Recently Mara Brock Akil, creator and producer of one of my favourite shows, Girlfriends, was featured on the August 2008 cover of Domino magazine (pictured to right). The show, initially about four, but then after a few seasons three, Black girlfriends, gained much critical acclaim for its content and its willingness to focus on serious issues, all the time maintaining a comic appeal. Often referred to as the Black Sex and the City, Girlfriends, in my opinion, was much, much better than Sex and the City. MUCH better.

Unfortunately however, after eight seasons the show was canceled. The show was highly popular among Black audiences but not as much among White audiences. Hm...I wonder if that had anything to do with the cancellation. The role of racism in it's cancellation is for another analysis. At this time let's get back to Mara Brock Akil.

Reading up on Akil (pictured to left) I was pleasantly surprised to find out that Akil is Muslim. And a Sufi Muslim at that. Akil says that the characters of her show were based on her own friends. Reading this I began to wonder why she did not include a Muslim character on the show. Even as a guest every now and then. Muslim women living in North America face many of the same issues and challenges faced by the characters on Girlfriends - relationships, self-exploration, identity crises, racism, and sexism. By having a Muslim character on the show Akil could have addressed in the problem of Islamophobia, something so rampant today, as well as many issues relevant to Muslim women.

However, I can also see reasons which could have caused hesitation on the part of Akil. If there was a Muslim girlfriend how would she dress? What would her relationships be like? How would she relate to the other women? Could all this be done without making any moral judgments about the ways in which Muslim women live? Could this be done without creating more stereotypes? Could this be done without excluding some Muslim women?

Girlfriends (pictured to right) had a great run and was highly entertaining as well as educational. I still wish a Muslim woman had been introduced into the show, even if for one episode. Seeing more Muslims on television in "normal" roles can only help in normalizing Muslim people. However, I can understand the pressures of having just a few Muslim characters on television. They become representatives of all Muslims and many are hesitant to take on that immense responsibility. This can be seen in the example of Little Mosque on the Prairie, which, despite all the positive changes it has brought to Canadian television, I have found to present just one "type" of Muslim woman, leading to the exclusion of many Muslim women. (See here for a previous critique.)

But here's wishing good luck to Mara Brock Akil in her future endeavors. Whether or not she presents Muslim characters in her shows, it's a breakthrough that we have a Muslim woman with such creative power and initiative in American media. Let's hope that in the near future such women become more visible to everyone.

This is a few of months late but I just discovered this episode of The Agenda with Steve Paikin, from TVO in Toronto. Having aired a few months ago, this episode asked the question "Who is today's young Muslim woman?" The panel consisted of 7 Muslim women, 4 in studio and 2 via satellite. All but one panelist would be considered young. The seventh was Dr. Katherine Bullock, author and professor in Toronto.

Paikin began the show by pointing out that one in studio panelist, a grade 12 student, looked different than the others because she did not wear the hijab. Of course, the hijab will come up when talking about Muslim women, as unfortunately this appears to be the single defining feature of Muslim women. In fact, it comes up again as a point of discussion. Varying viewpoints are presented, the majority accepting a variety of interpretations, except Bullock. She says that, although she respects others' decisions not to wear it, she would still like to convince those women that they are wrong.

Anyhow, back to the beginning of the show. Paikin begins by asking each panelist to describe the young Muslim woman and immediately Katherine Bullock's answer irritated me. According to Bullock, there are two or three categories of women. To categorize a large group into a few portions denies the diversity of a population. A diversity which is very real and powerful. However, the categorizing is not the best part. The categories themselves are:

1) "Those who embrace their traditional heritage"
She then presents two fellow in-studio panelists as examples because they wear the hijab. Yes, she points that out. These women are very committed to their religion. These women are also very committed to Canada and feel "very strongly Canadian" as well as "very strongly Muslim." They are "ambitious...intelligent...and educated."

2) Those having an "identity crisis."
Growing up in Canada, they hear negative things about Islam and so are not sure if they want to identify with it or not. They don't feel Canadian nor Muslim, living in a "nowhere land."

So immediately the hijab becomes a major point, being mentioned three times within the first 8 minutes - first as a differentiator between Muslim women, then as a indicator of embracing of religion, and finally as a qualifier by one panelist when she states that her religion is first even though she doesn't wear the hijab.

