January 29, 2008
· Filed under Islam, gender issues
Salaam to all!
I haven’t written in a while because of school and also because I seem to be suffering from writer’s block. I think the writer’s block seems to be related to school. However, I did want to share this article with you all because I think it shows the agency of Muslim women and counters the stereotype that Muslim women have no voice and no agency. This short article in the NY Times discusses the protest held by Afghan women for an Aid worker who was kidnapped. The aid worker worked in an Afghan village for six years and was kidnapped along with her driver. Kudos to the women for standing up and speaking for what is right. Kudos to the Times as well for presenting a positive article on Muslim women.
January 17, 2008
· Filed under Islam, gender issues, race
I’m taking a course this semester on the Black Family. So far, I find it very interesting. One of the characteristics that the Black Family has been criticized for by some Sociologists, Policy makers, etc. is for not being patriarchal. It has been called matriarchal by some but in fact, the Black Family, in general is matrifocal. This means, that generally, women play a central role in black families but they don’t actually control families. In patriarchies, control of the family comes from men and in matriarchies, control comes from women.
Considering that the Black family has often been, I think unfairly, criticized for not having the same norms as white middle class families, I began to wonder if some black male convert to Islam, partly and subconsciously, to create but not necessarily imitate, the patriarchal norm of white middle class families. I use the white middle class family because historically, the white middle class family has been considered “mainstream” and the “norm” in the study of the family. Before I go further, I want to say that not all white families are patriarchal. I am speaking in normative terms in this post.
Among black Sunnis, I think this is also true since the Sunnah and immigrant Muslims all advocate the patriarchal family as the true Islamic family. Men are “the protectors and maintainers” of the family. I think this ideal might be particularly appealing to black men who have been criticized for not living up to the ideal of men as protectors of the family and the head of households. Islam, as it has been presented to them, gives them the ideological framework to move away from the matrifocal family model and into the patriarchal family model that is prevalent among other Muslim communities and among American society.
If this is true, then I also wonder how black men, especially those from a low socioeconomic background, are able to adjust. Some seem to adjust well but there are others who seem not to be able to adjust at all. I am referring to men who want to be the head of the household but may have behaviors that do not allow this to occur. For instance, praying all day in the masjid, going on jamaat while not leaving adequete resources to take care of his family, insisting that his wife not work outside the home despite not having enough income to take care of the basic needs of his family (food, clothing, bills, etc.). These men may want the patriarchal norm of the man as the maintainer of the family and the decision maker of the family with the wife staying at home. Yet, they cannot achieve this ideal. Does the patriarchal family model actually help this situation or make it worse? I honestly don’t know the answer to this question. This isn’t my area of expertise and I don’t want to give an uninformed answer. It primarily a question that is now floating around in my head. I’m curious about the thoughts of others on this issue.
January 15, 2008
· Filed under Islam, gender issues
Before I begin, I want to apologize for being lax on the entries lately. The spring semester has started and things are getting busy again. I may not write as frequently but I promise to write when the time allows.
My husband forwarded me an e-mail about Indian tennis star Sania Mirza which critiqued recent comments made by Zakir Naik: “Everyone has different levels of modesty. There were tennis players who wore long skirts and performed just as well. But personally, I support Sania Mirza as she prays five times a day, so the skirts she wears can be ignored.” The e-mail basically said that Naik was wrong for making these statements since the Qur’an commands Muslim women to wear hijab. It also said that since Mirza is a celebrity, she is by default, a role model for South Asian Muslim girls and thus, they may think it’s ok not to wear hijab. I googled her name and found that the e-mail was just one of many critiques written, usually by men, of Mirza’s attire. I was actually surprised to see all articles on Mirza’s attire considering that there are Indian Muslimah celebrities, such as Bollywood stars, who don’t wear hijab and wear revealing clothing as well.
The point of this is post is not to debate whether hijab is mandated or not. My personal decision is to wear hijab. The reason why I put emphasis on personal decision is because at the end of the day, hijab, has to be a personal decision. Muslim women need to be given their autonomy and this cannot be done if we insist on policing their morality, clothing, and more. Mirza’s decision to not wear hijab is her decision and ultimately, we cannot force her to do it. In addition, each Muslim woman must decide to wear or not wear hijab of her own accord. When hijab becomes cultural and when women wear it simply to appease their families and their societies, hijab, in reality it becomes quite superficial and meaningless. Is this what we want from Muslim women? It should be done out of conviction and the desire to please God.
