myriamfrancoiscerrah

Just another WordPress.com site

Posts Tagged ‘islam

Huff Post: “The Woolwich attack: Should we feel terrorised?‎”

leave a comment »

You can read the original of this piece on the Huffington Post site, here

In the aftermath of the brutal murder of soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich yesterday, questions have ‎surfaced on how best to describe the events – are labels such as “terrorism” either warranted or ‎even accurate? While the facts are still emerging, it is now clear the attackers were both British of ‎Nigerian heritage, with one named as 28-year-old Michael Adebolajo who, prior to adopting radical ‎Islamic views, is alleged to have dabbled in petty crime. The men attacked Lee Rigby in South East ‎London with a range of knives before being shot by police officers, as they attempted to turn on ‎them.‎

Many have questioned why the murder has received such unprecedented coverage, with some ‎pointing out that the equally brutal murder of 75 year old Mohammed Saleem, stabbed to death as ‎he returned home from his local mosque in Birmingham earlier this month, received comparatively ‎little attention. In both cases, a violent minority may be implicated in a murder with political ‎dimensions, in one case politically radicalised Muslims, in the other, the Far-Right. Both could be ‎dubbed a form of ‘terrorism’ and yet, only one has been.‎

It is a rather trite observation to state that the term ‘terrorism’ has become eminently politicised, ‎used much more readily and easily to refer to violence by certain types of political dissidents, such ‎as those whose violence targets the majority, than to refer, as it was originally devised, to states, ‎or groups targeting minorities. ‎

And yet, there are significant aspects of this case which appear to fit the ‘terrorism’ label. Amongst ‎these, the nature of the target – A British soldier – and the identity of the perpetrators – radical ‎young Muslims – as well as the stated motivation. When asked about his motive by an eyewitness, ‎one of the men responded, “because he has killed Muslim people in Muslim countries”, “I killed ‎him because he killed Muslims and I am fed up with people killing Muslims in Afghanistan”. He ‎added: “You will never be safe. Remove your government”. What’s more the style of the attack, ‎undertaken and filmed in full public view with the objective of publicising the actions to a wider ‎audience, is reminiscent of a strategy employed by the media savvy loose network, often referred ‎to as Al Qaida. While there is evidence to suggest Michael Adebolajo became radicalised through ‎the now-banned al-Muhijaroun, the group is well known to security services who monitor it closely ‎and it treads a fine line between espousing hate and undertaking violent actions. Though the ‎group may have laid the foundations for a binary and simplistic worldview, it is likely other ‎inspiration was involved in the move to action.‎

‎ “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. We must fight them as they fight us. ‎An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” one of the attackers told onlookers. To those familiar with ‎Al Qaida’s discourse, this is all too familiar. A veneer of Islamic rhetoric dressing up opposition to ‎the presence of Western troops in Muslim majority countries. The perpetrators need never have ‎met anyone vaguely even affiliated to Al Qaida, they may have simply imbibed the rhetoric, easily ‎accessible online and in the pamphlets and clips of extremists distributed in a murky underground ‎network. ‎

In a posting on a jihadist website in January this year, Al Qaida said ‘coming strikes’ would target the ‎‎’heart of the land of non-belief’ and that attacks would be ‘group, lone-wolf operations and booby-‎trapped vehicles’. If indeed the men turn out to be self radicalised Al Qaida groupies, the attack ‎would seem to suggest that the security services have become much efficient in countering more ‎elaborate plots and that extremists are now left with the “last resort” tactic advocated by Al Qaida ‎and its satellites – rogue attacks by individual foot soldiers – basic and simple to undertake, ‎requiring little planning or logistics and hence less likely to be foiled. The most recent “lone wolf”, ‎self-radicalising extremist was Frenchman Mohamed Merah, who killed three soldiers as well as ‎three Jewish schoolchildren and a teacher in March 2012. If this indeed the trend of the latest Al ‎Qaida attacks, they indicate just how weakened the network’s reach in Europe as become.‎

So should the Woolwich attack be dubbed terrorism? Yes, it appears to fit into the evolving pattern ‎of Al Qaida inspired attacks. But should we be worried? Not really. If Al Qaida style terrorism in ‎Europe peaked with the coordinated attacks in Madrid in 2004 and London on 7/7, the most recent ‎plots, from a foiled crude bomb plot at Glasgow airport in 2007, to yesterday’s knife attack on a ‎soldier, are an indication of just how limited their scope has become in Europe. ‎

The fact is the perpetrators want this to be perceived as an act of terrorism. Doing so would put ‎them in a league with the Al Qaida aficionados they have idealised and ultimately, vindicates their ‎sense of purpose, having “succeeded” in etching their names on the wall of terror, alongside the ‎Bin Ladens and Mohammad Sidique Khans of this world. That’s precisely why they requested the ‎public film their actions and why they appeared to relish a dramatic confrontation with the police. ‎Like all Al Qaida attacks, the force of the attack lies in the ripples of fear and division created as a ‎consequence. A successful attack against European targets is measured not in victims but in the ‎pandemonium and fear fostered. ‎
Thankfully, the British “keep calm and carry on” attitude has largely prevailed. Despite a worrying ‎spike in attacks on Muslims centres in the immediate aftermath, the message from the political ‎class has been broadly reassuring. Cameron was right not to return too promptly from Paris and to ‎advise soldiers to keep wearing their uniform in public. Muslim organisations have vocally ‎condemned the attack and stood united with their fellow citizens, a blow to the intended wedge al ‎Qaida seeks to place in order to attract its recruits.‎

Terrorism it might be, but the critical concern now should be to avoid the politicisation of public ‎fear, to further unnecessarily impinge on our civil liberties. In 2009, former head of MI5 Dame Stella ‎Rimington denounced the exploitation of public fear of terrorism to restrict civil liberties, while ‎campaign group Liberty have repeatedly warned that “the risk of terrorism has been used as the ‎basis for eroding our human rights and civil liberties”. Several peers have already pushed for the ‎government to resurrect the communications data bill, rebranding it a tool to fight terrorism and ‎John Reid has called for the total observation of all our data communications. Although Cameron ‎has said he wants to avoid “kneejerk responses”, we must remain vigilant. For our security, yes, ‎but also even more crucially, for our freedoms.‎

Written by myriamcerrah

May 24, 2013 at 18:01

Huff Post blog: French Court Ruling Reignites ‘Laicite’ Vs Headscarf Debate

with 2 comments

You can read this on the Huff Post site, here

France’s distinctive take on secularism is once again making headlines. A sacred virtue of the ‎Republic, it is unquestionable within the hexagon where political careers are built on its defence. ‎But a recent case is causing controversy. The decision by France’s High court (Court of Cassation) to ‎overturn the dismissal of Muslim nursery nurse, Fatima Afif for wearing a headscarf while working ‎at a Paris crèche in 2008, has placed the spotlight on the increasingly politicised use of the term.‎

On March 19th, the court ruled that the private nature of the crèche rendered her firing a ‎‎”discrimination on the basis of religious convictions”, overturning two earlier rulings by an ‎employment tribunal in 2010 and a court of appeal in 2011, and ordering the crèche pay her 2500 ‎euros. Many French Muslims viewed the decision with muted optimism, hoping that the ‎precedent set by the court would protect French Muslim women from misapplications of the law ‎on laicite and unfair dismissals. In 2012, a report by Amnesty international found that Muslim ‎women are routinely “denied jobs and girls prevented from attending regular classes just because ‎they wear traditional forms of dress, such as the headscarf.” The report also found that legislation ‎prohibiting discrimination in employment is not being appropriately implemented, despite ‎contravening European Union (EU) anti-discrimination legislation.‎

But in a sign of just how politicised Islamic issues have become in France, within days of the ruling, ‎Socialist Interior Minister Manuel Valls responded by expressing his “regret” at the court’s verdict, ‎while former Prime Minister Francois Fillon took the opportunity to call for an extension of the law ‎on laicite to all work places, including the private sector. Within days, the case had reignited the ‎‎”laicite debate”, fuelling endless discussions over French identity and the alleged intractability of ‎Muslims. ‎

From the late ’80s when the first case concerning Muslim women’s dress became a political issue, ‎the reach of laicite has crept ever more worryingly into the private sphere. The 2004 ban on ‎‎”ostensible religious symbols” in schools, has been followed by the 2010 ban on face veils in “public ‎spaces”. For its opponents, such legislation has bolstered various forms of anti-Muslim prejudice, ‎apparent in a range of worrying developments, from discrimination in housing and employment, ‎through to attacks on Muslims and their places of worship.

