Tag: Media

While the Moroccan program to train female Islamic scholars and spiritual guides (called 'mourshidat') is laudable and admirable, it is far from the revolutionary step that the BBC claims it is. The BBC article states that the mourshidat are the "first women ever" to perform all the functions of male imams aside from leading prayer. This is patently false. There have been female sheikhs since there has been Islam, and some of Islam's greatest thinkers, including Ibn 'Arabi, studied under women. In my interview with Mufti Ali Gomaa, he pointed out that the Sufi mujtahid Al Jeeli learned hadith from no less than fifty female sheikhs.

Last year I interviewed Sheikha Sanaa Dewidar for the Canada National Post. She gave some fascinating insights into the spiritual potential of women and the role of female spiritual leaders in Islam. Sheikha Sanaa has over 150 disciples--both male and female--spread across two countries. Married at 17, a mother at 18, and called to a path of spiritual mentorship and discipline shortly after, Sheikha Sanaa is a deeply traditional woman who represents an established history of female leadership, not a modern innovation. 

While I am glad that a program to educate Muslim women and endow them with authority has earned the support and interest of the BBC, I really wish they had done their homework before making such a sweeping statement. You don't need to tear down history in order to honor the present. 

BBC journalist Rageh Omaar's new documentary Inside Iran is worth watching. Omaar is friendly and respectful toward the subjects of his film; a refreshing change from the clinical anthropop approach often employed by reporters in documentaries like this one. The result is a very human portrait of what I like to call the Unfunny City.

An Iranian viewer commenting on the documentary at the BBC's Have Your Say points out that the title of the film is misleading; Tehran has its own unique urban culture and is not representative of Iran as a whole. I visited the country three years ago, when Khatami was still in power, and found this to be very true. Tehran seems to be one of those cities that remains inscrutable without a very clever chaperone, one who is not only part of the fabric of the city, but who can make you appear to be so. Having no such chaperone and being doubly foreign--and American and a Sunni--I found Tehran a bustling but paradoxically dull place, where laughing too loudly in public resulted in a volley of furtive stares. Hence, the Unfunny City. 

Unfunny as it was, the thing that struck me most about Tehran was its aura of normalcy. If normalcy is the ability to predict the consequences of your actions and the actions of others, then it is the secret to the success of the Islamic Republic: it is highly systematized, and the system is consistent. Method is everywhere. The stonings and the hangings and the bogus 'Islamic' justice happen out of sight, and remain out of sight because restaurants are open when you expect them to be open, banks are efficient about changing money, and there is just enough material wealth to pad the edges of an invented theocratic reality. I compare this to the undiluted chaos of Cairo, the political instability of Beirut, the violent streets of Baghdad, and I am not surprised that Iranians don't feel as oppressed as Omaar expects them to feel. They are presented with a very simple ultimatum: Comply, and we will make you just free enough to forget that you are not free. Refuse to comply, and we'll either toss you in jail or kill you. The choice is so concise that it disappears from view as soon as you've made it. This is the genius of the Islamic Republic. 

It was Azar Nafisi who first made the parallel between life in modern Iran and Nabokov's Invitation to a Beheading; the hyperreality created by regimes so total that they remake and replace every facet of life. I use 'total' instead of 'totalitarian' because totalitarian is often used to mean visible brute force; there's very little of that in Iran. The totality of the regime arises instead from its seamless incorporation into the things you wouldn't normally notice. Take, for instance, the ubiquitous headscarf. These days you don't have to tuck in each tiny strand of your hair; there are girls in Tehran who would not, in any other Muslim country on earth, be considered veiled. Their ponytails hang out the back. Their bangs hang out the front. The brilliance is in the smallness of the method of control. The veil ceases to be a religious symbol. It ceases to be anything but a tiny square of cloth. It is important only because you must wear it. It becomes a little addition to your outer garments. It becomes normal. That, friends, is a manufactured reality.

Omaar seems to buy into this reality a little too easily. Yet his points are legitimate: within the context of your compliance, it is possible to live and thrive in modern Iran, to educate yourself, to have ideas, to create a life and a family. Monuments and traditional art and culture are lovingly preserved; cities are organic and inviting; and while a very specific interpretation of Islam dominates the state apparatus, religion seems to play a much more relaxed and integrated part of social life than it does in other parts of the Middle East. Iran is a country under stress, but it is not a country in decline. Its workforce is well-educated and dynamic enough to carry it into the 21st century--which means that when the oil dries up, Iran will have resources to fall back upon, unlike its neighbors in the Gulf. 

If nothing else, Omaar's journey through Tehran is a refreshing antidote to the endless round of flag-burning and wild-eyed frenzy one usually gets in mainstream media. (This stereotype about Iran and Iranians is in no way limited to the West, by the way. One sees plenty of slanted portrayals in media out of the Sunni Middle East.) It's a timely reminder that we are all mercurially and persistently human, and capable of adapting to the harshest of sociopolitical environments. It always comforts me to remember that this humanness has outlasted, and will outlast, the greatest and strangest of empires. 

