Women need to play a role in ‘restoring’ Saudi Islam: Sheema Khan

Sheema Khan challenges the patriarchy (and the Friedman puff piece on MBS):

In a wide-ranging interview with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, Saudi Arabia’s Prince Mohammed bin Salman (a.k.a. “MBS”) discussed, among other topics, the recent anti-corruption drive and liberalization of Saudi society. Call it a kinder, gentler form of authoritarianism – with a progressive touch. Notably, MBS refused to address his country’s interference in Lebanese politics or its unconscionable scorched-earth policy in Yemen.

Nonetheless, Mr. Friedman was effusive of MBS’s plans to veer Saudi Islam to a “moderate, balanced Islam that is open to the world and to all religions and all traditions and peoples.” The Prince calls it a “restoration” of the faith to its origins – namely the Prophetic period in the early 7th century. This has the potential to reverse the puritanical strain (Wahhabism) currently at the heart of Saudi society, where, for example, a woman is under male guardianship from cradle to grave.

The late Sunni scholar Abdul Halim Abu Shaqqa chronicled in his comprehensive study of the Koran and authentic traditions of Prophet Muhammad, Muslim women were far more engaged in society during the Prophetic era. They had more rights and opportunities to build a vibrant society, in partnership with men, than many contemporary Muslim cultures (including Saudi Arabia).

Mr. Friedman believes this “restoration” project “would drive moderation across the Muslim world.” In fact, most of the Muslim world has soundly rejected Wahhabism. Yet, the deeply entrenched patriarchy of Saudi society finds parallels in many Muslim countries.

While MBS has promised to grant Saudi women more liberty, his top-down approach towards “restoration” of Islam raises a number of questions.

Will the man who allowed women to drive, allow them a place to drive the “restoration” as well? Or will it be a vehicle steered exclusively by men, with women seated as passengers, while men alone navigate women’s role in society?

Women’s voices and perspectives will be essential if there is to be any meaningful reform of contemporary Muslim cultural practices.

In her groundbreaking book “Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition,” UBC Professor Ayesha Chaudhry makes it abundantly clear that the “Islamic tradition” – beginning a few centuries after the Prophetic era to the precolonial era – reflected worldwide patriarchy of the times. The hierarchical paradigm was unambiguous: God (or Allah) at the top, followed by men below, then by women subordinate to men and finally slaves below women. This view shaped pretty much all religious discourse – from Koranic exegesis to Islamic jurisprudence.

Ismail ibn Kathir, a 14th-century Sunni scholar whose works still carry great influence, was unequivocal. “The man is better than the woman,” he wrote in his authoritative commentary of the Quran. By no means was he alone. Prof. Chaudry’s meticulous research shows how devastating this paradigm was in relation to domestic violence. All Sunni scholars and jurists advocated beating a “recalcitrant” wife – specifying when, how often, where on her body, with either one’s fists or a sturdy object, and so on. The Hanafi school of jurisprudence was the harshest, allowing a husband the leeway to beat his wife as he saw fit, so long as he didn’t kill her. The book is a painful read, but should be read by those interested in reform.

The problem is that much of this patriarchal Islamic tradition – developed by male medieval scholars – is still taught uncritically in many Muslim seminaries and reflected in a number of Muslim cultures, where male privilege reigns.

Muslims must take a critical look at this tradition in light of contemporary norms. Like Abo Shaqqa, Prof. Chaudhry points out the obvious: Domestic violence advocates were/are unable to reconcile the fact that the model for all Muslims, Prophet Muhammad, never once raised his hand. He rebuked those who did.

The postcolonial period had ushered in a more egalitarian view, in which men and women are on the same moral plane before God. However, this approach has had uneven acceptance. Very rarely will men give up their privileged position to be on equal footing with women.

Yet Muslim women still insist on gender justice. Contemporary female Muslim scholars, such as Prof. Chaudhry, Amina Wadud, Asma Barlas, Ziba Mir-Hosseini and Asma Lamrabet, have challenged patriarchal interpretations of the Koran, thereby providing women with exegetical tools to confront male privilege rooted in theology.

