TO BE OR NOT TO BE: MUSLIMS IN THE WEST

It’s the hijab again. This time the controversy is in Scotland, about playing soccer in the Muslim hijab (here). This is but the latest link in the chain of controversies on hijab in the West (See England, France, Italy, Germany, and in the West supported regimes of supposedly ‘modernized’ Turkey, Tunisia (also here), Morocco, and Egypt). All of these cases raise some very fundamental questions. Questions that need to be resolved first in order to reach a plausible and agreeable solution(s).

First, there is a need to understand that the hijab controversies are much deeper than a ’simple’ issue of dressing. ‘Simple’ they may be for those Muslim apologists who suggest that Muslims should be ‘flexible’ regarding cultural adoption in the Western countries, compromising even on issues that may be fundamental to their identity, values, sentiments, and practices. Hence, similar suggestions of ‘cultural adoption’ and ‘tolerance’ were given on the Danish Cartoons publications, the Rushdie Knighthood, and the Minarets controversy in Switzerland (I comment on the last one in my “The Swiss Minarets” post here).

However, what is at stake here is not (just) a particular form of dressing, a certain Muslim practice, or the style of Muslim building. It is the Muslim question itself. That is, the question of the existence and recognition of Muslims as a community and as an identity in the West.

The fundamental question here is this: The tolerance and pluralism that is supposedly extended to all individual citizens in the Western secular-liberal polities (and for that matter, in the secular-liberal Muslim states, too), why are they not extended to their collective identities, their collective practices, values, and sentiments too?

Why do Muslims find themselves in situations where their only choices are either “exclusion” or “assimilation”? Why is there an increasing feeling among Muslims in the West that they are tolerated only as long as they remain invisible?

Two considerations: One on a theoretical level. Other on the political.

Theoretical Consideration

The above question points to some fundamental contradictions within the available secular-liberal political framework(s), which, for example, grants the freedom of belief but does not protect the right of religious practice (compromising them in the name of “law” (’rule is rule’), “order” (’uniformity’, ‘discipline’), and even “public morality” and “progress of the nation”). The religious identity in the secular-liberal framework is understood as somehow separate (or separable) from the individual self. Thus the Mormon polygamy in the US and the Muslim hijab in France were banned through applying none other than the same secular-liberal rationality. Arguing, for instance, that the outward religious practices and display of religious symbols are not fundamental to an individual’s ‘private’ beliefs.

Similar contradictions and bias in the secular-liberal principles have contributed to the controversies over the Danish Cartoons publication all over Europe, the Minaret controversy in Switzerland, and the Rushdie Knighthood in England, by giving a false sense of superiority and justification to hurt religious sentiments and rights of other religious/ethnic groups.

I am not saying that the above controversies could have been the only possible outcome of the secular-liberal political principles given their internal theoretical contradictions. That, outcomes favorable to Muslims (and for that matter to any other religious/ethnic minorities) were not possible in the Western polities. No. For we know that many secular-liberal polities in the West punish Holocaust deniers, the Armenian genocide deniers, and the racist bigots through a variety of institutional and informal methods (here).

My emphasis above has been on the need to understand, on a theoretical level, how do these contradictions permit aggression against Muslims in the West, through conscious efforts by bigots or through unconscious prejudice embedded in the popular imagination, both of which could be understood as part of the “Islamophobia” in the West (here). That theoretical examination would require an understanding of the convoluted, contradictory, and uneven realities/histories of secular-liberalism, which is, ironically, so often promoted by its adherents in an ideal-typical form, emptied of its uneven past, as a solution to all “problems” relating to religion and intolerance/extremism/fundamentalism. Just think about the comments you hear on the Western mainstream media criticizing the Muslim reactions, even the peaceful ones, against the Danish cartoons publications or the Rushdie Knighthood.

What we need today is to think about the possibility of having plural collectivities/communities (not just individuals from diverse backgrounds) in the Western societies. (See a related discussion by Saba Mahmood here). And no doubt, all sides need to make efforts in this regard.

