2013-06-19T08:14:43-04:00 Afroze Zaidi-Jivraj http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=afroze-zaidijivraj Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Afroze Zaidi-Jivraj Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2589463 2013-01-31T09:30:17-05:00 2013-04-02T05:12:01-04:00

Afroze Zaidi-Jivraj http://www.huffingtonpost.com/afroze-zaidijivraj/ continues to be mulled over following on from the 2011 census results. The documentary looked at women from varied racial, ethnic and social backgrounds, and gave anecdotal accounts of the unique situation and struggles faced by each woman in the wake of her decision to accept Islam, as a faith as well as a way of life. The producer of the programme, Emily Hughes, in a post on BBC's TV Blog, made it a point to mention that she hoped to "to challenge stereotypes about Islam," a lofty but commendable aim. The question remains, was this aim achieved, and what does the documentary tell us about the perception of Muslims in Britain overall?

For a documentary on BBC3, the standard of 'Make Me a Muslim' was about as high as can be expected. Critiques of style and form aside, one of the most obvious shortcomings of the documentary was the choice of presenter, British model and 'born-Muslim' Shanna Bukhari. Whether or not Shanna was chosen purely for added entertainment value, given the contrast between her approach to Islam and that of most Muslim converts as well as the controversy she faced after wanting to represent Britain in the Miss Universe pageant in 2011, is for the viewer to decide. While watching the programme, however, it was hard not to keep asking the question: why choose someone who does not prioritise Islam as a way of life to learn more about Muslim women for whom Islam is everything? Shanna Bukhari's inability to relate to the most basic of Islamic customs was cringe-worthy, but as some commenters on the blog pointed out, even more disappointing was this extended focus on the presenter's own internal conflicts instead of the wider issues faced in Britain by converts and Muslims in general. In that sense, despite the best intentions of its makers, 'Make Me a Muslim' unfortunately did not to do what it said on the tin.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the documentary stemmed from the attitude of its presenter. Shanna lamented the judgment that Scottish traveller Alana placed upon her clothing, yet refused to leave behind her own prejudices and preconceptions in the making of this programme (perhaps unsurprising, considering she is a model by profession and not a journalist). One of the most telling signs of Shanna's West-centric attitude was her description of herself as 'not pretty' when wearing the Muslim headscarf, and no thought was given, nor any comment made afterwards, to explore further what "pretty" actually means, or that it can mean different things to different people, individually as well as within cultures and faiths, or especially that the Western attitude of "hair + make-up + revealing clothing = pretty" is something to be questioned in itself. More than looking pretty for one's own expression of femininity (something which many Muslims, scholars or otherwise, will confirm that Islam is not in conflict with), this disproportionate, nigh on exploitative emphasis on a woman's appearance within Western society does in fact happen to be one of the causes for British women converting to Islam, a point confirmed by Lauren Booth after she adopted Islam in 2010. Not only is this key point largely overlooked by the documentary, it is undermined further by the attitude of the presenter.

Unsurprisingly, some comments on Emily Hughes' blog post were unsympathetic towards the women whose stories were discussed; others were simply nasty. Despite being ideally placed to do so, 'Make Me a Muslim' failed to explore in greater detail the real status of women in Islam, and the fact that this, and not romantic love, brainwashing, or delusion, is what continues to attract non-Muslim British women to the faith. The programme stopped short of discussing how this paradigm shift is a rejection of the superficial, objectifying attitude towards women so prevalent in Western society, of the page-3 culture which permeates into a programme like Countdown (where a maths genius feels the need to force-feed her physical attractiveness to the public through an endless selection of short, tight dresses), in exchange for an attitude which emphasises that one's self-worth is based on the internal and not the superficial, on intellect and character and not on bra-size and make-up. It's the kind of nuance which a 'Modern Muslim' like Shanna Bukhari has great difficulty recognising, in spite of being born into Islam.