Elsewhere, Muslim women in India are challenging the patriarchy entrenched in Muslim institutions, through education and legal reform. There are now female judges to solemnize marriages and adjudicate divorces, thereby restoring balance to proceedings which were exclusively presided by men.

If MBS really wants to return to a “moderate, balanced” Islam, he must include the perspectives of women on equal footing.

Anything less will be a whitewash.

via Women need to play a role in ‘restoring’ Saudi Islam – The Globe and Mail


Why we need a parliamentary motion to fight Islamophobia: Farber and Sucharov

Very good column by Bernie Farber and Mira Sucharov:

There are times when one community within the Canadian mosaic experiences particular trauma such that succor is in order. Today, that community is Canadian Muslims. MP Iqra Khalid knew this when she proposed M-103, a private member’s motion designed to fight Islamophobia. Now, the parliamentary hearings flowing from M-103’s recommendations provide all Canadians with an opportunity to stand up to Islamophobia.

No one understands this situation better than Canadian Jews. There was a time in this country where Jews were unwelcome, seen as swarthy crooks and objects of suspicion. Attitudes softened somewhat after it became clear that such bigotry — through shameful episodes like the banning of the M.S. St. Louis — had led Canada to be complicit in the Nazi genocide of six million Jewish men, women and children.

But discrimination against Jews in Canada continued. Until the Canadian Jewish Congress challenged it in court in the early 1950s, Jews were often barred from purchasing land. Employers discriminated against applicants with Jewish-sounding names. Some resorts and country clubs kept their doors closed to Jews, and Jewish doctors were banned from practicing in some hospitals. And into the 1960s, there were strict quotas placed on the number of Jews allowed into universities.

While anti-semitism remains a scourge worldwide, in Canada it now hovers along the edges of society. Not so Islamophobia which is, unfortunately, front and centre.

With the horrific mosque attack in Quebec City last January, Canadian Muslims now have the tragic distinction of being the only people in the country’s history to have been gunned down in their house of worship. Incredibly, in the weeks following, anti-Islam protests took place across downtown Toronto. And two months after the massacre, a protestor ripped up and stomped on a Koran at a Peel District school board meeting.

And then there are the quiet prejudicial attitudes. A 2017 poll revealed that only 4 per cent of Canadians would find it “unacceptable” for their son or daughter to marry a Christian. That number jumps to 32 per cent when the hypothetical betrothed is Muslim.

M-103 follows in the tradition of supporting particular targeted groups as needed. But that support has sometimes come decades too late. In fact, it wasn’t until 2015 that a parliamentary motion was passed unanimously decrying anti-semitism. What’s more, unlike the anti-semitism motion, the text of M-103 is fully inclusive. Not only does it condemn Islamophobia, it points to the need to oppose “all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”

Yet critics of the motion continue to air doubts that opposing Islamophobia is worthy of Canada’s attention. In a briefing note to the parliamentary committee tasked with reviewing the motion’s recommendations, retired Canadian Forces major Russ Cooper has expressed concern that the motion will trample free speech.

Similarly, Jay Cameron of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms warns that if “M-103 is legislatively codified, the unconstitutional infringement of freedom of thought, belief, expression and religion is inevitable.”

And Father Raymond De Sousa told the hearing that “to focus on one religion alone, as M-103 suggests, would be unwise.”

All these arguments are red herrings. M-103 does nothing to change the Criminal Code. Canada’s strong speech protections remain in place. And neither does M-103 restrict anti-bigotry to one religion. Its language, as we’ve stressed above, is fully inclusive.

As Canadian Jews we understand the need for memory. With the legacy of Jewish suffering, it has become an article of faith to commemorate persecution. What we’re seeing here, sadly, is that when it comes to oppression of Canadian Muslims, there are too many attempts by too many Canadians to forget. M-103 is an attempt to resist this collective amnesia.

