Last week, I critiqued the first of two articles on modesty written by Anam Majeed. Today I’ll look at the second piece – Islam, Modesty, and Sex in the West – Part II.

This time, Majeed begins with a GQ interview with fashion designer Miuccia Prada in which she critiques the show Sex and the City. Prada states that SATC is not a show women should be emulating, as it leads to unhappiness. She feels that women today try too hard. They dress too sexy. When they are unhappy, they wear fewer clothes. According to Prada, women have less dignity today than do men.

With women, the more unhappy they are, the more undressed they are. This is true. Dignity’s another very important part of this. Sex and the City is the opposite of dignity. You have to have dignity for your body-this is with men and women. You need to have dignity towards how you are, how you dress, how you behave. Very important. Men are always much more dignified than most women.

Although Prada does make some interesting points, this last line made me upset. Why would Majeed choose to use a quote, which depicts women as inferior? This statement doesn't even strike me as remotely true. But this is my analysis of part of Prada's quote. Majeed begins her analysis by assuming that Prada equates more clothing with dignity. In fact, according to Majeed, Prada is saying that "more clothes means more dignity." This is not what Prada said. She did speak about the importance of dignity and she did say that clothing is one way to express dignity, but not that more clothing equaled more dignity. This seemed to be the way Majeed wanted to interpret Prada's words. If this were the case, then this would mean that those women who are covered from head to toe are more dignified than those who wear jeans and a sweater, who in turn are more dignified than those women who wear short skirts and t-shirts. Majeed then writes

...she speaks not only of apparel, but also of how this ties into one’s behaviour and resulting inner happiness. How delightfully Islamic of her, but I still wouldn’t wait with bated breath for the release of Prada branded burquas...

Prada did not say that clothing ties in with behaviour and inner happiness, but rather dignity. Yes, this is in Islam, but it is also in Western thought. Dignity is a virtue in the West as well. Then why the cringe-inducing burqa comment? Why is that the Islamic clothing that came to mind? I suppose that, according to Majeed, the burqa would be the most dignified of apparel.

Majeed does accurately point out that Prada seems to be praising modesty. And this is something to appreciate, especially for many Muslim women who do value modest dress. But again, the same question as last week comes up. What is modesty? What does Majeed mean when she says modest? Last week I concluded, from various statements, that by modesty Majeed was referring to hijab and/or niqaab. Add burqa to that this week. This conclusion was further confirmed in this piece.

However, to continue, Majeed points out that many in the West may be against modesty (an extreme assertion, as I stated last week) because of modesty's negative connotations in Judeo-Christian tradition. This, in an attempt to show that Islamic modesty and feminism are not at odds. Good idea, because too many people, Muslims and non-Muslims, believe that Islam and feminism are incompatible. But to present Islamic modesty as a "solution to the ills facing women today" might be simplifying the "ills facing women today." I doubt modesty would solve the problem of violence against women.

Majeed feels that today, when feminists fight the patriarchy of the Judeo-Christian traditions, they confuse Islam to be of a similar nature. Therefore, she feels that feminists need not fight Islamic patriarchy as that patriarchy does not exist. Majeed's main argument appears to be that Islam treats women very well, it is not patriarchal, and thus requiring women to dress modestly should not have such negative connotations as it has within the Judeo-Christian traditions, which have been patriarchal. However, many may disagree. Although many Muslims do believe that Islam, as it was meant to be followed, does promote equality and egalitarianism, they find today that Islam is used to justify subjugation of women and thus a very patriarchal system. Majeed did recognize this, but blamed culture for such oppressions. (Though she does state at one point that the "particular patriarchal system that the feminist movement sought to overthrow does not quite exist in the Islamic world." What?! Yes it does!)

Such blame ignores the fact that religion, and religion alone, is often used and abused as the justification for various oppressions of women (ie. the Hudood Ordinance of Pakistan, which resulted in the horrendous treatment of so many women). Majeed paints an overly idealistic picture.

Specifically, Majeed gives the example of gender roles, first stating that "[t]here are spheres within Islam which men and women may dominate unequally, but always to a net equity, to a balanced social harmony" but then says that "[m]ales and females can coexist and thrive in their overlapping spheres without the encumbrance of a traditionally Western categorization of gender roles. These narrow interpretations that the feminist movement fought to eradicate have no source in Islam." First, she seems to be saying that there are gender roles in Islam (equal but different) but then states narrow gender roles do not exist in Islam. Perhaps she needs to clarify her first statement. What does she mean?

To demonstrate the compatibility of Islamic modesty with feminism, Majeed speaks of the hijab, the "primary value" of which "is not in opposition, but as it stands as an article of faith in obedience to the modesty enjoined upon believing women by God." Or so certain interpretations state. This statement confirms that Majeed is thinking of hijab, at least, when thinking of modesty. No hijab means no modesty. How else would one explain this statement:

It is only now, in our present times, when the idea of modesty has sadly become intertwined with abuse, oppression, and the subjugation of women..

This statement only makes sense if one is thinking of the hijab, niqab, or burqa. These items have indeed been given such negative connotations. Not modesty itself.

Once again, Majeed's very narrow definition of modesty weakened her argument. She tried to reconcile feminism with Islam, something more of us need to do to eliminate misconceptions. She also accurately portrays the acceptability of sex and sexuality in Islam within marriage. Yet, her overall argument was not convincing. If only Majeed had been clear and stated that it was not modesty in general she was speaking of, but rather a very specific form of it.

Recently, Anam Majeed wrote a two-part piece for the The Western Muslim on the concept of modesty in the West, with the first of the two entitled Islam, Modesty and Sex in the West. The piece made some valid points, as well as some questionable ones. Overall, Majeed states that modesty is loathed in the West and thus the the hyper-focus on the sexuality of women has made sexuality uninteresting and asexual. If modesty was still held in high regard, sexuality would still be of interest to people. Modesty appears to be defined in one way. But this is the overall gist. Let's get to some of the details.