The women were then asked whether women in the Muslim community are able to hold leadership positions and whether men are comfortable with this. The majority of the women stated that yes, women can hold leadership positions and that men are comfortable with this. I had to wonder how genuine this answer was as, although women are able to take leadership positions outside the religious sphere (though still often met with opposition from some men), the realm of the mosque is still male-oriented and male-lead. Only one panelist, Saffiyah Ally, addressed this issue.

The remaining of the episode addressed issues of cultural clashes with the non-Muslim world and parents, dating and romantic relationships, and myths and realities of Muslim women. To be honest, at times the show seemed boring and redundant with points being discussed numerous times. Some of the questions being asked seemed irritating and some of the answers being given seemed insufficient. Ausma Khan, editor-in-chief of Muslim Girl magazine, presented the most coherent and inclusive message.

Both Ausma Khan and Saffiyah Ally recognized many times that varying interpretations and opinions about Islam do exist within the Muslim community and appeared to be trying to assure that they did not come across as speaking for all Muslim women. Bullock came across as judgmental though trying to recognize diversity, as skewed an attempt as it was. The others did not make as much of an impact.

However, overall, the women did represent Muslim women well and the views were varied. The diversity of Muslim women was demonstrated by the show. The women were intelligent and overall seemed educated on the issues, at times seeming understandably defensive considering recent views of Muslims, especially Muslim women. Despite the repetitiveness and redundancy of the conversation, the program did manage to portray a picture of diversity of Muslim women, something which is extremely necessary but sadly lacking in mainstream media.

The writers of As the World Turns are getting tired of calm, obedient Ameera. The plot has taken a dramatic turn — Ameera is now plotting and untrustworthy, in addition to being calm and obedient.

Since we last left off (here, here), the show has added a tone of creepiness, evident in the ever-present ominous background music. Col. Winston Mayer — known to Noah as the monster of a father who killed his own wife and tried to kill his son’s boyfriend; known to Ameera as a kind American soldier who generously did all he could to help her and her mother in Iraq — is back. Although locked in prison, he’s been calling, trying to get in contact with Ameera. Ameera is curious, Luke is suspicious, and Noah is worried. On his own, Noah visits the prison, but doesn’t tell Ameera anything useful. She calls up Col. Mayer on her own. He asks if he can trust her — “Are you still my girl?” — and after she assures him he can, there’s a shot of her looking through the blinds at Noah and Luke, who are laughing — as potential victims of untrustworthy Iraqi women do. And do I even need to mention the ominous music?

In other news, Ameera has settled into leaving her scarf off. She doesn’t wear it in the house with her husband — or when his boyfriend or father is there. Her voice hasn’t changed: it’s the same obsequious monotone as always, and it’s starting to irritate me — a lot. The Noah/Luke storyline is getting way too sappy, even for a soap opera, and their consideration of Ameera is more of the same. She’s thought of as an afterthought, her needs thrown behind theirs, as though she’s not a real person. And the patronizing dialogue has no end:

NOAH: I don't want you going up there.
AMEERA: Was he angry with you?
NOAH: It's nothing for you to worry about.

And then they’re shocked to see Ameera try to get information on her own!

Doors are never locked in Oakdale, Illinois. Not when Ameera calls up the prison and Luke walks in on her and listens without announcing his presence (no need to give her the common courtesy of not eavesdropping). Not when Col. Mayer surprises Ameera by showing up when she’s home alone and he’s supposed to be safely in prison.

The next thing we know, Ameera is gone, but her cell phone and a note are left behind. Luke thinks she’s cooperating with Col. Mayer in an evil plot; Noah thinks she was kidnapped and worries for her safety.

When a police officer shows up to question Noah about his father’s escape, Noah and Luke let it slip that Ameera too is gone.

OFFICER: How long has your wife been missing?
NOAH: Just since this morning
OFFICER: That's hardly missing. She could be anywhere... out shopping, taking a walk...
NOAH: She would have let me know, Officer. She’s very traditional. [pause for effect] She's Iraqi.

Oh yeah, blame it on Iraq. Don’t think about the way you treat her, preventing her from doing or knowing what she wants. That’s only because she’s Iraqi. To add to it, Noah makes comments like this: “‘Annul’ isn’t a word Ameera knows.” As though he’s the master of her vocabulary (which seems fine for expressing everything else).