And within these labels is hidden another elephant in the room which continues to be overlooked, this polarisation of 'Modern Muslim' versus 'Conservative Muslim' within British discourse, as though a Conservative British Muslim were necessarily something "un-modern", backward, continually in need of (or in opposition to) intellectual and societal progress. Nowhere in the programme is this more obvious than when Shanna meets Ayesha, a revert who is a model and 'Modern Muslim' just like herself. As a Modern Muslim, Ayesha is described as being cool and fun, seemingly all the things that a Conservative Muslim isn't or cannot be. Yet today millions of Muslims in Britain, and millions more around the world, know and practise Islam as a faith which emphasises steadfastness in values but also, far from being opposed to modernity, a faith which adapts and moves with the times. An entire generation of fun, cool, intelligent practising Muslims who have been raised and educated in Britain see no conflict between Islam and modernity. Yet through Muslims such as Shanna Bukhari (ill-informed of their faith, conflicted within themselves, and portraying this confused self-identity as a representation of other British Muslims), these labels and their negative influences will regrettably continue for a long time yet.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1849697 2012-09-01T22:46:05-04:00 2012-11-01T05:12:01-04:00

Afroze Zaidi-Jivraj http://www.huffingtonpost.com/afroze-zaidijivraj/
I have already discussed in detail the problems with Tom Holland's 'Islam: The Untold Story', which focused on Islam but inevitably affected Muslims with the Islamophobic backlash they received on Twitter and other on-line forums (after they complained on these forums about several significant shortcomings in Holland's approach). 'Citizen Khan' was not short of controversy either, as the BBC reportedly received over 200 complaints the day after the pilot for the sitcom was aired.

Personally, as a Muslim of Pakistani origin, I didn't find 'Citizen Khan' to be disrespectful towards Islam. I did, however, find that it enforced racial stereotypes of Pakistanis, and this is something I found more objectionable than anything else about the show - apart from the fact, of course, that it wasn't all that funny! I feel quite strongly, as do many others, that we cannot move on from racism and prejudice if we keep legitimising racist ideas by exploiting them for the purpose of entertainment. So I found it offensive on a human level. I didn't, however, find it offensive as a Muslim, which a few others seemed to have done. Yes, there are some questionable scenes filmed in a mosque, but that's not to say that nothing untoward ever takes place in our mosques. We live in a society where we have the liberty to discuss and despise the treatment of predatory priests towards choir boys in churches, and so we must be willing to accept that the institution of the mosque is not beyond reproach either.

It's important to make the distinction that this sitcom is ultimately a commentary on the Muslim community, not on Islam, and considering that it probably offers Muslims some much-needed food for thought. Mr. Khan should make us ask ourselves: what are our attitudes towards White converts? His daughter Aliya's character should make us consider: what are our youth really up to these days? And Mrs Khan should make us think: how much importance are we placing on ridiculous things such as gossip in the community? In that sense, Citizen K holds up a mirror to the Muslim community, and if we refuse to look into it, we are not only being arrogant but are proving right the claims of those who say that Muslims are an overly-sensitive, irrational lot who cannot handle any kind of criticism.

It was refreshing to see that a lot of the Pakistani/Muslim demographic on Twitter were in fact not offended by Citizen K at all - some found it funny, others grossly un-funny, but not so many were convinced of it being complaint-worthy. As someone pointed out, if they got several million viewers then a couple of hundred complaints isn't too bad. There were complaints about Tom Holland's documentary as well, but the number of complaints received remains unknown. In response to complaints for both, where on one hand the anti-Muslim bigots came out in all their glory, on the other we saw dogmatic secularists have a good old rant (again) about Muslims not being able to take criticism and not appreciating the importance of freedom of speech in a secular society.

All things considered, do we, as Muslims in the West, need to develop a thicker skin when it comes to our religious sensibilities? Probably; at least if we are to continue living harmoniously in a secular society. Does that mean we should stop speaking out against genuine misrepresentations of Islam or Muslims in the media? Absolutely not; after all, that's what freedom of speech is all about.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1842984 2012-08-30T10:43:26-04:00 2012-10-30T05:12:01-04:00

Afroze Zaidi-Jivraj http://www.huffingtonpost.com/afroze-zaidijivraj/
On the surface, Holland's 'Untold Story' has all the elements of a great documentary. He appears to challenge the status quo by questioning commonly accepted beliefs about the origins of Islam, he travels to all the exotic places that one would associate with an in-depth study of Islamic history, and he interviews Western academics that appear to be specialists within the field. All of this combined with Holland's romantically ruffled hair, an accent which tells of a privileged upbringing, and poetic phrases which convey a sense that he is uncovering an enigma wrapped within a mystery ("History is like a labyrinth...who knows where it may lead?") added to the several palpable, strategically-placed pauses, could be enough to convince the average viewer of the credibility of his work. Upon scratching the surface, however, I am left wondering what about Islam, if anything, Holland's story tells us at all.