Many perceive the discourse on laicite ‎as a cover for a stigmatisation of French Muslims who already face widespread discrimination and ‎racism. A 2010 report by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) found ‎discrimination in access to employment, education, housing, and goods and services. A young activist ‎currently lobbying MPs to reject any new legislation, told me that the discourse on laicite now ‎allows for the expression of a respectable form of racism which specifically targets Muslims.

In his election pledge, President Hollande promised to be a figure of unity, decrying Sarkozy’s ‎divisive policies, pandering to the Far-Right, and portraying himself as a president for “all French ‎citizens”. According to one poll, 93% of French Muslims voted for the Socialist candidate, but many ‎have been left disappointed.‎

In 2012, then spokesperson for the Socialist party, Benoît Hamon expressed surprise at support ‎from socialist senators for the “anti-veiled nanny” law, as it has come to be known, describing it as ‎‎”collateral damage from the debate on national identity” initiated by the Right in 2009 and affirming ‎that the Socialist party would not support such a law if it came to power. But within a week of the ‎High court ruling, and following a petition by public figures calling for a new “law on laicite”, ‎President Hollande added his voice to the clamour, venturing that “where there is contact with ‎children, in what we call public service nurseries, in a crèche which benefits from public funding, ‎there must be a certain similarity with what occurs in schools”, referring to the 2004 ban on ‎‎”ostensible religious symbols.” Worse news still for French Muslim women was his apparent ‎willingness to consider an extension of the law to all companies “in contact with the public or ‎undertaking a mission of general interest or of public service”, just as MPs on the Right are pushing ‎for the law to cover all work places, public and private. ‎

In response, 40 public figures, academics and intellectuals published a statement on March 28th, ‎which gathered over 3000 signatures, opposing the law and calling for a commission on ‎islamophobia. ‎

Historically, the Left’s record is no more tolerant than the Right’s on Muslim issues. The Left ‎overwhelmingly backed the 2004 law banning religious symbols in schools and it was a French ‎socialist minister who proposed the criminalisation of face veils. In 2010, First Secretary of the ‎Socialist Party Martine Aubry voiced that unlike the New Anticapitalist Party (NPA) which had put ‎forward a Muslim candidate who wore the veil in regional elections, the socialist party would not ‎have accepted such a candidate.‎

However a number of dissenting voices within the Socialist party have begun to make themselves ‎heard, seeking to distance themselves from anti-Muslim rhetoric viewed as the legacy of the ‎Sarkozy era. Among them, MPs Razzy Hammadi, Alexis Bachelay and Christophe Caresche have ‎already spoken publicly, emphasising that laicite comes with responsibility, but also rights, including ‎the right to freedom of conscience. Caresche denounced any extension of the ban on religious ‎symbols to private companies, arguing that “French universalism, in the name of which republican ‎principles are invoked, is less and less universal and more and more French” and warned that ‎proposals put forward by the Right to extend the ban to all work places and even in public spaces, ‎could produce greater exclusion.‎

Marwan Muhammad, from the Collective against Islamophobia in France says a grassroots ‎campaign started by his organisation is beginning to change attitudes in France’s national assembly, ‎including that of up to 20 predominantly Leftist MPs: “Public opinion is progressively realising the ‎abuses occurring under the pretext of laicite and an increasing number of people are realising that ‎you can’t ban people from workplaces or you risk affecting social cohesion. There is no French ‎cultural exception which can justify racism towards Muslim women.”‎

As it stands, Muslim women who wear the veil struggle to find any type of employment, with few exceptions. The spread of intolerant attitudes using the cover of laicite was recently ‎illustrated in the case of 15 year old student Sirine Ben Yahiaten, expelled from school for wearing ‎a headband and long skirt, deemed “too religious” by her teachers. Some within the Left have ‎expressed concerns that the instrumentalisation of laicite to create increasingly stringent ‎guidelines prohibiting people of faith from exercising their religion, will contribute to ghettoization ‎and marginalisation, as faith groups are pushed to forge separate schools and companies willing to ‎accommodate their religious needs. ‎

But with some polls suggesting a majority of over 80% would support a ban on the extension of ‎religious symbols in places involving contact with children, it seems Muslim women’s struggle ‎against employment discrimination is far from over. Having expressed his support for the new law, ‎any backing down by Hollande now will be painted by his rivals as a capitulation to ‘Muslim radicals’ ‎at a time when his popularity is already at an all time low. But with growing dissension within his ‎own party and the government, the ‘laicite debate’ won’t be ending any time soon.‎

New Statesman: “No blacks or Arabs” for Israeli PM’s visit: the latest example of French state-sanctioned discrimination

with one comment

You can find this piece on the New Statesman website here

France’s latest scandal involving a case of alleged discrimination against black and Arab employees at state-owned rail company, the SNCF, indicates just how little the climate has improved for Muslims under Francois Hollande’s Socialist government.

Last month, ahead of a state visit by Israeli president Shimon Peres to discuss the Middle East peace process, the SNCF issued a request for its baggage-handling subsidiary Itiremia to provide three porters to the Israeli delegation. Zachée Lapée, Itiremia’s staff representative says he received instructions that there be “no blacks or Arabs” among them, because “no Muslim employees should greet the Israeli head of state.” Secular restrictions do not allow for the identification of people’s religion, but it was assumed “black or Arab” employees might be Muslim. The director of Itiremia has confirmed that “the criteria of selection to welcome M. Peres was based on the appearance of workers.” The SUD-Rail transport union has called for the SNCF to publicly condemn the actions and denounced the discriminatory selection of workers.

An internal investigation is currently underway by the CHSCT, a committee charged with evaluating working conditions in France, to determine who was responsible. According to a statement by Sud-Rail, upon questioning from employees concerning the directives, a manager informed the staff the measures reflected “security concerns” and that the instructions were coming from “protocol from Gare du Nord, then from the Israeli embassy, and then from the Ministry of Interior and the Israeli embassy.” The Israeli embassy has categorically denied making such a request, indicating that the very purpose of Shimon Peres’ arrival in Paris was dialogue with Muslim counterparts. Meanwhile Laurent Trevisani, the SNCF’s strategic director says she did not receive such a request from the Israeli President’s entourage, nor from the French ministry of foreign affairs, and denies issuing the request.

Whatever the outcome of the investigation, issues of institutional racism have long plagued French society. In 2009, the French equality body, the High Authority against Discrimination and for Equality (HALDE), received 259 complaints of discrimination on the ground of religion or belief, most of which involved Muslims, typically in education, private employment and access to public services, findings later corroborated by a 2010 report by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI).

