I first noticed this in my first year of university, when I learned that two boys I had gone to high school with had started their own clothing company called "Twisted Swagger." Everyone rallied with them, touting them as a local success. And when we found out that they had gotten Kanye to wear their gear?? Well, dayum, son, where do I line up for my own shirt? It was local pride, and Riverdale Collegiate pride, and Toronto pride all wrapped up into one.

The GTA has seen a lot of local talent rise from the ground up, supported by viral media and word-of-mouth. And rather than shun them, certain groups have helped push them along even further, as a symbol of their group's overall greatness.

For example: every year, at the Reviving the Islamic Spirit Conference (RIS), Muslim Gear grows in popularity. It's as much a brand as Nike is, but it stands for something else. Those who wear it seem to share a secret with each other. They know something no one else knows, and its a testament to group solidarity.

It was so astounding to see that people wanted a shirt regardless of the price. They wanted it because their friends had one. They wanted one because it was popular, and they wanted to see it become more popular. (But not too popular! Because its a status symbol after all, just like a fresh pair of Jordans.) Let's not make a shirt more than what it really is, but we have to admit that the popularity of Muslim Gear stems from something social, not just religious. 

"But can this group solidarity go too far?

Last year, legions of Torontonians discovered Punjabi Sikh comedy sensation Amandeep Kang a.k.a. AK Amazing. Part Punjabi street hood, part spoiled Mama's boy from the suburbs, he's Russell Peters but a little more thug.

Punjabi's love him because of the way he cusses in Punjabi, Indians because he's Indian, Sikhs because he's Sikh, and desis love him because... well, because he's brown. And funny. He hits so many of the right notes and attracts a wide sub-set of the population as he does it.

But I don't think he quite understood his own appeal. He didn't realize that minorities love him because he makes fun of himself and everyone around him without actually insulting anyone. I think he learned the hard way that if he wants to get rich and famous off of these videos he has to walk a fine line between in-group preference and out-group derogation.

Earlier in the year, he posted a video called "Indian Stereotypes" in which he lambasts Canadians and their Indian stereotypes. (i.e. all South Asians eat curry) In one example, he complains that Canadians tend to conflate Pakistan with India. "We're not all the same", he says. "One country is full of terrorists, and one isn't."

The comments section of his YouTube page and his Facebook fan page exploded. Within weeks, the video was edited and the joke was taken out. His comments page for the video was disabled and he posted this semi-apology in the notes section of his YouTube page:

"So, although I did enjoy the race/culture war that was taking place in my comments section on the original upload and don't regret anything I said, I did have to take out the part about Muslim and terrorism. Why? Quite simply, because my MOMMA TOLD ME TO! Yes, yes, that's right. "AHAH! ***** is whipped by his MOMMA!!!" DAMN RIGHT! I'm sorry, I'm not like the few of you c******s who call their moms ******, ***** and ******. I do respect my mother. So, she won't give me my camera back UNTIL I took out that part because she's afraid our house is gonna get bombed! Aw darn it! I did it again....I guess I can't use those jokes unless I'm actually Muslim myself. Aw MAN! Anyways, hopefully we can stand UNITED NOW and tackle on the racist comments the few stupid white people throw at this video TOGETHER! Let it begin! Brown (united) vs dumbass c******s! (btw, i do read your comments, so please explain thoroughly regarding your racist theories)
THANK YOU COME AGAIN!!"

I think he's probably learned a lesson that Russell Peters has had to learn the hard way as well: minority comedians are only funny because they draw a line between the minority and the majority. Draw the line too close and make the boundaries of your group too limited, and there will be fall out. We allow him to insult Canadians and white people all in good fun... but "terrorist"?!? That's a low blow, Amandeep.  Low blow.

In almost every video, AK reps something local and something Punjabi, promoting his own values and his own group in his own unique way (he threatened to stop making videos if one of his picks didn't get enough new fans within the week). Toronto-based Hun Dus Clothing and Humble the Poet have both benefited magnificently from Kang's thumbs up endorsement. (Not that I'm complaining: Humble the Poet has insane talent).

Nonetheless, it's an interesting phenomena. This is what people talk about when they say minority empowerment. Giving the oppressed a voice. Does it really amount to anything more than reverse discrimination? Do we revere the one who is best able to unite our groups of disparate voices against a common enemy? (In AK's case, that common enemy is the white Canadian.)

And if that's the case, should we care at all? At the end of the day, it's funny and it makes us proud of our heritage. That should be all that matters, right?

Sometime in mid-January, I wound up at the One Love Jamaican Vegetarian Cafe, a quaint little restaurant at College & Bathurst.  This restaurant is run by the same couple who sells the famous Corn Soup at Toronto's Harbourfront every summer. (Yes - they make a killing selling hot soup in the SUMMER). And this isn't just any normal Corn Soup: the line-up's for this tasty treat wind around and around their little cart, and people actually leave in frustration when they run out. They've finally set up a permanent shop in Toronto and I went with a good friend to have a great vegetarian meal.

