How to Use a Murder Victim: The Exploitation of the Aqsa Parvez Tragedy

November 18, 2008 By sobia

A recent Toronto Life magazine article regarding Toronto teenager Aqsa Parvez’s murder, entitled Girl, Interrupted, has sparked outrage in many circles in Toronto and beyond. And for very good reason. Journalist Mary Rogan has simply perpetuated stereotypes about Muslims, South Asian culture, and immigrant communities.

The disrespectful treatment begins with the front cover, where you see a full page picture of Aqsa’s face, posing seductively with only a hint of a strap on her bare shoulder. Now call me picky or cynical, but I find it hard to believe that this could have been unintentional. Aqsa Parvez has become famous for being murdered by her father for not dressing conservatively enough and the photo used for the cover is arguably not very conservative. The juxtaposition is no coincidence. But what does it say? Both South Asian culture (to which Aqsa belonged) and Islam encourage and value modesty in dress. Using Aqsa’s private picture, never intended for such public display, not only seems a violation of her privacy, but also a purposeful taunt to the Muslim and South Asian communities.

Rogan begins by recounting the events leading up to Aqsa’s murder. Her fear of her father who had sworn to kill her, her brother luring her home on other pretexts, and finally her father strangling her to death and then calling the 911 to confess his crime. It doesn’t take long for Rogan to throw in the phrase “honour killing.”

Was her murder an honour killing or simply a gruesome case of domestic violence? Worldwide, an estimated 5,000 women die every year in honour killings—murders deemed excusable to protect a family’s reputation—many of them in Pakistan, where the Parvez family had emigrated from.

Rogan uses a tactic used many times – point out violence against women in other cultures without acknowledging the extent of the problem within one’s own culture.* In the Western** context the killing of women by relatives and partners may not be termed “honour killings” but that does not mean women are not killed by those they love. The reasons provided may be different, but the underlying ideology – patriarchy – is the same. And patriarchy, which places women in a position of subordination and inferiority, exists in Western cultures as well. Even if one argues that the effects of patriarchy are greater in non-Western cultures, one cannot blame the culture itself but must rather look at the issue within post-colonial analyses. What effect has the racist and misogynist ideology of European colonization had on the culture in question? How has this colonization of the not-so-distant past impacted patriarchy of today? Because you can be sure it has. See here for an explanation of feminism and post-colonialism,

Rogan’s depiction of multiculturalism and immigrants as problematic within the Canadian context is an offensive and not to mention dangerous one. Throughout her piece Rogan repeatedly portrays immigrants, specifically South Asian and Muslim immigrants as threats to Canada.

But there is growing concern that recent waves of Muslim immigrants aren’t integrating, or embracing our liberal values. Aqsa’s death—coming in the wake of debates about the acceptability of sharia law, disputes over young girls wearing hijabs at soccer games, and the arrest of the Toronto 18—stoked fears about religious zealotry in our midst. Is it possible that Toronto has become too tolerant of cultural differences?

Rogan uses three examples to show that Muslims are not integrating. Three examples would hardly meet any empirical criteria. Honour killings, as Rogan calls them, are so rare in Canadian society that they warrant media attention when they do occur. Parent/child conflicts are common in immigrant families just as they are in non-immigrant families. If honour killings really were a part of South Asian/Muslim culture then many more than one would be occurring. One incident is hardly an epidemic to indicate lack of integration. The example of women wanting to wear hijab at soccer games does not indicate lack of integration in the least. If anything, the opposite would be true as it demonstrates a young Muslim girl’s ability to integrate her religion and her Western environment. Finally, the Toronto 18, which is now the Toronto 11, is again just one example of extremist thinking. What about the approximately 250,000*** other Torontonian Muslims who would never engage in such thinking? Three inadequate examples do not suggest that Toronto has become “too tolerant of cultural differences.” Three inadequate examples do not mean that non-Muslims and non-immigrant Canadians should fear all Muslim immigrants.

Rogan continues the story by talking with Aqsa’s friends at her school who tell the reader about Aqsa, what she was like, what she liked to do, who she was to them. They also give their reason for Aqsa’s murder – that she didn’t want to wear the hijab. At this point what one needs to remember, or be reminded of perhaps, is that Aqsa’s friends are young teenage girls. Although from their standpoint this may have been the reason and as such cannot be faulted for saying as such, Rogan, being a journalist, has done a great disservice to her readers by misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint – that the issue was not hijab but rather cultural conflicts and patriarchy. She briefly explains

The majority of Muslim leaders, however, insisted that Aqsa’s murder was not an honour killing. Mohamed Elmasry, who heads the Canadian Islamic Congress, and Shahina Siddiqui, president of the Islamic Social Services Association, described the death as a teen issue and a case of domestic abuse.

