Comments

1. Rob Schmidt wrote:

   Sounds like the same thing happening in the US to minorities, immigrants, and “foreigners” of all types. Be a white Christian American or Canadian, or get out and stay out.

   Posted 11 May 2009 at 7:36 am ¶

2. Jess wrote:

   I think Kanwar’s position about loyalty, and the whole routine about assimilating is deeply wrong and messed up, bu tI am going to open myself to flameage and say that it is an expression of a very real issue.

   Let’s say I want to have a society that is tolerant and open. OK, and I could take the position (rightly) that we shoul respect the customs and traditions of various communities within it.

   But, for instance, in the US we don’t respect the right of polygamists in the FLDS church to force 14-year-olds to marry. (One of their leaders — Warren Jeffs, IIRC– was recently tried and convicted of rape).

   So, the question arises, at what point do you say “this is a custom to be respected” and “This is beyond the pale.”

   Another issue is when he says he is a Muslim Canadian rather then the converse. I actually think, at a certain level, he is right. I mean, I am an American, a US citizen, who happens to be Jewish, and Asian, and many other things. But if our society is to function at all we kind of have to say that being a citizen is more important than those other identities. It is the whole basis of equality before the law. It’s why we get angry when a black person is treated differently than a white person by the state.

   So in that sense, while I disagree deeply with a lot of what Kanwar says, I understand where he is coming from.

   So, yeah, much of what he says is based on several myths that need unpacking. But there are real issues here that need to be discussed in a more serious way than he does it.

   Posted 11 May 2009 at 8:00 am ¶

3. Lainad wrote:

   Note to Kanwar:

   Cultural assimilation doesn’t work. It makes no difference in how new immigrants are generally regarded in Canada.

   I might be being a bit simplistic here, but it seems like Kanwar is trying to justify his embarassment when there is a news report of violence in the Sikh or Muslim communities. He is trying to pander to Calgarians that “see? We’re not all the same. I’m just like you. Treat me with respect.”

   We have a couple of ‘those types’ in Toronto. Politicans who try real hard to pander to upper-middle class white Conservatives in order to curry favours, by throwing their ethno-cultural communites under the bus.

   However, I do agree that in terms of violence towards women, this should not be happening in Canada – but more importantly, it should.not.happen.at. all.

   As a born and bred Black Canadian, I have never felt “Canadian” because there is no Canadian ‘culture,’ which is more of the problem than anything. Also, I am constantly being told, either directly or through passive / agressive mannerisms, that I am not Canadian – I am not white.

   Even though I was born here, I occasionally get the “go back to where you came from” ( most often by ‘new Canadians’) and people who are insistent, even though I have told them otherwise, that there is no way I could have been born here.

   Again, I do understand some of Kanwar’s argument, we have to look at the differences between “tolerance” and “acceptance.” Most Canadians, saddled by their liberal guilt do consider themselves tolerant – that means they won’t say something to your face, but behind your back. You still get the feeling that they don’t like you, but they will ‘tolerate’ your presence. Like getting a yeast infection.

   For some, tolerance is a good thing, as I guess the opposite reaction would be angry mobs and cross- burnings. But the feeling that you do not belong, unwanted and generally a visual nusiance is not a ‘good thing.’ Canadians brag and say we are so much better than the States, but I say I’d rather have someone tell me directly what they think of me to my face, rather than stab me in the back. Canada signifies the latter.

   One more thing: I agree that there are new immigrants who would rather hold on to various negative aspects of their culture, and some of those (black racism being one of those) bother me. But I can’t help but wonder if the reason why this is, is because they also feel that they do not belong. I think it is probably easier to retain certain aspects of their culture to maintain their idenity, instead of abondoning it in order to assimilate into a culture that does not really want them there.

   Posted 11 May 2009 at 8:27 am ¶

4. Restructure! wrote:

   Kanwar’s claim that “I am a Canadian Muslim, not a Muslim Canadian” also worries me. He seems to imply that in order to be acceptable Canadians, Muslims must put Canada first, even above their faith.

   I have never understood this. I have always read X Canadian as adjective noun, not noun noun. Wouldn’t Canadian X be putting the X identity first?

   Foreign-born Canadians tend to be like Mahfooz Kanwar. Immigrants to Canada are self-selected Canada-fanboys/fangirls who sacrificed so much to come here.

   Posted 11 May 2009 at 9:00 am ¶

5. Maysie wrote:

   Sigh.

   It’s “good Muslim” versus “bad Muslim” all over again.

   The “grateful to be in Canada” script is something immigrants of colour and Muslims (whether immigrants or not) learn to say to white Canadians, and when they get praise for their words, they keep saying them. Especially in Alberta, a very conservative province where this may be the only option to survive the more blatant racism. It may not be successful but I get how some will see it as the only way to imagine they have some control.

   I’ve never lived in Alberta, and every progressive POC I’ve known from there only goes back to visit family.

   If immigrants can do the work of liberal and conservative racists by saying exactly what most good “pro immigration (but only the ‘good’ immigrants)” types are saying, then they are doing the work of the oppressors for them. This also isn’t new. But it’s still sad.

   Posted 11 May 2009 at 9:44 am ¶

6. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:

   what an idiot.

   Wow! We do NOT kill our daughters back home in India, either! We do NOT beat our daughters for refusing to wear a hijab or shalwar kameez, either! We do NOT practice the dowry system back home, either!

   Geez, all my relatives back in India are liberal, educated and middle class. Do you guys think I should call them and tell them they’re not “Muslim” enough for not killing or beating my little female cousins and nieces?

   Posted 11 May 2009 at 10:40 am ¶

7. Lxy wrote:

   The great irony about these demands for assimilation from some Canadian (and American) nationalists is that Canada and the USA are fundamentally European colonizer states.

   The occupation of First Nations’ land is the essential basis of Canada and the USA as political entities.

   What moral right does the Euro-American settler class (or its mouthpieces) have making these assimilationist demands to begin with?

   None–save for their own unquestioned sense of White colonial entitlement.

   This picture below says it all:

   http://farm1.static.flickr.com/200/484012121_a4b45578f3.jpg

   Posted 11 May 2009 at 10:56 am ¶

8. Abu Sinan wrote:

   From his statement you’d get the idea that either he is ignorant or unwilling to accept that there is great diversity within the Muslim community. One cannot talk honestly about the “Muslim community” in generalities, or even the “Indian Muslim community” or “Egyptian Muslim community” because they are so broad and diverse even within their own country, let alone the wider Muslim world.

   Also, when you read articles like this you’d assume that gender issues and violence didnt exist within Canadian culture.

   I am glad to know, from reading his article, that Canada has become a utopia for women where they do not have to face issues of rape, sexual abuse and violence!

   Posted 11 May 2009 at 11:24 am ¶

9. jvansteppes wrote:

   All the hysteria over honor killings only serves to efface the fact that violence against women in Canada is a huge problem among the white population, even if we don’t attach a racially loaded label to it…

   Posted 11 May 2009 at 12:10 pm ¶

10. Fatemeh wrote:

    Great post! And Maysie hits it on the head with the “good Muslim” vs. “bad Muslim” point!

    Posted 11 May 2009 at 12:50 pm ¶

11. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Many cultures around the world have successfully practiced polygamy, Jess. None of them have collapsed because of moral degeneracy.

    If your point is that being a Muslim Canadian is almost as “beyond the pale” as being a polygamist, your point fails. In theory, there’s nothing wrong with having a polygamist or Muslim-first subculture.

    Many First Nations people would say they’re citizens of their own nations first and Canada second. As long as they obey the laws of both countries, what’s wrong with that?

    The word for this philosophy is multiculturalism: tolerating different beliefs and practices as long as they don’t harm people against their will. If Kanwar doesn’t understand this, he should go back where he came from.

    Posted 11 May 2009 at 12:55 pm ¶

12. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Re “Whoever comes to Canada must learn the limits of our system”:

    Does that include the system of treaties with Canada’s First Nations? You know, the signed pieces of paper that become legally binding on both parties in perpetuity? If some Anglos don’t understand this part of the system, does that mean they aren’t true Canadians? Should the country deport them for their failure to play by the rules?

    Posted 11 May 2009 at 1:00 pm ¶

13. jetessence wrote:

    “As a born and bred Black Canadian, I have never felt “Canadian” because there is no Canadian ‘culture,’ which is more of the problem than anything. ”

    It was interesting reading your post Lainad. Unfortunately, we share many of the same experiences.

    As a first generation Canadian child of Jamaican parents–who emigrated during the Trudeau years–I identified strongly with Jamaican culture for most of my life. It’s not until I actually visited Jamaica that it completely sunk in that I’m not a “Jamaican” kid, yet I’m not sure what it means to be Canadian either.

    The first thing I thought while reading this post was, “What IS Canadian culture?” Sure, we’re supposed to be a *~*mosaic*~* instead of the US “melting pot”, but it’s odd to be a culture that basically consists of other cultures that hardly influence, interact with, or infuse into each other. We do not share the “out of many one people” mantra of Jamaica, where you have 1 culture influenced and created by different people. Canadian “culture” seems fragmented and consists of hard, visible lines.

    In spite of this, I have always found it hard to buy the Canadian culture = White, European culture angle that Kanwar is trying to push. It never quite sticks when most White Canadians can trace back to their roots (which they are very proud of) and what boat they ALSO came off of.

    I have been asked, “what country are you from?” in my own hometown many times. My family was told that we were not Canadian by a white neighbour. We have even been told by an elderly francophone neighbour (new neighbourhood) that “we” are taking over the neighbour. We were the third black family to move into a middle to upper class neighbourhood of, I don’t know, 600+ homes. Even with all that, I have always felt Canadian, been proud to be Canadian (or maybe proud to be non-American)…although it’s hard for me to define what Canadian culture is.

