GSU vs. Hijab: the (Mis)Education of Slma Shelbayah July 6, 2009
Posted by Yusra in Uncategorized.Tags: Dona Stewart, Georgia State University, hijab, Islamophobia, Mary Stuckey
add a comment
The state of Georgia, which just last year infamously jailed a woman for wearing a hijab in a courtroom, proves it cannot tolerate Muslim women once again; this time Georgia State University is discriminating against a former student and visiting instructor.
The start of the bullying began when Dr. Mary Stuckey, a senior faculty member in the communications department asked Slma Shelbayah, a GSU alum and former Arabic instructor, if she was carrying any bombs under her headscarf. This account breaks down the chain of events well, as described by Shelbayah and Dr. Dona Stewart, the head of GSU’s Middle East Institute.
Shelbayah was harassed with this question repeatedly before she filed a formal complaint with the Dean of College of Arts and Sciences, with the help of Dr. Stewart, the director of the Middle East Institute. Dr. Stewart claims she suffered immediate mistreatment that “impaired her ability to fulfill federal grant commitments and harmed her career.” That and the racist remarks against Shelbayah prompted her to resign, after investing 13 years at GSU.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution briefly covers the story here, running a summary of the complaint filed by Ms. Shelbayah and Dr. Stewart, along with a standard university spokesperson quote.
In this AP story Dr. Stewart describes Dr. Stuckey’s insults this way:
“What started as a series of unbelievable comments in public over a period of eight days back in August — basically calling her a terrorist — developed into attempts to remove her.”
I understand no one has been convicted, but I believe this story misses the point: regardless of who is at fault, the university did not respond to Shelbayah’s complaint with the attention it deserves in a post 9/11 Islamophobic America. Instead, as stated in the plaintiffs’ press release, the university retaliated when Dr. Stewart refused to participate in its anti-Muslim game:
“The dean’s office demanded that Dr. Stewart remove Ms. Shelbayah from her visiting instructor position, cancelled Ms. Shelbayah’s registration for her doctoral courses, and declared Ms. Shelbayah ineligible to lead a study abroad program to Egypt previously approved by the president of the university. Dr. Stewart refused to meet the dean’s demands, believing they violated Ms. Shelbayah’s constitutional rights and lacked due process. Dr. Stewart was subjected to numerous hostile comments and retaliatory actions.”
GSU’s discriminatory harassment policy defines discriminatory harassment as speech or conduct that:
- is addressed directly to the individual or individuals whom it insults or stigmatizes and,
- the speaker knows or reasonably should know would constitute “fighting words.” “Fighting words” are words, pictures, or other symbols that, by virtue of their form, are commonly understood to convey direct and visceral hatred or contempt for other human beings and would naturally tend to provoke acts of violence or imminent harm.
According to the EEOC, Dr. Stuckey insulted Shelbayah directly on more than one occasion by making references to her carrying bombs. There is no adult, let alone one educated in ideas of tolerance and diversity, who does not understand the weight of this insult.
It should be noted that Shelbayah’s initial response was to be passive. When the comments became unbearable, she took action. Even after she filed the complaint, she took the extra step to email to try to set things straight:
She wrote in a September 7 e-mail to the communications department chair, which was included in Stewart’s EEOC complaint, that “I want you to know that this incident has touched me personally on several levels, but in the end of it all, I feel that it has left me with more positive than negative! I feel that I’ve grown and developed through it all! I also want to say that Dr. Stuckey and I both feel that it has only brought us to a better understanding of each other and has also strengthened our relationship and connection with one another.”
Apparently Dr. Stuckey and university officials didn’t feel the same. According to the Inside Higher Ed article,
“A day later the associate dean of the College of Arts and Sciences informed Shelbayah that she could not remain a visiting instructor while also being a graduate student in the department of communications. Though she had been admitted into the Ph.D. program with the university’s full endorsement that she would also be a visiting instructor — and her previous office-mate had done both as well — she was told that unwritten policies disallowed such a practice, Shelbayah said.”
Universities should be the example of fair treatment for all people, regardless of sex, race or religion. Discrimination should never be tolerated, by its professors or its students. Universities should be the example of fair treatment for all people, regardless of sex, race or religion. The university must examine the way it deals with issues of race and religion especially since this is not the first lawsuit filed by a professor alleging discrimination. Georgia State University owes Ms. Shelbayah and Dr. Stewart an apology.
In the Inside Higher Ed article, Dr. Stewart reflects the wisdom and maturity that tenured professors should have:
“As professors, we are in powerful positions,” said Stewart, who has been tenured since 2002 and worked at Georgia State since 1996. “We have an obligation not to abuse power, and in this case the professor clearly did that. I am simply not willing to sit by and watch this happen, and I’m shocked that our institution is willing to do so.”
So are we.
If you’d like to express your concern over this situation, you can contact the President of Georgia State University, Mark Becker at (404) 413-1300 and the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Dr. Lauren Adamson (ladamson@gsu.edu).
WTF picture of the week. July 6, 2009
Posted by Fatemeh in Art/Theater.Tags: art, Orientalism, Princess Jasmine, sexism
2 comments
I saw this on Bitch magazine’s blog. Kjerstin Johnson posted a great takedown of Dina Goldstein’s “Fallen Princesses” series for JP Magazine, which basically uses Disney princesses and puts them in “modern day scenarios.”
Friday Links — July 3, 2009 July 3, 2009
Posted by Fatemeh in Links.Tags: Muslim women, News
2 comments
- Afghan Shi’as rallied for the passing of the women’s law in Kabul.
