Last month we wrote about the introduction of a Muslim character on the popular American soap opera As the World Turns. Ameera Ali Aziz, arrived freshly from Iraq, faced deportation unless she married Noah, who was already in a relationship with boyfriend Luke. In the episodes since the wedding, the plot has thickened as the difficulty of maintaining a marriage of convenience has set in. Additionally, Ameera’s gone through a few changes.

The most immediately noticeable is her dress. Ameera arrived on the screen dressed in the standard under-chin hijab, no hair showing. Post-marriage she appeared to have started experimenting, trying out the style of hijab that tied in the back, leaving her earlobes bare. From there she went to leaving off the hijab altogether in front of her marriage-of-convenience husband, eliciting a “Your hair is so beautiful” comment. Now she’s settled into covering her in the Southwest Asian style — a scarf tossed loosely over her head, letting the front of her head (and hair!) show.

I’m not sure what the show’s writers or costume directors intended in this change. Perhaps they noticed what Noah did — that actor Tala Ashe does have pretty hair and perhaps they should capitalize on her looks. Quite possibly it’s part of an “Americanization” process the character is undergoing. Since, of course, American women don’t wear hijab. Immigrants might, but after awhile, they’ll see the American light and take it off.* Ameera provides no stated explanation, but the change reflects the idea that a fully covering hijab isn’t really compatible with being an American, as she is becoming.

At the same time, she seems more confident. That doesn’t mean the other characters abandon the patronizing comments and tones of voice, but Ameera has become less likely to put up with it. Trying to engage a discussion, Luke cajoles Ameera, “Come on. Let’s sit. Let’s talk.” She’s having none of it. “Just let me go,” she replies, irritated and uninterested in pleasing him.

Nevertheless, some of her old deference remains. “If you think that’s best, I’ll trust you,” she tells her husband obediently in another moment, her tone of voice clear that she doesn’t agree.

The writers continue to throw in stereotypes about Iraqi culture where they can. They simultaneously paint a picture of the U.S. that is completely blind to the sexism (and subsequent xenophobia) present in modern society and displayed by the show’s characters. One morning Noah wakes up to find Ameera in the kitchen, making a “real American breakfast” of eggs and orange juice — minus the bacon, one of the few (indirect) references to Ameera being Muslim. Noah tells her that being waited on makes him nervous. “But I’m your wife,” she protests. With the air of the all-knowing American, he explains, “That’s not the way it works around here.” I know plenty of American men who expect their wives to cook for them. I don’t know what world of gender equity Noah’s living in, but it’s one that nevertheless lets him get away with making comments like this:

“You’ve got to learn our customs here. Come, sit.” It’s like speaking to a toddler.

Despite Noah’s denial of gender roles, he maintains sexist stereotypes disguising them as “humor.” “After we’re done, you can practice yelling at me to do the dishes and take out the trash,” Noah says. “That was a joke,” he adds, and she laughs on cue. Hilarious.

Some more gems about this fantasy American society:

AMEERA: I cannot get used to seeing a man do the dishes.
NOAH: Well, in America the husband and wife usually share the chores.

Clearly, the implication is that in the sad, backward country of Iraq, the gender equality Americans enjoy is simply unfathomable. The one-dimensional picture paints Iraq as the distant source of Ameera’s terrible past — and nothing more. When asked, “What was your life in Iraq like?” — a question that couldn’t be more vague — Ameera can’t help but praise the U.S. in comparison. Iraq, she explains, was very different (read: bad).

“Where I lived there was no electricity, no running water, very little food,” she says. “People wouldn’t go out after dark — it was like a ghost town.”

Like statements discussed in the last post, this description isn’t put into context of the American invasion. It’s not that Iraq has never had electricity or running water — the recent lack is a result of being bombed. Instead of placing the responsibility where it belongs, these comments leave the impression that Iraq is somehow inferior to the United States. Compounding this message, Ameera’s memory includes nothing but Iraq as a war zone. She has no happy memories of her homeland, and you’d think the country didn’t exist before the war began.

