By Hussain Abdul-Hussain---

In the last issue of Outlook, the article "Animalized Women," by our colleague Yasmina Araman, provoked wide scale student reaction. Before publishing her article, I gave Miss Araman, in my capacity as the editor of this newspaper, a few tips that would help more in sustaining her point of view. Yet, believing in the freedom of expression, the article was published as is without any changes. The article used three examples to illustrate the unfavorable situation of women. The first example is a passage taken from the book of the Imam of Islam in Andalucia in which he tried to interpret verse 34 of the fourth Quranic Surah, Surat al-Nisa'. The verse defines the relationship of a married couple by opening, "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women ... as to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them, but if they return to obedience, seek not against them...." Verse 35 explains, "If ye fear a breach between them appoint two arbiters ... if they wish for peace." The two verses do not need a scholar to understand that they are a bit more elaborate than only "beating women." I did not read what the Imam had to say about this, but the issue is far beyond simple beating and is deeply rooted in the Muslim understanding of marriage in Islam. Furthermore, the verse is strictly about a man and his wife (or wives). It says nothing about sisters, daughters, and other female relatives. I think before taking the Imam's words for granted, both Miss Araman and the newspaper she read could have better checked the main source, the Qur'an. The second example is about the cruel practice of the "extremist" Taliban Movement in Afghanistan against women and the dress code "imposed" on women. The third example comes from Paris, though the women's oppressors are, as I understood, "foreigners." Yet in Scandinavian countries as well as in Ireland, women enjoy equal rights as men do. Thus, considering the status of women from the eyes of Andalucia's Imam and the Talibans (both being Muslims in principle), and putting them against European examples, women according to our colleague, are being "animalized." The reaction against this article was not surprising. Students were divided into two factions and the Outlook e-mail was bombarded with e-mails. The first faction supported Araman's point of view while the second faction denounced it. Students of the first faction, as I inferred from their names, were all Christians and congratulated Araman for her view. The second faction, also judging by their names, were all Muslims who thought that the article was, to say the least, pointless. Even though we think that Araman, just like any other student, is entitled to freely express her opinion, the article looked at the subject with one eye. To further dig into this issue, we need to divide it into two: Women's rights as presented in the thought of different ideologies, and women's rights as practiced in different societies. The article under question failed, in my opinion, to survey different points of view concerning women's rights. If we are to analyze where, in principle, women's rights are violated, then we'd better start with the Lebanese National Anthem. Has anyone noticed that our national anthem is probably the most male chauvinist anthem you can ever hear? Have you ever noticed the following phrases: "Our valley and our mountain are the roots of men," and "both our aged and our young men are the voice of our homeland." While men are repeatedly mentioned in the anthem, there is no mention whatsoever about our women. So before picking on the Imam of Spain and the Talibans why not criticize our anthem that displays such discriminatory lyrics? Then when criticizing a certain women's dress code, one must realize that the veil is not particular to Muslim women. It is rather an ancient oriental dress code. Look at the men in the Arab Gulf and the Syrian Desert, aren't most of them veiled in a way? Look at the icons that depict the Virgin Mary (The Lady of Harissa is a good example). Have you ever seen the Virgin Mary without a veil on her head? Doesn't her veil resemble, to a large extent, the "imposed" Muslim dress code? Read Corinthians I (11:3-16). Now the Imam of Andalucia might have gone wrong in interpreting the Quranic passage, and the Talibans might have committed a crime against human cultural heritage, but that does not mean that wherever Islam is present, women are oppressed or wherever Western ideas dominate women are liberated. It does not mean either that Islam oppresses women while Christianity liberates them. In his first Epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul calls upon women to "Christ is the head of man, [and] man is the head of woman." (Corinthians I chapter 11) Analyzing the status of women in the thought of different religions and ideologies is interesting but cannot be fulfilled through the process of highlighting a couple of acts committed by those who claim to exclusively represent Islam. This kind of analysis will take us to square one in historical interpretation: seeing history with one eye. On this matter, Christianity was brilliant in prohibiting human beings from judging others lest they want others to judge them. Jesus Christ came down heavily on those "who see the mold in his brothers eyes but do not see the log in his own eyes." The sectarian reaction provoked by the "Animalized Women" article shows that different Lebanese sects are only scoring points against each other. It illustrates that no one of them actually knows how his/her sect's commandments ask them to behave. It further shows that the reaction to this article (which completely came from male students) had nothing to do with women's rights but was merely based on sectarian initiative. Since the dawn of human history, women have been oppressed. Many religions tried to improve their situation, but whether these religions succeeded in liberating women is still debatable. All we can say is that in practice, the women's status is still lagging behind that of men. To eliminate the malpractice, it is always better to suggest a framework for a world where the two genders live equally rather than to blame some sinning factions while overlooking the faults of others.