- A widow and several other men and women in Bangladesh were whipped according to a women and children repression prevention act.
- The BBC highlights two sisters who design couture abayas in Dubai. More here. Via Hijab Style.
- A Moroccan woman is Spain’s first Swine flu death. Via Islam in Europe.
- A statement from members of the women’s movement in Iran.
- Bahrain offers women no protection from marital rape.
- Muslim workers in the Philippine Department of Heath are allowed to wear headscarves. More here.
- More reactions on Sarkozy’s Burqa Saga: Islam Online, Feministing, Dawn, The National, The Independent, Al Qaeda, NPR, The Huffington Post, Mona El Tahawy, the Washington Post, and KABOBfest.
- Sumbul Ali-Karamali writes about the negative images of Muslim women brought on by recent media.
- Saudi women welcome Farah Pandith as the U.S. appointment to “Special Representative to Muslim Communities.”
- Bloomberg.com writes about Iranian women and business.
- After two schools ban headscarves in Antwerp, Belgium, Muslims protest.
- A group of Australian Muslim women are behind an animated film about Muslim women.
- AltMuslimah launches a photo campaign.
- Some top Western designers give the abaya a makeover.
- Latoya Peterson writes about how Iranian women have been portrayed in the media recently.
- A girl and three family members were murdered in Charsadda, Pakistan. May Allah give them peace and justice.
- A divorce reminiscent of the Home Alone movies.
- An Afghan woman’s shop defies local mores.
- A Norwegian imam plans to publish a book showing that female genital cutting is incompatible with Islam.
- The Indonesian presidential race is disappointing local women activists.
- What U.S. troop withdrawal may mean for Iraqi women.
- A CIA official has been charged with assault of an Algerian woman.
- The story of a design studio and a Muslim women’s association.
- Syria has removed a law that limits sentences on men convicted of honor killing.
- Another review of The Stoning of Soraya M.
- epiphanies introduces us to The Khadija Project.
- Nuseiba reviews Stolen.
- The dentist who refused service to patients who didn’t wear headscarves faces a ban.
- A woman was stabbed outside a courtroom in Germany. May Allah give her peace and justice.
- Guernica magazine interviews Fatima Bhutto.
- A Muslim women was harassed for her headscarf at Georgia State University. More here and here. We’ll have more next week.
- Islam Online profiles Mahinur Ozdemir, the first Belgian woman to wear a headscarf in parliament.
Muslim Women and Choice in Marriage July 2, 2009
Posted by Fatemeh in Events, Television.Tags: Doha Debates, marriage
5 comments
This is a slightly edited version of an article written by Sahar, which originally appeared at Nuseiba. You can also read Yusra’s take on the debates.
Recently, I saw the Doha Debates, which is a show that debates controversial political, social and religious issues. Journalist and mediator Tim Sebastian proposes a motion and the speakers on the panel discuss the topic at length. The audience then has an opportunity to respond to the panel. The latest motion proposed: “This house believes that Muslim women should be free to marry anyone they choose.”
There were four speakers on the panel. For the motion there was American Muslim feminist Asra Nomani, who has authored several books. Also for the motion, there was Dr. Muhammad Habash, a member of parliament and a cleric. Against the motion were Shaykh Yasir Qadhi and Dr. Thuraya Al Arrayed, a Saudi writer, columnist and member of the advisory board of the Arab Thought Foundation.
Nomani began the debate with an emotional tone, declaring that Muslim women face barriers and that “just about every Muslim woman” encounters these barriers and internalizes them, and that she does not have the right to choose when it comes to marriage. She then directly addresses Muslim women and reassures them that she doesn’t wish that they suffer forced or loveless marriages.
With the way Nomani is carrying on, you’d think she was convinced she was shaking the very sheltered world of Muslim women. Apparently, we’re not aware of our rights! In her self-aggrandizement, Nomani homogenizes Muslim women’s experiences and assumes that every Muslim woman has had the same experience as her. That yes, we are all doomed to the same fate.
True, there are Muslim women like Nomani who marry either through some sort of coercion or just to keep their family happy–I also agree with her point that these women will be the ones who share their bed with their husbands at the end. However, Nomani seems to think that these experiences are the experiences of the vast majority of Muslim women–where we are helpless beings who are victims of our community and our imposing families, who Nomani assumes don’t want the best for us. She thus undermines the importance of family within the context of Muslim marriage. I’m not saying women have to follow the decisions of their families, but many women and men will be thinking that family does matter in many of the decisions we make for ourselves, including marriage. In other words, choice comes with responsibility and it does at times mean we consider everything, not just ourselves.
Nomani’s entire argument is predicated on a particular construction of the Muslim woman which she deploys to legitimize her claim: she is just chattel, in shackles, and silenced by her subjugation. Nomani belittles the minds of Muslim women because she assumes they lack agency of their own and cannot comprehend their supposed suffering. In doing so, Nomani constructs herself as their savior, the enlightened one who recognizes their oppression– the liberal light at the end of this oppressive dark tunnel that is their unfortunate experience.
I found it interesting that Nomani’s extremely liberal position was juxtaposed with the other Muslim woman, who was opposed to the motion. Dr. Al Arrayed opposes the motion because she believes that anyone 27 and under bases their decisions on physical attraction and that they are not responsible enough to be making important decisions like this– so the role of the family is essential. Her simplistic position is mired by her lack of faith in young Muslim women and their responsible attitude to such issues like marriage—which a woman in the audience pointed out. However, I do agree with Dr. Al Arrayed’s overall point that family is important in these decisions and it is dangerous to deny this reality because it could lead to women being isolated.
