The Hole Story: Sexual Abuse in a “Strict Muslim” Household

Sexual Abuse in Islamic Society” is the title of a recently published BBC article.* Right away, I knew it wasn’t going to be a good story (and by “good”, I mean objective, balanced, etc.). “Islamic society,” says the title, not an Islamic society, whatever that is. There is so much wrong with this BBC story and it’s upsetting on so many levels, it’s hard to know where to start.

Here’s the story: Fatima, who is 26, was raised in a “strict Islamic family” in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. Her stepfather allegedly raped her continuously from the ages of 15-19. She was allegedly advised by Pearl, an online American chat buddy, to tell someone. She told her aunt, who allegedly took her to a lawyer, who allegedly told her that “under Shar’iah law” she would be subject to lashes for committing “adultery.” She told her mother, who allegedly confronted the stepfather, who said he did it “to make Fatima feel better and that it was all out of love.” Her mother thought about divorcing him, but changed her mind, choosing to stay with him. Fatima then left her family for America, land of the brave, where she was granted asylum:

Fatima says she realised that what mattered most, in the eyes of society, was family honour and what other people would think of them [...] Fatima says that she thought that her Muslim country would protect her as a woman, but that in the end, they protected her rapist.

To begin with, did you realize how many times I used the word “allegedly?” This story is one of the worst researched stories I have ever had the bad luck to come across. There are no quotes from Fatima’s lawyer, her family, Abu Dhabi police, and no hint that any of them were even approached for interviews. But since it’s a Muslim woman outing her “Muslim oppressors,” I guess we don’t need any further information.

Domestic abuse is a terrible reality that can happen anywhere and any time, no matter what religion, nationality or ethnicity you are. It is present in every community. The criminal is the person who committed the crime–in this case, her stepfather. These criminals bend social and religious values to normalize their crime; society and tradition can then help to conceal the crime. That means we have some serious house-cleaning to do, and that domestic abuse laws in some predominately Muslim countries need to be reformed, but it doesn’t mean that there is something wrong with Islam.

And, as we have said over and over again until we are blue in the face, this does not mean the actions are condoned by or the fault the criminal’s religion, which almost never figures in the story unless the faith is Islam. This is the story of a rapist.  But unfortunately, it turns into an attack—seemingly by Fatima—on a Muslim country and Muslim society and Muslim ideas.

The 10-minute audio file embedded in the story begins by letting us know that the first child abuse conference has taken place in Saudi Arabia. It quotes a recent study which found that in 12 countries in the Eastern Mediterranean region, more than 40% of boys and 60% of girls between the ages of 13 and 15 had been psychologically or sexually abused, which is a sobering fact if true.

To highlight the issue, Fatima then talks us through her story, which, by the way,  takes place in Abu Dhabi, not Saudi Arabia. Dr. Fadheela Al Mahroos, President of the Bahrain-based International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Arab Professional Network, talks about child marriages in Yemen. But you know, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Yemen, they’re all the same thing in the eyes of the BBC.  Along with the audio interview, we also get a fascinating, must-see three minute audio slideshow of Fatima’s art.

Fatima’s story is perfectly fits into the narrative that media constructs around Muslim women. We only ever seem to hear stories in non-Arab media about Muslim women when the women were abused/sold/forced into marriage, etc., or have rejected their faith and made it their life’s mission to talk about why it oppresses women.

The BBC’s story about Fatima is a classic example of both kinds of stories. Fatima’s story has been edited, possibly to fit the image the BBC wanted to portray. Let us count the ways:

She begins by telling us that she grew up in:

A conservative local Islamic family where girls are taught early on to fear God and family and more importantly to preserve family honor.

Honor, she says, is more important that anything else. Then we are treated to a description of her stepfather, one even Hollywood has to applaud:

He had three wives and 21 children. He was a violent man, a heavy drinker, a controlling narcissist. He blamed his sexual addiction on Satan, or the shaitan, saying both of us were guilty and had to stay silent, all while he played the role of good Muslim.

The saddest part of this story is that Fatima herself equates what happened to her with Islam, recounting her life in a “strict Muslim family,” and not in a dysfunctional family with a sex offender.

