Somewhere in America, There is Just a Little Bit More…

Picture a two-minute video portraying fashionable young women sporting colorful clothing, classy high heels, and exotic gold dangly earrings while skateboarding through an alleyway, climbing on railings and lampposts, and strutting through nature to Jay-Z’s jazzy, fresh new song “Somewhere in America”.  Now imagine how much cooler this seems when I tell you all of these fabulous women are wearing the hijab, the religious garment Muslim women wear to cover their hair. 

While this video is undeniably attractive to both the eyes and ears, the filmmakers’ intentions are either faulty or simply lacking. The video presents the hijab as a garment of fashion, failing to show the depth the women in the video are capable of.  For those who claim that this is just a fun video for hijabi girls to show how normal they are, I would like to ask why we as a community feel the need to prove ourselves by showing how capable we are of reflecting these "hipster" and "American" qualities, instead of showing a more authentic portrayal of who these women are. 

“Mipsterz” is the name, a combination of the words “Muslim” and “hipsters”, used to refer to a new movement of individuals who have a fused identity somewhere in between their free-thinking, Western environment and traditional, Islamic background. Though the Mipsterz from this video are irrefutably cool to the average American teen, who usually sees Muslim women as obedient and repressed individuals cloaked behind a full-body sheet of black, I for one would have liked to see some of the personality and character behind these female characters. 

Most all the females in the video, referred to as “models” by the credits on the video page, are portrayed as fashionistas who happen to be able to implement the hijab into their outfits.  They are seen with Chanel shirts, expensive watches, and sophisticated high heels.  The element of the hijab almost seems marginal, as if its presence was an accident. The focus is fashion.  What viewers would not know from the video is that the girl eating the ice cream is an MIT graduate. The girl riding the skateboard in heels is a successful entrepreneur who founded her own clothing line of scarves. The one found climbing the tree is a successful reporter on women’s issues in the Middle East. 

Why did the filmmaker choose to show these women as flat characters?  These women are all influential figures who are pursuing careers and doing big things. The fact that they wear the hijab makes this video an even more opportune moment to show that in addition to being hipster, hijabi women can be powerful and courageous actors who are out to change the world.  

Ibtihaj Muhammad, the first Muslim woman to compete for the U.S. in an international competition, is featured in the video fencing with her partner.  These few seconds in the video with Ibtihaj stand out to me as the only segment that presents a hijabi woman for something other than her physical appeal or wardrobe choice.  These moments focus on Ibtihaj as an athlete.

Another well-known woman from the video is Noor Tagouri, a journalist who is working to become the first veiled anchorwoman in America.  From the video, a viewer cannot infer that she is a passionate individual with a goal in mind.  Instead, Noor is featured doing cartwheels in the grass.  Even though this is a fun portrayal of a girl in a hijab enjoying herself, the potential for these individuals and this video is much greater.  A better portrayal of Noor would be having her behind the desk at a news station, as photos from her Facebook page show her.  Even better, as the audience I would have even liked to hear from Noor herself, maybe to hear about what the hijab means to her or to find out what project she is currently working on so that she can reach the anchorwoman position. 

My point is that there is no point. If a girl wandering around a park with a hijab on is supposed to be saying something noteworthy, I guess I am not hearing it. Apart from the scene with Ibtihaj Muhammad where her talents are reflected, the other women are not really doing much.  As a filmmaker, when your models not only are intelligent but also have the ability to represent an overlooked and misrepresented demographic, you have a responsibility to do your models and the audience justice by presenting the depth these women are capable of.  Because if standing around looking fabulous as a Muslim is an attempt to impress the audience, that only points to the ignorance and low expectations we have of these women in the first place.   

Krokodil Attacks

A new drug that has come from Russia is called "Krokodil". It has originated as a version of heroine that is much cheaper.  Increasing its spread is the fact that it can easily be made with over-the-counter ingredients, including codeine, paint thinner, gasoline, and other very toxic substances.

The mixture is injected into the body. After using krokodil, the skin becomes green and scaly-like, giving the drug its name.  After two or three years of use, krokodil kills the user.  This is because the flesh begins to rot from the inside, and the organs fail.  The drug has been making its way over to the United States.  In order to counter theses attempts to produce krokodil, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get codeine over the counter in Russia.

Rankings of Best Arab Countries for Women Released

After a comprehensive look at the Arab World, the Thomas Reuter's Foundation has found Egypt as the region's worst country for women to live.  Egypt is the most populous Arab country with a population of almost 81 million.  It seems as though the Arab Spring did not do women much good in Egypt, as their current situation is worse than it was under Mubarak.