What was interesting is the issue of children did not come up in the debate. For me, my decision to marry a Muslim man is affirmed when it comes to the faith of my children. I would not want my children to belong to any other faith but Islam. Keep in mind, this is not only an issue women who marry non-Muslims have to face but also men who do.
Supporting the motion, Dr. Habash begins his defense declaring there is no compulsion in religion and so we should extend this to marriage, too (I think he was a little confused with his position and often would agree with the opposing side). However, no compulsion in religion does not mean a Muslim shouldn’t abide by the laws of her religion—she has the choice not to, of course, but if she wishes to practice her religion, there are certain rules and practices that need to be followed as part of worship. Sure, a Muslim woman can marry who she wants, but the question here is, is there religious justification for this unlimited freedom? Dr. Habash refers to the hadith of when the Prophet was approached by a woman who told him of how she was forced to marry but later agreed with her father’s decision. The Prophet then told her he’ll absolve the marriage but she assured him she was now happy in her marriage but wanted to let women know that the father has no right to do such a thing which the Prophet agreed. Habash takes from this hadith the principle that women should be able to choose who she should marry, regardless of the faith of the person. However, as Shaykh Qadhi points out, we cannot be selective with our religion because Habash is ignoring what Islam has to say about a woman marrying a non-Muslim.
As I listened to Nomani’s concern over the depressing fate of Muslim women, I thought, why isn’t she mentioning the importance of recognizing cultural ideas and customs that have infiltrated how we conceptualise and perceive Islam? Her analysis was simple: Muslim women are downtrodden; there was no attempt to contextualise and understand this further. To compensate for Nomani’s reductive observation, Shaykh Qadhi and Dr. Al Arrayed point out that yes, there are women who are oppressed in our communities in the name of religion, but Islam is not responsible for any oppression that occurs, rather it is cultural and tribal prejudice which justify oppressive practices. These practices are the antithesis to Islam’s principles of equality and justice which are protected in its law. Importantly, Shaykh Qadhi explains how this is not a problem of the uneducated In our community but those who have committed themselves to the study of religion, who may consciously or unconsciously introduce their own cultural prejudice that affects how they view Islam. This was imperative to the debate I thought because of the dichotomy that Nomani was desperately trying to establish.
Nomani posited herself as the liberal defender of Muslim women against the oppressive religious leadership that Shaykh Qadhi—with his long beard (as opposed to the more subtle beard of Habash) represented. When Shaykh Qadhi objected to her removal of any boundaries and warned that limitations are a part of our religion, she would turn to the audience and say “that is their interpretation” in her attempt to marginalize him. In fact, she was well prepared for this response and early on in the debate warned of the theological arguments that she claimed lay the barriers for women.
Shaykh Qadhi undermined this false dichotomy in pointing out that there are elements of the religious establishment who are tainted by cultural understandings and that we should resist this. However, Nomani wasn’t interested in hearing a shaykh criticize women’s oppression in our community— that was simply not the role Nomani had decided for him.
In the end, the motion was passed (62%). I was actually surprised, but Shaykh Qadhi explains in his piece on the debate that it was likely to be because of the vagueness of the motion which stressed freedom to choose rather than Shariah ruling on the issue. But the fact that these kinds of discussions are taking place between Muslims (both men and women) is a step forward in providing a space to discuss issues that impact on the lives of Muslim women.
Sensationalist Film Exploits Important Human Rights Issue in Iran July 1, 2009
Posted by Fatemeh in Cinema.Tags: Iran, racism, stoning, The Stoning of Soraya M.
5 comments
This was written by Elise Auerbach and originally published on Human Rights Now, the Amnesty International USA blog.
Ordinarily, human rights activists would be pleased when the rare major motion picture shining a light on human rights violations comes along. In fact, aside from documentaries, it is very unusual to see issues that Amnesty International has worked on appear on film. However, sometimes a film can so distort an important human rights issue, that it may do more harm than good to the cause.
Sadly, this is the case with the new movie opening this Friday, The Stoning of Soraya M, the purportedly true story of the brutal execution by stoning of an innocent Iranian village woman. For one thing, the film is marked by crude story-telling: the main character Soraya is merely a mutely suffering victim while her brutish husband, who falsely accuses her of adultery so that he can marry a teen-aged girl, is a cardboard caricature of evil and malice. More importantly, aside from the numerous inaccuracies and implausibilities, the climax of the film—a bloody and prolonged stoning scene with villagers mercilessly pelting the victim—is so sensationalized that the audience response is likely to be disgust and revulsion at Iranians themselves, who are portrayed as primitive and blood-thirsty savages.
The film is presented as an indictment of Iranian society as a whole, and the setting—a remote rural village of about 25 years ago—is presented as typical of contemporary Iran. In the film, the victim’s aunt (who though she is supposed to be an ignorant village woman, inexplicably speaks excellent English and smokes cigarettes with 1940s femme fatale flourishes) is eager to have the French-Iranian journalist, who stops in the village shortly after the incident, smuggle a tape of her relating the story out of the village. She states that she wants the whole world to know what happened there, presumably so that those on the outside (the west?) can rescue the benighted Iranian people from their barbaric practices.