When it comes to Islamophobia, we fear that too many of the testimonies at the hearings to date, coupled with the many Canadians who said they would have voted against the motion, reveal the scope of the very problem the critics are claiming does not exist.

Source: Why we need a parliamentary motion to fight Islamophobia | Toronto Star

Sheema Khan’s on the limitations of the Runnymede Trust definition and the strengths of its framework:

For the past few weeks, the House of Commons Heritage Committee has been holding public consultations regarding Motion M-103.

Appearing before the Committee at the outset, M-103 sponsor Liberal MP Iqra Khalid emphasized the need for a comprehensive study of Canadians affected by racism and religious discrimination. She spoke eloquently about the painful experiences of individuals affected by prejudice and hatred, and the need for a systematic analysis of data (as required by M-103) to combat forces that are corroding our social fabric.

These are laudable goals that should be supported by all Canadians.

However, an uproar ensued when M-103 was initially tabled, because of the inclusion of the term “Islamophobia” in the motion. There were concerns about the imposition of Sharia Law, a chill on free speech, and special protection granted to Islam. Ms. Khalid received a torrent of hate mail, including death threats. Some argued that the reaction itself was proof of widespread Islamophobia.

And yet, as the Committee has heard, no one really has a handle on the term. Many definitions exist, with widely differing breadths and scopes. Ms. Khalid’s definition: “the irrational fear of Islam and/or Muslims that leads to discrimination” is the most succinct. However, this needs to be balanced by the right to criticize and question.

The term gained currency following the 1997 report on British Muslims, entitled “Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All” issued by the Runnymede Trust, a respected British think-tank. In it, Islamophobia was defined as “unfounded hostility towards Islam, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims.”

The report, however, went further, by equating Islamophobia with “closed views” on Islam in eight different categories. These include Islam seen as monolithic; the “other” with no commonality with Western culture; inferior (i.e. barbaric, irrational and sexist); an enemy; and a deceitful ideology bent on political/military domination. Such closed views reject any criticism of the West by Islam, defend discrimination of Muslims, and see Islamophobia as natural. For good measure, “open views” include seeing Islam as diverse with internal debates; having shared values with other faiths; a faith worthy of respect; and a partner in the solution of shared problems.

Such a binary categorization of opinions of Islam is problematic, and was recently recognized as such by the editor of the report. However, since the term is here to stay, the Heritage Committee should devise a precise definition.

Questions and criticism about Islam are not Islamophobia. In fact, Muslims themselves engage in robust debates about modernity and Islamic practice. The cruel irony is that such debates are banned in countries that need it most.

The Heritage Committee must be careful to define Islamophobia, lest it chill the free exchange of opinions. For example, a recent online survey found that 88 per cent of Canadians believe Muslims should be treated no differently than their fellow Canadians, while 72 per cent are worried that hatred and fear of Canadian Muslims is on the rise.

Yet 56 per cent believe that “Islam suppresses women’s rights.” Are they Islamophobic? Of course not. They are entitled to their opinion. Such a critical view is understandable, given discriminatory gender practices in some Muslim cultures. Furthermore, subordination of women is often justified by theology. We need to be able to have frank discussions without the fear of being branded an “Islamophobe.”

A balance must be found between protection of free speech and protection from bigotry and hatred.

In spite of its clumsy definition of Islamophobia, The Runnymede report provides an excellent framework for identifying its deleterious effects in four areas: exclusion (from politics, employment, management); violence; discrimination (in employment and provision of services); and prejudice (in media and conversation).

In fact, this framework can be applied to comprehensive data collection and analysis for all types of racism and discrimination – which just happens to be the stated goal of the Committee.

Source: We must define Islamophobia by what it truly is – The Globe and Mail

How the Muslim community can tackle the scourge of extremism: Sheema Khan

Her latest op-ed and usual sensible suggestions and recommendations:

In the elusive search for clues on radicalization, there are meaningful steps that Muslim communities can take toward addressing this scourge.