The poll ranked twenty-two countries based on various factors: violence against women, reproductive rights, women in the family, women in the economy, women in society, and women in politics.  The study not only has an overall ranking but also ranks the countries in order based on these individual themes.

On the topic of reproductive rights, the countries were assessed based on the policies and customs surrounding pregnancy and job security, access to birth control, access to a legal and safe abortion, and access to reproductive education.  The only two countries in the Middle East that allow abortion without any restrictions or requirements are Tunisia and Turkey, the latter of which is not an Arab country but a predominantly Muslim country.  All other countries in the region prohibit abortions unless in special situations where the mother's mental or physical health is at risk or only when the mother's life is at risk.  If you want to know about any country in the world and its abortion policies, take a look at this link here.Egypt ranks last in the category of reproductive rights. Its policy on abortion actually has no explicit exception listed that permits abortion in the case where the mother's life is at risk.

The most significant issue facing Egyptian women today, which is surely one of the primary reasons for Egypt's low ranking, is the prominence of sexual harassment.  Sexual assault and harassment are the tactics men often used against women during the demonstrations and protests.  The U.N reports that up to 99.3% of Egyptian women are subject to sexual harassment.  If this is a movement to fear women into staying at home and off the streets in order to prevent them from partaking in the political process in Egypt, let's hope that the women fight back and decrease these numbers.

Around 91% of Egyptian women are also subject to female genital cutting or female genital mutilation.  High numbers of women are trafficked and in some villages their economies are dependent on this trafficking in addition to forced marriages.  While these women are clearly being treated as victims in this society, there is still much hope.  Acknowledgement of the problem is the first step, and these Egyptian women are not willing to go down without a fight. They were there in Tahrir Square when Mubarak was ousted, and they will continue to fight for their rights as Egyptian citizens and as women.

Body Language Does More Than You Think

In the business setting, as in any setting, body language says more than you would think.  As this TED Talk demonstrates, not only does body language reflect what is going on inside as far as how someone feels, but body language can actually be used to change how a person feels. The TED Talk says that assuming powerful body language positions before an interview can help someone get in the right mindset and give them the confidence they need to succeed.  Such power poses involve sitting in a chair with your hands behind your head and leaning back in your chair, or leaning over with both hands on the table.  Power posing makes you less stressed and also increases testosterone, putting you in the perfect state to nail your interview or do well on your presentation.  On the other hand, poses that often signify weakness, such as putting your hand behind your neck or efforts to try to make yourself look small, are shown to increase stress levels and decrease confidence. Unfortunately, most times we are placed in a waiting room before our interview, where we often sit hunched over our phones or uncomfortably in the couch, which make us less relaxed and hurt our confidence in the interview. A quick trip to the bathroom can be made to try power posing for a few minutes, anticipating the bathroom will provide you no spectators, to help you ensure that you feel ready to interview.

On the Hijab and What it Means

We've all seen a woman wear a hijab. Whether it has been in person or in films, we also have all developed our own ideas about what it means.  The hijab is a cultural or religious garment that women wear on their   heads to cover their hair.  The origins of the hijab are not clear; some claim it is a cultural-regional element that has grown to be associated with a religion, some believe the wives of Muhammad began wearing the hijab as social symbol, and others believe that the Qur'an mandates the hijab for the followers of Islam.  The Qur'an commands in Chapter 24 for women to "guard their privates" and "cover their bosoms".  It never does specifically state that women have to cover their heads or hair, but simply to guard their ornaments and be modest in their dress.

Regardless of the origins of the hijab, it is worth noting that the hijab is worn differently country by country and that the hijab does not have a universal form or style. These different forms of the hijab originate based on varying beliefs as to what the religion mandates as the appropriate way to cover.  Often the different styles have different names as well.

Beginning with Saudi Arabia, the women wear what is referred to as a niqab. The niqab covers a woman's face except a small slit that leaves open for the eyes.
                                        

In Afghanistan, the women commonly wear what is known as the burqa, which covers the whole body and face, but leaves a semi-transparent cloth over the eyes. The Taliban enforced this wear for women when they were in power, and the garment remains culturally enforced and commonly worn in Afghanistan.

In Iran, the hijab is mandated by law. There are two different ways the hijab is usually worn. For those women who are usually more religious, a chador is worn. A chador is a large cloth that is draped over the head and back of the women, which comes around toward the front, where the women clutches the cloth to hold it over her body. It is usually black.

                              

For other women who often wear the hijab solely because it is mandatory, a roosari is worn.  A roosari is a small cloth that is only worn on the head to cover the hair. The roosaris in Iran have become very colorful during the past few decades. Usually, it is not worn too tightly (depending on which city it is worn in) and often is seen sliding further and further back on the woman's head with more hair showing year by year, as the enforcement is loosening in Iran.