The piece starts by presenting an 80-year-old quote on modesty and women by D.H. Lawrence from A Propos of Lady Chatterley’s Lover. In the excerpt, D.H. Lawrence (a man) appears to be warning against women showing too much flesh and encourages maintaining modesty. Fair enough. However, having a man telling women how to dress and behave makes myself, and many women, defensive. Additionally, 80 years prior was a long time ago and a very different time. The quote exposes the views of the time by making the woman into a sexual creature whose power resides in her sex and who men desire. This belief seems dated in a Western context, as the feminist movement has brought focus onto the woman as a whole since then, not just her sexuality. A more recent quote would have much better suited the piece.

As I read the article, I began to wonder how Majeed was going to define modesty. What is she picturing when she pictures modesty? The remaining article made it fairly clear that Majeed had one particular version of modesty in mind, which can be problematic regardless of how valid the claims may be.

Majeed makes the extremely exaggerated claim that modesty is "public enemy number one" in the West. This statement may help her 'sell' her article but it creates an unnecessary and simplified dichotomy between the West and modesty, pitting one against the other. This statement implies that modesty is not tolerated in the West. For anyone living in the West, we know this is not the case. Even if modesty is how she defines it. When mocking the West's view of modesty she assumes that modesty is "Little-House-On-the-Prairie chic" or a "too-long skirt" providing insight into her mental images of modest dress.

No doubt, there is a pressure on women to dress stylishly and often that style includes clothing which many Muslim women may not find modest, but the way Majeed presents modesty one would assume non-Muslims of the West loathe and fear modesty. According to Majeed in the West modesty is repressive, controlling of female sexuality, oppressive, and subjugating. Again, a a tall tale, if you ask me. However, if Majeed is thinking of the hijab and/or niqab only when thinking of modesty then such claims make more sense. The hijab and niqab have traditionally been seen in such negative ways, but not modesty itself. When was the last time a knee-length skirt was considered oppressive or subjugating? Majeed appears to be making the assumption that only the hijab and niqab equal modesty. Therefore, throughout my reading of the article I could only assume that the hijab and/or niqab were being referred to when speaking of modesty.

Majeed admonishes the culture in which women feel a pressure to look a certain way. Very valid derision. However, Majeed then continues to deride the stereotype that modesty is not sexy and claims that indeed modesty can be sexy. At this point I began to get confused. Can modesty be sexy? Does sexy not contradict modest? Isn't the point of modesty not attracting attention to oneself while the point of sexy is to attract attention to oneself? Especially since the modesty she refers to is that of the hijab and/or niqab. Should those even be sexy? Would that not defeat the purpose?

While speaking of the pressures women face to look a certain way, Majeed states that we are told by the media that we are ugly unless we do as the marketers say. Women are made to hate our bodies as we are told our bodies are ugly. The way we then feel better about our bodies is by buying the products we are told will beautify us and by seeking male approval (obviously this relates to heterosexual women only). All very good points. Indeed the marketing world does prey on our insecurities about our bodies. However, I'm not clear how modesty is the panacea. The marketing world would still be trying to sell us something by preying on our insecurities about one thing or another (skin colour for instance).

By pointing out the verse in the Qur'an which speaks about modesty, Majeed makes clear that in Islam, all women are considered beautiful. Unlike the common message we receive from the marketers, Islam teaches us that our bodies are beautiful. Again, a great point. Indeed the philosophy that all women are beautiful is one with which many women will agree happily. My confusion occurs again when Majeed then states that women's bodies are not "to be hidden away because of some inherent loathsomeness." On the one hand she is praising and supporting modesty, but on the other she appears to be saying that we do not need to cover our bodies. Does she mean that women's bodies should not be covered? Or that they should be covered but not because we hate our bodies, but because we are told to by the Qur'an?

Finally, Majeed appears to further propagate the belief that women are inherently sexual creatures. We see this in the following quote:

And so, the truly empowering force of modesty can be seen in the woman who fully accepts her desirability, her femininity, her ability to attract a male, her feeling that her sex is too powerful to remain unguarded. This is an innate sense of the female’s power; it is a subconsciously realized truth, one that is so deeply connected with the female psyche that it cannot be labeled as conceit.

So a woman's power thus is her sexuality. What happened to her mind? To her skill? No doubt sexuality is a powerful force, but in both men and women. To state that a woman's power is in her sexuality denies the other ways in which women can hold power.

Majeed is buying into Al-Ghazali's Theory of Sexuality which states that a woman in inherently a fitna (chaos) causing creature whose sexuality is so powerful she must be controlled and kept away from society.

"Thus, the Islamic notion of hayat, or shyness, is like a veil placed upon women to protect them from the power that is their sex."

Al-Ghazali wanted to protect men from women; Majeed wants to protect women from themselves.

Majeed then presents a quote which states that a woman who is not dressed modestly is one who is for "public use." Again, whose definition of modesty do we use when judging which woman is for public use and which is for private use? To imply that a woman is for use at all, whether private or public, is highly offensive. Majeed again should have been careful with which quotes she used.

Majeed ends the piece by again re-iterating that modesty, because it projects self-confidence, is indeed sexy. Fair enough. Perhaps modesty can be sexy. But is it the modesty or the self-confidence? A woman who is not "modest" can also be very self-confident. Again, who decides which woman is modest, and which woman is not?

Overall, Majeed did makes some vaild points. Her criticisms of the marketing world and the pressures on women to look a particular way were accurate and would resonate with many, if not most, women. However, as she never did define modesty, but only gave a few hints as to what her definition was, I was only able to assume what she meant by modesty and the assumption did not serve her argument well. By appearing to define modesty in rigid terms, her arguments only pertained to certain group of women. It also isolated a large group of women who also dress modestly but not as imagined by Majeed. Perhaps a rewriting of the piece with more forms of modesty in mind would help her present her argument more appropriately

Part two for next week.

The Birmingham Posts’ Roshan Doug recently blogged about a frustrating experience he had at a retail outlet. Many of us could relate as many of us have been in similar situations. Therefore, I understood much of his frustration throughout the post until......