In fact, Iranians themselves—and in particular Iranian women’s rights activists– have organized and carried out a vigorous campaign against the practice of stoning and have themselves been actively documenting the practice. Opposition to the practice occurs at the highest level of the Iranian legal system; the Head of the Iranian Judiciary announced a moratorium on stoning back in 2002 and it was reiterated in August 2008. Sadly, at least three people have been executed by stoning since then. Interestingly, all three were men.
By criticizing the film, I am not dismissing the importance of the issue. Amnesty International issued a major report on stoning in January 2008, in which it is described how this form of execution is prescribed for adultery—although in practice, it is usually adultery in conjunction with some other crime, such as being an accessory to the murder of a husband. Furthermore stonings are carried out in prison yards by government agents, not by members of the community.
Crucially, we must look at stoning in the overall context of executions in Iran. Stonings represent a tiny fraction of executions in that country. Iran executes more people than any other country in the world except for China. In 2008 it executed at least 346, the overwhelming majority of whom were executed by hanging, sometimes for politically motivated offenses, and often after flawed legal proceedings. But again, Iranians don’t need people from outside Iran telling them what is good for them because Iranians themselves have taken the lead in opposing executions in their country. The renowned Iranian human rights activist Emadeddin Baghi was recently awarded the prestigious Martin Ennals award, partially for his anti-death penalty activism.
I would urge those who really want to see important social issues in Iran critically examined should check out some of the great films made in Iran such as A Time for Drunken Horses, which deals with poverty among Iran’s Kurdish minority, The Day I Became a Woman and As Simple As That, about the frustrations experienced by women in Iran, and Santoori, which deals with drug addiction.
An accurate and thoughtful film about executions in Iran would be welcome, but we will still have to wait as the Stoning of Soraya M is not it.
Smell of Success: a Review of Skunk Girl June 30, 2009
Posted by Melinda in Books/Magazines.Tags: book review, Pakistani-American, Sheba Karim, Skunk Girl, teenage, young adult fiction
6 comments
Skunk Girl is Sheba Karim’s first novel. It is told from the point of view of 16-year-old Nina Khan, self-described as “a Pakistani Muslim girl” and from a small white town in upstate New York. Although published in 2009, the story is set in approximately 1993.
In a fast-paced, entertaining read, Nina narrates her life and drama as the only Pakistani and Muslim girl in her high school. She deals with worries about school and boys, as well body hair and strict parents.
Karim keeps a light-hearted tone throughout the novel, balancing Nina’s self-deprecation with her humorous critique of others around her.
When a male friend asks Nina what her father would do if he ran outside and started kissing her in front of him, one of her best friends says, “Nina’s dad would kill her if you did that.”
“He wouldn’t kill me,” she responds.
In the narration, Nina explains:
“I must defend my father. He may be conservative, but he’s no murderer like those nutty Islamic fanatics they show on TV movies who marry unsuspecting white women, then kidnap their daughters and take them to some unnamed Middle Eastern country. He wouldn’t kill me, just yell and maybe cry and only ever let me out of the house for school.” (57-8)
Karim takes on stereotypes in a less heavy-handed manner than, say, Randa Abdel-Fattah of Does My Head Look Big in This? and Ten Things I Hate About Me. She uses humor to poke fun at, and thus challenge, popular portrayals of Muslim men.
At the same time, Karim doesn’t go the other route, of painting Nina’s parents as permissive and progressive to challenge the image of Muslim parents as strict and conservative. Nina’s parents are in many ways much more conservative than Amal’s parents in DMHLBT. When Nina goes to the movies with her female friends and their boyfriends, she can’t let her father see that there are boys in the group, lest he “kill” her as discussed above. Neither Nina nor her sister has ever been to a school dance, and her parents get “worked up about the lack of morality in Western culture” (138). When they see one of Nina’s best friends having dinner with a boy, they grow concerned that Nina will want to have a boyfriend too, and they try to limit the amount of time Nina spends with her best friends, so that she doesn’t become influenced to do “things that are wrong for you,” in the words of her mother.
Nina finds it hard to be the only girl in her school with such restrictions. She feels left out when classmate Serena holds a big party and she doesn’t even get an invitation, because, as Serena tells her, “you’re not allowed to go to parties and I don’t want to waste any [invitations].”
But even while Nina bemoans her plight as the only high schooler at home on a Friday night, she never takes herself too seriously, which is refreshing.
Spending her Friday nights at home watching crime shows with her parents, she decides, “Maybe there are only two types of people who spend their Friday nights in high school at home—Pakistani Muslim girls and future serial killers. Though I suppose Indian and maybe even some Asian parents might be as strict with their kids.” She remembers hearing that there’s an Indian girl in the middle school: “Maybe I should become friends with her. I bet we’d be allowed to spend our Friday nights together, memorizing vocabulary words or something.” (28)
In some ways, Nina’s parents are archetypes of strict, conservative parents. When Nina asks her father what would be so wrong with having friends who are boys, he replies, “If you lose sight of what is wrong and right, and start behaving like Americans, you’ll end up on the streets, on drugs, and a prostitute.” Nina comments on her father’s warning: “It is so preposterous that you can’t even argue with it” (36).
Despite their strictness, Nina’s parents fail to become stereotypes. Karim’s description of Nina’s father, who tells jokes, even though they’re not always funny, loves and sings along with qawwali music, and tries to have heart-to-hearts with his daughter make him into a multidimensional, believable character. Nina’s mother, too, breaks out of the stereotype she could otherwise become. When Nina wails to her mother about the plight of being a “hairy Pakistani Muslim girl,” her mother says, “It’s not such a big deal,” and hands her a box of bleach, telling her stories of mixing her own ammonia/hydrogen peroxide concoction when she was in college in Pakistan.