Another issue I have with the campaign to pressure women into hijab is that it places a woman’s morality and faith on her clothes. I find it frustrating when non-hijabis are considered to have a lesser faith than hijabis. Why is a woman’s iman reduced to this one piece of cloth? I know that some of you are thinking that the same exists for Muslim men in regards to beards, etc. I won’t deny that some Muslims will think less of a man who doesn’t have a beard. However, I do not think that the stigma of a beardless man is not nearly as strong as the stigma of a hijabless women among the ummah. This stigma isn’t just created by some men but by some women who view non-hijabis with disdain and who have little respect for them. Is our concern with hijab based partly on the fact that hijab is one of the most visible symbols of Islam? If a Muslim woman does not wear hijab, does this threaten the visibility of Islam? I think that for some Muslims, this is where the real concern with hijab lies. For most societies, the “reputation” and honor of a society lies with women. For some Muslims, women not wearing hijab is ultimately a stain on the honor of the ummah.
I don’t think this is true of all people who wear hijab or advocate wearing hijab nor am I necessarily condemning people who may talk to non-hijabis about hijab. What I am proposing is that we critically evaluate our attitude to women who wear hijab and women who don’t. Why are some of so concerned even obsessed with whether or not a woman wears hijab? Is our concern for our sisters really masking other issues and insecurities? Think about this the next time you want to chastise a sister for not wearing hijab.
January 9, 2008
· Filed under Islam, extremism
What is “Islamic Fundamentalism”? Is it only violence committed by terrorists or is it something more? I found an entry on the blog Jidal Society which proposes that Islamic fundamentalism is more than terrorism or the Taliban. These are easy to paint as fundamentalist or extreme. The author argues that true fundamentalism is an exclusivist attitude.
Therefore, fundamentalism is an exclusivist attitude. It revels in not only being right but being the only right. Because of this, it needs an ‘other’ on which it focuses feelings of negativity and this other is not usually not an ethical other but rather a nominal other. Islamic Fundamentalism cares not that the West has values that are very similar to the Quran but focuses on the nominal existence of something other than itself, that is The West as a separate existence.
I think this is interesting. I have to admit that for a long time, I was extremely reluctant to use the term “Islamic Fundamentalist” because so many ordinary things that Muslims do are considered “fundamentalist”. For example, a book I saw in a bookstore spoke of the threat of Islamic extremism and had a picture of Muslims in sajdah on the cover, as if to imply that making salat is extreme. However, I have to realize that there are fundamentalists among Muslims just as there are fundamentalists about Christians, Jews, Hindus, and every group of people. The one thing they all have in common is their need to be the only way, the “only right”, even in their own group. Most of the time, they aren’t terrorists at all and they’re easily recognizable. The brother and sister who insist on only reading scholars from a certain minhaj; the brother who insists that every non-Muslim is a kafir that should be avoided, despite living in a non-Muslim country and benefiting from it; the sister who doesn’t want her children to associate with ‘kafir’ children-they’re all fundamentalists. They’re not setting off bombs, they may not even call for jihad but they’re fundamentalists none the less and they need to be dealt with. Read the rest of the article here.
January 6, 2008
· Filed under Islam, gender issues, race, social issues
The followers of Imam W. Deen Mohammed have, in recent years, begun to observe Saviors Day. This event is actually a relic from the Nation of Islam. If you don’t know, many of the people in this group are from the Nation of Islam but converted to orthodox Sunni Islam when Elijah Muhammad’s son took over leadership of the NOI back in 1975. The NOI was dropped and the Imam’s Mohammed’s followers were suppose to be on a path to join the rest of the ummah while also being aware of their identity as African Americans. Things haven’t gone quite that smoothly and some followers have begun to embrace some of the ideology and norms that they had pre-1975. Saviors Day is one of these norms. It was celebrated by the old NOI and is celebrated by the new NOI (that’s the org. started by Farrakhan) and commemorates the birth day of Fard Muhammad, the founder of the NOI. Saviors Day has proved problematic for me for two reasons: race and gender. For the past two years, Saviors Day has been exclusive of non-Blacks. The reason given was that sensitive issues for blacks were being discussed. I think this is really bogus and something that Muslims definitely shouldn’t be doing.