The clerk he was dealing with was a Muslim woman in a hijab. He mentions this early in the piece. I did wonder why he had mentioned this until I read in his explanatory blog entry which followed this one (which he had to write due to the response to this post) that he mentioned it to set the scene. Makes sense, except that what he was setting the scene for was very problematic. After much frustration in dealing with this clerk, he explains:

I'm also not too impressed with the fact that she throws the card on the desk and not hand it to me - it's a cultural thing apparently. Some Muslim women - like her - avoid all - even the faintest - contact with men.

Now this is quite the assumption to make. There has been nothing in the post indicating her level of conservatism, or what she adheres to religiously. He based this assumption simply on her wearing of a head scarf. It is her status as a hijabi he refers to when he says “like her.” Anyone who knows anything about Muslim women will know that such generalizations are absolutely inaccurate. After all, Doug himself is an ethnic minority and should understand the rudeness of having one generalized with one’s group. But he seems to forget how inaccurate and harmful such generalizations can be when dealing with a woman who wears hijab. Especially since she is more likely to have thrown the card because she was rude, not because she did not want to have contact with him. The no-contact-with-men-whatsoever is not as common a belief as he would have us believe.

He then continues to say:

Why they then take jobs that require dealing with the public on a face to face basis, I have no idea.

Again, he is making this assumption based simply on her hijab. This generalization appears even more inaccurate and foolish since objections to face-to-face association are rare among women who wear hijab. Analyzed further, this statement appears to be based on the underlying belief that women who wear the hijab would prefer to remain within the walls of their home away from society. That they would prefer to not be a part of public life. That they would prefer to remain secluded. Wow! Waaaay too many rude and insulting assumptions being made about hijab-clad Muslim women.

Doug has written a response to this post based on the many complaints against him. And in his response he comes across as an intelligent man. This makes it even more depressing that he would make the assumptions he did. Especially, since he does not explain why he made those assumptions or what they were based on. Was there something we missed? Apparently not. Now whether no complainant brought up this issue or whether he just ignored it if it was brought up, I am not sure, but for some reason he still does believe that the reason she threw the card was because of her interpretation of Islam. I am still at a loss as to how he came to that conclusion and with so much conviction. However, it is very clear that he just does not get it.

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.

MEMRI has a YouTube video entitled “Iranian Police Enforces ‘Islamic Dress Code’ on Women.” As an aside, I’m kind of impressed by the use of quotation marks, because MEMRI videos (whether posted by the news organization itself or reposted by individual users) tend towards inflammatory Islamophobic phrases.

The video shows the so-called “hijab police.” A woman, clad in black chador and manteau, walks up to women and asks them questions like, “As an Iranian citizen, do you think the way you are dressed is appropriate?” She points to scarves deemed too thin, hair not fully covered by scarves, lack of manteau, excessive makeup, and too-short trousers. According to the woman such dress is incompatible with Islam. The presence of the hovering policeman and threat on being “put on the bus” drive this message home.

Watching the “modesty officer” harass the women, none of whom were “indecent” by any reasonable standards (certainly not compared to the T-shirt-wearing men walking freely past), made me angry, as I’m guessing it was intended to do. Look at Iranians and their crazy Islamic rules! Don’t you see how they need American liberation?

Indeed, many who commented on the video took it as an opportunity to unleash racial prejudices and supremacism. I saw anti-Iranian tirades, anti-Arab, even anti-Jewish rants — and of course Islamophobic ones. (This context makes me appreciate MEMRI’s use of quotations marks around the phrase “Islamic dress code” even more. It’s easy to assume that because a government official says it’s Islamic, it is.)

But possibly more disturbing were some comments by fellow Muslims. Some drew a parallel between dress standards in Iran and in the United States. In the United States, women face consequences for being topless in public, because it violates a societal norm of decency. Proponents of this analogy argue that in Iran, dress standards are stricter, but they are just as appropriate for their respective society.

It doesn’t take long to see the flaws in this argument. At least from colonialism onward, toplessness in America has long held the status of unacceptable. While each generation considers more skin acceptable than the last, it remains a basic standard for women to cover their breasts. On the other hand, the standards imposed by the woman in Iran in the video are not based on any such history in Iran. If these so-called societal norms were truly based in cultural tradition and modern standards, there would be no need for a “modesty” police squad to begin with. (Topless women in America are so rare because the instilled societal standards, not law enforcement, prevent women from even considering going outside topless.)

Besides the logical flaws, the comparison has a dangerous message. Not wearing “proper hijab” is akin to half-nudity? An Iranian woman wearing a sarafan over a long-sleeved shirt is paralleled by a topless American woman? So it implies. In other words, women who wear any less than the chador/manteau combo (and let’s not even talk about those who don’t wear hijab at all) might as well be naked. What an effective way to deny any scrap of the word “modesty” to women who differ from proscribed standards.

For further discussion of the video, see the posts and comments at the Her Modesty magazine blog here and here.

It’s Valentine’s Day and love is in the air – or at least online. It seems in recent years the number of internet dating sites has rapidly increased. With busy lifestyles people are finding it harder to meet others in person. It seems the online dating bug has bitten our Muslim brothers and sisters as well. Many Muslim dating sites have sprung up. But what are these sites? After all, they say dating is not allowed in Islam so how do these sites work? And most importantly, what are these sites telling Muslim women looking for love?

If you Google the phrase “Muslim dating site” you are presented with a multitude of results. There are sites for Muslims in general as well as ones for those from specific ethnic backgrounds. But not all are created equal. Therefore, I decided to take a sample to analyze and present what I see. Additionally, experiences with these sites will vary therefore I present just a sample of my experiences.

Many Muslim dating sites are in fact not for dating but rather for matrimony. This is most obvious. The majority of the most popular sites appear to encourage their clients to look for their marriage partner. This is obvious when they refer to their sites as ‘matrimonial sites.’ For example Muslima.com: International Muslim Matrimonials, Qiran.com: Matches Made in Heaven, Muslim Matrimonials, or Salaam Love which calls itself a matrimonial site.

