Getting a life

Just came back from Toronto’s Pride celebration.  On balance, I’d say that it was awesome, despite the downpour (which fortunately stopped a bit after the parade began, so that onlookers’ ability to see wasn’t impeded by a forest of umbrellas). The parade marshall this year was El-Farouk Khaki, a well-known Toronto activist. Salaam was out and proud, carrying their rainbow-and-pink-crescent Muslim pride flag. Some Muslim allies also marched in the parade this year.

Toronto’s Pride parade impressed me with its sheer diversity. Of course, I know intellectually that there are gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transpeople and other queer folk in every ethnicity, every culture, every religious community, every place. Yet, when I was growing up in a small Ontario town, I had really believed that I was utterly alone.

Yesterday, I watched GLBTQ people of almost every imaginable ethnicity and background on the parade floats, and heard all the different languages swirling around me at the street festival following the parade, and it suddenly hit me—I likely wasn’t the only one. No, I can’t have been. There likely were other girls in my Girl Guide company. At my school. In the town. On the First Nations reserve just outside of it.

But nobody talked about it. The word “gay” was rarely mentioned except as an insult or in the context of a dirty joke. I hardly heard the word “lesbian” at all growing up, and never “bisexual” or “transgendered”—even though, looking back, I remember a student at my high school who was probably trans. Such things just weren’t talked about much, because “those kinds of people” were not acknowledged to be living among us; they apparently lived in far away places like Toronto. Any talk of “homosexual” rights was theoretical, abstract: should “we” tolerate “them” and “their (different) lifestyle” or not? It was clear that “they” were not—never could be!—”us.”

In such a context, the growing realization that you might just be one of “them” is almost too horrifying to be borne. It meant exile from the realm of the acceptable and even the comprehendable, falling off the map, becoming unreadable to your neighbours, your family and even yourself. I learned the hard way to censor myself—my verbal reactions to things, my attractions, even my glances. But not quite quickly enough. My family started to wonder, and began to express their doubts in biting, throw-away comments disguised as light-hearted banter:

Mom: Where are  you going?

Me: To Kathy’s.

Mom: Again? Oh, you and Kathy! (turns away) Oh well, they’ll probably shack up!

Teenage brother: (Snickers)

Me: (mortified, flees the room; jumps on bike and heads off to Kathy’s, wondering what is wrong with them—or could something be wrong with me? Perhaps it isn’t ok for a girl to be in grade 10 and to have only female friends? Surely I couldn’t be one of… those?)

I became very homophobic. I took every opportunity to loudly proclaim that I wasn’t one of those homosexuals. Even, I recall, on a grade 12 French final exam, when some question asked something or other about dating a girl—I went to the length of writing an answer which I knew was ungrammatical, risking a lower mark in order to claim that I only ever date boys (although I never had actually dated one). I was not attracted to boys, nor were they attracted to me. Something must be wrong with me, I thought. I went to the library, and borrowed several books aimed at teenage girls who needed directions on how to select the most flattering hairstyle and flirt with boys. But nothing worked—not even a year’s subscription to Seventeen. Frankly, I got a lot more out of reading survival manuals; I followed the directions for how to make a rabbit snare, and it actually functioned as it was supposed to do. (The poor rabbit.)

Fast-forward to 2009. I am wondering who else in my high school graduating class turned out to be queer as I wander through the Pride festival. At these sorts of events, I keep a weather eye out for Kathy, even though I haven’t seen her for so many years that I’m not sure if I would recognize her anyhow. Wish I could remember her last name, then I could google her. I can remember the moles on her face, but not her last name….

There are those who wonder what relevance Pride celebrations have today. After all, LGBTQ people in Canada now have equal rights before the law, including the right to marry; even the cops are marching in the parade. Perhaps it all seems passe to those who’ve been out for decades.

But as I drove back to the US today, heading back to a region where even gay partnerships (forget marriage) aren’t legally recognized, where the cops waste time targeting cruising grounds, where the GLBTQ community is pretty low-key, I was very glad that I had been able to make it to Toronto’s Pride this year.

Comments(0)

Recently, I found out about the PBS doc, “The Mosque in Morgantown.” So far, I haven’t been able to watch it, except for the clips on the film’s website. I watched the clips, and felt that old, familiar pain of being torn in two, opposite directions. I read the review of the film at muslimahmediawatch.org, and felt even worse, especially when I read some of the comments. Typical stuff, for the most part—insinuations that Asra Nomani is just trying to be in the limelight, or that her efforts are in the end mainly intended to sell her books.

Personally, I find Asra Nomani’s style annoying, when it’s not cringe-worthy. Taping 99 theses on the door of the mosque!?! How unoriginal. For some reason, there’s a line-up of Muslims who want to be the next Martin Luther these days, though what exactly that is supposed to do for women I don’t know, given his well-known misogyny (in addition to his virulent anti-Semitism). Presenting herself as a martyr? Oh, please. North American Muslim communities are a virtual paradise of martyrs, honey. Look around you at all the female, LGBTQ, black, and/or convert Muslims who’ve been marginalized and treated badly by their local mosques. You’re not that special.

However, I find it revealing that while Asra’s publicity-generating actions are being harshly criticized by Muslims, the much more high-profile (and more financially profitable) leadership careers of certain well-known North American Muslim men seem to attract little comment, although they’re also busy selling tapes and videos as well as books, charging speaker’s fees, and making money from marketing of their approaches to religious knowledge. Perhaps their relative immunity from the kind of criticism that Nomani faces is that much of what they say is what their audiences want to hear. 

I haven’t attended a mosque, or even an Eid prayer, for two years now. And, I don’t see myself attending in the forseeable future, either. I miss the feeling of being connected to a Muslim community. I miss entering and praying in sacred space. And, I want my daughters to identify as Muslims and feel comfortable in the mosque. But where is there a mosque which I can attend, and not feel awful afterwards?

In virtually all mosques that I have ever attended, women are not only segregated from men, but also given grossly unequal facilities: stuffed onto over-crowded balconies, consigned to damp basements, crammed at the back of the prayer-room behind a room-divider, with barely room to breathe. Or, in the rare event that the main prayer-room is open to women, and is spacious AND does not have a barrier or curtain separating the men from the women, the women’s lines are located as far away from the men’s as possible, leaving enough room between them for a six-lane highway. Apparent message: Women are dangerous! They might have cooties! Or, they might cause a man to lose his wudu’! 

For years, I told myself that such inequities are simply due to lack of resources. Or, to the fact that women don’t have to come to the mosques for prayer anyway, so they don’t need as much space as men do. Or, that it’s more modest for women to pray out of sight of men, behind a barrier or in a separate room if possible. And, didn’t the well-known Companion ‘Abdallah Ibn Mas’ud say that the best lines for women are the ones furthest to the back? Who was I to question the wisdom of a Companion, or of the jurists, or of the contemporary Muslim (male) leaders in my community who held forth on “the place of women in Islam”?

For years I took my daughters to pray in cramped, crowded places. Or behind various make-shift barriers—dirty room-dividers, piles of old chairs, even crowd-control fencing. No other sisters seemed to mind; only me. And, who was I to complain? Why was it that only I seemed to resent it that I could hardly even hear the khutba? Why was it that only I seemed to worry about what would happen on balconies jam-packed with sisters and their children if there was a fire or other emergency?

When did enough become enough? When did I finally concede to myself that separate is not—and can never be—equal? Was it the day that I looked up at a sisters’ balcony which was entirely encased in plexiglass, wondered whether the number of people on it was in accordance with the fire regulations, and realized that nobody really cares anyway? Or was it the day that the imam was preaching on a topic that I really wanted to hear about, but I could only catch about one-third of what he was saying because I was stuck at the back, behind a barrier? Maybe it was the Eid prayer, when the imam kept telling the women to stop talking, and I felt sorry that my daughters had to witness and take part in such a degrading scene, with women marginalized behind a tall barrier, and then talked down to by the (male) imam into the bargain?

In the end, I decided not to go to mosques for the same reason that I wouldn’t join an organization which doesn’t allow blacks or Jews to become members. It wasn’t so long ago that discrimination of that sort was openly practiced in North America by “mainstream” organizations; that changed because public opinion would no longer allow it. I would like to believe that mosques will change, but I don’t expect much to improve in my lifetime. Plenty of people like things the way that they are, and those who don’t are marginalized, and more or less told to take a hike.  

Many mosques function like country clubs for the like-minded: men from a certain geographical region or ethnicity, or who have a particular sect or approach to Islam, or who are from the same social class or background. They are not democratic or transparent institutions by and large, nor are they intended to be. Periodically, some mosques are rocked by attempts of one faction or another to take over the board, or to unseat the imam. Those with the power tend to use it primarily to further their own interests.

The women who attend such mosques and are happy in them are usually the female relatives or wives of those men; they socialize with other women like themselves, and don’t rock the boat. I don’t—can’t—fit in. I’m not meant to fit. Mosques of that sort are meant to be different from the surrounding “Western” environment, a retreat from it. I’m by definition an intruder. I don’t belong.

The best comment by far on the review by muslimahmediawatch was #26, by Umm Zaid. Yup, she told it like it is: “I frankly was and am tired of being treated like a creature who has no right to dignity, no right to a clean space, an air conditioned or heated space, a space that doesn’t reek of garbage or urine or what have you. Tired of the idea that a mere glance at me will cause a man to make a mess in his pants, when these same men deal with women every day at work and in life. What’s even better are otherwise “good intentioned” men who claim that they have no ability (read: no interest) in changing these things, and who are content to sit in their lovely carpeted area (possibly with a chandelier overhead) where they can hear and see the khutbah and prayer while their wife huddles in a cold, crowded damp basement.”

Umm Zaid also contends that the ISNA/CAIR post-Morgantown effort to promote “woman-friendly mosques” has been basically a failure. She also points out that Asra’s detractors tend to dismiss her ideas because many North American Muslims see outward displays of “Muslimness” (such as hijab) as much more important than whether a person is kind or compassionate. And, she takes on the critical comments about Christine Ajra’s role in the film, asserting that about 75% of North American converts to Islam eventually leave, and that this is probably to a large measure due to the way that converts (particularly when they are white and/or female) are treated.

I must say, in the clips I saw of Christine, I sympathized with her. She seemed to be way in over her head. To be accepted as a convert in a community like that, it would be suicidal to rock the boat by siding with a ”troublemaker” like Asra. And, it would also raise difficult personal questions: As is often said to converts, what is the point of converting if you are not going to follow the rules? [By “the rules”, the speaker assumes that his/her understanding of Islam is definitive and self-evidently correct—and that the most important thing about being a Muslim is rule-following.] If Asra’s ideas were right, what would that mean for Christine’s self-understanding as a Muslim? But if she sided with the mosque establishment, would she end up being a pawn in the hands of those who wanted to ban Asra? As a white female convert, it is very difficult if not impossible in North America today to avoid being used as a pawn in someone else’s cultural war.

I sometimes long to go to the mosque. And then, I wonder why I want to push myself in where I’m not wanted. Where my dignity, my physical comfort and even safety, my desire to learn is always much less important than the fact that my mind has the misfortune of being encased in a female body. Merely thinking about going to the mosque either leads me to think in Manichaean terms (I’m a spirit imprisoned in a foul body), or gives me an acute attack of gender dysphoria (I’m not a woman; I’m trapped in a woman’s body).

Clearly, the mosque is not the place for me. Spiritual elevation is much more likely to be found elsewhere—in the woods, at the beach, at my local soup kitchen.

Comments(10)

Muslimlookout.org comments briefly on an article about a Canadian Muslim man who claims to be able to “detox” extremists-in-the-making, and asks for readers’ comments. With pleasure…

A most fascinating development in North American Muslim communities post-9/11 has been the emergence of men (yes, they’re nearly always men rather than women) who claim to hold the key to countering violent extremism among Muslim youth. A number of them argue that the answer is to promote “traditional Islam”–meaning, following madhhabs and taking the teachings of medieval Muslim scholars seriously, rather than pursuing some literalist “return to the sources.” After all (they point out), medieval Muslim scholarship, unlike contemporary extremists, abhorred civil war and attacks on innocent civilians, and therefore confined the lawful exercise of violence within strict bounds.

Rather unsubtly, some of these men are using the mainstream media in order to promote their visions of Islam in North America—as well as their own status as “leaders.” And, it seems that some journalists are willing enough to oblige them, and to avoid asking too many searching questions about the wider social implications of some of these newly minted “neo-traditional” brands of North American Islam. Perhaps this is understandable in the “mainstream” media, as many journalists aren’t all that informed about the North American Muslim scene, but I expect Muslim feminist sites to be more incisive in their commentary.

