Uighur Women in the Spotlight
The media loves Uighur women.
They give them lots of margins, and inches on front pages. They plaster their photos and quote them favorably. In prominent photo spreads, they marvel at their exotic traditional attire. They sympathize with their struggle against the brutal, ruthless Communist China.
Looking at the photos and pairing them with the numerous mainstream accounts of the Uighurs’ struggle suggests (to even the casual follower of news) that Islam is not about the ideology of Al Qaeda and suicide bombers, but simply the religion of people around the world. The Uighurs are symbolic of the diversity represented in the world’s Muslim communities and the complexity of national and Islamic identity. Their struggle for autonomy—though long and ardugous—is nothing like the rocks, rockets, and suicide vests attributed to the Palestinians, but with sympathy western media recently showed the Iranians: it’s a struggle about the young and modern fighting the modern tyrant. And Muslim women are center stage.
“Muslim women lead protests in restive west China” yells the Associated Press.
“The petite Muslim woman with the sky blue head scarf began by complaining that the public washrooms were closed at a crowded mosque on Friday — the most important day of the week for Islamic worship.”
Aw, the Muslimah is all petite and innocent, her headscarf blue like the sky, soft like the heavens. And here she is, a Muslim woman complaining about a mosque being closed because she can’t perform her Islamic duty. Any account of a Muslim woman must always be accompanied by a description of what she’s wearing, of course!
“The 26-year-old businesswoman eventually led the crowd of mostly men in a fist-pumping street march that was quickly blocked by riot police, some with automatic rifles pointed at the protesters.”
A Muslim woman who is a businesswoman–you don’t say! This can’t possibly happen anywhere else! And here she is, leading a crowd of men? And there’s “fist-pumping?!”
Why, oh roving reporters, do you reserve your admiration for the Uighurs? Why isn’t the Islam of women in El Sham or Pakistan represented with the same poetic equality and dignity?
Is it because they pose absolutely no threat to America’s foreign interests, and are not Arab or brown? Or could it be that they are actually “liberated”? Rebiya Kader, a leading Uighur rights activist, claims that China has painted the Uighurs as “extremely pro-west Muslims – that they are modern Muslims, not genuine Muslims.” Ouch! She believes that this is the reason Muslim governments have not aided Uighurs.
But the Chinese construction of Uighurs as modern (as if genuine Muslims cannot be so) is perhaps part of the reason that Uighur men and women are getting such positive attention from the press. That’s not to say that all the press attention is positive.
In the Foreign Policy photo essay, we are told that, “Uighur Islam is traditionally extremely moderate on social issues, though in recent decades, more fundamentalist traditions were introduced by students who studied abroad in Central Asian and Pakistani madrasas.” This caption accompanies a photo of Uighur women leaving a mosque wearing black burqas. Since the burqa is not the uniform of the majority of Uighur women, this photo is misleading.
And, in the AP story, it isn’t until the end, after Muslim women are praised for their gallantry, are we told that the reason behind their public opposition:
“Women have been on the front line in Urumqi partly because more than 1,400 men in the Muslim Uighur minority have been rounded up by police since ethnic rioting broke out July 5.”
So are we to believe that the Uighurs are not as bold as they sound? That, by contrast, the women only stole the limelight because they had to? Well, that’s no fun.
Rebiya Kadeer’s Solo Act
In a BBC article, Kadeer smiles charismatically. “I am involved in peaceful struggle for the people of the Uighur nation,” she says.
The New York Times describes Kadeer as “The public face of an ethnic group that is little known in much of the world. Although her fame hardly approaches that of the Dalai Lama…”, while The Christian Science Monitor describes her as a “spiritual leader” and a “mother figure.”
Rebiya Kadeer. Image via the Sunday Morning Herald.
In the Times photo, Kadeer is poised with her hands in her lap, her long braids trickling down her two-piece suit. It is hard to believe that she would have been the media’s poster child for Uighurs if she were clad in a burqa, a headscarf, an abaya, or chador. This leads me to believe that the U.S. and its media are invested in the melodramatic representation of a “modern” unveiled woman opposing a giant government. It’s as if the media is saying: “Muslim women in (insert country here), listen up: America supports you in your struggle for independence, and will help you break free from that which hinders your movement.”
The U.S. media has portrayed Kadeer as a savior, a noble freedom fighter who was imprisoned by Communists that don’t value human rights, even as the Chinese media preaches the opposite. As an anchor on state-controlled China Central Television said: “Initial investigations show the violence was masterminded by the separatist World Uighur Congress, led by Rebiya Kadeer.”