Here are some other ways the hijab is worn:

There are various reasons a women will wear a hijab. Often it is a way to be modest and protect oneself, many times it is a politically or socially enforced garment, and sometimes, as for many women in the United States, the hijab is worn to represent the religion of Islam.

Vegetarianism: The Diet of the Future?

Vegetarians. They're everywhere. Especially in L.A., the chances of finding at least one or two vegetarian meals in any restaurant is very likely.  The visibility and popularity of vegetarian and vegan places have also increased.  The Veggie Grill, a popular chain eat-out that serves a menu of foods all vegan, offers "Buffalo Wings", salad with "Thai Chickin'", "Baja 'Fish' Tacos", and a "VG-Cheeseburger" that is accompanied by its coordinating "VG-Cheese".  The Veggie Grill first opened in Irvine, and now has fifteen locations in Southern California with additional locations in Northern California, Oregon, and Washington.

Grilled Veggie-Steak, pickles, 

lettuce, tomato, crispy onion rings, 

thousand island dressing

What is this vegetarian movement all about?  The most common responses to a vegetarian declaring his or her dietary preferences usually include "But.. where are you going to get your protein?" or "So.. you can't eat cheese?".  These statements reflect a general lack of public knowledge as to what vegetarianism is, whether it is a sustainable diet, and why vegetarians choose to be vegetarian.  Let's break this down. 

Vegetarianism refers to a diet that consists of foods that exclude animal meats or flesh. Beef, chicken, pork, fish, shrimp, duck, snails, anything that was once an animal's body is avoided. Pescetarianism, a slightly different diet, is the same as vegetarianism but offers the exception of fish and other seafood.  Veganism, on the other hand, is a more restrictive diet, limiting the diet from everything the vegetarian doesn't eat along with any other animal products, including eggs, milk, butter, cheese, or any other food that has come from an animal. Here the line gets a bit blurry  Some individuals choose to extend veganism to their entire lifestyle by avoiding using any products that are made of from animals, such as leather. Whether honey can be consumed is a gray line, differing from person-to-person, and everyone has his or her own philosophy of how veganism should be performed.  

As to whether or not vegetarianism or veganism are sustainable lifestyles, the answer is yes.  In fact some studies seem to prove that vegetarians live longer lives than meat-eaters.  The primary concern meat-eaters often express toward vegetarianism is regarding a potential protein deficiency.  One point should be made that the human body does not need ample amounts of protein that others make it out to seem.  Furthermore, there are non-meat sources of protein that are more than sufficient to provide individuals with the protein their bodies need. Beans, eggs, soy products, nuts, dairy products, tofu, and more.  

There are many reasons for becoming a vegetarian.  The primary reasons include: 

(1) ethical issues regarding the bad treatment of animals in the industry, including both living conditions and the killing tactics used

(2) environmental effects of high demand for animal products (a significant percentage of CO2 emissions come from cows and other animals)

(3) religious reasons usually based on health and ethical concerns of eating animals (these restrictions on meat are especially relevant to those of the Hindu, Muslim, or Jewish faiths)

(4) health incentives (becoming vegetarian often helps individuals lose weight and is known to lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, and hypertension)

(5) high prices of meat

Here are "10 Ways Vegetarianism Can Help Save the Planet"

An Unfortunate Past, A Potentially Bright Future: The Story of Iran and the United States

On September 27, for the first time in roughly thirty years, the presidents of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States had direct contact. The newly elected president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, had a phone call with President Obama.  The two expressed their willingness to cooperate in order to reach an agreement on Iran's controversial nuclear program.  The phone call took place just minutes before Rouhani arrived at the airport for his return to Iran after the U.N. General Assembly.  While many were anticipating a handshake to take place between Obama and Rouhani that day, an occurrence that failed to take place, this phone call reinstated some hope for both the American and Iranian people for the possibility of peace between the two nations.  The conversation that took place is not only indicative of the positive changes happening in U.S.-Iranian affairs, but also symbolic of the end of an era of pain and unrest that has tainted the interactions between Iran and the United States for almost half a century now.  Bill Clinton was quoting saying that Iran "has been the subject of quite a lot of abuse from various Western nations".  The history of events between the U.S. and Iran demonstrate a strained relationship that is primarily characterized by U.S. violations of Iranian sovereignty and harm to the Iranian people, which has left many Iranians bitter and angry with the United States. Despite these offenses, Rouhani demonstrates to be a promising advocate for peace between the two nations.

