Dear Muslims: Quit Apologizing.

You heard me.

I was reading a post on the race-pop culture-politics blog Racialicious about Nidal Hassan and the aftermath of the Fort Hood shootings, and the PR campaign by Muslim organizations to condemn Hassan’s actions. It suddently occurred to me that this was a repetitive narrative: “Muslim” does something violent. Muslim groups rush to apologize for it. American media burns us at the stake anyway.

So my question is: Why the hell do we have to apologize for?

Why is it that everytime some so-called Muslim goes batshit crazy, we have to line up and say sorry? What in the world do any of us have to do with an individual like Nidal Hassan? Or Saddam Hussein? Better yet, Osama bin Laden? The answer: nothing. So why does the entire Muslim community act like there’s something we have to feel guilty for?

It’s interesting that this phenomenon seems exclusive to Muslims and Arabs. Where were all the white people apologizing for Timothy McVeigh’s actions in Oklahoma? Irish people apologizing for the IRA in the 90’s? Where are all the Hindus saying sorry for the 2001 massacres of Muslims in Gujarat? Where are the Americans apologizing for the some 90,000 people who’ve died in Iraq since 2003?

Lots of questions, and only one answer: When a Muslim does something wrong, it reflects on everyone associated with that culture and religion. When a white person, for example, goes apeshit and shoots up a high school (see: Columbine) it’s something wrong with that individual. Bottom line: it’s flat out racist.

So pardon me if I don’t want to apologize for a nutjob like Nidal Hassan. I don’t know the dude, and have nothing to do with him. As far as I’m concerned, he was just another man with murderous rage and access to a handgun.

Eid Mubarak, Ladies and Gents

Today marks Eid-ul-Adha, one of the two major holidays on the Islamic calendar. Eid, or the “Feast of Sacrifice” as it translates to, commemorates the biblical tale of the Prophet Abraham’s sacrifice of his son, Ismail. As the story goes, God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his dearest possession- his son–in his name.

The Prophet went through with it, only to discover that a sheep had been put in his place, and that the sheep had died instead.  Around the world, Muslims celebrate the Feast of Sacrifice with a morning mass prayer, as well as celebrations and feasts at home. Eid ul Adha also marks the end of the Hajj, the mass pilgrimage of nearly 3 million Muslims every year to Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

To me, Eid took on a whole new significance in post-9/11 America. It’s a time to dress up, celebrate, and to come together with thousands of other Muslims. For once, we get to create a happy image of our community, rather than the scary one peddled on the six-o-clock news by Fox. It’s the time of year that WE get to exchange presents, party, and have a good time. It’s great PR, and it’s good fun.

So to all of my bros and sisters out there- have a great Eid. Be joyful, be beautiful, be proud.

Bones and Double Consciousness

Bones, for those of you ignore your TV, is a Fox (Yes, that Fox) show that I happen to be a big fan of. It features a forensic anthropologist, Dr. Temperance Brennan (aka “Bones”) and her partner FBI Special Agent Seeley Booth. They find dead bodies, solve crimes, and mayhem, romance and violence ensue. It’s good stuff.

A few weeks ago, before the MLB World Series so rudely interrupted the Bones’ run of new episodes, the show featured a storyline about a Muslim character at Brennan’s forensic lab. In “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood”, the team finds out that the Muslim character, Arastoo, is not a recent immigrant from the Middle East like they believed.  See, the guy always spoke with a heavy Arabic accent, and one day he gets pissed off and that accent slips–to show his actual, American-as-apple pie upbringing. Why? Well, as he explains to a psychologist later, if he pretended to be an immigrant, his coworkers wouldn’t ask him to explain his religious beliefs and would simply chalk it up his “Islamic-ness” to being foreign!

It’s funny, interesting, and completely understandable. I’m shocked that a known culture-killing apparatus like Fox would actually aired a show like Bones in the first place–and this episode to boot. But hey, stranger things have happened right?