On these sites it appears that dating alone is discouraged. If you're on these sites you better be serious about marriage and not just be checking the scene out. Some sites take a much more conservative approach (ISNA Matrimony - which requires a fee to join), while others take much more liberal approach, such as Naseeb. However, Naseeb does not promote itself as a dating or matrimonial site but rather as a social networking site. This is why they can afford to have much less strict parameters. Even the pictures they display on their site show a variety of images of Muslims, seeming very woman friendly and accepting of a variety of viewpoints with no expectations that one is a religious or even practicing Muslim.

As a woman, when you enter most sites you initially have to complete a form with all your basic information – age, height, body type, etc. Additionally, many ask if you wear the hijab. Naseeb, which is not technically a dating site but many use it to meet their “soul mate” as Naseeb categorizes it, even gives the option of having a hijabed icon if one doesn’t want to post an actual picture. Very cute. On one site, the “hijab” question becomes a “facial hair” question for men. Interesting. This site appears to be telling us that the hijab and beard are two important aspects of Islam, perhaps equal in importance, and something which would be of importance to potential partners. So ladies, is facial hair important? And does a beard signify a good Muslim boy? According to Qiran it does. Perhaps Qiran is telling us we should be taking a man's facial hair into account in our matrimonial searches and decisions.

But then things start to get interesting. A few sites, Qiran and Shaadi (this one is for South Asians but you can do a religion specific search), ask about ones complexion as well as the complexion you would like your prospective partner to be. Now those of us familiar with Eastern cultures, the ones from where the majority of Muslims come, will know how loaded this question can be. Complexion has been a vital aspect of beauty among many cultures. Women who are fair in complexion, regardless of features, are considered beautiful and desirable. With bleaching creams and products flying off shelves women feel pressure to be fair JUST so that they may attain that ideal partner. These sites obviously are pandering to this superficiality specific to the cultures from which many Muslims hail placing immense pressures of beauty ideals on Muslim women.

Qiran, as many other sites, asks of marital status. However, what is interesting of Qiran is that if you click “never married,” the next question, asking if you have children, becomes disabled. Qiran is telling you that if you have never been married you cannot have children. Or at least if you do, stay the hell away from us!

Additionally, in my searches, I could not find any Muslim lesbian dating services. There are Muslim dating sites; there are lesbian dating sites - but no Muslim lesbian dating sites. Although, many if not most in the Muslim community would deem lesbianism unIslamic or haram, thus making this finding unsurprising, I do wonder why the lesbian Muslim community has not organized a dating website. Perhaps fear of repercussions? What do single Muslim lesbians who are looking for love do?

Ok Duniya, but what is it like to use these sites? Well, this is going to be different for everyone. It will depend on your intentions. The conservative sites seem to have an expectation that women will be good Muslimahs looking for their protector and provider. The men similarly are looking for the good Muslimah wanting to take care of him and have his children. Since you are the type to never have dated and look down upon dating there is an expectation that the one you find on this site will be the only one.

Liberal sites such as Naseeb seem to allow you to determine your experience and expectations. They ask you to identify your type of religiousness (moderate, traditional, progressive, etc.) therefore leave the judging up to you, the user. Expectations from you are determined by those with whom you interact, not so much by the site. (But still not any room for lesbian love.)

The world of Muslim dating is becoming larger and larger. Although, the emphasis is still very much on finding your marriage partner, the opportunities to simply meet people are out there. Stereotypical messages about women can be found implicitly or explicitly on many sites and one has to tread carefully or risk being categorized, quantified, and simplified.

The Muslim American organization One Nation is hosting an online film contest about American Muslims. Sponsored by Link TV, the contest features animation, music, comedy, documentary, drama, and films by youth. The short films seek to educating people about “the American Muslim experience,” in all its forms.

It’s a great idea. Of course, with twelve pages of entries, you have to sift some clichéd and stereotypical films. Many explain, “Islam is peace” or “I wear hijab so that I'm not judged by my appearance.” Certainly these are relevant message, but at least for a Muslim audience they’re nothing new. What interested me the most were the films that investigated the issues of American Muslim identity at a deeper level.

Some films set out specifically to break stereotypes. The contest as a whole does so naturally, due to the diversity of its entries. Entries feature Muslims of a variety of races — including multiracial, such as a half-Chinese, half-African-American Muslimah featured in at least two videos. A significant number of films show Muslim women without hijab (and without hijab being an issue). On the other hand, some films were disappointingly non-diverse in this regard. One film, a collection of individuals saying, “I am Muslim,” showed Muslims of a range of ages and occupations but not one woman without hijab.

Beyond the male American Muslim identity, many films explore the lives of American Muslim women. I loved the film that showed the struggles of a college Muslim student, who, uncomfortable with praying publicly outside, searches for a private place to make her prayer. I appreciated seeing some films about convert women — not just the strange fictional ones with troubled pasts — but also those whose real-life drama involves worrying about how their families would react. I know I could relate when 23-year-old convert Laura Miller said of the parents she hadn’t yet told, “They probably think I'm betraying my culture, my family, my religion.”

What’s great about hearing a multitude of Muslim voices is that you hear more than just what you’ve heard before, from Muslim snow boarders to the story of a Muslim teenager who impregnates his girlfriend. I saw two interesting films exploring the Iranian-American identity: one that showed Iranian culture through the eyes of an American-born woman and another that showed the attitudes towards an Iranian-American woman in Texas who switched between identities. Some films are sobering; some are heartwarming.

The contest is currently in the finalist stage. Unfortunately, much of the discussion in the comments sections is about rating discrepancy and accusations of cheating. I guess that’s what happens when a contest offers $5,000 per finalist and much more for the grand prize. Besides the finalists, I’d recommend checking out the videos that didn't make it that far, even if it means sorting through long lists of films to find the ones that make you laugh, cry, or think differently.

One day, out of idle curiosity, I entered the phrase “Muslim women” into Google. Links to Wikipedia articles and organization homepages appeared, but what caught my eye was the row at the top: “Image results for Muslim women,” with a selection of three. My slow Internet connection made me wait for the pictures to load. The first was a photograph of two women in full black niqab. As the second loaded slowly, I expected to see a hijabi. No, just more women in full niqab — this time not black but white. Surely the third picture wouldn’t also be a niqabi. Probably a hijabi, I thought, faint hopes of a non-hijabi already gone. The third picture was far from a niqabi. It was a Miss Universe contestant, clad in nothing but a bikini and several necklaces.