To present a balanced view, it would have been helpful to present the side of the friends of Aqsa who felt that the hijab was not the reason but rather cultural clashes.

Aqsa’s friends describe, what appears to be a cultural conflict in Aqsa’s life. Conflicts between parents and teens are common. Add in the conflict of having to deal with two different cultures and inevitably problems will get amplified. I do not wish to trivialize the tensions and problems which arise as a result of biculturalism. However, Rogan does not paint Aqsa as a young girl who was trying to simply balance between two cultures. Rather Aqsa is shown as someone who was trying to shed her “oppressive” South Asian Muslim culture and embrace a “liberating” Western one. It is this juxtaposition which is problematic, offensive, and not to mention inaccurate. Patriarchy and misogyny exist in all cultures. To assume that one is not ignores the experiences of oppression faced by women in the Western context.

However, Rogan successfully paints South Asian culture and Islam as the problem. She quotes Aqsa’s friends as saying “She didn’t turn her back on her culture…She just wanted to have freedom; that’s all she wanted” suggesting that adhering to South Asian cultural practices would have meant lack of freedom.

This article also suggests that the more religious a Muslim is the more they will condone, or even engage in, violence against women.

Some progressive Muslims, such as Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan of the Muslim Canadian Congress, saw her murder as evidence of rising Islamic fundamentalism in Canada.

Again, one isolated case cannot determine anything substantial. It is an unfortunate tragedy but hardly a case of rising fundamentalism.

Aqsa Parvez lived in two worlds. Devout Muslims reject any division of life into the religious and the secular. By the time she was killed, she knew her father was never going to accept her decision to travel back and forth across the two.

This suggests that to mix religious and secular life, at a personal level, is problematic, when the truth is that many Muslims can do so very successfully. This statement simply demonizes those Muslims who place an importance on their religion. Being devout does not mean, as seems to be suggested here, that Muslims cannot integrate into Canadian society.

Rogan relates a Muslim sociologist’s view on the issue:

…when a Muslim child disobeys her parents, the emotional stakes are higher than for other kids. “It’s a religious issue. You’re not just violating your parents’ rules; you’re violating God’s rules. This will affect you in the hereafter.”

This explanantion still does not explain killing one’s child. As mentioned before, many Muslim and immigrant children and parents experience conflicts but never before this have we heard of such a case. If Muslim parents really feared this retribution from God, would we not see such horrific acts occuring more often? The connection is faulty at best and fear-mongering at worst.

The broad generalizations and dangerous stereotypes perpetuated through this article takes the attention away from the very serious problem of violence against women. Additionally, this story ignores the diversity of Muslim women, all of whom want different things and live their lives in different ways. The story creates a xenophobic and Islamophobic atmosphere that does nothing to bring justice to Aqsa Parvez, but rather simplifies the complexity of her life.

Here is another interesting analysis of the story.

*In Canada every week one to two women are murdered by a current or former partner. That’s 52 to 104 each year in Canada alone. And how many women are victims of attempted murders? One could argue that all women who are physically abused could potentially be killed by that violence.

** I use this term in referring to the non-immigrant Western culture.

*** This is as of the 2001 census. Most likely the number has increased greatly since then.

Halal TV: Before and After

November 17, 2008 By Guest Contributor

These articles were written by Tasnim and was originally published at epiphanies. For another perspective on Halal TV, check out Ethar’s analysis here.

Critical Storm before the program begins–Halal TV:

“Critical storm before the program begins” the headline reads, and that, it seems to me, is exactly what happens whenever a head-scarf wearing Muslim woman makes up her little hijabied head to step into the public sphere, the limelight, the media, and presume to take on a role that contradicts the cherished stereotype of the “quiet Muslim wife”. It was what happened over Asma Abdul Hamid, the first hijab-clad presenter on Danish TV, and it is also what has happened now that SVT has decided that Dalia Azzam Kasseem, Kadiga El-Khabiry and Cherin Awad should be the presenters, or to use the less contentious words of the project leader, the “main characters” of Halal TV.

This critical storm response seems a little contradictory, considering the very many efforts exerted to encourage the supposedly too-secluded and sequestered veiled Muslim woman to step out of the private enclosure of her home. It is not, however, as strange as it seems, because in most cases, the criticism focuses not at all on that much-discussed creature, the Muslim Woman, but rather on the effect she will have on others, should she appear on TV.

For example: Dilsa Demirbag-Steen compares Halal TV to letting three Nazis write the script of a documentary, or letting a priest present it. Basically, ‘veiled’ women come with their agendas wrapped round their heads and she wants her TV visually agenda-less.

I’m not so unbalanced that I will not admit her point of view is convincing, though in this particular instance a very little bit offensively phrased. However, it is a point of view that comes with assumptions attached. Demirbag-Steen evidently feels that everyone everywhere will share her own opinion on what kind of people are presenter-material and that everyone everywhere will react to the same type of person as obviously neutral.

Except, I would argue that in doing so, they would only be reacting to a carefully modulated appearance in keeping with the latest memo on how to look neutral – that is, as western, secular and uniform as possible.

But of course, like the colour white, to be western/secular is a point of invisibility. The key words here are conforming and assimilation, and that type of multiculturalism seen exclusively from the melting-pot, subsume-all-difference into WASP-equivalence angle.

Veiled women, unlike “ethnic” dress or pink hair, are especially galling because, in addition to looking so full of hidden agendas and secret plots and covered hair, they obliquely commit that worst of atrocities in a postmodern world. They announce that they believe they have found the truth. That is, you can identify their religion, as well as their skin colour, just by looking at them. This is apparently offensive to some.

Because, as Luis Bunel said: “I would give my life for a man who is looking for the truth. But I would gladly kill a man who thinks that he has found the truth” – a sentiment he shares with the executioners of Al Hallaj, who in 922 announced: “ana/ara alhaq, I am/I see the Truth,” and was promptly dispatched for this outrageous presumption.

There’s just no escaping the glorification of doubt, the popularity of forever questing and questioning. I have nothing to say against that. That’s fine. Although it seems to me that “to choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation”, I like the open-minded open-endedness doubt-glorification aspires to as much as I like to quote Life of Pi.

Seriously though, if in a postmodern world all truths are equal, why can’t a discipline of one particular truth be a TV presenter? Why kick up such a fuss over a woman whose religion you can identify appearing onscreen? Over, basically, a piece of cloth?

The critical storm has, as usual, shoved the attention away from the subject to the object. Halal TV is supposed to take up questions of equality and immigration. Not, or not exclusively, hijab. The three headscarf-clad presenters say, as they always say, that they are weary of negativity and want to change things. Just as this show seeks to make use of the shock value of three headscarf-clad women with “orthodox” Islamic values as presenters, the three headscarf-clad women seek to make use of the opportunity the show gives them to speak for themselves, and perhaps, alter misconceptions.

It doesn’t seem they have much of a chance, judging from this article, which begins with Demirbag-Steen’s full scale Nazi-comparison attack, mentions a worried woman who says that she “fled from this sort of thing in Iran” and demands the presenters tell her why Muslim women inherit less than men. The article ends disappointingly with the defensive project leader muttering that he honestly fully understands those who have “grim experiences of Islam”, but that he also thinks people should be “allowed to say they think Islam is good”. Note the “should be allowed to say they think.” Now that’s neutrality.

Third International Congress on Islamic Feminism

November 13, 2008 By Guest Contributor

This was written by Sahar and originally published at Nuseiba.

The third International Congress on Islamic feminism is underway in Barcelona. Muslim women from around the world have gathered to discuss the pressing issue of women in Islam and the Muslim world. Events like these and the debate which ensues – both from women and men–can often be heated and emotional. Just the very mention of Islamic feminism seems to arouse criticism. Too often there is a tendency to discredit women’s activism in the Muslim community simply because these women choose to label themselves as ‘Islamic feminists’.

Rather than getting into the various currents of Islamic feminism-which many of its critics tend to forget, I’d rather discuss the antagonistic and emotional reaction by many critics in the Muslim community. Why is there so much hysteria around the issue of women in Islamic discourse?

Sometimes, I wonder if the label ‘feminist’ is worth even using because too often it serves more of a hindrance than progress. This is perhaps because it is conflated with feminism’s role in the colonial period, and where it was used to legitimise the project of the colonial power. Further, it is also because it has been associated with the mimetic modernizing projects by bourgeois nationalists in countries like Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. On the contrary, the reality is that neither the colonialist nor the nationalist forces ever genuinely pursued the ‘emancipation’ of women. Merely, the issue of women, in particular their bodies, were used as a battleground for conflicting ideologies. For instance in Tunisia, the Tunisian woman was ‘modern’ (unveiled) in the physical sense, but expected to maintain the traditional role as the ‘mother of the nation’ who produces modern Tunisian citizens. That was her primary role. My point here is that both colonialists and modern nationalists never sought to emancipate women (assuming here many needed it in the first place) but instead infused the image of the ‘Muslim woman’ as a reflection of nationalist ideology–whether modern or Islamic.

This historical background provides a clearer insight into why there has been such hysteria behind issues of women in the Muslim world. In modern history, she has been relegated into a position of producing culture and the nation. That is why in Iran, the image of the chador-wearing Iranian woman is emphasized to the degree that it is, because it has both a political nationalist and religious meaning of resistance: She symbolizes the Iranian revolution and the defiance of Iran. Or in the opposite case, the unveiled Turkish woman is the symbol of Attaturk’s efforts to bring Turkey out of ignorance and stagnation.