    I don’t believe the lack of a Canadian culture is the problem. I think the denial & flat-out ignoring of race relations in this country is a HUGE problem. Canadians do like to believe that we are not just a tolerant society, but a society that does accept people of all backgrounds. Black history taught in Canada starts with slavery in the US and ends with the underground railroad. Canadians like to think of this country as being a “Canaan” without talking about the injustice and discrimination PoC face on an almost daily basis.

    I’m attending school in London, Ontario and there are some areas in this town I would never visit. People are surprised when they hear that this city is the founding place for the first Canadian KKK chapter. Look hard enough, and you’ll see the remnants of these hate groups who are still active & growing. All of this stuff is kept in secret and unknown by a vast majority of Canadians. THIS is the problem.

    Posted 11 May 2009 at 1:22 pm ¶

14. jetessence wrote:

    You know what’s a good test?

    Who do you root for during the Olympics? *laughing*

    The year 1996 was the only time I could root for the Canadian team and Jamaican athletes all at the same time.

    Posted 11 May 2009 at 1:27 pm ¶

15. Aishtamid wrote:

    “Another issue is when he says he is a Muslim Canadian rather then the converse. I actually think, at a certain level, he is right. I mean, I am an American, a US citizen, who happens to be Jewish, and Asian, and many other things. But if our society is to function at all we kind of have to say that being a citizen is more important than those other identities. It is the whole basis of equality before the law. It’s why we get angry when a black person is treated differently than a white person by the state.”

    @Jess – I don’t think that’s the point. Kanwar’s critics are not criticizing him for being loyal to Canada or for saying that adherence to Canadian law is more important than their cultural dictates. I think the point is that Kanwar is minimizing racism and the dilemma of assimilation versus retaining culture. All immigrants go through this and for non-whites it is more acute.

    As a fellow Jew, I can understand where you are coming from. On the one hand, it is important to us that we are truly “American.” But the Ashkenazi Jews of the United States are thoroughly assimilated and on a certain level our Eastern European culture is gone. There used to be Yiddish theater and novels, where are they now? I can understand why immigrants face the assimilation dilemma, because when I think about it I wish that more of my own distinctive culture could have been preserved, at least more than a sprinkling of Yiddish phrases and a few types of food. Muslims feel this dilemma especially, since most are non-white and tensions are high post-9/11 (not that they didn’t exist before).

    @Lainad – I’m pretty skeptical about claims like “Canada has no culture.” How can people exist without a culture? I’ve met white liberals, obsessed with guilt, who think they have no culture. These claims baffle me. Perhaps there is no overarching culture that everyone must follow, but that just means that Canadian culture is diverse rather than homogeneous.

    Posted 11 May 2009 at 3:52 pm ¶

16. Nadia wrote:

    Restructure! wrote:

    Kanwar’s claim that “I am a Canadian Muslim, not a Muslim Canadian” also worries me. He seems to imply that in order to be acceptable Canadians, Muslims must put Canada first, even above their faith.

    I have never understood this. I have always read X Canadian as adjective noun, not noun noun. Wouldn’t Canadian X be putting the X identity first?

    This has always bugged me too, yes…though it’s maybe not the most pressing issue in this article!

    Posted 11 May 2009 at 5:48 pm ¶

17. Jadey wrote:

    re: white Canadian culture

    Personally, my culture (if it can be called that) comes solely from the city where I grew up and currently live (which happens to be London, Ontario, actually, so as far as culture goes, it’s not that awesome, as indicated above). Regardless of how recently my predecessors immigrated here from various Western European locations (in some cases, quite recently), none of this technical heritage made it into my actual awareness and upbringing in such a way that I might point to it and say, “Ah ha, that’s totally a Dutch thing!”, although being the white descendent of white European immigrants to Canada is not without relevance to my daily life.

    So my greatest means of cultural identification is as a white Canadian in a predominantly WASP (though not nearly as WASP as it likes to think) medium-sized city in Southern Ontario (with many a British affectation). Hardly representative of a country. I’ve travelled Canada just enough now to see that any definition of Canadian culture I might have does not speak to the Canadian culture of other Canadians, nor do their definitions speak to me.

    I’m pretty sure that a culture is something widely shared. Communities, cities, neighbourhoods, regions, even families can have their own specific cultures, but as far as a national culture of Canada goes, I’ve never really seen a compelling argument of what it actually is (as opposed to what someone thinks it ought to be), Mr. Kanwar’s included. In fact, the most universal expression I can think of for what Canada is, is “Not the US”, which is downright depressing…

    Generally when I see someone claim to know the one true Canadian culture, I think they are lying or selling me something.

    Posted 11 May 2009 at 6:37 pm ¶

18. Lainad wrote:

    Aishtamid;

    Hmm, culture.

    Okay…maple syrup, lumberjack jackets, saying ‘eh?’ at the end of a sentence ( yes, I do that). Being – or trying to be polite (even though that is rapidly declining)………

    Honestly? I have lived here for almost 40 years and I’m still scratching my head.

    Perhaps you are accurate in saying that because there is no homogenus culture that means that there is a diversity in cultures…I kinda agree with that. But they are separate and unequal.

    Besides heading down to Chinatown to get some food, or heading to the Greek side of town for some Souflaki, that is basically the only way how people ‘dip’ into other’s culture here. Hell, Caribana time? White folks are packing their station wagons and heading out of town.Yes, I know I’m being terribly cynical…..

    I travel to the States quite frequently, and one thing that I have noticed – especially since I make a habit of talking / socializing with a lot of POC’s wherever I go – is that despite the cultural differences within the country, there is a firm sense of Americanism. Despite the challenges, they believe that they are lucky to be living where they do, and adopt certain cultural ‘norms.’ Patriotsim, for instance.

    I can only speak for myself – plus, the emergence of Blacks entering Canadian soil is a much more difficult and complicated story than African-Americans – but I think that Canadians could do with a dose of patriotism here. One that discards the ‘ you should go back to your own country’ bullshit.

    Posted 11 May 2009 at 7:21 pm ¶

19. Restructure! wrote:

    Nadia,

    Yes, it’s not the most pressing issue in the article, but I’ve met enough foreign-born Canadians like that that I’m not surprised. More of the same, etc.

    They can beat their chest all they want, but at the end of the day, white Canadians will still think that people like them (us) have foreign loyalties because they (we) are not white. I’m a frickin’ Canadian-born person of colour and have never set foot in a non-Western country, yet people assume that I’m a foreigner from Asia upon visual inspection. It has nothing to do with my politics.

    As for the X Canadian versus Canadian X thing, I have a feeling that if, in an alternate universe, the convention was Canadian X instead, we would still be accused of thinking of ourselves as primarily X, because xenophobes would then read it as adjective noun.

    Posted 11 May 2009 at 8:29 pm ¶

20. NancyP wrote:

    Rob, there’s a whole lot wrong with polygamy as theorized by sharia law and practiced by actual people. It’s polygyny, and the clear head of the household is the man, without equal rights held by the women. This is not the form of existing Canadian or US law. I suppose that some form of polygamy could be devised in which all members of the marriage have equal rights under law, but it isn’t likely to happen in sharia law, which has ossified in much of the world. Sharia law in general is law by males for males, and the features which were forward-thinking and justice-advancing (compared to absolute patriarchy) and which codified some rights for women 1,300+ years ago have now become seriously behind the arc of justice. Most (say, 80% in the US) non-Muslims have no intention of going back to severely patriarchal secular law.

    I’d be VERY concerned if the US was in the position of having a significant portion of the electorate calling for (the usual very conservative interpretation of) sharia law as the law of the land, rather than a private contract that can be voided if it encroaches on basic personal freedom. I believe that men ought to be able to become apostate, women ought to be able to socialize however they please and marry whomever they please and initiate divorce if needed, gay people ought to be safe from violence, and so on – of course the religious community can shun them for not abiding by religious rules. I fully support any faith community’s right to expel members – Not My Business. Other countries, eg the UK, seem to have a far higher Muslim asshat quotient than the US, in which one has to search fairly extensively to find radicals. (Of course, we have our problems with homegrown Christian asshats galore bombing and shooting away).

    All the activities cited by Kanwar as unacceptable are indeed Against The Law For Very Good Reasons, and cause huge problems for law-abiding normal Muslims, who get stereotyped unfairly. The solution for that is for normal Muslims to be visible and audible, so the couple who kill their teenage daughter for going out with a boy (local case) are rightly seen as whacko criminals not representative of anyone other than other whacko criminals.

    Posted 11 May 2009 at 9:23 pm ¶

21. Neesha wrote:

    “Also, when you read articles like this you’d assume that gender issues and violence didnt exist within Canadian culture.

    I am glad to know, from reading his article, that Canada has become a utopia for women where they do not have to face issues of rape, sexual abuse and violence!”

    Ditto. I’m conflicted about Kanwar’s statements regarding misogyny in South Asian cultures because I agree: this shit has got to stop. But on the other hand, misogyny is *not* cultural. It is global.

    And the whole “please like me cuz I’m not like them” bit is tired. Someone said it really well above — using some to throw the rest under the bus is an age-old strategy that clearly *works.* Use violence to strike terror into the hearts of a population/group (women, people of colour, LGBT folks, specific faiths…) and a few of the more vulnerable step up quick and say, “please don’t hurt me! I’m not like them!” Or maybe even, “hey, don’t hurt me — I can be *useful* to you.” This has always worked and always will. Especially if the less powerful members of society are used in the manipulation, i.e. children and, as in this case, women/girls.

    In time, though, he’ll have no choice but to recognize that he will never be seen as any different than the rest of us…the ones under the bus.