Just this month, Air France was found guilty of discrimination and ordered to pay €10,000 fine to Horia Ankour, a student nurse who was escorted off a plane heading to Tel Aviv on the basis that she was “not Jewish”. In another controversial case earlier this month, 15 year old student Sirine Ben Yahiaten was permanently excluded from her secondary school for wearing a combination of a headband, a few centimetres wide, and a long skirt, deemed to be ‘religious’ in character. The decision was validated by the French Council of State, despite concerns expressed by an administrative tribunal that the exclusion was negatively affecting the young woman’s education. Critiques of the decision point to the fact that many young girls wear headbands and bandanas in tribute to pop stars and fashion icons but that such style choices are only deemed problematic when worn by Muslim women.

Despite some hopes that a socialist government would herald a less divisive atmosphere than that fostered by Sarkozy, who’d played into Far-right repertoire, very little seems to have improved for French Muslims since Hollande’s victory in May. According to one poll, 93 per cent of French Muslims voted for the Socialist candidate, but many have been left disappointed.

Fateh Kimouche, of Muslim website Al-Kanz.org believes the recent controversy fits within a broader atmosphere in which Muslims are dealt with through a security approach, fostered by minister of interior, Manuel Valls, whose portfolio includes managing religious groups. Valls is a controversial figure who was caught on camera in June 2009 bemoaning the lack of “blancos” or “whites” in the neighbourhood of Evry where he was then mayor, and who forced the closure of a local halal shop, claiming that the refusal to stock alcohol or pork reflected evidence of “communalism”. Addressing an audience of police officers last year, he described working class neighbourhoods as a breeding ground for the “enemy within”, while in February, he announced that Muslim women’s headscarves “will remain for me and for the Republic, a central struggle.” The statement has been deemed all the more discriminatory given his public declaration that French Jews “can wear their kippa with pride”.

More recently, Valls expressed his “regret” at a ruling by France’s Court of Cassation which overturned the dismissal of Muslim nursery nurse, Fatima Afif for wearing a headscarf while working at a Paris crèche in 2008. The case has been viewed as particularly significant in light of the employment discrimination experienced by Muslim women who wear a headscarf. A 2012 report by Amnesty international found that Muslim women are routinely “denied jobs and girls prevented from attending regular classes just because they wear traditional forms of dress, such as the headscarf.”

The controversy involving the SNCF has emerged in the same week that the site of a new mosque in Seine-et-Marne was vandalised with nazi tags and a pig’s head, while two other mosques were also defaced in the region in early February. According to the Islamophobia Observatory, 201 anti-Muslim actions were reported in 2012, representing a 28 per cent increase compared with 2011. This latest evidence that institutional racism is rife within one of France’s best known state-run companies, will do little to appease tensions.

Faced with a record low in popularity, corruption scandals and accusations of political ineptitude, Hollande has chosen to play to centre-right concerns lately, in order to regain public approval. His current silence concerning the SNCF saga is testimony to his unwillingness to confront widespread anti-Muslim sentiment and evidence he’s reneging on yet another political promise – that of being a “president for all.”

Written by myriamcerrah

April 16, 2013 at 11:27

Huff Post blog: Anti-Semitism? Not at our dinner table

with 8 comments

interfaith

You can read this on my Huff Post blog here

When news broke that Lord Ahmed had allegedly blamed Jews for his 12-week stint behind ‎bars for killing a man through reckless driving, I tweeted my disgust with his blatant expression ‎of prejudice. Many Muslims echoed my sentiments. ‎

That’s why Mehdi Hasan latest blog “The sorry truth is that the virus of anti-Semitism has ‎infected the British Muslim community” has left me feeling uncomfortable. ‎
A critical factor in Lord Ahmed’s statement was his audience. Speaking in Pakistan where ‎radical groups regularly peddle anti-semitic libel, he thought his words would find resonance. ‎Do I think he would have made that same statement to a British Muslim audience , even if he ‎thought the cameras weren’t watching? No I don’t. Because regardless of the anti-Semitism of ‎certain elements among British Muslims, anti-Semitic discourse is not considered acceptable ‎and does not routinely go unchallenged.‎

On one hand, Mehdi is absolutely right to point out that anti-Semitic attitudes are not ‎uncommon in Muslim circles and have become somewhat normalised, concealing the ugly face ‎of hate behind objections to Israeli policies and spurious claims of Jewish conspiracies. The ‎Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the stumbling block in much Jewish-Muslim dialogue. As one ‎interfaith activist told me, “we’re fine as long as we steer away from Middle East politics.” The ‎single biggest issue which fosters animosity towards Jews, whom some erroneously fail to ‎distinguish from expansionist Israelis, is the Israel Palestine conflict. This doesn’t make the ‎intolerance any less inexcusable of course. The other significant factor fostering anti-Semitism ‎is conspiracy theories, an unfortunate import from many Muslim majority countries, where ‎opaque and autocratic governing structures lend themselves to an unhealthy fixation with the ‎machinations of “dark forces”. Both tensions over the Middle East conflict, as well as conspiracy ‎theories go some way towards explaining the existence of anti-Semitic attitudes. They ‎certainly don’t excuse them. ‎

On the other hand, I do not see such views as being tolerated, considered acceptable or even ‎being ignored – on the few occasions I have witnessed anti-Jewish sentiment, I have seen it ‎robustly challenged usually by the “mild-mannered and well-integrated British Muslims” Mehdi ‎refers to. That said, I’ve also witnessed an elderly Muslim man remonstrating an over-zealous ‎youth by reminding him that our forefather Prophet Abraham, whom we praise alongside ‎Prophet Mohamed in all five of our daily prayers, was the Patriarch of the Jewish people. So while I support Mehdi for ‎taking a stand against anti-semitism and urging Muslims to be as diligent in denouncing it as ‎they are islamophobia, I reject the presumed community complicity implied by his reference to ‎‎”our dirty little secret”. ‎

It’s disheartening to hear Mehdi’s been witness to so much anti-semitism, but it is important to ‎recognise that his, like mine, is just one experience amongst many. More reliable indicators of ‎Muslim-Jewish relations are the sheer number of cooperative initiatives and evidence of ‎mutual solidarity. In 2009, following the Israeli onslaught against Gaza, British Muslims rallied ‎together to denounce anti-Semitic attacks amid fears of a backlash against Jewish communities ‎in Britain. In March last year when Mohamed Merah opened fire on a Jewish school in ‎Toulouse, killing seven, Jews and Muslims marched together in a show of solidarity against ‎hate. The Gathering of European Muslim and Jewish Leaders regularly brings together over 70 ‎religious leaders as part of an effort to develop good Muslim-Jewish relations across Europe. ‎Such displays of camaraderie are not anomalous. ‎
Mehdi’s presumption of group guilt undermines the valuable work being done by many ‎interfaith groups – the MUJU Comedy Crew, the Joseph Interfaith Foundation and the Three ‎Faiths Foundation, among others – in recognition of our shared heritage. It also unfairly tares ‎the vast majority of Muslims who do in fact reject anti-Semitism and who risk henceforth being ‎viewed with suspicion. ‎

‎ Commenting on a Gallup poll which showed that in the US, the single most powerful predictor ‎of “a great deal” of prejudice toward Muslims is equivalent negative bias toward Jews, James ‎Carroll wrote: “Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are halves of the same walnut. That is ‎surprising because Jews and Muslims are widely perceived–and often perceive themselves–as ‎antagonists occupying opposite poles in the great contemporary clash of cultures.” The reality ‎is that Jews and Muslims share the same struggle against intolerance and prejudice and many ‎are united in opposing regressive legislation which affects the practice of rituals central to both ‎faiths.‎

When Baroness Warsi stated that islamophobia had “passed the dinner-table test” in Britain, ‎she referred to the way in which anti-Muslim sentiment is increasingly perceived as normal. It ‎is a misnomer to argue that anti-Semitism has passed the same threshold in the British Muslim ‎community. Any intolerance is too much intolerance and so I applaud Mehdi for highlighting ‎the critical importance of standing against bigotry in all its forms. I just hope his somewhat rash ‎generalisations won’t be used to validate anti-Muslim prejudice, and we can all move beyond ‎notions of ‘the other’, in order to find ways to work towards the common good.‎

Written by myriamcerrah

March 23, 2013 at 14:20

BBC Religion and Ethics: Perspectives: Should Britain become a secular state?

with 2 comments

Is it time for Britain to separate Church and State and become a secular state? – read it here on the BBC website

Myriam Francois-Cerrah and Symon Hill approach the debate from different perspectives

As part of the Perspectives series, BBC Religion and Ethics asked two contributors to BBC One’s The Big Questions to develop some of the issues.