We next see Ameera with Col. Mayer in a room. He speaks to her condescendingly, urging her to drink (drugged) tea and not worry herself with his concerns, but at least it’s understandable, considering his role as a father-figure — and as the bad guy. After being tricked once, Ameera catches on and pours the drugged tea in the trash the second Col. Mayer turns away. She pretends to sleep, he leaves, and she follows.

In the meantime, Noah, worried, has gone to New York, where Luke has followed him. Noah and Luke split up. As it happens, Noah runs into his father; Luke runs into Ameera standing by a building. (It’s not clear why Ameera wouldn’t be in the same place as the man she was following, but no matter.)

AMEERA: I don’t know where I am.
LUKE: You’re in New York.

Seriously. How does a grown woman, capable of traveling to an obscure Illinois city on her own, not realize that she’s in New York City? Come on.

While Col. Mayer is beating his son up, Luke gets worried — Noah’s not texting him. Despite Ameera’s protests, he turns to a police officer, who takes Ameera into custody for her connection with Col. Mayer. Remember, women and foreigners should never be listened to, even when it’s their lives in jeopardy. They’re incapable of making their decisions and need the guidance of kind American man.

LUKE: I thought she needed protection.
NOAH: You shouldn’t have let her out of your sight.

Luke defends his decision thus:

“Who knows what [Col. Mayer] could have done! He could have killed her, or used her as some kind of bargaining chip.”

The irony of this is clear later, after Noah and Luke have run into each other and Col. Mayer, realizing Ameera’s absence, calls his son.

“Either you get her out of there, and get her to Pier 17 by noon, or you and your ‘friend’ will die.”

So she’s not an evil plotter, as it turns out. Ameera is a bargaining chip, as she always has been. Her presence is designed as a plot device is to get in the way of the main characters, reflecting the misogyny and xenophobia of the writers.

This review starts here and continue until part 171.

This may not be timely, but it makes up for it in offensiveness. Watch this skit, MadTV’s idea of what English-language Al Jazeera is like. The skit is packed with racist stereotypes about the Middle East.

The only female reporter in the skit is a woman in niqab (presumably forced on her). She says, “My husband only allows me to say this: Death to America.” She is told to shut up by the other male) reporters. The “death to America” refrain is repeated ad nauseum by every person on screen. The reporters fail to report real news stories, and their comments, accents, and behavior are all a product of the image of the Middle East as homogeneous, backward, and hopeless. It’s interesting then to compare the actual Al Jazeera English, which is the third largest English-language 24-hour news network, after BBC World and CNN International.

Notice that the launch of the network shows both a male and female reporter. The woman is not wearing niqab. She speaks freely. It’s ridiculous that I have to point these out. Do Americans really think there are no female reporters in the Middle East? Do they think that Middle Eastern countries lack the ability to produce anything comparable to that of the United States?

Not all of MadTV’s work is so atrocious. One of its best-known skits presents the so-called Apple iRack and successfully makes fun of both Apple and the U.S. government’s involvement in Iraq (despite butchering the name of the country). Other skits poke fun at American medical shows. In these, it’s clear the writers have actually watched the shows and picked up on hints of truth to exaggerate for humorous effect. Can the offensiveness of the Al Jazeera skit be thus justified? It’s a parody, and parodies exaggerate. Not applicable. The reality of Al Jazeera is so far off from the portrayal that MadTV ends up looking idiotic. A parody cannot be effective if it is based on nothing real — unless the viewers don’t know any better, which is, sadly, probably the case. All the skit does is reinforce stereotypes about the Middle East and Al Jazeera, without satirizing the actual reality. Al Jazeera, like other networks, has its biases. But examining these would require the writers’ and viewers’ familiarity with the network — which is clearly lacking. So MadTV turns to old stereotypes.

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 Anne for the tip!

The soap opera As the World Turns has recently introduced a Muslim character: Ameera Ali Aziz, an Iraqi woman. Played by the Iranian-American Tala Ashe, Ameera appears one day and becomes entangled in the other characters’ lives.

