I recently read The Convert: A Tale of Exile and Extremism on Maryam Jameelah.
Here are links to some gripping excerpts from the book:
http://www.thefridaytimes.com/22042011/page26.shtml
(part 1)
http://www.thefridaytimes.com/29042011/page22.shtml
(part 2)
http://www.deborahbaker.net/books3.htm
(author Deborah Baker’s website)
Let’s call Maryam Jameelah ”MJ,” and just remind yourself that I don’t mean Michael Jackson so as not to become confused if you actually read through all of this 
Muslim readers, just curious, how many of you have heard of her or read anything by her? If you or your SO or family members are from Pakistan, have you/they heard of her?
My husband had never heard of her. Neither had a handful of Muslim and Pakistani people who I asked when I started reading the book. I learned of her when I was living in Oman when a friend of mine gave me a copy of MJ’s correspondences with Maulana Maududi. My friend was an older Zanzibari lady, so she reads about Islam mostly in the English language, as do some South Asian Muslims. (Colonialism connection there.) I had been a Muslim for several years in the US before I moved to Oman, so that means that I spent years in an English speaking Muslim context without coming across Maryam Jameelah’s name or writings.
Upon being given the book of MJ and Maududi correspondences, I remember being fascinated by her story because she and I had something in common-namely that she and I are both Muslim converts of Jewish heritage. MJ was born in 1934 to a secular Jewish family in the NYC area, but converted to Islam and moved to Pakistan where she married and settled for the rest of her life. She was a white, Western woman who supposedly gave up a privileged American life for a strict orthodox Jamaat-e-Islami recommended austere Muslim Pakistani life. She had the potential to confirm the supremacy of the Jamaat-e-Islaami narrative by rejecting the Evillle materialism of the West in the nobler quest for the boons of the Akhirah. As an author and intellectual, she wrote in that polemic, absolutist, grandiose way (to use Baker’s terms) that neo-orthodox oriented Muslims lap up. But I think her time of relevancy was over decades ago and the author is making it seem like she is currently as influential.
Years ago, when I read her writing, I was quite put off. Like her mentor Maududi, she was vehemently anti-Western and her Islam was a Salafist neo-orthodox Islam. As with many Salafist oriented writings, I found myself cringing at the ridiculousness of some of the anti-Western assertions put forth as truths in her writing; I recall reading something about Western feminism being a path towards an all-female, lesbian, Amazonian style society or some such utter nonsense. I read this maybe 7-8 years ago, so I can’t remember precisely what it was that she wrote, but some of her writings are available online…I have been lazy to find where I read the Amazonian society thing because I couldn’t find it from a quick google, if anyone knows please let me know…I did find one article in which she suggests that feminism leads to lesbianism here. Her thinking and her writings reflect the colonial and post-colonial times in which she grew up. I agree generally with her criticisms of Western imperialism. I think the long-lasting negative effects of colonialism are pretty clear to us today. But I disagree with her idea of “pure Islam” (which really means rigid, literalist Saudi styled Salafi Islam) as the solution to the ailments of the global Muslim Ummah.
Anyhow-I never gave MJ much thought after having a good eye-roll at her writing all those years ago, but after reading the above linked excerpts from the book in The Friday Times, a mix of nosiness and curiosity came over me and I had to know more about her. Maryam Jameelah is featured as one of the VIPs of modern Islam in Makers of Contemporary Islam by John Esposito. But unlike Baker suggests in her book, I have never seen MJ pamphlets in Islamic centers, and have not heard of her mentioned often, possibly not again since that time in Oman from the above mentioned friend. I think her style of anti-Western discourse is actually very passé for contemporary Western based Muslims. There are certainly some forms of anti-Western rhetoric, but MJ’s was an older anti-technology, anti-modernization ideology that equated modernization with Westernization, and while I am aware there are some fringe Salafi-oriented groups (like Tableeghi Jamaat) who still preach such things, these ideas are not broadly current among us. Clearly this discourse is still prevalent in certain circles in Pakistan, though.
Here is a link to the MJ chapter in Makers of Contemporary Islam- worth a perusal if you are interested.
Apparently, MJ is a person of great importance. That is the take author Deborah Baker has. The author exposes MJ’s unusual life circumstances, and both the author and MJ are fixated on the presumed divide between Islam and The West. Baker seems to agree with MJ that the divide is ultimately unbridgeable. (I disagree, especially in our era of globalization, global inter-connection, and as a Western Muslim myself.) Baker also exposes a lot of dysfunction in MJ’s life, ultimately painting MJ as a lunatic—or perhaps she just pieces together enough evidence to prove that MJ was a lunatic. MJ was diagnosed with schizophrenia and was hospitalized several times for mental breakdowns and psychotic behavior, including a hospitalization in Lahore shortly after she arrived in Pakistan. As a reader, I felt somehow guiltily impertinent and voyeuristic during certain parts of this book, especially since MJ is still alive and residing in Lahore.
