Salman Rushdie joins a group of prominent intellectuals & public figures in an anti-“Islamist” manifesto published in the now famous Jyllands-Posten (reprinted here in full because I agree with it so much) –
After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.
The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.
Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man’s domination of woman, the Islamists’ domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.
We reject cultural relativism, which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of “Islamophobia”, an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.
We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.
We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.
Cosigning with Salman is another SM profilee – Irshad Manji.
As the old saying goes, even a doctrine of tolerance requires certain things that you’ve gotta be uncompromising and, uh, intolerant about. Freedom of expression certainly fits that bill. And when everything that can be nudged around has been, what’s left is an essential clash of values – piety vs. discourse. Traditionalism vs. Women’s Lib. And so on.
Until recently, most of these values were wrapped up in the not-quite-appropriate moniker of Westernism. But, as Rushdie et. al. succinctly point out, to ascribe a name that’s also a place to these values dramatically understates their universal appeal. One of my favorite bloggers, Belmont Club, eloquently observes the origins of this particular declaration –
The intellectual gauntlet has been flung full in the face of Islamism by an unlikely group which includes a Somalian woman, Bangladeshis, exiled Iranians, Lebanese, fugitive British writers of subcontinental origin and an assortment of individuals with a vague left-wing background, none of whom would have been granted admittance to a London gentleman’s club in the 19th century.
Locke, Smith, and Mill would be proud of these Enlightenment children – born a continent away.
I don’t mean to sound Islamist or anything, but it might help European countries to stop jailing authors who deny the Holocaust. It’s not a nice opinion to have, but whatever happened to Freedom of Expression there?
In general, though, I do rue the recent rise of religious fundamentalism around the world: Christian, Islamic, Hindu etc. Can’t see it going anywhere good.
Of course not all freedom of speech in Europe deserve equal protection.
Out of 12 signatories 8 are Muslims. Out of 8 Muslims 4 are of Indian origin 3 Persian and one Somalian.
Thank you for posting this article by Rushdie…I’m still trying to decipher his meaning though….whoo!
As an American who loves India and goes back once a year, I hate it that we are sticking our American greasy grubby paws into your country….I am happy for the prosperity that India has experienced but, not at the cost of what India is….and not at the cost of widening the gap between the rich and poor…(Hey that sounds a lot like America)…Ok, I just don’t want them messing with my favorite place in the world……
I love Sepia Mutiny, you guys rock!
Its one thing for Irshad Manji to demand equality in Islam, its another to advocate women as sex objects via cameos in videos: Deeyah.
lyrics/premise of the video: “u can stand up, lay down, or swallow” – I’m sure there is no double entendre with the “swallow” bit, after all why would anyone make an argument featuring words that “appealed to the viscera” (its a type of argument where strong words are used to force you into a stance)
I also love the no-talent pseudo-rapper (only because of his skin color not skills, mind you) talks about “…whatchu doin watchin video.” Listen to it carefully, it makes no sense.
So does the video have merits as a good song – not really its the same song with same tune with a slight religous tone made to take advantage of the current troubles in Islam – very much oppurtunistic behavior. I’m sure the song will creep up with some no-talent “DJ one-thing-or-another” and he’ll popularize with the FAD westerners who think this video is the greatest piece of credibility on Islam and women, since CNN. Not to froget, the music goes well with the dry humping on the dance floor – who would’ve thought a political thought AND dry humping – WOAH!
So common females stand up and don’t “lay down & swallow….” And that is exactly why the female in the burkha acts as a fine example for all Muslim women to take off their burkha and get into a scantily clad bikini and bounce around. thats the message right? correct me if i’m wrong here.
It is an overstated fact that ALL Muslim women are suffering from their burkha and hijab. Women, regardless of religion and cultural perspective, CAN and DO sacrifice quite a bit for their families. To a mother, wearing a hijab or burkha is but a small compromise for being with her family. A mother would rather wear such clothes to live peacefully in a society, with scuh values, rather than follow her own pride at the risk of losing her family.
