All our hearts ached for the victims of the devastating tsunami a few of years ago. One of the worst natural disasters in recent history. Many people asked why such a horrible thing would happen. How could so many innocent lives be taken like that? Who knows why things like this happen. Who knows God's plan. Who knows why God planned that.
Well, it seems some people in Indonesia do know why it happened and have found the culprits. Yay! Actual people to blame. But guess whose fault it is? Well, no, not the West. Not directly at least, though one could argue there may be an indirect connection. Anyhow, guess again. That's right! WOMEN!
Why is that not a surprise to me? According to my friend, and journalist, Natasha Fatah, the right-wing conservatives of Banda Aceh have been blaming the women of the town for the calamity. In her article, Religion and natural disasters shouldn't mix, Fatah tells us how, following the tsunami, the local sharia-pushing conservatives found the perfect opportunity among the terror-ridden residents to spread their version of events. According to them it was the immorality of the women that caused God to punish them. To protect from further disasters they forced many restrictions on the woman. These self appointed morality police banned night time concerts so women would not be out at night and movie theatres were closed so that men and women would not be in the same dark space.
What was their proof? That's right. They had proof. The naked dead bodies of women from the disaster. When the force of the water hit these women, for many it ripped the clothes (sarongs and nightgowns) off their bodies. However, these guardians of Islam provided an alternate explanation saying that they were naked because of their immorality and this was God's way of punishing them, as well as everyone else for allowing them to be immoral.
Now this is getting to be an extremely old story. Whenever so-called Islamic law is implemented the first victims are always women. Always. They are the prey for the perverted, testosterone-thirsty (because real men, who follow the example of the Prophet (pbuh), would never behave this way), estrogen-hating 'mullahs.' Women are less powerful than men. They are easy targets. Easy to push around and bully. Their bodies are vessels for a very weak, fragile, and restless morality which, if not carefully watched, will find the first opportunity to escape into the real world to cause chaos, or fitna (disorder or chaos), among society. Therefore, they, like little, naive children, need to be instructed and ordered so that they do not harm themselves or others.
Fatah, in her article, quite aptly points out the 'female body as battleground' phenomenon.
A woman's body is always the easiest battleground for religious zealots. It's hard to monitor honesty and morality but it's easy to chastise a woman if her hair is showing, if her clothes are too tight, if she's talking to a man in private, if she's out after 9 p.m.
For centuries it seems the female body has become a political battleground around the world. No part of the world is guiltless. Whether it be using rape as a weapon of war or telling women how to dress, this is an international and ageless tragedy. However, in recent times it seems Muslim countries have made the female body a favourite playground for their war games. Iran and Saudi Arabia tell women she must cover her body from head to toe. In Saudi Arabia she must have a male relative accompany her body when outside the home, her body must not drive - all to guard the morality of society, all to control this sexual being who was created to wreak havoc.*
Turkey tells women they must not cover their heads so that the rest of Europe does not see them as extremist or sympathetic to the fundamentalists. After all, we all know that only those extreme women wear the hijab.**
Women everywhere are told to veil for two common reasons. The first is to protect the morality of the Muslim Ummah. The morality of the Muslim Ummah lies in her body. If she uncovers her hair her sexuality will be released to wreak havoc and will lead to the ultimate destruction of the Ummah. The second, to pledge allegiance to other Muslims and demonstrate solidarity. The hijab is a clear label of Muslim-ness. It clearly tells the whole world you are a Muslim. Therefore, to show the Ummah's pride and confidence Muslim women must cover.
Just as these occurrences in Indonesia point out, the female body is still a ripe and 'fertile' battleground. Used to instill fear in people's hearts, her body terrifies men into oppressing. This makes this tactic extremely successful for those in the business of using bodies. How and when we will be able to defeat this is one question I wish we could answer but unfortunately this plague seems impossible eradicate.
* Read Fatima Mernissi's description of Imam Al-Ghazali's interpretation of female sexuality. The idea of woman as fitna-causing originate with him. Mernissi, F. (1987). Beyond the veil: Male-female dynamics in modern Muslim society. Bloomington : Indiana University.
**Editor's Note: This is SARCASM. Don't get uppity.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Stripping Away the Diversity of Modesty
MEMRI has a YouTube video entitled “Iranian Police Enforces ‘Islamic Dress Code’ on Women.” As an aside, I’m kind of impressed by the use of quotation marks, because MEMRI videos (whether posted by the news organization itself or reposted by individual users) tend towards inflammatory Islamophobic phrases.
The video shows the so-called “hijab police.” A woman, clad in black chador and manteau, walks up to women and asks them questions like, “As an Iranian citizen, do you think the way you are dressed is appropriate?” She points to scarves deemed too thin, hair not fully covered by scarves, lack of manteau, excessive makeup, and too-short trousers. According to the woman such dress is incompatible with Islam. The presence of the hovering policeman and threat on being “put on the bus” drive this message home.
Watching the “modesty officer” harass the women, none of whom were “indecent” by any reasonable standards (certainly not compared to the T-shirt-wearing men walking freely past), made me angry, as I’m guessing it was intended to do. Look at Iranians and their crazy Islamic rules! Don’t you see how they need American liberation?
Indeed, many who commented on the video took it as an opportunity to unleash racial prejudices and supremacism. I saw anti-Iranian tirades, anti-Arab, even anti-Jewish rants — and of course Islamophobic ones. (This context makes me appreciate MEMRI’s use of quotations marks around the phrase “Islamic dress code” even more. It’s easy to assume that because a government official says it’s Islamic, it is.)
But possibly more disturbing were some comments by fellow Muslims. Some drew a parallel between dress standards in Iran and in the United States. In the United States, women face consequences for being topless in public, because it violates a societal norm of decency. Proponents of this analogy argue that in Iran, dress standards are stricter, but they are just as appropriate for their respective society.