The article referenced by muslimlookout mentions an organization, “Paradise Forever,” which is supposed to help converts make the transition to living Islam in a balanced way. Curious, I went to their site, and browsed the “articles” section, expecting to find thoughtful, reflective articles on the challenges facing Canadian Muslims today. However, this is a section of what I found on social questions:

“… The Shariah (Islamic law) has several objectives. They are the following:

1) Life
2) Intellect
3) Faith
4) Lineage
5) Property

Allah has given humanity the limits (Hudud) on how to protect and preserve the above. Now in order to give some examples on some of the limits that Allah has ordained; let’s take a look at some the limits Allah has imposed in respect to ones lineage/family, the most important institution in society.

1) Allah Made pre-Marital relationships forbidden with the prescribed punishments as a deterrent.

2) Allah Forbade homosexuality. The Shariah has many punishments for such an abomination.

3) Allah has prohibited a Muslim women to marry a Non-Muslim man. If they decide to go through with such a relationship, then it would be as if they were living in perpetual fornication.

-It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why we are forbidden to commit adultery or fornicate. Any sane women would hate for her husband to sleep with another women. Likewise, any father who possesses shame would hate for his daughter to sleep aimlessly with other men out of wedlock even if it’s under the sissy pretence of “Love”. If we look at societies that allow such practices we find them to be filled with divorces (Canada is almost 50%), filled with STD’s, broken up families, and shameless human beings!

-Homosexuality is a vice that Allah condemns in the Quran. Again, where would the family go if we were to allow Men and Men to marry? Where the sense in allowing such an obvious abomination that emanates from ones deep rooted illness to copulate with a member of the same sex? …”

Just how do such teachings help a convert lead a balanced Muslim life in Canada in 2009, interacting pleasantly and productively with their neighbours, work-mates and families? Instead of thoughtful reflection, we are given stale rhetorical jibes against Canadian society, Muslim women who marry non-Muslim men, and GLBTQ people. 

What would the purpose be of invoking Shari’a punishments for homosexuality (i.e. flogging, or execution by various excruiatingly painful means)  for new Muslims who live in a country which grants GLBTQ people equal rights under the law?? Or, to repeat the tired arguments already worn threadbare by Christian conservatives: that gays are “sick,” that gays undermine “the family,” and that homosexuality is an “abomination”?

What purpose does such homophobia serve? It seems to be one way that this group is attempting to affirm its “masculine” bona fides—as if to say: No, we don’t blow things up, but we are real Muslim men just the same! And how do you (and we) know this? ‘Cause we can spout homophobic rhetoric like the best of them!

Sigh.

If things continue to go as they are, I fear that some groups and persons with very retrograde social agendas will have consolidated themselves as the de facto leaders of many North American Muslim communities, largely on the strength of their supposed ability to face down extremists. I wonder if many Muslim feminists have thought much about what that might mean.

Comments(5)

I have just read Kamran Pasha’s response to Uzma Mariam Ahmed’s review of his novel, Mother of the Believers, over at www.altmuslimah.com.

The novel is a fictionalized retelling of the life of A’isha (hence the title). Pasha responds to Ahmed’s criticism of the novel for portraying A’isha as nine when she was married, and also for its (apparently slight) sexual content. As far as A’isha’s age is concerned, he points out that until recently, Muslims had no problem with the traditional accounts of her marriage, including her age, and attributes the reservations which many Muslims today express to their embarrassment in the face of Western criticism. Similarly, he argues that Prophet Muhammad’s polygamy has historically been celebrated by Muslims as an aspect of his masculinity, and claims that modern Muslim discomfort with it is due—at least in South Asia—to Victorian prudery which is a relic of British colonialism.

Unsurprisingly, his response has generated some heated back-and-forth in the comments. Some female commenters have expressed unease about some of his views, saying that in practice, polygamy is a lot less rosy than he seems to think. One calling herself ”Amina” has come out and called a spade a spade, pointing out that he is endorsing patriarchy. Pasha’s responses are revealing. Using a mixture of sociobiology and arguments of the “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” variety, he asserts that in fact, many women prefer polygamous men: supposedly, most women would much prefer to be in a relationship with the likes of JFK than “Bozo the clown.” And then, the clincher (directed to a comment made by “Amina”):

“…Please go ahead and misinterpret the above statement as “patriarchal” if you wish.  If you wish to debate “patriarchy”, let me point out a simple truth.  Every society on Earth is the product of a complex dynamic between men and women.  If men are usually in positions of power and leadership, it is because women of that society not only tolerate this state of affairs but actively encourage it.  It is women that select men ultimately, and men only act in ways that will attract women.  If male dominance is sexually attractive to women, men will embrace that behavior in order to attract a mate.  And history and common sense show that is what happens in every civilization on Earth.