Baker delves into the relationship between Maulana Maududi’s and Maryam Jameelah’s writings and the War on Terror. Among the historical factors surrounding the current War on Terror situation are the neo-orthodox Salafist Islamic movements that arose as a reaction to the subjugations of colonialism and post-colonial imperialism. Thinkers like Maududi come from that climate. I do see connections between Maududi’s influence and part of the reasons why Pakistan has become religiously radicalized in some segments of society. For example, the long-lasting injustice against Ahmedi Muslims, including periodic incidents of violence committed against Ahmedi Muslims in Pakistan are connected to Maududi’s anti-Ahmedi stance. Interestingly, I learned from Baker’s book that Maududi didn’t understand the monster he created and lamented it to other elderly Jamaat-e-Islami colleagues in his later years. But all of this blasphemy law insanity, hudud ordinance injustice, and the anti-Ahmedi, anti-Ismaili-Shi’a, and anti-Shi’a rhetoric can be tied to him, not as the originator of such ideas, but as a main source of propagation due to his scale of influence. Baker takes things a step further and blames Maududi and Maryam Jameelah for 9/11. She actually blames MJ to her face and reports on MJ’s unprepared and lame response. I think that both Maududi (and MJ, if she really had such significance) have some small hand indirectly in jihadist/terrorist form of radicalization simply because the Islamist rhetorical foundations of the later extremist movements are connected to these older movements. In the same sense, so do the colonizers who created the oppressive climates that spurred these movements in the first place, right? Anyway, it is a common and irresponsible insinuation in Western rhetoric that neo-orthodox Islamist movements and extremist-terrorist movements are one and the same. I don’t think MJ ever called Muslims to attack The West, just to reject it. Some violent extremists have been influenced by Maududi’s thoughts since their version of ultra-orthodox so called “pure” Islam comes from the same Islamist theological movements, but to my knowledge, he never specifically called for Muslims to rise up and go to the West to attack people, either. As a matter of fact, as far as I know, the Jamaat-e-Islaami vision of an Islamic society is based on individual commitment to their neo-orthodox version of Islam as a logical-intellectual domino effect towards their styling of a ’Shari’ah based’ society, and not on a forceful overthrow or physical attack on any establishment, Western or otherwise. So, I don’t think Baker should have gone and told a 75 year old granny that she personally caused 9/11, which is essentially what Baker did to MJ. In some ways, that seemed like a twist to make MJ’s story extra relevant and interesting to readers. I think MJ envisioned some self-sufficient, powerful “pure Islam” Shari’ah state, and saw resisting the West/Modernity as a way to achieve this, but I don’t think she advocated offensive militant jihad or offensive terrorism.
Anyhow, it is a fascinating book, even though it is essentially a piece of gossip that defames MJ and causes her to look like a loon. Since many of MJ’s ultra-orthodox, anti-Western premises are so disagreeable, perhaps it is a good thing to know the back story and know how deranged she was (is?) because this discredits her and her ideas. But I still feel bad for MJ because she was ultimately just a young idealist, and now just an elderly woman living in a dingy room in Lahore. Apparently, a couple of MJ’s children emigrated to the US from Pakistan as adults.
Though I don’t think MJ is currently as popular or important as Baker suggests, MJ is an interesting figure to learn about. Baker made a sort of peace with MJ’s story at the end, and ended up corresponding with her. As a result of the meetings between MJ and Baker, MJ produced an article in 2009 in which she condemned terrorism, the Taliban, and the destruction of girls’ schools in Northern Pakistan “under the false pretext of Islam.” (p. 222-223) Baker sent MJ some magazines, and wondered in the last line of the book what other reading material she should send to MJ. Well, how about Progressive Muslims: Essays on Justice, Gender, and Pluralism, or any of the books by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl?
October 17, 2011 at 8:45 pm
I read your review with great interest. Thank you for taking the time to tell us your thoughts about this book. I am glad to hear that you think the divide is bridgeable. So do I.
October 18, 2011 at 10:04 am
Thanks for stopping by. I am glad that you feel that way.
October 18, 2011 at 1:41 am
Would you agree with me when I say that the likes of MJ and zakir naik in the muslim ummah outweigh those who don’t?