It doesn’t take long to see the flaws in this argument. At least from colonialism onward, toplessness in America has long held the status of unacceptable. While each generation considers more skin acceptable than the last, it remains a basic standard for women to cover their breasts. On the other hand, the standards imposed by the woman in Iran in the video are not based on any such history in Iran. If these so-called societal norms were truly based in cultural tradition and modern standards, there would be no need for a “modesty” police squad to begin with. (Topless women in America are so rare because the instilled societal standards, not law enforcement, prevent women from even considering going outside topless.)
Besides the logical flaws, the comparison has a dangerous message. Not wearing “proper hijab” is akin to half-nudity? An Iranian woman wearing a sarafan over a long-sleeved shirt is paralleled by a topless American woman? So it implies. In other words, women who wear any less than the chador/manteau combo (and let’s not even talk about those who don’t wear hijab at all) might as well be naked. What an effective way to deny any scrap of the word “modesty” to women who differ from proscribed standards.
For further discussion of the video, see the posts and comments at the Her Modesty magazine blog here and here.
The video shows the so-called “hijab police.” A woman, clad in black chador and manteau, walks up to women and asks them questions like, “As an Iranian citizen, do you think the way you are dressed is appropriate?” She points to scarves deemed too thin, hair not fully covered by scarves, lack of manteau, excessive makeup, and too-short trousers. According to the woman such dress is incompatible with Islam. The presence of the hovering policeman and threat on being “put on the bus” drive this message home.
Watching the “modesty officer” harass the women, none of whom were “indecent” by any reasonable standards (certainly not compared to the T-shirt-wearing men walking freely past), made me angry, as I’m guessing it was intended to do. Look at Iranians and their crazy Islamic rules! Don’t you see how they need American liberation?Indeed, many who commented on the video took it as an opportunity to unleash racial prejudices and supremacism. I saw anti-Iranian tirades, anti-Arab, even anti-Jewish rants — and of course Islamophobic ones. (This context makes me appreciate MEMRI’s use of quotations marks around the phrase “Islamic dress code” even more. It’s easy to assume that because a government official says it’s Islamic, it is.)
But possibly more disturbing were some comments by fellow Muslims. Some drew a parallel between dress standards in Iran and in the United States. In the United States, women face consequences for being topless in public, because it violates a societal norm of decency. Proponents of this analogy argue that in Iran, dress standards are stricter, but they are just as appropriate for their respective society.
It doesn’t take long to see the flaws in this argument. At least from colonialism onward, toplessness in America has long held the status of unacceptable. While each generation considers more skin acceptable than the last, it remains a basic standard for women to cover their breasts. On the other hand, the standards imposed by the woman in Iran in the video are not based on any such history in Iran. If these so-called societal norms were truly based in cultural tradition and modern standards, there would be no need for a “modesty” police squad to begin with. (Topless women in America are so rare because the instilled societal standards, not law enforcement, prevent women from even considering going outside topless.)
Besides the logical flaws, the comparison has a dangerous message. Not wearing “proper hijab” is akin to half-nudity? An Iranian woman wearing a sarafan over a long-sleeved shirt is paralleled by a topless American woman? So it implies. In other words, women who wear any less than the chador/manteau combo (and let’s not even talk about those who don’t wear hijab at all) might as well be naked. What an effective way to deny any scrap of the word “modesty” to women who differ from proscribed standards.
For further discussion of the video, see the posts and comments at the Her Modesty magazine blog here and here.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
More Than a Memoir
The secret life of the Middle Eastern Muslim woman is a hot topic. In bookstores around the world, books line the shelves displaying covers of teasing confessionals — desert princesses, seductive eyes lined with makeup behind a niqab, life when related to a terrorist, the disturbing details of what Muslims do to their women. These salacious tales are told by real-live women — don’t you just love memoirs? But there’s one memoir that won’t be snapped up by readers longing for the intriguing stories of those poor, abused Muslim now-saved women. It’s Leila 
Ahmed’s A Border Passage: from Cairo to America—a Woman’s Journey. A memoir that goes beyond mere memories to social issues across continents, the book doesn’t give neo-Orientalist drama a glance. Published in 1999, the memoir has not lost its relevance even nearly a decade later. In fact, Ahmed’s beautifully written reflections on her Egyptian childhood and British education may be even more necessary today.
Ahmed, born in Egypt in 1940, addresses topics such as imperialism, literacy, feminism, racism, and identity as they relate to her life before moving to the United States. Skillfully crafting her prose, Ahmed simultaneously uses the critical analysis of an academic (a PhD of Cambridge University, she currently teaches at Harvard Divinity School) to break down issues and introduce new ideas. In describing the Islam of her childhood, she writes of a “women’s Islam” distinct from a text-based, dogmatic “men’s Islam.” Ahmed laments the way written works dominate academia as reflecting “the ‘true’ and ‘authentic’ Islam”:
When Ahmed does mean to shock and enlighten her readers, the topics are hardly clichéd. A chapter of the book is devoted to investigating the history of the label “Arab.” Egypt, as it turns out, is relatively new to the label. And the fact that Muslims are predisposed to supporting the Palestinian cause over Israel? Ahmed completely destroys this “fact,” uncovering in her research Egypt’s pro-Israel (dare I say Zionist?) past. Ideas that seem unimaginable become real in the memoir, and there lies Ahmed’s greatest strength. The background of politics, the thoughts on literature, the musings on religion are intriguing and enjoyable. But the greatest impression A Border Passage leaves upon the reader is the idea that all “facts” can be reevaluated. Ahmed teaches her critical eye, forcing readers to realize that nothing is simple. Not Egyptian identity, not British imperialism, not the spirituality of Muslim women. This may only be the story of one woman, but with this message it makes room for the stories of many.
