The Woman Who Shed Her Burqa

As someone who knew and respected Benazir Bhutto ever since we were in college together, I cannot write an unbiased review of her new book, Reconciliation. But because I feel that it is an extraordinarily important and beautiful work, I'm pleased to take up Arianna's offer to comment upon it here.

The book, completed just before her assassination this past December, is both an intensely personal and a profoundly intellectual assessment of Islam and its relationship to the West. Her own journey began in the village of Lukana, as the daughter of a strong-willed man who would become Pakistan's prime minister. "When I reached the age of puberty, my mother asked me to wear a burqa," she writes. "Suddenly the world looked gray. I felt hot and uncomfortable breathing under the confines of the cloth. My father took one look at me and said, 'My daughter does not have to wear the veil.'"

Bhutto goes on to recount the inspiring story of how she took up her father's mantle as leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, after he was deposed and executed, and went on to become, from 1988-1990 and 1993-1996, the first woman to lead a Muslim country. Interwoven with the personal tale is a vigorous historical and intellectual defense of Islam as a religion that is, she says, based on tolerance. "Islam is committed not only to tolerance and equality but to the principles of democracy," she writes. "It is a religion built upon the democratic principles of consultation (shura); building consensus (ijma); finally leading to independent judgment (ijtihad)."

The subjugation of women in many Muslim countries, Bhutto contends, is a perversion of the Quran. "The Prophet Mohammad accepted women as equal partners in society, in business, and even in war," she writes. "The Quran elevates the status of women to that of men. It guarantees women civil, economic, and political rights."

There are many who might dispute such characterizations of Islam, including both its most ardent adherents and fiercest critics. That is why Bhutto's book is so important. She marshals evidence from the Quran, from history, from a survey of society in Muslim nations, and from her personal life to paint a picture of what Islam can and should be. In making her theological arguments, she was helped by her wise friend Husain Haqqani, a scholar from Pakistan now a professor at Boston University. Another dedicated friend, Mark Siegel, a political consultant in Washington, was instrumental in editing and researching the book.

Bhutto's defense of Islam does not extend to how it has been manifest in most countries where it is the dominant religion. "There are unfortunately only a few clear democratic success stories," she notes. The courage that she exhibited throughout her life is reflected in her book's critique of the way politics is practiced in much of the Islamic world today and her unflinching prescriptions for reform.

To those, in both the West and the East, who believe that a clash of civilizations is inevitable, Bhutto offers a reasoned alternative vision of what the world could be like. And she wraps it in a personal tale that should inspire readers everywhere. Both her vision and her personal courage are made all the more poignant, and all the more important for people to appreciate, by her tragic murder.

In the spirit of full disclosure, let me note that I gave a blurb for the book at the publisher's request. My endorsement was deeply felt. This is a powerful personal narrative by an astonishingly brave woman. It's also a brilliant manifesto for challenging radical Islam.

Comments

[TXfemmom]

Actually, at times, it was the elite women who were and could afford to be highly sheltered, and in many Muslim countries the women are just as fanatical about the cultural things being Islamic, when they are not.

Bhutto had courage, but she was flawed, as all of us are. Had she reigned in her husband and others and prevented the rampant corruption within her administrations she may have been able to have pointed her country into a better place and situationa.

[Dave24]

** If a woman chooses to wear a burqa within the context of a free society, fine. But if theocrats impose fashion based on the interpretations of literature (the Quran in this case), it belittles equality on all fronts.

Choice without repercussions is freedom - while all else, especially religious indoctrination, is tyrannical.

If there is choice, it's religious expression, and should be protected by secular law. But if fashion, behavior, thought, is mandated by "government," inevitably that society will come into conflict with the freedoms inherent in secular life.

[Bulbul]

I will not speak ill of the dead...
But, here we are worshipping Bhutto from the western world and look the way we treat our own. Butto , if alive , could have heen the future prime minister now, and was decades ago.
This is 2008, and here, we are so much behind from any of the third world countries and should get lessons from any one of them, how to treat a woman.
There will never be a woman as the President, in USA of A. We are not ready.
We are letting the best one go by...

