- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
As musicians, politicians and fans remember Sinead O’Connor, some Muslims are disappointed that the Irish singer and lifelong activist’s religious identity is not being highlighted in tributes.
UK police on Wednesday said the 56-year-old was found unresponsive in her London residence on Wednesday and that there her death was not being treated as suspicious.
Since the news of her death, Muslim fans of the 90s superstar have said her conversion to Islam, a cornerstone of her identity, was inspiring, but that some media reports have failed to note her religious beliefs in obituaries.
O’Connor, whose chart-topping hit “Nothing Compares 2 U” helped her reach global stardom, converted to Islam in 2018.
“This is to announce that I am proud to have become a Muslim. This is the natural conclusion of any intelligent theologian‘s journey. All scripture study leads to Islam. Which makes all other scriptures redundant,” the songstress tweeted on October 19, 2018.
At that time, O’Connor tweeted selfies donning the Muslim headscarf, the hijab, and uploaded a video of her reciting the Islamic call to prayer, the azan.
She took on the Muslim name Shuhada’ Davitt – later changing it to Shuhada Sadaqat – but continued to use the name Sinead O’Connor professionally.
One social media user said imagery of the singer without the hijab points to the glaring lack of Muslim reporters in newsrooms.
Meanwhile, some said that O’Connor was an inspiration for queer Muslims globally.
In 2000, she came out as a lesbian during an interview. But the singer, who was married to multiple men throughout her life, later said that her sexuality was fluid and that she did not believe in labels.
Some found joy in O’Connor’s conversion growing up, seeing themselves represented, while others, just learning about her Muslim identity at the news of her death, also took inspiration.
O’Connor was no stranger to controversy.
A lifelong nonconformist, she was outspoken about religion, feminism, and war, as well as her own addiction and mental health issues.
In 2014, she refused to play in Israel.
“Let’s just say that, on a human level, nobody with any sanity, including myself, would have anything but sympathy for the Palestinian plight. There’s not a sane person on earth who in any way sanctions what the f*** the Israeli authorities are doing,” she told Hot Press, an Irish music magazine.
Her iconic shaved head and shapeless wardrobe defied early 90s popular culture’s notions of femininity and sexuality.
In 1992, she ripped up a photo of Pope John Paul II during a television appearance on Saturday Night Live, vocal against the Catholic Church’s history of child abuse.
The late former star was also a firm supporter of a united Ireland, under which the United Kingdom would relinquish control of Northern Ireland.
The swastika is still used in Hindu spiritualism because thats the origin of the symbol. No one bats an eye at Hindu temples that literally have that symbol carved into them, because that was it’s original purpose. Now what changes about that situation when its a woman wearing a hijab instead of a temple or other holy things with a swastika. Spain and Italy still celebrate religious events that use uniform that look like the KKK uniform becaus its the garment that the KKK based their uniform off but because that wasn’t their original purpose, no one tries to stop them, and I’d wager you’ve never expressed any disconcern with either of those, but when it’s a women who chooses something for himself now suddenly you have an opinion.
I said in the nazi motif. This has nothing to do with women. Fuck off with that bait.
Wearing crosses is the same, male or female.
I didn’t know about that Spanish shit, haven’t heard of it so not sure how I’d be ready to comment. Do they claim to be progressive egalitarians?
Wear any garb of an abusive religion and you are no longer making sense if you “care” about equality.
So swastikas not in the nazi motif are okay but Hijabs not in the compulsory motif arent okay? You clearly know the swastika was originally a hindu symbol and made exceptions in your arguement for it, why is it different when a woman chooses a garment not in a hateful motif?
Nothing about thay comment was bait. Hijabs Swastikas and that uniform are all religious items that were co-opted by hateful people. You’re just lashing out because you can’t explain your inconsistency on it, and why you only speak up when its a women choosing something.
Any symbol of any abrahamic religion is a symbol of repression, patriarchy, and abuse of power. ANY.
Cross, hijab, yamaka, anything.
All those religions use unbalanced power dynamics to oppress people.
It’s fine to like that (I guess) because it’s your life. Like and wear whatever you want.
But it is hypocritical to advocate for freedom and equality and wear the logo of an oppressor. Doesn’t matter if you are a woman, man, Christian or Muslim, whatever.
I made the connection to the nazi-swastika (read, not the Hindu one) because it’s an obvious example of the same concept. Would you trust someone standing up and advocating for Jewish rights while wearing a full SS uniform?
I am saying symbols of abrahamic religions are the same thing.
Lastly, I’m not “speaking out”, I’m discussing on a chat forum. And I’m discussing a woman’s choices because the thread is about hijabs and this artist of very pointedly spent part of her life calling our religious corruption. If this had been about someone else, in another thread, obviously I would contextually refer to them and their situation. The “bait” call-out is you are trying to paint me as misogynistic because I’m discussing a woman in a thread about a woman. Bullshit. You even claim to be aware of my whole discussion history through life, as if you’re aware of my backlog of thoughts and opinions.