While I was there in the small, unassuming (and slightly uncomfortable) cafe, a short, energetic lady came in, dressed in big, thick workout clothes. She was carrying a very expensive camera and was snapping photos of everything around her. All the while, she was trying to strike up a chat with anyone who would listen.

In all honesty, my response to overly friendly people is the same as most Torontonians - "this woman is crazy." My initial judgment is that she was indeed insane. and the burden of proof was on her to show otherwise.

Eventually, we ended up talking for quite some time, and she pulled out a business card. It read "“www.toronto365.ca: LIFE is to be enjoyed, get out & have FUN!”Ann (crazy lady) revealed that she is in fact quite amazing. Having traveled to more than 40 countries around the world, she decided she was going to start a "Staycation" Blog about Toronto. For 365 days, she was going to try something new every day. She was going to see the city on a dime and discover new and hidden gems.

From the Winter City Festival, to meeting George Stroumboulopoulos of The Hour, she truly is hitting a wide range of notes. It's a fresh, fast-paced, city life.

Nonetheless, something about her blog, though exciting and entertaining, reads like a mid-life crisis. She left a lucrative import/export business to start up this blog, and she's doing it for free. A single lady, jumping from one issue to one cause to one party, without getting attached and committed to anything... it's a little depressing. The layout of her website is as erratic as she is, and the banner image, displaying a young, hip urbanite out on the town starts to look a little sad after a while. After all that traipsing through the city, what does this urbanite come home to? Another night alone planning a day meeting people she will likely never see again? 

The writer of this blog does a good job of convincing you that she is indeed committed, attached and passionate to challenging herself. I may be completely misjudging her motives and her intentions for this blog, but a part of me still questions her lifestyle; this get-up-and-go and live-every-day-like-a-party lifestyle.

This seems to be the everyman interpretation of the famous Latin words "carpe diem". Like seizing the day always means you have to jump off a bridge or go scuba diving in the winter. Yes, there's a bit of that involved in correctly seizing a day. But at some point, that all becomes a distraction and an escape from the reality of your life.

I'm not fully convinced about the concept, but it's still an interesting blog. From attending live tapings to taking part in Improv Comedy Shows, she's got more experiences under the belt than most people can dream, and she doesn't care how crazy she looks running into a restaurant taking random pictures of patrons and their food.

Note: You'll find my little run-in with her on Day #18 of her staycation!

Though the State of the Union Address normally doesn't focus on foreign policy, it was interesting to note that Iraq and Afghanistan comprised all of three minutes of that entire address. It is all too clear that his December troop surge announcement was an appropriate beginning to a necessary end.

The Americans should have learned from the Soviet mistake, and the British before them, that Afghanistan is not a nation that can be easily subdued. But some mistakes, once made, cannot be reversed and must be seen all the way through to their sad ends. And Obama's announcement on Dec 1st was an effort to do just that. Afghanistan is beyond lost and the goal now is to exit gratefully from this "good war." Missteps in the primary stages of war created lasting impediments to peace. As such, the joint surge and withdrawal announcement allows the West to apply lipstick to the proverbial pig: to clean up loose ends and present itself as having had some constructive effect on Afghanistan.

Obama's speech successfully portrayed the surge as the beginning of a slow-and-steady phase out period. And if NATO can attempt to achieve the following three goals in the next few years, the West has the opportunity to save face. It can show that its presence in Afghanistan had some discernable value. First and foremost, the goal is to project the image of a collaborative effort in Afghanistan. NATO should increase troop activity before it limits it, in order to present this as a NATO mission, and not an American failure.

To the Pashtuns, and indeed to the entire Middle East, this is an American war. Despite the NATO presence, the United States made an effort after Operation Allied Force in Kosovo to avoid "war by committee" at all costs. It was not until 2003 that the US gave up minimal control of forces in Afghanistan to NATO. And even if Obama is genuinely interested now in a multilateral approach, NATO members have never had both feet in Afghanistan. This is reflected by the paralyzing caveats that senior commanders have to deal with. It becomes impossible to coordinate troops when member states send personalized demands - some soldiers cannot conduct night patrol and others cannot be in combat. Though its called a mission, it is treated like a voluntary project. NATO's lack of strategy and common voice is obstructive, especially at a time when it is crucial for this war to be seen as a joint commitment.

Second, a disproportionate focus needs to be placed on alternatives  to poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. The country has gone from producing 52%  of the world's supply in the mid-1990s to 93% in 2008. It makes little sense to simply destroy all the opium in Afghanistan - you might as well aerial spray the entire population. There are zero alternatives to this narco-economy. The country is dirt-poor and there is no infrastructure to speak of. Harsh tactics like aerial spraying the crops serve only to propogate the fluid alliances of convenience between pragmatic Afghan farmers and opportunistic Taliban.

Third, when it comes to Kabul, the West will have to think of some kind of alternative governing strategy. Afghanistan has historically had little experience with centralized government, so Karzai's relevance and influence outside of Kabul is unimpressive, if not non-existent. Couple this with President Bush's preferred "light footprint" method in 2001, whereby the Taliban was defeated in Kabul by CIA-funded local militants and the old Northern Alliance. Right from the outset, this tactic inadvertently allowed local warlords to re-establish their military fiefdoms, thus irreparably undermining the potential for Afghanistan's embryonic civilian army to succeed.

In other words, outside of Kabul, there is no government and there is no civilian army, and in the next ten-fifteen years that's not going to change. The West have to accept some kind of decentralized system, whereby locals have their own control so long as they recognize the authority of Kabul in some minimal manner, and so long as they denounce the Taliban. Leave it to the locals to get rid of the Taliban presence - they are mostly unwanted anyway, and useful only insofar as they promise the end of American influence. And if they need help, Kabul should be ready to supply.

Last, something needs to be done about Pakistan. In an effort to keep Afghanistan under its thumb, Musharraf played a double game for his entire presidency. Pakistani intelligence is believed to have funded the main centre of Taliban command (the Quetta shura), and all the while, the United States has been providing Pakistan with money that has been funneled right back into the insurgency - at least $10 billion in aid over 6 years.

At this point in the game, any further US presence in Pakistan could enrage the population and bring down the Zardari government. But the Lal Masjid tragedy and the state of emergency declared in 2007 have opened some eyes in Pakistan. Zardari made a peace agreement with the Taliban in the Swat Valley, and this turned out to be a colossal mistake, as the militants are now creeping towards Islamabad. NATO can make an effort to sell air support to Pakistan not as part of the ideological US war on Terror/Islam, but as part of a limited multilateral effort to reduce violence and instability in Pakistan.

In Afghanistan, the military aspect has failed and political will does not exist. Admiral Mullen said in 2008 that, "We can't kill our way to victory." The Bush administration created a troubling situation for the Afghan people, the Karzai government and the Taliban: one that cannot be reversed unless Obama is truly interested in nation-building. Unfortunately, no one has any interest in fighting the war that Afghanistan needs fought, so the best thing to do is to cut losses now and start cleaning.

In today’s modern world, you’re only as good as your resume. If you want to make it in business, medicine, science or law, your grades and your extra-curricular activities form a huge portion of your application. But for many Muslim girls, the latter part of the equation proves extremely difficult to achieve.

For as long as I can remember, most parents in my community have been bothered by their daughters joining clubs and extra-curriculars. At a face level, they realize there is absolutely nothing wrong with any club (especially one that is academic). But deep down, they feel that as soon as school hours are over, daughters should be right back home where they belong.

Even if it is a society like the Muslim Student’s Association, parents simply are not wholly comfortable with the notion of a club or a social community. A lot of it may have to do with their own upbringings: in Pakistan, for example, you excelled in school and there was nothing more important than that. The changing competitive environment of the 21st century, which requires us to pack our CVs with as many titles and positions as possible, is lost on them.

But it’s more than just an unfortunate social/cultural habit; it has a religious aspect, as well. When it comes down to it, the Qur’an makes specific recommendations as to how women should lead their lives. The clear point is that it should not be led like men. But unfortunately, society demands otherwise.  Families cannot simply run on one income and girls have been trained from a young age to be “all that they can be”.  Our parents are then faced with a complex interplay of emotions: they want their children – including their daughters – to be successful and fit for urban life. But on the other hand, many believe that to ensure the religiosity and safety of their children, daughters should not get too involved with the dunya.  

For many immigrant parents, the frame of reference is still “back home”. In other words, if they are concerned with impressing, pleasing or berating anyone, it is members of their own community. Honour and respect comes from those that share the same heritage and the same background as themselves, and no one else. They have little regard for how “Canadians” see them. For some, it is a fear of the unknown and a fear of the tyranny of the "white man" that drives them to self-segregation. For others, however, it has a lot to do with the Western world's increasingly discriminatory policies towards Muslims (see Fareedah's article on Swiss legislation regarding masjid minarets). If we over-educate our children in a system that hates them, we only teach them to hate themselves. Put another way, it is kind of  like a Stockholm Syndrome, where increased exposure to Western academia severs our link to our imaan and makes us fall in love with the enemy. For our parents, there is no worst nightmare than someone like Irshad Manji, Canadian small-l liberal lesbian Muslim, critic of traditional Islam, and in their opinion, an over-educated Munaffiqun (hypocrite).

In my final year of university, I am seeing a lot of Muslim women make some great strides in their lives. But as female students get older and wiser, the dynamic at home changes. The same parents who once encouraged (and forced!) them to study and excel in school are now facing a kind of anxiety about their daughters being simply too “white-washed”.  A fear of late night club meetings has developed into a fear of studies abroad and international programs.

This article was inspired by a Muslim student I met while at work at the Career Centre, who is turning down an acceptance to Oxford University for a Masters in Political Science because her parents forbid it. It is also inspired by the words of Dr. Tariq Ramadan, and his belief that Muslim Canadians are ghettoizing themselves. He reminds us that the prophet put great stock in deen, and traveling for the sake of education.  But there must certainly be a limit to what we sacrifice in order to succeed in the mainstream. In other words, this hadith only count for certain definitions of deen, and yours may not apply. 

