Bookplanet: Sex novel by Muslim woman
This sounds pretty good, and it's just been released in the U.S. Article from NY Times:
An erotic novel written under a pseudonym might normally struggle to find a mainstream publisher and a wide readership. Not so, it seems, when it is penned by a Muslim woman living in a traditional Arab society. "The Almond," a semi-autobiographical exploration of sexual freedom, has sold 50,000 copies in France since Éditions Plon brought it out here last year. And it has now appeared in eight other languages, including English.
With its explicit descriptions of lovemaking, the book has been compared to Marguerite Duras's coming-of-age novel, "The Lover," and to Catherine Millet's more recent confessional essay, "The Sexual Life of Catherine M." Yet in this case the feisty 40-something North African author who goes by the name of Nedjma appears to have been motivated by more than a desire to titillate.
Rather, she explained in a recent conversation here to coincide with Grove Press's publication of the novel in the United States this month, by portraying a woman enjoying the pleasures of the flesh, she wanted both to celebrate the body as an expression of life and to strike a blow against the centuries-old repression of Muslim women.
In fact, she said, what first set her writing was her anger at the terrorist attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, and Washington's reaction to them. "Two fundamentalisms collided," she said. "The fundamentalists committed an irreversible, shocking, outrageous act. But the reply was also monstrous, shocking, outrageous. I saw the two sides speaking only of murder and blood. No one cared about the human body."
So, through a story built around her reminiscences of a steamy love affair, she decided to address what, in the Muslim world, is often considered a forbidden topic: sex.
"I had to talk about the body," she said. "It is the last taboo, one where all the political and religious prohibitions are concentrated. It is the last battle for democracy. I didn't want to write politically, but I did look for something radical. It is a cry of protest."
Written in the first person, "The Almond" follows Badra as she grows up in a Moroccan village and gradually discovers her femininity. Yet, while she dreams of true love, she is forced to marry a much older man, suffering - and hating - in silence as he tries roughly to make her pregnant. Finally, she runs away to her Aunt Selma in nearby Tangiers, and it is there that she meets Driss, a wealthy, European-educated doctor who teaches her the mysteries of love and sex.
While their relationship changes Badra's life, however, it is far from perfect. Driss refuses to marry her and, because they are unmarried, their affair remains hidden from the world. And while Driss satisfies her sexually and she loves him passionately, he is not faithful to her. Gradually Badra steps back and goes her own way, meeting up with him again a decade later under very different circumstances.
Nedjma estimated that about 40 percent of "The Almond," her first book, is autobiographical, but she considered the rest also to be true to life. "It is a testimony written by the feminine tribe," she said. "It is based on the experience of aunts, neighbors, cousins, all women. I felt a moral duty to say: this is what women go through."
She said that even though she never expected the book to be published, she wrote it in French because it seemed less shocking to write about sex in a language that is not her mother tongue. "In any event, if I'd written in Arabic, it would never have been published," she said. "Nor will it. It's a thousand years since Muslims have written openly about sex. If you find an Arab publisher, I'll buy you a bottle of Champagne."
Even after a friend awakened Éditions Plon's interest in the manuscript, she was determined not to be identified as its author. In fact, she still refuses to give her nationality, limiting herself to saying she is from North Africa. Even during a visit to Paris, she added, her French friends did not know she was the author of "The Almond."
She did explain, though, that she took the name Nedjma in homage to the Algerian poet Kateb Yacine, who wrote a book by the same name, and because it means "star" in Arabic - and that the star is an Islamic symbol.
"It's my way of saying, 'I am from this tribe, I am not from the outside, I am part of this world and no one can kick me out,' " she said, adding that she was a practicing Muslim.
Yet it is also a world that clearly pains her, so much so that she seemed as eager to denounce the state of much of the Arab world - and the subjugation of women in it - as she was to discuss her book. "It is not the Prophet or God who is responsible for the condition of women today, but society," she said. "It is the sharia, the way laws are interpreted, the writings, the clerics who rule Islam in place of God."
The result, she said, is a suppression of free thinking that paralyzes Arab societies and perpetuates male domination of women. "Every step taken by women towards freedom is seen to undermine their authority," Nedjma said with growing passion. "It undermines this rotten world that is falling apart. The Arab world is like a sick old man, consumed by gangrene, illiteracy, poverty, dictatorships, fundamentalism."