I just don’t like all this “let’s show to the WEST what goes on in the EAST” type things. More often than not they only propogate stereotypes. In this case “ALL Muslim women are suffer.”
Killer article, Vinod!!! Rushdie and you have both said what I’ve been thinking but didn’t know how to express.
There’s nothing wrong with the U.S. or being American, and nothing wrong with a little mingling of cultures.
Would less poverty make India less exotic, too Westernized and modern?
Vikash Singh,
Firstly, it is not a case of “the West versus the East” here, not least because most of the “East” is not actually Muslim once you start going beyond Pakistan (apart from Indonesia and, to a lesser extent, Bangladesh & Malaysia).
Secondly, if you are going to focus on the hijab/burkha issue, it is worth considering exactly how and why this practice originated. It was because some of Mohammad’s followers complained that they were finding the sight of women spiritually distracting. So instead of encouraging the men concerned to exert enough maturity and self-discipline to control their reactions to women, it was decided that the solution would be for the physical appearance of women to not be visible to any men. I am sure you have also heard the various excuses about this practice being for women’s “safety”.
The problem here is that the situation is grossly unfair to women because one is forcing them to amend their behaviour as a result of alleged male “weakness”, instead of actually placing the onus on men to control themselves.
Furthermore, despite stereotypes in some orthodox circles, women have a sexual response to men just as men have a response to women — yet there is no corresponding Islamic injunction for men to completely cover themselves in the presence of women who may otherwise find them “distracting”. It’s another example of the propagation of religiously-sanctioned male power over women.
In fact, your own scenario of the hypothetical “mother” having to sacrifice her own freedom with regards to her attire in the interests of keeping the peace with her family is one more example of avoiding dealing with the root cause. This doesn’t address the misogyny of the family members concerned, and — again — the woman is forced to amend her behaviour and submit to misguided and unjust practices as a result of the attitude problems of her family.
In any case, this is just one facet in the problems inherent in orthodox Islamism. The question of female equality isn’t just about attire, but extends to the wish to have absolutely equal social, political, and legal rights as men, along with the basic issue that men should not — indeed, do not — actually have authority over women purely as a result of their gender.
Also:
It’s not about advocating such behaviour, but the fact that women should have the right to do this without necessarily having to worry about co-religionists verbally and/or physically threatening them about it.
Would appreciate it if you could kindly provide any hadith, quranic verses …etc..etc to back that up. Regards.
Salman Rushdie, until his writing started to falter recently, used to be one of my favorite authors – not based on his politics, which I find problematic, but on the stregnth of his literary style. So I say this with full respect for the man and for Irshad Manji who is, even if I find her sometimes grating, a brave face of a particular anti-oppression struggle. It’s all very well and good to be critical of radical Muslims and this political and social culture of violence we’re seeing in parts of the Middle East and Asia etc. Violence and intimidation are condemnable in and of themselves and I’m glad this coalition of artists and authors have taken a strong stand against oppression.
However, I have to wonder at thier sudden naivity on the other end of things. Are they seriously harkening back to the Englightenment? To “rationality”? They’re artists! Of all people, they should know we’re kind of over that – modernism isn’t working and Locke, Mill and Smith, those funny looking white men who thought they finally had a handle on the Truth of a white man’s world, are, thankfully, long dead and buried. The West isn’t peddaling Enlightenment or “discourse”. We’re peddaling McJobs and economic slavery. We are, as Susie pointed out, peddaling a widening of the economic divide and a silenced racial war and homogenisation and no, not women’s lib, but pornography and a further, economic oppression of women.