Some of the major actions of the United States that have hurt Iran took place during the twentieth century, before Iran became the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Operation AJAX, a covert operation that resulted in a coup d'état in Iran in 1953, overthrew the democratically-elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh.  Mossadegh was a politician who had been involved in Iranian politics since the beginning of the twentieth century, when Iran became a constitutional monarchy and established a parliament. He was the first Iranian to obtain a doctorate degree in law.  Mossadegh is most know for his accomplishment of nationalizing Iranian oil.  The Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC, which is now known as British Patroleum) was a British oil company that owned 51% of the Iranian oil that was being drawn from southeast Iran, while the Iranians only received 16% of the profits of their own resource.  Mossadegh introduced the bill in Parliament that was eventually passed, to nationalize APOC and give ownership of the country to the Iranians. A month later, he was voted with an overwhelming majority in Parliament to be the Prime Minister of iran.  Britain was extremely frustrated by this occurrence and wanted to retaliate against the Iranians. An intervention was proposed, and Britain approached the United States for support. Mossadegh had increasingly strong ties with the Tudeh Party, the communist party in Iran, after the nationalization, which gave the U.S. a reason to get involved. In 1953, the coup was executed by the CIA and MI6, which overthrew and imprisoned Mossadegh.  The following years led to a strengthened relationship between the Shah and the U.S., including a large sum of money that was given to Iran after the coup. Ironically enough, the U.S. even helped give birth to the nuclear program in Iran: it established a nuclear research center and equipped Iran with a nuclear reactor along with a continual supply of enriched uranium up until the Revolution in 1979.  The Shah was considered a "puppet" of the United States, which angered many Iranians. This corruption, along with the failing economic policies of the Shah, inevitably led to the Islamic Revolution that overthrew the Shah and established the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is the current regime ruling Iran today.  The general Iranian dissatisfaction with their current government leads them to put much of the blame on the United States for involving itself in Iranian politics for its own personal agenda. Ironically, again, the Iranian regime the U.S. currently is struggling to negotiate with is the same regime that the U.S. is responsible for creating. 

Mossadegh during his arrest in 1953.

After the Revolution, Iran was perceived as weak and vulnerable, which led to an Iraqi invasion in 1980 and the beginnings of the Iran-Iraq war that lasted until 1988.  The United States supported Iraq, after removing Iraq from its list of "terrorist" countries.  It provided Iraq with training, money and weapons.  Aside from the fact that the United States help Iraq sustain the longest war of the 1990s against Iran in hopes of an Iranian defeat, it has also been demonstrated that the U.S. was fully in the know about the chemical weapons Iraq had been using against Iranians, including nerve gas, mustard gas, and sarin. Not only had the U.S. been supplying Iraq with materials that were being used to create chemical weapons, but it also provided Iraq loads of information of Iranian troop locations - troops that were to be attacked by Iraqi chemical weapons. 100,000 Iranian troops were victims of these chemical attacks, along with many civilians as well.  Saddam Hussein even used these chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds. The most significant chemical attack against civilians occurred in the Iraqi city of Halabja.  The survivors of these attacks continue to live with the results of the chemicals today, as is highlighted by this film, A Skin that Burns.  It is for this reason as well that the Iranian regime and people have a mistrust and resentment toward the United States.

The current conflict with Iran is primarily the global concern its nuclear program is causing.  What Western news tells the public is that Iran is close to reaching the point where it would be able to develop nuclear weapons. The argument is not that Iran is building nuclear weapons, or that it can build nuclear weapons, but that it should not reach a point where developing nuclear weapons is a possibility.  Throughout the global pressures Iran has faced over the years, the former president,  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been stressing that peaceful nuclear energy is the only intention Iran has with its nuclear program.  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, states that a nuclear weaponry program goes against the ethical tenets of the religion of Islam. It is worth noting that up until this point there is no evidence to demonstrate that Iran has the intentions of building a nuclear weapon. 