Promoted to the front page 

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) have published a document: Towards Greater Understanding - Meeting the needs of Muslim pupils in state schools: Information & Guidance for Schools. I agree with many of its recommendations, but it’s politely didactic tone and its implicit assumption that British schools should seek to accommodate the needs of Muslim pupils so comprehensively is evidence, yet again, that the MCB appears to advocate for British Muslims in a locked and darkened room, without any sense of the current political or media climate. Remember the letter in which MCB et al told Tony his foreign policy was making Britain a terrorist target? Did it achieve anything more than invoke the wrath of politicians and Islamophobic media pundits? What is achieved by such posturing?

Okay, perhaps the issue is - should Muslim leaders speak truth to power or should they take a more low-key, pragmatic approach to seeking justice for the our community? As the MCB appear to plumped for the former, we now have another ‘provocative’ document published, and the right wing press have put the boot in (surprise surprise), and the government have dismissed it (surprise surprise). And all power to those bloggers who have robustly defended it against such an inexcusable tirade of hatred and contempt: Islamophobia Watch, Rolled Up Trousers, Indigo Jo and Five Chinese Crackers. It deserves defending, but as an educational document, not as an adjunct of Muslim identity politics. If we respond to the exploitation of legitimate criticism by bigotted little twerps like Harry’s Place by declaring such criticism either erroneous or irrelevant, we might as well just throw this document in the bin and forget it. Reports like this need to be debated and discussed or they are worthless.

I have a confession to make: I still read Muslim WakeUp! I like to see how the other side is living. Usually nothing strikes me, but this you all must read: Tarek Fatah slices and dices the show Little Mosque on the Prairie. It's hysterical. The show has not yet reached us here in North Africa, so I have nothing insightful to say about it, but this piece of criticism is so delightfully ridiculous that I'm now really curious to see an episode. 

Fatah's big complaint? Not enough adultery. Just let that sink in for a minute.

In all fairness, I think I know what he was trying to say: the show is not human enough, and does not portray Muslims with the ordinary mortal flaws that make fictional characters loveable and believable. Instead, it caters to the ultra-conservative Muslim psychosis which would prefer that fiction cease to exist, and when the vile art is absolutely necessary, that it portray the Ummah as an upstanding clan of Stepford Muslims without flaw and in perfect harmony with Shari'a at all times. Because, you know, that's exactly what goes on in the back alleys of Bangladesh and the bedrooms of Riyadh. I take it back, the ultra-conservatives don't hate fiction. They live in it.

Fatah could have made this observation, but instead he got on a stump. He very angrily berates the show's producers and writers, who have doubtless been given a similar dressing-down by the ultra-conservatives themselves, and consequently wrote the show thinking they were being very gracious and compromising by portraying Muslims as they wish to be portrayed. Tough luck. Rather than having to accept the maxim "You can't please everyone all the time", diplomatic-minded westerners are discovering that when it comes to Muslims, you really can't please any of them any of the time. 

I was born in Michigan and it is true, there is a very large presence of Muslims living in Michigan, it is very beautiful to see such a clear shift from the ethnic norm emerge nearly out of nowhere. To be immersed into a cultural collage of non-domestic origins is truly beautiful, in my opinion. While looking up some things concerning my birthplace Michigan, I found an NPR article suggesting that there has been an influx of “vandalism” in the Muslim majority city of Dearborn, MI:

“In Dearborn, Mich., the nation’s largest Arab-American community, Shia and Sunnis have long lived together mostly peacefully. But it appears that some of Iraq’s sectarian violence is being mirrored in the Detroit area, particularly in recent months. As the Muslim communities have grown and prospered, more mosques have been built and some of the divides between these sects have been brought into sharper focus.” (C. Corley, NPR)

However, I noticed that in the radio editorial, NPR journalist Robert Siegal, appears to suggest that Iraqi-Americans and Iraqi immigrants are crossing Middle-Eastern cultural conflicts into Muslim communities here in the U.S.. But if you listen closely to an immigrant brother named Karim Al-Mayhi he expresses that,

“We don’t have trouble like that, the trouble like that… is over there in the Middle East.”

Likewise, Imam Eide Alawan clearly states that the vandalism and graffiti being spray painted does not appear to be Muslim at all, reading (according to Alawan):

“…Muslims go home…”

Alawan suggests, that it was a non-Muslim doing it because of the frustrations over Iraq. I am writing on this story because it may be indicative of the kind of slanted arguments against Muslims we may see in the future. These arguments if implied in the media could attempt to further feature Muslims as a civic threat, despite the civil reality of our communities. This article is simply a heads-up to my fellow Muslims and a “wagging finger” to media hounds and pundits contemplating an expansion on Siegal’s take of the issue.

