veiled4allah

freedom and responsibility

Now things are really getting out of control: Mohamed cartoons provoke bomb threats against Danish newspaper. No, no, and no again. But at the same time, I can only agree with this:

I'm finding it difficult to find a way of defending the Danish newspaper which decided that the way to demonstrate against censorship is to roll out stereotypes about stupid Arabs with swords, suicide bombers seeking virgins and jokes about how Muslims would stick out in an ID parade, whilst at the same time deliberately trying to provoke people by printing an image of Muhammad. While free speech is essential to democracy, I despair when this is held up to be an example of that exercise. Without knowing the context that the images were printed, and without translation of some of the Danish writing, the exact intentions - whether good or bad - are doomed to remain obscure outside of Scandinavia. But I have to wonder what the reaction would have been here if, to provoke "debate" about censorship, a newspaper like the Sun published a series of "satirical" cartoons featuring a series of stereotypes regarding black people and Jews in a particularly vicious manner. The Sun would be accused of having the morals of the 1930s, and would be put on the same ideological shelf with Mr Griffin.

This is a lot bigger than just the cartoons, it's about Muslims feeling under siege, that things that would be considered beyond the pale if they were about another religion or another ethnic group are OK as long as they're about Muslims. It's about all the other perceived double standards, like the U.S. claiming the right to use nukes even pre-emptively but not allowing Iran to develop even a peaceful nuclear power program. I'm a very strong defender of free speech, but we would get a lot further in solving our problems if instead of trumpeting our right to insult and deride others in the name of that free speech, we spent more time trying to build bridges of understanding and to work for justice. Why not challenge ourselves to use our freedom for good? No one can force another to be good, and that's why the freedom is there, but as moral people, don't we each owe it to our own conscience to aim for the best and to use our freedom in a responsible manner? Update: Steve Gilliard has a couple of very good posts about this. First:

The Europeans are full of shit here. Those cartoons are deeply offensive and are no better than if the WaPo or Boston Globe had a cartoon of Al Sharpton being lynched. Freedom of the Press is fine, but depicting Muhammad as a drunk with women is asking for a major reaction... ...Europeans have made it clear that Muslims are outsiders. Then, in the crudest way possible, they insult their faith and wonder why muslims refuse to buy their products, withdraw their ambassadors and make bomb threats. Hint: this is a direct assault on their faith. Muhammad didn't tell anyone to bomb anything. It is lazy, cheap thinking to say that and then hide behind press freedom when people are pissed beyond words.

Then:

While the cartoonists have the right to say what they want, and no one should bow to terrorism, the problem with the cartoons was that they were genuinely offensive, bigoted, actually. Many suggested that Muhammad was a terrorist or approved of terrorism. It's easy for people in the West to assume Muslims are not rational people, who get upset at the slightest mention. But this isn't that case. These cartoonists went out of their way to find the most offensive way to depict Muhammad and then sat back, stunned that people didn't like their uninformed takes on Islam. It's really a slap in the face to law-abiding, hard working muslims and says "this is what they really think about you". What truly offends me is the way people are saying "well, they have the right to say it". We have the right to say many things, but why avoid the responsibility for your words.