There should be “safe” spaces available for Muslim youth to discuss their concerns and passion for justice, in the company of those with sound knowledge of Islamic teachings. Rather than the traditional one-way lecture, there should be round tables in which topics are discussed frankly in context with normative Islamic principles. Currently, most Muslim institutions shy away from such discussions, for fear of being accused of fomenting extremism. Local organizations can sponsor a screening of Tug of War, a short Canadian indie film that boldly tackles this topic.

Grassroots initiatives that teach resiliency to Muslim youth must be developed. Since Canada opened the doors of immigration, a plethora of ethno-religious groups have experienced racism. Yet, such groups have found the resiliency to survive and thrive.

Muslims have deep resources within their faith about dealing with hostility through patience, principled justice and forgiveness. They can also use valuable anti-racism tools developed by civil society. For example, the National Council of Canadian Muslims plays a key role by empowering Muslims to address xenophobia through engagement with civil institutions.

Mentorship will also play a key role in helping youth to integrate. There are many Muslim professionals, entrepreneurs, artists and activists who have faced challenges and succeeded. Their experiences are invaluable for the coming generation. We need forums where such knowledge can be shared and mentoring partnerships established.

Civic engagement is the key to non-violent activism. Whether the focus is local justice or foreign policy, there needs to be further education about the role of NGOs, government institutions and one’s responsibility in the democratic process. The 2015 federal election prompted many Muslims to initiate grassroots campaigns for political engagement. As an example, The Canadian-Muslim Vote provides regular updates about House deliberations, along with interviews of MPs.

Perhaps the most difficult, yet necessary, component is to ask some tough questions. Why is it that a small minority of Sunni Muslim youth is latching on to a death cult? How are the teachings of Islam being twisted to appeal to a hateful, morally bankrupt mindset? Why are appeals to basic morality (e.g., forbiddance of murder and suicide) failing?

Finally, those espousing violence must be reported to the authorities. Friends, family and mosque congregants had warned police about Mr. Abedi’s extremist views – without success. This means we must all try harder to prevent the next incident.

Source: How the Muslim community can tackle the scourge of extremism – The Globe and Mail

Cultural sensitivities must never override gender equality: Khan

Another good piece by Sheema Khan:

While these attitudes have been ingrained for centuries elsewhere, one would think that migrating to a land where gender equality is emphasized would lead to a change of heart. Apparently, more needs to be done to uproot customs that have been transplanted here. Efforts must come from both within and without affected communities.

We need honest public conversations about these difficult topics. Multicultural sensitivities should never override gender equality, nor should they censor the expression of strong opinions. Let it be said: Both sets of cultural practices are, well, barbaric. They have no place here (or in fact, anywhere). Not only are they “un-Canadian,” they are inhuman.

Government policy is also a necessary tool to combat discriminatory practices.

While Canada has legislation against the practice of FGM, there are no laws that prosecute parents who send their daughters abroad to have the procedure done. In contrast, France and the United States have outlawed “FGM tourism.” It is time for Canada to follow their lead.

And while Ottawa has moved to address FGM, our governments have failed to address female feticide. They ignored the call by Dr. Rajendra Kale, in 2012, to ban disclosure of the sex of a fetus until 30 weeks (after which point an abortion is difficult). South Korea banned such disclosures in 1988, helping to reverse gender imbalance.

Finally, there can be no change unless there is opposition within communities. There will be pressure to circle the wagons in wake of negative media coverage. I still remember an Ottawa community leader telling a local congregation, following the “honour killing” of Aqsa Parvez, that the media were trying to make the Muslim community look “bad.” Outrage was not directed at family violence, but at the media for covering that violence.

Today, many courageous Bohra women who underwent khatna (i.e. FGM) in their childhood, are speaking out against the practice, directing their personal pain toward addressing social justice. They risk ostracization from their own families and excommunication from their faith community.