Muslims do like a good moan. Most often their target is the 'mainstream' media.

Both rarely do themselves any favours, it has to be said. Journalists know the Big Bad Muslim angle is good copy and will do anything to get it; even flying all the way to Beirut to speak to Omar Bakri Mohammed who preaches Armchair Terrorism whilst sipping strawberry juice. And certain Muslims like playing to their own gallery, indulge in victimhood and double-standards of their own, and enjoy the media spotlight despite their claims to be self-professed anti-modernists.

However, towards the end of 2006 and in early 2007, there was a story that I believe justified the scepticism that Muslims have towards the media.

The story involved the arrest of an ex-BNP member in Halifax, with what was described in the local press as 'the biggest haul' of chemicals of its kind ever found in Britain. That story did not make the mainstream news outlets, and it was left to bloggers and left-wing media outlets to try and get the story an airing. The BBC pathetically told one blogger they were too busy.

Now the trial has started, we learn that one of the men arrested, Robert Cottage, wanted to shoot the Prime Minister. But this isn't 'terrorism'. The word does not appear in the media coverage of this story (and he was not tried under any anti-terror legislation, but I concede that is a legal argument).

Let me be quite clear. My point has nothing to do with the actual case. This man, Robert Cottage, is innocent of all charges until he is found guilt in a court of law (I've put that in bold so it is clear for people who suffer from PostCommentsBeforeReadingSitis), regardless of his supposed political views, which he is perfectly free to profess and extol.

(Irony: how adherence to political correctness actually ensures an ex-BNP member can say is innocent.)

My point is to do with the blatent double-standards at work here. Even a Conservative blogger (who can't be accused of pandering to Muslim sensibilities) noted:

Maybe I have missed the [Robert Cottage] story, but I have not seen this covered in any of our national newspapers or national broadcast media. Why? If these kind of things had been discovered in the home of a British Muslim I suspect the media would be playing a rather different tune. Think of the front page headlines recently when similar discoveries were made elsewhere in the country.

The national media need to be very careful on these issues. I can't understand the news judgement which says it's not a story when explosives are found in a BNP member's house, yet when the same thing happens in the Muslim community it is on the front page.

I wonder when Comrade Reid will show up in Lancashire to preach British values?

His services are also required in Bath it seems.

The Cairo Book Fair, held every winter in the Conqueress City, is the largest event of its kind in the Middle East. It is typically packed; according to this article on AJE, organizers expect 2 million visitors to crowd into the 1,800-square-foot North Cairo exhibition hall this weekend alone. Featuring booksellers from as far afield as Western Europe, Iran and China, the book fair is a high note in a region that accounts for 10% of the world's population but only 1% of its books.

Over the past ten years, the fair has become steadily dominated by deeply conservative religious books and booksellers. Alaa Al Aswani, author of the controversial novel The Yacoubian Building and the Arab literary world's newest agent provocateur, had this to say about the phenomenon: "[Peddling religious texts] has become a real business, but this fundamentalism comes from Saudi Arabia and stays with the cynical encouragement of the powers that be." 

It would be one thing if the religious texts in question were copies of the Qur'an and hadith and jurisprudence, but too often they are mere propaganda: texts that claim shaving one's beard is a worse crime than adultery, for instance; because adultery is a momentary offense, but habitual shaving accrues bad deeds for as long as you do it, potentially years and years. I have seen Wahhabi books devoted entirely to the supreme virtue of fear. Sadly, the moderate resistance--which does exist--to this plague of illogic is more or less limited to the rather spiritually cosmetic theses of televangelists like Amr Khaled. While I am glad figures like Khaled exist, I find myself wishing for more genuinely passionate and thoughtful centrist leaders, who bear a bit less commercial resemblance to Dr. Phil. 

But all is not lost; far from it. Recently a new Real Bookstore has opened up in Cairo, and this is cause for celebration, especially because it seems to be turning a reasonable profit. Al Kotob Khan (which means 'Book Bazaar') stocks titles in Arabic, English and French, and does not flinch from either the weighty or the controversial: I saw Professor Saad Gamal's masterful Arabic translation of Orientalism, a bunch of Hanif Kureishi's novels, and miracle of miracles, a considerable body of history texts and works of political analysis by Jewish scholars. What almost brought me to tears, however, was a copy of Neil Gaiman's novel American Gods. In a region where fantasy is deeply disliked and even feared as a genre--people here tend to have a complicated relationship with the unseen, and prefer not to see it embellished and celebrated--it was like a little ray of light. My husband and I spent a couple of blissful hours at Al Kotob Khan a few weeks ago, and I couldn't help thinking about how ordinary such a place would seem in the States, where there is a Barnes and Noble every twenty blocks. Let this be a lesson to everyone who takes books and the people who sell them for granted: they are precious, and in many parts of the world, rarer than they should be.