State/Politics

For practical advocacy and research purposes, it also may be useful to locate the Hijab controversies in the politics of different groups in each of the states mentioned above. As a starting point, it should be noted that ‘State’ is not a monolithic entity; it often does not represent the interests of all the people; that does not happen even in the secular-liberal polities of the West. Rather ’state’ is often a ‘field’ of political contestation among various groups vying for power, benefits, and political and ideological interests. The hold and domination of groups keep shifting, so do the politics and policies of the state as a result. In short, the state is not above politics and influence of different competing groups. It would be too naive to expect from Muslims to yield to bigoted demands of certain dominant groups in the name of keeping a good face and becoming good citizens.

As an illustration of these bigoted demands, consider the article that the famous Samuel Huntington (of “clash of civilizations“) published in the Foreign Policy magazine in March/April 2004. His targeted community this time was explicitly named in the title, “The Hispanic Challenge” (here). In the article, Samuel Huntington was concerned that the Hispanic immigrants are threatening “to divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages” and that the “United States ignores this challenge at its peril.” He obviously presumed a monolithic “United States” with a unified ideology, culture, and nation, and that his concerns (and interests) were the concerns of the entire people in the US. That is far from the realities on the ground. In an earlier book, Huntington declared that Mexicans pose the same problem in the United States that Muslims pose in Europe.

That parallels are clear. The larger issues should be obvious now. The hijab controversies, the Swiss minarets, the Danish Cartoons, the Rushdie Knighthood should all be understood in this larger framework: a) Of the Muslim question in the West, (and related, of the interaction of the ‘East’ and the ‘West’, see Mamdani and Bulliet for useful discussions), and in general, b) Of the question of minority and community identity in the secular-liberal framework.

And, that cannot be done without factoring in politics and power of different groups in the analysis: Who defines what it means to be Swiss, American, Canadian (and for that matter, Turkish and Tunisian), who defines what is good for people, what are the limits of religious expression, on what grounds, and on what authority within the secular-liberal framework? And how the apparently charming secular-liberal slogans of liberty, freedom, and rights are used toward achieving political ends. For example, the obsession with Hijab as a form of oppression on Muslim woman in the Western imagination since the colonial time. That obsession was effectively used in justifying the Bush invasion on Afghanistan, to liberate the oppressed Muslim women, forced to wear burqa and removed from schools and work under the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. The Taliban are now gone, but Muslim women have not thrown off their hijab, because the issue was not the hijab in the first place. The real concerns are still there. The women are still deprived of their basic rights of access to education and social and economic opportunities under Bush’s favored current government.

See RAWA’s statement on Bush invasion here. Also see a very insightful article by Lila Abu-Lughod (Columbia Univ), “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?” here or here.

PS. Another important and related question is, of course, to understand why and how do female bodies become a ‘field’ of political contestation, in wars, in mass rapes, in genocides, in honor claims and protection, and relating to the present discussion, in liberal and religious politics?

The Askariya Mosque and the Muslim Ummah

The desecration of the Holy Askariya Mosque is a painful sight to all lovers and followers of the Prophet and his family. My condolence to all of you on this tragedy.

We are at a very sensitive juncture of history. Our collective actions as Muslims and as people of conscience are largely going to determine our future. The two attacks on the Askariya Mosque were evidently aimed at furthering sectarian violence and destabilizing Iraq. Perhaps even aimed at spilling sectarian violence out of the Iraqi borders into neighboring countries. It is difficult to ascertain who perpetrated these crimes. But it is clear that the situation in Iraq only worsened after the last attack on February 22, 2006. That is what the perpetrators wanted. The occupying forces are ultimately responsible for the protection of the civilians and the holy sites. They have obviously failed so far.

Iraqis need to take charge of their future in their hands. Only through unity can they defeat the plots of those who wish to divide them. And only through peace can they speak out to those who wish to provoke violence. The Muslim Ummah needs to send a resounding message to the Iraqi people and to all the people of the world - Muslims and Non-Muslims alike - that all Muslims are united and cannot allow such violence to be perpetrated in their name. The Muslim Ummah should denounce the sacrilege of all holy sites and the bloodshed of innocent lives across Iraq. And they should urge all people of conscience to join them in this cause.