Here’s the basic summary: Following the death of her mother, who was in a relationship with an American soldier, Ameera is shunned by every single member of her community and must flee to the United States. There she finds Noah, son of the American colonel (somehow she already knows what he looks like and where his favorite hang-outs are). Noah, who has recently come out about his relationship with his boyfriend, Luke, decides to marry Ameera after Homeland Security officers threaten to send her back to Iraq because of an expired visa. The most recent episode featuring the characters showed the wedding.

Ameera’s religion is never explicitly stated, but she wears a hijab and there are vague references to Islam. The show exudes great ignorance about both Islam and foreign cultures. When a little girl points to a bowl and asks, “What are those?” Luke’s mother proudly proclaims, “These are dates. It’s a Muslim tradition. It’s amazing how much you can find out online.” I didn’t realize it took meeting a Muslim for an Americans to hear of dates. (All non-Muslim American readers, click here immediately. We can’t let you proceed without knowing about the first requirement of Islam.)

The show gives several indications of gender inequality in Iraq. When walking together, Noah asks Ameera if he needs to slow down. She responds that she’s “accustomed to always walk a few steps behind the men.” (As though a woman who just made her way from Iraq to an obscure small town of Illinois, with no one and nothing to guide her, would follow this stereotype of Islamic culture.) She also tells the two gay characters, “In my culture, men and women don’t sleep in the same room unless they’re married.” Or ride in a car together. Noah and Luke accept all this information at face value, because Ameera is clearly the first Iraqi or Muslim they’ve met. While they make adjustments for Ameera’s comfort, Noah and Luke ease her into “American culture.” She agrees to sleep in the same room, ride in the car, and lets them take her to a college dance (the hallmark of the university experience, apparently). They encourage her to dance with the first boy who asks her — and obedient girl that she is, she does so until he puts his arms around her and and she runs away. There’s no explanation of her behavior, only the conclusion that she’s “not ready.” (After all, just not being comfortable with dancing with boys you’ve never met is not an option.) There’s a strong feeling of condescension. Everyone is very polite to Ameera, but it’s clear that the (stereotypical) Iraqi culture she speaks of needs the improvement known as Americanization. (As though American culture, too, is a monolith.)

I’m also not a fan of how the United States is painted as a flawless beacon of freedom. When Ameera notices a bookshelf, she exclaims, “So many books! And people can read whatever they want without censorship.”

Her American host replies, “I thought there was more freedom in Iraq.”

Ameera says, “There is, but change takes time.”

When Ameera mentions suicide bombings in Iraq, it only serves to contrast the safety of the United States. Ever wonder why Iraq is so unstable right now? It has something to do with an American invasion. But not according to the show. It seems, instead, to be an inherently messed-up country. And based on Ameera’s “my culture” claims, you could never imagine that strong, independent Iraqi women exist — that is, without adopting American ways.

After all, Ameera exemplifies the Victorian archetype of a demure woman. Wide-eyed and naive, she smiles sweetly, she offers to wash the dishes, and she does her best to do all that’s instructed of her. She comes off as helpless and constantly in need of a man’s guidance. When Noah tells her of his plan to marry her so that she can stay in the country, he doesn’t ask. Even a marriage of convenience that assumes she’ll agree could have a kneeling scene — come on, this is a soap. Instead, Noah states directly, “You and I are getting married.” A bit ironic, considering Western attitudes on arranged marriages. And has he ever considered that she may not want the tangle of lies that their fake marriage would ensue? Or the awkwardness of “marrying” a man she hardly knows? Nevertheless, she responds as though it had been done properly: “Yes, Noah, I will marry you.” I hope Noah got the hint.

I’m not used to how much suspension of disbelief watching a soap opera (and the painful stereotypes) requires, but it seemed odd to me that Ameera speaks flawless English (except for not understanding a few slangy expressions), when this is her first interaction with American culture. It’s obvious the actor doesn’t speak Arabic, based on how she pronounces “Ameera Ali Aziz” and the word “Muslim.” Despite this and all that’s been mentioned, she believes herself to be portraying Middle Eastern culture both accurately and positively. (Which Middle Eastern culture is this, by the way? There do happen to be a lot.)