Ameera’s background is constantly seen through a lens of Western superiority. When trying to explain to the immigrant officer why Noah and Ameera don’t sleep together, Luke’s grandmother falls back on Ameera’s background as an excuse. The implication is that in Iraqi culture, married couples don’t sleep together. What?! True, Luke’s grandmother was lying on the spot to keep the officer from deporting Ameera. But the officer’s silence is telling. The man who argued against all the other defenses didn’t point out the fallacy in this excuse. How does he think Iraqi couples have children?

But Ameera is doing her best to show that Iraqi women aren’t always asexual. Indeed, she falls in love with her MOC husband and tries to seduce him. Never mind that he’s gay and already in a relationship with Luke. Iraqis, remember, are supposedly new to the existence of this whole “gay thing.” Another aspect of the naive foreigner.


Ameera goes to a boutique and buys makeup and sexy clothes, ready to surprise Noah. She steps out in the low-cut halter dress, her hair down, and kisses him on the lips. Trying to turn a gay person straight through sheer sexiness has never worked, something ignorant, child-like Ameera doesn’t know (she’s a foreigner, you see*). And as far as plot twists go, it’s painfully unoriginal. But somehow I suspect there’s audience interest in seeing the conservative Muslim woman turn sexy and flirtatious. To no avail, of course: Noah’s not interested. In despair, Ameera decides to move back to Iraq. But no one wants that, so, to solve everything, Luke moves in with them. (Yeah, that’ll really throw the immigrant officer off.) And here’s where the story leaves off.

With her return to Iraq canceled, it looks like Ameera’s here to stay. I don’t predict her character becoming any more complex. Especially since the writers’ idea of complexity is to throw a Muslim woman out of her element by giving her some lipstick. Oh, please.

You can watch the parts of the show featuring Ameera on YouTube (starting here and continuing through part 160) or the full-length episodes at the official website.

*Editor’s Note: This is sarcasm.

MMW thanks Jehanzeb for the tip!

Meet Deeyah, (real name Deepika) a Pakistani-Norwegian R&B/rock/pop diva who's been on the music scene for a few years now. Trained in classical South Asian singing, known for her voice and her work to better the lives of women, her talent has been overshadowed by dark controversy along the way. A Pakistani by origin and born in Oslo, Norway, Deeyah began her singing career young. And now she's making a mark in the music scene. She now lives in the U.S., mainly due to the threats she has faced in Norway and the U.K., where she fled to from Norway.

Why the death threats? In her native Norway where she began her career, many in the Muslim community felt her choosing a career in entertainment and dressing provocatively while performing were un-Islamic for a girl who identifies as Muslim. They felt she was setting a poor example for Muslim girls in the community. Some condemned her, as did the leader of Oslo’s Islamic Cultural Centre. Some went as far as sending her death threats, which this leader saw as wrong but understandable. Death threats, insults, harassment, and even physical attacks were understandable to him, but led her to decide to leave Norway for the U.K, in fear of her life. However, in the U.K. extremists began harassing and threatening to kill her as well, leading her to the US where she is now recording an album to be released this year. Yet, the controversy has not left her, and this controversy has been because she is a Muslim woman revealing her body.

Deeyah is a singer, composer, human rights activist and director. She wears many hats. As a human rights activist she is a staunch supporter of ICAHK the 'International Campaign Against Honour Killings.' Additionally, she is a supporter of ASHRAM, a women's shelter in Birmingham, U.K. She works to promote freedom of expression among artists around the world. Finally, she has also started a project to encourage young Muslim female rappers.

But one may ask, what is so controversial about Deeyah? Although the majority of Deeyah's music is not about Islam or being Muslim, just being a Muslim woman and scantily clad on screen has been enough to attract the ire of many. It seems she is constantly hounded by religious extremists for bearing skin and dancing provocatively, often with men.

As a result of all this harassment and the anger which she felt Deeyah released a song and video, entitled "What Will It Be," which does speak of Muslims and what she sees as hypocrisy in the Muslim community. About the video, Deeyah tells us:



And from an interview she says: "Islam...is very, very, very personal and it has to be honest....If it's not here (pointing to heart) and you don't mean it then don't say it. Don't claim something and...just show off..."

However, some do say that her message is appropriate, but the way in which she presents it is not. From an article:

Hoda Fahmy, who works with a group that provides education to Muslim women in Canada, says Deeyah's message is lost along with the singer's clothing. "A lot of us are working for women's rights, particularly in the Muslim world. I think we have more self-respect than to dance around naked to make our point," she said. "It's unfortunate that she has to use those means, because it's true -- women are not able to speak up in a lot of these countries."

Point taken (though Deeyah is never naked in her videos). And self-respect is not always portrayed by clothing; there are many ways of spreading the message. Staunch opposition and threats from extremists do help in making one even more determined to fight their fight in the way they deem appropriate. And Deeyah is using her career to raise awareness of an issue - not raising awareness by choosing this career.

It is clear that Islam is in the forefront of Deeyah's life, whether she wants it to be or not. It is also clear that she has a lot of respect for Islam. Muslims, in her view, are the ones who need to change and are the ones with flaws, not Islam itself. It is unfortunate that her progress and well-being must be hindered by self-righteous extremists who feel entitled to force others to 'behave.' Her most controversial video brings to light important and disturbing problems in the Muslim community.

Check out the video which has created the most recent controversy.

"What Will It Be - Deeyahcide Mix"

Deeyah ft. Young Maylay

There’s a trend in the Americas. Latina* women are getting tired of Catholicism. They’re sick of being called “mamacita” in the streets. They don’t want to deal anymore with the chauvinistic pigs otherwise known as Latino men. So they’re throwing away their tank tops and their statues of the Virgin Mary and pulling on the hijab and ‘abaya instead.

Or so the media would have you believe. I’ve seen a stream of articles about Latina women converting to Islam, and they overwhelmingly rely on stereotyped images of Latino cultures as well as Muslims. The topic has been covered by MSNBC, NPR, the Christian Science Monitor, the Houston Chronicle, and more.

Here’s the standard lead:

Latina woman is walking down the street. It’s a hot day, and she’s dressed in a full-length skirt (dress, coat, etc.) and a hijab. She passes some Latino men. They look towards her and don’t scream at her. She sighs thankfully and reflects on the days of the past, of catcalls and shouts of “Hey, mami” as she walked by in her skimpy outfit.

The article then explains that in Latino culture, men are macho jerks and women are sex objects. In Islam, they are covered up and immediately respected. The author retells the woman’s decision to leave Catholicism for Islam, her experience putting on hijab, and the sad reactions of her family. If the journalist tries to dig a little deeper, there may be some theological reasons for choosing Islam, but they’re usually an afterthought. Some articles will note that Latina women like the strict gender roles of Islam because that’s what they’re used to.

Of course, not every article follows this mold precisely, but none stray from it completely. They paint monolithic pictures of both Latinos/Latinas and Muslims. It’s especially unfortunate in a time when both groups are often vilified and misunderstood in the United States.

From reading any one of the articles on this topic, someone without much knowledge about either group could easily assume that it’s impossible to be a Latina woman without rocking the halter top and being objectified by the men in your community, or that it’s impossible to be a Muslim woman without knowing your place — which is, of course, to subordinate yourself to your husband and be respected for covering your body and hair. You’d think sexism and patriarchy are non-issues for other races and religions. Articles on converts of other ethnicities rarely spend this much time on the sexual harassment they received pre-Islam — if at all. I mean, I know machismo is a Spanish word, but come on — patriarchy isn’t limited to Spanish-speakers. Consider this quote:

"The way Latin men portray women, it's terrible," Avelar said. "You look at Spanish CDs, and you see women in bikinis on the cover." (Washington Post)

Yes, Spanish-language media frequently sexualize women. But since when do American media not? I don’t know what part of the U.S. you’re living in if you’re never seen women’s bodies used to sell products. The bikini-clad woman in the wine glass… the bikini-clad women reclining on sports cars… I could go on. But that issue rarely seems to be an issue brought in white convert stories.