Ahmed’s A Border Passage: from Cairo to America—a Woman’s Journey. A memoir that goes beyond mere memories to social issues across continents, the book doesn’t give neo-Orientalist drama a glance. Published in 1999, the memoir has not lost its relevance even nearly a decade later. In fact, Ahmed’s beautifully written reflections on her Egyptian childhood and British education may be even more necessary today.Ahmed, born in Egypt in 1940, addresses topics such as imperialism, literacy, feminism, racism, and identity as they relate to her life before moving to the United States. Skillfully crafting her prose, Ahmed simultaneously uses the critical analysis of an academic (a PhD of Cambridge University, she currently teaches at Harvard Divinity School) to break down issues and introduce new ideas. In describing the Islam of her childhood, she writes of a “women’s Islam” distinct from a text-based, dogmatic “men’s Islam.” Ahmed laments the way written works dominate academia as reflecting “the ‘true’ and ‘authentic’ Islam”:
“Professors, for example, including a number who have no sympathy whatever for feminism, are now jumping on the bandwagon of gender studies and directing a plethora of dissertations on this or that medieval text with titles like ‘Islam and Menstruation.’ But such dissertations should more aptly have titles along the lines of ‘A Study of Medieval Male Beliefs about Menstruation.’ For what, after all, do these men’s beliefs, and the rules they laid down on the basis of their beliefs, have to do with Islam? Just because they were more powerful, privileged men in their society and knew how to write, does this mean they have the right forever to tell us what Islam is and what the rules should be?” (129-30)Ahmed shatters many stereotypes about Egypt, Islam, and Muslim women. It’s not that she goes out of her way to do it. Instead, she presents her life matter-of-factly and most stereotypes just don’t fit into that world. The large black veil was only worn by the lower classes? A Muslim man would encourage his daughter to pursue science? Ahmed’s mother saw pacifism as the core of Islam? These ideas are slipped into the story naturally, not as part of a “Let me explain real Islam to you” agenda. (The latter is usually the only alternative to Islamophobic sensationalism.)
When Ahmed does mean to shock and enlighten her readers, the topics are hardly clichéd. A chapter of the book is devoted to investigating the history of the label “Arab.” Egypt, as it turns out, is relatively new to the label. And the fact that Muslims are predisposed to supporting the Palestinian cause over Israel? Ahmed completely destroys this “fact,” uncovering in her research Egypt’s pro-Israel (dare I say Zionist?) past. Ideas that seem unimaginable become real in the memoir, and there lies Ahmed’s greatest strength. The background of politics, the thoughts on literature, the musings on religion are intriguing and enjoyable. But the greatest impression A Border Passage leaves upon the reader is the idea that all “facts” can be reevaluated. Ahmed teaches her critical eye, forcing readers to realize that nothing is simple. Not Egyptian identity, not British imperialism, not the spirituality of Muslim women. This may only be the story of one woman, but with this message it makes room for the stories of many.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Family Values
When I read the Daily Mail article from the UK entitled I was forced to marry my cousin - it's normal in my culture, but SO WRONG all I could say was ugh! Why? Let me explain.
The article describes the experiences of a Pakistani-British woman, Khaleda, who was forced to marry her father's cousin, 20 years her senior and from Pakistan. She describes in this article, her devastation at this marriage and the process leading up to it. Her story is sad, scary, and heart-wrenching. It is difficult not to feel bad for her. No woman should EVER be forced to marry anyone. Every woman has the right to choose her life partner.
However, except for trying to tell the depressing tale of Khaleda, there is something horribly wrong with this article. The Daily Mail successfully depicts all Muslim and Pakistani families as tyrannical, heartless, cruel, and most of all, perverse.
The demonization begins immediately with the title of the article. The title appears to quote Khaleda as saying that being to forced to marry one's cousin is the norm in Pakistani culture. This idea is constantly reinforced throughout the entire article by quoting Khaleda as saying:
"Virtually every Asian girl I have ever met has an arranged marriage and the vast majority of them are to their cousins."
"And this was just one of many instances I would hear of."
Additionally Alison Smith-Squire, the writer, ends the article with "(a)nd so another young Muslim woman's life is ruined by this outdated practice."
As someone who is of Pakistani descent, the ubiquity of forced marriages to cousins is new to me. I have never heard of this being a problem. Cousins are often married to each other but to say that the majority of these marriages are forced is an amateur guess at best. To generalize this or any practice to ane entire culture, one with millions of people, is extremely unprofessional and not to mention irrational and nonsensical.
Yet, the worst aspect of this article is not the insinuation that forced marriages to cousins are common, but rather that this practice is disgusting, barbaric, and backward. This sentiment is repeatedly presented throughout. Let's look at what they say.
"Disgusted by her arranged marriage to a cousin..."
The disgust here is not presented as a result of the age difference or the lack of physical attraction, which would seem to be the more likely reason in this case, but rather as a result of their relation as cousins. Throughout the article, Khaleda expresses her disgust with being with her husband, with having him touch her. However, the sense one gets is that this disgust is due to the extreme lack of attraction toward her husband.
"I kept brushing them (her husband's hands) away, repeating 'no.' Tears rolled down my cheeks and, even now, I cannot talk of that night as it totally disgusts me." (Khaleda speaking of her wedding night)
But according to Khaleda and Smith-Squire this disgust is solely because he is her cousin.
"It is well known within the community that such marriages do produce deformed babies. No one talks about it, but it is one of the reasons why I found such a marriage to someone so closely related to myself to be so very repugnant." (Khaleda)
This quote tries to 'prove' how disgusting the Pakistani community really is. To allow such a disgusting practice to continue, knowing full well how disgusting this is, must be a sign of a perverse mentality.
"They had a baby daughter who died and when they asked doctors why, they were told it was because of inter-breeding. They were told the parents were too closely related to have a normal baby." (Khaleda)
This quote is accepted without question. No place in the article does Smith-Squire speak with a doctor. For Smith-Squire to accept Khaleda's version of the story when it could be hearsay is extremely unprofessional.
"...it is barbaric and unnatural." (Khaleda)
This quote is clear. Smith-Squire is using an 'insider' to demonstrate the 'reality' of the practice of marrying one's cousin. If someone who has experienced this situation, as extreme as it may be, declares the practice as barbaric and unnatural, then outsiders are much more willing to revile the practice.