Fatima mentions in her slideshow that she was trapped in her house, without going into explanations why, letting listeners assume that her “Muslim family” was to blame. One of her photographs, titled Window in my Room, consists of black silhouette straining against a shut window.

And though Fatima’s aunt convinced her to tell her mother, the aunt dies of cancer. Three months after Fatima told her mother, she says that, “fearing for my life” she ran away to America. Again, there is no explanation provided of why she feared for her life. In her audio slide show, she says:

In my Muslim family, I was limited in what I could and could not do. It took me more than five years of begging and pleading with my family before they got me a camera.

We’re never told why her family wouldn’t allow her to have a camera; this example is only given to prove how constrictive her family life was.

The story provides more predictable narratives around American involvement and Arab culture. Her American friend was the one who helped her confront her stepfather (America to the rescue, haven for all!), while her society (or, actually, some shady lawyer, if that) told her she would be sentenced for adultery if she made a fuss.

Commentators across the internet differ in their outlooks towards Fatima’s story. Some applaud her bravery for speaking out, while others point out the somewhat contradictory aspects of her story. If she was trapped at home, they ask, how did she learn to speak such perfect English? If she couldn’t even leave the house to buy herself a camera, how could she travel to America? Others point out that she blames her society for not protecting her though she didn’t even attempt to contact her authorities. Others are more disturbed by how her story feeds into common misconceptions about Muslims. One commentator notes:

[Her stepfather] blamed his sexual addiction on the so called “Satan”?? Puleez could there be a more cliched answer?? Everything she said is a cliche and confirms the common intentional misconception about Muslims and Arabs, from blaming “sins” on Satan to the alleged imprisonment and “entrapment” of women inside the house [...] And then she declares that she became a free woman only upon entering America.

Another adds:

She may be very sour about what happened to her and how her family didn’t reach out to her, but blaming them because they are Muslim is a cheap trick. [...] Fatima should only blame her twisted family [...] if Fatima felt caged it was not because she lived in a Muslim household but because she lived in an evil household. [...]

Overall, I think she is hungry for attention and for complete integration in her newly found “free” society. It is easier to integrate when you can convince yourself that you miss “nothing from your society” and when you can convince others that your old society is evil, corrupt and sexist. Sadly, Fatima is equating freedom with abandonment of Islam, but frankly we have all seen that happen before.

Others feel that Fatima has come to assume Islam contributed to her suffering since her knowledge of it had been skewed by her stepfather’s actions. Understandably, they say, the fact that she has come to dislike Islam and her culture is a valid response. One commentator says:

Our experiences reflect our outlook, perspective and behaviour – her experiences were horrific and as a result her iman [faith] may have been affected – who are we to judge her? We know that iman can increase and decrease – may Allah heal her heart and soul and fill her heart with the light of iman – ameen

Now that she is ‘free,’ Fatima ends her story with this:

Now I can honestly say with complete confidence that I miss nothing from my past life. I always thought that my Muslim family and my Muslim country would protect me as a woman. I was wrong. Instead they chose to protect my rapist in the name of family honor.

Fatima's piece, "Telling My Mother." Image via the BBC.

Fatima's piece, "Telling My Mother." Image via the BBC.

The story is accompanied by a three-minute audio slideshow of Fatima’s photography. She explains the pieces, which she says served as a catharsis for the psychological problems she encountered from her abuse. Many of the images deal with women and veils. Two of the photos are of women in hijab covering their faces with their hands, out of shame. The one pictured left is titled, “Telling my Mother,” of which she says:

Shows the amount of shame and fear I felt when I first came out and told her about the sexual abuse.

About the photo, “Escape from my Home,” she says:

The birdcage […] is a reflection of my own state of mind and how I felt in my family and the feeling of entrapment. And the girl holding the traditional veil represents me and the freedom I felt after coming out and talking about the abuse and how I was able to see past my society and traditional family structure.

She explains her photo titled, Hanging my Old Islamic Clothes for Good”:

The clothes on the line actually represent the traditional abaya and sheila local females in the UAE are required to wear. And I’ve hung them on the line under the sun to dry in order for me to start a new life as a free woman.