But this “pure islam” has been the basis of american foreign policy for a long time isn’t it? If islam isn’t channeled against non-muslims(US, thailand, india etc) then it automatically fights itself. It purifies itself. The darker shade of green vanquishes the lighter shade of green. It eliminates all remaining contradictions and converges into one. That means the sunni version of islam will prevail. The shia’s, the ahmedis, the sufis can either un-contradict themselves willingly or be done by force.
There is always an internal struggle happening in islamic communities around the world to become more and more “pure”. Surely the americans have figured this part out very well. You cannot just leave a void and go because the void will suck you back in. If the west wants to quit from the “west v/s islam” association then it will have to fill the void with somebody else. That means “india v/s islam” or “china v/s islam” or shia v/s sunni ahmedi whatever as long as it fills the void. The middle-east region has to fight itself else it will fight others.
India refusing to react to the mumbai attacks was a smart move, yes? If pakistan cannot fight india then it will automatically fight itself(shia/sunnis/ahmedis etc).
So in the end, it is apparent that only the pure will survive.
October 18, 2011 at 10:03 am
Hmmm, there are so many wrong assumptions and assertions here that I am not sure where to begin to address your points.
In a nut shell, no, ZN and MJ are irrelevant outside of a very specific South Asian context. They are meaningless in say, North Africa. Also, barriers of class, education, and poverty mean that ZN’s appeal doesn’t reach the true statistical ‘Masses’ of South Asian Muslims. He reaches people of the urban educated lower middle classes and core middle classes, not the poor or the rural. The true ideological ‘enemy’ of ZN Islam is not The West, but the heart of South Asian Islam of The Masses: the Sunni-Shi’a-Hindu syncretic, Sufism and superstition laden Islam of shrine goers and pir worshippers. (BTW Sufism is NOT at all a separate phenomenon from either Sunni or Shi’a Islam as you suggest above.) The educated lower middle classes and core middle classes take on the Salafist oriented message because it is empowering and it distinguishes them from The Masses and makes them feel ideologically superior to the elites. The urban so-called “liberal” upper class and elites are generally speaking irreligious and “Westernized.” Though I believe their daily lifestyles are only superficially liberal (what does that even mean?) and Western, and in fact they are quite feudal in a specific South Asian way and a Victorian British classist way. These elite people aren’t interested in anyone with as thick of an accent in his English as Dr. Naik. Anyway, I have generalized a lot here and divorced my classifications from their differing national contexts in PK, India, and Bangladesh, but very generally speaking, I believe that the structure that I propose holds in all three countries, with extra twists in India since Muslims are a stigmatized minority community.
I think the idea that Islam/Muslims are or always have to be at war with someone or something or at least be internally at war is just a reflection of Islamophobia and is not at all true.
October 18, 2011 at 1:07 pm
ZN is a practitioner of wahabi islam; many would call that the purest form of islam. It is native to the saudi region. So I don’t know how you can say that he does not connect outside south asia. He does organize shows outside south-asia on his channel “Peace TV”. The crowd majority is not always made of brown people.
Sufism is nothing but indian islam. It is strongly influenced by indian spirituality and religions. The one strong difference between sunni islam and sufi islam is that the former is monotheist and the later is a pluralist. No wonder they are at the receiving end from sunni practitioners.
Without the elite muslims, there would have been no pakistan(and bangladesh). These elites had a dilemma on their hands. Their actions prevented dilution. Jinnah might have been an elite and a hate monger but he is also a tool to break the hold of the mullah over the muslims. The compromise for you is that you cannot have both.
October 18, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Thanks for post book looks v interesting
October 19, 2011 at 8:29 am
Mmm it’s interesting how someone can be viewed later on. Now you get Marie Stopes abortion centres but she was actually against abortion and sex outside marriage I remember from a Tv programme about her. Obviously a proponent of contraception and a pioneer in this area.
October 19, 2011 at 3:00 pm
I’ve never heard of her…off to google!
October 20, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Brihaspati, I think many right-wing Hindus, like their evangelical counterparts, have a ridiculous illusion of a good understanding of dynamics within Muslim communities.
Sufism is a very vast and diverse set of beliefs, but the vast majority of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent- Deobandi and Barelvi (both consider themselves SUNNI) and the diaspora in Western countries have deeply entrenched Sufi thought, philosophy and learning. Many of their biggest historical personalities are referred to and acknowledged as Sufis. I don’t think there is space to get into details here.
Then there are other strains of Sufism with belief systems that aren’t really Islam, but as you (Brihaspati) said, are deeply influenced by (old)Persian, Greek and polytheistic Indian philosophies. They are into superstitions, into the “pir-murid” system more strongly than other Sufis mentioned above, and do not believe in traditional forms of Islamic prayer such as Salaah, fasting etc.
