A Bleak Tie Affair: Sword Imagery in Muslim Fashion

Recently, Deborah wrote on article on Sakina Design in which she quoted Miles Young, Global CEO of Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide who I had the distinct pleasure of hearing lecture at the 2010 American Muslim Consumer Conference. She quoted one of his most important thoughts from the lecture:

Islam is not strongly enough associated, in this country, with design: with graphic design, with the arts, with fashion or creative design. And in this sense it differs from the minority Muslim communities in Europe and certainly from the majority Muslim communities. And let me tell you, art and design diffuse fear. They normalize, they soften...

Islamic imagery tends to fall into very few categories: crescents, stars, Arabic calligraphy, the hamsa, and swords, to give some primary examples. The idea that Islam was spread by the literal sword far more than the metaphorical one (i.e., the sword of truth) has been pretty well investigated and debunked repeatedly (agree, disagree, agree), but the strength of that idea and the iconic images of the sword die hard. (Some of it is propagated by Muslims, since it helps bolster the ego.) The problem is that it feeds the fantasies of Islamophobes, and helps justify their ideas that Islam and Muslims have always been and continue to be bloodthirsty and violent. We are our own worst enemies in this regard. Here is perhaps the most egregious example I've seen in the recent past:

This tie was created in November 2010 by Iranian designer Hemat Komeili. Iran has generally disapproved of Western-style neckties since the 1979 revolution. Allegedly in the early days of the revolution, men with ties were detailed and their ties were cut off. (I should emphasize these are rumours I've heard but haven't been able to confirm.) Komeili, sensing a deep sartorial gap, went to Islamic history and modeled the tie after Imam Ali's famous scimitar, Zulfikar ("bifurcated"). Komeili says that his tie has been approved by some of the "sources of emulation" (probably sounds better in Persian). He says it appears beautiful like a tie, in addition to being based on Islamic values. The inscription is based on a hadith of Prophet Muhammad, "There is no hero but Ali and no sword except Zulfiqar," after Ali's use of the sword to defeat a tremendous warrior during the Battle of the Trench.

It's a powerful historical symbol that means a lot to some Muslims, and in particular Shi'a Muslims (since it was Ali's sword). But if dawah through neckwear is your thing, check out these ties from Zazzle. They look good. (I rather like a few of them, like the Alhambra Elegance.) And you're not wearing a friggin' sword around your neck! Could you really wear this to any interview other than one for an Iranian government position? I'm not picking on Islam here. I'm picking on design that makes the wearer look…questionable. There are similar examples that aren't Islamic (e.g. this or this).

Perhaps the most famous visual association of the sword with Islam is on the flag of Saudi Arabia. Now I realize I'm treading on dangerous ground here, not qualifying my statements with history and context. My point is simple: sensibilities and understandings change as history unfolds and we encounter each other in all our diversity. Most people won't take the time to learn your context – they will only ever see it in theirs. Perception is all that matters. Moving people away from the idea of all Muslims being frothing-at-the-mouth nutjobs, and toward the realistic understanding that of the 1.57 billion Muslims in the world, only a tiny fraction is barking mad, requires (among things) a significant exercise of rebranding through design. It might not be the single most important thing, but it's not as trivial as some might think. That was Miles Young's point: art and design aren't negligible. They are critical elements of communicating with others. (It's one of the reasons we are selling T-shirts rather than handing out pamphlets expounding our philosufi.)

Drop the swords, yelling, and screaming. Change comes from within. Enough with the swords. Even taking into account the strongly aniconic elements of Islam, our tradition has such a mindblowing history of art and design – I mean seriously, when you see some of the simply stunning examples of Islamic calligraphy or Islamic architecture, is a sword really the best we can do? Really?

Comments

[Neman]

Oh, the lulz...

http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/multiple-personality-disorder/islamic-tie-pen

[sms]

I love your blog, bas, I don't think you can deny that some conversions were carried out by sword. There have been many great Muslim emperors but some like Timur Lang, Babur, Aurangzeb, etc. did establish their rule by force. Many subjects of Aurangzeb, for instance, were forced to convert because they couldn't afford to pay jizya. Bas, I think as long as you acknowledge the truth that while most conversions were by choice, there were undeniably some by force. And you can also not deny that many people in theocracies like Pakistan, Afghanistan, GCC, etc. are forced to convert if they do not want to be discriminated against. To claim that all conversions are by choice is not being entirely accurate. Many people have found Jesus on their own and many have been lured into finding Jesus (and in the past, many were coerced).

