Critical Storm Over Halal TV
“Critical storm before the program begins” the headline reads, and that, it seems to me, is exactly what happens whenever a head-scarf wearing Muslim woman makes up her little hijabied head to step into the public sphere, the limelight, the media, and presume to take on a role that contradicts the cherished stereotype of the “quiet Muslim wife”. It was what happened over Asma Abdul Hamid, the first hijab-clad presenter on Danish TV, and it is also what has happened now that SVT has decided that Dalia Azzam Kasseem, Kadiga El-Khabiry and Cherin Awad should be the presenters, or to use the less contentious words of the project leader, the “main characters” of Halal TV.
This critical storm response seems a little contradictory, considering the very many efforts exerted to encourage the supposedly too-secluded and sequestered veiled Muslim woman to step out of the private enclosure of her home. It is not, however, as strange as it seems, because in most cases, the criticism focuses not at all on that much-discussed creature, the Muslim Woman, but rather on the effect she will have on others, should she appear on TV.
For example: Dilsa Demirbag-Steen compares Halal TV to letting three Nazis write the script of a documentary, or letting a priest present it. Basically, ‘veiled’ women come with their agendas wrapped round their heads and she wants her TV visually agenda-less.
I’m not so unbalanced that I will not admit her point of view is convincing, though in this particular instance a very little bit offensively phrased. However, it is a point of view that comes with assumptions attached. Demirbag-Steen evidently feels that everyone everywhere will share her own opinion on what kind of people are presenter-material and that everyone everywhere will react to the same type of person as obviously neutral.
Except, I would argue that in doing so, they would only be reacting to a carefully modulated appearance in keeping with the latest memo on how to look neutral – that is, as western, secular and uniform as possible.
But of course, like the colour white, to be western/secular is a point of invisibility. The key words here are conforming and assimilation, and that type of multiculturalism seen exclusively from the melting-pot, subsume-all-difference into WASP-equivalence angle.
Veiled women, unlike “ethnic” dress or pink hair, are especially galling because, in addition to looking so full of hidden agendas and secret plots and covered hair, they obliquely commit that worst of atrocities in a postmodern world. They announce that they believe they have found the truth. That is, you can identify their religion, as well as their skin colour, just by looking at them. This is apparently offensive, to some.
Because, as Luis Bunel said: “I would give my life for a man who is looking for the truth. But I would gladly kill a man who thinks that he has found the truth” – a sentiment he shares with the executioners of Al Hallaj, who in 922 announced: ana/ara alhaq, I am/I see the Truth, and was promptly despatched for this outrageoust presumption.
There’s just no escaping the glorification of doubt, the popularity of forever questing and questioning. I have nothing to say against that. That’s fine. Although it seems to me that “to choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation”, I like the open-minded open-endedness doubt-glorification aspires to as much as I like to quote Life of Pi.
Seriously though, if in a postmodern world all truths are equal, why can’t a discipline of one particular truth be a TV presenter? Why kick up such a fuss over a woman whose religion you can identify appearing onscreen? Over, basically, a piece of cloth?
The critical storm has, as usual, shoved the attention away from the subject to the object. Halal TV is supposed to take up questions of equality and immigration. Not, or not exclusively, hijab. The three headscarf-clad presenters say, as they always say, that they are weary of negativity and want to change things. Just as this show seeks to make use of the shock value of three headscarf-clad women with “orthodox” Islamic values as presenters, the three headscarf-clad women seek to make use of the opportunity the show gives them to speak for themselves, and perhaps, alter misconceptions.
It doesn’t seem they have much of a chance, judging from this article, which begins with Demirbag-Steen’s full scale Nazi-comparison attack, mentions a worried woman who says that she “fled from this sort of thing in Iran” and demands the presenters tell her why Muslim women inherit less than men. The article ends disappointingly with the defensive project leader muttering that he honestly fully understands those who have “grim experiences of Islam”, but that he also thinks people should be “allowed to say they think Islam is good”. Note the “should be allowed to say they think.” Now that’s neutrality.
Join the Conversation
Very well observed and eloquently written, Tasneem
There are symbols, and then there are the realities behind the symbols. And sometimes, the symbols are so heavily laden with meaning, that they create their own realities.
The hijab, in this paranoid world of ours, has come to represent, at least in some circles, a lot more than a cultural norm. And people the world over will ascribe to it the meaning that relates to their experiences, and their prejudices.