So, sufism per se is not a different movement from Sunni or shia Islam.
As for the atrocities in Pakistan against minority Muslim/non-Muslim communities in Pakistan, ( I have nothing to do with Pakistan), persecution, victimization and subjugation of minority communities by right-wingers from the majority community is an unfortunate reality all over the world.
While the minority Muslim community in India has been subjected to pogroms, mosque demolitions, police atrocities, and so on, the minority Muslim community in the US is subjected to suspicion and Islamophobia. (As much as people would want to see it that way, in reality, Muslims do not see themselves as one monolithic entity.)
October 21, 2011 at 4:10 am
You are confusing not only me but but yourself also. The belief in the concept of “god” itself is a “superstition”. The way you separate some form of superstition from another form of superstition pretty much raises my eyes brows as far as it can. “Allegiance” and “Education” do not mix.
There can only be two forms of beliefs. Monotheist and Polytheist.
The logical conclusion of adopting a monotheist belief system means viewing other belief systems as inferior. It this person still respects other beliefs while staying monotheist then I will giggle away at his/her hypocritical stand.
The sufi version if islam violates the traditional monotheist principles of islam by absorbing some polytheist beliefs from indian religions. That is a very big problem considering islam’s forever ongoing struggle to de-contradict itself. This the reality of the struggle for unification.
October 20, 2011 at 5:34 pm
As for the post itself, I was a little unhappy by the extreme generalizations that were made here by luckyfatima in the blog and in the comments that followed. But I’m guilty of this many times too.
I have read Maryam Jameelah and Maududi as a teenager(which wasn’t too many years back). I also remember reading an interview by Maryam Jameelah for this Indian magazine that someone gave me called Young Muslim Digest(I think). Someone had also gifted me a collection of Maududi’s writings in a translated book called “West v/s Islam” on my birthday.
One, Maryam Jameelah wrote that at some point in her life, she grew tired of revivalist literature- the staple of Maududi and others in the Jamate Islami, and that she then turned towards pure Sufi literature. She went on to name many of the works. She is no more the person she was when she was authoring her Muslim revivalist literature.
Two, Maryam Jameelah was deeply disappointed by what she saw in Pakistan when she got there (This I remember reading from her interview). She had assumed that Pakistan was a very good Islamic country, but that was not to be.
Three, Maryam Jameelah was also disappointed with the direction the movement started by Maududi took in Pakistan- she said Maududi’s focus was quite comprehensive, cultural and what not, whereas the focus had now become just political.
Four, Maududi (and then Maryam Jameelah) wrote at a time when every majority-Muslim society had been colonized or influenced by Western powers. His writings should be seen in that light.
Muslim societies were fast losing, looking down upon what was then their own culture (which wasn’t necessarily Islamic in the first place IMO), and looking up to what was then secularism-based Western ways of life. From what I remember reading, he encouraged imbibing Western education, but wanted to “Islamize” it because western learning and structures were then based on secularism as its foundation, which he said was contrary to Islam. He went on to explain the process of Islamization in Western education, and then the differences between Islamic and secular Western social system, the secular political system, interest-based economics etc.
He berated a visiting Turkish scholar for having a Western mode of thinking that looked down upon Islamic thought.
He said that for Islam to flourish in a society, there had to be a revival of Islam to the political past of the first four Caliphs.
It was an essentially intellectual movement he set up that sought to portray the then secular Western colonial ways of life as inferior to Islamic ways of life, and to stop the tide of inferiority complex in Muslim societies.
Do I agree with Maududi, Maryam Jameelah and the revivalist movements on all of these? No.
Do I think Maududi’s works are relevant in the current world scenario, especially in the western world, and in an era of globalization? No. The world has changed, it’s no longer a Muslim v/s colonizing secular Westerner scenario.
Are Maududi / Maryam Jameelah in anyway responsible for 9/11 or other violence perpetrated by violent extremists? That would be foolhardy, and wrong. They did not call upon violence, they waged intellectual arguments against the then imposing, colonizing body of thought. They wanted what they called an “Islamic State” with principles different from the then secular Western states. It seems obvious theirs was a movement that grew out in response to cultural colonization.
PS: I also remember reading Karen Amstrong putting the blame on Syed Qutb, who was more or less on the same page as Maududi, fighting British colonization of collective thought in Egypt for all the “Islamist violence”. She called it “Qutbian Terrorism”.
October 21, 2011 at 9:34 am
Yes, I did say that I was generalizing at several points above.
I think you and I have the same perspective on your point #4.
I am not sure if you have presented this as a point of disagreement, because you have essentially summarized my perspective.