Islam is rarely mentioned specifically. Ameera says at one point, “In Islam, men and women dine separately.” (Why didn’t she refer to the vague Middle Eastern culture here? I don’t remember that passage of the Qur’an. It looks like CAIR doesn’t either.) But like the dance, this is something Ameera begins to abandon as she slips into an American identity. In another scene, Ameera tells her new family that she is “not comfortable” having the wedding in a church and instead requests a ceremony in the backyard, with a person “neither Christian or Muslim” officiating. As I understood it, if it’s going to be a fake marriage, she doesn’t want to bring religion into it. It would be interesting to see the show go into greater depth about the religious implications of this “marriage in name only.” Noah, after all, is still involved with Luke, their relationship back in the closet. Another factor is Noah’s religion. The writers don’t seem aware that their version of Islam, in which men and women eat separately, certainly wouldn’t allow a Muslim woman to marry a Christian man. Then again, the big question is: Do they know anything about Islam?

But the show could be worse. After all, Ameera is a likable character (as victims usually are). She clearly states that she has no connections to terrorism. She’s even sympathetic about the negative reactions to Noah and Luke’s relationship (after she meets the first gay people she’s ever known, since of course Iraq is just another Iran). Islam is part of her identity, but not consumed by it. It’s tragic that what should be taken for granted is lacking in most portrayals of Muslims on American TV.

Maybe I have exaggerated hopes for a soap opera, where drama rules and reality takes a back seat, but it would be nice to see a more complex Muslim character. Besides confirming every stereotype about gender issues in the Middle East, Ameera comes off as a one-dimensional nice girl who just needs some American training before she can become the perfect submissive (American) wife. She learns about the United States from her hosts, but she never teaches them anything about Iraqi culture. Perhaps it’s because the writers, satisfying themselves with putting dates on a table, haven’t done any research into what Iraqi culture actually is.

You can watch the episodes on CBS’s website. See episodes airing February 22 through March 12 for Ameera’s appearances. If you’d rather not suffer the pain of full-length episodes, check out clips on YouTube.

MMW thanks Jessamy for the tip!

Recently we were directed to a series of television commercials airing on Egyptian TV. These commercials, made by Terrorism Has No Religion, are aimed at countering terrorism and Muslim extremism. In their words, Terrorism Has No Religion’s message is:

I thought since I haven’t written about Little Mosque on the Prairie for awhile, why not now? Last night’s episode dealt with crushes. Layla, Baber’s daughter, has a crush on a boy in her Qur’an class. She confides in Rayyan and Amaar on the condition that they not tell her father. Amaar wants to inform Baber whereas Rayyan thinks they should let it be and not say anything unless it gets serious. ( I wonder if him being a man and her being a woman had anything to do with their opinions?) Jokes are thrown around about the consequences of Baber finding out – he’d send Layla to Pakistan or force her to wear a burqa. However, Baber over hears Rayyan and Amaar talking about it but thinks that they have a crush on each other. And the antics follow.

The fact that LMOTP tackled the issue of Muslim teenage crushes, especially that of a teenage daughter of a conservative fundamentalist, is noteworthy. As I was watching, I could not help but think about the latest stories we’ve heard of Muslim teenage daughters being killed or punished severely by their fathers for not being traditional enough. Of course, on the show they could easily joke about the possible consequences that Layla could face if her father were to find out she had a crush on a boy. But what we have seen in the media are not things to joke about. However, they are also not the norm. By making light of the father-daughter dynamic the show did demonstrate father-teenage daughter tensions as similar to those that occur in non-Muslim households. Yes, there are disagreements; yes there are punishments for behaviours deemed inappropriate by the parents. But usually there are no beatings, no threats, no murder. Just like a Muslim household. LMOTP has been trying to show this Muslim father-daughter relationship as the “usual” father-daughter relationship, but with some specific Muslim issues (hijab, male friends, sinful crushes).

As many will have figured out by now, LMOTP portrays a certain group of Muslims who follow Islam in a certain way. Although many Muslims may agree with most of the message, the message is still a conservative one. With Amaar’s concern about Layla’s crush the show tells its viewers that this is something worth concern. I mean, if an imam sees it as telling-a-parent-worthy, then it’s serious. This may be a point of contention for many. What the big deal with a crush after all? Even Rayyan felt there was no need to tall Baber unless it became serious.