The three images show the sacrilege of the Askariya Shrine after the two attacks. From top to bottom: a) Taken in Feb 2004, b) Taken after Feb 22, 2006, c) Taken on June 13, 2007.

The Swiss Minarets

The bigotry against Muslims that is being justified in the name of secular-liberal principles is very obvious in the recent controversy over building minarets in Switzerland (see below). But there is a larger question here that needs to be addressed as well. How does this discrimination become possible within the secular-liberal legal framework? This story reveals the inner contradiction in the secular-liberal political principles that, for example, grant freedom of belief but regulate religious practice. Thus Mormon polygamy in the US and the Muslim hijab in Turkey were declared unlawful using arguments similar to the ones presented in the below story. The career of secular liberalism is not as neat and even as it is claimed to be. And before seeking secular liberalism as a solution to all "problems" supposedly pertaining to religion, it needs to be questioned and historicized as well. This controversy is yet another reminder of the call that Saba Mahmood made in her review, "Questioning Liberalism, Too" (here).

Swiss move to ban minarets

(Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6676271.stm )

A row is brewing over religious symbolism in Switzerland. Members of the right-wing Swiss People's Party, currently the largest party in the Swiss parliament, have launched a campaign to have the building of minarets banned.

They claim the minaret is not necessary for worship, but is rather a symbol of Islamic law, and as such incompatible with Switzerland's legal system.

Signatures are now being collected to force a nationwide referendum on the issue which, under Switzerland's system of direct democracy, would be binding.

The move has shocked Switzerland's 350,000 Muslims, many of whom have been campaigning for decades for more recognition for their faith.

In theory Switzerland is a secular state, whose constitution guarantees freedom of religious expression to all. In practice however mosques in Switzerland tend to be confined to disused warehouses and factories.
....
But supporters of a ban on minarets say they have no intention of preventing anyone from practising their faith.

"We don't have anything against Muslims," said Oskar Freysinger, member of parliament for the Swiss People's Party.

"But we don't want minarets. The minaret is a symbol of a political and aggressive Islam, it's a symbol of Islamic law. The minute you have minarets in Europe it means Islam will have taken over."

Mr Freysinger's words may sound extreme, even paranoid, but this is a general election year in Switzerland, and the campaign against minarets is playing well with voters.

A recent opinion poll for one Swiss newspaper found that 43% of those surveyed were in favour of a ban on minarets.

"We have our civil laws here," insisted Mr Freysinger. "Banning minarets would send a clear signal that our European laws, our Swiss laws, have to be accepted. And if you want to live here, you must accept them. If you don't, then go back."
...
There is also a growing fear that the debate will damage Switzerland's traditionally good relations with the Arab world.

But the Swiss People's Party is powerful. If the minaret campaign is, as some suspect, a vote-grabbing ploy ahead of October's general election, then it is a successful one; the party is riding high in the opinion polls.

A constitutional amendment forbidding minarets will have to be approved in a nationwide referendum. In the meantime, no minarets are being built anywhere in Switzerland; the controversy has created a situation in which no local planning officer wants to be the first to approve one.

In that respect, the People's Party may have got what it secretly wanted all along, an unofficial ban on minarets.

So for now, Switzerland's Muslims will continue to pray in abandoned buildings, many with the growing feeling that they are tolerated only as long as they remain invisible.
____________
Related SM Post: Showing the Zainabi Kirdar

Media Wars

The Geo TV is presenting a very interesting program these days. "35mm @ war" (here) is a commentary and interview based program that examines the history and techniques of propaganda in movies produced by Hollywood, Bollywood, and even Lollywood and their utility for war mongering purposes. I have watched a few episodes and found the research and presentation to be quite impressive. For delivering good knowledge and critical thinking, the producers and the team behind this program at the Geo TV deserve special appreciation. Bravo!

The latter part of the title of this program, “@ war”, provoked a few thoughts that I would like to share here. No doubt, propaganda movies (still) play a crucial role in legitimizing military invasions. A recent attempt could be seen in the movie "300", which has been criticized by many (here, here, here) as a propaganda effort that, considering its time of release and the racist content, advances Bush and his NeoCon war mongers' ambitions of invading Iran.

