In an article entitled "Distorted Image of Muslim Women," originally published in Hudaa Magazine, which has been posted all over the net, Sister Naasira bint Ellison offers a preemptive rebuttal to a number of supposed misconceptions held against Muslim women by American society at-large. Ms. Ellison's article not only fails to indicate the fundamental reasons why this response is warranted, but her explication as a whole lacks some very crucial analysis. Ms. Ellison jumps the proverbial gun, self-positing arguments against the overall treatment of women by an entire religious community.

Ms. Ellison begins by referencing the feminist movement of the 1970's and asserts that since then, "a magnifying glass has been placed over the status of Muslim women." While it is certainly true that the status of women as a whole has been subjected to scrutiny since the advent of the feminist movement, Ms. Ellison points to no unique reasons why Muslim women are singled out for examination. Ms. Ellison goes on to say, "I remember once reading in an 'in-depth' article about the lives of Muslim women. This article 'explained' that at any time, a man can divorce his wife by simply stating 'I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you.'" Ms. Ellison provides no source for this article and therefore does not give the reader any reason to be compelled to buy her subsequent argument that the supposed ease with which a husband can divorce his wife under Islamic law is a gross categorization. Ms. Ellison's article's inherent one-sidedness begins to elucidate itself towards the end of her opening analysis: "The question that immediately popped up in my mind was, 'Did the author innocently write that out of sincere ignorance or was it another of the many attempts to degrade the religion of Islam and its followers (muslims)?'' It may be my own paranoia, but I tend to believe it was the latter of the two." Here, Ms. Ellison commits two egregious errors. First, she refers to the "many attempts" to "degrade the religion of Islam and its followers," which she never initially qualifies since the only example she offers is completely unsubstantiated. Secondly, she essentially concedes that her obvious defensiveness with respect to societal perceptions of Muslim women can perhaps be attributed to "paranoia," an assertion that does much to discredit her overall position.

Ms. Ellison goes on to offer a copious amount of detail concerning the proper procedures of divorce under Islamic law. She makes the blanket assertion that "Islam has the most humane and most just system of divorce that exists." She explains that Islamic divorce is finalized after a requisite waiting period (to determine if the wife is pregnant) subsequent to the husband's initial declaration of divorce. If a wife is determined to be pregnant, the husband is obligated to support the woman until she weans and the child until he/she no longer requires parental support. Ms. Ellison intimates that this system pales in comparison to the American procedure for divorce. "It is quite ironic that in such an 'advanced society' as America, there are divorce cases in which women are being forced to pay alimony to their ex-husbands." What is so ironic about it? Is the idea of a woman paying alimony to her husband really a movement towards retrogression? In the United States today, women make up approximately 56% of the civilian workforce (Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2002). It is not unreasonable to assume, therefore, that women often constitute the primary source of income in many American households. Is allowing for women to pay alimony, just as men have always, not an admission that women very often possess the same financial capabilities as men typically do in American society? Ms. Ellison never provides any reason as to why she finds the idea of women's alimony payment to be so morally abhorrent. In the United States, does the law really "force" women to pay alimony, as Ms. Ellison assumes? Does American law not examine a number of different contingent factors in relation to whether the husband or wife pays alimony? Ms. Ellison continues, "Can this and many other things we know about the American system of divorce compare to the Islamic system of divorce?" What other things that we may know about American divorce are at issue for the Islamic system? Can we compare them? Ms. Ellison ends her analysis on divorce here, so if given the chance, then yes, we probably could.

Ms. Ellison's next area of analysis carries on with the current theme and offers a defense of the Islamic procedures concerning marriage. "I read stories wherein it is stated that women are forced to marry men without their consent." Again, Ms. Ellison provides no source for this assertion. The reader is hereby forced to rely on the author's fleeting memory rather than definitive evidence. Ms. Ellison flagrantly disregards the value of empirical evidence. She does not see it as a necessary component of her argument. She is expecting the reader to unequivocally accept a myriad of blanket assertions and slapdash claims.

Finally, Ms. Ellison takes issue with the supposed misconceptions about traditional female Muslim dress held by American society. "Our dress code does not hinder us from doing anything productive in our lives." Personally, I do not see any reason why it could possibly be a hindrance, but I suppose that Ms. Ellison would have us believe that the idea that it could be is a commonly held belief. "Muslim women maintain a variety of jobs [under necessity], none of which are hampered due to their dress code." Here, Ms. Ellison's begs the question, "Is working according to necessity a morally undesirable condition?" Do Muslim women ever work for any other reason? Ms. Ellison never qualifies this for those who may be completely unaware with how Muslims proceed with the situation of marriage, among other things. Next, Ms. Ellison makes a value judgment that clearly separates her analysis as a whole from the category of well-grounded, logically sound arguments and places it into the one labeled "slanted personal diatribes." "And as for the timing of Muslims women's dress during these contemporary times, it seems most appropriate due to decreasing morals in the world today." Here, Ms. Ellison admonishes the moral conceptions of others in the same exact manner she claims the rest of the supposedly anti-Islamic world is rejecting the practices of her faith. It is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Ms. Ellison ceases to be arguing for the fair and equitable treatment of Muslim women, she is making blatant, unqualified value judgments.

Ms. Ellison's analysis becomes even more egregious as she offers a few thoughts on sex-related crime. "...Anytime a rape occurs, the woman is the one put on trial an one of the first questions is, 'What were you wearing?'" Ms. Ellison makes yet another blanket assertion, one which she would surely object to if it were made with regard to how rape casses are handled in Islam. She is grossly generalizing the American legal system's treatment of rape cases overall. While Ms. Ellison may be correct in regards to some cases that go to trial, the language she uses does not indicate this. Ms. Ellison continues, "Also there is a direct correlation between the respect a man has for a woman and the amount of her body she displays flauntingly." According to whom? How is Ms. Ellison in the position to presume upon the sexual motivations of millions of men? And to what or whom may we attribute this "direct correlation?" Again, essential qualification is lacking in Ms. Ellison¡¦s analysis.

In her conclusion, Ms. Ellison makes a final plea for a greater understanding of the commonly misunderstood practices of Muslim women. "We will never find success and/or solutions to our problems until we realize that Allah knows best and that this disbelieving society will ruin itself." With respect to this statement, one is compelled to ask whether Ms. Ellison is really trying to bridge the gap between women in Islam and the rest of American society or if she is just asserting the value of one set of beliefs over another. In the final analysis, Ms. Ellison transcends the supposed higher purpose of disparaging commonly held misconceptions and turns her argument into an object of theist/non-theist debate. Her position is no longer concerned with the question of how we might reach a greater understanding of Muslim women; it is now a question of belief and whether or not one concedes to it.