The fact that The New York Times calls an unveiled Muslim woman the public face of an entire ethnicity is, whether intentionally or not, politically motivated; it is not about autonomy of a people, but the direction of Chinese-U.S. relations. I haven’t read a single U.S. news report that proved Kadeer is responsible for Uighur uprisings, or even hinted at the idea. This can only mean that the media isn’t really uncovering facts, but assuming China is wrong because it is China–a rapidly emerging threat in the race for the Number 1 Superpower slot.
Still, let us leave foreign politics aside and rejoice in the fact that western media coverage of the Uighurs and Kadeer does not harm Muslim women in America. It is positive because it shows an active, rich, articulate and brave Muslim woman. Kadeer spent time behind bars and came out stronger for it. She is a fighter and she is not afraid.
Here, we have a Muslim woman being portrayed as the actual leader she is, literally. Regardless of the intention behind the depiction, or the contradicting accounts of it, I think you’d agree with me when I say that it is great to see the media glorify a Muslim woman for speaking out, instead of criticizing her traditions or otherwise deeming her an accessory of the dominant Muslim male, ¿que no?
The New York Times describes Kadeer as “The public face of an ethnic group that is little known in much of the world.
That is true. She’s the most famous Uyghur around, and has been involved with these issues for years.
while The Christian Science Monitor describes her as a “spiritual leader”
That may be a stretch. I doubt Uyghurs look to her for spiritual advice. She’s merely an activist.
Regardless of the intention behind the depiction, or the contradicting accounts of it, I think you’d agree with me when I say that it is great to see the media glorify a Muslim woman for speaking out, instead of criticizing her traditions or otherwise deeming her an accessory of the dominant Muslim male, ¿que no?
It’s not exactly by choice. She’s been a famous figure since she came to the US in 2005. The media can’t just go and “choose” someone else, because no other Uyghur has near that much fame here or worldwide.
Besides, any excuse to bash China… Takes higher priority than bashing Muslims
Salaam Alaikum,
“This can only mean that the media isn’t really uncovering facts, but assuming China is wrong because it is China–a rapidly emerging threat in the race for the Number 1 Superpower slot.”
BINGO!
Funny how Time really stresses that Uighur practice ‘a brand of Islam that is peaceful and tolerant’. Obviously other Muslims, especially the sort the US is fighting, practice Bloodthirsty Islam (T.M.) Hence it’s ok to kill them on a daily basis
Funny how Time really stresses that Uighur practice ‘a brand of Islam that is peaceful and tolerant’.
Except, of course, when they put a bunch of them in Guantanamo.
And of course, the Chinese have been arguing for years the exact opposite: “Look, our Hui Muslims are highly integrated. The Uyghurs refuse to do so and are hell bent on splitting this country!”
True or not? I honestly don’t know. For years I was on the Uyghur Human Rights Project’s mailing list, receiving frequent news about Uyghur oppression. I finally got sick of them and removed myself from the mailing list days before this occurred (perfect timing!).
I just couldn’t “trust” them, because I had nothing to check either side with. I didn’t know if I was getting mostly truth or mostly propaganda. So I just figured I should stop reading it.
I will say that from what I read of their (UHRP) news releases, some of the criticisms that the Chinese government have are probably not unfounded. They would repeatedly refer to East Turkistan or Greater Turkistan or some such in their releases, which is one of the main concerns China has.
Thank you for stating the obvious here! After reading that AP article at first I thought I was only imagining their glowing portrayal of Uigher women. Glad to know I wasn’t imagining it! At least having the media cover the Uigher Muslims will help to show the diversity of the Ummah and the fact that we don’t all look and think alike. And you and Saffiya Outlines are right, if the Uighers were fighting against Western interests you bet they wouldn’t be receiving such positive portrayals by its media!
Dude, ya I know. I was really peeved with the term spiritual leader.
“Look, our Hui Muslims are highly integrated. The Uyghurs refuse to do so and are hell bent on splitting this country!”
From what I’ve read about the Uighurs, it would seem this is true, but yet it is true that they’ve been oppressed from the very beginning! I don’t understand the tension very well either.
Contempt just drips from this piece because Kadeer is not “brown” in what appears to be the only approved way of being Muslim “brown” — meaning Arab ethnicity or the combo wannabe-Arab by assumed name, skin shade, clothing, and cultural appeasements. (I’m always piqued by how a site like this would deal with a Muslim Balkan activist, who would be, unfortunately for her, “white” in skin color and facial features. The collision between the assumed white-skin-imperialist and professed Muslim ideology might create a quantum dislocation.)