Who, on the other hand, will speak up for the 4,500 “missing” girls in the Indo-Canadian community, so that female feticide will cease? To the women who abort their daughters: you were not subject to sex-selective abortion – why, then, inflict it on Your daughter-to-be? There will need to be many painful conversations about the central moral issue: aborting a fetus simply because it is female.

Minority communities are in a difficult spot, especially with anti-immigrant sentiment on the rise. However, failing to address harmful cultural practices unequivocally, allows problems to fester and, ultimately, cause even more damage.

Source: Cultural sensitivities must never override gender equality – The Globe and Mail

To fight hate, we must become soldiers of inclusion: Khan

Another good piece by Sheema Khan:

As many have noted, the massacre took place in an atmosphere of increasing Islamophobia. While the individual who allegedly perpetrated these crimes is solely responsible for his actions, it is time to reflect on where we as a society stand in relation to public discourse about Muslims.

Currently, “Otherizing” Muslims has not only become the norm, but a political platform to win votes. We saw it in the previous federal election. The current Parti Québécois Leader, Jean-François Lisée, championed the toxic Quebec values charter and plays the Muslim identity card. In July, he criticized a colleague for wishing Quebec Muslims a happy Eid. What message does this send?

Enthusiastic supporters of Kelly Leitch embrace her defence of “Canadian values” – a phrase that resonates with their deep mistrust of Muslims in Canada. The actions of political leaders sets the tone. Xenophobic overtures, whether overt or covert, give licence to people to spew their prejudices in the open. Attitudes once considered shameful are normalized, to the detriment of social harmony.

We have a choice. Do we allow the “Otherizing” to continue unchallenged or stand up to bigotry? Do we allow politicians to play upon fears or do we hold them accountable?

This is a very difficult time for Muslims. The unthinkable has happened, resulting in intense feelings of vulnerability. A sanctuary of refuge has been violated. Their co-religionists have been murdered in cold blood for their simple profession of faith. Many have thought “that could have been me” and are wondering what to tell their children, and how to keep them safe.

Schools and community sports organizations can help to address anxiety with messages of inclusion. My daughter’s school tweeted the following reassuring words on Monday morning: “To Muslim members of our community, our deepest condolences. Please know our thoughts are with you and we love you. Staff are here for you.” This really helped to assuage many of our worries.

In addition, law-enforcement agencies across the country are providing enhanced protection to Islamic centres and mosques. These institutions should also apply for the federal government’s Communities At Risk program, which is aimed at helping institutions vulnerable to hate-motivated attacks improve their security.

What about questions of identity, going forward? Perhaps Muslims can take a cue from Linda Sarsour, one of the organizers of the recent Women’s March, and declare themselves “unapologetically Muslim, unapologetically Canadian.” We should continue to worship in humility, relying on our faith for strength. Let’s continue to practise the universal virtues of community, generosity and charity. Now is not the time to disengage, nor turn inward with fear.

In fact, Canadians and Quebeckers have opened their hearts to Muslims across this country, letting them know that they are loved and supported. Our elected leaders have set the tone toward healing. These profound acts of kindness help repair the social fabric that extremists desperately seek to rupture. Their goal is to sow hatred, division and fear. We must not let them succeed. Instead, let us become soldiers of inclusion, armed with compassion, ready to confront xenophobia in all its forms. Apathy is not an option.

In his beautiful Quebec anthem Mon pays, Gilles Vigneault wrote “A tous les hommes de la terre, ma maison c’est votre maison.” This theme – that our vast country is home to those who arrive on its shores – is also found in aboriginal tradition. Our hearts, like the land, are wide enough to embrace all those who seek to call Canada “home.” How unapologetically Canadian.