Yale or Harvard means nothing to some parents. For a daughter to achieve these academic honours, it is actually a nuisance. “Why do you want things so far away? Why are your ambitions so sinful?”  A daughter should aim to stay close to her roots at all times, until she is passed from one family’s embrace (or control?) to another. Why? Because the world is dangerous. And it is (or, at least, it ought to be) a sin for a mother to throw her child into such a situation of temptation, risk and seduction. Safety from these things is found only indoors. While the same fears and the same demands are always true for boys, we know well that they apply doubly or triply to women.

I'm not trying to engage in cultural stereotyping. Nor am I trying to be hard on our parents, who are afraid of falling into the growing crevasse between old world and new. But, we must admit that this is a trend that has long-standing roots in our cultural mores. Is it time to question these roots? Or (because these mores are said to be based on Islamic rulings), have we already strayed too far?

Christmas Day was celebrated a little differently for Muslims all over the world this year, who gathered in Toronto for the annual "Reviving the Islamic Spirit" Conference. The theme of the conference was SOS: Saving the Ship of Humanity. It was a perfect theme for the end of the year, as many of us were coming up with our own New Year’s Resolutions for the upcoming months.

For most who attended, it was a perfect conference that went off without a hitch. The speakers were eloquent, intelligent, analytical and relevant. Fan favourites were Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Dr. Tareq Suwaidan and Professor Tariq Ramadan.  

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf delivered a powerful speech about what the West can learn from Islam. He suggested that the West could learn from Islam two things: one, how to adeptly integrate science and religion, and two, how to remedy the race problem in the world. He pointed to historical evidence, hadiths and verses from the Qur’an. Though it was an empowering speech which reminded listeners about the growth and influence of Islam, it seemed to ignore Islam’s downsides. While the Qur’an has proven remedies for dealing with race relations, Muslims in the 21st century have not necessarily been the harbingers of peace. How to make this transition from theory to practice - this was something he neglected to consider.

Dr. Tariq Ramadan, on the other hand, addressed this very limitation by suggesting that Canadian Muslims need to change themselves. We are getting ourselves into a great deal of trouble because we are ghettoizing ourselves – turning ourselves into minorities and rejecting our Canadian identities. In his speech he declares that young Muslims must go beyond the “minority complex” trap – to look at themselves as being Canadian citizens and forget about being a minority. Muslims in today’s world are enforcing and encouraging a sense of “us” versus “them”. We need look only at the comments section of our latest article on the Canadian Olympics to see how right he is.

Dr. Ramadan did not just focus on politics and society. He provided some stirring religious advice, reminding listeners that Allah (SWT) is very forgiving. There are many people who have done wrong and assume that they are too far gone – they cannot redeem themselves. But Allah (SWT) is very merciful and always able to forgive, no matter how much you have to be sorry about. For him, tearing is an important part of the forgiveness process. If you’ve done something wrong, knowingly and willingly, and the very thought of it brings tears to your eyes; you know you are on the path to redemption. But if your actions can not move you to tears, you should be concerned about your niyaat and your imaan.

Dr. Tareq Suwaidan also spoke of the link between science and religion, in a speech entitled “Do not disrupt the balance between religion and science.” He asserted that there is no science without religion, and that in fact, Muslims were the first to combine the two. There is indeed a great deal of science verified by the Quran and vice versa.  Fun fact: his daughter is president of the Ryerson MSA!

In terms of entertainment, Junaid Jamshed and Dr. Yusuf Islam (formerly known as Cat Stevens) were huge crowd pleasers. Not just because of their voices, but because of their stories. Both talked about their transformations and their growing acceptance of Islam. Junaid Jamshed moved the masses by saying that “I used to once draw crowds and fans with my devilish lyrics, and now I draw them to myself with my nasheeds.”

Maher Zain also drew a great number of young listeners, but his nasheeds are certainly controversial for their use of beats and modern instruments.

“David Letterman, the American comedian, could say on television, “I went to my doctor today and he said, ‘Turn to Mecca and cough’, because millions of Americans would easily get the joke.” – Shaykh Hamza Yusuf

There were a few things that were a little disconcerting. The presence of P4E (Paradise Forever) irked a lot of people, as they are alleged to be funded by CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.  Administratively speaking, guests were bothered by the immaturity and rudeness of most RIS volunteers, who were unfairly breaking rules for their friends and family (such as reserving seats). Considering the ticket price was so expensive, and the food was so overpriced, it did not help to be disadvantaged by a few childish volunteers.  

All in all, the event was everything that we had hoped for. I end with this anecdote shared by one of the speakers, reminding the listeners that even the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) had a sense of humour:  

When the prophet got married to Hazrat Aisha RA (after marrying Hazrat Khadija RA), the former used to bug his daughter Hazrat Fatima RA by saying that “I am the first virgin you’re father ever married.” When Fatima RA went to her father to complain, he told his daughter. “Don’t worry. Next time she tells you that, tell her I wasn’t a virgin when I married her.”