The trapped Muslim woman in a cage flees her country, family, and faith, and is now free. The symbol of freedom? Removing her veil. Fatima believes that by removing the shackles of the veil, she has been freed. Never mind that Abu Dhabi has no enforceable dress code, which Fatima says local women are “required” to abide by. I have been there at least half a dozen times, and have met many local women, very few who actually cover completely.

As one commentator put it:

The part that made me the most angry was when she showed the pictures of her hanging her abaya and supposedly “freeing herself” from her shackles or whatever it was that she said! The abaya and any Islamic clothing was the source of your abuse?! Even if you had worn shorts and a tank top if you live with a sick human who will abuse you what you wear doesn’t make a difference! Nor would it have made you braver in standing up to him if the society’s way of thinking was the source of the problem! In fact if he had any regard for ANY religion (or even some morals or mental stability) he would not do such a thing. Islam has nothing to with it.

Unfortunately, the issue is deeper than this commentator makes it out to be. It has become a dominant media narrative that de-hijabizing illustrates liberation of Muslim women, whereas veiling in any form represents oppression. Fatima’s statements show that she believes this narrative, where the abaya has become a symbol for the horrible things in her old life.

In the slide show, we are also treated to several random shots of mosques, assumingly to solidify the link between Islam and her abuse. We have no way of knowing if she chose the photos of the mosque or simply provided the BBC with her portfolio and they chose the images.

Fatima's piece "Escape from my home".

Fatima's piece "Escape from my home".

Fatima’s story, as told to us by the BBC has logical holes in it, it hasn’t been verified, and falls into all the traps I would expect from someone who has never even been to an “Islamic” society. But since it’s an edited version of Fatima’s story, we have no way of knowing if the holes were explained by Fatima. The story, whether true or not, has been co-opted to reinforce the narrative of the oppressed Muslim woman and the evil Muslim man and horrible Muslim society. It also seems to have been amplified to gain asylum and media attention, since the poor-Muslim-woman-breaks-free is a tried and tested formula for doing so.

Stories like this happen. Women and children are abused, and we need to make sure this stops, because it is out duty as Muslims and human beings to protest against what is clearly wrong.

But once she equated the horrible things she went through with Islam, and not a hypocritical man, her narrative lost Muslim sympathy because it echoed Islamphobic narratives blaming Islam for all the evils that people do. The word “Muslim” is stressed so much it’s not even remotely subtle (the emphasis on the word Muslim is Fatima’s, not mine).

And if her story is true, then it illustrates an even worse malady in the “Muslim” consciousness: we have begun to internalize the negative, Orientalist, imperialist messages that we see and hear. Perhaps Fatima has come to believe in the Western idea that the veil in some way represents her oppressions and believes that her religion and abuse are intertwined, assuming that only after she shuns her Islamic beliefs, symbolized by her veil, could she be truly happy and free. If her story is true, then I doubt the mental and emotional trauma she suffers from will be as easy to get rid of as her veil.

*Editor’s note: The BBC has since changed the title to “Sexual Abuse in Abu Dhabi.”

The Ideal Egyptian Woman, According to CityStars Mall

For those who don’t know, CityStars mall in Cairo was the biggest mall in the Middle East until it was surpassed by Dubai Mall in November 2008.

Nevertheless, it’s still a huge mall, with (according to their website) over 550 stores, 6,000 parking spaces, three hotels, two indoor theme parks, and a 21-screen cinema complex. Over $800 million has been invested in it to date and it is visited by approximately 45,000 people each day. On the weekends, visitors range from 50-75,000, and last Eid, 83,000 people visited the mall in one day.

Basically, it’s a very popular, one-of-a-kind mall. Think H&M, La-Z-boy cinema chairs, Burger King, Spinney’s and Virgin Megastores, all rolled into one.

It’s so big it opened in two phases, and phase two is still in the process of being rented out. New stores open every couple of months (FYI, Zara and New Look are next on the list) and until one does, the storefronts used to be boarded up with an “Opening soon” sign. Now, however, we have these advertisements:

sdc10046

Let’s break it down, shall we?

