As featured on Racialicious.

It’s time to set the record straight, everyone. So here it is: belly dancing is not a significant facet of Middle Eastern culture. It’s a dance, not a lifestyle (not according to most Middle Eastern people, anyway).

I’ve had one too many people ask me if I belly dance when they hear about my religion or ethnicity. Belly dancing is something that is present in some form of another in most Middle Eastern cultures, but is not really a part of our identity. And I assure you, nowhere in the Holy Qur’an does it say, “Thou shalt belly dance.” But because of Hollywood’s old Orientalist glamour, images of belly dancing have become almost synonymous with the Middle East.

I can’t help but get irritated when someone assumes that s/he and I automatically have something in common because s/he belly dances. The truth of a real-live Middle Eastern woman belly dancing seems to validate all those silly images that come into one’s head about spangly costumes and the Dance of the Seven Veils. Belly dancing has a host of sexualized and savage images attached to it, and if Middle Eastern/Muslim women confess to belly dancing (for exercise, as a career, for fun, or whatever), those images get attached to us, and we no longer have individual thoughts or lifestyles. We don’t take care of our parents or our children, we don’t have jobs or have opinions about health care reform, we just belly dance. Like it’s all we do, all day. This is why it’s insulting when someone thinks s/he knows what it’s like to be a Middle Eastern/Muslim woman because s/he’s taken a belly dancing class or read a book about it. The image of a Middle Eastern woman belly dancing seems to take away from our identity: it erases who we really are, our different nationalities and ethnicities, our emotions, our day-to-day existence.

Now, let me assure you: my problem isn’t with the dance itself. Belly dancing is a great way to connect with one’s sensuality, to exercise, and to appreciate the body that God gave you. Nor is my problem with non-Middle Eastern women (or men) belly dancing (or with Middle Eastern people dancing).

What bothers me is the adoption of a caricatured Middle Eastern identity through coin-bedazzled bras and Middle Eastern stage names like “Amina” or “Vashti.” If you’re a non-Middle Eastern performer, why give yourself a Middle Eastern stage name? What’s wrong with a name that reflects your own ethnicity or interests? Is it not “ethnic” or “exotic” enough? Besides, how would you feel if someone else used the name your parents gave you (that perhaps also belonged to your grandmother or aunt) as a stage name for an act that most people in your culture consider shameful if done publicly? (Cultural lesson: in most parts of the Middle East, belly dancing is often a cover for illicit activities.)

Similarly, dance troupe names like “Desert Queens” or “Daughters of Scheherazade” serve the same exoticizing purpose when these troupes are full of non-Middle Eastern women set in a non-Middle Eastern setting (like Austin, Texas, for example, which hosted a Belly Dancing Convention last July).

I take offense at the presentation of Middle Eastern “culture” through things like transparent veils, coin necklaces, and henna tattoos because reducing the Middle Eastern experience to some jingly coins and a scimitar takes the humanity right out of us. Elements of Middle Eastern/Muslim stereotypes are irreparably attached to the use of swords, snakes, and veils. These props serve to reinforce the idea of Muslim/Middle Eastern women as dangerous, sexually arousing, sexually submissive, and just plain different from women in the West.

Performers (Middle Eastern or non-Middle Eastern) highlight these images when they (Middle Eastern or non-Middle Eastern) balance swords on their heads and give themselves henna tattoos. The inclusion of these props is often used to authenticate a Middle Eastern experience, making the performance or venue more like the “Mysterious Orient,” in which Middle Eastern women are acquiescing sexual props and Middle Eastern men are brutal and dangerous.

Why is this acceptable? These practices (other than henna for holidays and weddings) aren’t even Middle Eastern: Egyptian performers borrowed the ideas for these spangly suits from Hollywood in the early twentieth century. And no Middle Easterner just walks around all day with a sword perched atop her head. Belly dancing doesn’t even traditionally show off the stomach: a scarf is tied around one’s hips (over regular, concealing clothing) to emphasize the movements. So how did we get to sparkly bras and coin jewelry?!

Because sex sells! Early colonial performers knew what their (often Western or male) audiences wanted to see: sexuality. A pretty girl dancing sensually for the male gaze. Using veils in performances reiterates this: sashaying a veil under one’s heavily-painted eyes is done to entice and enchant, and is associated with the traditional face veils that upper-class (and thus inaccessible) Turkish, Egyptian, and Iranian women used to wear before (or during) colonization.