Anyway, back to the Arastoo character. I totally got where this guy is coming from. In some ways, being a complete foreigner in America is easy. No one expects you understand anything or have any allegiances to this country. No one questions your different style of dress, language, or belief. Yeah, it’s not a walk the park of course, but people have no qualms about what you represent: foreign-ness. Difference.

However, if you are an American- born or raised in this country- and speak flawless American English, it’s a whole different ballgame. You live the double life, an idea eloquently expressed by African American philosopher W.E.B. DuBois a century ago in The Souls of Black Folk in reference to the unique situation of the Black American:

It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity.

Double Consciousness.  American and something else: in this case Muslim. You get questions: If you are a fully an American, can you be a Muslim? Why have you chosen to be different? Why do you believe differently from what what most “real” Americans believe? Where are your allegiances, and what is their order? Foreignness is easy to explain, but one of “our” own? Who are you?

As a Muslim American, you get to live out the above questions day after day, year after year. We straddle that seemingly widening chasm between the “Islamic World” (I use quotes because considering the huge numbers of Muslims living in non Muslim states like India and China, this is a problematic term to begin with) and the United States.  Our very existence perplexes people–and the everyday stress of knowing that your allegiances, your faith, is constantly being questioned by everyone around you is draining.

We all cope in different ways. Some of us cover, like the Arastoo dude from “Bones”. Others of us make our Islamic identity come to the forefront. Others push it to the back of their minds. Many, many more of us struggle with it- day in and day out.

The Spiritual Feminine

This weekend, I attended a regional conference of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) National–a gathering of about a thousand or so young Muslim students from schools around the east coast.

For about three years during my undergrad I was an officer in the MSA. For uninitiated: the MSA is a collegiate socio-political organization for young American Muslims. It’s existed since 1947, which makes it North America’s oldest Muslim organization. The importance of the MSA in the lives of Muslim youth can’t be overstated: in many ways, it is a vehicle–or an experimental flask–for the the future of Islam in America.

When I heard that the MSA would be holding its regional conference close to where I was going to grad school, I decided to show up. It was ironic–I’ve likened being an MSA officer akin to doing military service. You sign up because you want to serve your community. The service itself is often hell-a ton of responsbilities, pressure, and getting shit from all sides. You do your 2-3 years, and even though you’re glad to be a “civilian” again, you don’t regret having been a part of the MSA. And like the military, it keeps pulling you back!

But I digress.

I was attending one of the conference lectures yesterday afternoon. The introduction was given by the current President of MSA National, Asma Mirza. She introduced the rest of the MSA National Board, which included three other sisters and a brother. Much like many females in the audience, I was proud to see a Muslimah up at the podium as our leader.

What I didn’t expect (or maybe I did on some subconscious level)) was that that would be the last time I’d be seeing a woman speaking on stage for the rest of the day. We heard a number of well-known scholars and teachers speak eloquently about the linguistic beauty of the Qur’an and the Black Muslim history in America. All had received some education in the middle east under the tutelage of known Islamic scholars. All were men.

I had a thought. Why?

OK,  the obvious answer is that patriarchy exists, and leaders in our still-patriarchial age tend to be men. More interesting to me though is a kind of organizational specificity to the inequality. Like I mentioned earlier, there were plenty of women on the MSA National Board–including the President. But when it came to the segments addressing spirituality and theology, the lack of women was pretty glaring. And this isn’t isolated by any means–I speak from years of being involved in MSA, ISNA and the like. I see the same pattern: there are gains for Muslim women in gaining leadership in Islamic organizations. But very few have gained the credentials of Islamic scholarship to lecture at events, and even so are not in huge demand at events like the MSA’s.

In a larger context: look at the three Abrahamic faiths–How prominent are female preachers, ministers, nuns, ministers, monks and the like? Forget Abrahamic faiths, what about eastern faiths like Buddhism? All are dominated by men. And it makes me wonder, what has happened in the last 2,000 or so years that has made legitimate spirituality, organized religion the province of men?

