Friday Links — February 27, 2009

February 27th, 2009
fatemeh
  • An Israeli study shows that female genital cutting is a disappearing practice among Bedouin tribes in the country. Islam in Europe discusses the implications of this study.
  • Morocco has pre-emptively banned the French feminist group “Ni Putes, Ni Soumises” from opening offices in the country, though they haven’t asked to do so. Except that Voice of America says that the group is opening in Morocco. O RLY?
  • On Noura Al Faiz, Saudi Arabia’s newest appointment to the ministry of girls’ education.

Tags: ,

9 Responses to “Friday Links — February 27, 2009”

  1. Sahar says:

    The Nikki Keddie piece was interesting. I think Keddie and Ziba Mir-Hosseini are recognising the fundamentally flawed analysis of women’s status in post-revolution Iran. Women from all strata of society have legitimised themselves in politics and other areas which are usually male-dominated. The Pahlavi regime did not achieve the kind of penetration of this patriarchal discourse both at the national and religious orthodox level that we’re seeing in Iran today. It was indeed the agenda of the elite and never the everyday Iranian woman. This has all changed since the revolution with the potent reality of women’s participation in both the revolution and running the country during the Iran-Iraq war. Contrary to what Western feminists are claiming of their experiences, Iranian women are continuing on with their revolutionary activities.
    .

  2. Broomstick says:

    glad to hear that even more mainstream media outlets are speaking out how the murder of Aasiya Hassan wasn’t a honor killing.

  3. Sara says:

    Salam,
    Thought you might be interested in this link:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/lipstick-revolution-irans-women-are-taking-on-the-mullahs-1632257.html
    Plenty to cover, I couldn’t help but think of MMW while reading :D
    What’s with the lipstick thing, lipstick jihad, lipstick revolution … pffff

  4. Sara says:

    I hadn’t read the whole thing when I left the previous comment. It does balance out a bit in the second half but still contains lots of stereotypes, misunderstandings, …

  5. Rayhana says:

    I’m actually more than a little confused about the Norway police hijab situation.

    Were the included photographs in Hijablog the proposed uniform? That’s about half a yard of loose cloth draped and wrapped around the officer’s neck and shoulders. (Note– Male police uniforms sometimes include ties, but they are clip-on, breakaway types). Not only does that shout to me of “danger to the officer herself” if it should be grabbed by an assailant, but a potential impediment to her doing her job in difficult physical circumstances like fire or water rescue, active pursuit, or the like.

    I can see wrapping a scarf tightly over the hair if it’s that important — though I still worry about it slipping and obscuring sight, and in any case it will muffle hearing if it covers the ears — yet, it’s not much different than a hat. The full, loose, flapping cloth, though, seems to me to be a poor idea for police uniform not because of religious discrimination, but because of the danger it presents both to the officer and the people the officer is supposed to serve and protect.

  6. coolred38 says:

    I obtained a drivers license while still wearing the hijab some years ago and never had a problem with someone asking me to take it off…where are all these stories coming from about women refusing to remove it…or being ordered to remove it? Are there different rules regarding headgear in driving photos in each state?

  7. Lastoadri says:

    Hello all,
    Thanks for your exceptionally unique effort. I just love everything you write girls :)

    Anyways, just a tiny correction if you dont mind. but:
    “Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood may change its stances on women and Christians.”
    Has been denied today by Muslim Brotherhood. They will not change their stances on women and Christians..

  8. Ruchama says:

    I don’t understand why the girls were required to wear the scarf in the article about the field trip in Denmark. I’ve been to a few religious places where visitors were required to cover up (like an interfaith service at a Sikh temple I went to a few years ago, where women were asked to cover their heads — a bandana was fine — or some historical synagogues I’ve been to in Israel where men have to wear something on their heads and women have to have at least shoulders and knees covered, and there’s usually an elderly woman at the entrance tying shawls around women who aren’t covered enough to enter), but someone from the mosque was quoted in the article saying that they don’t have any requirement like that, so why was the school insisting on it?

  9. phil says:

    Ikhwan are not really going to change their stance, particularly on Coptics.