Well, this is an interesting statement on the view of Muslim women, I thought. Do people see us as defined only by very conservative dress (which only few women adopt) and sex appeal? That’s what this sampling of images would suggest. I clicked to see more images. It doesn’t get much better. On the first page of images, the niqab appears disproportionately frequently. The majority of the photos link back to articles about dress: wedding dresses, ice-skating outfits, hospital gowns, and general wearing of “the veil.” There’s a disturbing image of a nude woman, face veiled, with explosives strapped to her body. Not surprisingly, it links back to an Islamophobic page about “the depraved evil that is Islam,” explaining that women are the “toilet bowls of Islam.” How lovely that this is the eighth-highest image illustrating “Muslim women.”

If you do the same search now, the results will be the same, only the image bar has moved to the bottom of the results. Below it is a list of “searches related to Muslim women.” This list also serves as an interesting insight into the image of Muslim women. It’s not a surprise that “Muslim women clothing” is first. Amongst Muslims and non-Muslims alike, clothing seems the easiest thing by which to judge Muslim women. Some other depressing results were “Muslim women abuse” and “treatment of Muslim women.”

To compare, I tried searching for “Christian women,” “Jewish women,” and “Hindu women.” The related searches for first two were notably more positive (“Christian women speakers,” “famous Jewish women”) and lacked any image bar. Perhaps people have no interest in seeing such “normal”-looking women? “Hindu women,” on the other hand, did result in a sample of images. I guess Hinduism does count as exotic.

The results of my search were hardly groundbreaking — just depressing. Looking for a silver lining, I clicked on what seemed to be the one picture of a Muslim woman not defined by her clothing. It led to this very cool project by the BBC. It’s a brief collection of mini-profiles of Muslim women from a conference in New York. Unlike the Google results, this sampling of women is diverse, from ethnic background to style of dress, and realistic. While Google failed miserably, the BBC should be applauded for its excellent portrayal of real Muslim women.

According to the BBC introduction, the conference was sponsored by the American Society for Muslim Advancement. I don’t know what else ASMA has done, but this video at least is definitely an improvement from the stereotypical and objectifying image Google paints of Muslim women.



So... Toilet bowls? I think not.

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.

In case you haven’t heard, it’s Islamo-Facism awareness week: David Horowitz and some other conservatives have decided that they’re going to pretend to take on the cause of the “poor, defenseless Muslim woman.” What garbage!

On Monday, Nonie Darwish (pictured here on the cover of her book) spoke at Wellesley College. Darwish is the founder of Arabs for Israel, and was a guest of Wellesley’s Jewish Hillel group. She was interviewed by Phyllis Chesler for Chesler’s blog, and the resulting article is ridiculously biased, painting Darwish as some type of blameless saint, bullied by the evil Muslim girls on Wellesley’s campus. Perhaps the title can illustrate my point: “The Heroic Nonie Darwish Faces Muslim ‘Mean Girl’ Power at Wellesley.”

The article, which I will critique fully in a minute, describes Darwish’s “heroic” speech, the “hostile” groups of Muslim women wearing headscarves that attended, and these same women’s “goon squad” behavior.

Now, sisters, I’ve got to say something here. If Ms. Darwish is correct, and some of the women were making faces and causing disruptions, then this is not cool. Ms. Darwish has a right to believe whatever she believes and speak as an invited guest, and it shows poor character to go to her lecture just to be a douchebag (plus, it makes Muslims look bad). If you don’t agree with her, don’t go to the lecture! Write an editorial to the school paper about how Islamo-Facism Awareness Week is bigoted instead. Or organize a countering “Islam Awareness Week” that has positive lectures about Islam and fun stuff to do—this is a lot more effective than disrupting a lecture. Or, go to the lecture, behave respectfully while taking notes, and then write a measured rebuttal for the school paper or a magazine.

Now, to the article. Chesler’s bias drips through the lines. She writes about Darwish’s lecture and paints the Muslim attendees as intimidating gangsters, and Darwish agrees with her: “They [the Muslim girls] quadruple-teamed Darwish and did not stop until Darwish ended her lecture. Twenty to thirty minutes of soft-core, well-choreographed, goon squad behavior. ‘They are Hamas-trained,’ says Darwish.” Hamas-trained? So because a bunch of people leave the lecture for whatever reason, they’re Hamas-trained? Ridiculous.

Just in case Chesler’s readers don’t get the point, Chesler exaggerates the idea that these Muslim women present a threat: Darwish says that the Jewish students were cringing, afraid “that the Muslims might physically hurt them afterwards. According to Darwish, one Jewish student told her that she ‘was locking her door. I am scared’).” Really? So because some Muslim students left the lecture, these students think that they’re going to get physically harmed? Do they think that the Muslim students left the lecture to go look up the Jewish students’ addresses and then stalk them for listening to Darwish’s lecture? Really?

I’m not disagreeing with the face that Hillel invited her, that she spoke, or that many in the Muslim community disagree with what she’s saying. I’m disagreeing with the negative portrait that Chesler paints of Muslim women. Calling us gangsters and implying that we’re going to hurt people who disagree with us? Please.

I’m also disagreeing with the fact that Ms. Chesler deifies Darwish as some sort of whistle-blower on Islam, without critiquing Darwish’s views or credentials. The article itself says that Darwish was born into a privileged military family in Egypt and now lives in America. Living in a privileged Egyptian family in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s gives someone a radically different perspective on Islam, Israel, and Egypt’s current political state. Egypt was very Westernized in these decades: Nasser and Sadat both clamped down very hard on religious institutions, alternately made war and peace with Israel, and Egyptian women rarely wore hejab back then. Growing up in that kind of Egypt could produce viewpoints that synchronize well with Western ideas about the Middle East and Islam.