The problem is that belly dancing is permeated with all of these negative Orientalist dancing harem girl images. Can one belly dance without the coins, the henna, and/or swords? I think so. A long time ago, it was all about the scarf tied around the hips. It’s not flashy, but it’s sincere.

Here are some pretty awesome public service announcements. They’re in English, and I’m assuming for a western (possibly U.S.?) audience. Although I don’t know who made them, and I doubt that they’re actually shown on TV, I like the messages they’re sending. There’s the overt “Muslims are people, and we’re nice, too!” message, but there’s also the positive message that anyone can be Muslim. Especially when it comes to the women in the commercials.

Women of varying ages and ethnicities are included in this film. There are also several women with and without hejab, and those who wear hejab are wearing it in different styles. The message that Muslim women are all different individuals is one I think should be heard more often!

Here are the commercials. The first one highlights the plurality of a Muslim's identity:

The second one is for "Different cultures, one belief":

The third one is "Your neighbor, your friend":

On October 31^st, British television aired the two-part drama Britz, “a fictitious drama about two young Muslim British siblings in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings and the impact that anti-terror legislation has on their lives.” Muslima Media Watch has included viewpoints from two Muslim women on Britz’s female lead, Nasima. The following authors’ viewpoints do not necessarily reflect those of Muslimah Media Watch.

Safiya from Outlines writes:

“Apples Do Not Exist”

Neither do practicing Muslims who are active and positive members of society. Muslims are either totally assimilated and vaguely nominal Muslims or Jihadists. Nothing else.
Such prejudices will not have been altered by the second installment of Britz, which focused on Nasima, the female character. There was so much wrong with this show. It would take a massive post to list it all, so I will summarize.
We are introduced to Nasima as a bubbly medical student with a passion for politics. We see her praying with her family (although she doesn't cover her hair properly during salah, the first of many inconsistencies).
Sadly, our insight into her religious beliefs and motivations pretty much ends there. For a drama supposedly about Muslims there is actually very little about Islam.
It was just completely unconvincing.
Nasima's best friend is arrested, imprisoned and release under a control order, despite not being involved in any illegal activity. She subsequently commits suicide.
After this Nasima attends a student meeting for Muslims, where she is told that Jihad is the duty of all Muslims (even women) and that nothing else will help to end the war in Iraq, etc. In fact, the women are told that they could make excellent jihadists as they are less likely to be detected.
Meanwhile, Nasima still fits in the time for a non-Muslim boyfriend. In one of the most unrealistic scenes (and there were many), she tells her boyfriend he doesn't understand, because he's not Muslim. She then proceeds to kiss him after he drinks some beer and they sleep together. Because that's the behavior of a committed Muslim.
Cue Nasima confessing to her parents about aforementioned boyfriend in order to get sent to Pakistan so that she can train for her 'mission'.
The director proudly claimed to have spoken to Muslims before making this film. I'm not sure what he spoke to them about, but it wasn't Islam or how Muslims interact with each other.
Nasmina is shown making wudu and praying by the side of the men. Considering this is meant to be an 'Islamist' camp, it’s a little confusing that neither she nor the other women wear hijab when they agree to do the mission. The leader makes this bizarre covenant which makes no mention of Allah. While doing so, he puts his hand directly on her head.
She then returns to London to finalize the preparation for her mission. While in London she lives with a male fellow terrorist, which would also be a no-no Islamically, but the script remains unconcerned with such matters.
She looks a bit troubled that there might be children there at the planned detonation site, but this doesn't last long. This is another major problem. We know she is mourning her friend and blames the government for her death, but again, it's just not convincing. Her motives are unclear. A character tells her she will ‘sit at God's right hand,’ which is an odd statement from a Muslim, as there is nothing in Islamic theology about anyone sitting at the right hand of Allah. However, she replies that she is not doing this for that reason. Yet if she is doing this for emotional reasons, i.e., to avenge her friends death, she seems curiously lacking in passion. I'm not sure if it's the fault of the actress, the script or both.
So she goes to her final destination, wearing virginal white and an empathy belly to hide her bomb. Before she can detonate it, her brother finds her, they struggle in slow motion. Then the screen goes fuzzy.
Now for some statistics. Remember the director has spoken to real Muslims, so we are treated to statement about how 81% of young Muslims think U.K. foreign policy is an attack on Islam and will increase the likelihood of terrorism in the U.K. Then information about the government anti-terror legislation laws passed.
Following this is a clip of Nasima's suicide video, where she declares the public are all guilty for electing the current government and that Muslims will fight. She ends by saying ‘So Help Me God,’ which is just not the sort of terminology a Muslim would use. Considering the number of real video messages made by suicide bombers, you'd think this would not be difficult to portray in a mildly authentic manner, but it's fair to conclude this program as the same relation to authenticity that a tree slug has to moonwalking.
I stand by my opinion, that the producers should be ashamed at how they earn their money. I would rather clean toilets with a toothbrush for a living then be involved in making such prejudiced garbage.
Britz is just the latest in a seemingly never ending torrent of negative portrayals of Muslims and Islam. Both films and television will claim to tackle any number of difficult issues, yet they find it impossible to show Muslims in a realistic manner. If there is no room for our reflection in their media mirror, then it's time we made our own mirrors.