 

I've been trying since September to get a friend of mine, a non-Hijabi Muslim at U of T, to talk about her experiences on St. George campus. Ever since she let on that she was facing a lot of Muslim-on-Muslim discrimination, I wanted to pick her brain. Finally, she agreed - on condition of anonymity.

Me: Thank you for agreeing to do this (on Gmail chat of all places)!

Muslimah: Lol. Not a problem. Well actually, I'm not gonna lie. It's kind of a problem.

Me: Why?

Muslimah: I don't really know. I don't like to talk about it. Believe me, it's an uncomfortable subject.

Me: Why?

Muslimah: Wearing the hijab is a wonderful thing. When people see you on the street, it feels so great to get that huge smile and the "salaam" from another hijabi, who recognizes you as a fellow Muslim. But I don't wear it. And I think people make the assumption that I'm a bad Muslim, or that I'm ashamed of Islam. I'm "whitewashed."  

Me: Okay. If it's so great, why don't you wear it?

Muslimah: I have no religious objection to it. I think it's great! But it makes me feel uncomfortable. I feel suffocated and it gets painful and tiring throughout the day. It's not because I don't like it, or because I'm embarrassed of it. It's like wearing socks to bed - some people like it, and some people are up all night if their feet are covered.
Plus, I didn't come from a family that pushed it on us. I spent many years in Dubai, where girls would go out in groups and live life without a hijab. And yet - every time the azaan went on, they donned it and prayed five times a day. They were close to God, they just didn't cover their heads. It was natural - it was totally normal.

Me: So, how is it at U of T?

Muslimah: Gaaahhh. It's kind of stupid. Remember how you had that one reader way long ago who went off on the MSA? Ya, sometimes I feel like that. Sometimes I get such dirty looks and such judgment from some people. And when I put on the scarf to pray during the day - they scoff at me. Some people have even explicitly asked me why I even bother to pray if I have no modesty. It's so hypocritical.

Me: Hypocritical? In what way?

Muslimah: In my opinion, wearing a scarf is a teensy, tiny part of being a Muslim. And yet, some of these girls use it as an excuse - a crutch. They don't bother praying throughout the day, God's name doesn't come to their lips easily, and they wear such tight clothes sometimes.

It's like they've proved to the world that they are Muslims, so they don't need to actually walk the talk. I see it as a weakness. I feel like I challenge myself, I challenge my niyat every day because I don't have a visible symbol of my religiosity.

I have to prove to God and to myself that I'm a Muslim - not the lady next door. And sometimes its an epic fail. It's not easy, it's always a personal jihad. But I don't make excuses. 

Me: One thing is for sure. When you wear a scarf, bad situations avoid you. You'll never find yourself in a pub, or in a position where people are presenting you with non-religious things of temptation.

Muslimah: So what? That just means I have to work harder to find good friends who will never do that to me. And I have to work harder to avoid temptation and to make sure people know that I'm a Muslim from my words and my actions, not just my head.

Me: Has this made it difficult for you to get involved with other Muslims on campus?

Muslimah: Definitely. Don't get me wrong - there are a lot of great Muslim people on campus. But sometimes, as a group, they develop a mob mentality. They preach and judge and make claims they don't fully understand. It's disheartening, and funnily enough, its bad for my imaan to be too close to them. I know how this all sounds, and I know how terrible it seems.

Me: I can see why you'd want to remain anonymous about it. Sinner!

Muslimah: LOL. Gee, thanks.

Me: Just kidding. Thanks for sharing =). I'm sure our readers will have a lot to talk about.

Muslimah: I just hope I don't get crucified in the comments...

Me: LOL. We'll have to see...

"What?!? You're going to go see Precious before the holidays? That's so depressing..."

That was the reaction I got from nearly everyone when I asked them about coming with me to see Daniel Lee's new movie "Precious" (based on the novel "Push" by Sapphire).

It's the story of a 400 pound, poor, black, 16-year-old girl who is physically, emotionally and sexually abused by both of her parents. Her first child by her father has Down's Syndrome and she is pregnant with another.

So yes, I can see how this comes off as depressing.

And yet, for some reason, it was strangely hopeful. Even with such a plot base, it wasn't sad for the sake of being sad. At its core, it reminded viewers that family is a privilege, not a right. In other words, you don't get to be a mother or daughter just by birthright. It is a title that must be earned. The role of any individual in a family has come to take on an entirely socially constructed meaning. If you don't act appropriately in your role, the title is taken away from you.

When I left the theatre, my sister said "well, if one good thing came out of that movie, it's that it really makes you appreciate your parents."

I guess. But I didn't walk in there to hear some sob story about a terrible family, so that I could feel better about mine. Instead, Precious is a story about a girl who, against all odds, decides that she is worth the fight. She decides that despite what her mother tells her, she has potential. She decides that its okay to dream big and shine on.