As a response to Iran's alleged nuclear initiatives, the United States has spearheaded the international sanctions on Iran that also involve the EU, Japan, South Korea, India, Canada and Australia.  These sanctions affect the ability of Iranian banks to make foreign transactions and oil exports primarily.  While these sanctions are aimed at punishing the Iranian government in an attempt to halt the nuclear program, their primary effect has been everything but. One of the harshest results of sanctions against Iran is the huge inflation it has caused.  In 2010, 1 US Dollar was equal to about 900 Iranian toman, while today in Iran it would be worth 2400 toman.  The Iranians have stood and watched as the value of their life savings diminished to what now seems like nothing. The cost of living has increased and families have had to cut back.  Those students who have been studying for years with the hopes of attending university in Europe or the United States now have been told that their families cannot afford the costs of doing so.  Access to medicine is very difficult.  The sanctions have affected trade and the ability to import medicines is very limited. As for as alternative options, the medicine and drugs in Iran are known to not be reputable and not only are significantly low in quality compared to foreign medicines, but they are also known to cause side effects that can even be worse than the original need.  Sanctions have affect women's ability to access birth control, victims of chemical weapons or of serious disease to access treatment, and even those who have pain to access a basic Advil or Tylenol. Last year in November, the first civilian died as a result of sanctions. A 15-year-old boy, Manouchehr Esmaili-Liousi died of haemophilia because he could not obtain the medicine he needed. In addition to these harsh effects of the crippling sanctions, there are also other major difficulties posed by sanctions. Iranian immigrants cannot receive money transfers from their families in Iran. Some bank accounts of Iranians in America and Canada have been closed. One Iranian-American in Georgia was refused service in an Apple store, because the employee claims that it is against U.S. policy to sell her an iPad.  The pain and anger at the U.S. from the past if anything has only been  exacerbated, and it would seem that the U.S. has hurt the prospects for peace and negotiation with its violent and deadly sanctions.

A 20,000 rial bill, once worth about $2.20 is now worth about $.80.

Many will argue that Iran has proven itself to be a hostile and threatening nation. The words of Ahmadinejad have been quoted continually, referring to the moments where he referred to eliminating Israel, or "wiping it off the map", and even labeling the Holocaust as a myth.  While these translations are a bit off, for Ahmadinejad was actually referring to the regime governing Israel or simply the Israeli government being eliminated rather than the country, the more significant point to be made is that Ahmadinejad's unsophisticated and bold statements are not representative of the Iranian government's policies or agenda.  Not only is Ahmadinejad no longer president, his ability to declare war is limited considering the Ayatollah is the most powerful individual in government, not the president.  Furthermore, the new administration in Iran has made a point to distinguish itself as a peaceful and respectful administration.  Javad Zarif, the Iranian Foreign Minister who eloquently summarized the Iranian message to America in this interview on ABC News, clearly made the distinction between the new Iranian administration and the old of Ahmadinejad. He says that the Holocaust was a "heinous crime" and "genocide". Regarding the Iranian chants of "Death to America", he states that this death is regarding the U.S. policies, not the country or people.  Furthermore, President Rouhani tweeted wishing all Jews a "blessed Rosh Hashanah". Any alleged animosity or violent intentions that Iran is said to have has disappeared with the election of this new regime.

Rouhani tweets to acknowledge the Jewish holiday, Rosh Hashanah.

The developing relationship between Rouhani's Iran and Obama seems to put the bitter memories of the past aside, at least for a bit. The phone call between the two has been the first significant step made that demonstrates willingness to cooperate on both sides.  Rouhani has even discussed reestablishing direct flights between the U.S. and Iran.  Before arriving in New York, Rouhani published an op-ed summarizing his message that he would also deliver at the U.N. General assembly.  "Civic engagement" is what Rouhani called for. By this he means to say that cooperation, communication, and negotiation are necessary to achieve peace. Rouhani also emphasized win-win solutions.  In his speech, he stressed that zero-sum politics are no longer the game, and that more sophisticated options should be pursued.  He also stressed that the U.S. tendency to reject everything that is not in sync with its own personal agenda is not an effective means to achieve peace. Rouhani closes his speech with: "Let me say this in all sincerity before this august world assembly, that based on irrefutable evidence, those who harp on the so-called threat of Iran are either a threat against international peace and security themselves or promote such a threat. Iran poses absolutely no threat to the world or the region. In fact, in ideals as well as in actual practice, my country has been a harbinger of just peace and comprehensive security." Rouhani's statement is a clear reference to the sanctions tactics of the United States, and how continuing to insist that Iran is a threat is the greatest threat to peace. Unfortunately, even after Rouhani's speech and the phone call with Obama, the United States still continues to clarify that a forceful military approach still remains on the table.  The overall message of Rouhani and his administration is one that seems to say that the U.S. must make sacrifices and cannot continue with its interventionist, dominating policies. Still, it is also a message of peace. Iran is clearly ready for an agreement to be made through mutual cooperation, but now the ball rests in the US's court to see if it is actually willing to adjust itself to make progress.

In this CNN Open Mic, Iranians share their thoughts on America and its foreign policy. Much of it is consistent with the messages the Iranian administration is sending to its foreign counterparts.