    Posted 11 May 2009 at 9:39 pm ¶

22. Medusa wrote:

    @ Jess: But, for instance, in the US we don’t respect the right of polygamists in the FLDS church to force 14-year-olds to marry. (One of their leaders — Warren Jeffs, IIRC– was recently tried and convicted of rape).
    So, the question arises, at what point do you say “this is a custom to be respected” and “This is beyond the pale.”

    See, I don’t think there is any question here. Any custom that violates human rights has no right to be respected. I’ve also never seen “culture” or “customs” used an excuse to preserve rituals that remove any group’s agency besides women. I mean, even as far as forcing 14-year olds to marry, it’s 14-year old GIRLS who are forced to marry while boy are allowed to wait until they’re older. I mean, in my country FGM is practiced (it’s illegal and it’s not super-wide spread, but it still happens) but I don’t care if it’s a custom; it’s a completely patriarchal violation of a woman’s bodily integrity and doesn’t even have any benefits…so….something doesn’t deserve to be respected just by virtue of it being a tradition.

    Mahfooz Kanwar is completely self-loathing and has obviously been whitewashed. People like this are (part of) the reason that i don’t think North America will ever be able to get rid of racism, because it seems like for every POC who is fighting it, there’s another one who is bending over backward to please the white hegemony for a fucking pat on the back. (Because when you’re not around they still talk shit.)

    Posted 11 May 2009 at 9:52 pm ¶

23. Chris Diaz wrote:

    First off, due to imperialism, media, junk science, etc.. most of the world operates off a “white is right” principle. That’s true even within minority groups. I looked up a picture of Kanwar and he’s pretty fair complected, with little glasses, wearing a nice preppy shirt. So, he probably has a bit more access and acceptance than a lot of Muslims. I haven’t read anything else about this guy, but he sounds like a house negro. I definitely can’t be tolerant enough to be comfortable with violence against women. Also, religions scare the crap out of me. Anybody of any religion that takes a book as the only truth and is unfazed and even enraged by new evidence or contrary views creeps me out. Yep, Muslims are some hated people these days. I’ll probably get into some trouble with this but, I really wish some Muslim religous leaders would shut the hell up. I’m not real familiar with the intricacies of the Islamic faith nor Muslim communities in general, but I imagine the average Muslim is a religous moderate and just wants some peace and quiet. Some of the Muslim religous leaders, including those in the West, say some insane stuff. They say stuff that makes Jeremiah Wright look like Ghandi. There are tons of people who literally wait to find a reason to down Muslims and those idiots (sorry, but it is my opinion) give them alot of ammunition. When I say “insane stuff”, I don’t mean legitimate, even very angry criticism of western imperialism, concern for Palestinians, etc.. I’m talking about the “we will take over the world” and “our swords will fall on the infidels stuff”. That’s not a good way to gain allies, even with other people of color. It suggests that the plan is to enter the power structures and start working to subjugate everyone to Islamic rule. So, I say down with the inevitable nutjobs that always pop up claiming to be speaking for oppressed peoples, they’re not helping.

    Posted 11 May 2009 at 10:19 pm ¶

24. Joolz wrote:

    We have to detatch the social issues that minorities have to face within themselves, issues that every community has to face, including the majority white community, we have to detatch these from the contingencies placed on your very right to exist.

    All I see in this is ‘othering’ of brown people. Displace all that is evil in this world upon their heads, make them responsible for the problems of the entire society, attatch social issues that need addressing with their very existence as Canadians, and watch the scapegoats bleating.

    Same stuff happens in Britain.

    Posted 11 May 2009 at 11:10 pm ¶

25. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @NancyP,

    You write:

    “All the activities cited by Kanwar as unacceptable are indeed Against The Law For Very Good Reasons, and cause huge problems for law-abiding normal Muslims, who get stereotyped unfairly.”

    This comes very close into playing into the “good Muslim/bad Muslim” stereotype.

    After your rant about Shari’a law I am gathering that any “normal” Muslim is one that complete rejects their religion? Or at least rejects all of Shari’a law?

    I’d love to have you explain to me, a Muslim, what exactly a “normal Muslim” is!

    Would anyone accept a statement like a “normal Jew” or a “normal African American”? Especially after a rant….. maybe about Israel or inner city crime?

    There is a sense out there, a stereotype I think we’ll demonstrated here that the only good/normal Muslim is one that is NOT religious. As soon as a Muslim becomes religious or refuses to reject their religion they can no longer be “good” or “normal”.

    Posted 11 May 2009 at 11:37 pm ¶

26. Krista wrote:

    Thanks everyone for the comments!

    In terms of the discussion about Canadian Muslim vs. Muslim Canadian – I agree with what a few of you have said, that the phrase “Canadian Muslim,” at least grammatically, seems to place the emphasis on the noun (Muslim), with “Canadian” as a modifier of it. I’m pretty sure Kanwar was trying to make the opposite point (that “Canadian” should be more important since it comes first), but it’s weird that he ended up with a phrase whose emphasis is still ambiguous.

    It’s interesting to see some of the experiences being shared here. I think there are a lot of questions to be asked about racial/ethnic/cultural/religious identities within a specifically Canadian context, and you’re all raising some good ones.

    @ NancyP: “Sharia” is a much broader term than it often seems. It is definitely understood and applied in a lot of oppressive ways right now (although there are non-oppressive applications as well that don’t make the news nearly as much), but I’m wary of discussions that reinforce the idea of inherently violent/patriarchal/oppressive/etc.

    Asifa Quraishi has said some interesting stuff on shariah – see, for example, a piece I wrote about her for Muslimah Media Watch: http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2009/01/05/asifa-quraishi-on-women-and-sharia/. That said, this post here is about Kanwar’s article and the issues it raises, not a discussion about the definitions and merits of shariah.

    I also want to respond to NancyP’s argument that “The solution for that is for normal Muslims to be visible and audible,” and to Chris Diaz’s comments on certain fanatical Muslim leaders. These comments arise fairly often, and often imply (whether intentionally or not) that Muslims have themselves, more than anyone else, to blame for whatever oppression they are facing.

    First of all, being a “normal Muslim” is often not an especially visible or audible thing (aside, perhaps, for certain clothing that some people may choose to wear.) “Normal Muslims” don’t often stand out or make the news for the same reasons that “normal” people in general don’t often make the news; we’re just not that exciting. It’s not like we’re going to get much coverage for going about our daily routines. A story about a Muslim who goes to school or work, maybe stops to pray a couple times during the day (or not), and then goes home to her non-abusive family and spends the evening watching TV is really not exciting or newsworthy. The idea of expecting Muslims to loudly demonstrate how normal we are makes me uncomfortable, because it allows for the assumption that any Muslims who don’t loudly display such normalcy (and really, isn’t “normal” something that, by definition, isn’t especially loud and visible?) can be reasonably suspected to be violent, fanatical, and so on.

    And even when these supposedly normal Muslims *do* try and speak out – for example, in response to widely-publicised media stories that involve Muslims – their perspectives are often ignored. I know one Muslim professor who has spoken to Canadian media in the past, and she has said that there are times that journalists have chosen not to interview her because she is too balanced; they end up choosing to speak to others who are more argumentative, because it makes for a better story and more exciting TV. I don’t mean to sound like this is all a conspiracy against Muslims, or that this kind of decision is always the case, but when people lament the apparent absence of normal, everyday Muslims, I think they need to question whether such Muslims are truly absent, and which voices and experiences are there but are going unheard.

    As for Chris Diaz’s point about certain scholars, yeah, there are some religious leaders that I also wish would “shut the hell up.” But that is an *entirely* separate discussion from the one we’re having. You’re right that they’re not helping, but I’m feeling like there’s a suggestion in your comment that non-Muslims can be excused for their suspicion of (and racism towards) Muslims, because of the kinds of people you mention. I think that’s a pretty dangerous suggestion to make, letting a lot of people off the hook for their racism, and holding a whole lot of Muslims accountable for everyone who might ever claim to speak on behalf of Islam.

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 12:06 am ¶

27. Sobia wrote:

    @ Nancy:

    Ugh! Where to start? Lady, you need to get your ideas about Muslims straight.

    “All the activities cited by Kanwar as unacceptable are indeed Against The Law For Very Good Reasons, and cause huge problems for law-abiding normal Muslims, who get stereotyped unfairly. ”

    All the activities cited by Kanwar are rare and extreme examples used to demonize non-Canadian cultures. Society stereotypes Muslims because non-Muslims refuse to see us as a diverse group and assume we all think, look, act, and behave the same. The problem is not ours. Its of those who stereotype and generalize us. And this seems to include yourself.

    Kanwar states these activities as if there is a rampant problem of Muslim and Sikh father’s killing their daughters. There is more of a problem of White, non-Muslim, non-Sikh, “real” Canadian men killing their wives than there is of the former.

    “The solution for that is for normal Muslims to be visible and audible, so the couple who kill their teenage daughter for going out with a boy (local case) are rightly seen as whacko criminals not representative of anyone other than other whacko criminals.”

    Again, that’s not our responsibility. People should have enough sense to know that is not representative of all Muslims. How is it humanly possible for the actions of a couple to be representative of over 1 billion people?! If people refuse to recognize that is not what all Muslims are like then that is just an example of their prejudice, not our lack of speaking out against it.

    And anyhow, there ARE LOTS of Muslims speaking out against such things. LOTS. Maybe you aren’t listening. After each case of an “honour killing” mosques have denounced domestic violence. Muslim-specific blogs like Muslimah Media Watch and a number of others have criticized patriarchy and misogyny in our communities. There are a lot of “normal” Muslims speaking out. MSM just doesn’t talk about us. They only talk about the extremes. So what else can we do?

