Muslim women welcome a debate about the status of women in Islam. Intelligent, honest critique is an invaluable source of ideas for Muslims as we begin the process of reclaiming our religious and intellectual tradition.
Muslim women also welcome feminist alliances with other women in the task of challenging the misuse of power by Muslim men -- just as we can offer our own perspective on both women's advances and setbacks in the West.
But such public debate and alliances obviously don't take place in a vacuum, but in a social, racial and political context. It would be naive to imagine that the domestic debate about Islam -- and Muslim women in particular -- can be hermetically sealed off from the politics of the "war on terror," as the last couple of weeks have demonstrated. In the UK, the columnist Polly Toynbee was right to say that "women's bodies have been the battle flag of religions."
But the significance of religious and cultural symbols such as the veil is not immutable and static -- they have a mixed and changing social meaning.
Muslim women who adopt the veil in Europe may simultaneously be seeking to affirm their religious identity while being determined to enter the public sphere as full and equal citizens.
They are often also trying to change the cultural and political meaning of the veil in a contemporary context. For some, it may be linked to patriarchal pressure; for others a symbol of identity and emancipation in a commodified and patriarchal society -- and for many, a response to a religious vocation.
Feminist politics needs to be flexible and respond to these complexities. And for Muslim women their religion and even their gender are not the only, or the most grievous, focus of their oppression -- their bodies have also been, and continue to be, a battleground for European and US imperialism.
Lord Cromer, British consul general in Egypt in the late 19th century, famously justified British colonial rule by arguing that it could liberate Egyptian women from their oppressive veils.
Commenting on French colonialism in Algeria in the 1950s, the writer Frantz Fanon noted: "There is also in the European the crystallization of an aggressiveness, the strain of a kind of violence before the Algerian woman.
Unveiling this woman is revealing her beauty; it is baring her secret, breaking her resistance [to colonial rule]. There is in it the will to bring this woman within his reach, to make her a possible object of possession," Fanon wrote.
When the US launched its so-called war on terror in Afghanistan in 2001, US President George W. Bush glorified his aims by stating: "Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes ... The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women."
The US social anthropologists Saba Mahmood and Charles Hirschkind have noted that the relationship between the Bush administration and some US feminists was reciprocal and intimate.
"By the time the war started, feminists like [Eleanor] Smeal could be found cozily chatting with the general about their shared enthusiasm for Operation Enduring Freedom and the possibility of women pilots commandeering F-16s," they said.
By December 2001, 3,767 Afghans, including women and children, were reported to have been killed by US bombs.
The "war on terror" moved to Iraq in 2003. Once again, Bush included concern for the rights of women as one of his war aims.
"Respect for women ... can triumph in the Middle East and beyond," he told the UN in 2002.
Four years later, as Iraq spirals into a violent abyss, women are paying the highest human costs for foreign invasion -- an ever increasing number of victims of murder, rape and abduction.
Female politicians in British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Cabinet are falling over each other in their enthusiasm to protect the rights of vulnerable Muslim women.
Yet these same politicians voted to launch aggressive war against Iraq. Muslim women listen in amazement when these women, their "feminist sisters," are praised for their "bravery" in speaking out so freely about protecting them from the veil when none of them felt it necessary to resign their political office when it became clear that illegal war had unleashed a tide of violence, killing vast numbers of Iraqi women and children.
In offering support to Muslim women, all feminists need to be strategic and prioritize the harm those women actually suffer.
In the UK, female politicians and other feminists from the majority community would do well to reconsider the disproportionate weight they are giving to complex symbols such as the veil, which can undermine alliances around more grievous harms such as war, violence, genuine patriarchal oppression and poverty.
By attacking the veil -- as in the colonial past -- they may strengthen many Muslim women's commitment to it and make it more difficult for Muslims to have a much needed debate on women and Islam.
Those feminists who give well-meaning lectures to Muslim women on what they should think, say and wear are not in the end alone.
There is a risk that their powerful female voices will inadvertently sustain another political discourse: the words and actions of an illustrious line of men who continue to justify their imperial ambitions on the bodies -- often dead bodies -- of Muslim women.
Maleiha Malik is a lecturer in law at King's College London.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing