Other Methodological Complexities and Challenges

Bolognani (2007) in her work about methodological issues of doing fieldwork and research among British Muslims emphasis on the point that due to the post 9/11 and 7/7 political context in Britain, something that Rytter and Pedersen (2013) call that Muslims going through a ‘decade of suspicion’ after 9/11. Bolognani views that gaining access and building trust to do research among British Muslims has become difficult for researchers. Bolognani argues that pre-9/11 researches among British Muslims also faced challenged of trust and access, however, female researcher has some advantages over male researchers in terms of gaining access in gender segregated environments. As one respondent of Bolognani narrates British Muslims have lost interest in ‘white officialdom and white authority’ (p.282), I will extend the scope of concern and suspicion of respondents from giving access to the researchers to the level of positionality, identity and mutilocality of the researcher herself/himself. Originating from a Pakistani and Muslim background, my ethnographic experience with Birmingham Muslims made me aware of the fact that while ‘being white and researcher’ might become problematic for researchers as a Muslim research participant, after living through decade of suspicion in Britain, might frame them equal to ‘white journalists and officialdom’ who are hyperactively looking for ‘spicy’ bits of news of Muslim communities and then reporting it in a paper after twisting it with neo-con tilt; non-white researcher and researchers of

50

Muslim background, at many levels, might be exempted from this generalised ‘research barrier’ as experienced and mentioned by many anthropologists and other researchers (Werbner 1990, McLoughlin 2000, Bolognani 2007, Gilliat-Ray 2010).

Among white anthropologists working with Muslims in Britain, gender is an established category that influences the scale of access and trust, female anthropologist having an edge over males (Jeffery 1976, Goodwin 1994), however, race and religion, e.g. the identity of non-white, Muslim origin ethnographers doing fieldwork among British Muslims and its influence on the issues like access and trust are the methodological areas that has not been discussed and debated in anthropology yet. In sum, the methodological issues discussed and debated in anthropology of doing ethnography with British Muslims so far, intrinsically conceptualise ethnographer as white and of non-Muslim background with English as first language; the ethnographic reductionism which exclude me as an ethnographer.

Having said that, I am not claiming that being non-white and of Muslim origin as an ethnographer among British Muslims is always advantageous, it has its own complexities.

Being non-white Muslim and of Pakistani origin ethnographer, I was perceived as a freshie by my interlocutors. Freshie is a complex term that is apparently used in insulting manners for newcomers or first generation migrants who come to Britain by second or third generation British Muslims/South Asians. Usually second or third generation members of Muslims community, particularly youth, use this term in order to make fun of the manners, ignorance, etiquettes, and ambitions of first generation migrants, especially those coming from South Asian backgrounds. While freshie is a socially determined criterion to standardise the expected behaviours and also to make fun of those who are ‘newcomers and don’t know how things work in Britain’, it is also an exotic category for those who are born and brought up in Britain. A freshie is a reminder to them about their parents, grandparents and first generation ancestors’ everyday life and practices. For me, as an ethnographer, it proved to be advantageous in terms of data collection and information gathering. One of my research participant and a friend, a British Muslim of Pakistani origin said to me, “the way you talk and things you know about British Muslims, you don’t sound like a typical freshie”. For the youth, it was fun to call me freshie while having a banter or a funny conversation, and for elderly, the conversations with me was a reminder of their ‘good old days in Pakistan’. After completing my fieldwork, I now realise that being Pakistani was in favour of my

51

ethnographic experience as I might not have been able to initiate conversations and topics if I were a British Pakistani, born and brought up in Birmingham with a proper Brummie accent. Some of my research participants viewed me as somebody who is a ‘freshie’ but who has the right attitude to become part of the Birmingham Muslim community.

Usually the informal conversations begin with my research participants asking me the question where is my hometown in Pakistan and that led to the gossip about shared knowledge and personal experiences about geographies in Pakistan between researcher and research participants and also within research participants. Most of the ethnographic information that I could collect was a result of informal chats and gossip about everyday life with my research participants in Birmingham. There was a lot of Mullah-bashing in informal gatherings of British Muslims in Birmingham while they talk about topics ranging from business, family matters, politics, country of origin to music, fashion, scandals, weddings . The notion that British Muslims being under the pressure and carrying the burden of becoming ‘representative of Islam’ (Bolognani 2007), explaining the misconceptions about Islam whenever confronted by interview like situation, becomes relative and situation specific one, depending on the identity and focus of discussions an ethnographer might lead to or become interested in during interview or conversation. It was not easy to have long conversations and lots of informal discussions with Muslim businessmen and entrepreneurs in Birmingham. “It is actually crucial to take first step tentatively and carefully. Sometimes a setting or topic can be very sensitive and access has to be negotiated carefully. Access is not permitted for the reasons of privacy.