But for Latina women, it seems to be the biggest issue. It’s as though Latino cultures have the monopoly on men who make crude comments in public, and Latina feminism doesn’t exist. It’s also as though only Muslims are allowed to dress conservatively. Most articles paint Latinas as perpetually clad in tank tops, shorts, and mini skirts, unless they become Muslim — at which point they always, always wear hijab... unless they choose niqab instead. Come on, the world is not the dichotomy it’s portrayed to be:

On a hot summer day, Stefani Perada left work for the day in West New York, N.J., and stepped outside in her long jilbab, the flowing clothes worn by many Muslim women. Meanwhile, other Latinas in the mostly Hispanic neighborhood were taking advantage of the warm day, walking around in shorts and midriff-exposing halter tops. (MSNBC)

It’s easy to make everything so simple. Latinos disrespect their women; Muslims respect them. Latinas show off everything; Muslim women cover up completely. This simplification seems to be hard to avoid when discussing Latina converts. Another article wrote,

While some Latinas her age try to emulate the tight clothes and wiggling hips of stars like Jennifer Lopez and Christina Aguilera, Ms. Pinet and others are adopting a more conservative lifestyle and converting to Islam. (Christian Science Monitor)

It should be obvious that not all Latina women want to be sex kittens, and the world isn’t so black and white. Let’s not forget that emulating the “tight clothes, wiggling hips” look happens in white America too.

It’s frustrating that the Islam the women profiled turn to is consistently the same. They put on clothes with Arabic names, attend Qur’anic study groups at the mosque, and marry men they meet there. (By the way, there’s never any mention of Muslim men who sexualize women, because that’s apparently the domain of non-Muslim Latinos.) There’s nothing wrong with doing these things, but you’d think there’s no room for Muslim women to do anything else. These articles never mention Latina Muslim activists, or writers, or anything, really, but the archetypal domestic woman who fulfills both the Latina stereotype pre-conversion and the Muslim stereotype post-conversion.

And that brings up another assumption. There’s the idea that all Latinos are Catholic — or even religious. Although Catholicism is clearly the dominant faith of Latin America, there do exist Latinas who follow Protestantism, indigenous religions, or, in smaller numbers, other religions — including Islam. And to be Muslim and Latino is not always to convert to Islam. I think I may have once seen an article somewhere — nowhere to be found again — about a Latin American woman who grew up in a Muslim family, but that was the exception. Let’s not forget that Islam isn’t new to the Americas; slavery brought it here centuries ago. And neither should we forget that non-religious Latino families also exist.Unfortunately, the majority of coverage of Latina Muslims works from a framework that sees both Latin American cultures and Islam as strange and different. I guess the only way to explain how the two could meet is to fall back to the tired stereotypes and extreme dichotomies.

*The term “Latino” or “Latina” includes the Portuguese-speaking country of Brazil, but I’ve seen almost no coverage of Brazilian Muslims, except for this article, explaining why Brazilians aren’t Muslim.

For more information on Latino/a Muslims, see LADO or HispanicMuslims.com.

Photo credit: MSNBC

Social experiments can be so much fun. And apparently journalists seem to agree. A few months ago we reported on one such experiment by Danielle Crittenden. She donned the abaya and niqab to live a day in the life of a niqabi Muslim woman. Well, we've come across another similar experiment, this time in Sudbury, Ontario.

In a Sudbury Star article, Lara Bradley engages in a similar experiment in the small Canadian city. She dons the niqab and abaya and wanders around the city for a day. In the article she reports on her experiences throughout the day as she visits a food court, rides a bus, and walks down the street, among other places. She tells the readers about the odd stares, the awkwardness, the uneasy glances, as well as the attempts at extreme politeness.

Bradley approaches this experiment in more respectful manner than Crittenden. She first consults with people in the Sudbury Muslim community. In the process she describes the Muslim community of Sudbury, in turn normalizing them. Though, as all other articles on Muslims, she paints Muslims as a monolithic group. From her conversation with a member of the Sudbury Muslim community she writes:

In Islam, men and women are equal; they just have different roles to play - men the breadwinner and women the nurturers of the children, he said.

This is the common interpretation in Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism etc. Not just Islam. Yet the diversity which exists among these other religious groups is often ignored when it comes to Muslims. Muslims are just as diverse in their belief of and adherence to this concept. By stating this 'piece of information' from a Muslim source Bradley forwards the interpretation of Islam, which further instills patriarchy. However, this may be a digression from the main topic - niqabi for a day.

Overall, Bradley's experience is as one would expect - in a Canadian context. She does not receive very much outright negative feedback. A few glares and head shakes. For the most part she explains how people feel uncomfortable around her.