"Marrying someone who is related to you...goes against all your natural urges. It is not racist to tell the truth. What I cannot understand is why it is allowed to go on in this country at all." (Khaleda)
Although stated by a Pakistani-British woman, this statement can still be read as racist. It may not be racist to state that one thinks such an act is barbaric and unnatural. But it is racist to assume that all Pakistanis engage in this practice and to paint Pakistani, as well as Muslim, culture as unnatural is racist and Islamophobic.
"Research has shown that babies born to cousins are twice as likely to suffer a birth defect than those born to a couple who are not related. While the risk is lowered if someone marries their father's cousin, it is still "reasonably high," an expert said."
"Just how many more babies will have to be born deformed, or even dead, before it is finally stopped?"
The article describes the experiences of a Pakistani-British woman, Khaleda, who was forced to marry her father's cousin, 20 years her senior and from Pakistan. She describes in this article, her devastation at this marriage and the process leading up to it. Her story is sad, scary, and heart-wrenching. It is difficult not to feel bad for her. No woman should EVER be forced to marry anyone. Every woman has the right to choose her life partner.
However, except for trying to tell the depressing tale of Khaleda, there is something horribly wrong with this article. The Daily Mail successfully depicts all Muslim and Pakistani families as tyrannical, heartless, cruel, and most of all, perverse.
The demonization begins immediately with the title of the article. The title appears to quote Khaleda as saying that being to forced to marry one's cousin is the norm in Pakistani culture. This idea is constantly reinforced throughout the entire article by quoting Khaleda as saying:
"Virtually every Asian girl I have ever met has an arranged marriage and the vast majority of them are to their cousins."
"And this was just one of many instances I would hear of."
Additionally Alison Smith-Squire, the writer, ends the article with "(a)nd so another young Muslim woman's life is ruined by this outdated practice."
As someone who is of Pakistani descent, the ubiquity of forced marriages to cousins is new to me. I have never heard of this being a problem. Cousins are often married to each other but to say that the majority of these marriages are forced is an amateur guess at best. To generalize this or any practice to ane entire culture, one with millions of people, is extremely unprofessional and not to mention irrational and nonsensical.
Yet, the worst aspect of this article is not the insinuation that forced marriages to cousins are common, but rather that this practice is disgusting, barbaric, and backward. This sentiment is repeatedly presented throughout. Let's look at what they say.
"Disgusted by her arranged marriage to a cousin..."
The disgust here is not presented as a result of the age difference or the lack of physical attraction, which would seem to be the more likely reason in this case, but rather as a result of their relation as cousins. Throughout the article, Khaleda expresses her disgust with being with her husband, with having him touch her. However, the sense one gets is that this disgust is due to the extreme lack of attraction toward her husband.
"I kept brushing them (her husband's hands) away, repeating 'no.' Tears rolled down my cheeks and, even now, I cannot talk of that night as it totally disgusts me." (Khaleda speaking of her wedding night)
But according to Khaleda and Smith-Squire this disgust is solely because he is her cousin.
"It is well known within the community that such marriages do produce deformed babies. No one talks about it, but it is one of the reasons why I found such a marriage to someone so closely related to myself to be so very repugnant." (Khaleda)
This quote tries to 'prove' how disgusting the Pakistani community really is. To allow such a disgusting practice to continue, knowing full well how disgusting this is, must be a sign of a perverse mentality.
"They had a baby daughter who died and when they asked doctors why, they were told it was because of inter-breeding. They were told the parents were too closely related to have a normal baby." (Khaleda)
This quote is accepted without question. No place in the article does Smith-Squire speak with a doctor. For Smith-Squire to accept Khaleda's version of the story when it could be hearsay is extremely unprofessional.
"...it is barbaric and unnatural." (Khaleda)
This quote is clear. Smith-Squire is using an 'insider' to demonstrate the 'reality' of the practice of marrying one's cousin. If someone who has experienced this situation, as extreme as it may be, declares the practice as barbaric and unnatural, then outsiders are much more willing to revile the practice.
"Marrying someone who is related to you...goes against all your natural urges. It is not racist to tell the truth. What I cannot understand is why it is allowed to go on in this country at all." (Khaleda)
Although stated by a Pakistani-British woman, this statement can still be read as racist. It may not be racist to state that one thinks such an act is barbaric and unnatural. But it is racist to assume that all Pakistanis engage in this practice and to paint Pakistani, as well as Muslim, culture as unnatural is racist and Islamophobic.
"Research has shown that babies born to cousins are twice as likely to suffer a birth defect than those born to a couple who are not related. While the risk is lowered if someone marries their father's cousin, it is still "reasonably high," an expert said."
Hmm...what research? What expert? Although I do not doubt that children born to related parents are more likely to have genetic defects, a source or two would have been helpful at this point, since so far Smith-Squire has made it clear her intention in this article is simply to defame Muslim and Pakistani cultures. Sources would have aided in decreasing this impression.
"Even as a Muslim I have no idea why families want to intermarry like this. I can only think it is to keep wealth within the family. But unless this practice is outlawed, more young Muslim women like me will have their lives ruined." (Khaleda)
This is completely simplifying the issue. To say "even as a Muslim" implies that most Muslims want to intermarry. How commonly it occurs within a culture is not necessarily related to what Islam states of the practice. Although marrying of cousins is allowed in Islam, it is not encouraged, therefore not meant to be common. It is allowed to give flexibility to families and provide an opportunity for marriage. It is meant to be a last option. However, unfortunately, very often, families prefer relatives, who are the known, for a variety of reasons, one of which may be financial. Additionally, the practice of marrying cousins is common among non-Muslim Arabs and South Asians as well. This is not just a Muslim issue. This quote, as well as many others in the article, imply that this practice is exclusive to the Muslim populations of the world.
