"Indian film focuses on women in 2002 riot"

This article's title really intrigued me, and it goes without saying that I was definitely going to read it, but my real question was - which women? - Hindu, or Muslim?

The article is a simple news piece, but a real work of genius when you think of how different terms and language have been used.

Take, for example the title itself: "Indian film focuses on women in 2002 riot". The film is most certainly "Indian", yet the "women" in the film he refers to are Muslim - so why not mention that in the title? Instead, we find out only in the second paragraph that the protagonist is Muslim. If the focus of the film is this 23 year old pregnant girl, at least she deserves to be identified as a Muslim - the very reason for the violence she was victim to.

Then, towards the end of the piece, the writer did something I really detest - he called the film a "Hindi" film. Now, i'm pretty sure my criticism is directed appropriately, because many writers do this: they refer to Indian films as Hindi films. Why? I will never know. yet he still goes on to use "Indian" in the title of the article, but "Hindi" in the body. Very interesting!

Usually, what they're trying to say is that it is an Indian film, yet Hindi denotes the language of the film, and those of us familiar with South Asian cinema know all too well that Urdu is used almost always more often than Hindi.

But on that count, I may be mistaken, because the title of the film is kya hum jinda hai? with jinda being the hindi term for an urdu word, zinda - alive.

Anyway, semantics and use of language in unique ways never ceases to amaze me.

Forgive me if I have erred, and do leave comments if this spurs a discussion.

NY Event: Confronting domestic violence in Muslim communities - 3/27

NY Event: NYU Wagner's INTERSECTIONS featuring Irshad Manji - 3/5

NYU Wagner's INTERSECTIONS
with Lesley Stahl, 60 Minutes & CBS News Correspondent

featuring

Irshad Manji, Author of the National Bestseller, "The Trouble with Islam
Today"

Ms. Manji will preview and discuss her new PBS documentary, "Faith without
Fear" which is based upon her national bestseller "The Trouble with Islam
Today". Her film addresses the challenges of being a progressive Muslim
woman and the need to voice her opinion even though it is often met with
fierce opposition.

Book signing and reception to follow.

Monday, March 5, 2007
5 - 6:30 pm
Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service,
New York University
The Puck Building's Skylight Ballroom, 7th Floor
295 Lafayette Street, NY, NY 10012

RSVP online: https://www.nyu.edu/wagner/events/
Space is limited.

Targeting Muslims - the new Inquisition: Article

Wow, what an awesome article. I read it in Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper and have been blown away. I've rarely read anything like this in Western newspapers - alas, probably because it is a critique on Western modernity?

Read on and please spread the word. I would also urge you to send a note of thanks to Bradley Burston, the author, who can be reached at BBurston@Haaretz.co.il

Targeting Muslims - the new Inquisition

_{By Bradley Burston}

Were I a Muslim living in the West, I'd be mad as hell. Not to mention terrified.

Were I a Muslim living in the West, I'd begin to believe that a new Inquisition had begun. An inquisition aimed at no one but Muslims.

Were I a Muslim living in the West, my wife, or my sister, or my daughter might well decide to wear a headscarf or a veil when she went out in public.

Perhaps it would be because she was tired of men and boys ogling her, objectifying her. Perhaps it would be because she felt she was entitled to her dignity. Perhaps she simply might prefer modesty and privacy to fashion slavery.

Perhaps she just thought it was a free country.

And perhaps, on that last point, she would have been mistaken.

For years, and especially since 9/11, law-abiding Muslims have been verbally and physically attacked across North America and Europe. They are scorned for their faith, shunned for their piety, falsely condemned for dual-loyalty, blamed for the crimes of terrorists they abhor.

Of late, however, there has been a disturbing new trend, particularly in Europe, where cabinet ministers and influential lawmakers have increasingly made it their mission to combat, of all things, the head scarf and veil worn by growing numbers of Muslim women and girls.

In Germany, the states of Baden-Wurttenberg and Bavaria recently introduced legislation to outlaw the wearing of head scarves in schools. Bavarian Education Monika Hohlmeier said the head scarf was increasingly being used as a political symbol. To the understandable ire of Muslims, Hohlmeier went on to say that it was acceptable to wear Christian crosses or Jewish symbols. In Spain, home to the original Inquisition, Minister for Social Affairs Juan Carlos Aparicio was quoted as having said that the Muslim veil was "not a religious sign but a form of discrimination against women," and having compared it to genital mutilation. In Britain, the government minister for race and faith relations, Phil Woolas, was quoted this week as demanding that Muslim teaching assistant Aisha Azmi, 24, who refused to remove her veil at work, be fired for that reason. "She should be sacked," Woolas was quoted as telling the Sunday Mirror. "She has put herself in a position where she can't do her job." Azmi worked at the Headfield Church of England junior school in Dewsbury, which took pains to state that her suspension had nothing to do with religion. The scarf issue had already taken center stage when former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, now an MP and Leader of the House of Commons, voiced public objections to the wearing of the niqab, a full-face veil, at face-to-face meetings with his constituents. The national debate has since widened, with David Davis, a top Conservative Party official, taking the anti-veil stance to a new level. ''What Jack touched on was the fundamental issue of whether in Britain we are developing a divided society,'' Davis said. ''Whether we are inadvertently encouraging a kind of voluntary apartheid.'' The anti-veil arguments dovetail with a parallel campaign, which takes as its premise the concept that Islam itself renders its adherents incapable of integrating into Western societies. "If you are going to have Islamic schools, the question is whether they are going to embrace Western values," Patrick Sookhdeo, a Pakistan-born Anglican priest in England who converted from Islam, told the New York Times this month. "I would argue that Islamic values are not compatible with Western values," he said. And what Western values might these be? Are they the time-honored Western values of intolerance for people of color, suspicion and marginalization of non-Christians, fear and loathing of non-Whites? Exploitation of and contempt for the residents of former imperial possessions and colonies? At this point, there will be a pause for the springloaded Islamophobes among us to suggest that it is any society's right and duty to protect itself against elements that may foment terrorism. There will be those who will argue that the veil may both mask and encourage extremism. Perhaps it is time for us in the Western world to declare that Islam has a right to exist. Perhaps it is time for us to recognize that non-violent, non-Judeo-Christian religious observance is a right, not an act of war. Scarves don't explode. Veils do not kill. The niqab does not incite. It takes courage to wear the veil in the West. Certainly, no one should be forced to wear it against her will. But those who do so voluntarily, have chosen to brave ridicule, and perhaps to risk their own livelihood. They have made a choice for self-respect, in the face of all that is vacuous in contemporary Western civilization, where the worship of the superficial has taken on the potency and universality of a state religion. We in the West have allowed the veil to become the symbol of all that we do not know and do not trust about Islam. In the Age of Paris Hilton, however, the West desperately needs women who devote themselves to serious pursuits, to the betterment of society, women who believe that self-esteem and dignity are worthy values. If they choose to wear a veil, and we take offense, that is wholly our problem. We have no business making it theirs.