But why was it serious for Amaar? What is LMOTP trying to tell us about Muslims and crushes? The most obvious answer which comes to mind is that having crushes is wrong. Wrong because it’s a dangerous road. Crushes in and of themselves are fine. But it’s what they can lead to which must be monitored and prevented by parents. Now, I am not saying that this is bad or good. This is up to the reader/viewer to decide according to their values. However, the sinfulness of crushes certainly did seem to be portrayed in the show. It seems LMOTP continues to tell us how we really should be thinking. Again, you decide what you think of that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safiya from Outlines writes:

“Apples Do Not Exist”

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

Zareen from FreeWriters writes:

“Britz – Part II (Nasima’s Story):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Anti-Social Behaviour Order laws.

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.

Along with Ramazan and Eid come those funny programs that they show every year: the soap operas. Sadly, I don't have a satellite, and of course there aren't any of those shows on American cable T.V., so I have to outsource for my criticism here. I found some good criticism about Arab dramas on a blog called Sugar Cubes. I've included the majority of the post, but you can see the whole page here.

"On Arabic Drama Series"

Like I said in previous posts, I haven’t really watched any Arabic drama series for over a year now since I’m not living with my family anymore and I don’t have to watch Arab actors and actresses being paid for lousy performances and custom-designed roles. I sometimes wonder if someone out there is cracking up and pointing at us while we’re all mesmerized by the really powerful emotions, really tooooo much going on the screen. Especially when girls are typically humiliated in every single Arabic soap, sometimes for something as silly as liking a guy, and sometimes for wanting to have a dignified life like a real adult and refusing to be a subordinate with a half-life; how can anyone not laugh when we’re clearly our own worst enemies, we encourage productions that stereotype both men and women and normalize mistreatment of women and domestic abuse.

What Arabic soap operas have in common is the re-enforcement of wrong doings. Some might not care about this, but the mind needs a little more than a pointless story that makes one go ohhhh, awwww, and waaaaaaa. In all the scenarios that made it to the silver screen, girls are often beaten but never even seeking justice! Women are always suffering as if to say this is the normal status, you suffer because you’re a female, it comes with the curves and all you can do is pray for sympathy, granted of course that you should be thankful IF you get it.

Tears are plenty
Really powerful emotions
More tears are generously wasted
And then: submission! to everything, abusive parents, stupid neighbors, cheating husband, discrimination…etc

If this is not brain-washing I don’t know what is. Intentionally or not, it doesn’t matter. In fact, if it’s no one’s intention to portray women and men in a certain way on TV for all these years, then people in general -the makers of these shows and those watching them- are in need of serious help.

Year after year since the day I was born our talented TV people continued to waste money, effort and time producing drama series to show us how people lived in the past.

Dear TV people, WE GET IT! You don’t have to do it every year, Syrian niqabi women in black clothes who kiss the feet of their husbands and call them “my cousin”, young women treated as if they committed adultery by being in the same OPEN SPACE with a man for less than 5 minutes, men who talk like animals thinking that it’s manly when they talk like that, wives being yelled and threatened if God forbids they ask their husbands where they’re going…wallah, we get it. What they don’t get is that that era is over, and so is teaching us about it. And no there’s nothing to learn from all of that! What happens is that you get some sick people who wish those days when men were enabled to be big jerks are back.

And you see people getting all emotional watching that sort of things. They sympathize. Every year, every drama series, they sympathize with those men who treat their women like third-rate human beings. They cry with the girl who couldn’t marry the guy she loves because people knew she has feelings for him. No one cries because her father beat the shit out of her, after all, this is understandable but they just can’t help feel sorry for her. I kind of don’t blame people though, I mean usually the girl doesn’t really mind it nor feels bitter about it, she’s often sad and sorry. Never angry or disappointed. The father is not that sorry either.

What? He was overwhelmed with anger and frustration
So he whipped her
You know, instinct and stuff
Just like animals

But people watch anyway. They say it’s entertaining, but I don’t see how. If I make the time everyday to watch a drama series that is being duplicated at least every year, how is that not a scam? Don’t people get bored? Seriously, everything else aside, it’s boring! If you want me to stay home every day just to watch something on TV, show some respect to my mind and don’t repeat yourself. And this goes to actors and actresses too, play a new role once in a while, it won’t hurt your CV, trust me.