So why is she a mouthpiece for Islamo-Facism awareness week? Perhaps it’s because she agrees with what they’re saying. Or perhaps it’s because Horowitz couldn’t book Ayaan Hirsi Ali to spew their organization’s Islamophobic crap. Either way, it the lecture provides us with an idea to how Islamo-Facism Awareness week will play out.

I spend a lot of time on search engines, trying to get our readers the latest on Muslim women (still, tips are oh-so appreciated!). So if you search for “Muslim women” on Google, you’re likely to find The Muslim Woman, a blog that reports news and culture concerning Muslim women. It’s not all negative, but it’s not a happy-go-lucky picnic, either.

My beef with this blog is the biased language used. Something tells me they’re not Muslim by the way they talk about us. When referring to the horrible incident of Shi’a women killing Sunni women in Iraq, the poster mandira13aug claimed:

“Despite becoming victims of permanent threat of shooting, bomb attacks, kidnappings and rape...how a group of Muslim women in Iraq could even think to kill another group of Muslim women? But this is a harsh reality and slowly becoming common practice in Iraq.”

So because a group of women belonging to one sect reprehensibly attacked women of another sect in one instance, it’s becoming “common practice”? I thought common practice was something that happened all the time, not just once.

The author also seems to think that “becoming victims of permanent threat of shooting, bomb attacks, kidnappings and rape” wouldn’t make anybody crack. How could a group of Muslim women even think to kill another group of Muslim women? I’ll tell you how. It’s a horrible thought, but it’s a truth: they are in an extremely unstable country! Living in fear, instability, and uncertainty will psychologically ruin anyone—so why is the author so shocked? Why isn’t the author shocked that groups of Muslim men are killing each other in Iraq?

And the title of this post is “When Women Losses [sic] Kindness, Lovingness…?” So because these women have participated in a horrible act that Allah will judge them for, they’ve lost all their “kindness” and “lovingness”? Does the author think that these women don’t love their children? Does the author think that these women don’t care for their elderly parents or their siblings? When someone picks up a gun, they don’t necessarily lose their humanity.

This isn’t the only post that uses language that ruffles my feathers. Take a look at other melodramatically-titled posts, like Pooja’s “Yemen: Women are being repeatedly assaulted by their husbands or fathers.” I guess Pooja thinks that Yemen’s national pastime is beating down the nearest female. Even though family abuse occurs in every nation in the world.

Another article, entitled “21^st Century Veiled Phenomenon: Women Jihadist” by Himadree starts out with this sentence: “Women might be narcissist [sic], yet they can be a venomous threat if circumstances call for it.” I guess unlike mandira13aug, who doesn’t believe that Muslim women are capable of being women and using guns, Himadree thinks that women are both narcissists and dangerous snakes: “Muslim women are no longer hiding behind the veil but becoming a menacing threat to the society as a whole.”

With a statement like that, one can’t help but question these bloggers’ motives. Their profiles all reveal that they live in India. In a country that doesn’t always treat women like maharanis (and that has documented racism against Muslim women), wouldn’t it be more productive to blog against injustices against your own sisters? Poster mandira13aug doesn’t seem to think so: she also writes for We The Women, with similarly pseudo-news covered in opinion. On all of these blogs, I’ve only seen one post about women in India. And you can bet it was dripping with hope and inspiration

More current posts are positive and respectful (for example: “Bangladesh: Not an exception to the scourge of female subordination”; an intimidating title, but a good post). The appearance of positive news about Muslim (and other) women on these blogs leads me to conclude that they may not be purposefully malicious in their postings…perhaps they’re just really ill-informed or unaware of their bias. I appreciate their attempt at balanced news. But being ignorant and being racist are just shades of the same hateful color.

As you may have noticed, we’ve changed the name and site of the blog. I just added an ‘h’. That lack of an ‘h’ was really killing me. Sorry for the confusion for our loyal readers! I know that “muslima” and “muslimah” are the same things, but I just like it better with an ‘h’!

Anyway, I decided to Google the word “Muslima.” And to my surprise, I saw that there was an UrbanDictionary.com entry for the word! Huh! I took a look, and saw some pretty decent definitions, my favorite being:

“A muslim woman who is cool and knows how to socialize. She's on her game and keeps it moving and dresses well. An educated muslim woman in her 20's who's making a difference. My homegirls.”

Some of the other definitions irked me a bit because they sounded sort of preachy and because of poor spelling (yeah, I’m one of those people). Really, the entry could have just read “A Muslim woman” and left it at that, without getting into all the religious obligations and emotional language.

And that’s what the first entry for “Muslimah” turned up: “A Muslim woman.” But the second entry was what really pissed me off:

“A woman who's supposed to be a whore for everyone in her husband's family, but has to appear very modest to outsiders, and therefore uses a a mobile tent(burka) whenever she goes out.
These women usually satisfy the urges of a great many men(considering each muslim family usually has 5 to 10 kids, depending on the extend of welfare in the country), but can't claim credit for it because if they tell about it to others they will be punished for defaming their family in a noble Islamic ritual called honor killing.”

Way to include all the negative stereotypes about Muslim women in there, jackass! The “burka” and “honor killing” links you to similarly stereotypical and Islamophobic entries on UrbanDictionary.com. The definition was given by a member named “theoneverdies.” If you read it as “Theo never dies,” we can assume they’re referring to Theo van Gogh, the director who collaborated with Ayaan Hirsi Ali on a controversial movie about Muslim women. Mr. van Gogh was murderd a few years ago by someone who defines himself as a Muslim.

Take a look at the rest of “theoneverdies’” definitions. They’re all really postitive (hint: sarcasm). S/he has given a definition for “koranimal” and “Theo van Gogh” is painted as a crusader instead of a racist.

Anyway, I couldn’t find anywhere to report this, because UrbanDictionary.com is a dictionary made up of slang provided by members. The best I could do was click on the “thumbs down” sign to express my disapproval. (sigh)

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.