Although experiments like these provide a brief glimpse into another's life, they can be quite telling. Bradley does indicate her lack of inner change. In other words, she does not actually become Muslim to conduct this experiment, therefore she is not able to provide a thorough explanation of the experiences of a woman who wears niqab. After all she knew she would be able to take it off at the end of the day. Additionally she also had to deal with the novelty of wearing the niqab and abaya and all the feelings entailed in that. Judgments about the niqab and abaya are made throughout the article, but they come from her non-Muslim, pseudo-niqabi status and this appears clear to the reader. To present a somewhat more accurate picture of 'a day in the life of' it would be more useful to recruit an actual woman who wears niqab.

The story Bradley presents is obviously not comprehensive. It is not a psychology paper nor journal article, which would require greater depth, explanation, and rigour. However, for a newspaper article, Bradley does seem to be trying to present a fair picture. By speaking to various Muslims in the community - a hijabi, a non-hijabi, and a man - she tries to present the life of a woman who wears niqab within the context of different viewpoints. By presenting a few different views, it appears that Bradley is trying to create a space for the reader to decide for themselves how they feel about the niqab and not necessarily telling us exactly how to feel.

The latest issue of TIME features a photo essay and article on American Muslims. From a magazine that featured a cover “Should Christians Convert Muslims?” (June 30, 2003) and headlines like “Does the Koran Condone Killing?” (Sept. 13, 2004), this latest coverage is markedly different. There’s nothing shocking, and it gives a hint to why TIME might make the rest of its coverage of Muslims so inflammatory. These new pieces are, frankly, dull.

A personal essay on being a Muslim woman accompanies a series of photographs of Muslims in the New York area. The essay, titled “What It Means to be American — and Muslim” — yes, the two identities can coexist; get over it — outlines the pillars of Islam, explains why the writer wears hijab, and references an incident of harassment in response to the hijab. As far as coverage of Muslim women living in Western countries goes, this is as basic as you can get. For anyone who knows anything about Islam, these pieces offer nothing new. That doesn’t mean they’re not valuable — surely and sadly, there are still people who don’t know that non-violent Muslims exist. Additionally, it was fascinating to see that the writer of the piece, Shireen Khan, is a producer for time.com. (They actually hire Muslims?) Still, TIME could have and should have done a better job.

The fact that Muslims aren’t all terrorist fanatics seems to be such news that TIME hasn’t reached the point of portraying Muslims as real people. Take a look at the collection of 15 photos, which feel more decorative than anything else.

The photo essay opens with a photo of a Palestinian-South Korean college student working on a design for fashion school. Yes, a Muslim woman can be interested in fashion. Even if she wears hijab. Old news. (Points for including a Muslim of East Asian descent though.) But at least this Muslim woman is doing something. Other women do absolutely nothing unless wearing hijab and looking at the camera counts (example #1, example #2). It’s even more exciting when the lighting is dramatic or there’s a window involved. Children are featured for being children (example #1, example #2), or being children — get this! — near a mosque. With another mosque photo, a Muslim chaplain, Islamic classes, an Islamic school, and the standard “Look at them pray” shot, you’d think that the Muslims never ever leave the mosque — unless it’s to do something else stereotypically Islamic. Wait, there is something else they do: gather. And this is something across the board: women gather, men gather, and even children gather!

And there’s the Muslim existence, summarized. Nonthreatening perhaps (but I don't know about all that gathering...) but completely uninteresting. Photographer Ziyah Gafic was born in Bosnia and is based in Sarajevo — you’d think he’d have seen enough Muslims by now to be able to show them as real people with real and complex lives. He does, however, nod to ethnic and racial diversity. On the other hand, he shows little diversity in dress. Little girls are the only females not consistently shown in hijab.

With the focus on hijab and prayer, Khan’s written essay does nothing to challenge the photo essay’s portrayal of Muslims. Come on, where are the issues Muslims face? Where is the diversity of the Muslim community? Where are all the things Muslims do besides pray and gather? Don’t these journalists know what an angle is?

If this is TIME’s attempt to improve its coverage of Muslims, the magazine still has a ways to go.