It makes sense that Karim would write Nina’s parents as believable, multidimensional characters, since her whole cast of characters is complex and engaging. Some characters, who start out as archetypes, such as Nina’s sister, Sonia, the “nerd girl,” and classmate Serena, popular mean girl, develop through the novel as Nina gets to know them better.
While Nina’s parents are strict about certain rules, they are less conservative about other issues. Nina explains that her mother is the only one who prays regularly, and that the family only ever prays together to keep up appearances whenever her mother’s sister, the very Pakistani, very Muslim Nasreen Khan, comes to visit.
Karim depicts Muslims more conservative than Nina’s parents. Nina tells the story of the Qur’an teacher she had when she was young, Brother Hassan. When he sees her mother’s favorite painting hanging on the wall, of two Mexican women holding bright flowers, he instructs Nina to tell her mother to take it down: “It is haram to depict human figures,” he tells her. Instead, it is her teacher who Nina never sees again. She learns to read Qur’an instead from her mother, “under the watchful eyes of the Mexican women.” (81-2)
With stories like this, Karim establishes a diversity of belief amongst Muslims. Nina’s mother, presented as the most religious member of her family, has a different understanding of Islam than Nina’s Qur’an teacher and is willing to stand up for it. That Nina’s mother does not discard the painting per Brother Hassan’s advice is not presented as a failure on her part to live by the rules of Islam but as a way Nina’s mother rejects a more conservative interpretation of Islam and affirms her own values.
Nina, who admits to be less religious than her mother, does not live up to the archetype of a conservative Muslim girl either. Enamored by her crush, Asher Richelli, she doesn’t hold the same resistance to him that very consciously religious Amal of DMHLBT had for her crush. When Nina and her sister Sonia are left alone for a few days, when their parents fly to Pakistan early, Nina takes the opportunity to attend her first high school party, has her first beer — and proceeds to get drunk. Later, she asks her sister what makes a good Muslim.
Sonia replies,
“Whose definition are you applying to that? In every religion people pick and choose what they want to follow. Look at Ma and Dad’s own friends—a few of the aunties cover their hair, and a few of the aunties drink, some fast during during Ramadan, some don’t. You can’t spend your life worrying about what other people will think. If you live decently and help others, is Allah going to condemn you simply because you had a beer? I don’t think so, but others might. In the end, you have to do what you believe is right.”
Sonia’s advice of self-determination seems to the message of the book. She tells her sister, “When it comes to religion and orthodoxy and culture and self-actualization, there is no magic box [with] easy answers” (208). And indeed, Nina’s dilemma of what to do about her crush, Asher, is not presented as a test from God of resisting temptation but as a religious, cultural, and family issue with which she must struggle and not necessarily find any easy option. While Nina’s parents are quick to deplore what they see as immorality around them (and Nina’s potential fall to a drug-addicted prostitute), Nina does not judge. When best friend Bridget announces her decision to have sex with her boyfriend, Nina thinks about how surreal the idea is, and asks Bridget sincerely, “How are you feeling about it?”
But religious and familial drama is not the only issue facing Nina. Small New York town Deer Hook lacks in racial diversity, which worsens Nina’s feeling of isolation. Nina recalls an incident from her childhood. In the car, she asks her sister, “When you take over the world, can you make me white?” Her mother, driving, slams on the brakes and asks, “Why would you want that?”
Nina narrates:
“Because it sucks being one of the only brown kids in school, I thought. But I didn’t say this because even then I knew my mother wouldn’t understand.” (9)
Nina describes the self-segregation by race during lunch: the few black and Latino students sit on one side of the lawn, while Nina, an Asian freshman, and couple other minorities sit on the “white side.” Even though she sits with the white students and her best friends are white, Nina can’t completely fit in, and sometimes wishes to be white.
Nina feels some affinity to Bridget’s boyfriend, Anthony, who is black and from the island of Grenada — one of the few non-white students at Deer Hook besides Nina. “Do you ever wish you were white?” she asks him, explaining that she would take the chance to live her life again as a “cute blonde” in a heartbeat. He suggests perhaps being white wouldn’t make her happier, considering everything she’d have to sacrifice for it: her family, her food, her pride. There are no incidents of overt racism that Nina and Anthony face, but Karim shows the difficulty of being one of the few non-white students in the school, especially when all their friends are white.
Nina challenges her parents’ racism when they find out Bridget is not just dating —horror! — but dating “a black boy,” as well as the preference for light skin within their Pakistani circles. These are probably the most overt discussions of racism in the book.
One of Nina’s biggest concerns is not just being a “Pakistani Muslim girl” but being a “hairy Pakistani Muslim girl.” She explains that one day, “I fell asleep a human, and woke up a gorilla” (21). It is worse when she realizes that she has a stripe of dark hair down her neck to the center of her back. Describing her dilemma as being a “skunk girl,” from which the novel derives its title, Nina feels like a freak.
She stands out in other ways. In hot weather, Nina sweats in jeans while others wear shorts. She wears jeans because that’s what Pakistani Muslim girls do, she says. But I wonder why she can’t wear a long skirt or looser, lighter pants at least.
Skunk Girl paints a picture of a believable Muslim teenager–not necessarily one CAIR would send out to represent Muslim youth, but a girl with struggles and desires beyond fulfilling her mother’s image of the perfect Pakistani Muslim girl. It was refreshing that neither the title nor cover art revolved around Nina’s Muslim-ness. Books with a Muslim protagonist have been known to feature hijab-less characters in hijab to emphasize their faith. Not so for Skunk Girl — The book jacket shows a white stripe of fur against black, reflecting the book’s title.
