Restraint or Oppression: Clearly in the Eye of the Beholder in Some Cases

There's an op ed piece in the Washington Post written by Leila Aboulela, author of Minaret. She is a devout Muslima writer who is concerned that Westerners view Muslim women as oppressed. The word she prefers to use is "restraint." She writes:

"Yes, Islam restrains me, but restraint is not oppression, and boundaries can be comforting and nurturing. Freedom does not necessarily bring happiness, nor does an abundance of choices automatically mean that we will make the right one. I need guidance and wisdom; I need grace and forgiveness."

I am not certain of Ms. Aboulela's intent here. It is true that freedom, in itself, does not lead to happiness with certitude. We make choices in a free state, and things can go well or they can go poorly, depending on the choices. And I, personally, would agree that we need guidance and wisdom, grace and forgiveness. But does she mean by these words to establish a defense of ways of governing that are antagonistic to freedom? I'm afraid that this is what I have gotten from her article.

Despite Islamic law, she writes that "I am not oppressed simply because I have, thank God, been spared the causes of oppression: poverty, war, destitution, abuse, illness and ignorance."

But this is the promise of dictators everywhere: I'll keep you safe and fed--just follow me.

She admits that there are problems for women in the Muslim world: "I think it is ridiculous that women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, deeply shameful that young girls are still circumcised in Sudan and criminal that women in any part of the Muslim world can be denied health care or education." But Ms. Adoulela believes that this will pass. She explains that "Change and progress, though, are happening, slowly but steadily, as Muslim societies acknowledge that their unjust traditions are rooted in a culture that can evolve, rather than in timeless religious values."

One implication, as I read it, is that if something is thought to be true, it must be timeless and religious, and something to bow down before. If it's found to be oppressive, it must not have been part of the original teaching, and therefore can be changed. This is not the way to be a reasonable human being. We don't start with the assumption that "our leader" is right, and then work at trying to fix our misconceptions of "our leader." I'll admit, however, that in a totalitarian state, it might be a good strategy to go about change this way.

I don't know what to say to someone who, from the start, implies that they want to be in chains because they don't trust themselves to find their way to a good life. And because of this, they are supportive of efforts to bring others into chains--for their own good, I suppose. Ms. Aboulela's vision of restraint blurs the line of oppression to me. What about just letting people do what they want to do until and unless they're hurting someone else? Life is an experiment. Let's let people experiment.

So, if her purpose in writing this was to help people like me to understand why women are not actually oppressed in the Muslim world, she hasn't persuaded me. If her purpose is to suggest that there are many women in the Muslim world who do not feel oppressed, I can buy that quite easily. But I would expect to hear expressions of contentment from any corner of the world. It doesn't make it right.