So do we make everyone look the same? Is that the answer? Or do we teach and condition people to ascribe a bit less meaning to appearance? Do we impose culural neutrlality? Or do we come to tolerate and accept one another on the basis of cultural diversity?
Hopefully, the election of Barack Obama, and others like him, will convince us that it is possible to break free of some of the stereotypes, and to accept people for who they are, as opposed to what they look like.
I live in Sweden and I am fed up with Muslim immigrants who come here to get rich, while not trying the slightest to integrate and be productive citizens.
How do these extremists expect to get a job, other than as Muslim alibis, when they advocate stoning for unfaithful (women) and can’t even accept shaking hands with men? No doubt these women will end up marrying their cousins.
My question to all of you cultural relativist is: what do we, the people of Sweden, get in return by these people, after giving them almost everything?
Also, I would like to know, why doesn’t the author, who is from Libya, criticize the intolerance against everything non-Muslim that exist in his own country? Why point fingers at others?
I live in the Gulf and am equally fed up with Europeans who do that. This is a worldwide issue and is far from being Muslim-specific, much to your dismay.
What is “everything?” Stereotypical insults? The “extremists” you speak of are an extreme minority, if that is how you think of the majority of Muslims then your perceptions are seriously flawed.
Are you sincerely that daft? This has nothing to do with Libya and if you had an actual, intelligent refutation to the article and subject in question then you wouldn’t have to resort to such irrelevant stereotypical nonsense. What a shame, to see certain people in Sweden that are this dim and seemingly racist.
There is a big difference between Europeans coming to the Mideast to do business and Arabs coming to Europe to get welfare, and I think you know that. Libya would be dirt poor without Europe.
Also, we gave these tv-hosts “almost everything”. Social security, education, health care, even education in their own language if they choose. Sweden has public spending close to 50 % of GDP. That means you also have to give back. And to give back you must integrate. To you “almost everything” may be “stereotypical insults”, but I prefer to call a spade a spade.
Then, if you had done your homework, you would know that by “these extremists” i mean the tv-hosts, not all Muslims. These hosts won’t shake hand etc. I have seen and know of plenty of Muslims that have adapted well. Not these girls though.
You seem to throw around epithets like “stereotypical” and “racist” a lot in your writings, but “racist” applies well to the Mideast as well, as do “intolerant”. With so much intolerance and racism close by, why care about reactions to a tv-show in a peripheral country close to the North pole?
Economically it may be different. But in terms of our discomfort and their lack of consideration for our own social norms, then no. You’re not morally or culturally superior to the rest of us.
Do you really love these girls enough to throw such a hissy fit simply because they don’t wish to shake hands? It’s their personal choice. In what ways are they “extremists?” Do they incite violence on their TV program? Promote hatred in Swedish society?
Your poor implication then is that it’s somewhat improper to criticize anything and anyone but ourselves, which is quite illogical and shallow. If I’m not wrong, the author of this post has spent some time in Sweden as a student. That makes her entirely relevant to the situation at hand and whatever criticism she may have, she has a right to express. You just have to grow up and accept that instead of throwing a tantrum everytime someone you seemingly hate (like those nasty extremist Muslims hosts right?) or a regional blogger says something you don’t agree with.
Esra, what do you expect from us? If people come here to share our richness but won’t integrate and thus become a burden, are we supposed to just smile and accept that? I am not talking about a cultural problem, although culture is clearly involved; I’m talking in terms of money.
There are plenty of immigrant groups in Sweden whom integrate well: Asians, Jews, Latin Americans, other Europeans and oh yes plenty of Muslims too. Yet some Muslims, like these tv-hosts, just seem too proud and arrogant to be useful. They typically cluster in isolated areas, where they live out of social security, their women wear head scarfs and more often than not loathes the society that supports them, which they consider inferior to Islam.
I certainly considers these people “extremists”. The fact that you think one must incite violence and promote hatred to be considered an extremist just shows your scale of measurement is off.
Of course, Sweden is partly to blame; after all we took them in and enabled them to live separated from the rest of society, by massive welfare spending.
—
One must be able to adapt and bend ones cultural norms, and pride, enough to fit in. Unfortunately, relativism, as manifested in the ideology of multiculturalism and political correctness, give legitimacy to separatism by claiming all cultures are just as good, and that not shaking hands or refuse to take part of compulsory education is OK when backed by a “culture”.