In reality, any scholar of Islamic history will point out forthwith the fatal flaw in Holland's methodology. While he makes references, albeit limited and self-serving, to the Qur'an in trying to uncover the origins of Islam, he also chooses to simultaneously overlook an entire corpus of scholarly material on Islamic history from Islamic sources. As Holland is shown rifling through books in what is presumably a British library, it begs the question- does he not know of the vast body of work that has been put together by Islamic historians in Arabic and Persian, which is housed in seminaries in Cairo, Riyadh and Qom, among others? Does he not realise that scholars of Islamic history dedicate their lives to studying these original texts? Is he really expecting to find evidence of a man who lived and died in Arabia, almost fourteen centuries ago, conveniently tucked away in a library in Britain?

While his conversation with the Danish Professor Patricia Crone alludes to "oral tradition" and its unreliability in trying to create an accurate account of history, Holland never stops to fully justify his outright and wholesale rejection of Islamic scholarly material. Crone scoffs at the inferiority of the oral tradition due to it being tainted by the perception of the reporter, yet to assume as unreliable the entire oral tradition in Islamic records, the examination of which has been brought down to a science in which specialist scholars work tirelessly to sift out strong traditions from weak ones, makes about as much academic sense as assuming that written history has never been tainted by the perception and motives of the person who wrote it.

So convinced is Holland of the worthlessness of Islamic historic records that not only does he make no reference to them, he does not even interview a single seminary-educated scholar as part of his research. Of course he interviews Western and even Israeli academics, along with Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr who provides a Muslim academic perspective, but consulting Islamic scholars and historians is neglected in favour of a much more exotic, oriental experience: speaking to bedouins in the Saudi desert. Even Nasr, except for being a token Muslim voice, provides little which can be considered of academic substance; this is not surprising when one considers that Nasr is not a historian, his specialist subject being Islamic philosophy.

Less than a day after the documentary was aired, the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA) issued a press release with details of several documents in Western history that mentioned either 'a prophet' among the Arabs or 'Muhammad' by name. Proselytising claims aside, the historic evidence presented in IERA's statement proves at least that the existence of Muhammad in (Western) history is not the 'black hole' that Holland purports it to be. Even if it is argued that this is evidence which had not come to Holland's attention, there is still one decisive document that we know he was aware of yet neglected to mention in the documentary.

This is the 'treaty of Medina' and has been mentioned in Holland's book, 'In the Shadow of the Sword' which was published in April of this year. The treaty is a peace agreement between Muhammad and the Muslim and Jewish tribes native to the area at the time, and is described by Holland in his book as "a single lump of magma sufficiently calcified to have stood proof against all erosion." This treaty would have provided answers to some of Holland's questions and rendered others null and void; it is textual and archaeological evidence of Muhammad's existence and his life in Medina (and not the Negev desert). So why didn't Holland, instead of fretting over coinage and post-Muhammad Arab imperialists, include this key piece of evidence? Was it because he was seeking only to promote his own version of events?

In the aftermath of Holland's controversial research being aired and watched reportedly by over a million viewers, many people took to social media and reacted in obvious ways. Recognising the shortcomings in Holland's methodology, Muslim viewers objected to what they perceived as a biased portrayal of Islam. Some who knew little about Islamic scholarship praised Holland's work. Others went a step further and accused Muslims of reacting disproportionately and being incapable of accepting criticism of their faith- these are the folks who live with the dichotomy of upholding liberal values and yet marginalising those who disagree with their secular viewpoint. Still others resorted to inflammatory, hate-filled comments, cursing Muslims and portraying Islam as an ideology that is about little more than hate, violence and oppression. Yes, the Islamophobes had a field day.

It's all well and good for Tom Holland though, as he casually Tweeted, "you win some, you lose some." I wonder if he realises at all that with his research into the origins of Islam, one in which he assumes the superiority of secular Western historic traditions over all others and appears to make his evidence conveniently fit his desired conclusion, he has only served to worsen the understanding of an already poorly-understood faith and its much-maligned adherents.]]>