[jeffepops]

Do you really think Hillary Clinton would make a great President? Please detail for me what specifically about her leadership qualities, political positions and accomplishments make her so great. What do you actually think she'd accomplish as President and how?

If she's the nominee, I'll gladly vote for her, although she's not at the top of my list. But she's certainly not a martyr for any cause.

[ADVOCATE4ZPG]

Ruefully(sp?), that applies to B. Obama as well. Most of his campaign is based on what he is; his incantations of sappy vagaries like "change," "hope," "unity," et al.; and a largely unobserved pattern of self-reference to his campaign itself. Nothing CONCRETE! More Elmer Gantry-Hanna Montana celebrity hoopla than ANYTHING else....

Clinton is losing....­.but mostly from her inability to rise to "celebrity status"!

[filmunas]

One tries to avoid saying anything negative about the dead, but Isaacson's paean to Bhutto is a bit much to take. Benazir was a tragic and gullible figure who was seduced by the neocons to sell out her own countrymen and women.

[argeec]

I am wondering if Bhutto really ever wore a burqa. She was an aristocrat and it was my impression that upper class women in Pakistan tended toward British manners and taste.

[3rdCitizen]

Reading some of the comments, I'm reminded of that scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian where John Cleese, as a member of a group of anti-Roman Zealots, asks the group the rhetorical question, "And what did the Romans ever do for us?" When the scene resumes, much later, he's saying, "But besides the aqueduct, the roads, the sewer system, law and order, [and many other things] what did the Romans ever do for us?"
It is simply ridiculous to rant against the undeniable wrongs, falsehoods, hypocrisies and atrocities perpetrated in the name of religion while pretending that no great good has ever come from it. Civilization, art, science, and ethics, to name a few, all were at least partially engendered by "organized religion." Religion continues to outperform non-religious movements in charitable work. Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr., to name just two, were men of faith.
Should we assess atheism by the same historical standards? If so, don't the few examples of atheist societies demonstrate that atheism is inherently anti-democratic, oppressive, intolerant, dehumanizing and cruel?
I would argue no, it doesn't. And neither is religion, per se. Intolerant, close-minded bigotry is not a religious phenomenon, it's a human phenomenon. It is at home in any belief system where people invest their hopes and their fears. It begins when you convince yourself that anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or evil.

[angryoldman]

Everyone has the right to "believe" or not to "believe" in whatever religion or system of thought that appeals to them, but they do not have the right to foist those beliefs, by force or any other means on those that choose otherwise.

[maddogbitesback]

angryoldman - have you told that to Huckabee?

[marko77]

maddogbitesback, I like Hucklebee's personality and I think he identifies with the vast majority of us who have to work for a living.

However, I want to live in a democracy and not a theocracy. As a result, Huck is not the man for political office.

Huck's no different from Islamic fundamentalist mullahs from Saudi and Iran, except he's born in the West. So, no thanks, and as you know, you can't tell Huck anything on that score.

[carmenjonze]

When did Benazir Bhutto ever wear a "burqa"?

[klmebane]

when she was a young girl... didn't you catch that part?

[argeec]

Didn't you catch the sarcasm?

[Heyman]

One important subject she brought up before her death was that Osama bin Laden was killed by some guy that was connected to the ISI. You can watch that on Youtube. Just type in Osama is dead. She was on a English talk show discussing her assasination attempts on her life. When she brought up Osama's death.
Very enlightening. For those who want to believe in our lying government.

[Bad actor]

Bhutto stated without equivocation on film that Osama Bin Laden was murdered in 2002 and his killer was caught and restrained but later released. She even named the killer. A few days after this clip was shown on television she was murdered. Obviously, she wanted the world to know and yet her admirers fail to spread the word. Why?

[Ajita]

I just realized that Bhutto says Islam is a tolerant religion. Is this satire?

Let alone the Muslim extremist groups around the world now, what about the highly successful bloodletting during the geographical and cultural conquests of the world's two most popular religious belief systems?

Bhutto demonstrates an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance, almost rivaling that of GWB.