Karim’s first novel is a fast and enjoyable read. I read it in one sitting. At 231 pages, in a comfortable font size and spacing, the book goes quickly. Karim maintains the pace with short chapters, an engaging plot, and an entertaining and likable narrator.
Nina’s story is compelling, touching on issues many young people face, whether or not they are Pakistani Muslim girls. But even when she takes on serious issues, Karim keeps the novel optimistic and funny. The message, in the end, is one of self-acceptance. Skunk Girl does not strive to be great literature. It makes a breezy, but thoughtful, summer read. I look forward to seeing what else Karim will bring to young adult fiction.
Sarkozy to the Rescue! France, Burqas, and the Question of “Choice” June 29, 2009
Posted by Krista in Culture/Society, News, Politics.Tags: burqa, France, Islamophobia, Nicolas Sarkozy, sexism
14 comments

Nicholas Sarkozy. Image via BBC.
As I’m sure many of you have seen already, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said last week that he supports a commission to consider banning the wearing of burqas in public places. Here are some excerpts of his speech, quoted from this article:
“We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity,” Mr. Sarkozy told a special session of parliament in Versailles.
“That is not the idea that the French republic has of women’s dignity.”
“The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic,” the French president said.
But he stressed that France “must not fight the wrong battle”, saying that “the Muslim religion must be respected as much as other religions” in the country.
If this conversation sounds familiar, it’s because we keep having it. It has come up recently in debates about whether the niqab should be allowed in courtrooms, and whether feminist organisations in Quebec should support a ban on headscarves for public employees. There’s pretty much a set script: Western leader (usually white and male, nearly always non-Muslim) decides that Muslim women who dress in certain ways are a threat to Western culture, and under threat from the big bad extremist Muslim men in their communities. Burqas (or niqabs, or headscarves) are portrayed as completely incompatible with Western societies, and their wearers assumed to be entirely outside of Western cultures until the offending clothing can be removed. Patronising conversations about oppression and choice follow, and the tiny percentage of people in the area being discussed who actually wear the item of clothing being debated all suddenly find themselves as pawns in discussions about principles of liberation, secularism, fundamentalism, and symbols of the demise of the world as we know it.
We’ve been through all of this before, and I’m not going to write another post re-hashing why this latest incarnation of the clothing-ban debate is problematic. Jill at Feministe and Wendi at Racialicious have also looked at this particular issue in detail (although some of the comments on the Feministe article are pretty horrendous; the commenters should all go read this piece. As should the rest of you, because it’s funny.)
Moving on… I want to focus in on one particular element of the debate, which is the idea of choice. It comes up a lot, and often gets talked about in a very superficial way, by both sides. Conversations about whether certain articles of clothing should be permitted often go like this:
A: The [hijab/niqab/burqa] should be banned, because it’s oppressive!
B: No, it’s not. Some Muslim women choose to wear those things.
A: Yeah, but is it really a choice? Their husbands will probably kill them if they don’t. Or they probably feel like they have to wear it to live up to cultural expectations. Or they are misguided and believe this is a religious obligation, even if it isn’t.
B: But we can’t just assume that all women are forced to wear it… Some women really do choose it.
And so on. The thing is, the whole idea of any “choice” being completely free of any social constraints is a bit of a myth. I think we need to complicate this issue of “choice,” for two reasons.
First, choice is always socially contextual. Even if I might “choose” what I want to wear every day (and for me personally, that choice has yet to include a burqa), there’s a reason I don’t walk around outside in my pyjamas, or attend classes wearing fancy dresses. We don’t ever make choices that are entirely independent of social expectations. So when I see people express the idea that women are oppressed by their crazy Muslim communities that make them believe that they want to wear a burqa, and that because this “choice” is made in order to conform to social expectations, we should ignore it, because it’s not a free choice, it just makes me wonder: what choice is ever independent of the expectations that are imposed on us by our societies? And how can we decide which “choices” are legitimate and free, and worthy of being respected?
Second, the assumption made by many people is that the “choice” is being made between either wearing the burqa or living a life that’s completely free of sexual oppression. The problems that are supposedly inherent to the burqa are assumed not to exist once the burqa is removed.
So when Sarkozy talks about women in burqas as “prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity,” and about the burqas themselves as markers of “subservience,” he’s implying that it’s the burqa, and the burqa alone, that holds women captive (and that it, apparently, deprives them of identity, a claim that might say more about the way that Sarkozy conceptualises identity than it does about the women he’s attempting to rescue.)
It’s a narrow-minded perspective, because it ignores all of the other ways that sexism acts upon women, both within Muslim communities and within non-Muslim communities in the west. After all, there are all sorts of ways that non-burqa-wearing women may be objectified (and thus deprived of identity in a different way), or made to be subservient. It also misses the many other systems of oppression – for example, those based on race or economic class, both of which also affect many Muslim women in France, that imprison and marginalise (or “cut off”) women. So, when these women make the “choice” to wear the burqa, they are not necessarily choosing between imprisonment and freedom, or between subservience and empowerment; they may be making this choice between multiple forms of imprisonment (symbolic or otherwise), or multiple options that still place them in subservient positions, or they may even be making this choice in a context where the burqa represents the positive side of those dichotomies. The point is that the arguments about “choice” simplify the discussion, and ignores the ways that women may claim agency even in situations where their possible “choices” might be restricted.