Jon Hemming for Reuters reports that a city in Afghanistan has its own answer to America’s Next Top Model. The news agency boasts that the television show “is breaking boundaries and revealing the beauty under the burqa.” (Thanks to NayLah for the tip!)

But before going on to totally ignore which kind of boundaries are being broken, Reuters is haughty enough to paint a quick Orientalist picture of Afghan women: “almost all women in deeply conservative Afghanistan still only appear in public wafting past in the burqa’s pale blue, their dark eyes only occasionally visible behind the bars of its grille” (my emphasis). Using words like “wafting” and commenting on “their dark eyes,” Reuters eroticizes Afghan women, making it seem like just going out to get the day’s groceries is an act full of sensuality! Apparently, in Afghanistan, there’s always somebody cute in the grocery store.

But don’t forget! Reuter’s use of the phrase “behind the bars of its [the burqa’s] grille” reminds us that these poor, sexy women are unfortunate prisoners of their brutal man-folk or their terribly oppressive religion! These women can’t possibly be making the choice to wear a burqa (or, as it’s really known in Afghanistan, the chaadari—again, good job, Reuters).

I have to apologize for my zealous sarcasm. But, come on! It’s been six years since the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, and we’re still hearing Orientalist crap like this? We can’t get past the myths that all Muslim men are all savagely controlling or Islam is totally oppressive to women? Really? Even the title “Afghan models reveal the beauty under the burqa” makes it seem like the burqa is imprisoning these women.

Anyway, back to Afghan’s next top model. Reuters feeds its readers the idea that, by simply participating in this show, Afghan women are changing the entire country (despite the fact that this show is only aired in one liberal city). But they don’t illustrate how this could change anything. The article talks of all the boundaries the show breaks and all the opportunities these girls have—but they don’t go into any detail. What opportunities is this show really going to give Afghan women? The chance to illustrate the idea that Westernization doesn’t necessarily equate to liberation or liberalization? Will the winner of the contest actually get a modeling contract?

The author also quickly breezes over the fact that there is opposition to the show by some Afghans, making it seem like any outrage over Afghan women wearing camouflage combat trousers is totally unjustified. But in a country that is currently occupied by a foreign military presence that a large part of the population has a problem with, camouflage doesn’t seem like a sensitive choice.

Reuters also has a quote by Afghan Muslim cleric Abdul Raouf, just to reinforce the idea that Afghan men are threateningly oppressive: “According to Sharia law, Islam is absolutely against this. Not only is it banned by Islamic Sharia law, but if we apply Sharia law and to take this issue to justice, these girls should be punished.” But Hemming doesn’t press him on why this is against shari’a law. What part is Islam against? Television? Women on television? Women wearing military clothes on television? None of that sounds familiar to me.

And what does shari’a specifically ban? Reuters doesn’t press him for definitive answers, so readers may just assume he’s right, and that Islam really does ban women from television, or whatever it is that he thinks Islam is against. He also says that the girls should be punished. For doing what? How? Leaving the statement at “these girls should be punished” is really menacing and just bolsters the idea of an aggressive Afghan guy.

Wait a minute! Further in the story, a young Afghan man totally contradicts the cleric: “It [the show] also complies with Afghan culture, so it’s fine.” But again we’re left hanging: readers still have no idea how the show is or isn’t okay with Afghans.

I’m glad to see that women are taking a larger place for themselves in public society: for example, the 18-year-old producer of the show is an Afghan woman. I just wish that Jon Hemming and Reuters weren’t so obliviously optimistic.

Posted as appeared on Racialicious.com.

So I just barely got around to watching CNN’S God’s Warriors. I know it’s old news. In fact, I found some interesting analysis here.

But I still said to myself, “This would be great for my blog!” This might give you an idea of how short on material I’ve been lately.

Anyway, I pulled out a notepad and a pencil (very journalistically) and jotted some notes while watching the program. I know that I shouldn’t expect much from CNN, but I was surprised at how many bones I had to pick!

What surprised me most was Christiane Amanpour’s repeated use of “Mozlem” instead of “Muslim.” Barf.

So they opened with Iran, going for a very provocative “Ahmedinejad thinks that an Islamic messiah is coming” thread. Then they focused on Iranian women. I was thrilled that they showed both Shirin Ebadi (shameless bias: Ebadi beat the Pope for the Nobel Peace Prize! Yeah!) and Shadi Ghadirian (shameless bias: I love her art). They ended the piece with a shot of a young women screaming while being taken in by Iran’s morality police.