Considering the historical tradition, it’s not surprising that the word ‘feminism’ arouses such opposition and emotions. The situation of Muslim women today is far more harrowing as a result of these experiences. The fanatical discourses around her have made it very difficult for any Muslim woman (or mEn for that matter) to point out injustices to even discuss the rights given to us in our very religion. It’s a time of crisis for the Muslim community if downloading the rights of women in Islam is threatened with a death sentence or imprisonment– which recently occurred in Afghanistan. Moreover, this is all justified under the feeble effort to ‘preserve’ some sort of a constructed authenticity which has mummified our discourse to the point where voices have been smothered because we’re led to believe everything is a threat. These include the voices of Islamic feminists.

I don’t agree with all Islamic feminists, and understand the discomfort of the label ‘feminist’ sometimes. Single standpoint feminism has done a great disservice with its monological approach. But we should forget about the stress on terms and labels, and focus on the actual issues. Forget about the ideological background some of these women may be inspired by. Is not the reality of the continued marginalization of over half of our community more important?

I’m writing this soon after I read a report on an increase of self-immolation in Afghanistan. Indeed, such an act should be contextualized within the experiences of war, but as local Afghan human rights groups have reported, they are the result of women who come from abusive marriages and feel they have nowhere to turn. As an Afghan woman who has witnessed the disgusting chauvinism the culture has a tendency to express (clearly not always), I believe the evidence of self-immolation and other equally appalling acts throughout the country are symptoms of a deeper problem. The Congress is therefore addressing these issues and doing what the broader Muslim community has failed to do: Openly discussing women-related issues in our community-and they’re doing it within an Islamic framework. Encouraging the education of Muslim women, denouncing honour killings, forced and child marriages and other practices plaguing the lives of many Muslim women are often key issues raised in these discussions.

The broader Muslim community can decry the treatment of Muslim women in the West (example France or the Netherlands regarding the hijab); however, we’ve failed to voice the wrongs against them within our own community. The attitude from many Muslims has been to not shed light on these problems because it gives Western critics further reason to demonise Muslims and Islam. Ironically, by ignoring the suffering of these members of the Muslim community, we are doing just that. In fact, we’re allowing these victims to equate their suffering with Islam, and helping them to turn away from it.

Whether one agrees with the methodology and interpretations being employed by those who advocate for the rights of women in the Muslim world, it’s appalling to reject and deny the need to incorporate informed women’s voices in today’s Islamic discourse–which criticism of such gatherings shamefully suggests.

Editor’s Note: For another perspective, you can read Sobia’s post on this conference and another in India.

Unpacking the “culture” argument

November 10, 2008 By Krista

I wrote a few weeks ago about the effect of a fictional white character’s Muslim identity on possible constructions and understandings of Islam and Muslim; this week I want to look at a couple non-fictional women in similar positions.

On Open Salon, a network of bloggers, this weekend’s top story was written by Sara O’Connell, an American woman of Irish descent who has been Muslim all her life. (In case you’re wondering, no, I’m not going to engage with her discussion of hijab. I mean that. Yeah, there are things to say about it, but we’ve got enough hijab conversations happening here, and I really don’t want to hear about it in the context of this post. We’ve got other stuff to talk about here.) O’Connell brings up several points related to her Muslim-American identity; among them, she talks about how her own experiences have taught her that, contrary to popular media discourses, gender-based oppression is not inherent to Islam. She claims that “Often times culture and religion is mixed up and some people often assume that backwards customs of a culture are part of a religion, when in fact they are not.”

Following that, O’Connell talks about the history of women being respected and given rights within Islam, starting with the time of the Prophet. She then asks:

“What happened along the way you ask? Culture. In general, Arab and South Asian men have a very dominating outlook when it comes to women and can be very proud and controlling. So when people here hear these stories of honor killings and the abuse of women they assume that it is something from the religion. But it is not, it is all cultural.”

In another article, focusing on a Muslim women’s conference in Pittsburgh, journalist Diana Nelson Jones interviews Karen Traugh, an American (of unspecified ethnic background) who embraced Islam. Jones tells us a similar story:

“She said Muslims in America can find their Islamic core when they are not bound by the conscriptive culture of their homeland.
“When you come to America, you can really examine why it is you wear what you wear,” said Ms. Traugh. In Jordan, the almost-universal look of religious dress is robes buttoned up the front.
“It doesn’t vary much,” she said, and it’s an example of how cultural customs can become as important as or override pure worship.”