    “I’d be VERY concerned if the US was in the position of having a significant portion of the electorate calling for (the usual very conservative interpretation of) sharia law as the law of the land”

    Where is this coming from? To clarify, the Muslims in Canada who were asking for the implementation of sharia were asking for its implementation in Ontario only and only in regards to family issues – ie divorce, inheritance etc. And there was always the understanding that their decisions would always be in line with Canadian law and would never violate Canadian law. Yeah, we’re not as crazy as you thought eh? I’m not a proponent of sharia but I also know that partly due to the patriarchal and skewed interpretation of sharia by Muslim countries, partly because of Western Islamophobia, and partly because of the West’s patronizing saviour complex the sharia has been demonized. Its not like other religious laws are any better for women.

    “I suppose that some form of polygamy could be devised in which all members of the marriage have equal rights under law, but it isn’t likely to happen in sharia law”

    Why not? Now I’m not supporting sharia – I’m not a fan at all of the way most Muslim countries implement it. But the fact is there are a number of ways of implementing sharia law. You first have to clarify which interpretation of sharia law you mean before you criticize it. And you have to realize that many Muslims do not see the ways in which many Muslim countries practice sharia law as particularly Islamic. The sharia law they support is a very different version than the one Western MSM depicts. Therefore, just because a Muslim has a positive view of the sharia does not mean they are not “normal” Muslims. You’re buying into the false and dangerous “good Muslim/bad Muslim” dichotomy.

    Oh…my head hurts.

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 12:17 am ¶

28. Sobia wrote:

    Oh..I should also say I’m not a supporter of polygamy at all but just hate the way its used to demonize Muslims. I feel like I’m forced to support something I don’t just to defend against Islamophobia.

    My head still hurts.

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 12:21 am ¶

29. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Sobia,

    Great remarks.

    You write “You first have to clarify which interpretation of sharia law you mean before you criticize it.”

    99.99% of Shari’a, and by extension, Muslim bashers, wouldn’t know the difference between the Hannafi and Hanbali madhab if their life depended on it.

    Their knowledge doesnt extend past a few Western pseudo Islamic historians/critics and what they see on CNN and read on Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch.

    I am not a fan of implementation of Shari’a, for a variety of reasons, but I also realise that rants about Shari’a law more often than not mask a bigotry about Islam.

    It is kind of like saying that one doesnt hate Jews, just their entire religion.

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 1:04 am ¶

30. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Re “Rob, there’s a whole lot wrong with polygamy as theorized by sharia law and practiced by actual people”:

    I was talking about polygamy as a hypothetical subculture of a Western society such as Canada’s. Any such subculture would have to obey Canadian law, not sharia.

    In other words, it would have to be “some form of polygamy … in which all members of the marriage have equal rights under law.” This law would have to protect the rights of children and ensure that no one was coerced into a multiple marriage. It would let women take multiple husbands just as men could take multiple wives.

    Just to be clear, I’m not actually advocating polygamy. I’m using it as an example to rebut the Kanwar argument as expostulated by Jess. Their point seems to be that Canadians should be good Anglo Judeo-Christians first and Asians, Muslims, First Nations, or polygamists second. I’m saying no, that isn’t so. A society can function perfectly well with a range of subcultures, including those that permit gay or multiple marriages.

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 2:32 am ¶

31. Aishtamid wrote:

    @Lainad

    “Okay…maple syrup, lumberjack jackets, saying ‘eh?’ at the end of a sentence ( yes, I do that). Being – or trying to be polite (even though that is rapidly declining)………”

    See, there is a Canadian culture! You forgot hockey though. *laughs*

    I’m not sure if I agree with you about American patriotism. There are whites who doubt the “American-ness” of blacks, and see whiteness as the standard of being American. Note the Republican rhetoric during the last election, when Sarah Palin said that “real America” is white, rural and conservative. The patriotism and American-ness of Muslims is questioned a lot. There are a fair amount of people who don’t even think atheists are real Americans. Even as a Jew, my “American-ness” has gotten impugned a couple of times.

    That said, the majority of Americans really do believe in the melting pot stuff.

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 2:33 am ¶

32. Jehanzeb wrote:

    Nancy,

    You seem to have a very limited and abstract understanding of what Sharia Law is. As Krista pointed out, it’s not as narrow as the media (and groups like the Taliban) present it to be. Read “The Muslim Next Door” by Sumbul Ali-Karamali to get a richer understanding of what Sharia Law really is.

    Sobia pointed out that Sharia Law can be implemented in various ways. This is true, just look at Islamic history and how multi-faith and multi-cultural societies were established under numerous Muslim dynasties, including the Abbasids, Fatimids, Ayyubids, and so on (read “Peace Be Upon You: Fourteen Centuries of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Conflict and Cooperation” by Zachary Karabell for more details). This is not suggesting that I support the implementation of Sharia Law, I’m just saying it’s important to understand the complexity of this issue. For instance, the Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256), therefore that means there should be freedom of religion. And you can find human rights and freedom of religion expressed in what Muhammad and Imam ‘Ali (peace be upon them both) have said, taught, and implemented.

    And I hope you realize how typical your remarks are when you say “normal Muslims need to be visible and audible.” I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard that from non-Muslims. The reason why it’s so frustrating is that Muslims have always been speaking out and defining ourselves, especially after 9/11. Sumbul Ali-Karamali even addresses this issue in her book and she has a brilliant response to it.

    The problem is that we don’t see the majority of Muslims in the mainstream media. Instead of seeing them, we see images of Muslims rioting in the streets and burning flags. I remember when I protested against Israel’s attacks on Gaza, I noticed how the media only interviewed Muslim protesters who could hardly speak any English. I video-taped the rallies myself and interviewed many young and articulate protesters, including Palestinians, Muslims, and Jews. I didn’t hear the media report anything about the Jewish protesters who stood with us. I wonder why.

    Similarly, the media didn’t bother reporting that the MAJORITY of Muslim countries condemned the 9/11 attacks, including Iran, which held candle light vigils for the victims. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, released petitions to condemn the attacks and even made a radio announcement which never aired! We don’t hear about Muslims like my mother who cried on the day of the attacks. We don’t hear about the things that my Mosque and MSA (Muslim Student Association) have done to break stereotypes and misconceptions about Islam. How often do you hear the mainstream media report a story about hate crimes, discriminatory acts, and deportations of Muslims-American CITIZENS?

    Have you ever visited a Mosque, Nancy? Have you attended an inter-faith event before? Do you have any Muslim friends? Try to do these things and you’ll find that there are MANY Muslims who speak up. You’ll also find that a lot of us are ignored.

    I don’t understand what you mean by “normal Muslim.” I find that really offensive because it seems like a lazy attempt to simplify and file us under an abstract label. I have some Muslim friends on my campus who don’t vocally speak out against Islamophobia, but does that mean they’re responsible for all the negative stereotypes that exist about Muslims? They just want to get hyped up about “Twilight,” the NBA playoffs, and Gambit making an appearance in the “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” movie (finally!). They self-identify as Muslim, but since they aren’t as active as I am, does that mean it’s their fault that people perceive Islam in a negative light? What does it say about them if they don’t speak out? Does it mean that they’re “dangerous” and “support terrorism?” When a White person commits a crime or murder, does that mean White people have to start being more “visible and audible” when condemning these crimes?

    As others have pointed out, there are A LOT of Muslims who speak out, but the frustrating thing is that we’re expected to answer (and even apologize sometimes) for horrible things that we didn’t even do. Politics is woven into a Muslim’s life whether he/she likes it or not. When I have children, they are going to be expected to answer for events that happened way before they were even born simply because of their religious background and skin color. I would like you to understand that. It’s rare to NOT hear anything about politics when I tell someone I’m Muslim or from Pakistan. Even the Muslim friends I mentioned previously have said that they’ve confronted fellow classmates who made ignorant and offensive remarks about Islam. But it’s not like it’s a piece of cake for them to just call up Anderson Cooper and ask him if they could appear on CNN to share their story. My friends and I were rudely mistreated by pro-Israel demonstrators one time and a few people even said to my Palestinian friend, “we should have wiped you all out.” We wrote to many local newspapers about our experience, but no one ever responded to us. But the media was okay with reporting that there was no bigotry or hatred at the demonstration.

    So while you get all worried about something that will never happen (i.e. Sharia Law being implemented in the United States), maybe you should focus on the things that *are* happening, such as the experiences of Muslims in the West after 9/11. Imagine being a Muslim parent and worrying about your son or daughter being beaten up or verbally assaulted in school just because of their religious beliefs — is that enough for you to worry about?

    Stop using abstract labels to categorize us as if we’re not part of the human race. Being Muslim doesn’t mean that I’m misogynistic, backwards, anti-Western or whatever stereotype that often gets assigned to us. I’m not some kind of specimen that needs to be examined just because I have different religious beliefs than you.

    I speak with a suburban-American accent. I’m a Star Wars geek. I’m a Philadelphia Flyers fan. I play roller hockey. I play piano. I have Shakespeare lines memorized. I buy flowers and gifts for my mom on mother’s day. I am a Muslim, a submitter to God. I am human. I bleed red.

    That “normal” enough for you?