Whether you like it or not—most women want men to be MASCULINE,  which at its best consists of leadership, strength, focus and courage, as well as sexual confidence and aggressiveness.  Most men, whether you like it or not, value FEMININITY in women, which by definition means gentleness, compassion, nurturing, empathy and, yes, beauty and sexual coyness.  They are complementary energies that balance each other.  And this is the actual dynamic for the vast, vast majority of human beings. 

Many women in the West have tried to turn this on its head by promoting, not equality or balance, but female dominance.  And then, the end result of that society is that men become confused about their identities and purpose, and they wither into hen-pecked and weak characters, afraid of mastering life and the world—little boys hiding behind their mommy’s skirt, the kind of men who most women have CONTEMPT for.  That is what we have seen in the West.  A society where women want to be masculine, and end up bitter and unfulfilled, and men are forced to be feminine, and end up bitter and unfulfilled.

I make no apologies for being a masculine man.  And I revere a woman’s femininity as its counterpart.  If that offends you, so be it.  I wish you success in developing relationships with people who wish to reverse this dynamic.  You may learn that the end result is not as attractive as it sounds on paper, but if it works for you and your partner, good for you.

It wouldn’t work for me and most men or women I know, and society will always be organized according to the preferences of the majority.”

There are many things which I find disturbing about both Pasha’s article and the way that he responds to commenters—his caricaturing of “Christian” attitudes to sexuality, his generalizations about “the West,” the bullying tone of several of his responses, his apparent unwillingness to acknowledge that an important reason for the growing desire of some Muslims to revise A’isha’s age is because her story is still used today in some communities in order to legitimise child marriage….  I’m sure that others will call attention to these obvious problems.

But most disturbing for me is the gender binary that he imposes on the Prophet’s life. (Kamran Pasha is of course not the first to do this; his rhetoric in this article evidently echoes the pronouncements of T.J. Winter—aka Abdal Hakim Murad). In this view, apparently, one has to see gender roles in a very particular way in order to be able to appreciate the Prophet’s life-story. And what about those of us who can’t see themselves—or for that matter, anyone that they particularly admire—in this binary??

I am reminded of an old saying: “Girls, be pretty if you can, witty if you must, but be sweet if it kills you.” God knows, I have tried for over half of my life to be gentle, nurturing, compassionate, coy, and if not beautiful, at least fairly good-looking—and guess what? Some things just aren’t meant to be. Compassion, yes.; I think that everyone should strive to be compassionate. But coyness, are you kidding? And what’s wrong with any human being strong, focused, courageous, a leader—and yes, sexually confident?

As for his comments about Western “confused” “feminine” men who “hid behind their mothers’ skirts”… ah, homophobic rhetorical bullying dressed up as religious “wisdom.” 

What this sort of rhetoric implies is that people who don’t fit into these two gendered pigeon-holes are fundamentally lacking. That we’re not quite human. That we deserve contempt. And, worst of all, that the Prophet’s life-story essentially has little or no relevance to us, except to tell us that we’re are essentially mutilated.

In reality, of course, there are lots of Muslims who don’t fit into these stereotypical gendered slots. Transsexual Muslims. Transgendered Muslims. Genderqueer Muslims. Butch dyke Muslims. Muslim drag queens. And so on. To say nothing of a good number of straight male and female Muslims.

What’s really sad is to see people who are frantically, desperately, trying to perform those “feminine” or “masculine” roles, even though on some level they know that they are trying to be something that they are not. Because, they’ve been led to believe that God won’t accept them as they are; they have to lie about what they are in order to be “good” believers. You can keep on lying to the All-Knowing for only so long, until one day, you realize the futility and theological absurdity of what you are trying to do… and then you break down. 

Comments(5)

Scrolling down Antonia Zerbisias’ blog today, my eyes lighted upon the title, “American Taliban.” Something about an American Muslim extremist, I surmised—but, I was wrong. She was in fact blogging about the murder of a well-known doctor in Wichita, Kansas.

