Follow Us

RSS Feed    Follow on Twitter    Follow on Facebook    YouTube Channel    Vimeo Channel    Tumblr    SoundCloud Channel    iPhone App    iPhone App

Let's Talk About Sex

[Jordanian police women control a protester, near the Israeli Embassy in Amman, Jordan, June, 4, 2010. Image by Nader Daoud/AP Photo.] [Jordanian police women control a protester, near the Israeli Embassy in Amman, Jordan, June, 4, 2010. Image by Nader Daoud/AP Photo.]

This week Foreign Policy published a “Sex Issue.” They explained their decision to feature a special issue with these words

Foreign Policy's first-ever Sex Issue…is dedicated…to the consideration of how and why sex—in all the various meanings of the word—matters in shaping the world's politics. Why? In Foreign Policy, the magazine and the subject, sex is too often the missing part of the equation—the part that the policymakers and journalists talk about with each other, but not with their audiences.…Women's bodies are the world's battleground, the contested terrain on which politics is played out. We can keep ignoring it. For this one issue, we decided not to.

It is commendable that Foreign Policy highlights the all too common silence about sex and gender politics in its own pages. Hopefully, this is the beginning of a serious and continued engagement, rather than a one off matter. Despite the editors’ good intentions, however, Foreign Policy disturbingly reproduces much of the dominant and sensationalist discourse about sex in the Middle East. The “Sex Issue” leaves much to be desired.

To begin with, it is purportedly about how sex shapes the world’s politics. But with the exception of one article that urges US foreign policy makers to understand women as a foreign policy issue and a target of their “smart-power arsenal,” its focus is almost exclusively on Iran, the Arab world, and China. Thus “the world” is reduced for the most part to Arabs, Iranians, and Chinese—not a coincidental conglomeration of the “enemy.” The current war on women in the United States is erased.

The primary focus is Islam and its production and repression of sex and gender politics in the Middle East. In discussing the role of fatwas in the regulation of sexual practices, Karim Sadjadpour parades a tone of incredulity. Leaving aside his dismissal of the centuries old tradition of practicing Muslims asking and receiving advice on sexual and gender practices, the article assumes an unspoken consensus with its readers: the idea of a mullah writing about sex is amusing if a little perverted.

Then there is the visual. A naked and beautiful woman’s flawless body unfolds a niqab of black paint. She stares at us afraid and alluring. We are invited to sexualize and rescue her at once. The images reproduce what Gayatri Spivak critiqued as the masculine and imperial urge to save sexualized (and racialized) others. The photo spread is reminiscent of Theo van Gogh's film Submission, based on Ayyan Hirsli Ali’s writings, in which a woman with verses of the Quran painted on her naked body and wearing a transparent chador writhes around a dimly lit room. Foreign Policy’s “Sex Issue” montage is inspired by the same logic that fuels Submission: we selectively highlight the plight of women in Islam using the naked female body as currency. The female body is to be consumed, not covered!

For those of us now long familiar with the depictions of the Arab/Muslim woman as repressed but uncontrollable sex object, these images only reify the fascination with the hidden underside of that liberated, secularized self. This week, they also echoed two other media events, which paraded European repulsion from and fascination with the Muslim other. One was the Breivik trial, in which the ultra-right wing crusader against multiculturalism cited al-Qaeda almost daily as a source of tactical inspiration in his war against Islam. As Roqaya Chamseddine argues, the other image Foreign Policy called to our imaginations was that other spectacle of desire and repulsion at the Museum of Modern Art in Stockholm. There, artist Makode Linde howled in black face and feigned pain as the Swedish minister of culture sliced through his cake-body designed like a “native” African woman. Then she fed it to him.

The painted on niqab introduces, adorns, and interrupts Mona El Tahawy’s feature article: “Why Do They Hate Us: The Real War on Women is in the Middle East.” The title is an adaption of the Fareed Zakaria article that exposed the “real” reasons behind September 11. In a moment when many of us have been relieved to move past binaries, El Tahawy has chosen to revive them.

That choice has inspired a deluge of tweets, blogs, articles, letters, and comments that have applauded her courage or attacked what many have called a reductive and simplistic analysis that flattens women’s lives, histories, and choices. The image of “Tahrir woman” who wore a blue bra that fateful day when Egyptian forces dragged, stripped, and beat her is the backdrop for El Tahawy’s argument: men in the Arab world, and especially Islamists, who she repeatedly locates in the seventh century, hate women.