For one thing, the location doesn’t even seem like it’s Egypt. Outdoor café’s, storefronts, scooters, bicycles, etc.

But my beef is, of course, with the women (men in these ads are severely outnumbered and are only there to eyeball the women. Nice). The women are white, dishwater blondes who are tall, leggy, extra thin and all wearing heels dressed like they’ve stepped out of a fashion magazine. Most bear little resemblance to Egyptian women.

sdc10048

I don’t think a natural blonde Egyptian woman exists. And I’ll eat my hat if there’s one Egyptian woman out there who walks her Dalmatian and two Labradors in a strapless dress while holding her poodle under her arm.

The way these women are portrayed, is, of course,  nothing new. All you have to do is pick up any issue of Glamour or Cosmo and you’ll see. But those ads aren’t targeted at Egyptians, they’re targeted at the magazine’s market. So why do CityStars’ apparently local ads use non-Egyptian standards of beauty? If you’re going to show beautiful women why not brunettes with curly hair and big eyes?

So I called up CityStars and asked who designed the ads. Perhaps, I thought, they were designed by some out-of-touch foreign ad agency. But no, they were designed by Egyptian Sherif Ibrahim, senior graphic designer in the marketing department. He said:

I designed them this way because I wanted a way to express what CityStars is all about. The walk from phase one to phase two is pretty long so we wanted people to have something to look at. These are cool and reflect reality.

Reflect reality? If anything, I replied, these ads are very far away from reality, and only represent a small segment of what Egyptian women look like (or wish they looked like):

Well, if you notice there aren’t any of these ads in phase one. I am addressing a certain class of women who come to phase two, which has more brands and expensive stores. So I am addressing these people, and the design is close to the people in that level. It looks chic.

(Phase one has stores like Benetton and Esprit. Phase two is more Lacoste and BCBG).

Ibrahim kind of has a point. But it’s still classist to say only the ‘rich’ of the 40 or 50 thousand daily visitors will go to phase 2. It’s not the same as having similar ads in an expensive glossy magazine only ‘those’ kind of women would see. I’ve seen myself a group of average Egyptian men snickering as they posed next to ads.

It depresses me to see how local ads are now mirroring what we see in non-local ads, and therefore tacitly accepting that this is what the ideal women should look and dress like. By holding this up as the ideal, advertisers further perpetuate the idea that this is right, with added credibility that comes with being a part of the community and saying this, not an outsider. The fact that the ads are cartoons actually makes their impact stronger than if they were just models–because if they were just models then they obviously wouldn’t have been Egyptian and therefore ‘not us.’

Plus, you’re not just promoting the way women should look, but the lifestyle associated with the look. Indirectly, you are contributing to the already existing inferiority complex, and make more Egyptian women wish they didn’t look the way they do.

The ads also reinforce the stereotype that the rich and wealthy—Egypt’s ‘elite,’ if you will—are all wannabe westerners at heart, which is an unfair accusation that become harder to refute the more we insist on portraying them this way. Flashback to my university days, where the Egyptian public at large classified all those who went to it as such. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago the university newspaper, The Caravan, published an article titled Don’t Hate me Cuz I’m Gucci:

Outside the walls of The American University in Cairo’s vast 260-acre campus, the stereotypical image of the filthy-rich, Westernized, spoiled students cocooned inside is nurtured by the Egyptian public at large, while inside the campus walls, the same image is reserved for a small minority better known as the “Gucci Corner.” […] This stereotype of the “Gucci kid” is often duplicated outside the walls of AUC and used to describe AUC students as a whole. […] Generally […] the media tries to reaffirm this image when they host or talk to AUC students by painting a picture of isolation and alienation.

The ads also assume that trendy women who are interested in fashion must be unveiled. In a country where the estimated number of veiled women is 70-80%, that’s a heck of a big minority group to ignore. In fact, it kind of reminds me of how U.S. designers are ignoring Fashion’s Invisible Woman: the average American women which is a size 14. Ibrahim answered:

You’re right, there are no hijabis in the ads. And that’s because if you look, you’ll see that the characters are all funky. I didn’t want to draw a hijabi in that funky style with tall boots and the guys.