Nowhere does Zerbisias indicate what connection this tragic event has to Muslims (extremist or otherwise), the Taliban, or even Afghans or Pakistanis. In fact, she gives plenty of evidence that Dr. George Tiller was killed by an extreme right-wing American Christian anti-abortionist. So why not a headline which reflects that? Why bring the Taliban into it, as though non-Muslim Americans have always been and remain incapable of committing acts of violence intended to keep women “in their place”?

It gets worse, with Jed Lewison at the Daily Kos going on about Bill O’Reilly’s long-running “jihad” against George Tiller on Fox News, as though there is no history among non-Muslim Americans of people using public platforms in order to whip up popular sentiment against those they disagree with, and then acting surprised when violence is done against the target of their rantings. Apparently, that sort of thing is just beyond the ability of nice white Christian (or post-Christian) Americans; it takes the Moozlems to do rotten stuff like that.

And the thing is, Zerbisias reads www.muslimahmediawatch.org. So, why doesn’t she get it?

I suppose from the perspective of Zerbisias and Lewison, my objections are just an exercise in splitting hairs at best. After all, isn’t the Taliban by far the most misogynist government in living memory? Haven’t they blown up girls’ schools, thrown acid at girls going to school, publicly whipped women for “crimes” such as leaving the house without a male escort… so why does it matter if they are also rhetorically associated with one crime evidently committed by a white Christian in Kansas? What difference does it make, adding one more misogynistic act of vigilantism to their already lengthy balance-sheet?

What difference does it make, indeed? Probably no difference to those who, every time they read a headline such as “Bomb threat closes school” or ”Woman stabbed to death by husband” don’t know what it’s like to reflexively wish, every single time, that it’s not a Muslim who did it. It makes no difference to those who have the privilege of being judged as individuals. If a white and/or Christian man (or woman) killed Dr. Tiller, no one will assume that this indicates that whites or Christians in general are innately predisposed to be violent. But when any Muslim individual, group or government commits a crime, this is somehow believed to reflect on Muslims in general. Every crime, every horror which makes the news reverberates through school yards and work-places everywhere.

The other day, my middle-school-aged daughter told me that a boy in her class had been calling her a terrorist. Why, I asked. She replied that it is because he knows that her father comes from X [a Middle Eastern country].

Aside from the blame question, there’s also the weight of grief that one carries from over a half a lifetime of hearing largely horrible news about one’s coreligionists. I don’t need one more thing added to it. Not one more thing. I’d say that we have enough to deal with already without also bearing the sins of Christian anti-abortion extremists, even rhetorically.

Not only that, but using Muslim-sounding terminology in order to discuss acts of violence and intimidation carried out by some American Christians on the basis of their own (right-wing Christian) ideology is an act of disavowal which has the risk of short-circuiting some long-overdue critical reflection. It allows right-wingers and others to pretend that Christian misogyny (unlike the Muslim kind) may be a bit over the top at times, but isn’t really dangerous to anyone. A harmful illusion if ever there was one.

Hopefully, www.muslimlookout.org will pick up the story.

Comments(8)

First, the junkmail folder:

An email entitled, “FW: Your academic qualification has expired.” Out of morbid curiousity more than anything else, I opened the email, only to find that it promised that “anyone with sufficient work experience can get a bachelor’s, masters’ or even a doctorate” from their company—if they are willing to pay, of course. Wow. So, I could have saved myself all those years of attending classes and writing exams, and spending late nights studying or writing assignments… as well as all those student loans, if I’d just thought to buy my degree!

Another advised me that it is possible to “Repair male function.” Brings to mind some of the slogans that womyn used to shout in those 1980’s “Take back the night” marches.   Why, oh why do the spambots keep sending me junkmail for v*agra and its associated get-hard-quik fixes?  Talk about stuff that I absolutely don’t need.

More seriously: a link to a recent Washington Post article, entitled “For one night, Baghdad gets a pink zone” is making the rounds. I went off into the blogosphere in search of LGBTQ reaction to the story, and found some here which pretty much says what first came to my mind when I read it: “Expats in Baghdad celebrate pride as locals hide from death squads.”

Sigh. On one hand, it’s Pride season, and every LGBTQ person everywhere who wants to celebrate should be able to do so. I certainly intend to. But on the other hand, the coverage of this event (as well as the comments posted about it which I have seen) doesn’t quite sit right with me, for several reasons:

1. Yes, LGBTQ people in Iraq right now face serious persecution, as a number of people have noted. Yes, this event seems rather too much of a “let them eat cake” type of thing. One might well ask (as some commenters have) how this party will help Iraqi LGBTQ people, especially given its timing. Latest media attention to those pictures from Abu Ghraib which the US president is still refusing to release, anyone?