Elites or powerful groups can be particularly difficult to access because they have power and knowledge to obstruct access in subtle ways, and perhaps have more reasons than others not to want to be exposed” (O’Reilly 2009, pp. 9). The norms of interaction and bodily movements with researcher and research participants in a private space or official space and in Muslim public space were different while doing fieldwork with Muslim chaplains (Gilliat-Ray 2010).

Wilding (2007) enhances the meanings and appropriateness of emic and etic anthropological categories while researching transnational processes and how they reflect the concerns of research participants. Wilding maintains that it takes a year or more while conducting ethnography to grasp emic perspective. Here comes my ethnographic problematisation whether I needed a year’s time to grasp emic perspective of my research participants or more; or less. I was born in Pakistan, and majority of my research

52

participants, Muslims businessmen and entrepreneurs in Birmingham, migrated from Pakistan to Birmingham or were of Pakistani background. Unlike many anthropologists, I did not had any linguistic barriers or even cultural barrier while interacting with them.

If moving from one ‘emic to another’ constitute the foundation of ethnographic immersion (Wilding 2007), then what about the ‘shared emic’ that I carry with myself being a Pakistani, born and raised in Pakistan while doing my ethnographic fieldwork with British Pakistanis in Birmingham?

On the other hand, transnational scope of anthropology and anthropological literature as well transnational anthropologist pose similar challenges to other anthropologists. The work an anthropologist have done in one part of the world can be detrimental for the work of another anthropologists studying a group of people that are transnationally linked yet placed in different geographical spaces thousands of miles apart. While the presence of an anthropologist in Birmingham, Dr. Jasani, was a great help to me in order to know people initially, and then make my own contacts through them, mentioning the name of another well-known anthropologist, Pnina Werbner, became a very crucial and difficult phase in my fieldwork with one Barelvi reformist Muslim group. The development of my rapport with Birmingham Muslims and access to their wider networks was at stake suddenly. I was at the Ghamkol Sharif Mosque, in the Small Heath neighbourhood of Birmingham, talking with the manager of the mosque and the shrine-to-be (for details see chapter two) when he asked what is this anthropology subject that I am studying. Whilst answering his question, and whilst explaining what anthropology is, I mentioned the name of Pnina Werbner and that she has written a book about the Ghamkol Sharif Shrine in Pakistan. The manager was suddenly upset and infuriated to hear the name and asked me immediately if I have any relationship with Pnina Werbner or if I am sent by her? He also mentioned I should not lie while sitting at a holy place and tell him honestly if I am an

‘agent’? I told him that as a student of anthropology, I happen to see her book ‘Pilgrim of Love (2003)’ but I do not know her directly. Then the manager said that she was a spy who misused them and wrote a book which was offensive to them and they even burnt her book. This was a shock for me and I clarified to the manger immediately that I have no direct link with Pnina Werbner and that I am originally from Pakistan and pursuing my own studies here in Britain. Then I provided him some other references of my affiliation with universities in Pakistan and people I knew in Birmingham and he was satisfied. It was a shock for me to see how the work of an anthropologist in one part of

53

the world can be hampered by the work of another anthropologist in the same community living in another part of the world.

My ethnographer encounter with my research participants of Ghamkol Sharif Islamic Centre in Birmingham and its relationship with the previously done anthropological work by Pnina Werbner (2003) can be recorded as an anthropological case in any ethnographic court as “Pnina Werbner Vs. Sufyan Abid (2011) Ethnography, Ghamkol Sharif”, if this way of citing my methodological challenge might be helpful in clarifying my situation.

Werbner’s work ‘Pilgrim of Love (2003)’ was perceived as an offensive book by devotees of Ghamkol Shareef shrine in Birmingham. The book was burnt by the devotees of Ghamkol Sharif shrine in Pakistan. How my ethnographic journey was affected by it provides another insight of transnational impact of anthropological literature and its relationship with doing ethnography with transnational groups.