(As a side note, Saba Mahmood, in her book Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject, has some very interesting things to say about religious identity and practice in relation to women’s agency. Go read it.)
What I’m trying to say is that I don’t think that “choice” is really the best framework for the conversations that we are trying to have. Of course, I believe that we should work to create conditions so that all people can wear the clothing that makes them feel comfortable. But I also think that it’s hard to have these conversations if we focus primarily on ideas of “choice,” which often ignore the complexity of the contexts in which all of our choices take place, and the many competing systems and structures in which we attempt to act.
Friday Links — June 26, 2009 June 26, 2009
Posted by Fatemeh in Links.Tags: Muslim women, News
2 comments
- On the death of a young Iranian woman named Neda: analysis from Time, Jezebel, the Los Angeles Times, the Guardian,
- A suspect has been arrested in connection with a suspected honor killing in Chechnya.
- An obscure Al-Azhar decree says that “misyar” marriage is acceptable.
- The story of a survivor of sexual abuse and her continued struggles to have the Saudi Arabian judicial system protect her.
- Iran is considering abolishing legislation that makes stoning and amputations part of criminal law. More from PressTV.
- Fatima Zahra Mansouri is Marrakech’s first female mayor.
- The U.N. will begin the investigation of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination in July.
- Al Jazeera interviews Shahrzad about the current situation in Iran.
- Bitch magazine has a good rundown of links relating to women and Iran’s unrest. More from CNN, U.S. News, the Guardian.
- Kashmir valley closed down on Saturday in the latest protest over the alleged rape and murder of two Muslim women several weeks ago. More from the Christian Science Monitor and AFP.
- France’s Sarkozy just doesn’t know when to quit. He says burqas are “not welcome” in France: BBC, AP, AFP, Time, Los Angeles Times, CNN, with reactions from Beirut News, Islam Online, Global Comment, Austrolabe, Racialicious, and The American Prospect.
- More behind the Malaysian PAS’ attempt to ban Sisters in Islam.
- Mahinur Ozdemir is going to be Belgium’s first MP to wear hijab. More from Islam Online.
- Muslim women in Surat, India rallied for the swift prosecution of an alleged child rapist.
- Saira Khan speaks about why she wants the niqab banned.
- Abbas Jaffer interviews Paula Lerner about her work with Afghan women.
- A young woman and her lover were murdered by her father in Afghanistan. May Allah give them peace and justice.
- Arab News shoots down temporary marriages.
- A Saudi judge is suing a female journalist.
- A fitness center for Muslim women opens in Moscow, Russia.
- The News reports that honor killings in the Sindh province of Pakistan have risen.
- A Saudi campaign named Stolen Rights aims to “recapture” the God-given rights of women.
- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had named Kashmiri-American Farah Pandith as her newest member of staff.
- Uzma Naheed believes Muslim women in India suffer under poor conditions.
There Will be Blood: Neda Agha Soltan’s Post-Mortem Image in the Media June 25, 2009
Posted by Fatemeh in News, Politics.Tags: Iran, Iran election, Neda Agha Soltan
27 comments
Neda Agha-Soltani was fatally shot during a protest in Iran on Saturday, June 20, 2009. May God give her peace and justice.
Several news outlets have reported on her death, and several opinion-makers have heralded her tragic end as a martyrdom for Iran’s opposition movement. In Iran, this may be true: Neda’s death may garner more support and energy for the opposition movement that has been somewhat floundering for the last few days. While I understand that every movement needs its martyr (this is Shi’a Iran we’re talking about–Time explains it for those of you not familiar with the importance of martyrdom in the Shi’a sect), I don’t understand the necessity for the image of her last moments to be splashed across Western news outlets. Why reprint the image of her corpse, instead of the picture above right?
Her last moments were filled with shock and drama, as onlookers attempted to stop the bleeding from the fatal gunshot wound in her chest. They realized they could not help as she began to hemorrhage, and blood ran from her nose, ears, and mouth.
But she is dead now.
And instead of being put to rest, her final, bloody image is being strewn across blogs and Twitter.
Where were all of these interested parties when the dormitories in Iranian universities were raided last week? There were plenty of pictures that were just as jarring and horrific. Neda is not the first person to die in this. She’s not the first person whose death has been captured on video camera, either. But she was young, slender, and pretty, and so Western media images are obsessed with watching her die over and over.
Tami has written about brown bodies, death, and media, and her latest title says it all: “Must brown people be martyred for Americans to be motivated?”
Tami points out:
“To show brutal images of the dead is generally seen as unseemly and disrespectful. Consider the uproar when some newspapers published images of a dead American soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu in the early 90s. But deaths like Neda’s we feel we must see, need to see. What does it say when we feel squeamish and protective about the deaths of some, but not others?…”
“I think Americans are fetishizing video of Neda Soltani’s death in a way they would not if she were a young, blonde, American college student shot down on an American street. We do not need to see the lifeless bodies of those women in order to care for them. But people like Neda owe access to their deaths so Americans can access their own humanity.”
This helps explain the fact that Neda is represented as a corpse just as often as she is represented the way any murdered American woman would be: alive and smiling, usually in a picture given to the media by her family or friends (see above right).
Aside from the talk that she is a martyr for Iran’s opposition movement, many in the West are using her death to educate themselves about Iran’s current crisis, viewing Iran through a lens of violence and cruelty, which many add to their current knowledge of the country as repressive, backward, and unsafe for Americans. Neda’s death may help Iranians band closer together and become stronger in their fight for a government that treats them with respect, but here in the West, her lifeless body is little more than another reminder of the instability and danger of “over there”.