2. The question of how “culturally sensitive” holding such a party in Baghdad is or is not seems to be a rather binary way of considering the issue: as if there is one, unambiguously tolerant American approach to LGBTQ people which is now squaring off against “Iraqi culture” (or “Islamic culture”) which has (and has always had) one, monolithically repressive attitude to same-sex sexual desire and its expressions.

I get the impression from some of the commentary that some gay Americans (not to mention right-wing Americans) think that there is no queer Iraqi history; apparently, they haven’t ever heard of the likes of Abu Nuwas and his exploits. Actually, at issue here isn’t some unchanging “Iraqi culture,” but the contemporary—and often virulent—forms of Muslim fundamentalism which are now attempting to dominate Iraq. Perhaps acknowledging that fundamentalism is the problem would risk complicating the issue too much: after all, that might take away from the “aren’t we enlightened” tone of some of the ways that this event is being represented.  Reading the more celebratory comments on this “pink zone” story, I would never guess that the US military still has a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for its LGBTQ members, much less that in several American states, queer rights have been submitted to the whims of the popular ballot. Or, that gay-bashings still take place in the US, yet some right-wing evangelical Christian groups can’t stomach anti-bullying legislation for public schools, lest their kids get the idea that it’s ok to be gay.

 It would be nice if holding a Pride party in Baghdad could have an impact on these very American problems. But will it? Or, is this just an opportunity for LGBTQ staff to let off some steam?

3.  This sort of “cultural” framing of the issue seems tailor-made to be a vehicle of the all-too-common “us vs. them” way that Arabs and/or Muslims tend to be discussed in the American media. It risks reducing LGBTQ people to pawns in a (supposed) war of civilizations. Sometimes, we are presented as symbols of America’s tolerance and freedom, while at other times, we are said to exemplify all that’s wrong with America. Sally Kern’s infamous comments are a case in point: according to her, gays are more dangerous to America than “terrorism or Islam.” (More recently, Chris Buttars said something similar.) On the other hand, in a 13lovestories video, a girl from a gay family says of California opponents of equal marriage: “they don’t understand; they think that we may be like terrorists or something.” (While “terrorists” doesn’t necessarily mean “Arabs” and/or “Muslims,” somehow I don’t think that most of the video’s viewers will think of the Tamil Tigers or the Basque separatist movement when they hear her say that.)

4. This sort of “us vs. them” rhetorical slant also makes Arab and/or Muslim LGTBQ persons all but invisible. It casts Arab/Muslim LGTBQ people as outsiders in their own communities (which is indeed what many fundamentalist religious leaders and opinion-makers would like to make their audiences believe). I’d think that anyone would want to think long and hard before implicitly agreeing with the armed and dangerous Arab/Muslim versions of Fred Phelps. But that’s just me.

Comments(0)

First of all, today is the International Day Against Homophobia. Yup, LGBTQ people exist everywhere, in every nation, race, ethnicity, occupation, religious community… including conservative Muslim communities and organizations. So, on that note…

Parvez Sharma’s documentary, Jihad for Love is now finally available on DVD!

Imam Siraj Wahhaj has been diagnosed with prostate cancer, and a number of North American Muslim groups and individuals are trying to raise funds to help pay his medical bills. The post on this at MuslimMatters reminds us that “Imam Siraj Wahhaj has made an impact on our lives for over 25 years now. It’s time to give back to him.” Yes, I certainly remember the “impact” it made on me when I first read that when he heard a rumour that a gay mosque would open in Toronto, he said: “I would burn down the masjid myself, if I could.”

Now, what should I “give back” to someone who apparently wanted me to be burned alive in 1992? (In the spirit of making 77 excuses for your brother, I’ll entertain the possibility that maybe he’s changed his views on queer Muslims since then? But if so, has he issued any public statement to that effect?)

Yup, Islam is now firmly rooted in North America, maa sh’Allah, so that we Muslims increasingly have access to many of the goodies that our conservative Christian neighbours are blessed with.   We not only have our own versions of leaders like Fred Phelps, but also the more soft-centre types, who’ll advise you to “hate the sin, love the sinner.” Dr. Sherman Jackson’s recent statement in this vein has making the rounds of Muslim blogs in the last little while. Maybe James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” will make him an honourary member.  