What is also interesting to me is that it wasn’t always this way. In the Islamic faith, A’isha, perhaps the most well known of all of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)’s wives, was the most significant preacher of her husband’s message after his death. Muslim women were prominent as teachers in the early days of Sufism, the mystical aspect of Islam. In Christianity, the orthodox Celtic Church allowed women to lead mass and be priests on equal par with men. So this change is relatively recent.

Maybe this is yet another layer of the patriarchial phenomenon. If we view religion in a political sense, the leaders of a faith are imbued with immense power over those that follow. Organized religion has historically been a unbelivably powerful vehicle for social, political, and economic interests and change. So what what better way to keep marginalize women than to forbid them from holy places and deny them theological scholarship?

Kashmiri Muslim women pray outside the shrine of Sufi Saint Syed Abdul Qadir Jilani

Murder in the Gaza Strip

Today two hundred and seventy one people were killed by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, Palestine.

This was the deadliest single day death toll in the history of the Palestinian territories after 1967. Men, women and children were killed. More than a third of the dead were civilians.

Israel claims this is in response to rocket attacks from Hamas. The death toll from these alleged attacks?

One.

And those are how the facts stand. Palestinian dead: 271. Israeli dead: 1. There’s something WRONG with this damn picture, folks.

A country with a nuclear arsenal that could rival the United States launched a sustained attack on alleged Hamas targets, all of which were surrounded by civilians. Hospitals nearby had their windows blown out, already overflowing with the sick and dying. All of this inflicted on a city that where the majority of people are malnourished and living in what amounts to a humanitarian crisis.

The idea that Israel’s actions can be construed as some sort of “defense” is ludicrous. The sheer magnitude and deadliness of the bombings on Gaza in comparison to the rocket fire allegedly from Hamas (which hasn’t been proven and to this date, has killed ONE person in Israel) is so ridiculously lopsided it boggles the mind. An analogy comes to mind: a fly buzzes near your ear. In retaliation, you run the fly over with your car. The fly is Palestine. You are Israel. Even Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations had this to say: “[Mr. Ban Ki-Moon] urged an immediate halt to the violence, condemning what he called Israel’s “excessive use of force leading to the killing and injuring of civilians.”

No, the only way to describe Israel’s attack on Gaza City today is the following: crime against humanity. And the rest of the world, with the exception of the United States, seems to agree. This is what that bitched-out to AIPAC a-hole from the Bush Administration (Some would call her Condeleeza Rice) had to say:

“”We strongly condemn the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and hold Hamas responsible for breaking the ceasefire and for the renewal of violence there. The ceasefire must be restored immediately and fully respected.”

Really, Condi? Really? So what about the fact that for the past couple of months, Israel has repeatedly violated the terms of its agreement? Like refusing to allow steady supplies of FOOD and WATER into Gaza? And if there is nothing to hide, than why were almost all journalists stopped from entering the city? Acts of aggression by Israeli tanks along Gaza city’s borders don’t violate that agreement either eh?

And here’s the REALLY BIG QUESTION: If Israel can defend itself…so can’t Palestine? Do Palestinians not have the right to live? Do they not have the right to fight back against the unchecked destruction of their homes and daily siege by the Israeli military? WHY the hell can’t Gaza defend itself in the exact same way Israel is and bomb the living shit out of a city in Israel?

No, because apparently if you’re an Israeli soldier and you kill someone, you’re merely “defending” your nation. A Palestinian who does the EXACT SAME is a terrorist. Simple racist math folks.

and again, as it stands:

Palestine=271 dead. Israel=1.

Relationshipolitik

FYI: This is gonna be a departure from my more “traditional” politically-oriented writespeak. But as I always say, politics are everywhere!

Romantic relationships have always occupied a unique place in American society. Endless rom-com TV shows, movies, and novels have been written about finding that “one true love” and in what context (marriage, tragedy, adultery, comedy–in no particular order). What’s funny is that there seems to be a real reluctance to politicize this stuff–to look at and criticize the realm of romantic attachment as a unique social and cultural contract, ever changing and always controversial.