[Neman]

Thanks for the kind words SMS! So glad you enjoy the blog!

I'm definitely *not* denying some conversions were carried out by the sword. Assuming the population of all conversions follows a normal distribution, you'll have the majority of them following a period of exposure, contemplation, perhaps an epiphany or two, realization, then conversion. At the morally positive tail, you'll have the people who converted after hearing just an ayat or two.

Then there's the morally negative tail.

To me, the negative (involuntary) conversions include force, coercion, and peer/social pressure.

The problem for me is that while *some* happened by negative means, they become the focus and the belief that they are the only way people converted is the one that takes hold. This belief is maintained - and propagated - by both detractors of Islam and by some of its proponents, particularly the ones who think it's tough and macho. In other words, the shape of the population is assumed to be heavily skewed toward the negative side.

A common assumption in a born-Muslim/converted-Muslim married couple is that the convert was somehow forced to convert, especially if that member is female. Same thing as above. Why not assume the convert did so out of their own arrival and investigation into whether Islam is their path? Probably because it's more salacious & satisfying to look for a subjugation scandal. (OMG I love alliteration!)

My parents used to run a small weekly Islamic school in our basement, attended by all the Muslim kids in our area. (It's inconceivable now, but back then, we could all fit in the basement. :-) One week, they had us do little skits about topics of our choice. My friends and I, being seven year-old boys bouncing off the walls, naturally chose what we thought was cool - a battlefield scene. We illustrated various things, like the obligation to bring water to anyone, even your wounded opponent, upon request, the importance of forgiveness, and true repentance. Then I thought it would be cool to pretend that we had come across a non-Muslim and said "convert or we'll kill you," arm raised as if I had a sword. Mom and Dad immediately jumped in (with everyone watching, of course) and explained how wrong that was, that a forced conversion was not a true conversion, that the person was doing it to save their lives, not because of the love of God. It's been many decades since, and I still remember that clearly.

My parents also used to mention Christian missionaries who had the Bible in one had and food in the other - conversion by coercion. I'd heard about these groups enough times that even *to this day*, when the opportunity to give money to a Christian aid group comes up, I automatically become suspicious. Am I right to react in that manner? Well, it happened. Should I assume all Christian aid organizations to this day are like that? I've learned that's not always true, and my *wonderful* neighbours, who do volunteer work for the Mennonite Central Committee, are proof I should not tar all the orgs with the same brush.

Regarding jizya, it's worth noting that this topic comes up frequently, as if it was only a sort of penalty tax for being non-Muslim. All states have social services (despite many efforts by people who don't need them to remove them) and a Muslim state was no exception. All Muslims everywhere pay zakat. Healthy and free non-Muslim males under the protection of a Muslim state (a "dhimmi") pay jizya. At various times in history, the exemptions for women, children, aged, sick, etc. were dropped or reinstated.

In return for paying the jizya, non-Muslims received protection by the state, social services, freedom to practice their faith even though they're in an Islamic country, and exemption from military duty. Various sources point out that in some instances the jizya was handled as a social services charity, and in others as a humiliation tax.

Taxes can be onerous or meaningless, depending on income level. No doubt, some people converted to avoid the jizya, but then they'd have to pay zakat.

The jizya was generally a fixed *amount* on a sliding scale based on income - a progressive tax. Interestingly enough, I found no evidence of it being indexed for inflation, so over time, the real value of the jizya decreased. Zakat on the other had, is a fixed *rate* (2.5% of your earnings) so it is inherently indexed for inflation. Becoming Muslim to escape the jizya is therefore not a good long-term fiscal strategy. (That's a joke, kids.)

Bottom line for me: Some conversions were coerced. But I found no evidence to support the contention they were the majority, nor that force was condoned.

Double bottom line for me: The tie is butt-ugly.