Myriam Francois-Cerrah is a writer, academic and a Muslim. She believes that the UK today is largely a secular society and that this is already reflected at the level of the state.

She says that separating church and the state runs the risk of marginalising religious people and in some cases forwarding an anti-religious agenda.

Symon Hill is a left-wing Christian writer, blogger and associate-director of the not-for-profit Christian think tank Ekklesia which “examines the role of beliefs, values and faith in public life”.

He is author of The No-Nonsense Guide to Religion and believes that the church and the state should be separate.
A secular state?

Myriam: Britain is already a deeply secular country. The exception is the Church of England and the privileges it continues to enjoy, including unelected Bishops in the House of Lords. There is certainly public support for a reform of the House of Lords, and that is a good thing.

A moderate inclusive secularism is evolving in Britain, rather than a reactionary secularism, such as is found in France, which seeks to banish religion entirely from the public sphere.

Do we need to banish all Christian symbolism, rooted as it is in British history, in order to become ‘truly’ secular – I’m not sure we do.

What is critical is that the state evolves in a manner which reflects the changing makeup of its citizenry. Prince Charles suggesting he’d rather be referred to as “defender of Faith” rather than defender of ‘the’ Faith is one such example of this.

However I am deeply wary of the trend which seeks to hijack arguments for greater secularism, ie: more equal access to the state by all, in order to seek to marginalise religious people and their presence and voice in the public sphere.

This is an intolerant strand within the secularist movement which misinterprets secularism and seeks to redefine it to advance an anti-religious agenda.

Symon: I agree that Britain is in some ways a more secular society than it once was, but it is not a secular state. The monarch promises to uphold Christianity. The Church of England’s leaders can vote on legislation in Parliament. Religious schools are allowed to discriminate in selection and recruitment.

In 2010, the House of Lords narrowly passed an amendment to the Equality Act exempting employees of religious organisations from some aspects of homophobic discrimination. The amendment was passed so narrowly that, without the bishops, the vote would have gone the other way.

I reject all this, as a Christian committed to religious liberty.

I don’t support French-style “secularism” in which religion is marginalised and privatised.
Faith in schools

Myriam: I think we agree that the state is not yet fully secular. The vestiges of a Christian state in Britain are symbolic. The monarch promises to uphold Christianity, true, but in practice the future king Prince Charles has shown himself very committed to giving real value to modern Britain’s multi-faith identity (while being politically impotent!)

What does it mean to be a secularist?

A secular state is a neutral state – it should provide for the needs of all its citizens, religious or not.

It is the right of tax-paying religious citizens, as all citizens, to access facilities suited to their needs. Discrimination would principally be a problem if these were the only schools on offer, which clearly they are not.

I’m in favour of a broader selection process so children of all faiths and none can benefit from faith-based education.

You claim to oppose people being forced to adopt certain values and yet it seems you wish to do exactly that.

Liberal mores are not neutral – they are one of many ethical perspectives which a neutral, secular state must accommodate.

Symon: I’m pleased we agree on some things! For example, faith schools should not be allowed to discriminate.

You say that faith schools are not the only ones on offer. For some people, in rural communities, they really are. I went to a Church of England school as a child because it was the village school.

The religious teaching that I got there put me off Christianity and turned me temporarily into an atheist, though I later turned to Christ in spite of it!

Some of the vestiges of Christianity are indeed symbolic, but symbolism can be important. As a Christian, I am disturbed by what these symbols say about Christianity. During his life, Jesus took the side of the poor and marginalised. He reserved his harshest words for the rich and powerful and for religious hypocrites. In contrast, the monarchy and House of Lords represent privilege and inequality.

The radical, subversive message of Christ has been hijacked.

Myriam: The lack of non-faith schools available in rural areas suggests we need more schools to cater for different choices, not that faith schools themselves are problematic. I agree with you that the socially hierarchical Christianity represented by the royal family seems at odds with the message of egalitarianism promoted by both our faiths.

My main concern with a desire to do away entirely with Christian symbolism is that it contributes to the fostering of a sense of national identity and culture.

If Christianity can be inclusive and embrace the changing nature of British society, then I wouldn’t object to its continued presence in the public sphere .

Symon: National symbols tend to change over time. There are many people trying to cling on to symbols while forgetting what they represent. There are those who talk of the right to wear a cross, but forget that the cross represents the execution of Jesus by a brutal empire whose power he challenged. It symbolises resistance to oppression.

Yet there are right-wing lobby groups that talk up the idea of “preserving Britain’s Christian heritage” or insist that “Britain is a Christian country”.

They overlook the fact that the British Empire was claiming to be Christian while engaged in the slave trade and while committing genocide in Tasmania.

While Christian symbols are still attached to an outdated and reactionary idea of what it means to be British, Christian language can be misused as an excuse for homophobia and racial prejudice.

Myriam: Like you, I would like to see religion siding with the poor and disenfranchised rather than seeking to perpetuate privilege and an antiquated social hierarchy based on class.

But I hope to see more religion, rather than less religion in the public sphere in the future, including voices with which I may profoundly disagree.

A secular state – in other words, a neutral state – shouldn’t seek to impose a particular vision of morality beyond the very basic bounds of avoiding direct harm to others.

Today, religious voices are often ridiculed and derided as outmoded, with little value for the modern world. But this is throwing out a rich inheritance – we shouldn’t throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water.

Religion is about fostering compassion, love and kindness towards others – it seems tragic that we as a society have virtually relegated religion to the history books.

A secular state and a rich religious life are absolutely not in contradiction, but I do hope secularism isn’t used as a Trojan horse to advance anti-religious intolerance, which fails to recognise the true value of religion and religious individuals to the greater good of our society.

Guardian CIF: What does Abdessalam Yassine’s death mean for Morocco?

with 2 comments

Link to the original piece on the Guardian website, here
abdessalam yassine funeral

Mourners surround the coffin of Sheikh Abdessalam Yassine, who led the Justice and Spirituality opposition movement, in Rabat, Morocco, last Friday. Photograph: Abdeljalil Bounhar/AP

Islamism is often thought to be antithetical to Sufism, but in Morocco, a Sufi-inspired Islamist movement has represented the most potent opposition to the monarchy since the 1980s. The death of its mystical leader, Sheikh Abdessalam Yassine, last Thursday has left many asking what direction Morocco’s informal opposition will take.

Tens of thousands of people converged on Morocco’s capital, Rabat, to mourn the passing of Yassine, 84, the founder and spiritual leader of Morocco’s largest Islamic opposition movement, Justice and Spirituality (al Adl wal Ihsan), a nonviolent group committed to the peaceful overthrow of the monarchy.