Gender segregation is NOT a long-term solution to harassment, stares, or rape. It’s a tidy short-term solution, but it will not solve the reasons that men harass women; in fact, segregation may make harassment worse. Men of any race, religion, or nationality will harass a woman because they view women as acceptable targets—if men are taught from an early age to take into account women’s feelings, experiences, and humanity, and they are taught and shown that harassment is not acceptable (I.e., if someone harasses a woman, everyone pounces on him)—then they will not harass women. But since men are allowed to get away with harassing women (on all levels: governmental, legal, and social), they continue to do so, in every nation in the world.

However, women in Egypt are jumping on the women-only bandwagon as a solution to this harassment. Al-Ahram reports on this phenomenon, but perhaps the editor should rethink the selection of these reporters: their bias melts from between the lines of the article. Reporters Salonaz Sami and Injy El-Naggar show no mercy to women who don’t want to mingle with men—and who don’t fit their idea of upper-class, Westernized Egyptian womanhood.

The authors’ snarky side comments don’t give their sisters any mercy. They hint at these women-only clubs being lesbian dens of iniquity and imply that a woman who they interview is so anti-man that no man would want to touch her—making it a wonder “how she ever managed to have children”. The worst of these comments is downright insensitive: when a woman they interview states that she doesn’t like to go out because she is harassed, the authors pounce on her (warranted) paranoia: “How many rape incidents did Rasha and her friends suffer?” As any woman knows, you don’t need to suffer rape to be terrified of it, especially in a social setting where harassment is bad enough to make women stop leaving their homes.

And then the authors blame feminism for all of these women wanting to be left alone. Well, feminism and Islam. They assume that all of these women “[have] not transcended the incredibly narrow confines of the predominant, Wahhabi-based, middle-class understand of Islam.” Oh, and now it’s a class thing, too. And I’m sure the authors, who are so above societal interpretations of Islam, aren’t “obsessed with their bodies as objects of desire…and [aren’t] keen on such things as dieting, body toning, even make-up.”

But wait! Men get the shaft, too! On the unwanted and unasked for male attention these women receive, the authors sigh that “in the absence of both money with which to marry and legitimate privacy in which to consummate desire, such attentions will remain inevitable.” That’s right! Men are total beasts (they do actually refer to them this way in the article, even though it’s done sarcastically) who cannot control their wandering eyes and hands! Really?

The authors seem to think that men have no self-control and that women should just put up with it. Last time I checked, only animals had no self-control. And don’t all people deserve safety and freedom from harassment when they leave their homes? I guess Egyptian women don’t fall under these authors’ definition of people.

The Executive Officer, on his/her blog Executive Outcomes, has drawn a link between Muslim women and suicide bombings! Hey, I’ll bet no one’s ever though of that before! Oh, wait. Forbes did.

Muslim women don’t have enough negative stereotypes associated with us…thank you for adding one more! “Hey, everyone. Guess what? Not only are Muslim women submissive, passive, and oppressed…but they’re also dangerous, too! Don’t pay attention to the fact that these stereotypes contradict each other--just pay attention to this inflammatory rhetoric! You might get blown up!”

The idea that all Muslim women are inherently capable of violent retaliation is racist (under the assertion that only Middle Eastern and South Asian Muslims commit these crimes) and Islamophobic; no one ever thinks twice about female victims of other nationalities or religions when they have survived a war or forced exile, no one ever cautions us to “watch out for them; they might blow you up later!”

Need an example?

• Japanese women—after bombings of Nagasaki, did they seek to build atomic bombs to drop on America? Do they seek revenge now?
  

• Rwandan women—after the Hutus and Tutsis slayed each other, do you think either side thought that the wives of the dead men or the daughters of the dead mothers would avenge their loved ones?

• Jewish women—the survivors of the Holocaust, specifically. Do they seek violent redress for their suffering, for all the family members and loved ones they lost?*

Besides, the majority of the victims of the Bosnian war were Muslim women; do they blow themselves up now, almost a decade later? And do rural Afghan women—arguably the most disenfranchised in the entire region—blow themselves up? No!

But wait! Didn’t you know that Muslim women really just blow themselves up because they’re sex-crazed? Here's my favorite quote from the blog:

“In addition to the anger and revenge motives frequently seen in other female suicide bombers, the Muslim concept of martyrdom involves the forgiveness of all sins and immediate entrance into paradise, so suicide bombing often is seen as an avenue to atone for the shame and sins of an extramarital affair or out-of-wedlock pregnancy” (my emphasis).

So guess what? Not only are we passive and dangerous, but we’re shameful sluts, too!

On a different note, these articles simply create more fear instead of understanding. Everyone rushes to blame, condemn, and vilify these suicide bombers. They are not wrong in their condemnation: suicide and killing innocents are both sins in Islam, and the majority of Muslim communities see violence in the name of our religion as abhorrent, myself included. Let me repeat that: This blog condemns suicide bombing, no matter who’s at the helm or what's at stake.

But understanding why these women (or people) blow themselves up is better than rushing to push them further away from society than they already are. These people feel alone, endangered, disenfranchised, abandoned, and mistreated. If we can understand their views and figure out why they’re unhappy, it’s a lot easier to help remedy the situation. If we push them further away, they feel justified in their hurt feelings and believe that they’re making the right choice.

*Note: Comments about Israel will not be published. We’re not discussing politics; we’re discussing race and religion.

Recently, while perusing the internet I came across a video made by DawahWorks, a production group who appear to make videos about Muslims and Islam in an attempt to conduct dawah. The host of the videos, SaadImam, speaks to various people. I actually came across the video while looking for another video made by them which had created controversy. Such a controversy that it was removed from YouTube. As that video was not available, I viewed the current video.

In this video entitled "Eid Adha & the Missing Hijab" SaadImam speaks to a young woman about the hijab. Now this may seem benign, however, as I watch I become increasingly disgusted at what happens.