"Even as a Muslim I have no idea why families want to intermarry like this. I can only think it is to keep wealth within the family. But unless this practice is outlawed, more young Muslim women like me will have their lives ruined." (Khaleda)
This is completely simplifying the issue. To say "even as a Muslim" implies that most Muslims want to intermarry. How commonly it occurs within a culture is not necessarily related to what Islam states of the practice. Although marrying of cousins is allowed in Islam, it is not encouraged, therefore not meant to be common. It is allowed to give flexibility to families and provide an opportunity for marriage. It is meant to be a last option. However, unfortunately, very often, families prefer relatives, who are the known, for a variety of reasons, one of which may be financial. Additionally, the practice of marrying cousins is common among non-Muslim Arabs and South Asians as well. This is not just a Muslim issue. This quote, as well as many others in the article, imply that this practice is exclusive to the Muslim populations of the world.
Finally, Smith-Squire ends the article with an odd line.
"Just how many more babies will have to be born deformed, or even dead, before it is finally stopped?"
This statement appears to come out of nowhere. She has just completed telling us that another Muslim woman's life has been ruined by this terrible practice. No deformed baby has been mentioned for awhile and the one reference to this tragic occurrence is brief and quick. Although as you read further and further into the article the fact that Smith-Squire has an agenda, and what that agenda is, becomes clearer, this final statement completes the puzzle and does tell us that Smith-Squire is attempting to demonize an aspect of many Muslim, and indeed Eastern, cultures.
The entire article lacks a complex examination of the issue of cousin marriage. One woman's story is covered. Her disgust for her husband's unattractiveness is convoluted with her discomfort of marrying a cousin. Her one difficult situation is generalized to a culture of millions. Although, I do not doubt many women are forced into undesirable marriages among the global Pakistani community, to paint the entire culture as condoning this practice is dangerous. Additionally, I also do not doubt that many Muslims do find marriage to cousins to be disgusting or uncomfortable. But to demonize the practice of marrying cousins, without any examination of the complex reasons, circumstances, origins, and manifestations of the practice is not only dangerous, but juvenile and immature.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Adventures in Muslim Dating
It’s Valentine’s Day and love is in the air – or at least online. It seems in recent years the number of internet dating sites has rapidly increased. With busy lifestyles people are finding it harder to meet others in person. It seems the online dating bug has bitten our Muslim brothers and sisters as well. Many Muslim dating sites have sprung up. But what are these sites? After all, they say dating is not allowed in Islam so how do these sites work? And most importantly, what are these sites telling Muslim women looking for love?
If you Google the phrase “Muslim dating site” you are presented with a multitude of results. There are sites for Muslims in general as well as ones for those from specific ethnic backgrounds. But not all are created equal. Therefore, I decided to take a sample to analyze and present what I see. Additionally, experiences with these sites will vary therefore I present just a sample of my experiences.
Many Muslim dating sites are in fact not for dating but rather for matrimony. This is most obvious. The majority of the most popular sites appear to encourage their clients to look for their marriage partner. This is obvious when they refer to their sites as ‘matrimonial sites.’ For example Muslima.com: International Muslim Matrimonials, Qiran.com: Matches Made in Heaven, Muslim Matrimonials, or Salaam Love which calls itself a matrimonial site.
On these sites it appears that dating alone is discouraged. If you're on these sites you better be serious about marriage and not just be checking the scene out. Some sites take a much more conservative approach (ISNA Matrimony - which requires a fee to join), while others take much more liberal approach, such as Naseeb. However, Naseeb does not promote itself as a dating or matrimonial site but rather as a social networking site. This is why they can afford to have much less strict parameters. Even the pictures they display on their site show a variety of images of Muslims, seeming very woman friendly and accepting of a variety of viewpoints with no expectations that one is a religious or even practicing Muslim.
As a woman, when you enter most sites you initially have to complete a form with all your basic information – age, height, body type, etc. Additionally, many ask if you wear the hijab. Naseeb, which is not technically a dating site but many use it to meet their “soul mate” as Naseeb categorizes it, even gives the option of having a hijabed icon if one doesn’t want to post an actual picture. Very cute. On one site, the “hijab” question becomes a “facial hair” question for men. Interesting. This site appears to be telling us that the hijab and beard are two important aspects of Islam, perhaps equal in importance, and something which would be of importance to potential partners. So ladies, is facial hair important? And does a beard signify a good Muslim boy? According to Qiran it does. Perhaps Qiran is telling us we should be taking a man's facial hair into account in our matrimonial searches and decisions.
But then things start to get interesting. A few sites, Qiran and Shaadi (this one is for South Asians but you can do a religion specific search), ask about ones complexion as well as the complexion you would like your prospective partner to be. Now those of us familiar with Eastern cultures, the ones from where the majority of Muslims come, will know how loaded this question can be. Complexion has been a vital aspect of beauty among many cultures. Women who are fair in complexion, regardless of features, are considered beautiful and desirable. With bleaching creams and products flying off shelves women feel pressure to be fair JUST so that they may attain that ideal partner. These sites obviously are pandering to this superficiality specific to the cultures from which many Muslims hail placing immense pressures of beauty ideals on Muslim women.
Qiran, as many other sites, asks of marital status. However, what is interesting of Qiran is that if you click “never married,” the next question, asking if you have children, becomes disabled. Qiran is telling you that if you have never been married you cannot have children. Or at least if you do, stay the hell away from us!
Additionally, in my searches, I could not find any Muslim lesbian dating services. There are Muslim dating sites; there are lesbian dating sites - but no Muslim lesbian dating sites. Although, many if not most in the Muslim community would deem lesbianism unIslamic or haram, thus making this finding unsurprising, I do wonder why the lesbian Muslim community has not organized a dating website. Perhaps fear of repercussions? What do single Muslim lesbians who are looking for love do?
Ok Duniya, but what is it like to use these sites? Well, this is going to be different for everyone. It will depend on your intentions. The conservative sites seem to have an expectation that women will be good Muslimahs looking for their protector and provider. The men similarly are looking for the good Muslimah wanting to take care of him and have his children. Since you are the type to never have dated and look down upon dating there is an expectation that the one you find on this site will be the only one.