The sheikh’s age and ill health had meant his public appearances had grown increasingly infrequent. Some even speculated that he may have died earlier and his death kept a secret from his devoted followers. According to Michael Willis, fellow in Moroccan and Mediterranean studies at Oxford University, Yassine’s death is a pivotal moment in the evolution of the movement: “The movement grew around him, all members read his key writings, he was at the centre of things – but the movement had been preparing for his death for the last decade or so – there are structures in place.”

The central ideologue and spiritual guide, Yassine’s appeal combined religious and political leadership, something the movement will struggle to replace. Whether his successor’s legitimacy is premised on political or religious credentials could affect the nature of the movement and its popular appeal. In recent years, Yassine’s daughter Nadia, a media regular and French-educated author, has grown in public prominence. Like her father, her public defiance of the monarchy, including a 2005 statement that Morocco would be better off as a republic, saw her prosecuted and kept under surveillance. However, despite her popular appeal and charisma, it is unlikely she will take the helm in a deeply conservative country, where female leadership remains contentious. An interim successor has been appointed in the shape of Mohamed Abbadi, current head of the movement’s guidance council and No 2 in the movement.

The burning question for observers is whether the movement will reconsider a cornerstone of Yassine’s thinking – the rejection of the monarchy’s religious and political legitimacy. Such a move, favoured by younger members, would allow the movement to enter the political fray, but could ultimately undermine its oppositional appeal.

As for the monarch, the passing of such an inveterate opponent will be regarded with muted glee. For decades, the sheikh represented the face of popular dissidence, refusing to recognise the legitimacy of the monarchy and sending a succession of impudent letters to the successive kings, accusing them of squandering the people’s wealth and calling on them to return to the path of God. One such letter saw Yassine imprisoned in a psychiatric ward because it is alleged former king Hassan II could not conceive that any sane man would challenge his authority so brazenly. On Mohammed VI’s ascension in 1999, Yassine advised him to use his personal wealth, currently estimated at $2.5bn (£1.5bn), to eradicate the national debt. In a country with over 40% illiteracy and where more than a fifth of the population live in extreme poverty, the fact the king’s 12 palaces reportedly cost $1m a day to operate provides some fodder to Yassine’s call for social justice.

What’s more, in 2011, Yassine’s movement temporarily joined forces with Morocco’s pro-democracy 20 February movement, swelling crowds and increasing pressure on the king to undertake political reforms at a time when longstanding leaders were being deposed across the region. It was these protests that saw the enactment of constitutional reforms and the bringing forward of legislative elections, in which a rival Islamist party, the Justice and Development party (PJD), won a majority of seats. The concession of an Islamist government is widely considered to be the regime’s “last card” in its efforts to avoid relinquishing meaningful power.

With his potent message of Sufi piety and political dissent, Yassine embodied a truly Moroccan form of political protest in one of the most enduring authoritarian states, where window-dressing reforms have long tempered international criticism. His death is undoubtedly a blow to the movement’s religious leadership, but it remains to be seen whether it will negatively affect its political might. According to Michael Willis, “both Al Adl wal Ihsan and the 20 February movement are waiting for the PJD to run into trouble and support to ebb. Then the palace will have to turn to either one of them.” Yassine’s movement may yet have its day.

Written by myriamcerrah

December 20, 2012 at 14:55

Guardian (cif): Muslim women face an uphill battle against prejudice to find work

with one comment

This article was first published on the Guardian CIF, you can read it here
Baroness Warsi wearing shalwar khameez at Downing Street in May 2010

Baroness Warsi wearing shalwar khameez at Downing Street in May 2010. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images

Baroness Warsi may have opted for shalwar khameez for her first meeting of the cabinet in May 2010, but for many Muslim women, the struggle is to downplay ethnic or religious difference in order to find acceptance – and employment. A recent parliamentary report found that Muslim women often feel pressured to change their appearance or anglicise their name in order to access employment.

Often, it is the “triple paralysis” of being a woman, migrant, or perceived as such, and Muslim. While in some cases, the barriers are cultural, linguistic or educational, research suggests that 25% of the ethnic minority unemployment rate for both men and women could be explained by prejudice and racial discrimination.

South Asian Muslim women have the highest rate of unemployment in terms of both religion and ethnicity in the UK. Many are highly educated, ambitious women like Shazba, a speech therapist and single mother, who struggles to understand the consistent rejections. She has been unemployed for five years despite a masters qualification and extensive voluntary experience: “I’ve been through numerous interviews for my first job. Needless to say, I feel I’m not getting the job as employers see I wear hijab and look for reasons to turn me down.” When I push her on how exactly she can be sure her headscarf is the problem, given high rates of unemployment more broadly, she responds: “It’s body language, tonality – I once walked into an interview and the interviewer’s face just crashed.”

Others encounter difficulties within the workplace itself, where requests for minor adaptations are met with resistance. Reema, a 34-year-old obstetrician, has to remove her hijab in order to perform surgery. She explains that her London hospital trust has been unwilling to consider small alterations to the scrubs uniform worn in surgery, despite the possibility of ensuring sterility standards. In her experience, “when young doctors in foundation stages see the problem with hijab in theatres, they think of choosing specialities without surgery, even though they are interested in surgical specialities.” This self-selecting out of certain professions is one of the barriers to employment noted by the report.

Others include assumptions about Muslim women and how their religious identity is likely to impact on their work. A recurring theme was of women feeling “essentialised” – Muslim journalists consistently asked to cover “Muslim” stories, Muslim solicitors hired as a means of accessing certain communities, or a hospice worker whose conversations were routinely directed at her faith. From questions about pregnancy plans through to being asked, “We have a lot of gay staff here – is that going to be a problem for you?”, many women felt their identity was reduced to their scarf and the assumptions people made about it.

For women who had to undergo a traineeship, the pressure of what one’s supervisor might think made them vulnerable to prejudice. Some were advised to change the style or colour of their scarf in order to appear more “client friendly”, others were asked if they intended to keep wearing it, a question they interpreted as meaning it could work against their application. A trainee solicitor at a leading international law firm was told she was “sheltered” and “deferent”, something her employers put down her “background”. She eventually opted to remove her scarf. Fiyaz Mughal, director of the Tell Mama (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks) campaign says: “These are not just isolated problems. There are strong perceptions in Muslim communities that employment discrimination is rife.”

According to the report, the impact on women’s self-confidence is significant, something Mughal corroborates: “This causes a lack of confidence … as they think about where their future lies.” Such concerns are not unfounded. Consistent workplace inactivity in younger women can lead to difficulties in finding a job later in life. This is all the more worrying given that Pakistani and Bangladeshi families experience extremely high poverty rates and in light of the fact BME concentration in the public sector means they are more likely to be affected by cuts.

The portrayal of Muslim women in the media as passive victims, or as problems, undoubtedly renders them less desirable to prospective employers. Barrister Sultana Tafadar explained that some chambers were concerned that women in headscarves might be perceived as less competent and more judgmental of clients. Women who work in the service sector were made to feel they’d struggle to fit into the team. But it would be a mistake to assume this sort of subtle discrimination is limited to women. Ed Husain, author of the Islamist, revealed that he changed his name because he didn’t feel comfortable with Mohammed and in 2009, researchers uncovered widespread racial discrimination against workers with African and Asian names, among whom unemployment rates remain consistently higher than average.