Of course, it’s nice to see people emphasis every so often that oppression and dogmatism aren’t inherent to Islam. But what is the cost of this? In cases such as those quoted above, Islam is let off the hook, but in its place, non-Western cultures (particularly Arab and South Asian ones, as in O’Connell’s quote), are identified as the sources of rigidity and backwardness. (I’ve talked about this a bit before, in the comments section of this post.)

There are a number of reasons why this makes me squirm. First, and most obviously, it perpetuates racism against Arab and South Asian communities, justifying such racism because of their supposed inherent sexism. As usual, any alternate, non-oppressive stories from those communities are silenced, as are forms of resistance coming from those communities, as well as any external forces (such as economic issues, war, etc.) that may be exacerbating gender-based oppression and religious dogmatism. Non-Western cultures are painted as unchanging and firmly rooted in the past, incapable of “progressing” the way that Western cultures apparently do, and therefore never worthy of being examined on the same level as European-influenced cultures.

When such judgment comes from within the Muslim community, it comes across as having added validity, due to the inside status of the speaker. Moreover, this is further emphasised when the message is “No, Islam isn’t oppressive; the REAL sources of oppression come from culture” – in other words, the “truth” of the statement is reinforced through its opposition to other messages that people may have heard. Intentionally or not, racial and cultural hierarchies are reproduced among Muslims in a very disturbing way.

I’m also not comfortable with what this says about white/Western cultures. In this dichotomy, the West is imagined as culture-free, a place where people can let go of the constraints of their home countries in favour of an ostensibly “pure” Islam that can only be found through a disavowal of centuries of traditions (many of which have likely served to preserve Islamic beliefs and practices in many parts of the world.) Westerners (particularly white ones) who enter Islam are assumed to come in with no baggage at all. While it is true that people who become Muslim after having been raised in non-Muslim cultures don’t necessarily bring religiously-sanctioned forms of oppression into it with them, it’s a little simplistic to assume that their Islam will remain untainted by their cultural background.

In addition, white Western cultures are, of course, assumed to be somehow free of ingrained patriarchal tendencies. Oppression and violence against women are seen as individual aberrations rather than culturally located, despite the prevalence of domestic violence and other forms of sexism that are found across Western societies. Other forms of oppression that are also endemic in these societies (racism, economic oppression, and so on) are also never taken up, and certainly never addressed as culturally-derived systems. Whiteness and Western identities are reinforced as superior and above the problems that are found in cultures deemed foreign, rigid and violent. In reality, religious dogmatism and religious justifications for gender-based discrimination and oppression can be found in every culture on this planet (or at least, the vast majority. Let me know if you find any exceptions.) None of us should be assuming that our background or our geographic location makes us immune to these forces.

I am sure that neither of the women quoted here had any intention of feeding into systems of racism and white supremacy, but I do think that those of us who identify both as Muslim and as white have a responsibility to recognise the ways that our voices may be interpreted when speaking for the community. In a social context that privileges white voices, is easy to become positioned (or to position ourselves) as “experts” on Islam, or at least as people qualified to speak about Islam and Muslims, and we need to be accountable for what we say. Hierarchies based on racial identity don’t simply vanish because of our religion. Defending Islam against false accusations is crucial; however, it is also essential to ensure that such defences don’t create or reinforce other cultural stereotypes.

Friday Links — November 7, 2008

November 7, 2008 By fatemeh

Salam, dear readers! I’m traveling this week, so I didn’t have time to do a lengthy link list. But here are the spoils from this week:

Last week, we reported that a woman in Somalia had been executed for adultery. New reports show that she was 13 years old and had been raped. Via ifeminists. More from the BBC and Aziz from City of Brass.

The NYU Arab Student Associate held a runway performance for Islamic relief. Via The Hijablog.

The Guardian highlights the voices of a husband and wife over the headscarf issue.

Asma Barlas shares her experiences at the Third Congress on Islamic Feminism.

Sand gets in my eyes talks about domestic violence in Saudi Arabia.

Shahrazad expresses irritation over the idea of a car for women in Iran.

A Muslim woman has gone missing in the U.K. May Allah keep her.

The first female judge has just been appointed to the Palestinian Islamic court in Ramallah. Via Feministing.

Jameelah Medina, the woman whose headscarf was forcibly removed while she was incarcerated for an expired rail ticket, tells her story. The silver lining here is that the jail has decided to allow women to keep their headscarves while being held (after being sued, of course). Via Jezebel. More from the Associated Press.

Aaminah Hernández writes a thought-provoking post on unity in the Muslim community.

Alternatives highlights the story of Nadia Yassine, who is currently involved in a legal dispute with the kingdom of Morocco.

Islam in Europe highlights the invention of disposable hijabs in Norway and the debate around headscarves for public servants in Austria.

Chay magazine is asking for submissions for their second issue.

“Western” feminism alienates Muslim women again.

The U.K. gives asylum to a woman fleeing Lebanese shari’a law.