I am very saddened to follow this story, because of the rhetoric on both sides. Certain Muslims who are over-reacting (though it's a very small number compared to how many Muslims there are in Denmark and other European countries, and a small percentage of the population in Muslim countries who are protesting). And also some of the Islamophobic comments being made by Americans (just check out the comments on Gilliard's first post, see some responses to similar comments at Daily Kos: 1, 2). Meanwhile, Thabet has a round-up of Muslim posts on the issue, and here's another rare sensible blog entry to highlight because there are so few. Later: Paul Vallely has a reasonably decent overview of how Muslims approach the issue. One thing that seems to be getting lost in all the shouting is that this is not just about the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) being depicted - but that the depictions are racist stereotypes. I see so many liberals boasting about their "right to blaspheme" and how "brave" they are because they want to re-publish the cartoons. What they don't seem to realize is that to most Muslims, this is like boasting about how "brave" you are to publish anti-semitic cartoons. I'm pretty darn sure that nearly everbody who's doing the boasting would change their tune in a big hurry if that were the case. Is it open season on Muslims now? That's what we have to wonder. We need to do a lot better job of making our case, but Western liberals might actually want to look at the cartoons, imagine if there were similarly stereotypical and offensive images of Jews or blacks or another minority group, and decide whether they would be in such a big hurry to promote these cartoons. More (frequently updated): Akram's Razor and scorponic provide useful background on the political and social situation in Denmark. Necessary context for understanding where the cartoons came from. Chapati Mystery, meanwhile, looks at the history of portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad in European history and culture. This fits right in, but not in a good way. Good commentary from Thabet, Osama Saeed, Umm Yasmin, As'ad, Umm Zaid, Umar, Haroon, Saracen.nu, Indigo Jo, Yunus and Bloggerheads. Also, thank you, Bill Clinton. Ben P again looks at the larger context in Denmark and Europe. When you read to the end, onanyes gets it. Also excellent are Jamie and Helena Cobban. Steve Gilliard comes back again with a reminder about what European colonialism did to Muslim countries and the kind of treatment Muslims in Europe have faced. Along similar lines, Vespertine reminds us that this has happened in the wake of Abu Ghuraib, and I could add Guantanamo and CIA black sites in Europe, all of which places Muslims have been tortured and religiously humiliated as a matter of American policy. Brad Spangler mentions the West's "bloodthirsty imperialism" in making war on Iraq. This didn't happen in a vacuum, folks. Other good thoughts from SulaymanF, quaoar, Andrew Bartlett, lenin, Atrios, Juan Cole, and Natasha. In a somewhat different take, Curious Hamster suggests that we not play into the hands of extremists with this. Juan Cole fact-checks where the violent protests are actually occurring, and BBC reporter John Simpson how widespread they actually are. The British newspaper the Guardian discovers that that Danish newspaper refused to publish cartoons lampooning Jesus because they feared it would cause offense. Double standards, anyone? For those Muslims who need to see it, Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz prints columns (1, 2) criticizing the cartoons because of the long history of anti-Semitic cartoons (so let's get those out of publications in the Muslim world, mm'kay?). Muslim views by Tariq Ramadan, Aziz Poonawalla (1, 2), and Qadeeb al-Ban (1, 2). And some non-Muslim views from remove office, qrswave, Suzanne Nossel, and Sisphyus Shrugged. I am also collecting some commentary from the mainstream media here. Given its recent actions, I suppose the Iranian government couldn't help but bring the Holocaust in. Raiyan condemns. Also see posts from Tristero, Karie B in Denmark, and Beowulf, plus more from Umm Zaid, Qadeeb al-Ban, Haroon, and Svend. CAIR condemns the Iranian holocaust cartoon contest. Originally, the Danish newspaper at the heart of the controversy was going to publish these cartoons but later backed down. This must prove somebody's point about something. Most of the protests are peaceful but radical groups are infiltrating to cause violence. Meanwhile, European journalists are thinking again. Contributions to the debate of note are lenin, Marc Lynch who links to some Arabic-language condemnations of violence, Amir Hussain, and Rahul Mahajan. Either the story is starting to die down now, or other things are occupying people's attention. Less commentary, but the quality of these three is very high. Muslims Anas Altikriti and Zaid Shakir, both community leaders, explain why Muslims are upset while urging non-violent response. Steve Gilliard talks about being an outsider, as Muslims are in Europe. And, saving best for last, Arthur Silber compares it to the earlier incident of Quran descration at Guantanamo, and peoples' responses to that. He then has some truly excellent commentary about propaganda and how this controversy serves the interest of war proponents. A must read. Digby does an excellent follow up to Silber's post. Dervish reports on a conference in Qatar attended by some leading Islamic scholars in the West and what they said about the cartoons. And interesting contributions from Helena Cobban and Abdullah Al Rahim at Tabsir. In an unfortunate development, Muslim graves vandalized in Denmark. Jeffrey Feldman has an excellent discussion of this. Elsewhere, thousands of Muslims marched peacefully in London against Islamophobia (blogger report, news report). Thoughtful contributions from scholar of Islam John L. Eposito and British Muslim Fareena Alam. Helena Cobban shares the view from France. Arthur Silber looks at the extreme reactions of right-wingers. Some pretty disturbing stuff there. Although this issue has mostly disappeared, Lawrence of Cyberia posts an excellent discussion of hate speech. Best response yet: Ahmad Humeid uses examples from the Prophet Muhammad's own life to illustrate how Muslims should actually respond to insults and attacks. Along similar lines is Hesham Hassaballa's What Would Muhammad Do?. CAIR has an op-ed under the same title: What Would Muhammad Do?. And the same advice is given in British imam warns against overreaction. Sincere Muslims can take heed. Elsewhere, the Organization of Islamic Conference, an international body of Muslim countries, condemns violence. Florida Muslims condemn violence. Religious groups decry reaction to caricatures. U.S. Muslims Reject Violent Response to Cartoon Controversy. Muslims are reaching out to fellow Canadians in hopes of erasing images of cartoon violence. FROM OUR READERS: Muslim protests overreact to cartoons of Muhammad. U.S. Muslims react to furor with deft diplomacy: Muslim-Americans condemn cartoons - and violence that's come with them. LETTERS: Rejecting violence, debating free speech. CAIR Responds to Cartoon Flap with Educational Campaign. Assimilation, tolerance mark U.S. Muslims' reaction to cartoons. U.S. Muslims Try to Ease Europe's Discord. U.S. Muslims put cartoon dispute in perspective. Muslim Group Launches Education Campaign. Muslims Launch Campaign to Educate About Prophet Muhammad. Islamic education campaign demystifies faith. Sacramento Muslims join educational effort. S.C. Muslims to teach about prophet. Detroit Muslims plan drive to teach others about Islam. Cartoon furor is chance to teach. Muslims Launch Teaching Effort to Counter Furor Over Cartoons. Making the episode a 'teachable moment'. Islamic education campaign to counter cartoon criticism. Philadelphia Muslims seek to counter backlash. Muslim group sets education effort. Delaware County Muslims address controversy. Muslims to teach others about Muhammad. Event will discuss life of Muhammad. U.S. Muslim Group Launches Education Effort on Islam's Prophet. Islamic group tackles cartoon controversy. Davis Muslims react by reaching out. Islamic Group Promotes Mutual Understanding. Muslim groups launch project about the life of Muhammad. Muslims distance selves from rioting: Violence Condemned In Open Forum. Forum: Islam Is Not About Violence. A Muslim call for peace and solidarity. Islamic Center reaches out with welcome mat. Faiths unite to counter 'clash of the uncivilized'. Philly Muslims react to the Muhammad cartoon controversy. Fatwa by group of prominent Muslim scholars condeming violence and aggression. OIC denounces cartoons violence. Seattle area Muslims seek to educate others about Muhammad. Open house at Tempe mosque. CAIR Responds to Muslim Cartoon Controversy. Forum examines outrage about Muhammad cartoons. Ohio Muslims balance respect, their beliefs in cartoon debate. Mosque opens its doors to neighbors. Islamic education effort starts. Open house to provide understanding of Islam, the Prophet. Egyptian students find peaceful way to protest Muhammad cartoons. Muslim activist speaks on Muhammad's life. Bay area residents should consider Islam education events. Fremont Muslims hosting events to educate public about Islam. Cartoons spark local educational effort. Missouri center announces open house to discuss beliefs of Islam. A campaign to promote understanding. In cartoon debate, a chance to educate.