I’m not being culturally relative – I condemn the terror inflicted on the populations of the parts of the world run by “Islamists”. But for this manifesto or coalition or whatever it’s calling itself to be so sanctimonious about its superior groundings and premises. And I’m confused by their need to ally themselves with a movement that is so out-moded and defunct. It’s not democracy vs. theocracy, discourse vs. piety, Traditionalism vs. Women’s Lib, Enlightenment vs. obscurantism. It’s lies vs. crazed violent reactions, silence vs. shouting, imperialism vs. anger, avariciousness vs. poverty, access vs. denial and those “vs” break down because those cateogories exist within one and other. So until people with the power to sign manifestos and make the news start looking inwards at the cultures that (most of them) have adopted in the West and start doing a little more historical geneology and start addressing the immense injustice to be found at home, they will keep reinforcing this dangerous dichotomy. And if you want to keep perpetuating violence and invasions and counter strikes and more invasions and devestation and sanctions and counter violence and starvation and poverty – fine. Keep on signing these empty, meaningless documents that say very little other than the fact that “we” refuse to change – but you, you crazy Muslims, need to do something about your funny irrational rabble-rousing.
MRT,
I should have been more precise in my original post. The segregation of men and women, resulting in the “purdah” system, was a result of the aforementioned incidents. The custom of hijabs etc is of course an extrapolation of this. However, I believe the specific origin of the hijab is regarded as based on Quranic injunctions about acceptable Islamic dress for women, along with various Hadiths om the topic. You can do a search on Islamonline, as they have multiple sources of information there, discussed by various noted scholars.
The reasons, however, are as previously mentioned — to prevent unnecessary sexual attention and to mitigate the risk of inflaming sexual desire in others, including Muslim men who would otherwise see the woman, which would hinder the men’s aspirations to maintain their piety.
salman rushdie is as muslim as richard dawkins is christian.
just a reminder 🙂
and i’m not going to front, the west is the best! perhaps not the bestest it could be…but the bestest of the field
Susie:
I don’t think India’s rich-poor gap could get any wider than it’s already been. I’m more concerned about the loss of local agriculture and small industries, and diminishing cultural diversity. But I also acknowledge some Indian benefits from globalization, which is more than I did a few years ago.
Vikash Singh:
Being sexual is not the same thing as being a sex object. I watched that video, and found it strongly asserted women’s sexual power, something that gives many men the screaming heebie-jeebies. Women’s sexual power is so threatening to some men, in fact, that they justify it as an excuse to commit violence against women and enforce oppressive institutions such as burqua-wearing.
I also agree with Jai about men’s responsibility.
itz false that muslims don’t recognize female sexuality. thatz one reason that some mosques have made women pray in the basement apart from men, because you see they can sometimes look and see all those male butts in the air during prayer. since women pray behind men, well, that causes problems. so put them in the basement for allah’s sake!
btw jai, u r wrong! as a kid the muslims i hung with always respected women who did purdah and burqa and all that medieval jazz because they were saving themselves for their men, you know, like pearls and shit. it isn’t about women not distracting men like objects, it is about women taking their lives into their own hands and prioritizing what should really matter to them, what their husbands think about them and their confidence in knowing that only their husbands receive sexual gratification from, even through sigbt. self-respect is what it is. pride, not property.
Oh, I agree with this so much. Thank you for posting this, Vinod.
You haven’t been to India then 🙂 After 250 years of looting it is very poor but is slowly recovering. But intellectually Indians are more liberated than the west can ever hope to be.
Did the men correspondingly “save themselves” for their women ?
Since orthodox Islam allows a man to have multiple wives, where is the “confidence & self-respect” when the husband of the woman concerned may well be receiving (to paraphrase your own words) “sexual gratification from his other wives, even through sight” ?
Part of me suspects that someone here is masquerading as Razib, especially considering the significant difference in writing style and content with regards to Islam, although I may be wrong about this.
I heart Nina P and her beautiful, spot-on, articulation. 🙂
To be honest, this isn’t going to make much of a difference. Rushdie, Manji, Ali etc have been saying the same for a while so it comes as no suprise.
Unfortunately, it will neither convince the totalitarian governments of the Middle East (where they care about Rushdie, clearly), or the vast majority of Muslims in Europe…
In a way, you have to fight the devil from being inside hell. The real people who are going to be able to lead this fight against Islamism are the likes of Ziauddin Sardar, Fareena Alam, Ehsan Masood, Sarfraz Manzoor etc etc… all British based academics, thinkers, journalists or writers.
Also, there has to be a distinction against being derogatory against religion (which Sikhs, Hindus, Jews and Muslims all compete to be annoyed at), and terrorism in general perpetrated by the likes of OBL.
Frankly, I don’t see many Muslims supporting calling Mohammed a terrorist, in the way Sikhs would not appreciate Guru Gobind Singh with a bomb in his turban.
So you gotta ask yourself, who is this aimed at, and is it actually just preaching to the converted?
Jai I second you on that one. I found the casual justification in the mix a little too uncharacteristic of him.
My simple issue with the Manifesto is that it sounds like western PR to me. These are artists and authors already hated by Islam and disowned by islam. Who is the piece for? My reading pleasure as an American? A Palestinian terrorist? And if it’s for the Islamic extremes, do they really care? Does it matter?
Such a manifesto is more effective coming from the Clerics and higher level Islamic leaders to it’s people. To me it means nothing to have a few promenient people put down Islamic extremism. It sounds good on paper.
Also Nazism wasn’t defeated in the “ideological field”. There was a very blood war. And Stalinism was really only defeated with the threat of American nukes annihilating Russia.
No offense, but some of these “intellectuals” need to get over themselves if they believe this makes a dent. It doesn’t make a dent to me and I’m not the intended target.
“And Stalinism was really only defeated with the threat of American nukes annihilating Russia.”
JoaT,
Is that so? Ruskis had nukes too – really bad ones.
Mostly, they defeated themselves or perhaps, US dared them to bankcruptcy nearly on both ends. It is USSR could not run on empty stomach.
But intellectually Indians are more liberated than the west can ever hope to be.
of course! the vedic sciences! so cool.
and hey guys, i’m just satirizing the inevitable discourse-miscoursh that is going to pop up here doing the “yes, oppression against women by muslims is evil, but how about those evil dying white males!”
I saw Irshad Manji on Real Time With Bill Maher last week, and her performance was embarrassing. While I am in solidarity with her obvious critique that much of the Muslim world is in desperate need of reform, I feel like she, like Rushdie, is a co-opted minority sycophant of a western-centric ethos articulated clearly in the ideology of groups such as Cheney’s Project for the New American Century. The Muslim world is unstable and will change, one way or another. If we (America, the West) chose to continue to dehumanize, dis-empower, invade, divide, impoverish, and insult the Muslim world, it will ossify into an enemy to the detriment of all of humanity. This isn’t about whether you believe in freedom of speech or that women shouldn’t be forced to cover themselves or endure clitoradectomies. I would imagine anyone reading Sepia Mutiny would agree on all three counts. It’s our approach to these realities that will change the outcome for the better or worse.
I understand where JoaT is coming from but this could be a dangerous road to go down, considering the modern-day analogy would be threatening to nuke Mecca and Medina…..
There is another difference here. Nazism was discredited to a great extent because it was not regarded as being a religion (as far as I know, many – most ? – ordinary Germans at the time were still nominally Christian). If Hitler had claimed that “Mein Kampf” was a result of direct divine revelation or had been dictated to him by an archangel (or some other supernatural, “heavenly” being), then events may have run a different course. Especially if Hitler had included chapters on the “majestic Germanic mythology” he was apparently so inspired by (plus Wagner etc), along with promising “rewards in the Afterlife” for righteous Nazi soldiers, and so on.