When it comes to relations between men and women, she went on, lighting a fresh cigarette, although they unite for marriage and procreation, most women consider sex to be a burden because few men know the workings of women's bodies. "There are so many received ideas, ancestral fears and ignorance," she said. "Love is only possible when women realize they are not there to be legally raped and men understand that a woman is not a slave or an inferior being."
Even in "The Almond," where the author's own love affair is reflected in Badra's devotion to Driss, Nedjma said, Driss remains trapped by the customs of Arab men. "He loved this woman," she explained, "but he did not know how to appreciate this love outside the traditional framework of society. He was liberated sexually, but not socially."
And in her own relationship, she was asked, was she more liberated than her lover?
She hesitated before answering.
"Yes; there you are, I've said it," she finally replied. "The malaise of the Arab world is that people don't know how to love. They watch romantic soap operas on television out of frustration. They dream about love, they listen to songs, they are sentimental, but they are not tender. They appreciate beautiful love poems, but they don't have the courage of the heart."
HMM. Sounds like literature, not trash. Worth looking into. On the Amazon page, Publishers Weekly gives it a rave, and another review says: "C. Jane Hunter's translation gives us a book of great power that resembles a Muslim Vagina Monologues." Sounds perfect for a women's reading group.
17 Comments:
Uh, does this blog ever get comments?
I am reading a book called "Who Cooked the Last supper?" by Rosalind Miles. In it she discusses the eveloution of Patriarchy, including the formation of Islam and its effects on women.
Among her stories, she includes the tale of 'A'ishah, who was one of the great phrophet Muhammads many wives. This woman openly debated religion and philosophy with with such devistating logic that her husband once said to his followers "Draw half of your religion from this ruddy faced woman."
She explains that women lost their status in the world and became sexual slaves of men as a result of the birth of patriarchy and the downfall of the goddess religions.
"Of all religions, Islam most clearly reveals this hijacking process at work. From the cresent moon on it's flag to the secret of its most sacred shrine, the Goddess is omnipresent, as Sir Richard Burton observed on his travels:
All-Uzza, one aspect of the threefold Great Goddess of Arabia, was enshrined in the Ka'aba at Mecca, where she was served by ancient priestessess. She was the special deity and protector of women. Today the Ka'aba still survives and is the most holy place of Islam."
She talks of how the priestessess were replaced with Priests, who were called Beni Shaybah, meaning "Sons of the Old Woman" (The Goddess)
She tells that the sacred black stone of the shrine bears on its surface the mark of Aphrodite.
"An oval cleft signifying the female genitals: to one eyewitness 'it is the sign of...the Goddess of untrameled sexual love, and clearly indicates that the Black Stone at Mecca belonged originally to the Great Mother."
She also mentions the pre-Islamic practice of Polyandry, where it was common for women to take more than one husband or lover.
"When a bedouin woman wanted to divorce one of these spare husbands, she simply turned her tent around to signal that her door was no longer open to him. In later generations Muslim women must have considered folk tales or memories of those freedoms either a cruel joke or the purest fantasy."
My point of course: Patriarchy Sucks! And women will always be considered inferior by followeres of the father god religions.
If women want to regain their status in the world, they need to cut off the phallus of God!
Lesbians wonder why they're outcasts. The above screed should explain why.
I do not speak for the lesbian community. I am a married heterosexual.
My point is that women ARE outcasts from the Patriarchial religious community.
This is wrong, and should be changed.
I speak for diversity and equality of all peoples, and I openly oppose any organization or individual who uses God, or Law, or popular opinion to justify the domination of others.
Miles book states:
"a monotheism is not merely a religion-it is a relation of power. Any "One God" idea has a built in notion of primacy and supremacy; that one god is god above all others and his adherents are supreme over all non believers...under patriarchial monothesim, womanhood was a life sentance of second-order existance."
So if you think that calling me an outcast will draw upon my Jungian need for acceptance and make me reverse my opinion and tow the line, you are sadly mistaken my friend.
Every man, woman and child, every living thing on earth, should be treated with equal respect as an expression of the divine.
The religious ideologies of the muslims, jews, christians and buddists all support the theory of male dominance and supremicy. This is why I speak out on the level of religion. It is the root cause of all injustice against women.
When the concept of the divine evolves to a polythestic parenting figure with both male and female attributes, this sense of equality and respect will enter every aspect of the human experience from the home to the work place to the law. It will make the world a better place.
Like Plato, I call to the people who stare at the shadows in the cave. Step into the sunlight and see the truth!