The acting is amazing. Mo'nique plays Precious' mother, and she is unrecognizable as her normal comedic self. And Gabourey Sidibe plays Claireece "Precious" Jones with such a quiet grace, that she deserves an Oscar simply for not overacting this role.

Paula Patton and Mariah Carey play two strong figures in Precious' life: her teacher at an alternative school, and her social worker, respectively. What becomes clear is that even though they are strong, black females... they can't handle Precious. All they can do is love her, and that's all she needs. They can't even begin to understand her.

The most compelling scene in the movie is when the social worker arranges for Precious and her mother to meet, in order to reconcile. Her mother's monologue is epic and beautiful. I streamed the movie at home online, just so I could watch that scene over and over again. The viewer sees that her pain and her problems run deep: rather than fully acknowledging that Precious was abused by her father at the age of three, she accuses Precious of "stealing her man." It's such a shocking scene.

It was interesting that KIH just recently talked about discrimination, and "crying racism" like "crying wolf" (See our article on the "Best Halloween Costume at U of T"). Many critics have accused Precious of propagated "black America" stereotypes, because it's a family of fat, violent, uneducated, illiterate people on welfare. In one scene, Precious even steals a bucket of fried chicken for breakfast.

It's a criticism that is misguided and ill-informed. It ignores that these stories do exist, and that people do lead these kinds of lives. And it ignores the other non-stereotypical, innovative black figures in her life, including her lesbian teacher, and her male nurse, played by Lenny Kravitz. It's a useless way to describe this movie. In fact, you could easily replace black Precious with a white Precious or a brown Preeti.

At the heart of it, It's a simple story about a young girl who can teach us all a thing or two about never letting anyone get in your way. She has a light in her soul, that shines for herself and everyone around her; one that we can only aspire to replicate in our own lives.

We talk a great deal about the clash of values and the clash of interests between the old and the new. Nothing made this discussion more real than this online blog I came across the other day, called "Coping with Polygamy: A First Wife's Jihad."

It is a personal and intimate account about what it was like for Umm Janna - an educated, modern and deeply religious woman -  to become part of a polygamous relationship.

What follows are some of the most fascinating excerpts from her book/blog, which is available online.

It's an interesting read because her sorrow is painfully evident. So it forces the reader to ask: is she making a sacrifice for Allah? Or is putting herself and her future children through unnecessary problems? Is she a martyr or is she the pathetic victim of a bad marriage? It is so easy to pass judgment, but so hard to actually understand what she is going through until you are living it yourself.  

_____________________
From the chapter "The Shock":
The intensity and persistence of the pain and hurt that I felt when my husband took another wife was unlike anything I had ever experienced before in my life.  Most of us probably associate the most difficult trial of all with the loss of a loved one.  When I first began writing this book, about five years ago, I hadn’t lost anyone in my family that was very close to me.  Since then I have; that was certainly a difficult period in my life. Every situation is different, though, and everyone’s reality is different. For me, polygamy continues to be the most difficult trial I have ever had to deal with.  We thank Allah for the good and the bad. I remember quite vividly the day my husband broke the news to me.  My husband, children and I were riding home in the car.  As we pulled up into the driveway for my husband to let us out before he parked, he said, “I’m marrying the [other] sister.”  I suddenly felt numb and dazed, robot-like.  I got out of the car, unlocked the front door and entered the house.  I felt almost like in a dream world.  I can recall waiting for him to say he was just kidding.  But he never did. The first night was the most traumatic of all, although many other nights and days competed closely.  Because I was still pretty much in shock, the reality of what this all meant to me hadn’t really set in.  What I did realize was a gut wrenching agony, loneliness and sadness.  The loneliness was beyond loneliness where I wished for companionship.  It was a loneliness of emptiness, one of loss.  It was at this point that I realized that I had no one but my Lord—Allah. I do not recall sleeping at all that entire night.  I made dhikr almost continuously.  When I wasn’t making dhikr I was making salat and dua.  And through all of it I cried…probably the whole night through.

For every pain that a Muslim experiences even the pricking of his finger with a thorn, some of his sins are forgiven. (Bukhari)

Some people feel they are being weak if they cry.  But according to one hadith the Prophet (saw) cried when he was saddened.  And he is the best of models.  When the son of The Prophet’s daughter was dying, she sent for The Prophet (saw).  He sent a message back for her to be patient.  She sent for him again.  He then met her and held the baby.  Tears fell from his eyes.  His companion asked, “Oh Rasullulah, what is this?”  He said, “They are tears of mercy.  And Allah does not have mercy on those who do not have mercy. (Bukharai)

_____________________
From "The Depression":
After the initial shock subsided somewhat, I went into a deep and long depression.  I felt ashamed, embarrassed, and rejected.  How could he have married someone else unless there was something wrong with me?  I had low self-esteem.  He does not love me anymore.  She has taken my place.  For the most part, Allah blessed me to stay in control of my emotions and maintain my dignity in front of others when I went out to masjid functions during the initial period. This was a very difficult period for me because almost every community activity that I attended the other sister was also there. Although I tried to conceal my feelings in public, at home is where I let most of my pain and hurt show.