As if to top that, at least part of this Saviors Day’s activities is exclusive to men. That’s right. It’s for the boys only. The ad in January 11, 2008 issue of Muslim Journal states that the Imam will “address all Males on Muscle and Manhood” and then later on he will make what I assume to be a general address on “The Original Man in the Earth and in Genealogy (People)”. For all the self empowerment and “racial pride” that the NOI promoted, there is no doubt that it was extremely patriarchal, allowing men to be the voice and face of the organization while forcing women into supporting roles of wives, mothers, and for some teachers. This event will only serve to take Imam Mohamed’s community backward not forward in terms of gender relations. This event reinforces the patriarchy of the NOI. This is unfair to all the women who are part of both of the NOI and the Imam Mohammed’s community. They are truly the backbone of these communities. Events like this, however, only serve to downplay or ignore their contribution to the community. They send a message that ultimately the success of men is the success of the community. This attitude is slightly understandable, given the recent emphasis in the media and by various pundits on the the “troubles” of black men. In some ways, I think this concern plays into the patriarchal ideals of the family and society held by Western society. Black people have been criticized for not living up to these ideals by sociologists and politicians such as Patrick Daniel Moynihan. However, their ideas have been criticized by black feminists such as Patricia Hill Collins because they are both racist and patriarchal.
Additionally, gender segregated events like this, seem to ignore the early ideal of gender inclusion and equality that the Qur’an and early Islam proposed. Muslim women were vital to the success of the early ummah. They called for equality, and in the process Allah recognized their equality, and they also preserved the intellectual tradition of Islam by preserving both the Qur’an and the Sunnah. For too long, Muslims have ignored the contributions of Muslim women to the ummah. By having events like this, Muslims who are in association with Imam Mohamed are simply furthering this trend. This is rather troubling because many Muslims who are associated with Imam Mohamed often like to think that they are better in regards to gender relations than immigrant Muslims and black Muslims who do not associate with Imam Mohamed. However, they do not challenge sexist gender norms much either and as stated earlier, assume that white, middle class, patriarchal norms are valid. Gender inclusive is an issue that needs to be looked at by all segments of the ummah and no one should think that their community does not need work in this area.
January 3, 2008
· Filed under current events, politics
As I was inattentively watching TV, breaking news came in that Huckabee won the Iowa caucus. I was a little upset because I really don’t like the guy but I wasn’t horribly upset. My mother called me about 10 mins later to tell me that Obama was expected to win the Democratic caucus. I was a little happy but not really. Don’t get me wrong. I would be lying if I didn’t say that I wasn’t happy that a black person, in fact any person of color, is actually vying as a serious contender for a presidential nod and actually winning a caucus. Still, I wasn’t all that enthusiastic.
Basically, as the years have gone by, I have become much more cynical of politics and much less enthusiastic about politics. I wasn’t always this way. I actually use to love politics. As a bright eyed 16 year old, I went to the 2000 Republican Convention. It was held in my home town that year. I was so excited. Even though I didn’t like Bush then (I despise him now), I was so happy to go with my friends. I got to see Bush accept the Republican nod officially in person. Nothing of substance was really said that evening and it felt like one big party instead of something serious and newsworthy but I was still excited about politics. That year I kept up with the campaign like a hawk. I even brought a beanie baby democratic donkey named “Lefty”. I couldn’t vote but I sure did let me people who I supported (Gore) by wearing a sheet pinned on my shirt saying “Stay out the Bushes!” As I graduated high school, I planned on majoring in Poli Sci initially and I took a few Poli Sci courses.
I’m not quite sure when exactly I became fed up with politics but now, I would puke if I ever went to any party convention. I don’t know where Lefty is anymore. I think he’s with the rest of my stuffed animals in my umm’s house but I’m not 100% sure. I look at the candidates and I seriously do not want to vote for any of them, not even Hillary or Barrack. As I took my poli sci courses and as I became less naive about politics, I came to the horrible conclusion that politicians actually didn’t have my interests on the top of their list of most pressing concerns. I use to be gung ho for the Democratic Party but let’s face it. The party really does take black people for granted, it’s policies in recent years have been less than caring for blacks and for poor people and I don’t think they’re great in the foreign policy department either. I think the party is even a bit sketchy on issues pertaining to women. This is sad because the Republicans are so much worse. I’m one of the millions of undecided voters out there because I literally have no clue who I’ll vote for. The only reason I’ll vote this election is honor the memory of those who fought for all Americans to have the right to do so. Sad.