Kadeer was described the way she was because that is what she wears, as the acknowledged political leader of the Uigher movement in the West. That is her cultural appearance. (Similarly, the small businesswoman was described as a small businesswoman because that’s presumably what she is. How else should she have been described?). Should the photographer have insisted that Kadeer don a hijab or burka to be more “inclusive” of the female Ummah — or to be more palatable to Arab and wannabe-Arab supremacism? What happened to the idea of “choice” or “cultural sensitivity” ?
“Since the burqa is not the uniform of the majority of Uighur women. . . ” Well, not yet, anyway; give the well-funded foreign imams some time. If a supposed media analyst cannot see the connection between a journalist’s clear identification of foreign influence in a community and the sudden appearance of women reflecting that colonizing foreign influence through their culturally-inappropriate costuming, then that analyst should hang up their hat and go home to recite Edward Said to the mirror. Repeat after me: “Brown people (well, certain authenticated brown people) can’t colonize.” Yeah, that’s right.
And please do not use Spanish colloquialisms when they are not appropriate either to the piece or to your ethnic background. It’s offensive and condescending.
Contempt just drips from this piece because Kadeer is not “brown” in what appears to be the only approved way of being Muslim “brown”
Methinks you missed the point.
Repeat after me: “Brown people (well, certain authenticated brown people) can’t colonize.” Yeah, that’s right.
Loose usage of colonialism, and I fail to see your point. Yusra didn’t try to give the impression that the burqa was not due to foreign influence.
And please do not use Spanish colloquialisms when they are not appropriate either to the piece or to your ethnic background. It’s offensive and condescending.
…?
I won’t purport to be well informed of Spanish customs, but I know it’s fairly common in non-English countries to use English phrases intermingled with the native language. It didn’t seem at all offensive. or condescending.
That’s not to say that applies to all languages. If this is something peculiar to Spanish culture, where they dislike non-Spanish speaking people from using Spanish phrases, I’d like to hear about it. And I’d like to know who “they” are (Spanish? Mexican? Other Central or South American Nations? All of the above?)
This post reflects that many Muslims only care about the suffering and oppression of Muslims that form some form of symbolic value. The situation of the Uighurs does not fit the model of the Muslim world against the West and therefore we not afford it the same value we do to other struggles. The western media may be portraying this conflict in a way that suits their agenda. But I argue that we as Muslims are doing the same thing. How many Muslims know or care about this conflict. The answer is, very few. This post is a reflection of this attitude.
Salaam Aalikum,
Where did you get the idea that this website was at all in favour of Arab supremacism?
You are completely misintrepreting the spirit of the piece. Yusra is pointing out the positive coverage of the Uighurs as compared to Muslims in Pakistan and elsewhere.
It obvious that such coverage is not because the Uighurs are so very good and the Pakistanis so very bad, but because the Uighurs are seen as weakening the economic rival of the U.S, China.
As for ‘well funded foreign imams’, that’s a snide dig at a more complex situation. Ever wondered why certain foreign influences are so appealling? Clue:it’s more about seeking to reclaim the religion from corrupt local authorities. The rise of Salafism/Whabbism is more complex then just the Saudis throwing money about, but that is getting away from the point here.
Finally, Spanish is not your little pet language, but a widely spoken colonial language, hence Spanish words frequently crop up in other languages, including English.
As for saying that because Yusra is Arab, she’s not allowed to use Spanish (a language she speaks fluently, Masha Allah), now that really is offensive.
@Rayhana–this is beside the point, but Yusra is fluent in Spanish. Even if she wasn’t, no one “owns” a language–the term she used is not an inherently offensive one, and there is no real harm in her using it. And Dude is correct that using non-English words mixed in with English is common. Getting irritated over this is just being nitpicky–please stick to the piece’s central ideas.
And Dude is correct that using non-English words mixed in with English is common.
I was actually saying the opposite. It’s common to mix in English words in a foreign language. And I’ve not seen any English speaking person get offended.
That’s not to say such behavior doesn’t violate the norms of other cultures, but I’d like her to back it up, if it does.
@ Dude: Whoops! Sorry! Your point works, too. But I think that non-English words are fairly common in English: French terms, Spanish terms, blah blah blah tangent. Back to the Uighur issue!
@ Sara
I don’t know if you can say that all Muslim individuals don’t care about the Uigher issue. I certainly care about them as well as other issues affecting the Ummah. Now if you’re talking about Muslim governments then you might be onto something. I don’t know if I’ve heard any governments denouncing China for their handling of this issue. It seems no one wants to criticize China (neither Muslim countries nor the West) too much lest they get upset. By criticism here i’m talking about political actions of any sort not just media condemnations like we see the Western media doing.
Communism Vs Islam Vs Capitalism
It’s a 3way battle royale.