Initially I did not completely comprehend how long and tiresome the journey in polygamy would be.  Fortunately Allah blessed me to have spurts of energy filled with generosity and kindness towards the other sister in the beginning.  I am not saying that there were not times that my feelings of anger and resentment did not come through.  There were certainly times that I behaved in a way that I would not consider appropriate as a Muslim sister.  But over all when I consider the intensity of the feelings that I felt at that time, and compare that with how I interacted with the sister, I conclude that my actions were generous indeed, by the mercy of Allah.

I had asked for a “divorce” several times from my husband. This was done during the earlier periods of my difficulty with polygamy.  That is not to say I do not think about divorce even now.  The pain, turmoil and unfathomable adjustment just seemed too difficult to bear.  I can see the wisdom in divorce not being in the hands of the wife.  I knew inside that I really didn’t want it.  I just wanted my husband to feel my pain and anguish and I wanted the hurt to go away. When thinking about the hardship of polygamy a sister must keep in mind that Allah Most High knows His creation better than the creation knows itself.  He knows why He has made the lawful, permissible and the forbidden, impermissible—even if we do not.  He knows the emotional disposition of the woman, for He created her.  He could have made her character different if He had chosen to.  Although it may be hard or almost impossible for a first wife to see the wisdom of polygamy for the first wife, she must suffice it to believe that Allah is sufficient to maintain her affairs.  And she must put her trust in Him.

One of several recourses some sisters take in response to their pain is going into seclusion.  This seems to be the road I have taken. I am not necessarily recommending this for anyone, but it is a choice.  Even though I was somewhat shy in the past, polygamy presented so many emotional and social conflicts for me in public that being a hermit seemed a reasonable solution. I call it being a hermit.  Some may see staying home a lot as a positive Islamic characteristic for Muslim women.  Everyone is different, and everyone has different needs.   People are inclined to various coping mechanisms, and everyone has a unique personality type.

I found myself growing less sociable as time went by.  I would often sit by myself when in public reflecting on and contemplating my situation.  I would sit staring straight ahead in thought.  Once when I was sitting in a waiting room while visiting the doctor, someone made the comment to me, “You look like you just lost your husband”.  Apparently the anguish in my face was so obvious.  It is interesting how this person chose to describe my expression, because polygamy is a loss—a loss of so many things.  It is a loss of social status, a loss of being the sole affection of your husband, a loss of normalcy in one’s life pattern and to some degree, yes, a loss of your husband himself.

My depression led to daily, and I mean daily, crying spells.  I spent so much time in my room lying in bed that I still today regret that I was unable to give my children much of the attention they needed at that time.  I can see how an extended family of grandparents and aunts would have been a great benefit to them in order to fill the void,  and Allah knows best.

_________________

Last week, KIH editor Anas Ingar wrote an article admonishing the University of Toronto (and society in general) for not cracking down harder on the St. Michael's College boys who "dressed as the Jamaican Bobsled team from the movie 'Cool Runnings' in blackface."

As he mentioned, the group apologized at a town hall meeting that the Black Students’ Association held. One person from St. Michael’s College also took full responsibility and apologized. I have to ask: what are they apologizing about? Is it really that big of a deal?

I have to correct Anas on the issue of blackface. Blackface itself is not something racist and evil. That is like suggesting that ANY coloured paint is inherently racist. Does this mean that darkening your skin with spray tan to get a Brazilian tan is a sign of some inherent racial issues? It might be, but not necessarily.

Because it's not the product that is the problem, it is the intentionality behind it. As Anas himself says, those boys were simply trying to dress up as the film characters they loved. And what his article fails to mention is that one of the four boys was black and he played the role of the white actor in "Cool Runnings." So, why didn't he come under pressure?

So what if they knew the history of blackface? Why does that even matter? They were not using it in the same way that the actors of the early 20th century did. They didn't rumble around the room calling the white men "masters" nor did they amble about, implying that all black people are fools.

They were not perpetuating any racial stereotypes: they simply dressed up as individuals who happened to be black.

But why can't we be -dare I say- funny enough to tell the difference? Why did we not assume that it was flattery? "Cool Runnings" is a classic, after all.

My greatest fear is that we misuse the word "racist" so much that it becomes meaningless. Being discriminated against because of the colour of your skin is horrendous. However, trying to pretend that these colour variations don't exist is equally unhelpful.  

Of course, we have to be aware of really discriminatory and prejudiced behavior. However, being so politically correct that we make people afraid of engaging with us doesn't help the cause of minorities in any way. It makes people afraid to talk to us, afraid to laugh with us, and afraid to understand us. And this only worsens segregation.

I say, we drop it. They were educated boys and they did it in good fun. It only belittles us for the next time we attempt to comment against "real" acts of racism. Like the boy who cried wolf, when we really mean it, nobody will care.

Obama has yet to to respond to General McChrystal's request for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan, and he's taking a lot of flack for taking so much time.