We would suggest, as many have, that oppression is about men and women. The fate of women in the Arab world cannot be extracted from the fate of men in the Arab world, and vice versa. El Tahawy's article conjures an elaborate battle of the sexes where men and women are on opposing teams, rather than understanding that together men and women must fight patriarchal systems in addition to exploitative practices of capitalism, authoritarianism, colonialism, liberalism, religion, and/or secularism.

Indeed, Mubarak’s authoritarian regime did not use the woman’s body alone as a site of its policies of repression and torture. El Tahawy cites Bouazizi several times as the spark of revolution in the Arab world. But she forgets Khalid Said, whose face—tortured and mangled beyond recognition—became an icon of the revolution. El Tahawy overlooks this shared experience of the body as a site of humiliation and pain. She does not see what Ahdaf Soueif powerfully explained: “As the tortured face of Khaled Said broke any credibility the ministry of the interior might have had, so the young woman in the blue jeans has destroyed the military’s reputation.” Indeed, the hatred of the people, women and men, has been a, if not the, unifying characteristic of colonial, neo-colonial, and authoritarian rulers in the Middle East and beyond.

In her sloppy indictment of Arabs, Muslims, authoritarian rulers, and Islamists, El Tahawy has papered over some messy issues that complicate her underlying message: liberalism is the solution. Why is female genital mutilation practiced widely in Egypt? Because men hate women. Why can't women drive in Saudi Arabia? Because men hate women. Why are men and women against raising the age of consent in Yemen? Because men hate women. Hatred is a one size fits all answer. The use of hatred in this way is important. Hatred is irrational. It is a state or emotion. As Wendy Brown reminds us, such emotional or affective states are understood to be outside of, or unwelcome in, liberalism.

Of course, female genital mutilation and ages of consent are topics that require our careful attention. In the case of former, the reality is that women are often those that insist on the practice because of ways that gender and political economy regimes together make it a necessary rite of womanhood. In fact, critical thinkers have long argued that this practice has more to do with the lack of economic opportunity for women, the imperative to marry, and the hardening and modernization of tradition in response to colonial and neocolonial interventions (including rights frameworks) than some irrational and razor crazed “hatred.” The same insight could be extended to the question of ages of consent. A reductive framework of hatred makes these topics even more difficult to critically think about and work on.

Many writers and activists have called El Tahawy to account for erasing women’s histories. For Arabs, like all peoples, have histories that one must engage, as Lila Abu-Lughod reminds us, in order to understand the “forms of lives we find around the world.” Critics have pointed to the long history of the Egyptian women’s movement and that formative moment in 1923 when Huda Sha‘rawi took off her face veil at the Ramses train station. This is a useful point to revisit, if only to reflect on why the liberalism that Sha‘rawi and her cohorts fought for—men and women—drastically and resoundingly failed. One reason, and there are many, was that liberalism resonated with only a small elite. As Hanan Kholoussy points out, women under domestic confinement who like Sha‘rawi were expected to don the face veil made up only two percent of Egypt’s five million females at the end of the nineteenth century.

One would have to also critically and historically engage how women’s movements have been implicated in the policies and longevity of authoritarianism. After all, the two countries where women enjoyed the broadest scope of personal status law were Tunisia and Egypt, before the recent revolutions. Indeed, of all the countries of the Arab world, it was only in Tunisia and Egypt that a woman could pass her citizenship on to her children if she was married to a foreigner. (In Egypt there was a small qualification for women married to that other other, the Palestinian; post-revolutionary Egypt has, at least in law if not in practice, done away with this exception).

How can we account for these legal achievements under authoritarian regimes? We could turn to the source of El Tahawy’s inspiration: Fareed Zakaria’s “Why They Hate Us: The Politics of Rage.” There, Zakaria’s muddled logic counsels: “we have to help moderate Arab states, but on the condition that they embrace moderation.” As Mahmood Mamdani and Lila Abu-Lughod often write, moderate Islam has often been produced on the wings of women's and minority rights.