Case in point: As a twenty-something who came of age in the post- dot com/millenial (apparently that’s what its called now) era, the hookup culture is a huge part of our social scene.  The NY Times recently published a commentary on the “Demise of Dating”. It suggests that the “hookup” (i.e. two people having a brief, seemingly random romantic attachment, which may or may not involve sex) has completely replaced dating–the requisite going out to dinner, lunch, or movie–as the context for romantic relationships.

So is this really the case? Is the hookup culture universal? And what does it really mean, anyway?

I’m not going to argue that the folks at NYT were completely off the mark. They aren’t. But it speaks to a subset of our society, and ignores the many cultural, social, and political factors that play into phenomenon. Take the gender binary, for example (I’m going to go with the straight-person perspective here). The way we as young people perceive relationships has a lot do with the gender equity and the balance of power between men and women.

If anything, I think that this sort of culture downplays emotional connection, trust, and mutual respect. The current status quo, heavily favors the dude side of things. Yes, there are women who believe that the playing field has been equalized to some degree, but I would argue that what has happened instead is a lowering of expectations. Young women no longer expect to be treated respectfully and have their companionship treated as a privilege. Men as absolved of any responsibility towards earning a woman’s trust before anything further happens. And whether you believe that marriage the stable nexus around to which raise a family: stable, lasting relationships are. I really don’t think our current culture is conducive to that.

Secondly, I would argue that the hookup culture is far from universal. America is a rapidly diversifying nation. People come from all sorts of religious, cultural, and native traditions that teach different attitudes with regards to marriage, sex, etc. Take Islam, for example, which stresses the marriage contract as the basis for male-female romantic relationships. As a result, young Muslims raised in the U.S. are exposed to radically different conceptualizations of how men and women should relate: through a traditional marriage framework based on religion, and the dating/hookup scene. Whether or not you agree one is more “right” than the other is a moot point. The reality is, we end up with some strange in-between. People date/hookup/etc at school or away from home, and among family they prescribe to tradition. What does this mean for our future? I really can’t say.

So what does our culture of romantic relationships say about our generation in general? I’ve given my opinion, but the discussion is far from over. Only the future will tell.

My thoughts on Mumbai: Part I

By now, many of you have been inundated with coverage of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.  India, with all of its complicated communal, religious, and cultural conflicts was reduced to the America-like binary: the good citizens of India and the crazy Islamic Terrorists. A simple script for everyone here to digest; in fact many went as far as to call it “India’s 9/11″ ( bullshit comparison, as very convincingly argued in this well written editorial piece in the UK Guardian.

I can’t even begin to start on how simplistic and erroneous that perspective is. And as a Muslim of South Indian ancestry, I feel that I have to tell a side of the story that has been rather conveniently neglected by the media.

So what do we need to know?

Firstly, that India is home to about 151 million Muslims- the second largest population in the world, after Indonesia. That was a much larger number before the Partition of India and Pakistan, though those who remain form India’s largest minority group and nearly 15%. Secondly, Indian Muslims have traditionally been adherents of a moderate, progressive and Sufi-oriented (Islamic mysticism) strand of Islam. And lastly: the Indian Muslims of today are disproportionately poorer, less educated, most segregated and systematically oppressed group in all levels of society in India today.Don’t believe me? Read the Sachar Report, an objective analysis of the status of India’s Muslims by the Indian Parliament.

OK, so why does this matter you ask? especially since the “terrorists” were from Pakistan anyway?

Well here’s the kicker: it really doesn’t matter. The politics of communalism (i.e. ethnic and religious politics) run so deep in India that in the end, right-wing Hindutva (Hindu extremist) parties point their finger at the easiest target in their backyard: Indian Muslims. And in a place like South Asia, this isn’t some tame political issue. People actually die in mass ethnic violence and large-scale genocide. Actually, Muslims end up dying 9 times out of 10, and get blamed for attacks like those in Mumbai whether they were actually involved or not.