I’m not claiming my own culture is without faults, but the culture in Europe, the West and most of the rest of the world actually, has been adapted to a modern way of living and to modern capitalism. Hence it has few taboos. In this respect it is “superior” to a culture that is unable to question a word of something that was written in the 7th century, and as result is dying.
However well observed and eloquently written your text may be. It is, for all relevant purposes, wrong. I do not disagree with your general reasoning concerning veiled women in the media or public sphere but the finer points of the debate seems to have been lost on you.
The central swedish debate has never been about weather the women should be allowed to wear the hijab on tv. It has been regarding the views expressed by the women. They have in certain cases expressed quite extremist views (one of them supports stoning of women etc) and the debate has mainly focused on this.
These are views that most muslims do not share and many debaters have questioned weather three persons (not women, persons) with quite extreme views should be allowed to set the agenda and talk for the entire muslim population of Sweden. What good will it do?
To play the discrimination card to get out of having your beliefs challenged or explaining what you mean when endorsing stoning should never be an option. Women wearing hijab should be given the same rights as everyone else but the hijab is not something to blame when someone questions your opinions.
Gäsper Trött,
First, I’m not a guy. Second, I’m not pointing fingers. I read an article, and happened to disagree with the points made. I wasn’t aware that to criticize one thing, I first have to criticize something else.
If I was talking about Sweden as a country – well, it is the most tolerant country I’ve ever lived in. But I don’t think that means I have to agree with every metro article I read.
As for the “intolerance against everything non-Muslim” in my own country…I don’t agree with that ‘everything’. It would be slightly odd if I did, since my mother was given her name by an Italian nun who currently lies buried in a Muslim cemetery in Darnah. Also, I lived for a while in Tobruk in a compound with a church but no mosque, a great many Filipinos, even more Ukrainians and five nuns who hung silk hand fans on trees and were chauffeured everywhere.
Libya does have its share of racism and prejudice, which I have, do and will criticize. But my post was not about Libya, and prefacing every post with an appeasing blanket statement just isn’t my thing.
The habits and habitats of the un-integrated Muslim woman. Impressive. You remind me of a debate between Lord Ahmed and a veiled woman. He accused her of being one of those un-assimilated women who buy their goods at Pakistani corner shops. The woman replied that as far as she knew Sainsbury’s was more Jewish than Pakistani.
You also illustrate one of my points. “They cluster in isolated areas,” and they’re condemned for it. They step out of the isolated areas into the media, and Dilsa Demirbag-Sten and Marcus Svensson recoil in horror.
Why the scare quotes? And the euphemistic language of integration? Adapt, bend, fit in….I see no need for it. You’ve already stated a) that immigrants should adopt the norms of the dominant culture and b) that this culture is superior.
I can only admire the be-like-us-or-else mentality of benevolent assimilation for its longevity.
Amr,
Interesting viewpoint. I’m afraid I don’t share it. It has something to do with that word ‘beslöjad’. It’s sort of hard to ignore when it keeps cropping up in every other paragragh, you see.
The presenters extreme views are for some reason not mentioned as often, and so I only read about that side of it recently. That is, I read about the stoning comment, which I think was something one of them had said quite a few years ago, and subsequently backed away from.
Just to clarify – I do not agree with everything they’ve said. I thought the idea of the show interesting. I’ve watched the class episode, which was so-so. When I wrote the above post I hadn’t seen any other episodes, or read the stoning comment.
Do they speak for the entire Muslim population of Sweden? I don’t think they have claimed to be representative. In fact they go out of their way to say they can not represent anyone other than themselves.
Not that that makes a difference when you’re fighting a losing battle against that old assumption that one person of an ethnic minority can speak for the entire community. The same old assumption Kobena Mercer has argued is based on the racist idea that “every minority subject is effectively the same.”
The aspect being ignored here is that this is merely the latest chapter in a pretty long running debate in Sweden regarding how muslims are portrayed in the media and what kind (or interpretation) of islam is being put forward.
Even if these “main characters” does not claim to be speaking for the muslim population of Sweden it does not change the fact that this is exactly how they are percieved. Your own reaction confirms this. No other swedish television shows are discussed on Mideast Youth today. I mean… Even the very name of the show…
At risk of going a bit off topic I must say that most muslims I know are pretty shocked by this whole thing. No one I know wants a certain tv-show that is muslim. They want muslims to take part in any kind of swedish television. Do you see the difference?