We can also look to the experiences of feminists and women’s activists. Rema Hammami and Eileen Kuttab have shown that in the Palestinian context, the women’s movement lacked a coherent strategy linking gender equality to democracy. The women’s movement thus appeared to be sponsored by the Palestinian Authority; its fate became dependent on that of the political system. In 1999, Hammami and Kuttab warned:

Examples are myriad—eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union saw massive attacks on women’s rights issues after the fall of communist regimes because they came to be associated with other undemocratic and unpopular regime policies. Turkey, Algeria, Egypt are situations where you have small women’s movements whose popular legitimacy is lost because over time they have been seen as linked to or sponsored by authoritarian secular regimes.1

Is it liberalism then that will fight off the misogyny of authoritarianism? Is the much-feared Islamist summer the real enemy here? And if so, how do we explain that it is women just as much as men, as Shadi Hamid has noted, who have gone to the ballot box and voted Islamists into power?

El Tahawy’s presumes that she is starting a conversation. We respectfully invite El Tahawy to join the conversation among women and men in Tahrir and outside of it. After all, the shameful and state-sanctioned sexual violence of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces’ “virginity tests” did not take place in silence. They happened a day after International Women’s Day when women claimed Tahrir as a space of gender equality and liberation. The “virginity tests” did not meet silence either, as El Tahawy herself points out. Samira Ibrahim continues her fight; her following and her courage are formidable.

The battle against misogyny does not follow a “men hate women” formula. It cannot be reduced to a generic battle of the sexes spiced with a dose of Islam and culture. It cannot be extracted from the political and economic threads that, together with patriarchy, produce the uneven terrain that men and women together navigate. It is these lessons that one would have to engage before meting out an indictment about the politics of sex, much less envisioning a future of these politics. There is no one answer because there is no single culprit, no single “culture” or “hatred” that we can root out and replace with “tolerance” or “love.” Similarly, the absence of a sustained and critical attention to sex and gender cannot be solved, syllabus style, by a separate glossy special “Sex Issue,” the content and form of which reproduce what it purports to critique.

______________

1 Rema Hammami and Eileen Kuttab, “The Palestinian Women’s Movement: Strategies Towards Freedom and Democracy,” News From Within 15:4 (April 1999), 3.

22 comments for "Let's Talk About Sex"

Gravatar

I do not disagree with most of your article, save one. FP's purpose is not to look inward but outward. There is more than enough domestic media to do this. Whether they have focused on the right countries is an open question, but a reader of FP isn't looking for domestic issues. There are copious other publications for that.

Law student wrote on April 25, 2012 at 07:03 PM
Gravatar

Her article probably wouldn't be making such a splash if she couched her argument in post-modern diction angled towards ivory tower academics. No offense, but I don't remember any movement for equal rights beginning with a call to "critically and historically engage how women’s movements have been implicated in the policies and longevity of authoritarianism."

Reem wrote on April 25, 2012 at 08:00 PM
Gravatar

We are not going to take it anymore" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOqk_q4NLLI

Karen wrote on April 25, 2012 at 10:30 PM
Gravatar

I do not like this article! If you claim, Maya, to support women, why are you attacking Mona in this insidious and divisive manner? Or maybe I should address Jadaliyya. Do you really think that a revolution of this magnitude (four dictators down & more to go) should take place without addressing the deplorable situation of women in Arab societies? What is so difficult about acknowledging the insidious misogyny that manifests itself every day in so many different ways? How dare you write that Mona has offered a "reductive framework of hatred" that makes it "too difficult" to address the problems you acknowledge are real. Yes, women are hated. What is the phrase "ya hurma!" but hatred, what is the action of being assaulted and broken as Mona was, but hatred, what is beating one's wife/daughter/sister, but hatred? What is considering a draft bill on early marriage and sex with a corpse -- as the Egyptian People's Assembly did today, but hatred?