Blame it on the Victim

Different cultures promote opposing ideas about what forces are responsible for our fate.  While in the Middle East, often the happenings of people's lives are attributed to a higher being or an external force, in the United States the message is often that individuals have most of the control as far as what happens to them.  Maybe this is a tool to motivate individuals to take action and empower them to be the controllers of their own lives.  Maybe this is also the foundation for the harsh victim-blaming that takes place when it comes to rape. After all, we've always been told that we have the power, and we create our own situations.

Recently, the case in Maryville, Missouri involving two rape victims was re-opened. One of the victims, Daisy Coleman, released a piece sharing her personal story.  In this statement, Daisy shares the personal pain she's suffered from the incident, including how many in her school and community treated her following the incident.  She also discusses how the event affected her entire family: how her brother was bullied, her mom lost her job, and her house was burned to the ground.  The treatment Daisy faced after the incident, and how less of the focus was on the responsibility of the perpetrators demonstrates how society continues to place 100% of the blame of a rape on the victim.  Often after people hear about a rape, the questions involve something along the lines of "What was she wearing?" or "Was she drunk?", leaving the rapist completely out of the scene.

The link below was released by an Indian comedy group. It is a sarcastic response to the absurdity of society's beliefs when it comes to rape.

Does Feminism Need a New Name?

When most people hear the word "feminist", their first response is one of alarm and disinclination.  They think of extremist, bra-burning, man-hating women who are out to destroy anyone who is not on their side.  The common public understanding, as far as the average American's knowledge goes, of the word "feminism" is not nearly what it truly stands for. Perhaps what this movement needs is a new title.

The most accurate definition of feminism is: "An awareness of the differences in society between men and women, and conscious action directed toward creating equality."  One of the most important things to note is that feminism should, in its ideal, incorporate the struggles of both women and men in its mission.  Although "fem" gives the idea that the mission is only about men, in present-day, the movement has incorporated issues relevant to men as well as other minorities.

Feminism needs a new name. It needs a title that rids itself of the history of feminism. It needs a title that more accurately reflects its mission.

Click on this link and take a very short quiz to see if you are a feminist!

IRI Unblocks Facebook and Twitter

For the first time in a long time, the Facebook and Twitter websites are now accessible in Iran without a proxy. Is this a conscious decision by the Islamic Republic of Iran or just a glitch?  Tune in as we watch Iran transform with the new election of Rouhani.

One day after Iranians around the world celebrated the unblocking of Facebook, Facebook was blocked again. There are a few theories as to why the event occurred. Some say that it was a glitch.  Others claim that it was a test by the government so they can assess the reaction online and monitor Iranian usage of the social networking site.

Iranian government officials have justified the restriction on Facebook access by stating that is dangerous to family values. Facebook poses a threat to marriages and can cause divorces, the IRI has stated. In addition, individuals have commented on the tendency of Iranian women to post pictures of themselves without the hijab, claiming that is a risky and undesirable act.

TEHRAN — Internet users in Iran were surprised on Monday to find that they could access Facebook and Twitter without having to evade the government’s firewall, which had blocked direct access to the Web sites for years.
It was not immediately clear whether the government had made an official decision to stop blocking the sites, which it walled off from Iranian users in 2009, saying they were being used by antigovernment protesters to organize demonstrations. To reach the sites, many Iranians began using virtual private network, or VPN, software to connect through computers located outside the country, though the telecommunications ministry eventually deployed technology to block much of that kind of traffic as well.
The country’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, has promised several times to reduce Internet censorship, and several of his cabinet ministers, including the foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, have set up Facebook pages and opened Twitter accounts, some of them quite active.
Iranian Internet users reacted to the apparent unblocking on Monday as if a digital Berlin Wall had just crumbled on their computer screens.
“Hurray, I came to Facebook without using VPN,” a user called Bita posted on her wall. “Thank you Rouhani!!!,” Nima wrote.
In a twist of timing, an American Web-hosting company recently shut down the Web site of Mehdi Karroubi, an opposition leader who has been under house arrest since February 2011, to comply with United States sanctions that block hosting any site with the domain .ir, for Iran, Reuters reported Monday.
In Iran, Internet censorship is the responsibility of the Supreme Council for Cyberspace, which has made millions of Web pages off limits for Iranians, including the Web site of The New York Times. A special police unit visits Internet users at home, especially in smaller cities, and warns them not to try to visit blocked sites.
It was especially difficult to sidestep the firewall in June, around the time of the Iranian presidential election. In the days before the vote, supporters of the outgoing president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, fought for hours with officials at an Internet filtering center when several sites favoring Mr. Ahmadinejad were blocked.
Several hard-line politicians have made public comments in recent days calling Facebook “a Zionist tool,” but the fact that it was accessible in Iran on Monday suggested that the censorship council, which Mr. Rouhani heads, might have decided otherwise.
Still, the government has sometimes let the firewall blocking Facebook and Twitter slip open briefly by mistake, and some Iranians cautioned that the opening on Monday, too, might be just a glitch.