Zareen from FreeWriters writes:

“Britz – Part II (Nasima’s Story):

Yesterday there was a tidal wave of blogs and articles written in response to the first part of Brtiz, with a divided opinion amongst most Muslim writers about the content of the film; some were hailing the docu-drama as a positive step towards raising awareness, and the other (not so convinced) half dismissing it as another ploy to make British Muslims feel even more paranoid about the current UK law and enforcement system than we already are. I must say that after watching the second part, I am beginning to see sense in the ‘propoganda’ argument - but I’m not completely won over. Why? Because last night’s program was riddled with so many flaws that it made it difficult to believe that any reasonable-minded person with so much as a percent of understanding about Muslim British women would take the story of Nasima at face value. Some scenes depicted were so unrealistic and absurd that I couldn’t restrain myself from shaking my head in utter disappointment, and I doubt I was alone. I am sure a kazillion Muslim women must have been out there ranting; shouting “that is not how we are!” I know I was.

Initially Nasima is shown as a free-spirited young woman in her early twenties. She is not exactly the ideal role model as a Muslim woman, and in any typical Asian community Nasima and her brother Sohail would have been termed as the local vagabonds - the one’s who you’re supposed to stay away from because they are so corrupt. Yet somehow, Nasima’s parents remain oblivious to her dual-personality in scenes where she is arrested under ASBO* laws, and then when she finally does turn up at the hospital her mother is totally calm. A true depiction of that scene (in Bradford of all places) would have been the mother yelling curses at her daughter even if she was lying on her deathbed for bringing ‘shame to the family’ by spending a night in a cell. Nasima then goes off (again) to spend the night with her boyfriend and the family / cultural angle of this is never shown.

Eventually things change for the worst in Nasima’s life when her best friend ‘Sab’ is bizarrely arrested under Anti-Terror laws for the possession of four packets of chilli powder. Sab is put under a form of house arrest, falls deep into a state of depression, and finally commits suicide. Disillusioned with the system after the death of her friend, Nasima becomes politically active but is intrinsically weak and confused. She decides to learn more about political Islam; a version of Islam that is born out of the injustice faced by many in war-torn Muslim countries. At first she tries to advocate the need for democratic resistance and protest through peaceful means, but when she realizes that this is a lost cause, she becomes frustrated and eventually ends up with more radicalized Muslims at university (all the while still with her boyfriend.)

One day Nasima takes up the challenge of wearing the hijab for the day, and begins to relate to the alienation felt by many scarf-wearing sisters, but she does not at any point take out time to learn why they wear it or for that matter, what her religion teaches - her perception of Islam is so basic that it almost renders null and void. This to me is a vital point. If the purpose of this tele-film was to show why ordinary British Muslims generally turn to terrorism then they could have at least shown a more realistic stereotype. I don’t know how many, if any, would have been able to relate or understand Nasima’s story.

Nasima’s motivation behind joining the camp is unclear; throughout the journey to Pakistan and even whilst in training we are under the impression that Nasima is grieving over the death of her friend Sab, even at the end when her co-jihadist tells her that she will land a place by God she replies ‘that’s not why I’m doing this.’ So then why was she doing it? Nasima didn’t seem too bothered about U.K. foreign policy, because there was not one scene where she mentions this, and is instead angered and fuelled by Sab’s suicide. This is what makes the whole thing so absurd and unrealistic - because it was a revenge crime and not a terrorist one. She was protesting against the death of her friend, not in response to the crimes against humanity; and surely not in the name of Islam.

In a way I should be pleased that Nasima was not shown as another radicalized hijab-wearing, niqab-clad Muslimah who cannot see beyond her husband’s or father’s beard to make up her own mind about Islam, but instead shown as a juvenile and misinformed girl with pathetic motivations. But I feel no sympathy or connection with Nasima because she was so unreal and unlike any other Muslim women I have ever known, and in comparison to Sohail’s character, Nasima failed to convince me in her role.