Sherifa Zuhur wrote on April 25, 2012 at 11:51 PM
Gravatar

My main reservation about Mona's article is that it's in English and in a journal like the Foreign Policy, whose audience will probably feel a sense of superiority and self-righteousness as they read about the horrors of other enemy societies which seem exclusive to them. I wish she would have written this in Arabic instead. This article is not about pedantic analysis or rational and (over)sensitive understanding. It's a polemic that expresses genuine sentiment. It's a scream of rage and frustration fueled by a real sense of grief and oppression from a woman who has suffered the real pain of misogynistic hatred, sexual harassment and violence BECAUSE she is a WOMAN. "Hatred" is not meant as an explanation or an answer to anything, but as a reprehension against those who perpetrate such grave injustices against women in general and her in particular. What I find far more outrageous than Mona's sad slip is the viciousness of the attacks on her for speaking out. One pedantic academic from another American university, who's probably never been to Tahrir square and never suffered like she did, called her the pejorative and demeaning "native informant" and even compared her piece to vulgar Orientalist cliches and imagery. Here the authors of this article are imputing attitudes on her and even asserting very specific claims with no evidence whatsoever. Such as claiming that Fareed Zaiakria's piece was her source of inspiration. Not only that, but in a lot of what you say you seem to dilute the suffering and plight of women by overemphasizing that both men and women suffer while failing to recognize that women suffering is at the very least always disproportionate and it is because they are women. A lot of this "progressive critique" of yours sounds nothing more than an appeasement of authority. Shame!

Arab Leftist wrote on April 26, 2012 at 04:02 AM
Gravatar

So you saying political correctness comes first even when women get state sanctioned pokes..!! Righttt.!!

James Brown wrote on April 26, 2012 at 04:54 AM
Gravatar

Excellent article: very well written and balanced. I don't mind that Mona El Tahawy enjoys her spot of fame as a feminist and a make-shift Arab, but I would greatly appreciate if she ceases to speak on "my" behalf and claim to be "my" liberator, me and the other helpless, oppressed Arab Muslim women.. I can take very good care of myself, thank you very much! Oh, and one more thing: this Write-to-Please-the-West style doesn't work well with us.. But then, she doesn't really care about what we think, does she?

Loubna Olama wrote on April 26, 2012 at 06:26 AM
Gravatar

Excellent article: very well written and balanced. I don't mind that Mona El Tahawy enjoys her spot of fame as a feminist and a make-shift Arab, but I would greatly appreciate if she ceases to speak on "my" behalf and claim to be "my" liberator, me and the other helpless, oppressed Arab Muslim women.. I can take very good care of myself, thank you very much! Oh, and one more thing: this Write-to-Please-the-West style doesn't work well with us.. But then, she doesn't really care about what we think, does she?

Loubna Olama wrote on April 26, 2012 at 07:41 AM
Gravatar

Yes, there are historical, political, economic etc reasons for the condition of women in the Middle East. But misognyny is not neatly explained by them. To use your example, re FGM: "The reality is that women are often those that insist on the practice because of ways that gender and political economy regimes together make it a necessary rite of womanhood. In fact, critical thinkers have long argued that this practice has more to do with the lack of economic opportunity for women, the imperative to marry, and the hardening and modernization of tradition in response to colonial and neocolonial interventions (including rights frameworks) than some irrational and razor crazed “hatred.”" I question the veracity of these facts, to begin with, as FGM pre-dates colonialism in many places, while economics and the imperative to marry affect both men and women.But assuming your arguments are true: this explanation fails to explain why there was the initial lack of economic opportunity for women, why there was and is an imperative for women to marry, why traditions hardened to disfavour women, and so on. You ask why long enough, and basic hatred must come into it at some point. Humans, in my opinion, have to be taught to extend even compassion to those that are different from them in any way. But I agree that simply calling it hatred is not useful, because it provides no solution other than violent reprisals, which do not work. But to dismiss entirely that there are people who are simply hateful, and not for any reason other than their own advantage is unreasonable.

SZ wrote on April 26, 2012 at 08:56 AM
Gravatar

Mona's Article in FP disturbed me from the moment I read it for all the reasons cited by Sherene and Maya.

As I have given Mona's article additional thought, and reflected on the the history of women in other societal contexts (off the top of my head: food binding, recent laws now abolished in 'western' countries pertaining to property ownership, voting enfranchisement, abortion, divorce, etc), I can't help but reach the logical conclusion that we must analyze any oppression, whether against female or male, under the overall framework of 'Control' (control being the source of power). Within this framework, all history of oppression makes sense , whereas using the framework of "Hatred" as the reason for women's oppression simply does not stand the test of time. This is a preliminary thought and I would be interested in everyone's opinions.

Adele wrote on April 26, 2012 at 02:39 PM
Gravatar

Mona's Article in FP disturbed me from the moment I read it for all the reasons cited by Sherene and Maya.