First let me set the scene. SaadImam is at Eid ul Adha event at which he first speaks with two young Muslim men inquiring as to why they are Muslim. These young men provide their appropriate answers, sounding like good young Muslim men who perhaps once questioned their religion but have now 'seen the light' and declare that Islam is the best of all religions. During this time they intermittently cut to a young Muslim woman, without hijab, who also states her reasons for being Muslim. Her answers parallel the young men - she was born Muslim, she has great respect for Islam etc etc. However, very shortly into the clip their focus becomes mainly the young woman. Why? Because she does not wear the hijab. And what is the purpose of focusing on her? To make her feel bad about herself as a Muslim for not wearing the hijab. From the video it becomes clear that the young girl believes that the hijab is mandatory but chooses not to wear it. For the creators of the video this is all they need to depict the young woman as a confused, stupid, and bad Muslim. They consistently repeat her stating things such as "there's not a good reason I took it (hijab) off." This woman clearly states that she prays, fasts etc. She is an observant Muslim, but the video makers decide to focus in on her lack of head cover.

The part which really irked me was his comparison of women to jellewery. This is one of the oldest and most objectifying comparisons made by many Muslims trying to justify the woman's "obligation" to cover up. He states that jewellery at the jewellery store which is on the counter is fake as opposed to the jewellery which in locked in the glass because that jewellery is precious and worth more. He is saying that if something is precious it should be locked up and covered. Of course, his analogy is that of jewellery with a woman's body. That because a woman's body is precious it should be locked up and hidden. However, those who so proudly state this analogy forget that jewellery is an object and a woman is a human being. I think the differences are obvious. An object, unlike a human, cannot think, cannot feel, cannot experience pain, lonliness, happiness, hope, fear, cannot have aspirations and dreams, cannot love, cannot appreciate freedom and abhor imprisonment. A piece of jewellery, no matter how precious, is not a woman! To make the comparison is to objectify women.

The way in which SaadImam speaks to this woman reeks of bullying. Her nervous and scattered responses and his creepy smirk show him as the bully he is. Check this video out yourselves as well as others he has made. His stupidity and hate shines through.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iVzvWDLugRE

Slate.com put up pictures yesterday for Ramadan, with pictures from as early as 1956 to as recent as 2006, from all over the Middle East and some parts of Europe. What do all these pictures have in common…other than an "othering" effect? A near total absence of women.

There is only one picture that has women in it out of eighteen. This picture is black and white, and it shows women entering and leaving Tripoli's main mosque. The foreground of this picture is a screen--the women are only visible through the arabesque flourishes. As if the media didn't already portray us as silent and cloistered away from the world, the photographer echoes this by showing us these women through a screen! This voyeuristic portrayal reinforces the idea that Muslim women are “forbidden,” and thus “exotic,” the same tired old Orientalist tripe.

And do you see any of the women's faces clearly? In the only picture featuring women, two are too far to see any visible facial features. They simply look like black ovals in the middle of white headscarves, erasing their personhood. The only other woman in the picture has her back to camera…just another lady in a headscarf.

The rest of the pictures are very similar: viewers are unable to see clear faces and of the men, which causes them all to melt into a generic Arab guy mould, especially if you’re someone unfamiliar with different regional or ethnic styles of dress. Maybe the photographer, Paolo Pellegrin, was going for artsy. I think he missed his mark.

Have you heard of Baba Ali and Hijabman? They’re not a Muslim comic book duo.

If you’re an active Muslim youth, it wouldn’t surprise me if you had heard of them. For my non-Muslim readers, Baba Ali has become a YouTube phenomenon with his series The Reminder, a series of webcasts that deal with topics relevant to young Muslims. It has been translated into several languages, has spawned merchandise, and become a huge YouTube hit. Hijabman has a website “to entertain and educate the Believing and curious community” and a line of humorous t-shirts and other merchandise that speak to the Muslim experience in the west.

These men are interesting. They galvanize Muslim youth, both men and women, both those born into the faith and those who have converted. I’m not going to deconstruct their entire messages here, because they are productive and create new media messages regularly. Besides, this blog is about Muslim women.

And so that’s what I’m going to talk about. How these men talk about or to Muslim women. Looking through the archives from both parties, I see only one subject that deals specifically with Muslim women: hejab.

Here we go, the collective eye-rolling, the “Hey, there’s a dead horse! Let’s go beat it!” jokes. But Muslim women are half of the Muslim world, and so we need to take notice of what’s being said about (or to) us. Even if we’re all sick of the subject.

Baba Ali’s wildly popular webcast about hejab is interesting. He brings up excellent points about how the west equates nuns and the Virgin Mary with piety, but hejabis with oppression. And he’s saying that a bihejabi is no better or worse than a hejabi, since Allah (swt) is the only one who knows why a woman wears it, and Allah is the only one to judge? Hey, sign me up! I like this guy’s message.

But, oh, hey, what? After he implies that only Allah’s judgment counts, he proceeds to put on his judgment gloves by saying that some “attempts at hijab are not hijab” and then goes through a list of “types” of “hejab” that “aren’t” hejab.

Uh…..excuse me? I know his intentions are good, but why is a man telling a woman how to wear hejab properly? Or telling her how to wear it at all? He says in his final post from season 1 that “There is no compulsion in Islam,” and this is stated in the Holy Qur’an. He also states in his webcast entitled “The Haram Police” that people who have no qualifications often give judgments on what is “haram” shouldn’t be doing so. But what are his qualifications? Why does he feel the need to tell women what to do with their clothes?

He states in an interview with AltMuslim.com that he is not a scholar and echoes this in the “The Haram Police.” So why is he preaching to (or “reminding”) others about what is right or wrong? Especially about a subject he cannot know about personally (i.e., hejab).

Now we turn to Hijabman. Full disclosure: I am a fan. But I’ll tell you why: because he doesn’t preach, or remind, or anything. He just writes about his experiences, his views on Islam, and does not make judgments about others or the way they practice (or don’t practice) Islam.

And the only mention of hejab on his website? It’s by a woman. That’s right: Hijabman lets his co-blogger, KufiGirl, do the talking when it comes to an issue that only a woman can really know about.

Final thought: why aren’t there any women doing this great and inspiring work? Baba Ali just got himself a webcam and hit “Record.” Hijabman just started himself up a blog. It’s easy to start a ‘zine, or a blog, or your own series of webcasts. Sisters, all you need is your faith, intent to do good for your community, and a medium; that’s all I have, and that’s why I’m here.