Sara – I think the lack of support for the Uighur people from Muslim government is reflective of the fact that many of those governments have close ties with China.
It seems Muslim nations hang on the coat-tails of one side or the other.
As a Muslimah, as someone who is concerned about media representation of Muslims…I do agree with this post and the way in which media coverage is so slanted is sad.
As a scholar of Tibetan studies, I think this also has to do a lot with media representation of minorities under PRC rule, and how their stories are/must be told. Any minority living under PRC rule has to fit into a certain box…and often it’s a series of catch-22s…to receive media attention, and then it’s extremely one-sided and narrow. One is either resistant to the PRC and thus caricatured and pedestal-ized, or not resistant and thus a China yes-man and losing their minority insider status. There’s all sorts of other politicalculturalhistorical baggage going along with that. You just don’t see balanced or representative media coverage of minorities under PRC rule, because in order to receive aid or attention from media at all, they must fit into a certain schematic that probably isn’t all that representative.
I do think it’s really important to discuss and problematize the way Uighurs are represented vis-a-vis other Muslims. But I also just wanted to throw in there another perspective – that a large part of what is at play here has to do with being a minority under PRC rule and the baggage that goes along with that (and it’s something other PRC minorities face), not necessarily solely because they are Muslim.
As someone who has lived in China for seven years, and spent the last thirty years carrying out research on Muslims in China, I was deeply offended by the tone of Yusra’s piece. My reaction to it was very similar to both Rayhana’s and Sara’s. The history of Islam in China is an extraordinarily complex and fascinating one, but also one filled with state-sponsored violence and massacres and present-day devastating attacks on religious and ethnic identities. That the Western press is finally shedding a tiny glimmer of light on the plight of the Uighurs is not something to resent or exploit to try to write a humorous piece about. Or perhaps it is, but one might first want to learn something about the topic. And I’m sorry, but throwing in the ¡que no! at the end, regardless of whether or not one is fluent in Spanish, just seemed to confirm the superficiality and disingenuousness of the piece. For those interested in learning something about the situation in Xinjiang I would recommend the recent op-ed by Nicholas Bequelin of HRW,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/opinion/10iht-edbequelin.html?_r=5
and the following HRW report: “Devastating Blows: Religious Repression of Uighurs in Xinjiang”
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2005/04/11/devastating-blows
Salaam Alaikum,
The hand wringing over the use of Spanish is due to the US-centric view that it’s some kind of minority language, instead of the widely spoken and well propagated language that it is.
There are more Spanish speakers, then French speakers. Francophone countries are just as varied economically as Hispanophone countries, yet no one would ever consider having the same reaction to a French quotation.
Again, I’m baffled by the reactions here. Yusra’s piece is clearly a media analysis, aimed at comparing coverage of the Uighurs to coverage of Iraq and Pakistan.
Still, let us leave foreign politics aside and rejoice in the fact that western media coverage of the Uighurs and Kadeer does not harm Muslim women in America. It is positive because it shows an active, rich, articulate and brave Muslim woman. Kadeer spent time behind bars and came out stronger for it. She is a fighter and she is not afraid.
Here, we have a Muslim woman being portrayed as the actual leader she is, literally. Regardless of the intention behind the depiction, or the contradicting accounts of it, I think you’d agree with me when I say that it is great to see the media glorify a Muslim woman for speaking out, instead of criticizing her traditions or otherwise deeming her an accessory of the dominant Muslim male,
Yeah, how could you read anything but contempt out of this?
Hahaha what the hell people, do you know how many English (or any other language’s) words are borrowed from other languages? Is that really the best you can do?
wow. As many already pointed out (thank you!) my blog was not about analyzing the complex political situation of the Uighurs and que no is not an offensive phrase. It means “or no?” as in “What do you think?”. It’s at the end of my post to ask whether or not you agree. This is obvious to anyone who doesn’t speak Spanish as the meaning can be picked up using context clues since “no” is also an English term.
“But I also just wanted to throw in there another perspective – that a large part of what is at play here has to do with being a minority under PRC rule and the baggage that goes along with that (and it’s something other PRC minorities face), not necessarily solely because they are Muslim.”
Shukrun A’isha, that’s helpful. <<Let's start a thread about how I'm an Arab elitist because I said Shukrun instead of Thanks :d
As many have already pointed out (thank you!) my post was not analyzing the complex political situation of the Uighurs and que no is not an offensive phrase. I used it at the end of my post to ask whether or not you agree with me. Using context clues, one can easily deduce that it means “or no” as in “what do you think?” This is especially obvious since there are not 1 but 2 question marks and no is an English term.