Source: To fight hate, we must become soldiers of inclusion – The Globe and Mail

Address the radicalization of Muslim youth head-on: Sheema Khan

Sheema Khan highlights some recent counter radicalization initiatives aimed at youth, arguing for more initiatives to help parents detect and act upon early signs of radicalization. No doubt she will be consulted by the new Office of the Community Outreach and Counter-Radicalization Co-ordinator:

Another recent creative venture is a comic book, Radicalishow, developed by youth who have received counselling from the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence (CPRLV) in Montreal. Having taken ownership of their misguided choices, they have helped to produce a valuable teaching tool about the factors that lead some down an extreme path, the challenges and vulnerabilities associated with the search for identity, and the devastating impact that ensues. As in Tug of War, this platform should be disseminated widely, for it addresses complex issues by the youth in a thoughtful manner.

The CPRLV deserves much credit for its attempt to approach radicalization in a holistic, comprehensive manner, by engaging as many stakeholders as possible, such as youth, teachers, counsellors and Muslim community leaders. For example, the centre’s most recent report, Women and Violent Radicalization, provides a historical context of violent female radicalization across cultures and ideologies.

It also sheds light on the reasons why a number of Quebec women between the ages of 17 and 19 decided to leave for Syria. Many felt that it was difficult to live as a Muslim in a hostile environment that left them feeling stigmatized and/or marginalized. The Western feminist model of emancipation seemed to clash with their desire to stay home and raise a family. In contrast, calls to build and join a utopian state where one can live as a “true” Muslim without harassment, seemed like a panacea for some. The report concludes with the need for more research.

In spite of the laudable efforts by the CPRLV, one key group seems to have been ignored: parents.

Currently, there are scant resources for parents about radicalization. Just as there has been an explosion of parental resources on Internet safety for children, so too should there be development of parental workshops on prevention of radicalization, for parents are often the first to notice subtle changes in their children. What should parents be aware of? How do they speak to their children? What signs should they look for? And what resources are available in case one’s child seems to have fallen prey?

At the film screening in Ottawa, the majority of those in attendance were youth. They were eager to address radicalization head on – through dialogue, debate and activism. They have the energy, the passion and the will; what they lack, however, is a seat at the table with federal policy makers to help devise a comprehensive prevention strategy. This omission should be addressed by the new Office of the Community Outreach and Counter-Radicalization Co-ordinator.

Source: Address the radicalization of Muslim youth head-on – The Globe and Mail

Our bond was one of faith and friendship – and then tragedy struck: Sheema Khan

Nice message from Sheema Khan, on the death of her friend, appropriate to the season and the times:

As I reflect upon Nasiba, who contributed generously to the Canadian landscape, so many wonderful teachers from our rich, diverse Canadian mosaic come to mind. I was inspired to study physics by my high school teacher, Mr. Szatmari; and quantum mechanics at Marianopolis CEGEP by Dr. Aniko Lysy. Both were Hungarian, passionate about science, and most importantly, believed in me, when I lacked confidence in my own abilities. At McGill, Prof. B.C. Eu, originally from South Korea, was instrumental in paving a path toward my study of chemical physics, and entry into Harvard. There were many more along the way. Influential coaches, teachers, counsellors and friends – from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives who helped me to thrive.

Suffice it to say that as calls for nativism increase, let us reflect upon the rich contributions made by immigrants and their descendants to our mosaic. The struggle to adapt to a new land, a new culture is circuitous at best.

Yet millions do it, day in, day out, without recognition – only wanting to belong, to contribute, to succeed, and to forge new paths, new identities. It is both daunting, yet exhilarating. It cannot be accomplished in isolation, but rather, by reaching across cultural lines, and seeing the commonality and beauty of the human spirit – for example, by inspiring a student to learn and giving her the confidence to pursue her dreams. In the process, we strengthen the fabric of our compassionate meritocracy.

This morning, at dawn prayer, I broke down and wept, realizing that I would no longer have those beautiful tutorials with Nasiba again. Never hear her gentle, encouraging voice.

The finality of death is indeed harsh. All the more reason to make the most of our time here, to cultivate the best within each of us, and to share the fruits of our labour.

