Fabulous, Feel-Good, and Fatwa-Free

When a Muslim and a Jew walk into a bar, it’s a joke. When a Muslim discovers he was born Jewish, it’s a movie. The Infidel, shown as part of the 2010 Tribeca Film Festival, is the story of Mahmud Nasir (Omid Djalili), a middle-aged Muslim man from London’s East End, who discovers after his mother’s death that he was adopted as a baby. Not only was he adopted, but his birth parents were Jews. Jews who named him Solomon (Solly) Shimshillewitz, or as his new friend Leonard Goldberg (Richard Schiff) suggests: Jewy-Jew-JewJewawtiz.

While Nasir is trying to cope with his new identity, he also must deal with the impending marriage of his son to the stepdaughter of one of Egypt’s most radical imams, Arshad El Masri (Yigal Naor). The movie takes off when Nasir discovers that his alleged birth father is dying in a nursing home, but can’t see him until Nasir learns what it means to be Jewish. (For the Rabbi is guarding the door, this means Nasir must know how to say the names of the five books of the Torah in Yiddish or recite the Shema). Desperate, he turns to his caustic neighbor Goldberg who instead, teaches him the truly important aspects of Judaism: how to say “oy” with the right inflection and knowing how to dance the Kazatsky (certainly a critical skill in my family!).

If you’re looking for a light-hearted send-up of Jewish and Muslim stereotypes, this may be the movie for you. The writer (David Baddiel) was not afraid to openly mock both sides with often pointed humor. And watching on-screen chemistry between Djalili and Schiff is definitely worth the price of admission. Beneath the laughs however, the film did try to address some larger issues–religious conflict, death of a parent, loss of identity–which is where it fell flat.

To take on these topics with a comedic touch, as Baddiel did, is admirable but he didn’t trust his writing skills to take his set-up to the next level. For example, towards the end of the movie we see Nasir sitting down with the Torah and the Koran on the table in front of him. Both books are leather-bound with ornate decorations on the covers. He opens each book to the first page and begins to read. Suddenly, he realizes how fundamentally similar these two books are, despite his pre-conceptions and he begins to reconcile his seemingly disparate identities. But instead of letting the message sink in both for the character and for the audience, the camera quickly shows him grabbing a cup that reads, “#1 Mutt.” Sure it’s funny. But it was defensive humor, almost as if Baddiel was afraid that one serious moment would detract from the overall humorous tone of the movie.

Similarly, in making this a film about a man torn between religious identity: Judaism vs. Islam, moderate vs. radical Islam, Baddiel primed us for a deeper conflict that never happened. Comedy gives us permission to explore even the most contentious of situations and has the confidence that audiences will follow. I wanted him to take advantage of this loop-hole and go deeper–to take on the simmering tensions that right now are only accessible through humor. Instead, he came up short–offering only watered-down hostility instead of full-blown craziness.

During the Q and A, Baddiel and Josh Appignanesi (the director) mentioned they had been a little nervous about the film’s reception by Britain’s Jewish and Muslim communities. They were pleased to report however, that after its release no one was burning them in effigy or calling them anti-Semites. Which, considering the topic, is no easy feat. Despite its flaws, the success of the movie proves that Jews and Muslims can agree on at least one thing. Can a comedy about AIPAC and JStreet be far behind?

The Imam Search

There are two interesting pieces that recently came out about the struggles faced by Muslim communities in the US and Germany. The first, published in the Washington Post, tells the story of a young American-Muslim imam who is searching to find a place for himself within the Muslim community. Unlike Christian and Jewish communities who have an established employment network set up for newly minted Rabbis, Priests, Ministers, etc., according to Adeel Zeb, the story’s protagonist, there is no such network for young imams. In fact, many American-Muslim families hope their sons will grow up to be lawyers or doctors rather than men of the cloth. Moreover, the generational divide is a significant obstacle. Imams not only need to be learned, but must also look the part: older (Zeb is 28) and sport a “gray beard.”

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, German Muslims are facing similar problems. At a recent event that addressed the question: “What Role Do Religion and Culture Play in Integration? A Transatlantic Comparison of Muslim Integration in Germany and the U.S.” hosted by the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies (AICGS) in Berlin, the discussion quickly turned to the lack of German-born imams. As Zeb noted in the Post article, “most American mosques are led by imams from overseas who aren't fluent in English. They know how to lead prayers but don't necessarily have the professional credentials or communication skills to become community leaders.” If Germans read this article, I’m sure they could relate. The lack of locally born imams is concerning to a country that still struggles with how to integrate its Muslim population. Moreover, those who do work in Germany often lack language skills, knowledge of the country in which they, and their congregation, live, and are uneducated about the cultural touchstones of their adopted countries.

While Zeb no doubt faces real frustrations, it seems as though, based on these two examples, it is the American-Muslim community that comes out ahead. In the US, at least, there is an opportunity for him to receive the type of training that for German-Muslims is still an abstraction.

The Post article ends on a wistful note offering thoughts about what professions Zeb might enter into, none of them being the one of his choice: imam. Perhaps I have one additional suggestion for him. Learn German and move to Germany. I hear they’re hiring.

Links of Interest

Here are some links I've been meaning to post, but have been to lazy to get to!