@ A’ishah: “But I also just wanted to throw in there another perspective – that a large part of what is at play here has to do with being a minority under PRC rule and the baggage that goes along with that (and it’s something other PRC minorities face), not necessarily solely because they are Muslim.”
That’s helpful, shukrun. <<Let's start a thread about how I'm an Arab elitist because I said Shukrun instead of Thank You :d
Quick question – what is wrong with saying that a woman was wearing a sky blue hijab? Why does that cause you issue?
Oh, and saying (in comments): The rise of Salafism/Whabbism is more complex then just the Saudis throwing money about…… just shows a bias this site has against traditional Islam. Using those terms only comes from ignorance. The media made up the term Whabbism…. and now some not so well meaning Muslims take it and run with it. Its also an insult to a great scholar of the past.
@ MuslimahX: Yusra’s issue with the story’s highlighting the woman’s headscarf is symptomatic of several Western outlets: it’s sexist to focus on what a woman is wearing–what she’s wearing isn’t news, it’s the fact that she’s out demonstrating that’s news. Media outlets often describe Muslim women using their clothing, including headscarves, as a way to highlight their difference and exoticize them. If you compare how often media outlets describe men’s dress versus women’s, it’s obvious that what men wear isn’t news. So why is that different for women?
Salaam Alaikum,
Muslimah X – That comment was made by me. I share your distaste for the term Wahabbism, because a name of Allah is Al Whahab so I find it disrespectful, however, I used it for those who may not be familiar with the term Salafism.
Now the actual point of my comment was in response to Rayhana’s remark about ‘well funded foreign imams’. My response meant to indicate that the spread of Salafism is not about money, which is actually a pretty neutral statement.
Sorry I am so late getting to this, but I wanted to thank you for your 7/14 post on the Uyghurs and Rebiya Kadeer.
You bring attention to the Uyghurs, and even though it is done with loads of sarcasms, you do note at the end of your post that Ms. Kadeer is not the problem. The problem is the comfort and motivation the US has in using Uyghur woman as poster children because they pose no threat and are “modern”. It is frustrating and obvious.
With regards to the overall tone of the post, I truly don’t understand why the rest of the Muslim world is not standing up for the Uyghurs (including you in this post)? They face issues like not being able to enter a mosque until they are 18, and only being able to read a State issued version of the Qur’an. They face religious persecution that is slowly draining their complex and historical culture, day by day. In the end, even though they may not be “Arab or brown,” they are Muslim people who need all the support that they can get.
@Dude. I’m interested in why you became “sick” of UHRP’s work. I’d like to discuss this a bit further with you. E-mail me at: info@uhrp.org. Also, use of the term East Turkestan does not define a pro-independence position. Instead, Uyghurs wishing to assert their cultural distinctiveness from China proper use this term. Xinjiang, meaning “new boundary” or “new realm”, was
adopted by the Manchus in the Qing dynasty (1644 -1911) and reflects the perspective of those who gave it this name.
This use of this terminology, either Xinjiang or East Turkestan, is often compared by Uyghurs to the use of the term
Tibet by Tibetans. That is, Tibetans use the name they choose instead of a translation of the Chinese Xizang, meaning
“western treasure-store”. Uyghurs also choose to use a name other than the one designated by the Chinese authorities. I also believe that we have not used “Greater Turkistan” in our work.
@Jackie:
I really don’t get it.
I’ll grant that there may have been a bit of “over-analysis” in her writing, but I just see little to be upset about. I don’t see any belittling of the plight of the Uyghurs in her piece.
I suspect some of you don’t realize that the goal of her piece and of this site (as I see it) is not one of analyzing politics. I think some people are upset that she didn’t discuss the detailed context of the plight of the Uyghurs, and feel that by not putting it in there, it is belittling their suffering.
It’s simply not the aim of her piece or the site to do so. This isn’t an activist site nor a reference site for ongoing conflicts involving Muslims or ethnic groups.
The site is about the depiction of Muslim women in the media. It’s fair criticism if you feel that the analysis of the depiction of the Uyghur women or Rabeyah Kadeer is flawed, but at least point out what the problem is! All I’m seeing is “this piece is offensive” and statements isomorphic to this one.
And I’m sorry, but throwing in the ¡que no! at the end, regardless of whether or not one is fluent in Spanish, just seemed to confirm the superficiality and disingenuousness of the piece.
And words like “superficiality” and “disingenuousness”.
I didn’t expect to see this brought up again. It’s not rare that I read (serious) pieces in English that quote Latin. Or perhaps Hebrew. French, of course, is quite common. None of that is deemed offensive. Why this?