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.

  • arquebus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a religion founded by a guy who consummated a marriage to a 9 year old girl - on that basis alone, converting as a woman is super fucked up.

    • maynarkh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s no better or worse than the morals of the founders of the other Abrahamic religions.

    • Nowyn@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      While consummating marriage with Aisha is indefensible, it is also on bar with religions and historical realities. Why it matters is because people in general would be a lot less likely to discuss this if she converted to Catholicism even though it has a very recent history of huge amounts of institutionalized CSA and thought it as insane as converting to Islam. Not saying that Islam doesn’t have issues in that front but they are not alone in that. I can’t say how she viewed it exactly.

      • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        While consummating marriage with Aisha is indefensible, it is also on bar with religions and historical realities.

        Why call it indefensible, and then go onto defend it?

        • Nowyn@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I realized later that’s what it sounds like. I am not defending the act itself. I have spent a lot of time criticising it myself. What I am trying to do is to frame it into context. Bible is not without its pretty heinous acts. What I have an issue with is that people frame Islam, Christianity and Judaism in completely separate contexts. It is no less insane to convert to Christianity than Islam. Both are problematic and all three are built on each other literally. IMO based on religious texts Islam is better but that doesn’t mean it is without significant faults. There are buts like with Aisha. Otherwise, I would have converted already.

          People forget that countries, cultures, religions and people are not as simply understood as Islam bad. That would make my work easier. But religions are a complex mixture of all with a side of history. For example, both Christianity and Judaism also require veiling yourself as a woman but few do. I haven’t really met a Christian who doesn’t wear polycotton. And as few that don’t eat crustaceans. Not even Catholicism nor Orthodoxy require either. But Bible does.

          Fundamentalist thought processes have been pretty widespread in Islam for the past half a century. But they are not also explainable with just Islam bad. A lot of it is overcorrection because of imperialism. Some are about the far-right which while Islamophobic carries a lot of commonalities with fundamentalists of all types. And some are about religion. It is a potent mix and is used by a lot of populists globally. While there is a lot to criticize, it is often mischaracterized. Which makes me sound like I am defending the faults. I am not and should have framed better.

      • Blamemeta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        No it isn’t. Most rapists back then waited until after puberty. 9 is extremely young no matter the era.

        • Nowyn@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even in Islam, it is said that Prophet Mohammed waited until the start of puberty. That is basically why according to the hadith he consummated the marriage a couple of years after he had already married Aisha. Doesn’t make it right and I too have issues with every Muslim who does.

          9 is three years younger than what Christianity defined as the age of onset of puberty and as such marriageable age. Generally in North West Europe, marriage happened closer to today’s 18. The definition also happened hundreds of years after Islam was founded.

          I am in no way saying that there is nothing or there is little to criticize in Islam. There is quite a lot to talk about. I have an issue in how and why people criticize it. From experience if she had converted to Catholicism which while has improved lately still had an institutionalized CSA problem among a lot of problematic positions. As a feminist woman there are slim pickings when it comes to religions and the three Abrahamic are big offenders. Aisha is one subject where legitimate criticism (there are others as well) even in comparison to other Abrahamic religions can be landed at the door of people who do not have an issue with it.