But it’s okay to show non-veiled women in this way? Isn’t that insulting to them?

In the end, Ibrahim is not totally at fault, he’s only mirroring what a certain class of Egyptian women see themselves as. And no doubt had he shown Bedouins many would have poo-pahed. But ignoring your country’s rich Arab, Islamic and Ancient Egyptian culture is sad, especially if you ignore it to emulate and idolize another culture.

The minute I saw the ads, I was reminded of a recent incident with my little 8-year-old cousin.

She came up to me with a 10 page pop up ‘book’ she’d just written and drawn, and asked me to read the story, which went as follows:

Mark and Sue and Joe are at the office, and someone’s stapler gets stolen. After an investigation, it turns out the bearded Ahmed was the thief.

When I asked her why the bearded Ahmed was the thief, she replied innocently:

Because in the movies the bad guy is always Arab.

So sure, perhaps I’m making a mountain out of a molehill, but that’s how the story goes. Blind imitation is never a good thing.

The Age of Innocence: the Mistreatment of an Elderly Woman in Saudi Arabia

The internet is abuzz with talk of Khamisa Sawadi, a 75-year-old Syrian widow living in Saudi Arabia who was sentenced to 40 lashes and 4 months in jail for the crime of khalwa, being alone with a man who is not her relative. The verdict, issued on March 3rd, also demands that Sawadi be deported after serving her sentence. Sawadi’s husband was Saudi Arabian.

According to Arab News:

The elderly woman met the men [...] after she asked one of them to bring her five loaves of bread. [...] The men — [her late husband's] nephew, Fahd Al-Anzi, and his friend and business partner, Hadiyan bin Zein [both aged 24] — went to Sawadi’s home in the town of Al-Shamli.

Suleiman Al-Radhiman, director of the Hail office of the commission, told Al-Watan that his officials detained the woman after receiving a written message that two men had entered her house.

He pointed out that police had arrested the woman on two previous occasions.

Bin Zein said the commission officials arrested them about 200 meters from the woman’s house. “There were six commission members who all had their faces covered.”

The widely read CNN article (which made the top 10 most dugg stories yesterday) says the men were caught inside the house by one policeman, which doesn’t really make sense. Why would a member of the virtue police suddenly enter an old woman’s house? The answer: they didn’t. A little more research would be helpful CNN. And who exactly wrote the message? And Sawadi was arrested twice before? Why?

What makes the situation worse is the fact that Sawadi insists that Al-Anzi is her son, since she breastfed him as a child and in Islam breastfeeding gives a degree of maternal relation. But since she has no ‘proof,’ she cannot claim he is a relative. (Interestingly, the court can’t have evidence that she didn’t). So-called “Islamic” law was enough to charge her, but not to clear her name?

According to Yahoo! News, the court based it’s verdict on “citizen information” and testimony from Al-Anzi’s father, her late husband’s brother (!), who accused her of “corruption.”

Maybe he just didn’t realize his son would also get sentenced to 40 lashes and 4 months in jail? (The business partner got 60 lashes and 6 months). Sawadi’s verdict read:

Because she said she doesn’t have a husband and because she is not a Saudi*, conviction of the defendants of illegal mingling has been confirmed.

So if she was married and a Saudi Arabian it would have been okay? Her birth place and marital status make her guilty?

I can’t help but wonder at Saudi Arabia’s continued attempts at shooting itself in the foot. The Saudi Arabian judiciary and the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) have once again come under fire.

Al-Watan, the Saudi paper which first covered the issue, actually interviewed Sawadi back in June 2008, who has not spoken to the press since her verdict was handed down. They quote her as saying the CPVPV entered her house under false pretences to investigate her:

They used deceit and explotation of my old age and poverty by saying they were from a charity organization. One was short and one was tall. They said they were there to see if I needed any financial or in-kind donations. I had called my son Fahd to get me bread and he did. I am a poor woman without air conditioning in my house and I only have my son from breastfeeding. When they left they were arrested for helping out an old woman.

