A few days ago, I caught an Intelligence Squared U.S. debate on the radio. The series evaluates a claim through Oxford-style debate. The resolution was “Islam is dominated by radicals.” The wording of the issue is flawed, as participant Reza Aslan (against) pointed out in his opening speech, and the supporting team’s attempts to clarify the intent of the resolution led to inconsistent interpretation on both sides of the debate.

Nevertheless, the debate was commendable in its choice of participants. For an issue about Islam, both sides included Muslims — more notably, Muslim women.

Asra Nomani argued on the “for” side, and Edina Levovik, with Aslan, represented the Muslim voice on “against.” The debate also included the opinions of non-Muslims: two top figures in conservative think tanks (for) and a Columbia University history professor with an emphasis in Muslim countries (against).

It’s important that Muslim women’s voices be a part of all discussions of Islam. This resolution did not focus on women, so it was surprising (but refreshing) to see women comprising the majority of the Muslim debaters. This sends the message that women are an engaged part of Islam, not passive victims. Because Muslim women were shown on both sides of the debate, it’s clear that that within that community, there’s a diversity of opinions.

The live debate was held April 15. You can read more about it, see profiles of the debaters, and listen to the full debate here.

I recently came across what I thought of as a beautiful poem, entitled I Am Woman - Celebrate Me, written by Canadian Muslim feminist and activist, Raheel Raza. Addressing issues of sexism, racism, and misogyny among others, this poem was written by Raza and presented to WOMANVOICE, on Dec 6, 2004 to celebrate the International Day of Action for Violence Against Women and to commemorate the 14 women killed at Ecole Polytechnic in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, (aka The Montreal Massacre). Although a few years old I felt this deserved some attention.

Racism, imperialism, violence, sexism, misogyny, patriacrhy:

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.

No matter what your feelings are on Benazir Bhutto, you have to admit this caption is really poorly-worded:

If not simply in poor taste, the caption also raises the question of sexism: if the newspaper was investigating a man, would the word “booty” have been used?

Everybody’s jumping on the “Ban Hejab” bandwagon these days. For Germany and Canada, it’s done in the name of secular society and “equality." For Turkey and Tajikistan, it’s done in the name of secularism, too, but also as a distinct agenda to curtail religious influence in popular opinion and government.

The idea of banning hejab is a nasty, exclusionary, and downright ignorant political trick (especially if you read the news link for Germany). But here’s my real beef with the whole hejab ban: it’s being touted as a “religious issue” instead of a “women’s issue” or a “personal freedom issue”, where it belongs.

Filing “hejab bans” under religious discrimination isn’t fully incorrect, but neither is it fully correct. Making the hejab bans a religious issue implies that hejab is mandatory and part of Islamic belief. While many Muslim women see it as a mandatory obligation, many Muslim women do not: Islamic scholars still debate verses in the Holy Qur’an and ahadith that pertain to the idea of a woman covering herself. There are many devout Muslim women who don’t observe hejab for whatever reason, and decrying hejab bans on the pretext of religious freedom leaves these women (who are potential allies) out.

The issue of banning hejabs (or any other religious garb or symbols worn on the body) is really an issue of personal freedom, but banning the hejab specifically targets women. The reality of a hejab ban is that a government would (or does, in Turkey’s & France’s cases) not allow women to wear an item of clothing if she wants to.

Using hejab bans as a religious issue also complicates opposition. For example, the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) opposes discrimination based on hejabs, and would likely speak out on the issue if the American government ever decided to follow France’s and Turkey’s leads by banning hejab in public institutions. But would women’s groups, such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), speak out against this? If it’s touted as a “secularist/religion” issue, probably not. But if we see these bans for what they really are (taking a woman’s personal freedom of expression away), maybe women’s groups would be inclined to speak up.

Bias alert: I’m speaking from an American viewpoint here, so I’d love to hear any non-American reader’s perspective on this. But from an American standpoint, it seems silly that women can wear bikinis, mini-skirts, etc., but that people should get all riled up about a scarf on someone’s head. It’s legal for women to wear men’s clothing and for men to wear women’s clothing. It’s legal for people to wear clothing with political messages, images, or words that might offend others. And currently, it’s legal in the U.S. for women to wear scarves on their head (Muslim or not) if they choose.

But Canada and Germany have constitutions, too. And German and Canadian citizens are guaranteed freedom of expression and freedom of religion. So why isn’t anyone getting angry that these women’s freedom of expression is (or could be) being taken away? Why isn’t anyone seeing this for what it really is: the issue of women’s freedom and right to wear what she wants?

In case you haven’t heard, Canada announced Thursday that it would allow niqabis* to vote with their faces covered, prompting everything from voter fraud concerns to xenophobic comments from lawmakers.

Since this has been such a big deal lately (it’s all over Google’s news search), reporter James Mennie from newspaper The Gazette had a bright idea: his article is titled, “Hey, here's an idea: Let's ask Muslims what they think.” The article is basically a conversation between Mr. Mennie and Salam Elmenyawi, the head of the Muslim Council of Montreal, in which Mr. Elmenyawi denies the idea that niqabis have a right to remain with their face veils on at the election polls: “‘Islam dictates that in the case of necessity, a woman must identify herself,’ he said, adding that while ‘preferably’ the identification should be made in front of another woman, the identification nevertheless has to be made. ‘It's very clear. ... When she's asked for identification, she has to uncover herself.’”

I’m not going to comment on Mr. Elmenyawi’s comments in order to remain neutral. The real issue I have with this article is that Mr. Mennie’s idea was a good one, but he carried it out totally wrong.

Apparently, Mr. Mennie’s idea of asking Muslims (plural) what they think really translates into asking one male Muslim what he thinks, instead of asking a lot of Muslims (male and female) what they think, or asking any niqabis what they think of the issue.

Has anyone asked the niqabis what they think of this?! Why aren’t their voices important in a debate that is about them? Why is the debate about them instead of including them?

Here’s another interesting story from The Gazette about this. But this time, they actually talked to Muslim women! But still no niqabis.

*For our readers who aren't familiar with the term, niqab is the face veil that some women wear that allows only their eyes to show. Niqabis are women who wear niqab.

The BBC reports that “A political row has broken out in Switzerland over a campaign poster from the right-wing Swiss People's Party….” The poster that everyone is mad about is pictured here, because I couldn’t find a picture of the other one: it’s three white sheep kicking a black sheet off of Switzerland’s flag.

While this is disgusting enough, the Swiss Racist Party has another poster which I’m equally as angry about, and which is actually relevant to the blog. The poster shows veiled Muslim women accompanied by the words, “Where are we living, Baden or Baghdad?”

Apparently, Muslims aren’t “Swiss” enough for the Swiss People’s Party. Not even the Muslims who were born in Switzerland.

The Swiss People’s Party doesn’t have a friendly track record when it comes to Islam, either. In May 2007, members of their party started a campaign to ban minarets. “We don't have anything against Muslims,” said Oskar Freysinger, member of parliament for the Swiss People's Party. “But we don't want minarets. The minaret is a symbol of a political and aggressive Islam, it's a symbol of Islamic law. The minute you have minarets in Europe it means Islam will have taken over.”

I don’t think Mr. Freysinger has ever been to Spain (part of Europe), where Muslims ruled for something like 500 years, and left behind some great architecture, which includes minarets. And were they ruling using a “political and aggressive Islam”? Well, why don’t you ask the Jewish minorities who lived peacefully under Muslim rule in Spain until King Ferdinand & Queen Isabella purged the country of non-Christians starting in 1492 through the use of The Inquisition?