As I have given Mona's article additional thought, and reflected on the the history of women in other societal contexts (off the top of my head: food binding, recent laws now abolished in 'western' countries pertaining to property ownership, voting enfranchisement, abortion, divorce, etc), I can't help but reach the logical conclusion that we must analyze any oppression, whether against female or male, under the overall framework of 'Control' (control being the source of power). Within this framework, all history of oppression makes sense , whereas using the framework of "Hatred" as the reason for women's oppression simply does not stand the test of time. This is a preliminary thought and I would be interested in everyone's opinions.

Adele wrote on April 26, 2012 at 03:42 PM
Gravatar

Also worth mentioning that the news about the "draft law about having sex with one's dead wife" is most likely a hoax that can be traced back to a pro-Mubarak journalist: http://7hekayat.blogspot.ca/2012/04/blog-post_26.html

Laleh wrote on April 26, 2012 at 03:47 PM
Gravatar

Few points: -I agree with Adele, framing this as a control issue makes more sense to me than hatred. And I do appreciate how Mona El Tahawy does over-simplify a bit by just pointing to "hatred" as the reason for everything.

-The authors of this article articulated well my discomfort with the imagery chosen for the Foreign Policy article (the attractive, naked, Arab woman painted black). To me it strikes of a disconnect between art direction and editorial intention. Its not hard to imagine the art director asking the designer for something,"compelling and sexy", the two collaboratively coming up with this, and then noone taking a step back to recognize how *remarkably inappropriate* that imagery was for this article.

- I disagree with the statement that, "The fate of women in the Arab world cannot be extracted from the fate of men in the Arab world, and vice versa." Of course there are a number of ways to attack a problem, and I'm sure if men were better educated, less radicalized, raised differently, whatever, they would treat women better, but we don't have time for that. Or perhaps those issues can be attacked separately. As Mona El Tahawy says, women need their own major uprising *today*. If you look at civil rights movements in general, it was the women/gays/blacks who took to the streets and demanded change. The role of men should be as allies in their struggle, marching alongside them.

- I have mixed feelings about Leftist Arab's suggestion that this not appear in a journal like this and it instead be written in Arabic published who knows where. I see value in that, but I also think that some readers of the article were not aware of much of this (I wasn't), will be shaken, and will be moved to do something.

Dan Trachtman wrote on April 26, 2012 at 03:51 PM
Gravatar

It's those who write about how Arab men 'control' Arab women who are writing to please their masters in the West. Mona dug deeper, deeper than most people with various degrees are willing to go, and she saw hatred. Show me one Western writer who's even alluded to Arab men hating women?

Reem wrote on April 27, 2012 at 12:58 AM
Gravatar

My main reservation about Mona's article is that it's in English and in a journal like the Foreign Policy, whose audience will probably feel a sense of superiority and self-righteousness as they read about the horrors of other enemy societies which seem exclusive to them. I wish she would have written this in Arabic instead. This article is not about pedantic analysis or rational and (over)sensitive understanding. It's a polemic that expresses genuine sentiment. It's a scream of rage and frustration fueled by a real sense of grief and oppression from a woman who has suffered the real pain of misogynistic hatred, sexual harassment and violence BECAUSE she is a WOMAN. "Hatred" is not meant as an explanation or an answer to anything, but as a reprehension against those who perpetrate such grave injustices against women in general and her in particular. What I find far more outrageous than Mona's sad slip is the viciousness of the attacks on her for speaking out. One pedantic academic from another American university, who's probably never been to Tahrir square and never suffered like she did, called her the pejorative and demeaning "native informant" and even compared her piece to vulgar Orientalist cliches and imagery. Here the authors of this article are imputing attitudes on her and even asserting very specific claims with no evidence whatsoever. Such as claiming that Fareed Zaiakria's piece was her source of inspiration. Not only that, but in a lot of what you say you seem to dilute the suffering and plight of women by overemphasizing that both men and women suffer while failing to recognize that women suffering is at the very least always disproportionate and it is because they are women. A lot of this "progressive critique" of yours sounds nothing more than an appeasement of authority. Shame!