Source: Our bond was one of faith and friendship – and then tragedy struck – The Globe and Mail

For Muslim women in Canada, a sense of vulnerability: Sheema Khan

Sheema Khan focuses on gender differences in analysis of the recent Environics Institute survey:

The recent Environics Institute survey of Muslims in Canada reveals a community that belies facile stereotypes – no more so than when you analyze the results along gender lines.

For example, the survey (for which I served as an unpaid consultant) found that fewer Muslim women share the optimism about Canada felt by their male counterparts. And while both groups believe that their Muslim and Canadian identities are very important, when asked to choose between the two, women choose their Muslim identity at a far higher rate. As a corollary, fewer women than men believe that immigrants should set aside their cultural backgrounds and try to blend into Canadian culture. Furthermore, more female immigrants have indicated that their attachment to Islam has increased since moving to Canada.

The survey, based on telephone interviews with 600 Muslims across the country, also provides an interesting snapshot of gender-based attitudes toward community institutions. For example, only 33 per cent of Muslim women attend a mosque at least once a week for prayer, compared with 62 per cent of men. The lack of female attendance is not surprising, given that many mosques do little to encourage female participation. Interestingly, a core of about 20 per cent of women (and men) is unhappy with opportunities for women to play leadership roles in Muslim organizations. This could provide the basis for an unmosqued movement, or the creation of women’s mosques.

 When it comes to family life, a whopping 90 per cent of Muslim men and women believe the responsibility for caring for the home and children should be shared equally. However, more men believe that the father must be the master in the home, placing the Muslim level of support for family patriarchy roughly equal to that of Canadians in the 1980s. However, today’s younger Muslim generation rejects patriarchy at roughly the same level as that of other Canadians.

Muslim women are less optimistic about relations with non-Muslims than men are, the survey found. A greater number worry about the reaction of Canadians toward Muslims, believing that the next generation of Muslims will face more discrimination. They are also more concerned about media portrayal of Muslims, and stereotyping by colleagues and neighbours.

It seems the crux of the matter lies in discrimination, as 42 per cent of Muslim women (compared with 27 per cent of men) say they have experienced some form of discrimination or ill-treatment during the past five years. Such incidents occurred mainly in public places – stores, restaurants, banks, public transit. Of women who experienced xenophobia, 60 per cent said they are identifiably Muslim. This ratio is reversed among the 25 per cent of Muslim women who experience difficulties at border crossings. As a result, women worry far more about discrimination, unemployment and Islamophobia than men.

The discrimination concerns are real, as illustrated by employment statistics from the 2011 National Household Survey, in which the unemployment rate of Muslims was 14 per cent, compared with the national average of 7.8 per cent, despite Muslims having high levels of education. The unemployment rate was highest in Quebec (17 per cent), which was double the provincial average. In comparison, the national unemployment rate of visible minorities hovered around 10 per cent.

Even Canadian-born Muslims, who graduated from a Canadian institution, fared worse than the national average, with an unemployment rate of 9.5 per cent. One can only imagine the difficulties in finding employment for the 60,000 Muslim women who head a single-parent household.

Clearly, Muslim women feel more vulnerable about the future, given that they bear a greater brunt of discrimination than their male counterparts.

Source: For Muslim women in Canada, a sense of vulnerability – The Globe and Mail

Muslim men must learn to treat women as equals: Sheema Khan

One of the more interesting sessions we held on multiculturalism and faith was a small multi-faith roundtable, with the most interesting exchange being between Sheema Khan and Alia Hogben (Canadian Council of Muslim Women) who challenged some of the more conservative or traditional male Imams present on gender issues.

Both have continued to be outspoken as seen in this latest piece by Sheema:

From 2000 to 2005, I served as the chair of CAIR-CAN, a grassroots advocacy organization that fought discrimination against Muslims. Whether it was a Muslim woman denied employment because of her hijab, or the rendition of Maher Arar, we fought for basic human rights based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This journey opened my eyes to my own double standards: I fought for Muslims to be treated with basic human dignity by the wider society, yet looked the other way when such treatment was denied to women within my own community.