The religious source of hardline Islamism results in the core tenets, along with the source material and its founder, as being treated with greater kid-gloves than it would be if it was regarded by its adherents and admirers as being a purely man-made ideology. So even though the problematic tenets should be confronted on ideological grounds and argued against on this basis, it’s a very sensitive topic indeed because of the impact on so many of its followers. The divine origin espoused by Islam’s believers — and I’m including the “moderates” here too — means that attacking any aspect of the basic principles involved (and, again, questioning the behaviour and moral authority of its founder) is a much more loaded issue.
This is so funny. How bout we just say “Islam” instead of “Islamism.” Basically we don’t want Muslims with all that hogwash about morality and such. The statement should read “Islam, as a subset of the greater problem religion is a threat.” That would be the truth.We’ve eliminated Christianity and all other faiths from the public sphere (for the most part), now theres going to be no Islam so we can all pride ourselves on being “progressive” and “consumers.” Lets be honest , we find our Muslim friends slightly backwards and borderline retarded when theyre defending their “din” or whatever. We just want them to be smart and sophisticated like us.No level of liberal political correctness is gonna hide this sentiment all over these boards.And I’m not even Muslim. Its funny for all the bashing of conservatives (whether Muslim, Hindutva, whatever) the people on this web site and the conservatives are essentially the same: People who are trying to reinterpret South Asian people/culture to fit thier own agenda. You guys dont actually take South Asians for what they are. Conservatives hate South asians for its “declining morality” and “westernization” and liberals hate it cause it hasnt reached the “Enlightenment” of some pasty ass crackers. Its all really silly but carry on I guess.
Ibn Warraq, Hirshi Ali, Salman Rushdie (all former Muslims) are not going to change a single Muslim mind. This manifesto is only good for mutual back slapping in the West. Apart from that, it has no ability to start a debate with Muslims. I know a lot of Muslims and I do not know a single Muslim, fairly or unfairly, who has any respect for Hirshi Ali or Ibn Warraq. To presume even for a second that this manifesto will start a debate with Muslims or reform Islam is laughable to say the least. Hirshi Ali thinks that Muhammad was a pedophile. I have a lurking suspicion that Muslim might not be very receptive to a debate started by Hirshi Ali. We can use former Muslims like Hirshi Ali or Ibn Warraq to poke in the eyes of Muslims and belittle them, but hoping that it will start a dialogue is silly.
I agree. True change can only come from within the system. Changes in Christianity came from within also.
The manifesto is clearly against theocracy, not religion.
as far as I know, many – most ? – ordinary Germans at the time were still nominally Christian
in 1936 95% of the german public were christians (that is, they paid church tax to the protestant or catholic heirarchy). but, 90% of the officer corps of the SS had become “god believers,” a deracinated theism with pagan understones.
bn Warraq, Hirshi Ali, Salman Rushdie (all former Muslims) are not going to change a single Muslim mind. This manifesto is only good for mutual back slapping in the West.
yes, all true, but it is important to firm up the west in my opinion. to many liberals i have interacted with are kind of pussyish about muslims in a way they wouldn’t be about nutcase christian fundies. same genus, different species, but they look the same under the hood.
We can use former Muslims like Hirshi Ali or Ibn Warraq to poke in the eyes of Muslims and belittle them,
this is needed. contrary to the opinions of some here, christianity did not evolve because of the good nature of christians.
1) they ripped their own balls off 2) secularists did it for them after they’d got tired of it
holbach might not have converted any catholics, but his unabashed atheism reshaped the terms of the debate and altered the constraints of what was and wasn’t acceptable. the fact that people refer to ibn warraq as a ‘dissent muslim’ when he wrote a book titled ‘why i am not a muslim’ (even when agreeing with warraq) shows that the shape of the debate vis-a-vis muslims needs to be reshaped.
oh, and manji is kind of a fool. sorry, i can’t lie 🙂 ali though, she’s got courage and doesn’t pus around.
to many liberals i have interacted with are kind of pussyish about muslims in a way they wouldn’t be about nutcase christian fundies. same genus, different species, but they look the same under the hood.