[Maxine]

I agree Ajita, as a woman born and raised in the United States in the Christian religion, I find that women are pushed to second class status although not as blatantly or as harshly as women in the Muslim religions. When I ask why women in Christianity must take on a submissive role to men, the answer is that women are equal to men spiritually. Which does not answer the question and appears to be a contradiction to a female's status spiritually. Basically, it is a bull-shit answer.

[maddogbitesback]

Ajita;

Try reading the Koran. Women are much better off in the Koran than in Christianity. And Islam is more tolerant though Christianity should be tolerant if Christians believe they believe the directions of the New Testament. Before the Christians took over the south of Spain people lived to-gether in harmony. Christianity brought us the Spanish Inquisition and Huckabee who wants to change the constitution to empower Christianity. I believe he would make the USA a theocracy and not a democracy.

[marko77]

maddogbitesback - Ajita is right. Most muslims cherry pick passages they like in the Koran and then misinterpret them, to add insult to injury.

The followers of Islam have twisted and misinterpreted the message of Islam as badly as the "Christians" who put people on the rack and burned them at the stake during the Spanish Inquisition.

[Ajita]

Cherry picking. Thats what defenders of religion resort to when quoting passages in their scripture to reflect their own view of morality and just society. What really bugs me is that the "independent media" unquestioningly presents these statements as reflective of said religion.
Anyone who has objectively read the Quran or the Hadith knows that Islam is as misogynistic a religion as the rest of the patriarchial sects. Not only does the Quran denigrate women to an inferior class but in the prophet himself treated women as spoils of war during his conquests.

Bush recently said in Saudi Arabia that monotheistic religion is fundamental to democracy. How is that? Is it because of the authoritarian hierarchical form of plutocracy that he seems to mistake for democracy? Bhutto was a great proponent of democracy in the Muslim world but when she defends the same book that the obviously anti-democratic fanatics quote from to justify their actions, the incongruence must be mentioned.
To those who think religion is being subverted by those with malevolent intentions: that is exactly why religion must be kept out of politics.

[SinbadTheSailor]

You obviously know little about Pakistani politics.

Polls show Bhutto's party way ahead of all others, with 50% support against 12% for Musharraf's party, in elections scheduled for February 18.

It is the New York Times and LA Times that have been obsessing about corruption charges against Bhutto. Pakistanis understand these were brought by military dictators in an effort to keep a popular democrat out of politics.

The Pakistani military has even had the audacity to charge the Chief Justice with corruption. They know people like UtahLiberal435 get all riled up about corruption so they charge with corrruption anyone who challenges their dictatorship.

[UtahLiberal435]

I wonder if Benazhir Bhutto also comments on the grotesque corruption of Pakistani government under her reign. Even among despots, Bhutto's administration stood out, which is why she fled to exile.

It's ironic to see how she's being suddenly lionized by everyone except Pakistanis, all too many of whom remember the failed promise of her rule.

But I guess it's about 'women and courage' here in Huffington World, even if the woman in question was neither upstanding, eloquent, moderate, or principled.

[hiNY]

Yes her father decided, because she was young and her mother was pushing for the opposite result. Then there is the fact that change does not happen over night. The only problem is that people like you who think religion is stupid are as ignorant as those you criticize for believing and use the same ridiculous means to make your point.
Ethiesm itself is very extreme that it rebels those who approach with reason. you suffer from what I term as "disbelieve extremism"!!!

[Arleang]

Yes, mommadona, why can't mankind devote itself to the study of philosophy, history and nature? Religion makes man crazy.

[Overd0g]

Men will, and have gleefully killed each other over history and philosophy(consider Stalin,Mao,Pol Pot,etc..)­. Men like to kill. Religion provides one of many outlets.

[BobSF94117]

There's quite a difference between studying or even advancing a philosophy and using that philosophy to manipulate people to do what you want keep yourself in power.

You don't seriously believe that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. actually believed and lived the philosophy they proclaimed, do you?

The masses must constantly be on the lookout for those who would manipulate them. Only a well-educated, skeptical public can keep tyranny at bay, which is why we're in such deep shit now...