Women are increasingly including provisions in their marriage contracts in Saudi Arabia.

More about recommendations for the police force on how to handle honor killings in the U.K.

Marrying a seven-year-old girl and an eight-year-old boy to end a feud? Bad!

IslamOnline reviews the harrowing story of Sameem Ali from her new memoir.

Pink Hijab Day in Qatar.

The Washington Post reports on gay Muslims who seek to marry lesbian Muslims as a way to escape the marriage pressures from their families. Via hegab-rehab.

The Yemen Times examines challenges surrounding women’s sports in Yemen.

Amjad A. Reda writes about women in Saudi media.

Muslim women will get their own hostel in Calcutta.

How did the women’s conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, go? The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette asks a man.

Microfinancing programs reach out to Muslim women in the Gulf.

The American Muslim Women’s Association had an anniversary dinner last week.

InFocus tackles domestic violence in the Muslim community.

Made in Sweden: Halal-TV

November 6, 2008 By ethar

Muslimah Media Watch thanks Shaista for the tip!

A couple of days ago, a new TV show about Muslim women in Sweden, Halal-TV, aired its first episode on Sveriges Television (SVT), a Swedish television channel.

As expected, the show, which features three young Muslim women as hosts, was stirring up debate before it even began. A Kurdish-Swedish author, Dilsa Demirbag-Sten, pointed out that 23-year-old host Cherin Awad had said, at age 18, that stoning a woman to death was an appropriate punishment for adultery. Awad, a lawyer, has since retracted her previous comments.

The show also features 22-year-old doctor-to-be Dalia Azzam Kassem and 25-year-old dental hygienist Khadiga El-Khabiry. All were born in Sweden.

But that’s not what the hullabaloo is now about. On the very first episode, Awad and El-Khabiry refused to shake the hand of Carl Hamiltion (all pictured below), a columnist from the left-wing newspaper, Aftonbladet. According to a transcript published in the Expressen newspaper, this exchange occurred:

“I’m sorry, you ought to shake my hand,” said Hamilton.

“That’s something I decide,” replied El Khabiry.

“No, I don’t think so!” Hamilton shot back.

[He was then asked what he thought a Swede who had converted to Islam ought to do].

“He should shake hands when in Sweden. If he can’t manage that then he can go live in a cave and be a hermit. It’s about how we live as Swedes. That’s how we socialize, we shake hands. It’s not we who are the problem. The problem is that you come here and don’t want to shake hands, so it’s actually you who are the problem.”

“We didn’t come here. I was born here,” El Khabiry reminded Hamilton.

From left to right: Cherin Awad, Dalia Azzam Kassem, Carl Hamilton, and Khadiga El Khabiry. Image via SVT.

If you understand Swedish, go to the program’s website then click on the side bar where it says “Se programmet” to watch the clip. You need to know Swedish because the incident happened off-camera though it was audio-recorded.

According to Shaista, a Swedish-born Muslim:

“In the clip [the incident is] when they’re sitting down and the picture is a bit blurry. They sort of had a row. They asked him why he reacted the way he did and he was saying he was the one being normal, that’s how everyone would react in Sweden, etc.

At the end of the show he is given an opportunity to state his side of the story, he’s basically saying he lost his temper a little, he doesn’t usually but he felt he was being accused of being a racist and they were rude towards him and tried to undermine him by not shaking hands, that’s what made him question them and lose his temper.”

In a column he published in his newspaper Hamilton asked “Is it racist to want to shake hands with a Muslim?” and said the non-handshaking minority should adapt themselves to the handshaking majority.

(Most of the above information I got from the well-researched article in The Local, Sweden’s English newspaper).

Where to start?

Let’s take how the media tackled the no-handshaking issue. In the article I quoted above, the article was actually passably fair, though, as Shaista points out, the transcript is slightly edited, not mentioning that Hamilton forcibly grabbed one of the women’s hands to shake, and that he said that if she doesn’t shake hands in Sweden she might as well return to Iran (Note: Not her country).

Some blog posts (where the issue was first raised) were sarcastic of the whole issue, with the author of this post titled “On Swedish TV, a Muslim Woman Supports Stoning Adulteresses,” saying:

“My only question here is, how long will it take before the closed minded columnist of the Left-wing rag Aftonbladet is labeled as a racist? If Hamilton refuses to see the light and the error of his ways, it’ll only a matter of time before he’s cast into the outer darkness by his peers. All that wailing and moaning and gnashing of the teeth awaits him, especially the gnashing of teeth.”

And that’s not the only sensationalist title. A post on corrupt.com is titled “Muslim TV Show Shocks Swedish Public,” and has some very interesting insights on the show:

“What’s striking about the response to the show is how both journalists and the Swedish public react negatively against watching radical Muslims appearing live on television. What are we, I ask as a Swede, afraid of? Did we think all Muslims would convert to law abiding Social Democrats the minute they crossed our borders?