Thats because American liberals dont really come across a lot of crazed Muslims in the US. In Europe, the liberals are way more muscular towards intolerant Muslims.
this is needed. contrary to the opinions of some here, christianity did not evolve because of the good nature of christians. 1) they ripped their own balls off 2) secularists did it for them after they’d got tired of it
Yes, but the above would only apply to Muslims who raise hell while being from/living in Muslims nations in the East. Its a different ball game altogether when Western former Muslims, French intellectuals and American Jewish Neo-Cons are trying to shake the foundation of Islam with the intent to shake the belief system of people living in the East.
Author PAROMITA SHASTRI compares two of big award grabbers of India – Mahasweta Devi and Arundhati Roy. Both have same social aspirations. The former works at grassroots level, away from media and the laters activism creates media waves.
On similar notes, Salman is hardly a change from within. He is sort of escapist or is pebbling a caged tiger rather than mastering it. Whatever these people says may be correct but their motivations are not for a “change” but aggravate their targets.
Thats because American liberals dont really come across a lot of crazed Muslims in the US. In Europe, the liberals are way more muscular towards intolerant Muslims.
as they should be. but not all, and not enough. “europe” is a big continent. england, for example, is pretty soft.
Its a different ball game altogether when Western former Muslims, French intellectuals and American Jewish Neo-Cons are trying to shake the foundation of Islam with the intent to shake the belief system of people living in the East.
AMJ, french intellectuals spouted their diatribes in london, moscow and berlin, since they were hounded and jailed sporadically in france itself. so the analogy holds (taking into account transporation making us all a ‘village’).
and this is not to say that liberal/moderate religionists are not necessary. the point is that to work the game you do need people like ayaan, salman and irshad, at least to triangulate with and reshapde the terms of the debate. it goes without saying that i believe that it should be acceptable to shit on religion as a matter of principle, but i think that the shit can be fertile seeds for a new cultural environment. the reality is that there are many atheists in the islamic world, including (if my ‘informants’ are right) many political leaders. they just keep the public farce of belief going and manipulate it for their own ends. it needs to stop.
England is not in Europe.
huh, i’m corrected 🙂 haha. wish i was a genius who had such a command of geographical taxonomy!
the point is that to work the game you do need people like ayaan, salman and irshad, at least to triangulate with and reshapde the terms of the debate.
I am skeptical about the ability of Hirshi Ali or Ibn Warraq to reshape the debate at any level in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Indonesia. In fact I dont believe that these people can reshape the debate even within the American or European Muslim communities. I have extensive interaction with American Muslims who see these people as Islam haters/Islamaphobic. These people can only reshape the debate between Non Muslims Westerners, which itself is pretty significant because it will influence the policies on immigration, multiculturalism and the relationship between Maghreb and the East. Its one thing to go on Oprah or befriend Thomas Friedman and another thing to influence a change in the American masjid culture. I would say, that people like Irshad Manji can trigger some nominal changes in the American Muslim community by publicly embarrassing the masjid/community leaders. I think the new trend towards gender desegregation and gender neutral access to mosques in America can be attributed at some level to the work of Asra Nomani and MWU!. But then again, both Asra and MWU! are brining change from within and not outside the community. (I am presuming that you (Razib), probably do not follow the local politics of American Muslims)
the reality is that there are many atheists in the islamic world, including (if my ‘informants’ are right) many political leaders. they just keep the public farce of belief going and manipulate it for their own ends. it needs to stop
I think you are discounting the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality which is now so pervasive in Muslim Nations. Muslims have developed a ‘siege’ mentality and values of enlightment which come from the West will find a very low level of acceptability in the Muslim masses living in Muslim nations.
