Little masquerade on the prairie
Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan don’t think much of the CBC’s new sitcom ‘Little Mosque on the Prairie.’
To begin with, a completely false picture of the Muslim community has been forced into the homes of non-Muslim Canadians. CBC has validated the image painted by Islamist groups that Muslim lives revolve around mosques – nothing else. We don’t play hockey, none of us have 9-to-5 day jobs, love affairs, play poker or, dare we say, cheat on our taxes or our spouses…[W]e question the motives of the writer, producers, and directors of the show for focusing singularly on the most conservative segments of the Muslim community. Although the characters are meant to reflect the diversity of Muslim society, a closer examination reveals the show is not about liberal or progressive Muslims competing with conservatives. Rather, the writer has created a false dichotomy of “conservative” Muslims vs. “ultra-conservative” Muslims; the former being disingenuously passed on as feminist and progressive. Muslims who do not pay homage to their Imams; the liberal, secular or progressive segments of the community, are conspicuous by their complete absence from the Little Mosque narrative. Writer Zarqa Nawaz has played a deft hand in attempting to sanitize what really goes on in the typical Canadian mosque. The hijacking of our religion, Islam, by politicized clerics affiliated with Saudi Arabia or Iran, finds no resonance in the sitcom.
Very interesting and very familiar. Muslims who do not pay homage to their Imams; the liberal, secular or progressive segments of the community, so often are conspicuous for their absence. On the one hand, all people of Muslim background, with Muslim parents or grandparents or from majority-Muslim countries or (often) just kind of vaguely Arab or South Asian-looking, are called ‘Muslims,’ and on the other hand, all Muslims are assumed to be highly conservative and ‘devout’ and religious and anti-secular. The two mistakes flow together to create a mighty river of stupidity and distortion in which secular and progressive Muslims are drowned out. It’s pathetic that the CBC is apparently helping with that process.
Indeed all of the depictions point to an Islamist agenda that seeks to justify inequities that pervade Muslim communities under the pretext of progress. Orthodox Islam is presented as the only authentic belief system that is in consonance with progress. While the Muslim characters are fake, fellow non-Muslim Canadians, who have shown tremendous generosity in embracing peoples of different cultures and religions are continually and unfairly portrayed as paranoid bigots. What has raised eyebrows about the show among Muslims is that such distortion may be deliberate in order to exaggerate the incidence of racism and bigotry against Muslims in Canada to foster the culture of victim-hood and accentuate the chasm between Muslims and non-Muslims in Canada.
Well done Muslim Canadian Congress for pushing back. Good luck to you.
A sitcom about Muslim life in Canada makes the top of my list of really bad ideas. Unfortunately, you don’t have a “situation” comedy without a “situation” and you don’t have a situation without dramatic tension or misunderstanding. This must be set within a very confined context to work as a (presumably half hour) comedy and, worse, it has to be entertaining to the widest possible target audience. These structural limitations make for a very impoverished view into a very rich and complex cultural phenomenon. A telenovela would have provided a better vehicle to make Muslim life in its complexity more familiar to non-Muslims.
Frankly I supprised anyone has the balls to write anything about islam anywhere,you just know there is a fatwa in this Canadian writers future!
Well Farzana Hassan doesn’t have ‘the balls’ to write about Islam or anything else. Testicles are not a prerequisite for courage.
Does that mean only men can talk balls?
I know, they are the ones who tend to, but is the metaphor always biologically determined?
Re the “Opinion” piece in the Florida Times-Union by Mohammad Ilyas M.D., posted on B&W: “Secular Muslims Get All the Attention”:
Ophelia: You provided a subheading: “But Islamists are the majority, therefore secularists should not get all this media coverage.”
This is far from the major point one could make about this depressing piece written by an M.D., but I suggest that the term “Islamist” be reserved for those who embrace the most rigid forms of Islam, advocate the imposition of the most extreme forms of Islamic law, and possibly give support to violent jihad. I think a term like observant Muslims (or some equivalent) would have been a better description.
I note that Dr Ilyas observes in support of his (no doubt true) assertion about the numerical dominance of religious Muslims over secular ones:
>In Egypt, it is hard to find a woman on the street who does not wear a head scarf.< No doubt this is the result of all those Egyptian women quite independently coming to the same decision about what is appropriate to wear in public in an Islamic country.
Goot qvesschun.
No, anybody can talk balls – but the metaphor about having balls is pretty biologically determined, I would say. Anyone can talk; not everyone can have.
I remember a Vietnam demo way the hell back in the ’70s – before most of you were born, no doubt – when some posturing macho prat talked about having the balls to blah blah blah, and the chorus of groans from the crowd, including me of course.
It’s weird, though – the norms about this kind of stuff are different in the UK. Yet they’re not completely different. I can never quite get a bead on them. It’s in some sense ‘acceptable’ to call people twats or even cunts – more acceptable than it is here (in right-on circles, etc). Yet at the same time, I assume it’s not 100% acceptable, because most of my UK friends don’t do it, at least not in my hearing [or reading]. Maybe ‘balls’ in the possessive is similar. Maybe it’s ‘acceptable’ but still shouldn’t be.