Women are not outcasts in any religious community where I have tarried. Quite the contrary, in fact. Is your experience in this regard solely academic or have you actually been in a church? I'll let Jews speak for how women are outcasts in the temple, but I sorta doubt that's also the case. Islam? I suppose you're right. Reading can be usual for understanding the world, but ever now and then it's helpful to actually go outdoors and take a look at the real world. It's often different from the theories found between pages. People drunk on theory are responsible for most of the abomination of history. While we're on Plato, would you care to live in his Republic? I thought not.
It sounds like you are speaking from a christian perspective, so I will address it on that level.
If we trace back tho origin of the tree of life story it tells of a hero who seeks the tree of life in order to find the healing wisdom to save his community. He overcomes many obsticals and in the end is rewarded by the goddess who gives him the fruit of knowlege.
There are hundreds of variations to the tale, but they all have the same theme. They honor women as divine priestesses and venerate her healing knowlege of herbs and plants.
The women of the past were the gatherers of plants. They held the knowlege of the healing arts. They wre honored for their ability to give birth, and nurture life.
The christians changed this story. They brought in the father god, demoted the goddess to Eve and proclaimed that she eternally carries the weight of original sin for eating the fruit of the tree.
They claim that woman was created from some usless gristly piece of Adams body, and use the scripture to validate their view that women are subodinate.
Miles states: "Eve did not fall, she was pushed!"
If women are not subordinate in christian ideology, then why is it that the catholics do not have any women in their hierarchy as priests or bishops or cardinals? Why cant women vote in the conclave? Why cant a woman be pope?
How can an organization based on male power and celebacy preach family values?
Even today, women are "given away" like property in the ceremony of christian marriage.
Peter, "the Rock' of the christian church refused to let Mary be part of the discussions of the apostles.
He was a chauvenist who did not want women to have any say or any power.
This fear of giving women any respect or power is what led to the burning times - the horrible percecution of over a million people in Europe. They were the healer crones who practiced herbal medicine. They wore pointed hats as a symbol, like doctors wear the white coat today. They prepared tonics to heal the sick. They worshiped Mother Nature instead of the christian god.
This is the basis of all the ugly witch stories. It was church based propoganda created to scare people away from these women and their earth based value systems.
As for the jews, I will simply quote the daily prayer of hebrew males:
"Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, that Thou hast not made me a woman."
Once again, I say, when the world embraces a theologic model that is respectful of both male and female attributes, many of the predudices that are inflicted on women will dissapear and the world will be a better, and more peaceful place.
You see to be into some sort of goddess thing, so I imagine you find you're talking past people most of the time and vice versa. I confess I'm not familiar with the tree of life creation myth or any its offshoots. Giving deities a masculine nature, as long as we're on the subject, long predated Christianity (why not capitalize it -- it's a proper noun). The goddess sorts believe in demonizing males, blaming them for all that's bad . . . sort of like today's radical feminists. I suppose there's quite a bit of overlap between the two. Do you know anything about the Shinto religion? It's founded on a sun goddess. In her name and on her authority Japan slaughtered millions during the Second World War. Shintoists did not have to worry about morality because anything done to expand the empire of the emperor, a direct descendant from the goddess, was OK. Although not Roman Catholic myself, I have the feeling they have a rather high opinion of Mary. In any event, Protestantism -- you've heard of it? -- does not adhere to the hierarchichal model of the Catholics. Women serve as ckergy in many if not most of the mainstream religions. Once again, I say that if you're experience in these matters was direct rather than second hand, you might be able to think more clearly.
Why would you feel that I am not "thinking clearly"?
You have suggested that I am a lesbian, that I am an outcast, and that I am muddled in thought when I have done nothing but present a case for a different worldview.
Amazing. Your church has taught you well young jedi.
Well, my direct experience with you, (a christian) has been as follows:
When I shared my religious beliefs
1) I was called a lesbian
2) I was called an outcast
3) you implied that "People drunk on theory are responsible for most of the abomination of history"
4)you use the term "goddess thing" showing a complete lack of respect for all forms of matriarchial theology.
5) you ask me to capitalize the word God, and in the same sentence you write "goddess" in lower case
6)You relate feminism to radicals and demonizing
7) instead of answering my arguments, you divert attention to Shintoism and distance yourself from Catholisim
8) You accuse me of "not thinking clearly" because you are sure that I have not been exposed to a proper Protestant upbringing.