I am skeptical about the ability of Hirshi Ali or Ibn Warraq to reshape the debate at any level in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Indonesia.
i’m not talking first order effects. don’t misconstrue me, i’ll make it explicit if you don’t get what i’m implying: basically, you need a full spectrum, from alis (atheist) to manjis (liberal “muslim”) to khaled abou el fadil. the disapora community is where they are felt to the first order. radical doubt and skepticism can reshape the elite conversation. to some extent that will have some effect across the board. and the diaspora can eventually be influential in seeding and training people in the muslim world. it is all speculative, but if you think i think ali or manji are going to have direct impact on saudi arabia, you are caricaturing me.
fyi, i keep track of asra, but that’s about it.
Muslims have developed a ‘siege’ mentality and values of enlightment which come from the West will find a very low level of acceptability in the Muslim masses living in Muslim nations.
and also, i don’t particularly care about the muslim masses in muslim nations, i’m more concerned about muslims in western nations, because they are the most relevant in day to day life for everyone. FYI, when i was in college and involved in campus freethought alliance the president of u maryland college park branch was a persian american. when some other iranians found out he was from a muslim background they got aggressive, and eventually he had to unlist his phone number because of the death threats and stuff. this is sick shit, but pretty trivial, right, unless you are a dude who just wants to participate in an atheist student organization who is from a muslim background. your priorities are all ranked from where you stand.
basically, you need a full spectrum, from alis (atheist) to manjis (liberal “muslim”) to khaled abou el fadil. the disapora community is where they are felt to the first order. radical doubt and skepticism can reshape the elite conversation. to some extent that will have some effect across the board. and the diaspora can eventually be influential in seeding and training people in the muslim world. it is all speculative, but if you think i think ali or manji are going to have direct impact on saudi arabia, you are caricaturing me.
No, I know what you are insinuating. I think the trickle down change that they can influence will be too nominal and their ability to change the terms of the debate will be minimal at best. I am disagreeing with you as to the ‘degree’, though a few decades down you may very well turn out to be correct.
FYI, when i was in college and involved in campus freethought alliance the president of u maryland college park branch was a persian american. when some other iranians found out he was from a muslim background they got aggressive, and eventually he had to unlist his phone number because of the death threats and stuff.
Scary!
and also, i don’t particularly care about the muslim masses in muslim nations, i’m more concerned about muslims in western nations, because they are the most relevant in day to day life for everyone.
Fair enough.
Interesting discussion between Al Mujahid and Razib. My Muslim friend articulated the same perspective as Al Mujahid – that Rushdie has no credibility at all amongst British Muslims. He named a list of reformist Muslims like the journalist Ziaddin Sardar and others who he feels can effect change within British Islam, positively. Rushdie is seen as a jackanape, a bit of a fool. The other thing is, none of the in-your-face insulting of the Prophet works. As an exercise in Enlightenment muscle flexing it is fine, point made, liberals are free to say and think what they want. But for the average British Muslim, they are not going to listen if they feel the Prophet is being attacked.
It is very common these days to critique the enlightenment. There are good reasons for it too, as brownfrown and other pointed out. However, if one reads Kant’s “What is Enlightenment?” it is fairly clear that Kant had some good ideas (one of his few texts that I like) that most people of the world have not assimilated enough to go beyond it into a critique of excesses of Enlightenment totalizing ideology. In Rabinow’s Foucault Reader he published a posthumous text of Foucault’s that responds to Kant’s text. In it Foucault admits that his work is part of (and a critical response to) Enlightenment thought. All this is to say, let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. So, while we should critically engage in the excesses of Enlightenment thought, we should also be wary of a knee-jerk negative response to all of Enlightenment thought. Much of it is horse-poop, but some of it is quite insightful. Take for example Mallarme’s comments that what we should be concerned with is the interpretation of interpretations. This kind of analysis informs Derrida’s works. Should we reject it out of hand? I hesitate to do so. In the same way, as much as I ideologically have issues with Abrahamic traditions, including Islam–I feel the same way towards them as the enlightenment: there is some good stuff in there. Perhaps we need not ditch it all, but examine it in its particulars, reinterpreting those things that we find meaningful, and engaging critically those we find lacking. Everybody’s doing it (e.g. why Jews and Xtians reinterpret the Old Testament comments about “Abominations” to hold literally for homosexuality but not for certain kinds of seafood), but measured responses hold for me more weight than “boogety-boogity” scare tactics. Its the same attitude that allows me to point out the cynicism of the Bush administration. Anyway, ymmv.