I also see another subtle level - a more crucial one perhaps - where Western media (including movies, news, and entertainment) is most effective. That level is not exactly constituted by objectives of military warfare and gaining physical dominance over nations. Rather this level is part of the knowledge-sphere. The warfare on this level is aimed at creating cultural dominance or 'cultural hegemony'. For 'it is hard to fight an enemy who has an outpost in your head'. Cultural hegemony is about creating ‘consensual’ submission among the ‘subjects’ (through ‘saqafati yalgaar’ or cultural flooding/invasion). Although it started much earlier, this project has become especially relevant in the post-ColdWar era, that is, in the ‘New World Order’ (here) of our supposedly unipolar world, as proclaimed by some politicians.

The consensual subjugation happens with the internalization of the very categories and thought processes that inform the cultural hegemonic ideals from the West. They could be the cultural-economic ideals of neo-liberal reforms (here) as the best measure for “third-world” economies. They could be the cultural-political ones like who is “good” and “bad” Muslim (here). And, they could be the cultural-social ones like what is “modern” and “progressive”, what is to be desired, who can desire it, and to what end (for example, rising consumerism (here) and endless materialistic competition in our society). To make these Western ideals and values as the global ideals and values for all of humanity is the objective of this cultural hegemony. (I am not treating "West" in monolithic terms here; rather, I am referring to the neo-imperial project that has resulted out of a myriad of institutional and cultural practices in the West).

However, the realities on the ground tell us that such cultural hegemony is hard to achieve in its desired totalizing form, especially in the cultural-political sphere (many polls indicate growing anti-Americanism, especially after Bush’s invasion into Iraq) and to a certain extent in the cultural-economic sphere (see for example, the reactions here, here, and here). But in the cultural-social sphere, the cultural hegemony seems to have been most successful. Perhaps this is best summarized in the following statement: ‘they hate America, but they love American dollars and American jeans’.

The late Eqbal Ahmad has so eloquently explained the internalization involved in “cultural hegemony” (see below), although I am not sure whether he would consider cultural hegemony to be independent from military/political/economic objectives. Perhaps, (like Chomsky?) (here), he would not totally agree with the analytical separation I make above even if he considered “culture of imperialism” an independent causal force (which I think, he did, like Edward Said). I suspect, he would have stressed that in a realistic analysis of politics today, especially post 9/11, cultural hegemony primarily serves the military and economic ends.

After explaining the subtle intricacies of the "Culture of Imperialism" (see the full article here), Eqbal Ahmad concludes his article by making a poignant note about the state of affairs of those at the receiving end of cultural hegemony:

“This culture [of imperialism] is pervasive, it cuts across continents and penetrates our outlook by a variety of mediums. As I outline this talk in the flight from Islamabad to New York, Pakistan International Airlines shows Star Trek: First Contact. I snip at what looks like a high-tech, outer-space replay of an earlier voyage into an 'undiscovered' world. Commander Jean-Luc Picard plays a modern-day Cortes, leading the crew of the newly commissioned Enterprise E to war against the Borg "an insidious race", informs the PIA flier.

Those "half organic aliens" appear like Indians in the early Westerns mysteriously, ubiquitously and sometimes seductively. Violence flows freely as 'contact' is made. Fallen aliens are shot even as they beg for mercy. Captain Jean-Luc Picard and his crew commit quite a holocaust with an insouciance we are expected to appreciate only because they have vanquished an alien race mysterious, dangerous, seductive and, ultimately, vulnerable. The Borgs have no individual identity, only a collective one. Their defeat is deemed final only when their roots are destroyed, when their head which assures life's motion to the entire race is cut off. An idea redeems this "mission"; once contact has been made the world will change. Promises Captain Picard: "Poverty, disease, and war will end."

Star Trek is but a crude, popular expression of the culture of imperialism. This culture is not Western any more. Rather, it enjoys hegemony, it has become global. Note an irony: Pakistan International Airlines, which will not serve wine to passengers, happily serves up Captain Picard on its flights.”