Liberal sites such as Naseeb seem to allow you to determine your experience and expectations. They ask you to identify your type of religiousness (moderate, traditional, progressive, etc.) therefore leave the judging up to you, the user. Expectations from you are determined by those with whom you interact, not so much by the site. (But still not any room for lesbian love.)
The world of Muslim dating is becoming larger and larger. Although, the emphasis is still very much on finding your marriage partner, the opportunities to simply meet people are out there. Stereotypical messages about women can be found implicitly or explicitly on many sites and one has to tread carefully or risk being categorized, quantified, and simplified.
If you Google the phrase “Muslim dating site” you are presented with a multitude of results. There are sites for Muslims in general as well as ones for those from specific ethnic backgrounds. But not all are created equal. Therefore, I decided to take a sample to analyze and present what I see. Additionally, experiences with these sites will vary therefore I present just a sample of my experiences.
Many Muslim dating sites are in fact not for dating but rather for matrimony. This is most obvious. The majority of the most popular sites appear to encourage their clients to look for their marriage partner. This is obvious when they refer to their sites as ‘matrimonial sites.’ For example Muslima.com: International Muslim Matrimonials, Qiran.com: Matches Made in Heaven, Muslim Matrimonials, or Salaam Love which calls itself a matrimonial site.On these sites it appears that dating alone is discouraged. If you're on these sites you better be serious about marriage and not just be checking the scene out. Some sites take a much more conservative approach (ISNA Matrimony - which requires a fee to join), while others take much more liberal approach, such as Naseeb. However, Naseeb does not promote itself as a dating or matrimonial site but rather as a social networking site. This is why they can afford to have much less strict parameters. Even the pictures they display on their site show a variety of images of Muslims, seeming very woman friendly and accepting of a variety of viewpoints with no expectations that one is a religious or even practicing Muslim.
As a woman, when you enter most sites you initially have to complete a form with all your basic information – age, height, body type, etc. Additionally, many ask if you wear the hijab. Naseeb, which is not technically a dating site but many use it to meet their “soul mate” as Naseeb categorizes it, even gives the option of having a hijabed icon if one doesn’t want to post an actual picture. Very cute. On one site, the “hijab” question becomes a “facial hair” question for men. Interesting. This site appears to be telling us that the hijab and beard are two important aspects of Islam, perhaps equal in importance, and something which would be of importance to potential partners. So ladies, is facial hair important? And does a beard signify a good Muslim boy? According to Qiran it does. Perhaps Qiran is telling us we should be taking a man's facial hair into account in our matrimonial searches and decisions.
But then things start to get interesting. A few sites, Qiran and Shaadi (this one is for South Asians but you can do a religion specific search), ask about ones complexion as well as the complexion you would like your prospective partner to be. Now those of us familiar with Eastern cultures, the ones from where the majority of Muslims come, will know how loaded this question can be. Complexion has been a vital aspect of beauty among many cultures. Women who are fair in complexion, regardless of features, are considered beautiful and desirable. With bleaching creams and products flying off shelves women feel pressure to be fair JUST so that they may attain that ideal partner. These sites obviously are pandering to this superficiality specific to the cultures from which many Muslims hail placing immense pressures of beauty ideals on Muslim women.
Qiran, as many other sites, asks of marital status. However, what is interesting of Qiran is that if you click “never married,” the next question, asking if you have children, becomes disabled. Qiran is telling you that if you have never been married you cannot have children. Or at least if you do, stay the hell away from us!
Additionally, in my searches, I could not find any Muslim lesbian dating services. There are Muslim dating sites; there are lesbian dating sites - but no Muslim lesbian dating sites. Although, many if not most in the Muslim community would deem lesbianism unIslamic or haram, thus making this finding unsurprising, I do wonder why the lesbian Muslim community has not organized a dating website. Perhaps fear of repercussions? What do single Muslim lesbians who are looking for love do?
Ok Duniya, but what is it like to use these sites? Well, this is going to be different for everyone. It will depend on your intentions. The conservative sites seem to have an expectation that women will be good Muslimahs looking for their protector and provider. The men similarly are looking for the good Muslimah wanting to take care of him and have his children. Since you are the type to never have dated and look down upon dating there is an expectation that the one you find on this site will be the only one.
Liberal sites such as Naseeb seem to allow you to determine your experience and expectations. They ask you to identify your type of religiousness (moderate, traditional, progressive, etc.) therefore leave the judging up to you, the user. Expectations from you are determined by those with whom you interact, not so much by the site. (But still not any room for lesbian love.)
The world of Muslim dating is becoming larger and larger. Although, the emphasis is still very much on finding your marriage partner, the opportunities to simply meet people are out there. Stereotypical messages about women can be found implicitly or explicitly on many sites and one has to tread carefully or risk being categorized, quantified, and simplified.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Define 'American Muslim' -- You Have Five Minutes
The Muslim American organization One Nation is hosting an online film contest about American Muslims. Sponsored by Link TV, the contest features animation, music, comedy, documentary, drama, and films by youth. The short films seek to educating people about “the American Muslim experience,” in all its forms.
It’s a great idea. Of course, with twelve pages of entries, you have to sift some clichéd and stereotypical films. Many explain, “Islam is peace” or “I wear hijab so that I'm not judged by my appearance.” Certainly these are relevant message, but at least for a Muslim audience they’re nothing new. What interested me the most were the films that investigated the issues of American Muslim identity at a deeper level.
Some films set out specifically to break stereotypes. The contest as a whole does so naturally, due to the diversity of its entries. Entries feature Muslims of a variety of races — including multiracial, such as a half-Chinese, half-African-American Muslimah featured in at least two videos. A significant number of films show Muslim women without hijab (and without hijab being an issue). On the other hand, some films were disappointingly non-diverse in this regard. One film, a collection of individuals saying, “I am Muslim,” showed Muslims of a range of ages and occupations but not one woman without hijab.