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 3:37 am ¶

33. RCHOUDH wrote:

    Kanwar is just another immigrant wannabe of “natural born non immigrant white” Westerners. In my experience I’ve found that most first generation immigrants (of South Asian Muslim background) who were able to land good jobs in the West and who raised their families away from immigrant communities in the West hold these sorts of attitudes. Their class privilege and Westernized upbringing back in their countries of origin blinded them to the bitter realities most other immigrants of their cultural background faced upon immigrating to the West. They don’t understand and therefore empathize with the fact that not all immigrants coming into the West are given opportunities to achieve economic success here and not all of them find comfort in raising their children outside of their tightly knit immigrant communities, where they often find friendship and understanding from others like them. The same goes for their children, who due to being constantly otherized their whole lives by non immigrants and having to grow up in poorer neighborhoods often neglected by government, may also develop more close relationships and understanding within their immigrant communities. I’ve also found that such children do associate with children of other backgrounds who are similarly otherized and ghettoized by the dominant population (POC on POC interaction).
    And I’m tired of hearing that you can’t be a practising Muslim while residing in the West. Again from my own experience I have many Muslim friends in America who (whether they be first gen or multiple gen) have been able to practice their religion all the while they completed their studies, started working, and started raising their kids with both the concepts of the Hereafter and this life in mind. But then I guess that’s still not good enough to some non immigrants because that means they (my friends) are still keeping their religion and/or culture intact in the West all the while they’re “stealing” full blooded Westerners’ jobs!/Sarcasm

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 3:57 am ¶

34. jaye wrote:

    The other thing I got from the ‘we’ statements, was that he was including himself with majority (re:white) Canadians, talking about THOSE minorities. He isn’t part of the majority, but he uses ‘we’ whenever he talks about them, and doesn’t use the word ‘we’ to describe minorities. So is the majority the people who believe in “Canadian values”, regardless of race? Or is the majority the people who aren’t the minority (POC)? Or are the minority more specifically new immigrants who don’t practice Canadian ways? Who exactly is ‘we’?

    “Increasingly, Canadians feel restricted in doing things the Canadian way lest we offend minorities. We cannot even say Merry Christmas without fear of causing offence. It is amazing that 77 per cent of the Canadian majority are scared of offending 23 per cent of minorities. We have become so timid that the majority cannot assert its own freedom of expression. We cannot publicly question certain foreign social customs, traditions and values that do not fit into the Canadian ethos of equality. Rather than encouraging new immigrants to adjust to Canada, we tolerate peculiar ways of doing things. We do not remind them that they are in Canada, not in their original homelands.”

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 4:00 am ¶

35. Mark wrote:

    There’s no need for Mahfooz Kanwar to issue this clarion call for patriotism – because the patriotism of Muslim in Western nations is not a problem at all. There’s no need for alarm. Muslims aren’t “in ur nation destroyin ur democracy” as a LOLcat might put it.

    Kanwar is being an alarmist – all the Muslim’s that I’ve personally met have been….. well, normal. The only difference is that occasionally they leave the lab for prayer. Aside from that – they make jokes, work hard, read books, make friends, ect. I see no threat.

    99.99% of Muslims who come over to Western nations do so because they LIKE western nations. If they hated the West so much why would they come over here? The ones who “truly” dislike the West aren’t even living here as citizens.

    As for being a patriot and adopting the values of a nation – what values is Mr. Kanwar talking about? The values of playing baseball/cricket and eating hotdogs? I certainly don’t do any of those things.

    The only values I want Muslims to adopt is to obey the laws of the nation. And 99.99% of them do so. Therefore, they aren’t a problem. Those who are a “real” threat (whatever that means) aren’t even living in the West.

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 6:32 am ¶

36. Jess wrote:

    @Rob– I think there is a liit to what kind of subuculture can function in a democratic society.

    I’m going to leave aside the intricacies of Muslim (or Jewish) law for a minute, and look at white, Christian subcultures. Like the FLDS. They do things that are simply, (I think most people here can agree) wrong. I can’t see a way that they could operate legally within the US (or any other democracy) and not violate the rights of other people.

    Or what if a bunch of people — of whatever color, say a bunch of old Confederates — decided slavery was OK? “Hey, in our town slavery is legal.” That wouldn’t work either.

    FGM is one that I can’t support. But some cultures think it is okay too.

    In that sense, if we’re going to have a legal system that takes as a premise 1) equality before the law and 2) respect for the rights of women and minorities then some religious groups — I can think of a few Christian Identity churches — are just going to have to suck it up and not do certain things.

    As a Jew, I don’t feel a particular need to stone people to death for working on the Sabbath or enslave women from a neighboring city (would Newark count?). And could New York function if the Orthodox suddenly decided that was a good idea?

    Another point that gets made a lot — and I think is rather separate from Kanwar — is that immigrants somehow lose their culture and that the US and Canada haven’t got one. Not so at all.

    My wife (an immigrant) noted something I had never thought about: she said the US has a tremendously rich folk music culture precisely because immigrants came and preserved many traditions that were lost in the home country. (Even to the point of preserving language — the oldest forms of English in the world are spoken in the US). And even among the slave population, who couldn’t keep their native languages or cultures in the same way, a very rich culture has been built that has spread all over the freakin’ world via Rock music and hip hop.

    And American culture does have distinctive features–it’s why people in the US and Canada aren’t just copies of people from England, and why people in Mexico aren’t simple copies of Spaniards or Aztecs. The Chinese people who came here have something that is not only recognizably Chinese but unique to the US. (Just as Chinese Malaysians and Filipinos differ from their mainland counterparts also).

    I mean, what does “assimilation” mean exactly? In American English, Yiddish has contributed a chunk of vocabulary that is used every day by people who have probably never met a Jew. Spanish words crop up all the time (especially out West). Is a non-Orthodox Jew assimilated? What about the orthodox Mets fans from Queens? Or the Latino kid who still goes to a Catholic Church and still had a quinceanera, which is pretty common in parts of Texas? Are they “assimilated” or not? Both are undeniably American (US), whatever stupid white supremacists think.

    While the baseline in the US and Canada is European (mostly English and German, with French having a much bigger influence in Canada) a large chunk comes from previously marginalized people. (Heck, English is the language of a previously marginalized people).

    Also we talk about immigration as though it were new or something. The US and Canada aren’t the first countries of immigrants (or colonizers). The British Isles were (long before the word was coined, ca. 1300, it’s why we speak English and not German, Gaelic or Pictish) and you could make the same argument about some places in south Asia (how many migrations/invasions have crossed the stretch where Afghanistan, Pakistan, and northern India currently are? Dozens? Hundreds?) The only difference is how far back we have to look.

    I bring this up because there’s a common trap that the anti-immigrant crowd brings up as well as those of us that believe in the rights of minorities fall into: essentializing culture as though there were some magical gene that makes you “Indian” or “Jewish” or “Latino.”

    Humans are one of the more flexible species, behavior-wise. Nothing is fixed or locked in, it’s how social changes happen in the first place. But I see a tendency to treat cultures as static when they are most certainly not. And on top of that, when people migrate, they have to change habits in some way–even centuries ago the people who migrated from area A to area B had to change if only because the environment was often different, and different opportunities presented themselves.

    I don’t think Kanwar gets any of this, though.

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 7:12 am ¶

37. Joolz wrote:

    I hope we can agree that it is possible to be opposed to any kind of religious jurisdiction in implementable cases in the lives of people, without being anti-any specific religion!

    As long as we can accept this space exists, then we have a space for discussion of the issues. I think we have to accept it is possible to be anti-racist and at the same time critical of some religious rules.

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 7:56 am ¶

38. Sobia wrote:

    @Rchoudh:

    “In my experience I’ve found that most first generation immigrants (of South Asian Muslim background) who were able to land good jobs in the West and who raised their families away from immigrant communities in the West hold these sorts of attitudes.”

    Not necessarily. My parents are those immigrants you speak of and they have friends who are those immigrants as well, and from my experience they are not like Kanwar. In fact, they dislike opinions such as Kanwar’s very much.

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 9:58 am ¶

39. Restructure! wrote:

    Kanwar is just another immigrant wannabe of “natural born non immigrant white” Westerners. In my experience I’ve found that most first generation immigrants (of South Asian Muslim background) who were able to land good jobs in the West and who raised their families away from immigrant communities in the West hold these sorts of attitudes. Their class privilege and Westernized upbringing back in their countries of origin blinded them to the bitter realities most other immigrants of their cultural background faced upon immigrating to the West.

    Yes! But not only immigrants of South Asian Muslim background, but I find that most immigrants that fit that description are like that. What’s even more enraging is that they think that there is no racism, so if you are their second-generation child, for example, you cannot talk to them about racism, since they themselves have racist right-wing views.

    The same goes for their children, who due to being constantly otherized their whole lives by non immigrants and having to grow up in poorer neighborhoods often neglected by government, may also develop more close relationships and understanding within their immigrant communities. I’ve also found that such children do associate with children of other backgrounds who are similarly otherized and ghettoized by the dominant population (POC on POC interaction).

    I don’t understand the “the same goes for their children” part. The second-generation children are the same as their first-generation parents? I don’t think so.

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 10:02 am ¶

40. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Human sacrifice, stoning, slavery, genital mutilation, forced marriage, etc. all harm people against their will. Any society that believes in equality under the law and due process will ban all these practices.

    Multiple marriages don’t necessarily harm the adults involved. They may harm the children involved, but that’s a different matter. The question is how personal behavior among consenting adults can be against the US or Canadian systems? Aren’t these societies built on the freedom to do whatever we want as long as it doesn’t harm others?

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 11:36 am ¶

41. Jehanzeb wrote:

    @ Rob Schmidt,

    I understand what you’re saying about “forced marriages,” but just in case if someone confused that with “arranged marriages,” I wanted to share some things. I know there are horrible cases where young women have been forced to marry men that don’t want to be with (and even worse things have happened when these women refused), but we tend to analyze arranged marriages under our Western lenses without realizing that it *does* work for many people.

    My parents had a Love marriage, but almost everyone else in my family (aunts, uncles, and even some of my cousins) have had successful arranged marriages. Some my aunts and uncles never even met before they got married. It sounds really odd and bizarre to us, but when you’re brought up in that culture, there isn’t anything strange about it. Research has even shown that arranged marriages last longer than Love marriages.

    Just because *I* find arranged marriages restrictive doesn’t mean that it won’t work for someone else.