My Muslim friend articulated the same perspective as Al Mujahid – that Rushdie has no credibility at all amongst British Muslims.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is patently naive. Although I like some of what Irshad Manji and Hirsi Ali say, again they’re not respected scholars or people with any depth who can command respect.
Tariq Ramadan is another name I forgot to mention earlier.
but not for certain kinds of seafood)
jewz don’t eat shellfish.
I think this declaration has less to do with Muslims than west. Basically it is an excericse in reaffriming and reasserting western liberalism.
To ALL, allow me to restate the essence of my argument: Hijab and Burkhas are NON-ISSUES with Muslim women. Voting rights – YES! Attire restrictions are honestly the lowest of priorities. How is the hijab attire different from that of a Christian Nun? Why is it that Deeyah’s video attacks the women wearing such attire? The only reason is to increase readership of her point which really does not matter to most Muslim women.
To Jai: (1) Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand (the lower three states of) are all Muslim countries if not more fundamental in its application than its “western” predecessors. So “to lesser extent” does not apply. (2) Back it up with the secon paragraph. (3) What you see as being forced upon is fine, its your opinion; my point is its a NON-ISSUE. there’s bigger fish to fry in Islam than attire. (4) By the way Women’s response to men has always been proven as more emotion than just physical. Men are always turned on by physical display whereas with women physical display is required in accordance with other physiological reactions. http://www.pubmed.com – search for “male sexual arousal”link (5) The mother is not “sacrific[ing] her own freedom” – its just a piece of cloth. If you talk to the majority Muslim family hijab is a non-issue. “misogyny”? what are you talkin about? Its not the family member that forces anyone, its the socio-cultural believes that forces the family members. Muslim women in Pakistani city centers do not wear hijabs – in certain areas YES, in college campuses NO. It is socio-cultural. (6) Also you shouldn’t judge: “misguided and unjust practices…” – you drepive yourself of credibility. (7) I entirely agree with the last paragraph
On your second comment: (8) I agree; however, yhe purpose of the video is not to demand power by stripping yourself, its to get attention and sell a record. You should understand the “pop” aspect of a manipulated issue. Is it necessary to use sexual entendres to prove a political point? I really don’t think “pop” is a suitable platform for such issues, as “pop” paints a picture of the issue which is most often generalized.
also, back up what MRT said.
To MRT: I agree.
Brownfrown: Salman Rushdie still is a very good writer, I think. I agree with not-politics-but-literary bit.
To Jai: There’s less to the hijab than you are making it out to be. I am telling you to most Muslims is a NON-ISSUE. Its a way of life nothing more. It does not speak to a political thought, UNLESS you look at fundamentalist Islam. The issue has been politicized into something its not by videos such as Deeyah which are essentially oppurtunistic ones.
To Nina P: haha, “heebie-jeebies”. Very good argument; however, see above where I say: “Is it necessary to use sexual….”
To Jai: Razib’s argument is also a valid one here.
Divya: I love you! brilliantly said. India IS more liberated than the west could ever be.
DesiDancer: read “Its not necessary to use……”
Sunny: Good point.
damn…brb
No one is forced, at least not since Vatican II, to become a nun. The habit, as with the clothing of all sacred clergy (as opposed to priests, who are secular clergy) is worn to show humility and obedience. If humility and obedience are forced. . .
Yep, I’d probably buy that. There’s less to a bindi, too.