But it's not just negligence or incompetence that keeps him from making his decision: its leverage. The troop surge issue was Obama's way of pressuring the Karzai government in Afghanistan to have legitimate second elections. He can't be seen to supporting a suspect government.

There were second elections in place because the first ones were marred with scandal from the very beginning. Presidential candidates were linked to warlord groups and even Karzai's vice-presidential candidate, Marshal Muhammad Qasim Fahim, was linked to drug traffickers. There was a huge security vacuum and election day was seen as extremely high-risk. Access to polling stations was severely compromised and ISAF (The International Security Assistance Force) was on high alert.

According to the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, the day turned out to be exactly the disaster ISAF was expecting. "Polling day recorded the highest number of attacks and other forms of intimidation for some 15 years. Regrettably, 31 civilians were killed, including 11 IEC officials as well as 18 Afghan National Police (ANP) and eight Afghan National Army (ANA) personnel."

After the election, declarations of fraud and corruption only became louder: charges of fake voter tickets being bought and sold, bribes being offered, coercion and polling stations being shut down and attacked.

The results were contested. According to the BBC, the partial results were: Hamid Karzai – 212,927 votes, 40.6%, and Abdullah Abdullah – 202,889 votes, 38.7%.

Neither of the two has been directly implicated in corruption, but both are most likely involved in some way. It’s inevitable and unavoidable.

Abdullah allies mostly with the Tajik north. He IS the old Northern Alliance, and he holds Ahmad Shah Massoud as his mentor (a beloved "character" we all remember from Khaled Hosseini's A Thousand Splendid Suns).**   

And under heavy U.S. and Western pressure, Karzai acquiesced to a run-off election to be held on November 7, 2009.

It was hoped that Karzai and Abdullah would work together in some kind of coalition government. Despite all the corruption, the two had garnered at least 80% of registered votes. Abdullah had the support of the Tajik north and Karzai has the support of the South. As well, they had worked together before: Abdullah was the Foreign Minister of the first Karzai government.

But, it was decided only a few weeks ago that the run-off election would be cancelled. Karzai's term was renewed and he was declared victor. On November 1, 2009, Abdullah announced that he was withdrawing, saying "I will not participate in the November 7 election," because a "transparent election is not possible."

Obama will have to make his decision about the troops now, as soon as possible. It likely won't be zero, but it certainly won't be all 40,000, as requested. The issue of bad government in Afghanistan is an even bigger headache for the Americans, if Islamic insurgents and poppy trafficking wasn't bad enough.

The war in Afghanistan is a political mess. And when the invasion first happened, THIS was seen as the good war, and Iraq was seen as the illegitimate war. Over time, the tables have certainly turned. While many Western politicians are adamant that we stay the course, most are starting to second-guess the nation-building and democratizing policy that is underpinning the US invasion.

The Iraq-Afghanistan Difference
When the US first came into Iraq, we would do well to remember that Iraq already had a history of strong government, industry and wealth. When the Americans came in, many Iraqis saw them as liberators and the presence of American soldiers was seen as safe. Baghdad was already seen as the centre of the country and it was easier to see the Americans filling a centralized role.

Afghanistan is a different story. Kabul has never really had a strong grasp over the rest of the nation. So when the Americans came into this dirt-poor country, they tried to not only displace the government but also to strengthen it and centralize it, and extend its control over the rest of the country.

The first part was easy. The campaign of displacing the government started early October, after 9/11. It was a relatively short campaign. The number of American soldiers on the ground, at the height of the campaign, was literally no more than 300 Allied forces. The Americans bought out the Northern Alliance  (who hated the Taliban) and subcontracted the war. The soldiers and the CIA brought equipment and luggage bags full of money, to win over support on their side.

So the government was won with 300 soldiers and a wad of cash.

But now what? A makeshift government stands in Kabul but it has little power.  It has limited control over the rest of the country and it can't strengthen its own services because Afghanistan has no industry, no wealth and no economy.

So what will become of Afghanistan? What will it look like before the West is finally able to convince itself that its okay to leave? The Americans have to leave eventually and their dreams of having a "good" government in Kabul will not ever be realized. The most they can hope for is "not bad."

And how can they get even that? For one thing, the corruption cannot be dealt with. It's inevitable and somewhat stabilizing, since there are so many diverse and violent interests in Afghanistan.

Second, the intervening forces may have to rethink centralized government and democracy. They may have to allow diverse groups to exist and have their own local forms of governance, tribal councils or loya jirgas. The most control that Kabul can hope to extend over them is to have them all agree that they are normatively anti-Taliban and perhaps get them to accept Kabul as the big dog. Other than that, it will have to be a loose arrangement, and we may just have to get used to it.
 
**The Northern Alliance and Massoud fought against the Soviets during the Cold War, and then later fought against the Taliban. Their goal was to set up an Islamic state in Afghanistan - without Taliban fundamentalism. Massoud, who was working closely with the CIA to shut down the Taliban, was killed - most likely as part of the 9/11 attacks.