In Me and the Mosque, Zarqa Nawaz answers a few questions. How have mosques dealt with the whether or not to build partitions that separate men from women while praying and listening to speeches; what does the Qur'an and hadiths say regarding this practice; and how have women responded? However, in seeking answers to these questions Nawaz delves into the role of women in the Muslim community; how oppressed people respond to oppression; and the importance of questioning traditions.
Nawaz, a Canadian, points out that the mosque she attended as a child did not have a partition. So when one was built Nawaz wanted to know why. Nawaz surmises that the immigration of Muslims to Canada from majority Muslim countries is the key. Since majority of Muslims in Canada come from majority Muslim countries they account for most of the people attending mosques. Bringing their religious customs with them, and causing mosques, such as the one Nawaz grew up attending, to build partitions that previously did not have them.
Nawaz consults an Islamic who refutes the argument that building physical partitions between men and women in mosques is supported by the Qur'an and/or the hadiths. While I do agree with Nawaz, I did find myself asking are there any Islamic scholars who disagree with his opinion? Having no background in this area, it would have been intriguing to hear more from Islamic scholars who support having partitions in mosques for a more well-rounded discussion. Perhaps the lack of Islamic scholars who disagreed with her suggests there are none or, more likely, suggests that Nawaz did not seek them out. For this reason Me and the Mosque reminded me of Michael Moore's film in that it is biased and if you disagree you'll spend fifty minutes griping about Nawaz's obvious bias.
The question of how women responded to having partitions in mosques is the most important. The answer to this question, I think, is what makes this movie relatable to the experience of non-Muslims. The answer to this question has an emotional tenor that can resonate with anyone – Muslims and non-Muslims alike. This question also takes us to the deeper issue of combatting oppression. For the most part, it seems that Muslim women have chosen not to speak against this. Instead, they have chosen to attend other mosques or not attend at all. When Nawaz went to Chicago one person said something to the effect that you have to make the oppressor uncomfortable. Change never comes without a fight.
This documentary is timely. Especially as a citizen of the US Republicans are attempting unprecedented rollbacks women's rights for religious reasons. One person in the movie said that every community has to deal with these sorts of issues. This is true. This film, and like the ongoing debate of the Parti Quebecois's charter of values which includes a ban of public servants from wearing clothing with religious significance, keeps us asking what it means to be a religious practitioner in a modern society. It is thought provoking and worth watching.
Nawaz, a Canadian, points out that the mosque she attended as a child did not have a partition. So when one was built Nawaz wanted to know why. Nawaz surmises that the immigration of Muslims to Canada from majority Muslim countries is the key. Since majority of Muslims in Canada come from majority Muslim countries they account for most of the people attending mosques. Bringing their religious customs with them, and causing mosques, such as the one Nawaz grew up attending, to build partitions that previously did not have them.
Nawaz consults an Islamic who refutes the argument that building physical partitions between men and women in mosques is supported by the Qur'an and/or the hadiths. While I do agree with Nawaz, I did find myself asking are there any Islamic scholars who disagree with his opinion? Having no background in this area, it would have been intriguing to hear more from Islamic scholars who support having partitions in mosques for a more well-rounded discussion. Perhaps the lack of Islamic scholars who disagreed with her suggests there are none or, more likely, suggests that Nawaz did not seek them out. For this reason Me and the Mosque reminded me of Michael Moore's film in that it is biased and if you disagree you'll spend fifty minutes griping about Nawaz's obvious bias.
The question of how women responded to having partitions in mosques is the most important. The answer to this question, I think, is what makes this movie relatable to the experience of non-Muslims. The answer to this question has an emotional tenor that can resonate with anyone – Muslims and non-Muslims alike. This question also takes us to the deeper issue of combatting oppression. For the most part, it seems that Muslim women have chosen not to speak against this. Instead, they have chosen to attend other mosques or not attend at all. When Nawaz went to Chicago one person said something to the effect that you have to make the oppressor uncomfortable. Change never comes without a fight.
This documentary is timely. Especially as a citizen of the US Republicans are attempting unprecedented rollbacks women's rights for religious reasons. One person in the movie said that every community has to deal with these sorts of issues. This is true. This film, and like the ongoing debate of the Parti Quebecois's charter of values which includes a ban of public servants from wearing clothing with religious significance, keeps us asking what it means to be a religious practitioner in a modern society. It is thought provoking and worth watching.