It makes me wonder. We’ve gone out of our way to apologize for the actions of “Muslim” terrorists who attacked Mumbai (In what way they represent Islam to any degree? not at ALL). We’ve held marches and prominent religious groups like Deoband seminary and Jamaat-ul-Hind have all issued repudiations of terrorism. But why does it seem like we’re the only ones apologizing?

Where are the Hindus apologizing for the inhumane massacre of over three thousand Muslims in Gujarat by Hindu extremists? (which by the way, happened only seven years ago?) Extending that line of thought: where are the Christians apologizing for George Bush’s shenanigans in Iraq that have left countless thousands of innocent Iraqis dead? Do I see any Jews apologizing for the shit conditions the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip have to live in every day?

This is not to diminish the horror of what happened in Mumbai. What those men did morally defunct and showed an utter disrespect for human life. But until I see some equanimity: i.e. everyone else being taken to task, namely Hindutva extremists in India and the others listed above for the murders committed in the name of religion, there will be no true justice. In the mind of many in the Muslim world, our lives are seemingly worthless, for when thousands of us die–whether in Iraq, India, what have you–no one blinks an eye, and no one feels compelled to make us an apology. Meanwhile, every time some whack-ass nutjob commits a murder ostensibly in the name of Islam, all of us have to apologize for that person.

That’s it for now. I’m gonna continue in Pt. II, so stay tuned.

On Religiousity

First, my apologies for the long absence–this thing called real life interfered. That, and I had college graduation (thank you, thank you And I wasn’t really inspired to write anything until today anyways.

I had an interesting convo with a good friend of mine a few days ago. The girl was a card-carrying, ultra-liberal, North Face-fleece wearing Seattlelite, and we were discussing (what else?) politics. In particular, the topic that is on everyone’s minds: the 2008 Presidential Election and Obama’s chances of winning (which seem pretty good at the moment–barring any Swift-boating).

There was an article a few days back about Obama’s tenous relationship with the American Muslim electorate, specifically the incident where two headscarf (Hijaab) wearing women were barred from appearing behind Barack at a campaign rally. It became a huge snafu with many Muslim organizations protesting, and Obama eventually called the two ladies to apologize. My take on the whole incident was that it was a) More the product of Obama’s hypersensitive campaign managers, not wanting to associate the candidate with anything “Muslim”, and less a directive from the man himself and b) Not unexpected, as just saying the word “Muslim” is tantamount to a slur. Bullshit, no doubt, but we know by now that the Americans who elected Bush aren’t that adept at detecting Bull when they smell it!

Anyway…it got me thinking on the subject of religiousity. Going back to my conversation with my fellow Seattlelite friend, at one point religion came up. Namely, her dislike of organized religion, and “wacko religious people” in general, like the ones who support Bush and smear Barack by saying he’s Muslim (ha)…and that made me stop for a second.  Well, mainly because of that first part. It’s interesting that a lot people seem to assume that just because you are a tolerant, pragmatic liberal or moderate, that you have to be necessarily agnostic, atheist, or non-religious. Or that belief in an organized or major religion is somehow incompatible with being a “progressive” (for lack of a better term).

I consider myself a fairly religious person, I adhere to a fair number of religious practices at a personal level, which skew toward the conservative side. My feeling is that my relationship with God (Allah SWT) is a fairly personal one as well, and prayer has helped me deal with difficult situations in the past.  But I consider my practice and beliefs to be an intensely individual thing–Namely, that I NEVER push my religion on other people. My creed has been the golden rule: I will respect your right to live in the way you please if you respect mine, end of story.  In that way, my beliefs are compatible with being a liberal-minded person–that everyone makes their own choices and lives in the way they feel is right.

Mainly, I think its important that people understand that being religious or spiritual does not go hand-in-hand with being holy-book thumping conservative Republican. That one can believe in an organized religion and respect others’ individuality. Not to say that it isn’t difficult at times, but I think that the assumption that religious people are close-minded is a falsehood.

That’s my take. But if you have concerns, comments, a counter-argument…do share!