Oops, cross, the above was answering Dave.
I know, Allen – I hesitated over the word. But the M.D.’s point seemed to be that a particularly reactionary version of Islam is the majority and therefore valid one – which is what Islamists would like everyone to think, even if Islamism itself is more reactionary still. That’s pretty much the point Fatah and Hassan are making in this piece – the M.D. is arguing what one might call the Little Mosque on the Prairie view. Plus I have only so much space in headline and teaser, so I went with Islamist.
Furthermore…
“I think a term like observant Muslims (or some equivalent) would have been a better description.”
That’s interesting, because I think that’s exactly where the fault line is. I think the Muslim Canadian Congress (for instance) takes the view that one can be an observant Muslim without thinking women should be veiled or that secularism is bad – that it’s an Islamist illusion that observant Muslims have to be deeply reactionary. I don’t know if the MCC are right or not, but I certainly hope they are, and would love to see their view prevail.
Keeping it eclectic…
“Twat” tends to get used as if it’s a slightly harsher version of “twit”, despite its coarse origins [much like “berk”].
“C*nt” is very close to being what they used to call in the old films fightin’ words – see, I can’t even bring myself to type it – outside the Scots vernacular, at least, where it sometimes seems to be a synonym for “you”…
Meanwhile, I liked the article on free will, though it was as usual laced with unspoken assumptions – not the least being that we are in some way ‘supposed’ to think we are ghosts in our own machines, as if brain function was NOT mind… Yet on the other hand, it didn’t address the point that it’s one thing to lift your right or left hand, quite another to [picking a random example] commit acts of apostasy against a faith-system that has governed your whole life to date…. Still a long way to go to account for abstract thought, as we discussed earlier…
(Allen) – However, on further consideration, I changed Islamists to theocrats.
Dave, I know, that’s just it – to me it sounds terribly odd to use ‘twat’ as if it were a mild anodyne word – to me it is very little milder than c*nt. (I have to overcome resistance to type it too – but decided there wasn’t much point in being coy – especially since it’s flung around pretty freely over there.) Some scholar should do a monograph on why one is seen as milder than the other, when they are in fact the same word. (Putz is worse than schmuck in Yiddish, I recently learned – apparently in much the same way – schmuck is rude, but putz you really don’t say.)
It’s one thing to lift your right or left hand, quite another to call someone a putz or a c*nt.
Meine bescheidenen Entschuldigungen,ich begriff nie, dass “SCHMUCK” ein scheußliches Wort war. Ich habe immer jetzt den Wort “bekloppten” “SCHMUCK” damit bis zu vereinigt, ein lustiges amerikanisches Wort zu sein. Mensch, wie falsch ich war. ‘Wir leben und lernen’! Ich werde meine Tat reinigen müssen. Ich muss ein bisschen in der Zukunft mehr poliert sein. ALLES IST IN ORDNUNG, ALLES IST, JA WAS, AUFGEPUTZT?
Hee hee hee. I’m sure the connotations are quite different in Yiddish – well no, I guess I’m not sure, am I. What I mean is, they could be.
I wonder if Dr Mohammed Ilyas realises the implications of his little pro-theocratic rant?
Like: Nuke Mecca!
– oh you don’t have to kill anyone – you give the inhabitants six months to move out, and THEN nuke the place.
More seriously, people like this religius apologist are what get my nominally-muslim near-neighbour ( a turkic sufi ) really annoyed. In discussion with him about people like Ilyas, is the only time I’ve ever heard him swear – he’s normally the most gentle person.
In Plain English, I do not want to elongateeeeeeeeeeeeeeee the Schmuck argument, but here is a definition of same.
Schmuck, a Yiddish word, has a range of meanings depending on context. In its most innocuous use, a schmuck is a person who does a stupid thing, in which case dumb schmuck is the appropriate expression.
A schmuck’s behavior ranges from pesky and inconsiderate, to obnoxious and manipulative. A schmuck’s personality type ranges from jerk to dork to a slidery slimey smarmy snake.
Schmucky behavior also falls within a range of intentionality. Some schmucks carefully plan their bad behavior, some only a little, and some not at all. For example, the berk, twat, or snake may spend considerable time planning his/her bad deeds. In contrast, the dumb schmuck and the pesky behave badly without any forethought.
Seriously, though, yeah, yeah I never knew until now that it was the discarded foreskin following that of a circumcision.
Cor Blimey,”Hey nurse, can you toss that schmuck into the biohazard bag for me. Danke Schon”!
I am not putting my hands up to all of this…… Do not blame me – an unknown Jewish American baker is the main instigator behind this loooooooong speil! I pass over this to you.
Sorry O.B. I probabably should have said guts rather than balls because there are many female writers(including yourself)who bravely take on the religion of peace.
Exactly so, Richard – not about me, that is, but about the many many women who are bravely and at very real risk speaking up. Unisex guts much better than monosex balls.
(It’s tempting to start a fashion for using tits as a synonym for courage. He hasn’t got the tits to do that. That would be amusing. But crass, so I shall refrain.)