I am personally looking forward to muslim perspective in regular swedish tv. Not having three people, with views that neither I or anyone I know share, to define what is “Halal”. They are merely being used as an alibi to keep muslims out of “regular tv”. When a newsreader is wearing the hijab there will no longer be any need for a certain show that is “Halal”.
You’re right, it doesn’t. That is why I feel it makes more sense to question the notion that three people from a minority group can represent that group, than to list the reasons why these particular three don’t – (they’re all women, they all wear headscarves, they come from similar backgrounds…)
The inappropriateness of the name is the only thing everyone seems to agree on!
Yes. Unsurprisingly, it is what I would like to see as well. Halal-TV is hardly my ideal example of Muslims stepping into the media.
On the other hand, it often seems like regular programs with Muslim “main characters” cease to be “regular” and are perceived to be, in one way or another, solely *about* Islam, or Islam and women, or Islam and the West…
I do not feel that Halal-TV is a “regular” swedish program that for some obscure reason cease to be “regular” tv. This is a very calculated approach by the people at the network. The people behind it never intended it to be a “regular” program nor do they want it to be. They want it to be Halal. Period.
But I guess we at least agree on what the problem is. It seems we only disagree on weather Halal-TV is the perfect solution to this problem or not. I strongly feel it isn’t.
For many reasons I guess. One is that there(in Sweden) have been a few examples of media coverage that has not had these downsides (as I percieve them). It is surely not enough but they at least have been steps in the right direction. Something I do not believe that Halal-TV is.
Tasnim,
Your Jews were forced to flee. Converting from Islam is illegal. All Churches except two were confiscated in 1969; the biggest one turned into a Mosque. That may explain why that nun ended up in a Muslim cemetery in a city that produces suicide bombers en masse. Sure, your society is not COMPLETELY intolerant, but almost.
We have an expression you may have heard ‘på svenska’: “filtering mosquitoes and eating camels”. Considering how repressive Libya is, why bother about Sweden? I think I now why: because you care more about Muslims in Sweden than Christians in Libya.
Then I didn’t use any euphemism for integration. “Integration” is the euphemism. My words were neutral and descriptive though maybe unusual, since euphemisms is the norm in Swedish discourse.
Now, I’m no expert on non-integrated Muslims, but I have observed a few culture clashes in real life, and I do listen to what Muslim leaders in Sweden say publicly. E.g., leading Muslims in Sweden want sharia law. They claim it isn’t okay for a Muslim woman to marry an infidel. They want special schools and want to protect Islam from criticism by infringing freedom of speech.
I’ve seen first hand the lack of respect some Muslims have for our schools, not respecting women teachers, refusing to learn about other religions, about evolution. If one looks at people receiving social security, most are foreigners out of which an overwhelming majority is from the Mideast.
The extremists of Halal-tv represents a lot of these problems. They won’t integrate, won’t shake hands, won’t adapt their dress code. You can bet they won’t marry non-Muslim men either. Why is it strange people have negative views on them?
I agree.
Silly statement that doesn’t apply here. Everyone has a right to criticize anything they want regardless of their background, especially if it’s so irrelevant (as is the case here.) This article and its implications doesn’t say anything about Tasnim’s thoughts concerning Libya’s Jews and Christians, which you yourself could probably care less about. So why bring it up? Because you have no other intelligent refutation, so you typically resort to irrelevant remarks and what sounds like petty racism to me.
Esra,
You can scream racism all you want and you’d better do that, since you doesn’t seem to have any arguments left.
My argument, seeing as I must repeat myself:
Now you can refute it. A person’s nationality doesn’t limit them from what they can and cannot criticize.
Gäsper,
“you doesn’t seem to have any arguments left.”
You need to learn some English, I know it is hard but maybe while you complain about Muslims in Sweden and how they’ve ruined everything you can fit this in your very, very busy schedule.
We are clearly off topic when we discuss my occasional broken English and you accuse me of being racist. I won’t continue this discussion. The level is too low, sorry.
That’s not what I said. Maybe I wasn’t clear, though I did say ‘on the other hand’…
What I meant was, programs that do make an effort to be ‘regular’ are still perceived to be just about Islam. Halal TV, from its name on, starts off from the “three Muslim women in Sweden” angle, emphasis on ‘Muslim women’. Even though the three have very different opinions.
I agree that this makes the program a little like a women’s section in a newspaper, hemmed in by its own issues rather than part of the public arena of ‘real’ news, investigative reporting, politics, and the whole wide world.