What difference has her death made here in the West? As far as I can tell, the only Western response to her death (aside from the gruesome fact that her last moments are a now common fixture on blogs and news sites) has been a website, weareallneda.com, where mourners can leave messages to a Neda who cannot read them. Below the site’s banner is a stylized rendering of her lifeless face amid a river of blood, shown above left.
The cruelty and horror of Neda’s death may be a call to action, but her death mask shouldn’t.
The Burkha Rapper: Sophie Ashraf June 24, 2009
Posted by Sobia in Culture/Society, Music/Radio, Web.Tags: abaya, burkha, identity, India, Islam, music, rapping
11 comments
Sophie Ashraf, also known as The Burkha Rapper, is an Indian Muslim female rapper for whom Muslim identity seems central to her art. This comes across clearly in her following statement on the Blind Boys website:
Its like when you really like a band, you wear T-shirts of that band, Well we really, really like Islam, so we wear the burkha. I rap because I cant sing. But I love music, so it had to be rap. Soon, the burkha and the rap formed an identity of itself, and people started recognizing me as the burkha rapper. The Justice Rocks Concert was the first platform where I felt the setting and the timing was right to talk about Islam. The Mumbai attack had just happened and everyone was waiting for a proactive Muslim to come out and say what Islam was about. I was just blown away by the response. There are those who are not convinced about the burkha, sure. Now that we wear it, we feel empty without it, naked. There is a line in the quran that says, “To you, your religion, and to me mine”. And so they are letting me express myself the way I want to. People tend to think that someone who tries to be different and someone who breaks the rules are the same. I work within the rules, but I find those little loopholes that allow me to do my thing. There is this cool anime (Japenese animation) called The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya in which the entire world is made just to amuse her, the main character. Sometimes i feel the world is created just to amuse me. Because things, mashaallah always go right.
The story is accompanied by pictures.
Deconstructing Ashraf’s words makes it obvious that the burqa is central to her work and image.
I have to admit though that my first reaction to the pictures was, “That’s not a burqa!” This looks nothing like the burqa I would form out of my mother’s dupattas as a child while playing “grown up.” Nor does it look like the burqa Muslim heroines in Bollywood films would wear. Nor does it look like the net burqa native to the NWFP of Pakistan. What we see Ashraf wearing in the pictures looks nothing like traditional South Asian burqas do. I suspect one of two possible things happening here.
The first could be an appropriation of the West’s inaccurate and generic notion of the burqa. It is almost as if, rather than challenge the inaccuracy in views of the burqa, this inaccurate view has been accepted and perpetuated. The second possibility is the further Arabization of South Asian culture. What we actually see Ashraf wearing is the Middle Eastern hijab and abaya, a recent import into South Asia, not something native to the region. As abaya is a foreign term, and burqa a native one, what seems to have happened is foreign attire has been given a familiar name, thus making it more palatable to locals. Think of that what you will.
However, speculation aside, the purposeful use of this “burqa” is not hidden in Ashraf’s quote.
Well we really, really like Islam, so we wear the burkha.
Here we see Islam being positioned as a superstar of sorts worthy of having worshiping fans. The donning of the “burkha” by Ashraf, and those like her, has been for the purposes to support her religion, to demonstrate an allegiance, admiration, respect, and desire to emulate Islam. The analogy is young and fun and would be one that would easily attract a younger Muslim population.
…the burkha and the rap formed an identity of itself, and people started recognizing me as the burkha rapper.
Ashraf’s music and words come from her Muslim identity. From this quote, it is clear that for her the “burkha”, which is a symbol in for Islam itself, and her rapping have become one and cannot be separated. Her art is inevitably shaped by her religion and her religion, perhaps, by her art.
The burqa has also become a platform via which Ashraf has had the opportunity to speak about Islam.
The Mumbai attack had just happened and everyone was waiting for a proactive Muslim to come out and say what Islam was about.
Ashraf’s donning of the “burkha” while rapping has brought her religion to the forefront, which consequently has placed her in a position to represent Islam. And this position is considered to be an active one by Ashraf, as demonstrated by her use of the word “proactive.” As Ashraf has made Islam central to her work, her proactivity as a Muslim has been established.
There are those who are not convinced about the burkha, sure. Now that we wear it, we feel empty without it, naked. There is a line in the quran that says, “To you, your religion, and to me mine”. And so they are letting me express myself the way I want to.
Ashraf recognizes an opposition to the “burkha”–however, no force or compulsion is stated, either for or against wearing it. In fact, a level of comfort permeates through this comment – a physical comfort wearing the “burkha” but also an expressive comfort – a comfort Ashraf feels in being able to express her Muslim-ness and an acceptance she experiences from those around her.
Finally, this final comment demonstrates an intelligent and active engagement with Islam.
People tend to think that someone who tries to be different and someone who breaks the rules are the same. I work within the rules, but I find those little loopholes that allow me to do my thing.
Ashraf shows a comfort with Islam and her knowledge of what she does and does not feel she can follow. This comment demonstrates that Ashraf is actively negotiating with Islam, trying to decipher for herself what Islam means to her, all the while keeping Islam as central to her work.
Overall, Ashraf comes across as a confident, self-aware and active Muslim woman, who uses Islam to shape her life and work and places Islam in a central position in her life. Her desire to defend Islam and present it in a manner true to her beliefs is apparent. It seems she may be a force to reckon with.