Beyond the male American Muslim identity, many films explore the lives of American Muslim women. I loved the film that showed the struggles of a college Muslim student, who, uncomfortable with praying publicly outside, searches for a private place to make her prayer. I appreciated seeing some films about convert women — not just the strange fictional ones with troubled pasts — but also those whose real-life drama involves worrying about how their families would react. I know I could relate when 23-year-old convert Laura Miller said of the parents she hadn’t yet told, “They probably think I'm betraying my culture, my family, my religion.”
What’s great about hearing a multitude of Muslim voices is that you hear more than just what you’ve heard before, from Muslim snow boarders to the story of a Muslim teenager who impregnates his girlfriend. I saw two interesting films exploring the Iranian-American identity: one that showed Iranian culture through the eyes of an American-born woman and another that showed the attitudes towards an Iranian-American woman in Texas who switched between identities. Some films are sobering; some are heartwarming.
The contest is currently in the finalist stage. Unfortunately, much of the discussion in the comments sections is about rating discrepancy and accusations of cheating. I guess that’s what happens when a contest offers $5,000 per finalist and much more for the grand prize. Besides the finalists, I’d recommend checking out the videos that didn't make it that far, even if it means sorting through long lists of films to find the ones that make you laugh, cry, or think differently.
It’s a great idea. Of course, with twelve pages of entries, you have to sift some clichéd and stereotypical films. Many explain, “Islam is peace” or “I wear hijab so that I'm not judged by my appearance.” Certainly these are relevant message, but at least for a Muslim audience they’re nothing new. What interested me the most were the films that investigated the issues of American Muslim identity at a deeper level.
Some films set out specifically to break stereotypes. The contest as a whole does so naturally, due to the diversity of its entries. Entries feature Muslims of a variety of races — including multiracial, such as a half-Chinese, half-African-American Muslimah featured in at least two videos. A significant number of films show Muslim women without hijab (and without hijab being an issue). On the other hand, some films were disappointingly non-diverse in this regard. One film, a collection of individuals saying, “I am Muslim,” showed Muslims of a range of ages and occupations but not one woman without hijab.
Beyond the male American Muslim identity, many films explore the lives of American Muslim women. I loved the film that showed the struggles of a college Muslim student, who, uncomfortable with praying publicly outside, searches for a private place to make her prayer. I appreciated seeing some films about convert women — not just the strange fictional ones with troubled pasts — but also those whose real-life drama involves worrying about how their families would react. I know I could relate when 23-year-old convert Laura Miller said of the parents she hadn’t yet told, “They probably think I'm betraying my culture, my family, my religion.”
What’s great about hearing a multitude of Muslim voices is that you hear more than just what you’ve heard before, from Muslim snow boarders to the story of a Muslim teenager who impregnates his girlfriend. I saw two interesting films exploring the Iranian-American identity: one that showed Iranian culture through the eyes of an American-born woman and another that showed the attitudes towards an Iranian-American woman in Texas who switched between identities. Some films are sobering; some are heartwarming.
The contest is currently in the finalist stage. Unfortunately, much of the discussion in the comments sections is about rating discrepancy and accusations of cheating. I guess that’s what happens when a contest offers $5,000 per finalist and much more for the grand prize. Besides the finalists, I’d recommend checking out the videos that didn't make it that far, even if it means sorting through long lists of films to find the ones that make you laugh, cry, or think differently.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Benazir Bhutto in Bollywood?
Rumours are buzzing around Bollywood of a possible film about Benazir Bhutto. Apparently, efforts were undertaken to make such a film back in the early '80s by British-Pakistani playwright and author Tariq Ali, but due to tensions between Pakistan and India this did not happen. At that time, Benazir had just recently lost her father but was far from becoming the first-ever Muslim female Prime Minister.
However, recently the situation between the two countries has been very progressive, with celebrities crossing the border to work on the other side whether in films, television, or on stage. Of course, Bhutto's recent tragic death has intensified the interest in her tragic and volatile life. Indian film actress and activist Shabana Azmi, a Muslim woman herself, has shown interest in playing the world famous politician. In fact, because of her impressive career and her friendship with Tariq Ali, it was she who was initially approached to play the role back in the '80s.
Hollywood has always been notorious for biopics, and very often ones that come too soon. However, Bollywood has not been known for biopics at all. Very few come out of the industry. So having the main Indian film industry make a film about a Pakistani politician will be a new concept and is one to be cautious about.
Although Benazir's life would make a fascinating film, at the moment such a film may come too soon. With the country still trying to deal with the aftermath of her death and asking questions about her murder, a film about her life, as complimentary as it would be, may not be welcomed as it should be. In the distraction of all the political turmoil in Pakistan, the film may not receive the attention it should to make the creation worthwhile. At the moment, the people of the country still require answers to the question of her death. Her life, as precious as it was to her party members, is over. And the reason it is over still needs to be discovered. Although there need not be a resolution before a film is made, (because indeed there may never be a resolution) time still needs to pass. How much? We must wait and see. The wounds need to heal.
However, recently the situation between the two countries has been very progressive, with celebrities crossing the border to work on the other side whether in films, television, or on stage. Of course, Bhutto's recent tragic death has intensified the interest in her tragic and volatile life. Indian film actress and activist Shabana Azmi, a Muslim woman herself, has shown interest in playing the world famous politician. In fact, because of her impressive career and her friendship with Tariq Ali, it was she who was initially approached to play the role back in the '80s.Hollywood has always been notorious for biopics, and very often ones that come too soon. However, Bollywood has not been known for biopics at all. Very few come out of the industry. So having the main Indian film industry make a film about a Pakistani politician will be a new concept and is one to be cautious about.
Although Benazir's life would make a fascinating film, at the moment such a film may come too soon. With the country still trying to deal with the aftermath of her death and asking questions about her murder, a film about her life, as complimentary as it would be, may not be welcomed as it should be. In the distraction of all the political turmoil in Pakistan, the film may not receive the attention it should to make the creation worthwhile. At the moment, the people of the country still require answers to the question of her death. Her life, as precious as it was to her party members, is over. And the reason it is over still needs to be discovered. Although there need not be a resolution before a film is made, (because indeed there may never be a resolution) time still needs to pass. How much? We must wait and see. The wounds need to heal.
