychotherapist -- a woman who would not look out of place in Manhattan -- "one day we will all have to cover ours." Her underlying point is that the female legislator would be most welcome in parliament, provided she took off her scarf; in Saudi Arabia, she would not be welcome at all, assuming there were a parliament in the first place.

"If we allow them to cover their heads," says a retired psychotherapist -- a woman who would not look out of place in Manhattan -- "one day we will all have to cover ours."

This is the phrase that struck me. The Turks seem to have the right idea: don't tolerate intolerance, whereas we Americans go blindly tolerating everything until intolerance becomes soup du jour the way the intolerance of political correctness has become. Just ask the Boy Scouts of America. Just ask the Young Republicans on college campuses.

The Quran says: "…marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice [between them], then [marry] only one…." Where, Ms. Melly's lawyer asks, is the enforcement of the requirement of "doing justice," the good bit of this particular Quranic rule?

The enforcement lies with the husband alone, apparently.

Excellent and thoughtful article. It makes the sidebar point that the message viewers get from TV programs is not always the one the producers of that message intended.
Remember the commercial that Walter Mondale ran against Ronald Reagan which showed a Titan missile launch? Right after the blast doors flung open and the missile rose on a pillar of flame, the shot changed to the blue ball of Earth in space.
The idea was to paint Reagan as a man who might start a thermonuclear war -- the same charge that LBJ made against Goldwater with the girl-in-field followed by nuclear-detonation commercial (pulled after it was run once).
But consider the message that Joe Six-Pack would get from the Mondale commercial. Was it that Reagan was dangerous? I think not. I Joe's reaction to the Mondale commercial, which was run repeatedly, was, "Look at that baby fly. Is this a great nation, or what?"
Sometimes TV producers are just too slick for their own good -- just like politicians.

Congressman Billybob

Click here to fight Campaign Finance "Reform/".

Click here for latest: "President John Edwards -- Think About It."

If we allow them to cover their heads," says a retired psychotherapist -- a woman who would not look out of place in Manhattan -- "one day we will all have to cover ours."

Reminds me of something I read the other day on Glenn Reynold's Instapundit:

...Salah's response to some critical comments is this: "We are fighting for self-determination. That means that we wish to live according to our own societal values, not your Western ones. You are a cultural imperialist. I appreciate your concern for our struggle, but WE will decide for ourselves." That reminds me of this quote, from some French Communist or other (this is from memory): "When you are in power, you give me freedom because that is according to your principles. When I am in power, I will take away your freedom, because that is according to my principles."

We are a country where idealistically, government rules flow from the people up to the government. We are used to this. The muslims are used to being directed, and rules flow down to the people from either their muslim cleric or their 'Phaero'.

In 1994, while I was living in Egypt, Mubarik wanted to help reform Egyptian schools, and make them more secular, and he banned the wearing of scarves by girls in school. He had a hard fight of it, to get them to stop wearing the scarves, but I think he won (haven't checked lately). However, because of this type of vision, the fundamentalists keep trying to blow him up, and you will find most of the women in the streets of Cairo in western wear.

However, they are just changing the name of McDonalds (first one opened in Cairo also in 1994) to Man Foods, to 'un-associate' the chain with America. So, I think he is losing the battle for freedom and westernization.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.