Muslim women stand at the intersection of race, gender and religious difference, which significantly increases their likelihood of suffering prejudice. But the focus on Muslim women shouldn’t serve to further essentialise their identity – they merely represent the sharp end of a stick which indicates the persistence of sexism, racism and religious discrimination in broader society and their impact on people’s life choices.

Lecture: Muslim women’s contribution: some thoughts….

with 7 comments

This was a lecture I recently delivered at Logan Hall recently for Al Buruj:

I begin in the name of Allah, the most Merciful, the most Kind.

I was asked to talk to you today about the Contribution of Muslim Women in the 21st Century. In a way, there are many things to be optimistic about as we look around, off the top of my head, I can think of a number of Muslim women who’ve successfully drawn on their spirituality as a motor to engage positively with the world and that is certainly an encouraging sign. Our generation has a committed Muslim woman Nobel peace prize winner, Tawakul Karman, to look to as a recent precedent for the recognition of women’s contribution to the struggle for justice in their societies.

We have many an examples of successful models of piety balanced with an interaction with the world – from authors, to inventors, politicians, to athletes, intellectuals, scholars, singers and even members of the film industry, who have sought, despite the pitfalls of any public platform, to maintain a religious integrity alongside their public work. They are often worth citing by name – Hawa Abdi is one of Somalia’s first female gynaecologists and uses her own money to run a small hospital treating everything from war injuries to malnutrition; or Bahrain’s Ruqaya Al Ghasara, the first athlete to ever take part in the Olympics wearing a hijab back in 2004, hopefully inspiring many more young Muslim to get involved in sport. Or Eleanor Martin, a tremendously talented actress who runs the wonderful Khayyal theatre company in the UK, which brings Islamic storytelling to life and just recently produced a play for the Hajj exhibition at the British museum.

At the grassroots levels, a French friend of mine uses street art to challenge public perception of Muslims, using song, dance and drama. Just recently, in responses to the niqab ban, her group headed to the Eiffel tour where they performed the dance sequence to MJ’s Thriller dressed in black abayas and Niqabs, to much consternation from the tourists – the objective? To get people to react differently to an item they were so used to seeing in a negative light – whether people laughed or smiled, whether they appreciated the joke or were just perplexed, they created in that moment a different perception of a much maligned item of clothing. That sort of creative thinking put to the service of our principles is what it’s all about.

Despite undoubted difficulties faced by Muslims in the media, we have more and more inspiring women leading the way –Channel 4 news regularly features the ever perspicacious reporter, Fatima Manji – she is now a regular face on our screens. In the world of film, where Muslims have been slow to make their mark, Usma Hasan, producer of the hilarious comedy “The infidel” was recently nominated for Asian woman of the year award. For those who haven’t seen the film, it is about a Muslim man in Britain who discovers he was adopted as a child and is actually ancestrally Jewish – the film charts his journey as he rediscovers his ancestry and through comedy, highlights our many commonalities. a must watch!

I’ll end with one final example, which highlights the extent to which our contributions are vital and deserve recognition at whatever level they may be at. My good friend Sazan Meran runs “Rumi’s kitchen”, a project by Ulfa aid to provide support to the homeless and other vulnerable members of society by offering free food, company and entertainment to the most marginalised. And in a shameless plug, they are regularly seeking volunteers to help out, so get involved!

I wanted to list these examples from a range of fields, from the high profile to the grassroots, from politics, to sports, to highlight the innumerable ways in which Muslim women are already contributing to society. Our generation, Alhamdulillah, has a multitude of pioneers to look to for inspiration, to challenge us when we see limits and to make us strive to contribute, each in our own capacity.

But you may have noticed something about the examples I have given and they are that there is nothing distinctly gendered about them. When I’m asked about women’s contribution to society, I want to say, let’s talk about the human contribution to society. There is an unhealthy obsession with focusing in on gender as somehow marking us out as having distinctly different aptitudes and roles. Whilst this might be true if you’re talking about weight lifting or SAS training, broadly speaking, women’s contributions can and do look a lot like men’s contributions -  a positive involvement with the world around us, drawing on whatever God given talents have been bestowed upon us.

So the question then poses itself, why is it that women -  and not just Muslim women incidentally – struggle to make their mark.

To some extent, it the narrowing of our identity to ‘women’, which is to blame – after all, Muslim women speakers are almost solely asked to speak on issues pertaining to women, as if somehow, men are the ‘neutral’ gender who can address all matter of worldly and other-worldly issues whereas women are only qualified to speak on women’s issues. I cannot recall the last time I attended an event in which the main speaker was a woman – and I’m not talking about a woman’s event either, I’m talking about viewing women as figures of authority and reference within our community. I’m talking about women addressing  and teaching men – as well women, in the way Aicha (rA) and many of the earliest generation of women taught and guided people, regardless of their gender.

Is there anything particular that women can bring that is unique to their perspective? To that I would answer yes. Women’s life experiences, our struggles as a minority – not in the numerical sense  -technically we outnumber men – but in terms of our power – are rarely heard or reflected. In many societies, including the UK, women still bear the bulk of responsibility for caring for elderly parents or relatives – we still do the bulk of child care and midwifery – where are OUR stories, our perspectives? Forget media depictions of yummy mummies, said to be slacking off work to have a frappucino while a perfect baby snoozes in a land-rover sized pram – what is the reality of women who take maternity leave, who often spend considerable hours of the day caring for individuals with, lets be honest, fairly limited capacities for interaction and mental stimulation?

When I see people depicting a mosque as a quiet, serene space for prayer and contemplation, I can’t help but laugh. That is definitely a male take on the mosque. Have you actually attended Jumu’aa prayer in the women’s section of a mosque lately? Have you tried traversing the obstacle course of handbags and nappy holders, dodging the screaming babies and overactive toddlers – have you tried praying lately with a three year using your back as a bouncy castle? And I don’t even mean YOUR three year old.

I know our mosques take a bit of a bashing, but there are some regards in which they are undoubtedly failing women. If mosques are meant to be the center, the heart, the hub of our community, where are our mother and toddler groups? Where are our crèches for prayer time so we can focus on our prayers just as men get to focus on theirs, uninterrupted? How many of us women see the mosque as OUR space as Muslims and not a male space in which we are offered a  – typically very small and stuffy – space. How many mosques are places where single mothers   – often through no fault of their own – can find non-judgemental support? Where foreign wives can find support on how to speak English, meet new people and find a support network in case things don’t work out, as sadly sometimes they don’t.

And what about converts – our community loves its converts and to some extent I understand why an outsider recognising the beauty of Islam, is inspiring. On the other hand, we don’t embrace all converts equally – as many a marriage proposal as white converts receive, as many black converts tell me they find absolutely no support in the mosque and struggle to be considered for marriage. Are devout, black converts not good enough for our sons and daughters?

A small side notes on converts if I may – it seems a sad truism that those we herald as role models within the Muslim community are all too often white western converts, as if the acceptance of Islam by white westerners were somehow a validation of its truth, as if somehow, their shahada were any more valid or worthy than that of any one else. To me, this has roots in a post-colonial complex concerning ‘whiteness’ as somehow a distinctive marker of superiority – where are the black converts, the Asian converts afforded the status given to the white convert? Are Muslim women of Muslim heritage not as valid in their perspective, contribution or knowledge? It isn’t that they don’t exist, they are simply not given the same platform.

It is all too easy to pay lip service to the fundamental equality which Islam establishes between all human beings, but when it comes down to it, actions speak much louder than words.

With all the ease with which one can grow a beard, I only wish compassion were so easy to cultivate.

There are very real barriers to the contribution of Muslim women. But they are not theological, they are not God given.  On the contrary the models we find in the texts and in the earliest period of Islam are diverse and multifaceted. They were not ALL mothers.