Ammar from Little Mosque on the Prairie said "Muslims around the world are known for their sense of humour." Unfortunately the sarcasm of this comment escapes no one because, in fact, Muslims are not known for their sense of humour. Quite the opposite.

I recently came upon the film Daughters of Afghanistan in my local library. I wasn’t sure of what to expect, but upon watching it I was pleasantly surprised. The 2004 documentary is a refreshingly clear look at the lives of Afghan women following the fall of the Taliban after the 2001 American invasion.

Canadian journalist Sally Armstrong traveled to Afghanistan multiple times to interview women across the social and class spectrum and track the changes in their lives. She presents Dr. Sima Samar, who has served as a physician, deputy prime minister, and minister of the Department of Women’s Affairs; Hamida, the principal of a high school for girls; Soghra, a mother made desperate by poverty; Kamala, who fears her next pregnancy will kill her; and Lima, a young teenager who has taken on the responsibilities of her parents and grandparents, killed by war. The documentary intertwines the voices of these women with narration by Armstrong. The film aims to show the strength and humanity of the women of Afghanistan. In the opening credits, the camera pans over the faces of the main women interviewed. When one lifts her burqa to reveal her face, it’s shocking how much realer she becomes.

There are several pitfalls that tend to come with attempting a film like this. There’s the supremacist overtone that can often be heard when a Western journalist looks at the lives of women in a war-torn third-world country. It becomes an issue of cultural superiority, and the women discussed are reduced to objects of pity who desperately need the aid of the (usually American) guardian angel. Luckily, Armstrong doesn’t do this. She shows Afghan women standing up for themselves without relying on Western leadership. There still are, however, moments that hint of an “I know better than you” attitude, such as when she asks Kamala (spelled on the DVD case “Camellah”), who can’t imagine refusing her husband sex, “Kamala, do you know what ‘rape’ is?” The teacherly tone hints of condescension. I would love to see a similar film made by an Afghan woman, but I acknowledge the role of the privileged position Armstrong holds. If a white journalist were killed in Afghanistan, for example, it would make the news with a bigger splash than the death of an Afghan woman — assuming the latter would even appear on the radar.

Another potential pitfall is painting the situation in binaries. Islam usually becomes the antagonist of women’s rights. Although the documentary focuses primarily on women’s lives without deep analysis of the role of religion, Armstrong denounces the Taliban’s actions as “perversions” of Islam and never implies that Islam itself is the cause of the abuse of women as many American documentaries do. The burqa is decried for its erasure of women’s identity and, in its de facto necessity, as a symbol for the lack of safety for women in public. But Armstrong never gets hung up on the scarves all of the women interviewed wear draped lightly over their hair. Nor does she equate religiosity with adherence to the demands placed upon women by the Taliban.

While Islam is never painted as a source of evil, neither is the United States portrayed as a bastion of righteousness — an image that’s easy to find in discussions of the aftermath of the war on Afghanistan. Perhaps because it’s not American but Canadian, the film shows the self-serving choice of American congressmen to at best make empty promises to Afghan women and at worst attend photo-ops with American troops instead. It’s willing to criticize the invasion of Iraq, which was not as unpopular during the film’s release as it is now. Politics doesn’t dominate the film, but it gains a mention. Political forces fighting against women’s rights are addressed, and an Afghan woman notes, “Women’s rights is something that’s very easily negotiated out.”

The film also gets points for showing ethnic diversity in Afghanistan, and for including Afghan men — although the emphasis is on women — who aren’t women-hating and brutal, such as the husband who urges his wife to seek help at a widow’s shelter to keep her and their children alive.

It’s not a flawless film, and at just under an hour — 58 minutes — it’s quite short. But it succeeds in painting a picture of Afghan women as strong, resilient, and defying the molds placed upon them by the Taliban and Western assumptions. I hate to turn to the clichéd phrase “lifting the veil” — burqa in this case — but it’s rare to see portrayals of Afghan women beyond photos of burqa-clad crowds and horrifying reports of self-immolation, so I’m tempted. It’s that Daughters of Afghanistan does “lift the burqa,” both literally and figuratively. It shows the women with complex lives, personalities, and identities: women to look up to in admiration, not down upon with pity.