A feminist Muslim group in France, Ni Putes ni Soumises (Neither Promiscuous nor Submissive) protests against the burka in Paris: http://tinyurl.com/yzfjd9x


A discussion of why reform Judaism hasn't caught on in France: http://tinyurl.com/yky23uz


Anti-Islam sentiment is gaining political ground in Europe: http://tinyurl.com/ygr7s8k


Fatih Akin, German-Turkish director of Edge of Heaven and In July, comments on the national identity debate in France: http://tinyurl.com/ykum4bj

Unveiling The Veil

Here is an excellent op-ed, for the most part, about the French debate over the veil and the debate over national identity. The author, Raphael Liogier, attempts to deconstruct the French reaction to the veil and to address the debate on a human rather than on a political level. By taking this approach, he confronts his discomfort with the veil while at the same time acknowledging that this discomfort has more to do with him and his preconceptions than it has to do with those who chose to wear the veil.

"Je comprends l'angoisse, la peur de l'autre, et j'ajoute même que je peux parfois moi aussi l'éprouver, et être choqué par ces femmes qui s'obstinent à couvrir totalement leur corps en public, tout simplement parce que ce n'est pas ma culture, pas mon environnement, pas ma vie."

He goes on to express legitimate concern that should a law pass that bans the burqa, France would only be giving into anti-Republican impulses and would only serve those who support a fundamentalist ideology.

The part where he loses me, however, is his contradictory statement half way down the page. All of the sudden --despite his previous assertions that it is he who must confront his prejudices regarding the veil and the women who wear them and that France has no business forcing people to wear (or not wear in this case) in public--he reverts to stereotypes. As long as women don't seek to impose the veil on others, he asserts, or they aren't pressured into wearing it, then he doesn't have a problem with the veil.

First of all, I would be curious to know how many accounts there are of women physically going around trying to force non-Muslims to wear the veil. If he means in a more abstract sense (i.e. wearing the veil at all is a form of evangelizing) then the women are in a no-win situation. If they don't wear it, they will be rejecting an important part of their religious life and if they do wear it, they will be accused of forcing people to be like them. Both of which Liogier says he is opposed to and smacks of anti-democratic behavior.

Secondly, how will the average French citizen decide that women are being forced to wear the veil by their families? Will they go up and ask? Will they wait for the women to report this form of abuse to the police? If one women reports that she is being forced to wear the veil, will this mean reconsidering the ban?

I applaud Liogier's efforts to analyze the situation, as well as his own self-analysis, but hope that he can understand the contradictory nature of his opinions and figure out how to reconcile the two.

Hopefully he'll go for the more tolerant approach.

Canadians to the Rescue!

I came across an interesting clip from CBC tonight saying that Israel recently optioned the rights to Little Mosque on the Prairie, a Canadian television sitcom that follows the ups and downs of a small Muslim community in Canada previously mentioned here.

CBC tries a little too hard to create a link between the positive reception to LMOP and a possible thawing of relations between Jews and Muslims in Israel. Plus, it is, of course, much easier to feel at ease with humorous characters of any religious background on TV than to confront generations-old battles in your own backyard.


The show succeeds because it humanizes its subject with warmth and humor, and most importantly a light touch, as it simultaneously tries to address heavier issues of integration, prejudice, assimilation, etc. In a country as tough and hardbitten as Israel, some of LMOP's plots may come across as fluffy or even worse, unfunny. But even light comedy, smartly done, can affect change where much else has failed and a feel-good Canadian sitcom may be as good a place to start as any.

When nuance is not so nuanced

So I am currently working my way through The Heart of Islam, by Seyyed Hossein Nasr--a book I picked up at the recent Muslim Arts and Voices festival in New York City. The book's flyleaf promises a thoughtful and nuanced examination of cultural, political, and religious Islam as well as an acknowledgement and exploration of the religious beliefs and traditions that it shares with the other Abrahamic faiths, Christianity and Judaism. Given these laudable goals, I am disappointed that his discussion of these three faiths often results in his extolling the virtues of Islam above the others and dismissing facts which contradict his claims. For example, it is quite frustrating to read a sentence that states, "In the middle part of the Islamic world...[there are] still some Jews...although most of the Jews from Arab countries migrated to Israel after 1948." Factually, Nasr is correct in stating that most Jews living in Arab countries left during that time period (Andre Aciman in a recent New York Times op-ed placed that number at 800,000), but it is also misleading to make such a statement without any sort of context. There is no mention of the anti-Semitic rhetoric, policies, and violence that forced Jews to leave en masse. If Nasr wishes to extol the relative peace of minorities in Muslim lands, it is equally important to recognize when this is not the case.

Similarly, when Nasr discusses Christian missionary work in the Muslim world, he is equally one-sided. He is highly critical (appropriately I believe) of missionary efforts to convert Muslims and charges Christian groups with using material aid (food, medicine, etc...) as temptation. He does not however, or at least not yet, talk about how these same tactics are used within the Muslim world, especially among more radical groups (i.e. Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, etc...) to win converts. Perhaps these situations are not exactly comparable, but when Nasr so strongly condemns Western consumerist culture, and does not acknowledge that these same activities (with similar aims--conversion) occur within the Muslim world, between Muslims, it demonstrates a double standard which directly contradicts his stated aim of a nuanced discussion.

In spite of, or perhaps because of, these points of contention, this book is certainly food for thought. If I do finish it, I hope that by the end I will have gained a somewhat deeper understanding of religious Islam...if nothing else.