There may be cases in which women derive considerable satisfaction through making their contribution to society through their investment in the home. There are women for whom, their incredible commitment to home making and child rearing IS their contribution. And it is no minor one – they are forging their ideal and good for them.

This isn’t a Muslim woman’s issue – Jools Oliver, wife of the cook Jamie Oliver once remarked that she never wanted a career, but always wanted to have a large family. Raising four young children and running her home, I would say her contribution, like that of many women in her position, is immense in forging the next generation of well-rounded citizens. That said, there is a distinctly nefarious trend to limit the possible contribution of Muslim women to this, the mothering role, the usual suspects as I call them a woman as “a mother, a wife, a daughter”.

Interestingly these are all definitions of a woman in relation to a man. So much for sisters doing it for themselves.

Where are the definitions of Muslim women’s conception of themselves – not in relation to a man, but in relation to God. The 8th century mystic, Rabia Al Adawiyya offers us some insight into that might look like, she used to pray:
“O my Lord, the stars are shining and the eyes of men are closed, and kings have shut their doors, and every lover is alone with his beloved, and here I am alone with Thee.”

In reality, we find huge diversity among Muslim women historically and among the wives of the prophet (saw), in terms of their temperaments, their ambitions, their activities. Thus it is also the case with women more broadly.

Throughout the earliest periods of Islamic history, we find women in important positions within society, women as market inspectors, such as Samra bint Nuhayk al Asadiyyya who used to go around the market commanding good and forbidding evil. Or Ash-Shifa bint Abdullah, an early doctor or healer who was also involved in public administration and whose name is very present in early Muslim history. The Prophet (saw) used to visit her and Umar (rA) used to defer to her opinion so much that he appointed her as an officer/wali, in the administration of the marketplace, in what Aicha Bewley suggests might possibly be the first Muslim woman to hold an official position in public administration.

In the battle of Siffin, Hind, (the wife of Abu Sufyan and mother of Muawwiya) led the women in repelling the attacking Byzantines when the Muslims broke ranks –  and there are many other examples. It is this historical amnesia of the precedents of our women in all spheres of life which facilitates the exclusion of women. The extent to which these examples may seem radical to us today is a testament to just how far we’ve strayed for the earliest framework of equality established by the Prophet.

There is no single ideal or model of female contribution. To me, Jools Oliver’s dream sounds a lot like my nightmare. Many women will feel the desire to contribute beyond the private sphere, they may feel their skills, their intellect, their knowledge represent an important contribution to society. In these cases, the examples of our sisters who find contentment in domesticity cannot be used as a whip to flog us. It is not the only model of female emancipation. The Prophet (saw) daughter Fatima was more homeward inclined – but Khadija, his first wife was a powerful businesswoman who employed her husband before proposing to him. Umm Salama was a powerful figure whom the Prophet consulted in his decisions and who participated in a number of battles and of course, of Aisha we know that the greatest companions used to consult her about obligations.

Women are not the trampoline from which men get to launch into the world. There is saying that really grates on me, that “behind every great man is a great woman”. Why should she be behind him, in the shadows, easing his advances and successes – if love and partnership means anything, it means supporting one another in your objectives, it is cushioning each others’ falls, it is easing each others’ burdens. Of the many successful men I know, how many of them have dutiful, devout wives at home who keep the wheels turning in order for these men to go out and do their thing. You cannot simultaneously bemoan the lack of women’s contribution to society and expect them to achieve the same things as men, whilst bearing the additional burdens – or as I like to call, the second full time job – of running a home and caring for a family, on their own.

How can a woman possibly seek to contribute to society when in many cases, she is not only working a full time job, but in some cases, working a second full time job as a care giver and home maker. I’ll tell you what, we women would be sooo much more productive if we came home, dinner was made, the table was laid, the washing was done, the kids were washed and put to bed, and all we had to worry about was the tasks ahead. Now take a second and think how many of you men come home to exactly that scenario. You can talk about women’s contribution all day long, but as long as you’re not facilitating it through your own personal sacrifices, they are, as the Palestinians say “haki fadi”, empty words.

What do we teach women about themselves? We hide behind the notion of modesty to encourage our girls to be self conscious, shy and reticent to speak up, praising this as somehow virtuous when we know that that the women of the Ansar were praised for precisely not allowing their shyness to stop them from speaking up.

We teach women that the burden of responsibility for modesty lies with them, making them nervous about participating in sports, or public speaking. I attend a gym where I often seem Muslim men exercising but rarely ever see Muslim women. At the pool, do these men’s eyes not see things they shouldn’t? Is it just Muslim women who have to observe modesty? If you wouldn’t want your wife or sister to be somewhere, what are you doing there? And if you can justify it to yourself, then accept that those same allowances can apply to women. I can safely say that sports has played a tremendously important role in my life.

Beyond keeping fit and healthy, team sports teach you about cooperation, about trust, about reliability and self discipline. Becoming good at a sport allows you to develop self-confidence and bodily awareness, assurance in one’s abilities. In a world where our self worth as women is so often premised on our looks, sports and extra-curricular activities are essential in developing real qualities – skills, confidence and internal strength beyond the superficiality of fashion.

Our girls are often restricted from participating in such activities, typically, they are more closely monitored, much more closely than our boys – but what exactly is the reasoning here? do we think teenage boys are immune from the sins we fear for your daughters? Or do we think Allah forgives men’s sins more readily – astaghfirullah.

Muslim women often lack confidence in in their status as Muslim women. We have plenty of sexy role models out there, pop stars and actresses who promote a model of female empowerment through playing up one’s sex appeal. I fail to see what exactly we teach women about how to affirm their identity as specifically ‘Muslim’ women. And I’m not talking about a dress code. How sad to see a generation of girls who think their identity as Muslim women is defined by the length of their jilbabs? That our identity as Muslim women is reduced to our dress code just shows the extent to which we’ve bought into the conception of women’s physicality as primordial. If we were serious about Muslim women’s contribution, we ‘d be promoting holistic models of piety, knowledge and success, a diverse range of women who draw on their spirituality in what they do. Such women would be models for our community, as a whole, not just for women and they would be references and teachers to all.

When we see successful Muslim women, they are often criticised for allegedly compromising their faith in order to succeed – in other words, what are we saying  is –  you can’t be fully Muslim and successful in the public sphere as a woman  – what this actually sends out in terms of a message to women, is that you have to choose between your Muslim identity and your public contribution.

The assumption being, the more orientated you are towards the private sphere, the more “Muslim” you are – the more out there you are, the more you are ‘compromising’ that identity. Until we start to herald women as leaders and inspiring figures not for women, but for Muslims more generally, we will continue to promote the idea that public sphere is a male sphere, in which women may make tokenistic contributions but ultimately, their places remains within the home.

I’m all for talking about Muslim women’s contributions, but as a community, we have to be honest with ourselves about how women in the public eye are perceived, about the models of female piety which are peddled and about the extent to which we disable young Muslim women when we teach them that in Islam, the models of piety, knowledge and success are masculine and that women are at best devout wombs fostering great men. Aside from anything else, this is wholly inaccurate.

As far removed as this is from the model taught by the Prophet (saw), it is a widely held perception. Lest we remember that when the prophet (saw) was away, he told people to refer to Aicha, that when companions differed on a hadith, she was the authority figure they consulted after the death his death. Lest we remember that Allah in the Quran praises strong models of female leadership, whether in the form of Mariam, a spiritual leader in her own right, or Bilqis, otherwise known as the Queen of Sheba, a female ruler!