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 12:41 pm ¶

42. Lxy wrote:

    Most debates on immigration and assimilation in North America are implicitly about upholding Anglo-American superiority–and demanding allegiance to this idea from immigrants.

    Mahfooz Kanwar’s arguments above ooze this type of supremacist ideology, which is tacitly based upon the following delusions:

    Western culture (i.e. North American Anglo culture)=Freedom.

    Non-Western culture=Not Freedom.

    This type of warped belief system is all too common among North American “patriots” of all stripes.

    And it is evidenced most clearly in the West’s bogus War against Terror, with patriotic mantras about how Muslim “Evil-doers Hate Our Freedoms” or the West has a right to colonize nations like Iraq and Afghanistan based upon the comical lie that the West is spreading “freedom and democracy.”

    Indeed, Mahfooz Kanwar’s arguments about the treatment of women mirror one of the secondary rationalizations for the USA/NATO invasion of Afghanistan: the West is nobly liberating Afghan women from their burkas and female oppression.

    But here’s what Western (and Canadian) “liberty” really means in practice for women and men in Southwest Asia:

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/may2009/afgh-m08.shtml

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 5:11 pm ¶

43. RCHOUDH wrote:

    @ Sobhia

    I didn’t want to generalize about all first gen educational professional immigrants to the West. That’s why I qualified my statement by saying that it was based on my own experience. I know it’s never good to generalize all people as being the same.

    @ Restructure

    When I was talking about some kids turning out like their parents, I was talking about 2nd Gen kids, who like their parents, live exclusivly within immigrant communities. Due to growing up within a close knit community and thus continue to abide by the cultural practices brought over from abroad. Of course being 2nd gen and all that doesn’t mean they are completely alien to the dominant culture; they’re certainly more acculterated than their parents were. But because of the the dominant community ignoring their needs and not paying attention to them they remain within their own communities and feel marginalized. Again this is just based on my own experience and what I’ve read up on this phenomeno elsewhere.

    Posted 12 May 2009 at 6:18 pm ¶

44. NancyP wrote:

    1. I am religion-phobic when authoritarian religion becomes politicized or dominates social interaction. In the US, the most extreme authoritarian Protestant Christianity tends to attract people with fantasies or capacity for violence against POC, gays, “non-Christians” (Jews and Muslims, mostly, but also liberal Christians, Unitarians, etc.).

    I have no concerns about personal piety that does not threaten others. (I draw the line at Christian Scientist or Jehovah’s Witness parents refusing to allow life-saving medical treatment for minor children, insulin, blood, etc. If the adult believer wants to refuse insulin, blood, etc, that’s their right.).

    2.. I realize that the US and Canada are not likely to have a significant Muslim-supremacist voting bloc. I can see that the UK and several European countries might have a sufficient Muslim-supremacist voting bloc to form a party that might be able to wangle community-specific sharia law in a parliamentary system. The Archbishop of Canterbury (current clerical leader of the Church of England and the convener of meetings of the worldwide Anglican Communion) has suggested that secular recognition and enforcement of community-specific sharia law might be a good thing in the UK. After all, it would “only” apply to family law. Well, to me, the concept of applying community-specific sharia family law is a no-go, based on what I have read about implementation in India. Any implementation that prohibits individuals from opting out of the jurisdiction of sharia family or other law is problematic. Why should women be required to submit to sharia family law (as implemented) simply because they happened to be born of Muslim parents?

    It is a given that religion-specific family law tends to be markedly patriarchal when implemented in political systems where there is established religion and little tolerance for dissent. The politically minded ultra-Orthodox Jews and politically minded fundamentalist Christians have a great deal in common with the most patriarchal and political Muslims outside North America. Yes, there are American Christians who advocate the death penalty for women who have abortions, for gays, for adulterous women. My assumption is that bad law drives out good whenever religion is involved, which is why I think that “multicultural” law replacing secular religion-neutral law as law of the land is bound to be a disaster.

    If individuals want to voluntarily and revocably renounce their access to rights allowed by civil law, in order to comply with religious requirements, that’s their business. I certainly don’t care if some Catholics opt to separate but not to divorce and remarry if a living spouse beats them, abandons them, sexually abuses the children, and so on. That’s the price of being a fully observant Catholic (able to take communion).

    3. I am aware that sharia law is compatible with a far larger range of interpretation than those found in many countries and provinces where sharia law is the civil law. I am aware that there are countries (Morocco?) where female sharia legal experts are being trained. I am aware of the growing body of religious scholarship by Muslim feminist women, and men. I am also aware that this scholarship and legal work can only occur in situations where religious pluralism is respected, and is not likely to occur where religion is seen as a path to secular power.

    I am aware that there were Muslim feminist writers in Egypt 100 years ago. I am aware of the explicit command that there should be no compulsion in religion, an amazing foundational statement that has been trampled on by people who seek political power through using religion. (I am aware that there is no comparable explicit statement in the other Abrahamic religions).

    3. What is a “normal” Muslim? 99.99% of North American Muslims are “normal” Muslims, and a large majority of the rest of Muslims are “normal” Muslims. To me, “normal” means ignoring to at most shunning those who fail to adhere to religious community standards. “Wackos” are the ones who use or threaten violence in religious matters. “Wackos” issue death threats or actually kill religious dissidents, “normal” people just state that Ayaan Hirsi (sic) or Taslima Nasreem (sic) are rude jerks (or deluded) and wrong for their writings, or discuss their contentions, or ignore the whole thing.

    That’s all I meant by “normal”. Religious, non-religious, hijab-wearing, indistinguishable from crowd, abstaining from secular culture, being a movie fan, voluntarily being a plural wife in a household where the husband is rigorously fair to all as required by religion, being an advocate of monogamy, etc. – all “normal”. Violence in the name of religion – that’s “abnormal”.

    4. The local press has run human-interest stories, not all centered on religion, where the subjects have mentioned that Islam is important to them. It is a good thing that the restaurant owners, teachers, student volunteers, people with odd hobbies, etc mention their faith identity. I understand why second generation American Muslim women might choose to wear hijab now, specifically to be visible as both American and Muslim.

    It is likely that many media markets aren’t receptive to neutral or positive coverage of ordinary Muslim citizens.

    5. I don’t agree with the past administration’s policies, and am ashamed of fellow Americans who shrug off civilian casualties in the current war, torture (apparently almost half of Protestant fundamentalists find it acceptable), and the rest. From day one (9/11/01), I was anti-war, pro-forensic concerning terrorism.

    Posted 13 May 2009 at 1:00 am ¶

45. Jess wrote:

    Rob Schmidt–

    I see what you are saying, I think the way to think of it is like capitalism. Yeah, in theory a bunch of actors acting in their own self-interest would obviate the need for, say, minimum wage laws, or even a ban on slavery. That’s the libertarian logic. It’s not wrong, per se, but it ignores a rather large number of factors that operate in the real world.

    For instance, in theory minimum wage requirements would cause depressions in employment of poor people, when the data demonstrates there isn’t much relation between employment levels at the low end and the growth of minimum wages.

    Polygamy — and that is what we are talking about here (polyandry is very uncommon — I can think of only one or two societies that have it) — operates with real people who don’t operate as rational — or equal — actors. We have minimum wage laws (and other labor protections) because we acknowledge that there is a power that the employer has most of the time (labor shortages are rare) that the employee does not. The same applies to polygamy — too often there is a power relation (god, I hate that term, but there it is) that operates. The women in the FLDS church aren’t in a position to make a really “rational” choice. There are too many pressures on them. That is why such communities are so isolated — you can’t maintain such a system where there’s much exposure to the “outside.”

    So, we outlawed polygamy. I realize that the origins of those laws weren’t because the people who wrote them were incipient feminists. But absent a way to make polygamy work in a way that doesn’t end up violating the rights of women, we’re just going to have to live without it. Just like we’re going to have to live with certain regulations on our economic behavior, much as it would be otherwise in a perfect world where everybody had complete information and was an equal actor.

    Posted 13 May 2009 at 8:14 am ¶

46. Restructure! wrote:

    @ RCHOUDH

    Are you a 2nd-gen person?

    Posted 13 May 2009 at 9:09 am ¶

47. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    I understand that polygamy would be difficult to implement in today’s reality. As you say, the reasons have to do with unbalanced power relations.

    My point is that it’s possible we could come up with a fair and equitable system of multiple marriages. The idea isn’t inherently immoral or inconceivable. It could work in a Judeo-Christian society just as it’s worked in many societies throughout history.

    We can imagine potential solutions to the potential problems. Require the marriage partners to be at least 25 years old. Require them each to have an independent source of income. We put limits on activities such as drinking, driving, and receiving welfare, so this would be no different.

    Therefore, multiple marriages are a bad example of something we have to rule out because they’re “beyond the pale.” They’re impractical, yes, but they aren’t anti-American or -Canadian.

    Posted 13 May 2009 at 9:24 am ¶

48. Joseph wrote:

    @NancyP
    The Muslims among us have answered your assertions about Islam more adroitly than I could from my point of view as a Christian Arab. However, your latest post (#44) moves decisively into territory with which I am all too familiar so I want to add something to their critiques.

    1) “I am religion-phobic when authoritarian religion becomes politicized or dominates social interaction.”

    What you describe here is a common sentiment among self-described left-leaning Euro-Americans. It seems on the surface to be a progressive sentiment, especially when used in defense of the rights of women and gay people.

    But it’s not.

    The compartmentalization of religion into the private sphere is a result of the (self-described) “European Enlightenment”–a response to the overwhelming (and not incidentally corrupt) temporal power of the Church over Europe. So the tradition of creating public space that has no religious content is NOT a universal aspiration but rather a particular Euro-American cultural value. What you espouse here is just another position that places the West at the center (and apex) of “civilization.” And conversely, Islamic societies, in which these discourses interpenetrate, at the bottom.