I may be one of the few Swedes who appreciated watching these three Muslims express their opinions on TV. Aside from the tedious socialist propaganda and the poor journalism, it reflects the feelings, behavior and attitude of a great portion of the people who’ve come to stay in this country since the late ’70s. These people are no longer portrayed as hard working wannabe-Westerners without cultural roots. They represent their cultural and religious identity, and do so with pride. Even more, they refuse to accept our culture.

Such a silly social act as shaking hands, which in Sweden is a very important formal signal that you welcome a person in question (not shaking hands is the same as expressing resentment towards that same person), sparked a lively debate among people. “Why can’t they accept our social traditions?” The answer is: they already have social traditions of their own, and we’re morons if we thought they’d abandon these on the whim. Opposed to us, they are proud of their culture, while we spend hours on television condemning ours.”

I don’t want to go off on a tangent here, but I have some reservations about his whole post. In the above comments, he not only labels the three women hosts as “radicals,” he assumes that just because Muslims are proud of their culture they must reject Swedish culture and laws. He paints a picture of “us” and “them” that are in binary opposition, forgetting that the three Swedish women are part of that “us!” By simplifying the situation, he has effectively reduced the difficulties any person with dual identities faces to something trivial. He also refuses to consider the idea that shaking hands may mean a very different thing to those women—one has to take into account different beliefs and cultures. If it wasn’t a religious issue (for example, let’s say giving the okay sign in Brazil, which is equivalent to giving someone your middle finger), I’m assuming it wouldn’t have been so hard to avoid doing it.

I do believe, though, that the women should have made it clear before the show began taping that they did not want to shake hands, because I understand it is embarrassing to put out your hand and not have it shaken.

On the issue of shaking hands, Shaista is frustrated:

“The debate in Swedish newspapers continues and much focus is on why some people in the Muslim community chose not to shake hands with the opposite sex. TV-shows and journalists are once again calling to get in touch with the Muslim community to have us “explain this” to them. They think we should be happy and grateful that they are getting in touch with us to let us have chance to clarify things. But I’m not too happy or grateful. The only time they contact us is when we have to explain ourselves as the problematic part of society. We are once again given on-air time in defensive positions. A lot of us are getting tired of it. It’s not our job to run to the studios and explain and answer the questions they pose when they feel like it.”

(For more stories, go here, where the blog author has posted links to dozens of English and Swedish stories on the program).

A couple of last comments on the show itself, which is supposed to be the Muslim women explaining Sweden through their ‘Muslim’ eyes. I don’t speak Swedish, so I can’t judge the content, but from what I’ve read, the first episode talked about class and wasn’t very ‘meaty.’ I watched the clip on the site, and even though I don’t understand Swedish, I still have something to say.

The three women, although they come from different backgrounds, are hijabis. And although way harsh, this is what Demirbag-Sten, the Swedish author, wrote in a column published last week in the Svenska Dagbladet (SvD) newspaper:

“There are many ways for public broadcasting to use high standards of journalism to address the diversity issues which affect the Muslim part of the population without reducing the group to deeply faithful, headscarf bearing, homophobic teetotalers who believe that women should be virgins until they are married and support stoning for adultery.”

Immediately, you see that the connection has been made that wearing hijab = the stereotypes he just spewed. Awad’s previous statement and the women’s refusal to shake hands just reinforced those stereotypes.

I have to question why it is the three women are hijabis. It’s an unfortunate truth, but the reality is that the hijab, especially with the target audience of the show, might make all three women seem homogenous. Criticism of them being veiled actually came from unveiled Swedish Muslim women.

In an interesting eight minute (English) radio interview with the TV show producer Gunnar Hofverberg and the three hosts right before the show began, Hofverberg says:

“They don’t represent anyone but themselves. We have 150,000 religious Muslims in Sweden and we don’t make a program that represents this group.”

The radio interviewer (who’s actually very articulate though he does ask the [Swedish born] women “have you learned anything about Sweden?”) asked the three women why they think people look at them and say “Ah, three women in hijab. They must all think the same.” One of them answered (sorry, can’t tell their voices apart!):

“It seems so illogical when you say it so I can’t even say why. If I see three white men next to each other, I won’t say they must all have the same political views. We would never think that way.”

The radio interviewer then told them that because so few veiled women are on Swedish TV, people will see them as role models or forebearers. Another one answered:

“We’re all very aware that people consider us to be representatives for the Muslim community and we understand that but that’s not what we want. We want to show we are all individuals. We have two factors in common: we live in Sweden and we are Muslim. But other than that we are very different.”