Hmmm.
Looks like you made my case for me. LOL
When the world embraces a theologic model that is respectful of both male and female attributes, many of the predudices that are inflicted on women will dissapear and the world will be a better, and more peaceful place.
Note to anyone reading this lively conversation:
My friend "Anonymous" has just provided us all with a prime example of religious intolerance.
He has also shown us how women are seen as subordinate by followers of his faith.
P.S.
"feminism" is NOT a dirty word.
Speaking from a feminist perspective does not make one a dyke, or a rebel or an outcast or a man hating freak.
It is a voice promoting equality and respect.
Note to Kelley's friends reading this:
1-A reference to cutting off a penis led me to believe I was dealing with a lesbian. A pardonable error, I think, under the circumstances. However, I'm glad she cleared this up. As for the outcast thing, apart from enclaves like San Francisco, Berkeley, Madison and a dozen or so others, lesbians are generally disliked and regarded as outcasts. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Need confirmation, ask one. This makes their bitterness understandable.
3- As for religious intolerance, Kelly is more than a match for me. What she wants is to elevate some garbled legends about matriarchal societies to equality with established religion. Too much of a stretch, I say. And polytheism! When was the last time you heard a good word said about that? What's next, animism?
2- I didn't imply people drunk on theory were responsibile for most of the abominations of history, I SAID so. Hiter -- drunk on theory. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, ditto. Mao -- same story. Hirohito believed his descent from a sun goddess justified all crimes.
3- Radical feminism is a good example of theory-besotted loons (greatly influenced, I might say, but lesbians). The chief effect of its baleful influence has been to demonize males. This can be seen in the popular culture in everything from sitcoms where they are portrayed as moronic and futile -- Homer Simpson, a triumph of feminist theory -- to the way boys are suppressed in the classroom for being boys and girl behavior rewarded with praise and better grades. Is this the "equality and respect" of which you speak? Don't think so.
3- Wanting to subordinate women as a result of my faith? I think I'll just leave that strawman lying in the dirt. But really a great knockdown! Where'd you learn how to use them dukes?
4- All of this reeks of New Age claptrap. When do the healing crystals make their appearance?
I have enjoyed this snappy patter, and we have both taken interesting positions.
Thank you for the debate.
The next step is for us to learn from our discussion.
I can see that you are a good person who is devoted to your faith. It guides you well and provides the basis of your moral compass. Thats good. Thats what religion is supposed to do.
I hope that what you will learn from me is:
1) to promote tolerance, respect, equality and diversity
2) that religion is not static. It evolves over time, and to paraphrase Joseph Campbell, all societies develop religion, therefore it seems to be an important aspect of the human experience. BUT, history shows that when a society evolves beyond its cultural mythology (religion) if the theology does not evolve too, the culture will crumble. He states that we are currently using an outdated mythology (patriarchy) and that it is time for the religions of the world to evolve.
Sadly, this usually occurs as a result of great wars and power shifts.
Wouldent it be great if modern humans could be wise enough to bypass this painful stage and open their minds to a new form of religion that would embrace respect, equality, diversity, tolerance, peace, and modern scientific thought?
Combining the essense of Patriarchial and Matriarchial values from both East and West into a homoginized system that supports the principles of quantum physics and science is the direction we need to go.
We could do it if we tried. All we need do is learn from the past and reach for the future. The only thing stopping us is closed mindedness and fear a of expanding our worldview.
Change is the only constant.
We've arrived at the nub of our disagreement. I believe religion comes from God, you think it can be created by a well-meaning community of motivated people informed, I gather, by scientific principles. You believe God is within, I believe God, who created us, is apart. There's no bridging that gap with the best of wills. Incidentally, whatever the defaming secular media may tell you, I find respect, equality, tolerance, diversity and peace in Christianity and a good many other virtues. Try it instead of inventing your own religion. Change is constant, but there are eternal verities. Adieu.
Adam, my appologies for the religious rant...but me jest caint hep me self. ;)
Try Christianity?
I have. I was raised a protestant. I have read the bible, and studied it well. In my teen years, I questioned my faith and decided that if religion was to be the foundation of my existence, that I should research it with great care before banking my very soul on its teachings. I embarked on an objective study of all world religions.
I learned that the creation myth was skewed, as I mentioned in earlier posts.
I discovered that the story of the virgin birth was also based on earlier tales.