    That is not “religion-phobia”, it is garden variety Islamophobia.

    2.”Muslim-supremicist voting bloc”

    Really? … The idea that Eastern hordes will gain a majority (either through conquest, immigration, or enthusiastic reproduction) and impose their values on a freedom-loving West is a hoary old Orientalist cliche that has as much currency among the Euro-American left as the reactionary right. At one point or another it has been leveled at Near, Middle and Far Eastern peoples in the West. As a pan-ethnic global community with roots in the ME, Muslims endure the conflation of all of these stereotypes.

    “Why should women be required to submit to sharia family law (as implemented) simply because they happened to be born of Muslim parents?”

    And why should you appoint yourself the protector and spokeswoman for Muslim women? There are Muslim feminists all over the world who grapple with these questions on their own behalf. In this instance the articulation of global “sisterhood” is, again, just another version of the colonial impulse. If this is an issue that is important to you then please avail yourself of the many books written by or about Muslim feminists. Although your name-check of Ayaan Hirsi Ali does not fill me with confidence that you are interested in critiques that do not reinforce the illusion of Western cultural supremacy. Still, I’d suggest Saba Mahmood’s The Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject. But you could Google “feminist orientalism”–which the name for the philosophical position you espouse– and find plenty more. And if you doubt that Muslimah’s are incapable of feminist critique on their own perhaps you should click the link at the top and check out Muslim Lookout or Muslimah Media Watch.

    3. What is a “normal” Muslim? 99.99% of North American Muslims are “normal”

    I am actually surprised you got past the mods with that. The “I meant ‘normal’ in the mathematical sense” argument is used to make specious arguments that mask their own prejudice all the time. What you are really saying is that there are two kinds of Muslims, the Good kind and the Bad kind… and the Good Ones are judged entirely through your ability to identify with them from your majority position. Again, you put yourself at the center and arrange everyone else in relationship to you–a quintessentially Western gesture.

    5. “From day one (9/11/01), I was anti-war, pro-forensic concerning terrorism.”

    Well thanks. That’s might White of you.

    Posted 13 May 2009 at 1:00 pm ¶

49. Sobia wrote:

    @ Joseph:

    CO-SIGN!!

    @NancyP:

    “I can see that the UK and several European countries might have a sufficient Muslim-supremacist voting bloc to form a party that might be able to wangle community-specific sharia law in a parliamentary system.”

    Could you please clarify? Do these blocs actually exist or is this just another form or fear mongering? Oh no…the Muslims are coming!

    “Why should women be required to submit to sharia family law (as implemented) simply because they happened to be born of Muslim parents? ”

    Let us decide how, where, and when we engage with our religion. Although there are many examples in which sharia is interpreted and implemented to oppress women, their are also examples of Muslim women embracing sharia law, or at least aspects of it. That is how complex sharia is in actuality. It is not this monolithic evil so many in the West depict.

    Re: “Normal” Muslim. Try explaining what a normal Black person, a normal lesbian, a normal Hispanic person, a normal Christian, a normal Jew, etc. would be. Replace Muslim with any of the above and replace “religious” with “racial” or “sexual.” See how odd it sounds? It doesn’t make sense nor should it. You have defined Muslim by accessing your stereotypes about Muslims and describing a “normal” Muslim as someone who doesn’t fit your stereotype of a Muslim.

    And as Joseph so aptly points out, YOU have defined how WE should behave if we want to be considered “normal.” You are telling me, that if I want to be seen as “normal” I should behave in the ways specified and then I will be a “normal” Muslim.

    “Violence in the name of religion – that’s “abnormal”.”

    Violence in the name of religion is rarely just violence in the name of religion. It is usually a reaction to the post-colonial realities of the world. Reacting to the post-colonial, oppressive realities of the world is not abnormal. Now, I am NOT condoning such violence. What I am saying is that it is rarely that simple. Its a very serious problem that needs to be solved but pathologizing Muslims is probably not the best way to do so. Adds insult to injury.

    Sorry to sound defensive, but this is the second time your comment has shown insensitivity to a group I identify with (previously in talking about Pashtuns)

    Posted 13 May 2009 at 5:52 pm ¶

50. Aishtamid wrote:

    @Joseph –

    NancyP did say a couple of condescending, dumb things. But you’re taking this too far.

    You’re correct to say that European and American attitudes on the separation of church and state come from the Enlightenment and the former power of the Catholic Church. But there is an important difference between Europe and the United States on this matter that explains some of NancyP’s opinions. In the United States, the government is not allowed to either sponsor or persecute religion. This does not mean that the public sphere is not allowed to have religion, like in Europe. Indeed, George W. Bush openly campaigned as a deeply religious person who wanted to put religious ideas behind the actions of government – and won twice doing so. Look at Sarah Palin as well. In Europe, where the public sphere specifically excludes religion, people like that would not be tolerated or elected. Islamophobic and anti-religion laws like the banning of religious symbols in public schools in France would not happen in the States.

    @part 1 of your comment – The United States allows various communities – Orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Christians among others – to implement religious law as long as it does not hurt anyone or contradict the law of the state (although, for some reason, FLDS polygamy is basically tolerated). I have no problem with letting Muslims do this as well. Basically, there’s a live and let live attitude towards religious law. But many Americans like NancyP are rightly concerned about the government implementing religion in its laws – it is against our constitution and our ideas of personal liberty. Thus, she is right to be afraid of any voting bloc that advocates for religious law.

    That said, I think her paranoia of a “Muslim supremacist” voting bloc is nonsense. Yeah, she’s got a bit of a savior complex regarding Muslim women. That’s a problem. But I don’t think NancyP’s views on religion and government are Islamophobic here (at least, her religious phobia is not restricted to Islam).

    @part 5. – What does “pro-forensic concerning terrorism” actually mean? And if being anti-war is “mighty white,” does that mean you are pro- Iraq war? I doubt it. I would imagine you two agree on that. So what’s the problem here?

    Posted 13 May 2009 at 6:41 pm ¶

51. Joseph wrote:

    @Aishtamid

    “you’re taking this too far.”

    I disagree.

    “Many Americans like NancyP are rightly concerned about the government implementing religion in its laws – it is against our constitution and our ideas of personal liberty. Thus, she is right to be afraid of any voting bloc that advocates for religious law.”

    Aishtamid, I am an American (and so were my parents) so, while I appreciate your intentions, I don’t need the civics lesson. My point is that anyone who fears the blurring of the lines between religion and the law has plenty to worry about without implicating North American Muslims. So focusing on them in these terms is about something else.

    Posted 13 May 2009 at 8:24 pm ¶

52. RCHOUDH wrote:

    @ Restructure

    Yes I’m 2nd Gen but if you were asking in relation to what I stated about 2nd Genners before, I just want to say that I wasn’t using my self as an example but instead I was talking about some other 2nd Genners I know who did experience life the way I described it, where they grew up in neighborhoods predominantly made up of immigrants of their background (this is in the UK). They grew up with more awareness of their parents’ culture because of living this way and they felt largely marginalized by the greater society. Hence their experiences were similar to their parents.

    Posted 13 May 2009 at 10:32 pm ¶

53. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Joseph,

    Cosign! It is always a pleasure to read you here. Thanks.

    Posted 14 May 2009 at 12:01 am ¶

54. Adrianna wrote:

    This man is trying to separate himself ” see I’m not a violent brown Musilm person , you can trust me white canadians.” it’s pathetic and sad. Like White candian male don’t kill or mutilate women. What about what happen at the Polythecnique school in Montreal. I get angry when I hear that white candians talking about Canada like they had been there for thousands of years. Ignoring it’s that thier nation is based on genocide. That is why every time I visit Montreal and hear Quebecois talking about independence it pisses me off. This is stolen land and you want independence based on language and culture? It’s good that we bring some of our baggage. It makes the culture richer. Some Canadian complain they don’t have culture no definable identity. Maybe that is how it is supposed to be. so Anybody can be whatever the hell they want.

    I plan to move to Canada. My family has been asking me to live there I since i was a child. After a long stay in the US and coming back home to Haiti . Well I can no longer call it home since that is not how I feel anymore. I want to try Canada. The environment I live here in Haiti is dangerous and there is no real future for me or anybody ( unless your incredibly rich that is) . It’s a country on the verge of collapse. I hate walking the streetss and having UN Peace keepers gun in my face. Even if it’s to protect me. So I want to ask I’m I mistaken in wanting to live there? Is it really bad. I mean here in Haiti we have to deal with kidnapings, sexual violence, civil unrest,child slavery and political instability. I won’t lie I want to get back my sense of security even if it’s false sense of security. The one I felt when I was in the US. AM I my kidding myself into thinking that no matter where in the world I go I won’t ever be safe or be free as Black women? Maybe should just ask my family.

    Posted 14 May 2009 at 4:40 pm ¶

55. Aishtamid wrote:

    @Joseph

    You make valid points, although I still think that NancyP’s feelings are not limited to Islamophobia. I never said or meant to imply that you are not American; I didn’t know either way.

    Posted 14 May 2009 at 7:28 pm ¶

56. NancyP wrote:

    1. I am religion-phobic in general. Let me paraphrase Sinclair Lewis, from his 1935 novel, It Can’t Happen Here: “When fascism comes to America, it will bear a cross and a flag.”

    I do not subscribe to the “family values” attitude that indicates that certain family members (women and girls) deserve fewer rights than their peer men and boys because woman’s duty is to serve man. I do not subscribe to the “family values” attitude that certain family members who offend against the family prestige (gays; women/girls who are sexual in ways not directed by the family; apostate to family’s religious sect) should be expelled to maintain the family’s purity. Many US Christian fundamentalist families throw out of the household or refuse to communicate with their pregnant teen daughters, gay sons, kids who are adamantly atheist or just diss the church pastor. Fundamentalist adherents of other religions tend to have the same attitude.