the politics of the veil

One of the things that's the most frustrating to me as a Muslim woman who chooses to veil is the monolithic image many people in the West have of veiling, assuming that it must be a bad thing and that it must be something a woman is forced by a man to do rather than being something she chooses. Many feminists deplore the way that women's sexuality is used to sell things and the societal expectations that women have to be thin and beautiful to succeed. Yet when a woman chooses not to display her sexuality or to take part in the beauty game, somehow this is seen as bizarre. Women's studies professor Amira Jarmakani has been looking into the issue. Some highlights:

As part of her research, Jarmakani collected images of Arab womanhood in the United States, which fell into three basic categories: the veil, the harem and the belly dancer.

Talk about a stereotypical and one-dimensional portrayal!

Although American readings of such images assume the veil as an unwanted restriction on the woman, this is not necessarily the case. "The practice seems to be about the forced enclosure and restriction of women, rather than about sacred privacy and sanctity," Jarmakani said. "Furthermore, the interpretation of the veil as an absolute boundary for women and as a barrier for the colonial or imperial gaze ignores its function in many Muslim societies as a garment that enables, rather than restricts women from movement between and among a variety of public institutions and contexts." Jarmakani criticized the "simplistic equation of being uncovered, unveiled or revealed with being modern or emancipated," which demands that Arab women expose themselves to Western eyes.

If you want to really learn a lot about this issue, I recommend Veil: Modesty, Privacy, and Resistance, which is one of the best books I've read on the subject. I reviewed it briefly earlier focusing on a small aspect of the book, which is the veiling of men.

The veil also serves an important purpose in the context of militarism by "demonstrat[ing] the supposed inferiority of the Arab male's excessive patriarchy, and function[ing] as justification for U.S. military action." "During both the 1991 Gulf War and the 2001 military action against Afghanistan, mainstream U.S. feminist organizations ... demonstrated seemingly unknowing collusion with the hegemonic project of U.S. imperialism," Jarmakani said. "The National Organization for Women acted in cooperation with the military ... by demanding that Arab women in the region align themselves against their 'overly oppressive' male relatives in the midst of a crushingly aggressive U.S. offensive. Similarly, the Feminist Majority rallied around the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan ... in the interest of advancing its long-waged cause of liberating Afghan women from the brutal oppression of the Taliban." Jarmakani suggested an alternate form of action that such organizations could have taken. "In formulating a feminist antiwar agenda, NOW might have more effectively attacked the U.S. military for posing as liberators of Arab women and for their treatment of U.S. military women," Jarmakani said. "Likewise, the Feminist Majority might have more effectively worked toward the liberation of women in Afghanistan by developing a critical consciousness about the U.S. goal in over 25 years of devastating conflicts throughout the region which utilized Afghanistan as a literal battleground for its own power struggles."