With the execution of her father, the murders of both her brothers, the history of becoming Prime Minister of a Muslim country, and then her own assassination, it seems her life was made for a movie. Therefore, a film seems inevitable. However, when the film is made, it would be necessary to ensure that justice be done to Bhutto's life. Regardless of what one may have thought of her, few would argue that Islam was central to the life, public indeed and private most likely, of Benazir Bhutto. Very importantly, her identity as a Muslim woman would have to be addressed as it played a pivotal role in her career. From the barriers she broke to those who hated her, Islam was front and centre in all her struggles. However, one does need to wonder what justice Bollywood, which usually portrays Muslims in extremely stereotypical ways, could do to this aspect of Bhutto's identity. If they allow Tariq Ali to write the script, perhaps they will be able to address this central theme. Yet, it would require the expertise of a non-Bollywood writer to ensure that the film not fall into clichéd Bollywood representations of a Muslim woman.
However, in the end, if the film is made and made well, it would, I believe, be worth the wait. We'll wait and see if this happens after all.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Talking Points: Insightful Interviews with Muslim Women
When the topic of Islam comes up, Muslim women are rarely the voice for discussion. With women pointed out as victims or relevant to only issues of dress, men’s voices dominate the conversation. The radio program Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippet provides a happy exception to this trend.
Tippet’s show features discussions on a variety of aspects of numerous faiths. Delving into topics that range from “gardening and Orthodox Christianity” to “Hinduism and science,” Tippet has a record of discussing issues that may not come to mind immediately. When talk turns to Islam, the conversations are refreshingly insightful.
Of her Islam-related episodes, I’m focusing on interviews with three Muslim women: Ingrid Mattson (April 19, 2007), Fatemeh Keshavarz (March 1, 2007), and Leila Ahmed (Dec. 7, 2006). They are, I’m happy to say, excellent representatives for Muslim women. From an array of backgrounds, these three academics show the lack of conflict between a critical mind and a strong faith.
President of the Islamic Society of North America, Canadian-born Ingrid Mattson has made records as the first woman, convert, and non-immigrant to hold the position. Also a professor at the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, Mattson discussed her relationship with Islam and the role of Muslim women today. With literature professor Fatemeh Keshavarz, Tippet looked at the spiritual and Islamic significance of Rumi’s poetry. Keshavarz, author of Jasmine and Stars (2007), is originally from Iran and and teaches Persian literature at Washington University in St. Louis. Tippet also spoke to Egyptian-American Leila Ahmed, who has fought against misogyny within Islam, teaches women’s studies at Harvard Divinity School, and authored Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate (1992) and the 1999 memoir A Border Passage. Here Ahmed analyzed the attitudes towards the veil in the context of modern-day history and critiqued the concept of an “Islamic world” distinct from “the West.”
This is the kind of discussion of Islam I would love to see more of. I don’t have to hold my breath and wait for the ignorant Islamophobic comments, as I do in listening to the U.S. presidential candidate debates and speeches. But even better than not making me cringe, these women actually inspire. Not the dry statements of Islam 101, the conversation is a level up from usual discourse, recognizing the complexity of religion, politics, and gender in today’s world. In Keshavarz’s discussion of Rumi, listeners can see the depth and beauty of Islam rarely visible in media coverage. I’m so glad to hear this kind of voice from a mainstream news source. I only hope this show, which has less name recognition than many other shows, is heard by enough people.
The episodes mentioned are available as podcasts through iTunes and for direct download at the show’s website. The page for each episode (linked to in this article) includes a transcript, extra audio and writings from the guest, background information, reader feedback, and links to further information on the topics covered.
Tippet’s show features discussions on a variety of aspects of numerous faiths. Delving into topics that range from “gardening and Orthodox Christianity” to “Hinduism and science,” Tippet has a record of discussing issues that may not come to mind immediately. When talk turns to Islam, the conversations are refreshingly insightful.
Of her Islam-related episodes, I’m focusing on interviews with three Muslim women: Ingrid Mattson (April 19, 2007), Fatemeh Keshavarz (March 1, 2007), and Leila Ahmed (Dec. 7, 2006). They are, I’m happy to say, excellent representatives for Muslim women. From an array of backgrounds, these three academics show the lack of conflict between a critical mind and a strong faith.
President of the Islamic Society of North America, Canadian-born Ingrid Mattson has made records as the first woman, convert, and non-immigrant to hold the position. Also a professor at the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, Mattson discussed her relationship with Islam and the role of Muslim women today. With literature professor Fatemeh Keshavarz, Tippet looked at the spiritual and Islamic significance of Rumi’s poetry. Keshavarz, author of Jasmine and Stars (2007), is originally from Iran and and teaches Persian literature at Washington University in St. Louis. Tippet also spoke to Egyptian-American Leila Ahmed, who has fought against misogyny within Islam, teaches women’s studies at Harvard Divinity School, and authored Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate (1992) and the 1999 memoir A Border Passage. Here Ahmed analyzed the attitudes towards the veil in the context of modern-day history and critiqued the concept of an “Islamic world” distinct from “the West.”
This is the kind of discussion of Islam I would love to see more of. I don’t have to hold my breath and wait for the ignorant Islamophobic comments, as I do in listening to the U.S. presidential candidate debates and speeches. But even better than not making me cringe, these women actually inspire. Not the dry statements of Islam 101, the conversation is a level up from usual discourse, recognizing the complexity of religion, politics, and gender in today’s world. In Keshavarz’s discussion of Rumi, listeners can see the depth and beauty of Islam rarely visible in media coverage. I’m so glad to hear this kind of voice from a mainstream news source. I only hope this show, which has less name recognition than many other shows, is heard by enough people.
The episodes mentioned are available as podcasts through iTunes and for direct download at the show’s website. The page for each episode (linked to in this article) includes a transcript, extra audio and writings from the guest, background information, reader feedback, and links to further information on the topics covered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)