Arab Leftist wrote on April 27, 2012 at 03:24 AM
Gravatar

Thank you Steve, Excellent Article; I don't mind that Mona al Tahawi speak freely and express the freedom she enjoys but i appreciate if she talks from a personal point of view about herself and leave us "me and other helpless oppressed Arab Muslim women" aside it's obvious she doesn't care about "Arab Muslim oppressed women" as she's writing in "write to please" style for the European and American readers Thanks a lot dear, we can take care and defend ourselves and right

Hala Nasrallah wrote on April 27, 2012 at 05:45 AM
Gravatar

What an excelletn article. Thanks so much. I was rather shocked by your response Sherifa Zuhur. I thought maybe I was wrong and reread the Jad piece but couldn't understand your Antagonism. Then I found this 'Suhur is national security expert on the Middle East and is currently the Director of the Institute of Middle Eastern, Islamic, and Strategic Studies, an international think tank. Zuhur was a Distinguished Visiting Professor of National Security Studies, and then Research Professor of Islamic and Regional Studies, at the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute. Zuhur has contributed to numerous governmental and defense studies work groups and other efforts on numerous subjects, including counterterrorism and Islamic movements in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. She has also testified before the United States Congress and contributed to work on human and women's rights.

So that explains a lot to me. Apart from the politics of it its of course also the main source of your income that this excellent piece is threatening so I understand your anger.

Good luck, Miriyam

Miriyam wrote on April 27, 2012 at 06:53 AM
Gravatar

How hilarious, Miriyam, that you feel the need to silence me as well as Mona! My small institute does not produce income, and I stand by my work at the SSI which is all online. I'm not writing out of some imagined politics but because of my commitment to women's activism in Egypt! The piece is not "threatening" but extremely inaccurate in many ways, for ex. claiming that the Egyptian feminist movements were small and merely allied to the regime is nonsense.

Sherifa Zuhur wrote on April 28, 2012 at 01:05 AM
Gravatar

Hello, I am sorry but I didnt meant to be hilarious, this is pretty serious for me. If you regard a different opinion is being a nasty of politics 'silencing' than I am even less sure I can grasp your logic Professor Zuhur. As I said, I do understand your anger, this whole debate undermines the ideological substance of the focus and interest of security/diplomatic/soft power and the source of its public intellectuals (I wouldnt frame it as 'academia' but alas thats another discussion). I cannot see the relation between 'commitment to women activism' and denouncing [feminist] activists, those who were active on the streets, who have seen their sisters arrested, killed, raped...those who open their mouth and 'talk back' about issues that regard them. Very strange you choose to attack them as well, like you do here, very dissapointing that [if] Mona Eltahawi reframes that as 'silencing'. But I also see the benefits, it relieves from the responsibility to engage with them/the content, just saying its 'extremely inaccurate', or not accepting what is quite broadly agreed, namely that many [women] social movements were very small and started from the middle class and some were better coopted than others...any old/new serious literature shares this view. Calling it 'nonsense!' just reminds me so much of the time Hirsi Ali was being challenged. Scary stuff... M

Miriyam wrote on April 28, 2012 at 09:18 AM
Gravatar

The whole purpose of this article is to attack an Arab woman who dared to speak up. Why do you blame Mona for the photographs the magazine published. Those are editoral choices. Despite those tacky photos, what she wrote was perhaps one of the most honest articles I read in recent times. Lets us learn to support women who dare to speak up against misogyny. Why do we that expect every single Muslim woman on earth should speak highly about the patriarchal tradition? If Mona had written Islam is the solution, she would have never faced this sort of misogynous criticism

Safiya wrote on May 02, 2012 at 10:30 AM
Gravatar

Exposing the dirty laundry whether in Arabic or in English is a must if we want to protect, defend and honor Arab women. I do not like this article full of polemics to no end... Also the above comments reflect that there is also "hatred" among Arab woman. Why all this attack.. on Mona's article.. just because she is says it from a passionate, and I wish in more angrier tone.. enough being silent ! or are we afraid what the "west" is going to say next about us..

jenin66 wrote on May 04, 2012 at 04:01 PM
Gravatar

Good word....women body is a bettaleground.

Deepak Gupta wrote on June 09, 2012 at 01:36 AM

If you prefer, email your comments to info@jadaliyya.com.

Pages/Sections

Archive

Jad Navigation

View Full Map, Topics, and Countries »
You need to upgrade your Flash Player

Top Jadaliyya Tags

Get Adobe Flash player

Jadaliyya Features