    Maybe I wouldn’t mind so much if I were a heterosexual man, but I am quite aware that as an non-deferential woman and lesbian, I would be in trouble if fundamentalists of any religion had power over me. I have heard enough American Christian preachers say that I deserve death, or am a tool of Satan for refusing to marry and procreate, or merely should not hold a position of responsibility in which I may supervise men. So, yes, I am hostile to and fearful of fundamentalist implementations of religion.

    Unfortunately, in the public and political sphere, the most vocal and sensationalistic fundamentalist interpretations seem to drive out non-fundamentalist interpretations. Theocrat wanna-bes Pat Robertson (past presidential candidate), Palin, and Huckabee become the public image of “real Christians”(Tm), and it is inevitable that the public image of “real Muslims living in the West” range from Muslim versions of annoying censorious, sex-obsessed radio preachers like Dobson (Focus on the Family) to the occasional extremist asshats in the UK, Europe, Australia, etc. who applaud death sentences for authors, apostates, gays, assert that wife-beating is A-OK, and so on.

    Who notices the non-judgmental religious adherent who loves God and fellow humans? After all, these are not the people who use religion as a tool to seek power over people, to punish, to have successful political careers.

    2. Yes, I am a believer in the importance of some Western Enlightenment values, and I am not going to be ashamed of it. Freedom of conscience is an essential good. This means freedom from religion imposed by others, as well as freedom to practice one’s own religion. The problem with the fusion of religion and state is that in the large majority of such cases, the dissident is not left alone. The Western Enlightenment is a *reaction* to theocratic enforcement of orthodoxy and the existing social/political power structure, to wars undertaken in the name of religion and promoted by rival religious power-holders.

    The statement in Islam, “there shall be no compulsion in religion”, honored by some early Muslim rulers (eg, Spain), has in modern times gone out the window when clerics gain substantial political power. I don’t care whether this is a post-colonial reaction. Compulsion is compulsion, whether you call it defiance of the Prophet’s statement/revelation above, or call it an offense against the dignity of human conscience as stated in Western Enlightenment terms.

    I agree that the ideal of universal human rights that accrue to the individual person is Western-centric and agree that the concept can be regarded as an imposition by large factions in non-Western – and Western – countries. Many cultural traditions and ideologies regard the family as the basic social unit, with rights accruing to members according to their function and acquiescence in that function, and full rights accruing only to the head of the family. Individual rights not dependent on social function are regarded as potentially disruptive. Dissent is a threat.

    The US has a tradition that encompasses individual rights, yet a large proportion of the US population regards those rights as disruptive (and some would like to revoke much of the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments bearing on individual rights). Countries in which rights are dependent on familial/social function have a proportion of the population that works towards equal rights and individual rights.

    3. Sobia, I am aware that faithful Muslim feminists exist and that they are trying to change traditional sharia interpretation prejudicial to or burdensome on women. I don’t give a rat’s ass about “hijab or not”, if the woman is able to make a free decision (a pox on France and Saudi Arabia, wrong in opposite directions). I mentioned Ayaan Hirsi Ali not because I respect all of her opinions – I don’t – but because I feel that even an asshat, if peaceable, ought not to be under death threat – the proper response to her is argument, satire, or not drawing more attention to her (letting the 15 minutes of fame lapse).

    I agree that violence in the name of religion is not motivated solely by religion narrowly defined. Such violence serves someone’s interests, tangible or psychic. On the small scale, this includes men who beat their wives for not waiting on them hand and foot or for contradicting or disobeying them. American men in fundamentalist Christian social circles can justify their bad behavior to themselves by calling it “establishing Christian discipline in the household”. Religion can be used as an excuse for power grabs within or between neighboring countries (eg, majority of wars on European soil prior to WWI). Religion can be used as an excuse for violence by colonial occupiers or used by postcolonial political factions as an organizing tool and distraction from other internal problems. The “brand” of religion hardly matters to those who use it to gain power.

    4. Re: “normal” – wording too vague on my part. I should have said, “person who prefers nonviolent life, if feasible”, “not a violent psychopath”, “not corrupted into a preference for violence (by training or crowd emotion)”. Most people around the world are normal by this definition – not perfect, not free of violent impulses, not rejoicing in and searching for violence. It may be necessary to use violence to protect a person or community from aggressors, but a “normal” person doesn’t take pleasure in killing or maiming per se without an internal conflict/ sense of repugnance. Most people can be trained to kill without conscious guilt – that’s what military training, assisted by peer pressure, is meant to do – overcome the “natural” reluctance to kill that most humans have before social or military training. Militant religion can assist in the process by providing absolution. All religions can be made into militant versions.

    5. No convincing information concerning the origins of financial and logistical support for the 9/11/01 terrorists was ever made public. The administration talked a lot of BS. It seemed oblivious to the truism that terrorist acts are political tools meant to escalate conflict and generate support. To me it seemed to make sense to deglamorize the terrorists and cool emotions by pursuing a forensic approach – identify and prosecute accessories to the crime, a process which takes time and which would stall the terrorists’ desired escalation of conflict. However, both the terrorists and the administration wanted war, and got it.

    Posted 15 May 2009 at 3:39 am ¶

57. KRJ wrote:

    My two cents. One cannot simply put one’s origins (ie, background), customs or beliefs behind. I am not sure Kanwar is questioning that. We Canadians respect and appreciate different customs and their contribuition to the Canadian society in general. His point, I believe, rather, is that it is when these customs go against our Canadian values (many of which as stated in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms), that our Canadian values (in particular those in that Charter) will always prevail. Immigrants should be well aware of that.

    Posted 15 May 2009 at 8:54 pm ¶

58. Sobia wrote:

    @ KRJ:

    Do you really think immigrants are that clueless? Or do you believe that there are cultural value systems that are inferior to Canada’s? Because that is what Kanwar appears to believe. He appears to believe that somehow Canadian values are superior to those of other cultures/nations. As many here have pointed out, this is especially ironic considering Canada was born out of genocide and theft.

    Posted 15 May 2009 at 10:25 pm ¶

59. KRJ wrote:

    I will repeat myself: as a Canadian, I can only refer back to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If any foreign cultural values go against those stated in the Charter, the Charter prevails here in Canada. Some of our values are equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. Many foreign cultures, as you know, do not acknowledge them. But here in Canada, everyone MUST bind by them REGARDLESS of any foreign values.

    Posted 16 May 2009 at 9:04 am ¶

60. Sobia wrote:

    @KRJ:

    Kanwar says

    “Whoever comes to Canada must learn the limits of our system. We do not kill our daughters or other female members of our families who refuse to wear hijab, niqab or burka which are not mandated by the Qur’an anyway. We do not kill our daughters if they date the “wrong” men. A 17-year-old Sikh girl should not have been killed in British Columbia by her father because she was caught dating a Caucasian man.”

    And which value system is it exactly that says its ok to kill one’s daughter?

    This has nothing to do with value systems not jiving. Kanwar uses criminal behaviour as examples of “foreign” values. These are not value systems. He criminalizes and demonizes “foreign” cultures and claims “Canadian” values to be superior.

    As if “real” Canadians never commit crimes. *rolling eyes*

    Posted 16 May 2009 at 12:23 pm ¶

61. Joseph wrote:

    @NancyP
    It is significant that after going some way to make an–utterly unfounded–argument about Islam all of your subsequent “family values” examples are about self-identified “Christians”: you are making my point. If you live in the Americas you have far more to fear from Christians than any other religious group. Period. When you go out of your way to implicate Muslims in these types of arguments you are acting out of deep-seated Orientalist and Islamophobic fear and hatred. It is an exercise in white privilege and narcissistic Western entitlement. And when you discuss Sharia law you have no idea what you are talking about. So stop doing it, okay?

    Seriously: Saba Mahmood, do yourself a favor and read her.

    PS:
    “non-deferential woman and lesbian” Relax, the big scary Arab does not demand/require/desire your “deference”…

    ::rolls eyes::

    Your virtue is safe.

    @KRJ
    I get all tingly when you repeat yourself.

    Posted 16 May 2009 at 6:50 pm ¶

62. Jehanzeb wrote:

    @ KRJ,

    In other words, it’s not so much about being multiculturally competent than it is about Canada’s “Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” right? It seems like you care more about the system than the actual values.

    It’s offensive how you address us as “immigrants” who need to understand, as if we’re completely alien to Western countries like Canada. What “foreign cultures” are you talking about? You’re stereotyping and only exposing how ignorant you are about culture itself. Culture is not rigid, it’s flexible, adaptive, and changes.

    It sounds like you need to learn more about cultures since you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. If you read the article, you would understand that Mr. Kanwar is essentially saying that Muslim citizens need to be Canadian FIRST and Muslim second. This suggests that Muslims who DON’T consider themselves Canadian first are somehow disloyal to Canada. It’s absolutely absurd that you don’t see that.

    Posted 16 May 2009 at 10:14 pm ¶

63. Ruthie Kelly wrote:

    Agreed on the “Canadian Muslim” bit — he did it backwards. “I am an American Muslim” puts more emphasis on the Muslim than the American, as “I am a Muslim American” puts more emphasis on the American than the Muslim.

    It’s like saying “I am a blue bear.” The blue is not more important than the bear.

    And now I’m imagining Care Bears. Trippy.

    Posted 19 May 2009 at 1:29 pm ¶

64. KRJ wrote:

    I quote Pierre Trudeau: “Reason over passion.” and more appropriately “There is no such thing as a model or ideal Canadian. What could be more absurd than the concept of an “all Canadian” boy or girl? A society which emphasizes uniformity is one which creates intolerance and hate.” It was him who brought us our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    Posted 22 May 2009 at 10:43 am ¶