Reza Aslan: When the Personal Seeps into the Professional

This past July, a clip from FOX News circulated the Internet, dubbed as perhaps “the most embarrassing interview FOX News has ever done”.  Reza Aslan, a well-known and published religious scholar, was featured for an interview with anchor Lauren Green to discuss his new book titled Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. Aslan’s qualifications that he lists on his personal website include:

...a Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (New Testament; minor in Greek) from Santa Clara University, a Master of Theological Studies (History of Religions) from Harvard University, a PhD in the Sociology of Religions from the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a Master of Fine Arts from the University of Iowa, where he was named the Truman Capote Fellow in Fiction...Aslan's first book is the International Bestseller, No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, which has been translated into thirteen languages, and named one of the 100 most important books of the last decade. He is also the author of How to Win a Cosmic War (published in paperback as Beyond Fundamentalism: Confronting Religious Extremism in a Globalized Age), as well as editor of two volumes: Tablet and Pen: Literary Landscapes from the Modern Middle East, and Muslims and Jews in America: Commonalties, Contentions, and Complexities.

Green introduces Aslan as a "Christian who converted back to the religion of his forefathers, Islam”, and then jumps into a series of question that all fall under a single premise: that Aslan has little credibility to write a book about Christianity because he practices Islam as a personal religion. Aslan responds to her by clarifying that he is an accomplished and revered scholar in religions, with four degrees to qualify his credibility to write a book about the life of Jesus.  His response was: "To be clear, I am a scholar of religions with four degrees including one in the New Testament and fluency in Biblical Greek who has been studying the origins of Christianity for two decades who also just happens to be a Muslim, so it's not that I'm just some Muslim writing about Jesus. I am an expert with a PhD in the history of religions".  Aslan also notes that both his wife and mother are Christians, and his brother-in-law is an Evangelical pastor, to clarify that he does not have bias or intentions to attack Christianity in his book. The public was outraged at the anchor's questioning and the fact that she spent the entire interview attacking Aslan's credentials rather than discussing his book's material.  Zealot soon topped Amazon's Bestseller List.   
                                       

Green's interview with Aslan brings up a fundamental question about intellectualism and who the profession is reserved to. Does religion automatically disqualify an individual from knowledgeably preaching about an issue or proposing political ideas? Some may ask how this is this possible when the foundations of this country were built by those with strong religious ideals.  Is there a fundamental element that religious individuals lack, or rather possess, that changes the public's perception of their credibility?  A potential reason for this conception is that some do not think of the religious as intellectually advanced, or that religion compromises the ability to think analytically. In a recent academic review of studies performed throughout history, it was concluded that religiosity and intelligence are negatively correlated:

The review, which is the first systematic meta-analysis of the 63 studies conducted in between 1928 and 2012, showed that of the 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, while 10 showed a positive one.  Only two studies showed significant positive correlations and significant negative correlations were seen in a total of 35 studies.  

The authors of the review looked at each study independently, taking into account the quality of data collection, the size of the sample and the analysis methods used.  The three psychologists carrying out the review defined intelligence as  the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience”.

Religiosity is defined by the psychologists as involvement in some (or all) facets of religion.... The paper concludes that: "Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme —the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who 'know better'."

The essence of this study aims to prove the common belief that religion is not based on reason, and those who continue to hold religious beliefs cannot simultaneously attempt to bring forth advanced or rational theories in other fields.  But how far can this be taken? Are religious individuals incapable of intellectualism in every aspect? What about scholars like Aslan, who write about religion while practicing their own religion? Having this in mind, an analysis of Aslan's life and profession can allow us to determine whether or not Aslan is qualified to write intelligibly about the life of Jesus in Zealot.