Here we get to the most radical part of the critique, which is Jarmakani's real point. The views that we have about Islam and about Muslim countries because of the issue of veiling may lead us to go along with policies that we would not otherwise support. And in general, when we treat Muslims as Other and don't make any attempt to understand how they view the world or to look at whether there may be rational reasons for Muslim practices and customs, then we miss an opportunity to work for peace and greater understanding. I really wish that more people would really take the time to think about these issues.

Seahawks in Super Bowl

I'm not much of a football fan, but how can I resist when our local team is in the Super Bowl for the first time in its history? Go Hawks!

their terrorism, and ours

So:

The deputy leader of al-Qaeda was not in a Pakistani village near the Afghan border which was hit in an apparent missile attack, Pakistan officials say... ...The unnamed officials said the attack - in which at least 18 people were killed - was based on "false information"... ...Reporters who reached Damadola spoke of three houses hundreds of metres apart that had been destroyed. Shah Zaman said he lost two of his sons and a daughter. "I ran out and saw planes. I ran toward a nearby mountain with my wife. When we were running we heard three more explosions. I saw my home being hit. Shah Zaman said two sons and a daughter were killed in the strike "I don't know who carried out this attack and why. We were needlessly attacked. We are law-abiding people."

(via) What does this make us? Lenin of Lenin's Tomb:

[The crime] is that the US assumed the right to drop a bomb in a civilian area on the assumption that someone they want is there, regardless of how many are murdered in the process. And further, they must stand upon this right because they calculate that if he is not there, such an attack would certainly terrify anyone thinking of supporting or 'harbouring' the enemy. Were Iran to launch such an attack on a neighbouring state, one would hear 'bloody murder' hallooed from every cathode tube.

Daniel Martin Varisco of Tabsir:

But where is the intelligence in this intelligence? The occasion that was said to bring both of these high-level figures together was celebration of the Muslim eid. The idea was to kill the men, and whoever else happened to be present for the feast, while they were engaged in a religious ritual. In this sense the tactic is the same as a suicide bomber who walks into a crowded mosque and sets off a bomb or someone who assassinates a cleric because he is a cleric. Pakistanis in the region are understandably upset that their own government cannot protect them and U.S. special forces can operate seemingly at will even on one of the holiest days of the year. The problem with the way the current administration is waging this war on terrorism is that it has at times, like this case, adopted the tactics of the terrorists. In this attack it was the end that justified the means (meaning collateral damage to human beings), even if it turns out (as it usually does) that the intended target was missed. The logic here is that of Saddam Hussein rather than Thomas Jefferson. Terrorists in this region operate out of a combination of hate and passion, both of which are heightened in the overall community every time we carry out such attacks on civilian targets. How many recruits for hating America did we just create, and not just along the Pakistani border?

Between them, those two pretty much say it all.

Eid mubarak!

Tomorrow or Wednesday is Eid al-Adha. May you all have a joyous and blessed Eid and may your prayers and deeds be pleasing to Allah.

sisters are doing it for themselves

Asharq al-Awsat reports on Egypt's first hijabi Cabinet minister:

Egypt's cabinet reshuffle brought in only a handful new faces, but for the first time in the history of the country, they included a veiled woman. Aisha Abdul Hadi was appointed labour and immigration minister in the government of Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif that was sworn in on Saturday... ...Abdul Hadi, a member of the ruling National Democratic Party, is a veteran trade unionist who began her career in 1959 as a representative for workers in state-owned pharmaceutical company. She rose through the ranks, becoming vice chairperson of the Egyptian Trade Union Federation, a position she held until her appointment to the cabinet.

Wearing a scarf on your head doesn't mean you have to give up your career or your activism

more quick links

The Last Mistake - Steve Gilliard sets out why American Muslims are not a fifth column. A follow-up, Why did Bush do it? is also excellent. The Top Ten Good News Stories of 2005 - Some positive news from the Muslim world you may not have seen Finding Wisdom in a Christina Aguilera Song - Hesham Hassaballa encourages Muslims to keep hope in difficult times