But wishing LGBTQ Muslims away isn’t making them go away. Quite the contrary, they’re putting pen to paper/fingers to keyboard, as these great online magazines: www.bekhsoos.com/ and www.chaymagazine.org/ show.

Other posts/articles of note: Fatemeh Fakhraie writes a good article about cultural Muslim beliefs about hymens, and altmuslim takes on torture in “Torture is evil, not a forensic technique.” (While the comments on altmuslim tend to be infested by trolls and a depressing waste of time, one commenter helpfully provides a link to a review of Marnia Lazreg’s book, Torture and the Twilight of Empire: From Algiers to Baghdad. I’ve read some of her other work and found it very insightful, so I definitely want to read that one.)

Altmuslimah has an article by Asra Nomani taking down the Saudi judge who recently said that a husband is entitled to slap his wife on the face if she goes out and buys an expensive abaya. While the article itself isn’t that great, it’s always nice to see someone who’s not buying apologist claims that Q 4:34 “only” means tapping a “disobedient” wife with a toothbrush, and instead calls for zero tolerance for all physical aggression against women.

Which is why the comment on this issue on muslimahmediawatch.org is disappointing: “Dr. Omar Al Khateeb from Dubai sets the record straight: Islam never permits a husband to slap his wife or even a child on the face for any reason.” But if you actually follow the link to Khaleej Times, you find that Al Khateeb’s views don’t seem like anything to endorse.

While the headline states “Husband can’t slap his wife for any reason: Scholar,” the article itself only limits the scope of “acceptable” domestic violence rather than outlawing it altogether. According to the article, Prophet Muhammad is said to have never beaten any of his wives, except once, “using a small peace [sic] of Sewak (kind of tooth brush taken from a tree), and that was very gently.” Al Khateeb goes on to say that a man is “prohibited from beating his wife in a severe way” and that he may not “hammer, behead or even kill his wife as reported in some Western countries. He should be compassionate, kind, tolerant and forbearing to win Allah’s reward in life and the hereafter.”

Wow. I am just so glad he cleared that up.

Seriously—I really don’t see how it will be possible to put an end to domestic violence unless and until the “mainstream” rejects the notion that a man is entitled to lay a finger, or a toothbrush on his wife for any reason. Period. Anything less than zero tolerance gives abusers an opening, and those in the know an excuse to ignore what’s going on. I also don’t see how one can really believe that a kinder, gentler patriarchy will do much for women. Of course, being nagged about one’s “Islamic duties” or having one’s weaknesses benevolently “tolerated” by a holier-than-thou husband who’s convinced that you’re perpetually in need of his superior guidance is presumably less hazardous to one’s health and safety than being “hammered” by him. At least, in the short term. But that’s another post….

Comments(4)

Sumayya sat in the sun-warmed sand at the water’s edge, staring at the deep blue lake without really seeing it. The water lapped around her feet. Her attention was momentarily caught by a gull, swooping down several metres away from her. She watched absently as the bird expertly caught a minnow, and then quickly rose up into the azure sky. It was a hot bright day in late summer, but inside, she felt cold and grey. The warmth and colour which surrounded her seemed like a dream—someone else’s dream, in someone else’s life.

“Mom?”

(more…)

Comments(4)

I saw the op-ed written by Mohja Kahf in the Washington Post (thanks Muslimahmediawatch!), and got the mad urge to write her an open letter.

Dear Dr. Kahf,

Salaam. I saw your op-ed yesterday, as well as some commentary on it. First an article by Sobia at Muslimahmediawatch, then over a hundred (mostly hostile) comments, following your op-ed, and now another Muslimahmediawatch article by Muse.

I read your op-ed with high hopes, anticipating some incisive commentary on stereotypes about Muslim women that would go beyond the usual tropes of protest that we have been hearing for the last 20+ years at least: Islam gave rights to women before any other religion or culture did. Islam should get credit for its teachings on women’s spiritual equality with men. But really, we like our beautiful scarves, and we’re not sexually repressed. Christians should look at their own history before dismissing Islam as irredeemably misogynistic. And so on.

Is there much of anything there that Gamal Badawi and his likes wouldn’t have said? (Barring your comment about masturbation, perhaps.)

(more…)

Comments(8)