Last comment: why is the show named ‘Halal TV?’

Girl Talk…

October 30, 2008 By Muslimah Media Watch

“Audio blogging” is the new ‘it’ thing in Egypt. Cheap and censorship-free in a country where the airwaves are controlled by the government, it’s not hard to understand its appeal. There are many new web radio stations out there, but perhaps one of the most interesting is Banat w bas, Girls Only, which began streaming their broadcasts over the internet in July 2008.

I logged onto their website, and although a little busy and uses images of women that are in no way representative of Egyptian women (Muslim or otherwise), it has had over 25,000 unique visitors in less than four months.

And with over 2,000 members on their facebook group, they must be doing something right.

Banat w bas’s slogan is “The first station ‘for girls only’ in the Arab world.” On their “About Us” page (which is titled “Why girls in particular?”) the station’s founder, 25-year-old Computer Science graduate Amani El-Tunsi, writes:

“I wish I can talk to people who understand me and speak to my mind. Who treat me as an independent entity who feels and thinks and dreams. In the street I want to hide from the eyes of men. Sometimes I feel that I am being punished for being a girl. In the taxi the driver stares at me in the mirror. If it’s crowded [men] use it as an excuse to touch me…Oh, I forget, I am a girl!”

In big bold letters they write: “This is not a way to live!!”

It is this frustration with the double standards of Egyptians society and the apathy of many Egyptian women to change their situation that drove El-Tunsi to start the station. In an interview with the English-language Daily News Egypt, she said:

“I wanted to reach out to other girls after witnessing how superficial a lot of them have become. They are only interested in hijab styles and make-up. It seemed that girls don’t work on improving themselves and consider marriage to be the ultimate goal. They think if they are married, they are successful.”

And although her statement lumps Egyptian women into one category, there is something to be said for her critique.

There are currently 30 people working at the station, and 10 of them are men. Two of them have a counter show titled “Tayeb! Wellad we Bas” (Fine! Boys Only) to respond to the rest of the show’s programming.

Out of almost two dozen programs, the most popular ones are “This is not a way to live!” “Screw you all,” and “[Equivalent to] 100 men.”

And even though some programs may seem frivolous to some (example: “How to be a model” is a show dedicated to Muslim women who wear the headscarf, advising them on how to become a “Hijab Model”), with the station shying away from the sensitive trio (Religion, sex and politics), there’s no denying that each show appeals to a certain segment of listeners.

The women (and man) of Banat w Bus. Images from the group's Facebook profile.

And just like there are shows about fashion and how to tell if a boy really likes you, there are also shows that vent about the patriarchal society Egypt is, and how to change it.

I would like to see the station try and tackle some more thorny issues though. According to El-Tunsi:

“We are not qualified to talk about these issues. As for politics we don’t discuss it but we will discuss its social implications; regarding religion, I wanted the station to be for both Muslims and Christians and I felt we will not be able to present both in the station; and sex, well … we live in a conservative society and talking about sexual issues will give people the wrong idea about us, we would be misunderstood.”

But even though they’re not taking the initiative with regards to ‘tricky’ subjects, they are in other ways. The station has launched a “We don’t have unemployment” campaign, which aims to provide youth with contacts to training centers that provide them with necessary skills they need in the job market.

So what has the media reaction been like?

I’ve seen a couple of articles, one at IslamOnline and one in the controversial Rosa Le Youssef and both have been pretty positive (though the title of the latter :”The station tackles ‘Eib* topics” raised my hackles).

I called up El-Tunsi (who very kindly answered her phone just after midnight) and she told me that the media has been surprisingly positive. I asked her what media outlets have covered the stations and I was stunned by the list.

Three out of Egypt’s four main news programs on local and satellite channels have featured the show (Al-Beit Beitak, Al-Qahera al-yom, Al-‘ashera masa’an [This home is your home, Cairo Today, 10pm]) as well as a multitude of local newspapers and magazines such as Shabab (Youth) and Sayedaty (My Lady) magazines.

The international media has also been paying attention: Rotana, BBC, German Radio and “someone in Barcelona and someone in Washington” El-Tunsi told me.

“In the beginning [the press] reported that we were a bunch of anti-men women, but once they listened to the programs and realized that we had a goal and a mission, they changed their tune.”

But one has to wonder if the ‘girl only’ theme is a reason that catapulted the station into the spotlight. Partly true, acquiesces El-Tunsi. But, she says:

“We are a bunch of women from different backgrounds who believe in what we say completely. We don’t want to just rant; we want to bring about change. We speak the way youth speak today. We’re real.”

Good on them!

*A uniquely Arabic word that encompasses the words rude, honor, shame, and wrong. When someone oversteps certain limits they are told ‘Eib!’ Kind of like “you should be ashamed of yourself, this is wrong.”