I started out this talk on an optimistic note – there are, strong Muslim woman who ground themselves in their faith to make tremendous contributions to this world – their efforts are an inspiration for us all. Tenacity, courage, perseverance – they are qualities which we can all learn from. I have listed a number of concerns I have about the way we present women within the Muslim community, about the singular and restricted notion of Muslim female empowerment which limits an acceptable contribution to the private sphere – I have also mentioned the need for women to start defining their conception of what it means to be a Muslim woman.

What exactly does our femininity bring to the sphere of spirituality? In Taoism for example, pregnant women are revered as models of concentration and meditation, and men developed techniques based on this female model of pregnancy. What exactly do our female experiences bring to the table?

While I still get asked by young educated university students whether they can leave the home without their husband’s permission, or whether they can work after they marry, I will continue to struggle to bridge the gap between the ideals fostered by the Prophet and the earliest community, and the actualisation of those principles today.  Muslim women are contributing hugely already, but until that contribution is recognised by all, in its innumerable manifestations and until we can appreciate that that contribution is not a lesser version of what men bring to the table, but a specific Divinely forged avenue for the transmission wisdom, we’ll be letting women down. And we’re a lot poorer for it.

Many thanks.

Any good that came from this talk today is from Allah, all errors are my own.

Written by myriamcerrah

December 1, 2012 at 18:14

Huff Post blog: Why Blaming ‘Asian Sex Gangs’ Is the Real Disservice to the Victims

with one comment

You can read this on my Huff Post blog, here

Yesterday’s interim report on Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) has reignited debate over ‘asian sex ‎gangs’ and whether the PC brigade are impeding the police from identifying the variable of race as ‎relevant. In a debate with Tory MP David Davis on BBC Radio 2 yesterday, he put to me ‎that we all apparently ‘know deep down’ that girls are targeted due to inherent misogyny in the ‎Asian – and specifically Muslim – community. In defence of his argument, he referred (erroneously) ‎to the Quran. Because of course, ‘Muslim’ paedophiles like to consult their Holy book before they ‎ply children with alcohol and abuse them.‎

The latest report is a vital contribution to our understanding of child sexual exploitation, but it ‎focuses only one particular type, namely that involving gangs or groups. ‎Although Asian men are overrepresented in this particular category, 95% of the UK’s sex offenders ‎are white males. An interesting question the report does raise is why Asian men favour this gang or ‎group set up. It could be that in certain gang dominated areas, typically impoverished areas where ‎BMEs are overrepresented, CSE is an extension of broader criminal activity. A paucity of details ‎about perpetrators means we can only speculate, but what the report makes clear is, “there is ‎more than one type of perpetrator, model and approach to child sexual exploitation by gangs and ‎groups.”‎

The report also belies the suggestion that such groups target ‘white girls’, playing on age old fears ‎of black sexuality preying on white innocence: “the characteristics common to all victims are not ‎their age, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation, rather their powerlessness and vulnerability.” ‎Indeed the report showed victims come from a range of backgrounds, ethnicities and genders, ‎with 28% of victims from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. ‎

In a Daily Mail article yesterday, Yasmin Alibhai Brown argued that “some Asian cultural ‎assumptions make the paedophiles feel no guilt or shame about what they do,” raising questions ‎about a culture which could condone such abuse. The report itself states: “There is no doubt that ‎girls and young women are targeted due to the way some men and boys perceive women and ‎girls.”‎

There is no denying the existence of misogynistic attitudes among some Asian men. In the Muslim ‎community, I’m the first to denounce their existence. Each subculture has its own variant to ‎express disdain for women – sluts or skanks, hoes and bitches, gora or kuffar. Pick your idiom and ‎I’ll show you a lexicon referring to women deemed worthy of contempt. The problem is, misogyny ‎is not exclusively ‘Asian’ .‎

What exactly is uniquely ‘Asian’ about these cases? Alibhai-Brown suggests the fact many of the ‎men “cannot relate to women except as objects” is symptomatic, but various feminist groups, ‎including OBJECT, regularly denounce the objectification of women in popular culture as leading to ‎the dehumanisation of women.‎

What exactly is ‘Asian’ about men plying young girls with alcohol at ‘parties’ and then taking ‎advantage of them? In Britain, alcohol is one of the most commonly cited factors in attempts to ‎explain or excuse rape, alongside a woman’s attire. According to the Fawcett society nearly a third ‎of people (30%) say a woman was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was drunk ‎and more than a quarter (26%) if she was wearing sexy or revealing clothing (AIUK 2005).‎

The report raises some worrying questions about the perception of women or girls whose lifestyle ‎might not conform to mainstream views of ‘propriety’, a view which filters through to CPS ‎professionals, who dismissed victims as ‘promiscuous’ and ‘liking the glamour’. The report notes ‎that some of the most common phrases used to describe a young person’s behaviour by CPS ‎professionals, were: ‘prostituting herself’, ‘sexually available’ and ‘asking for it’. Why did these ‎professionals perceive the girls in this way? A study by Warwick university argues that working class ‎women are framed in the press as “oversexualized and with the ‘wrong’ kind of relation to men”. ‎When you consider the troubled background of most victims, including the fact that 34% are in the ‎care system, this has serious implications.‎

This sexualising terminology and the suggestion by Alibhai- Brown that “many abusers are sexually ‎frustrated,” reflects a widely held misconception that rape is primarily about sexual gratification, ‎when studies suggest power and control are central. The abuse described in the report, namely ‎the fact that oral and anal rape were most widely reported, alongside physical violence, suggests a ‎pattern of intentional humiliation and control. The misrepresentation of rape in the media has left ‎even CPS professionals confused as to what constitutes rape.‎

The Leveson inquiry recently heard that misrepresentations of violence against women in the ‎media impact on public perception of these crimes. Marai Larasi, head of the End Violence Against ‎Women coalition affirmed that the media perpetuates a culture of blaming female victims, ‎including through the “exoticising of violence through racism or anti-religious rhetoric”.

Rather than viewing the men responsible as cultural aberrations whose views of women were ‎drawn from the plains of Afghanistan, we would do well to ask to what extent they reflect ‎pervasive representations of (certain ‘types’ of) women and in particular of working class girls.‎

Let’s talk about culture – popular culture which has led to such confusion over the notion of ‎consent, to images spewed out by the porn industry skewing the way young people think about ‎sex. CPS professionals themselves have expressed concern that pornography is impacting ‎children’s understanding of what constitutes ‘acceptable, required or expected’ sexual behaviour.‎

The closest Alibhai-Brown came to an ‘Asian’ cultural explanation was the suggestion the men ‎were buying the girls ‘kebabs.’ Why would we assume, as a society, that Asian men live in mental ‎ghettos where their values and ideas are so radically different to those of the rest of society. It ‎seems to fit neatly into the characterisation of Muslims and Asians as ‘resistant’ to integration, ‎essentially ‘different’ to the rest of us and the classic orientalist depiction of the ‘hypersexed ‎Muslim’. It also lets our common culture off the hook, by avoiding a deeper examination of ‎normalised sexist attitudes which prevail. Ultimately though, it is the victims who pay the price. ‎Twice.‎

BBC radio 2: On the Jeremy Vine show discussing child abuse

with one comment

 

You can listen here to my contribution to a discussion on the latest report on gangs and group based child abuse in the UK on BBC radio 2 Jeremy Vine’s show with MP David Davis.

Jeremy_Vine_Child_abuse_and_gambling_away_1.4_billion

 

Please note that since this is BBC i-player, the link will expire on Wednesday 28th/11/12

Written by myriamcerrah

November 21, 2012 at 13:00

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 609 other followers