Laila Ahmed al-Ahdab, a columnist in the paper, wrote:

How can a verdict be issued based on suspicion? A group of people are misusing religion to serve their own interests.

Media reports covering Sawadi’s case are varied.

One article comments:

It is not known if the religious police really believed the men were behaving improperly with a woman old enough to be their grandmother or if the prosecutions were just a matter of principle.

Some articles blur the line between Saudi Arabia’s interpretation of Islam with Islam, calling Sawadi’s punishment “Shari’a law,” and not a country’s interpretation of what Shari’a law would look like. Almost all the articles make sure to mention that in Saudi Arabia women can’t drive, need a male relative’s permission to travel, etc.

Others make sure to mention some or all of the most recent (negative) stories in Saudi Arabia featuring women, including the Qatif girl rape case who was sentenced for gang rape, the case of two novelists last week who were questioned for wanting to get a female writer’s autograph, the 8-year-old married to a 58-year-old man who was denied divorce until she reaches puberty etc.

Others still mention several unrelated stories about Saudi Arabia, such as Saudi Sheik Saleh Lihedan who condoned killing TV channel owners that broadcast “immoral” content, just to plug in how “crazy” the country is.

An interesting thing I’ve noticed when reading blog posts about the issue is the degree to which Sawadi’s age affects people’s impressions of the charge. A story published today in the Al-Watan newspaper reports that a Saudi woman and man were arrested yesterday for being alone together in a car (car chase and accident ensued), and many of the commentators accepted this, saying the man and woman deserved to be punished because they were being ‘sinful.’

But Sawadi’s age makes a huge difference, say some bloggers. If it was a young woman alone with two men in an apartment, the situation might be different. If the men had spent a long time in the apartment, it would be different, and so on. I haven’t come across one post that heavily critiques the punishment for khalwa, especially when nothing was going on!

The only article I read about the Sawadi case which was somewhat balanced, trying to show that it’s all not doom and gloom in Saudi Arabia was in the LA Times, by Raed Rafei, specifically stating that:

A handful of changes in the past two months suggests an increase of freedoms for women, activists say.

It linked to an interesting article in the Middle East Online talking about Saudi women activists in Saudi Arabia. Rafei goes on to mention the fact that:

King Abdullah appointed last month the first woman to a ministerial post. [...] He recently dismissed a leading fundamentalist cleric and the head of the kingdom’s religious police, Sheik Ibrahim Ghaith. The monarch also removed Sheik Saleh Lihedan as chief of the country’s highest religious tribunal. The man issued a fatwa in September saying it was permissible to kill TV executives for broadcasting “evil” and immoral programs.

The latter fact being one other articles opted to ignore when they mentioned Sheik Saleh Lihedan.

It’s still not enough, as Sabria Jawhar, the once Jeddah bureau chief of the Saudi Gazette and leading Saudi Arabian columnist, writes:

For every [one success story] there are 100 Khamisa Sawadis. For every female Saudi graduate student studying abroad, there are 100 other Saudi women denied their right to divorce abusive husbands or to gain custody of their children. A Saudi delegation can stand before the United Nation’s Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and provide a laundry list of all the good things the Saudi government has done for their women. But closer scrutiny of Khamisa Sawadi, the Qatif Girl, forced divorces and the countless 13-year-old brides married off to men four times their age tarnishes the appointments of Saudi women to high places.

While we have seen remarkable changes recently in the general presidency of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice and a new chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Council, it’s the judges in court that seem to have lost sight of their religious and social obligations and revert to tribal customs.*

There is no religious prohibition preventing women from driving yet we are forced to mingle with unrelated men who are employed as our drivers. If Sawadi is guilty of mingling with men who are not her close relatives, then 95 percent of the Saudi women are guilty of the same thing. Imagine if the laws, as interpreted by the Saudi courts, were administered in an equitable manner. [Some]  judges [parse] every word of a Hadith to reach a verdict [they] had already decided on or [are those] who will succumb to tribal pressures.

But they’re still steps on the road to reform. Let’s hope King Abdullah steps in and overrules Sawadi’s sentence, and that of the men who were only running her an errand.

* emphasis mine.