These stories come from all over the globe, and are remarkable in their similarities. The earliest ones come from the age of Goddess worship.
The myth is that the goddess gave birth to a son, who was half man, half God. He grew to power as Lord and Savior. At the height of his reign, he becomes so confident and full of his own bravado, that he denounces or turns his back on his mother, and is then crucified by his own people.
A very common tale.
The Christian version simply twists the moral to eliminate any reference or respect for the feminine.
Here is a list of all the historical Christs whose stories are similar to that of Jesus:
Chrishna of Hindostan.
Budha Sakia of India.
Salivahana of Bermuda.
Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus, of Egypt.
Odin of the Scaudinavians.
Crite of Chaldea.
Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia.
Baal and Taut, "the only Begotten of God," of Phenicia.
Indra of Thibet.
Bali of Afghanistan.
Jao of Nepaul.
Wittoba of the Bilingonese.
Thammuz of Syria.
Atys of Phrygia.
Xaniolxis of Thrace.
Zoar of the Bonzes.
Adad of Assyria.
Deva Tat, and Sammonocadam of Siam.
Alcides of Thebes.
Mikado of the Sintoos.
Beddru of Japan.
Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids.
Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls.
Cadmus of Greece.
Hil and Feta of the Mandaites.
Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico.
Universal Monarch of the Sibyls.
Ischy of the Island of Formosa.
Divine Teacher of Plato.
Holy One of Xaca.
Fohi and Tien of China.
Adonis, son of the virgin Io of Greece.
IxiOn and Quirinus of Rome.
Prometheus of Caucasus.
Mohamud, or Mahomet, of Arabia.
In contrast to the above stories, the Jesus myth of virgin birth is actually quite weak.
“In fact the earliest sources on Jesus are silent on the issue of the virgin birth; we see nothing in Paul's letters or Mark's gospel about Jesus' miraculous conception. Surely Mark and Paul would have written something about it, had they believed it.
Paul's writing shows that Jesus came into the world by ordinary means:
Galatians 4:4
But when the time had fully come, God sent his son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem under the law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.
The message conveyed by Paul here is that Jesus was born “under the law”. The controversy was not about virgin birth, it was about him being born of an "Almah", (unmarried woman).
If Jesus ws considered illigimate, then he did not have the right to claim the title of “The Lord”. That would go to his brother James who was born within the framework of traditional wedlock.
The whole virgin thing was based on a later mistranslation, and was only perpetuated to compete with the deities on the above list. It was a lie used to convert and recruit followers.
Christians could not stamp out the rituals and belief systems of the older more established religions so they assimilated them instead.
Easter was a pagan fertility celebration.
Christmas is based on Sol Invictus, it was a pagan sun ritual. (the birth of the Sun not the Son)
Jesus wasn’t born on 25th Dec, and the original gospels never had a resurrection. Anyone who wants to question things such as this can find the facts easily.
“It's ironic how the Bible, the most sacred of Christian writings, has been misused and distorted throughout history by those who profess to value it. Ignorance and laziness (to find things out for one's self and think) is a deadly combination.”
Why shouldn’t we invent a better religion? The majority of the stories of the bible are outright plagiarism “invented” from the religions of old.
Christianity is the “Established” religion of the west because of an unrelenting policy of intolerance and violence against all other belief systems, particulary any systems that elevate feminine ideals.
P.S. as a prodistant, you practice a spin off version of Christiantity that was "Invented" well after the Catholic or Luthren version.
For that matter, if you go futher back in the geneology, you will se that the Jewish faith, and Islam are both part of the same root. They are offshots or sects of the same religious base.
If you feel that it is a mistake to practice a religion that was "invented" by people seeking a better way, tell me, how far back does one go to find the original source?
The big three, all evolved from the times when Goddess worship was the norm.
The human intellect can't grasp the divine, hard as it may try. All the study and list making in the world won't change that. Faith -- ah, there's the answer. If it goes against all the secular world has told you and all the earnest effort you've made in boning up on creation myths, consulting this authority and that, well . . . that's the way it is and always has been. The choice is plain. And isn't it wonderful that God gives you that opportunity? It's called free wills. But choose wisely.
At last we agree!
A life guided by spirit is the only meaningful existance.
And you are right, we must choose how to direct our spiritual energy.
and choose wisely.
I agree
I agree
I agree
Namaste my friend, Namaste!
(Namaste: The divine within me honors the divine within you)
Post a Comment
<< Home