Toward the end of my CAIR-CAN tenure, I could no longer stand the hypocrisy, and decided to tackle a fundamental problem that our community has been content to ignore: the treatment of women as second-class human beings. As chair, I came across incidents against Muslim women that would never have been tolerated had these been perpetrated by a non-Muslim. But if a Muslim did it, well, we would let it go, hoping that attitudes would one day change.

It was, and continues to be, the denial of the fact that many Muslim cultures have a bias against women. Consider the past few years of the Gender Gap Index, published by the World Economic Forum. It continually lists predominantly Muslim countries in the bottom rung of societies that equitably distribute resources between men and women. From the super rich (such as Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States) to the impoverished, a large chunk of Muslims live in societies where women are shortchanged in terms of development, opportunity and participation.

The bulk of Muslims in Canada are immigrants who naturally bring to this country the attitudes and norms shaped by their culture of birth. These will be transformed by Canadian norms; the transformation varies from person to person. Suffice it to say that many traditional Muslim institutions continue to operate on a patriarchal model, in which women are either unwelcomed or merely tolerated, but are always expected to keep the status quo. Those who demand basic rights are labelled with the “f” word – feminist.

….Some will be critical of the airing of “dirty laundry” during difficult times for Muslims. Yet meaningful discussions about the treatment of women have been avoided for far too long. To what end? What we don’t need is another lecture about the dress and behaviour of the “ideal” Muslim woman. Instead, we need to hear more about men taking responsibility for their actions, and treating women as equal human beings.

Source: Muslim men must learn to treat women as equals – The Globe and Mail

In the fight against terrorism, Muslims must own their message: Sheema Khan

Sheema Khan, further developing her arguments for the role that Muslims can and should play in the West:

Here in the West, Muslims have the unique luxury – if not the duty – to examine such critical questions, and take ownership of their own narrative. If they don’t, others will do it for them. Do Muslims in the West want to define Islam as a faith rooted in compassion, generosity and pluralism? Or will it be defined as a religion of fear, terror and subjugation, as advocated by extremists? While the choice may be obvious, it requires forceful authentication through repeated words and actions.

Own the message, and declare it with conviction: Islam forbids terrorism, murder and mayhem. Extremists who murder innocent civilians, as retribution for Muslims killed by the West, do not speak for me. I will fight injustice with people of justice, using non-violent means. I will fight to protect my fellow human beings from harm, because my faith demands it. I will look after my neighbour and help to make this country a better place. I will follow on the footsteps of Prophet Mohammed, who was sent as a mercy to mankind.

Such a principled path includes fighting for the rights of innocents abroad through legitimate means. It includes standing up to Islamophobia and engaging in the wider struggle against xenophobia.

It also encompasses the duty to work with law enforcement to ensure the safety of all Canadians. This is evident in the number of plots thwarted by Muslim tips and informants. In a 2007 Environics poll, the overwhelming majority of Canadian Muslims believed it was their responsibility to “report on potentially violent extremists they might encounter in their mosques and communities.”

After the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, Muslims organized grassroots demonstrations in Ottawa, Toronto, Kingston and London, Ont., reiterating the commitment to our shared humanity, while welcoming all Canadians to join in the call. Such efforts are shaping a Canadian narrative of Islam and should be repeated. Grassroots efforts that have spawned interfaith, cultural, charitable and civic initiatives are also moulding an indigenous form of Islam, rooted in a Canadian ethos.

Finally, owning the narrative means purposeful use of language. Those who know the true nature of the Islamic State refer to it by its Arabic acronym, Daesh, which has a derogatory meaning. They certainly don’t label Daesh members as jihadi. Islamic law defines the terror perpetrated by extremists as hiraba, which is diametrically opposed to jihad. They seek legitimization under the moniker of jihad. Let’s not give into that. Call them for what they are: hirabi. In the propaganda war, language means everything.

Source: In the fight against terrorism, Muslims must own their message – The Globe and Mail