I think blaming any of these revivalist figures for modern terrorism is ridiculous, especially when there is no mention made of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the purposeful creation of militant ideology in that context.
October 21, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Yeah, I was reinforcing your point from what I had read. It is ridiculous, but the connections between Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots in Egypt to violence, especially in the Israeli context isn’t helping matters, as far as the blame game is concerned.
October 21, 2011 at 8:58 pm
OK, thanks for clarifying.
October 22, 2011 at 11:33 am
Thank you for the review! My ex (Pakistani) gave me MJ’s book At Home in Pakistan, a collection of letters she sent home to her parents. He wasn’t really aware of who she was though, he came across the book (I believe at a mosque, in Florida), saw it had to do with Pakistan and a Western convert, and thought I might be interested.
I wasn’t very impressed though, she was way too conservative and drastic for me to feel like I could relate to her at all, and I did half-way get the impression (with the stay at the mental hospital as well), that she wasn’t quite well. I felt like she was desperately seeking someone from the outside to tell her how to live her life, as a way to gain structure in her life and surroundings.
October 22, 2011 at 11:56 am
I hadn’t read much of her either, including the letters back home to her sister. In Baker’s book it is revealed that the letters were re-written for publication, and show a totally different (more rosy) version of things.
October 22, 2011 at 11:57 am
Wow, I find that pretty dishonest
November 13, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Hey, don’t you think you people are judging Maryam Jameelah just by reading a biography on her written by a person who met her barely twice? In my opinion you cannot write about someone’s life unless you really know them. The letters given in “The Convert” are altered. The author said so herself. If you want the unaltered versions you should read the following books:
1. memoirs of childhood and youth in America
2. correspondence between Maulana Maududi and Maryam Jameelah
3. At home in Pakistan
The portions of letters were taken from these books. You’ll find the entire letters here.
You’ll find that Maryam Jameelah’s writing style is also different from the letters given in “The Convert”. What you’ve read in “The Convert” is the ‘tale’ from Deborah Baker’s point of view along with her assumptions and opinions. I think that you should give Maryam’s books a chance too and then form your opinions on her.
November 29, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Thank you for taking time to research and write this!
December 30, 2011 at 9:43 pm
Salaams. Interesting post! I’d say that MJ was until recently nearly a household name among South Asian Muslims who were into, shall we say, Muslim/Christian sectarian debates. She was definitely very high profile in such circles for several decades, but even among them her impact’s probably been more cultural than political, I’d wager. Her writings were frankly not good enough to do anything other than sing to the choir of extremists. I think her main role was to be a native informant who confirms the crude stereotypes that Salafi and Islamist types already have about the West rather than to do dawah, much less promote Islamist ideology. It’s kind of comical to even be talking about her in a way–Western observers like to focus on personalities like MJ since it distracts us from the INFINITELY more influential role played by the Afghan Jihad in the 1980s in radicalizing (and arming to the teeth) Islamists in South Asia and elsewhere. Check out Mahmood Mamdanis’ GOOD MUSLIM, BAD MUSLIM for a penetrating analysis of the oversized role of this conflict (and its instigators and funders, the USA and Saudi Arabia) in creating the Jihadi monster that now bedevils parts of the Muslim world.
February 20, 2012 at 7:43 am
Amazing post! I’ve been meaning to read this for ages; and sadly only got around to it this morning; you need to blog more often sis! I discovered MJ about 10 years ago; and I serialised her correspondences for our local Radio Ramadhan, which made her pretty popular around these parts! As you might expect, her writing wasn’t really my bag! I found it fascinating though; mainly as a glimpse in to convert/revert evolution and development. When I lived in Pakistan, I met quite a few old timers who had, lets say, something of the MJ about them! It may be to do with intellectual frameworks, but to me, it has more to do with the zealousness of the convert in those days; and the desperate need people felt to belong, especially if they had been expelled by their families and needed to reinvent themselves in order to integrate in to the new societies in Pakistan etc which they found themselves in. There isn’t anything particularly intellectual about MJs work! Most of it is rehashing of Jamati literature with a Western/Convert personal perspective thrown in. To blame her and figures like her for modern-day terrorism is ridiculous! If one were to go down this road you might also blame Abdal Wahab for the same; but if you read any historical wahabi literature most of it was about trying to make Islam more accessible and less ostentatious and doesn’t always relate to the extremist salafi literature we see today. Reading your review, I found myself wondering who a modern-day MJ might be? Certainly, convert literature and intellectuals have moved on considerably, and I couldn’t really think of one, but from a south-Asian perspective, Farhat Hashmi was way up there in my view; what do you think?