But I still feel that, whatever the program was like, the emphasis would have been on the presenters’ religion and the piece of cloth on their heads. As well as whether or not they had managed to shed the habits native to their native habitat and become indistinguishable from the host population.
Gäsper Trött, I’m in no way arguing my country is the epitome of tolerance, but there really are more churches there than wikipedia will tell you, the nun was buried in the Muslim cemetery per her request, and I don’t agree with what was done to the Jews. I’m very much for the idea of the compensation plan and giving Libyan Jews their right of return.
Is it your opinion that, given how repressive Libya is, Libyans should never talk about anything but how repressive Libya is? Because that seems almost…dare I say…repressive? Not to mention, tedious, repetitive and intensely depressing…
I don’t feel I need to justify writing about representations of Muslim women, beyond ‘it’s something that interests me’.
Globalization and Capitalism… you bitch and complaining about immigrants coming to your country has a lot to do with this. In that case can you please take your fucking IKEA from my neighbourhood? Please I mean you fucking leeches put our small furniture stores out of business. Get the fuck off of my country. Same goes for all you Swedish immigrants who just come here for jobs and don’t even want to become citizens and hardly pay the tax.
If you want to prevent Muslim immigrants then go back to your crypto-nazi era and isolate yourselves.
Stick to the topic at hand. When someone writes an article about Libya then talk about it, now its about Sweden so use what you learnt in grade 9 critical thinking class and apply it here or is Sweden one of them backward European countries that has an education system equal to that of a Muslim country?
Even though I feel the tone of the thread is going a bit out of hand I will make another try. Tasnim, you make a valid point about how muslim women are generally percieved in the media. No disagreement there.
However, my point remains that this doesn’t really apply here. Because Halal-tv is an attempt to exploit the way muslim women are percieved rather than trying to remedy the problem.
Actually, I never intended to be drawn into a debate about the program itself but originally commented about your description of the debate in Sweden, a description I did not recognize or in any way felt relevant to my own personal experiences.
I feel that when commenting on a debate one should look at the context of the debate, not focusing on some aspect of it and ignoring others. I may agree with the strange use of the word “beslöjad” in the Metro article but these approx 200 words should not, and cannot, be used as representative for this whole debate.
At the risk of sounding extremely big-headed, I’ll quote myself:
“this show seeks to make use of the shock value of three headscarf-clad women with ‘orthodox’ Islamic values as presenters”
But at the same time, I’d argue that the presenters could have made better use of the opportunity the show gave them to speak for themselves.
I think this is where we’ll have to agree to disagree. I wouldn’t call the use of the word “beslöjad” in the Metro article strange, because the same word was used in every other article I read. I feel that this is a major part of the debate in Sweden – a natural and inevitable, but still major, part.
Well, maybe we indeed have to agree to disagree on the issue of weather this global debate on who is allowed to use the massmedia to convey information and values is all about a single word (beslöjad). But the obvious contradictions still gnaws on me so I will make a final statement and then lay this thing to rest.
If you indeed feel that these women are being used (your word) to cause shock (again, your word). Why are you still surprised that these women indeed shock people?
I just want to say, again, that these women are being used to project an image. The fact that these women are veiled is not a fortunate coincidence that has happened to cause debate. Neither is the name of the show… That the issue of debate is not the actual show but indeed how it has been marketed is evident even in the headline of your first post.
These women have been hand picked to project a certain image and to serve a commercial need without really adressing any of the problems that muslim women (or any muslims, or any women) face.
Regardles of the words used in the articles to highlight this fact (beslöjad), this is how I’ve percieved the debate. Demirbag-Steen is not all of Sweden just as Cherin Awad isn’t every veiled muslim woman in Sweden. Taking the words of one person to make assumptions on the views of the whole group? Well, there you have it…
I think we both know this debate is bigger than a single word. I’d like to remind you however, that ‘the word’, which I’m now kind of sick of, was brought up in response to your argument that this debate has never been about “hijab on tv”. Because I think it sort of is. Other than that, I believe we have no disagreement.
I’m not. Surprised, that is. I believe that distinct lack of surprise was the topic of the very first paragraph of my post.
Fortunately, and thank god.
Which person and what group? My own final statement: My post, so far as it was about any one thing, was about the supposed threat Muslim women presenters pose towards neutrality. I don’t think that in the process I’ve implied that Demirbag-Steen is spokesperson for Sweden, or that Awad is an envoy for Muslim women.
Pingback: Confusion At Halal-TV – Inside Islam