Aslan was born in Tehran, Iran and came to the United States at the age of 7 in 1979, when the Iranian Revolution was taking place.  He grew up in the Bay Area of California.  When he was 15, he converted to Evangelical Christianity, and as he explains on The Daily Show with John Oliver, he was very passionate and committed to his religion. In an excerpt from Zealot, Aslan shares the draw he felt to Jesus, after coming from  a family of "lukewarm Muslims" who had recently escaped an Islamic Resolution:

After the Iranian revolution forced my family to flee our home, religion in general, and Islam in particular, became taboo in our household. Islam was shorthand for everything we had lost to the mullahs who now ruled Iran.  My mother still prayed when no one was looking, and you could still find a stray Quran or two hidden in a closet or a drawer somewhere. But, for the most part, our lives were scrubbed of all trace of God. That was just fine with me. After all, in the America of the 1980s, being Muslim was like being from Mars. My faith was a bruise, the most obvious symbol of my otherness; it needed to be concealed. Jesus, on the other hand, was America. He was the central figure in America’s national drama. Accepting him into my heart was as close as I could get to feeling truly American. I do not mean to say that mine was a conversion of convenience. On the contrary, I burned with absolute devotion to my newfound faith. I was presented with a Jesus who was less “Lord and Savior” than he was a best friend, someone with whom I could have a deep and personal relationship. As a teenager trying to make sense of an indeterminate world I had only just become aware of, this was an invitation I could not refuse.

Aslan also later explains as to why he reverted to Islam after his Christian experience:

I’m a Muslim not because I believe Islam is more correct than other religions, or that it’s more “true.” On the contrary! I’m a Muslim because the symbols and metaphors that Islam uses to talk about God and humanity, the relationship between creator and creation, are the symbols and metaphors that work best for me. That makes sense to me. They are not more valid, or more true, than the symbols of Judaism, or Christianity, say, but they just make more sense to me.

Aside from Aslan's personal transitions to and from Christianity, he has taken a close look at the life of Jesus as a man rather than Jesus as a religious founder. In Zealot, he explores Jesus in an unconventional way, with a historic focus rather than a religious one. Aslan depicts Jesus as a passionate political actor.  While some Christian followers seem to be outraged at this new Jesus that Aslan is presenting and consider the book an attack on the religion, much of what Aslan says in his book is actually supported by many scholars, as he mentions in his interview with Green. However, much about the book is also contentious and has been red-flagged by other religious scholars. It has been said that Aslan makes sweeping assumptions and is careless with his words and implications. Greg Carey, a professor of the New Testament, shares in his Huffington Post piece:

...I have some serious reservations about Aslan's portrait of Jesus, and I suspect that most professional biblical scholars will share some of them. First, the book contains some outright glitches, things a professional scholar would be unlikely to say. Aslan suggests there were "countless" revolutionary prophets and would-be messiahs in Jesus' day. Several did appear, but "countless" is a bit much. Aslan assumes near-universal illiteracy in Jesus' society, an issue that remains unsettled and hotly contested among specialists. At one point Aslan says it would seem "unthinkable" for an adult Jewish man not to marry. He does mention celibate Jews like the Essenes, but he seems unaware that women were simply scarce in the ancient world. Lots of low-status men lacked the opportunity to marry. Aslan assumes Jesus lived and worked in Sepphoris, a significant city near Nazareth. This is possible, but we lack evidence to confirm it.

With regards to Zealot, the bottom line seems to be that while Aslan makes some controversial statements in a controversial field, the dispute among scholars is not about whether or not Aslan had the right or qualifications to write such a book. Dale Martin, a professor of religious studies at Yale, concludes that while Aslan "uncritically accepts [some things] as fact", he is actually "too credulous when reading the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles".   
                                             

Reza Aslan's most famous book is No God But God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam.  In this book, Aslan gives a historical, political and cultural context to the religion of Islam that is not fully align with, and often contradicting, the traditional Muslim perspective. What is most interesting is Aslan's personal experience with Islam and how it gives him some insight into the religion.  While he was born into a Muslim household, he states in an interview on NPR that his father was disillusioned with Islam after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, which is a common sentiment of many Iranian immigrants in the United States. However interestingly enough, Aslan has not only returned to Islam but also writes to explain, or perhaps in a way defend, Islam as compared to how the religion is perceived by most of the non-Muslim world.  For example, as Aslan also discusses in the interview, the supposed mandated veil that many Muslim women wear has no explicit presence in the Qur'an, and the garment was actually originally introduced as more of a cultural and social element than a religious one. The book was widely praised and minimally criticized as compared to the response Zealot received. Maybe because this time Aslan is a Muslim writing about Islam, and therefore he is more trusted to talk about his "own" subject area. 

A few days after the interview with Green, Aslan appeared on Piers Morgan and stated that he "completely understands where Lauren Green comes from" and that he "kind of feels bad for her". Aslan seems to understand how the concept of a Muslim introducing something unfamiliar to many about Jesus is uncomfortable for many Americans. Then again, it is interesting how questions of Aslan's qualifications only come up after he publishes his first book relating to Christianity.   

My first time meeting Aslan at a panel discussion at USC