Here’s my problem: CNN makes it seem like Ahmedinejad imposed this horribly oppressive morality force (blaming the crackdowns on “Ahmedinejad’s government,” an erroneous statement in itself*), which isn’t true. The morality police have been around ever since Ayatollah Khomeini created an Islamic republic. And though, under President Khatami, the morality police were subject to more restrictions and reforms, women were still arrested for improper hejab. Women have been arrested for improper hejab ever since Iran became and Islamic Republic. That’s almost a good 30 years, ladies and gentlemen! Yes, this summer, they had crackdowns. But guess what? Last summer they had crackdowns. And the summer before that, they had crackdowns. You get the point. So why the shoddy reporting?

When they were interviewing Rehan Seyam, the young American Muslim, Amanpour introduced her as wearing hejab, “the traditional Muslim headscarf.” That irked me. This young lady was ethnically Egyptian, and depending on her family’s background, they might not have worn headscarves “traditionally.” Also, the style in which she wore it (very sleek and close to the head) is a more recent style (yes, hejabs have different styles!), which I’ve noticed that American Muslims are more apt to wear. It seems like whenever anyone uses the word “traditional” when talking about Muslims, they’re using it as codeword for “backward.”

Also, who is this young lady? Her credentials to speak for all Muslims (CNN makes her into a posterwoman for Islam) are that she wears hejab and is Egyptian-American? She says of her decision to wear hejab: “I was making a decision I knew was permanent. You put on hejab, you don’t take it off.” I didn’t like the fact that she presented this as fact, instead of her opinion. Plenty of Muslim women have put on and taken of hejab throughout their lives, but CNN makes it seem like Muslim women practically glue scarves to their heads.

Another thing about this Ms. Seyam’s segment that really bugged me is all of the ubiquitous shots of her praying: with her husband, by herself, with other ladies… mainstream media coverage of Muslims usually revolves around men praying when the story talks about Muslims, terrorism, or anything concerning the Middle East. But why all the shots with our behinds in the air? Also, when talking about Muslim women, the media always show us doing one or all of three specific things: shopping (there were several shots of Ms. Seyam in the mall; my favorite was when they juxtaposed her to half-naked Victoria’s Secret windows…oooooooh, provocative); cooking (because a good Muslim women knows how to cook!); and, of course, praying. Showing us cooking, praying, and shopping contributes to the idea that we’re not more than our religion and/or our “traditional” ways of life (which all seem to revolve around women cooking and rearing children), all while hemming in us back into the idea that since we’re women, we love to shop.

Of course, I was incredibly irritated to see Ayaan Hirsi Ali interviewed. In case you missed it, here’s an earlier post why. I couldn’t figure out any good reason that she was featured in the program, other than to pepper in some Islamophobic remarks (which an interview with a Dutch MP did quite enough of, I thought). At one point, she actually says that Muslim men are beating or killing their sisters/wives/daughters because these women want their own educations/boyfriends/lives and that hurting these women is “part of our religion”. And…loser says what? Amanpour says nothing! She doesn’t press her for statistics or contradict her with facts in the smarty-pants way that she has (and I am sort of a fan of)! She just lets that horrific statement linger, and lets the audience soak up Hirsi Ali’s negative take on a religion she avidly dislikes. BOO!

I only saw the segment on Muslims, but I’d be very interested to see how Amanpour deals with women of the Jewish and Christian faiths versus how she deals with women featured in the Muslim segment. If any of you have seen all the segments, I’d love to hear some critiques. For each religion, what did the segment focus on when talking about women? Also, in the Muslim segment, they called in outside experts to talk about Islam. Did they do that for the Jewish and Christian faiths, or were all of the experts for the Jewish and Christian faiths of those faiths, respectively? I was sort of irked that they talked to Karen Armstrong, an ex-Catholic nun, about Islam rather than an Islamic scholar. There are plenty of Islamic scholars (male and female) she could have talked to. Why ask a non-Muslim about Muslims?

*Civics lesson: The real leader of Iran is not the president. The president is elected and is mostly a figurehead. The Supreme Leader (currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) is the one who really calls the shots.