But the one message that I do hear loud and clear, and one that I also echo, is that Muslims like me and you (if you’re reading this) have to speak up - there are no other means of tackling this issue without getting to the heart of it, debating the complexities of the problem, and creating dialogue with those in power - those who we are told “matter”, through our democratic rights. This is my country, my home, and I refuse to live in a state of paranoia or in a community that surrounds itself with conspiracy. If those who are fighting this war say it is not against Islam, then it is the duty of every citizen to question the motives behind this war and protest against injustice without depending on a narrow interpretation of a version of religion that suits their particular needs. I know many people will disagree with me on this, but I honestly believe that if one voice can change two minds, and two minds can change four, then eventually the world will change - slowly but surely. But until then, I am fearful of the growing number of young Nasimas and Sohails whose motivation is not based on religion but something far deeper, something far destructive - revenge. Those Muslims who choose to ignore this reality are in my opinion living in a state of denial and temporary foolish sanity.

*Anti-Social Behaviour Order laws.

Today is a special day, and we will have another post up later today about Britz, the contraversial "docu-drama" that aired in Britain this past week. But for now, here are some links for 11.2.07"

• Author Fatemeh Keshavarz talks about her book and leadership in Iran and the U.S.

• The founder of Canadian Association of Muslims with Disabilities is honored by the Canadian Council of Muslim Women.

• Ruqaya Al Ghasara, Doha’s Asian Games 200m gold medalist, dedicates her victory to all Muslim women.

• Oman’s newest council doesn’t have any women. Booooo!

• I forgot to post this last Friday! Iranian women kick ass at rugby.

• Those who raped and murdered Muslim women during religious riots in India in 2002 face justice on earth, alhamdulillah.

• U.N. war crimes tribunal upholds a 15-year jail sentence for a Serbian man who raped Bosnian Muslim women. My only question is: only 15 years? Really?

• Dr. Ingrid Mattson discusses Islam in America. Man, she’s cool.

• Some positive videos about Muslim women in sports.
  

• Boxing is quickly becoming popular among some Muslim women in the Middle East.
  

Buthayna Nasser, a Saudi TV broadcaster, debates excellently about her rights and equality to man under Islam. She kicks ass and takes names, in fact. So what’s the problem?

How her views are interpreted. The title for the clip (played during the clip) is: “Debate on Women Appearing on Saudi TV.” But Ritter1001, the poster of this clip, has re-titled the piece: Islam: "We are Being Brainwashed on a Daily Basis." Looking at Ritter1001’s video “arsenal,” you can see plenty of anti-Islamic videos, including some from Wafa Sultan and one video entitled, “How to Beat Your Islamic* Wife Into Submission – the Rules”. Ugh.

But hold on a minute! When does Nasser talk about Islam brainwashing anybody? In the clip, she describes the problem as learning Islam by memorization rather than dialogue. Nasser claims that brainwashing happens when children are taught not to question anything about Islam and only to accept what their teachers tell them; she is not arguing that Islam itself brainwashes anybody. Yet the caption of the movie is: Islam: “We are Being Brainwashed on a Daily Basis.” You see the discrepancy?

Earlier in the clip, Nasser stands up for the rights Islam accords us, but the poster appropriates her arguments against misinterpretations as an argument against Islam. This is why Muslims are reluctant to discuss problems they see in the Muslim community. We’re afraid that our arguments will be taken as evidence against Islam, rather than as evidence of patriarchal misinterpretation of Islam. This is a problem particularly for Muslim women: for example, if a Muslim woman speaks out when she is the victim of domestic abuse, those in the West blame her religion instead of her crappy husband, despite the fact that there are plenty of crappy non-Muslim husbands who twist religion to conform to their despicable treatment of their wives.

This doesn’t mean we should refrain from speaking out, however. We need to be sure we contextualize our dialogue and remember that we’re doing our best to fight against misunderstanding and bigotry. No matter how hard we try to keep the discussion respectful, there will always be someone who will use our discussion for their own ends. Despite the misnaming of Nasser’s clip, I’m glad it’s out there. Just because one man can’t see the truth doesn’t mean other people won’t.

*Grammar lesson: I hate it when people use “Islamic” when they should be using “Muslim.” According to Associated Press guidelines, “Note that a follower of Islam is a Muslim… Use the word ‘Islamic’ as an adjective for things, as in ‘Islamic architecture.’” Things, not people.