Dear Young Islamophobe:
You will do well to start with any of the books written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Her best-known work is Infidel. Her latest book is Nomad. She has also written a few other things. Anything written by Hirsi Ali will do; they all say the same things about the terror of Islam.
I read Nomad recently. It is littered with stories like the following: “In February 2009 in Buffalo, New York, a forty-seven-year-old Muslim businessman who had set up a cable TV station to ‘promote more favorable views of Muslims,’ beheaded his wife, who was seeking to divorce him.”
This is a short short-story. You can narrate it at parties. Imagine the shock (but perhaps not the silence, because these days everyone, it seems, has a story to tell about Islam). But you should also learn from Hirsi Ali’s style of writing. Starting with Infidel, her assault on Islam has been a spectacular success largely because she speaks from personal experience. She has suffered undeniable personal trauma but what you can emulate is her ability to cast the whole of the Islamic world as her victimizer and, in a stroke of genius, the whole of the West [read militarist, interventionist, Bible-toting US of A] as her savior.
There are other trade secrets that you can glean from a reading of Hirsi Ali.
I don’t think Hirsi Ali is popular only because she serves so well the designs of an Islamophobic West. Rather, she is read also for her simplicity and her success. That is worth thinking about. Nothing is more powerful as a shock-and-awe weapon of control than the idea called “the American Dream.” It insists that we invest the wealth of all our utopian energies in two ways of thinking: oversimplication, and delusions of grandeur that border on megalomania.
My wife’s hairstylist in our small town in upstate New York, a Muslim immigrant woman from Lebanon, has been reading Hirsi Ali in an effort to improve her English. This is because Hirsi Ali is a skilled writer. She tells her story in a direct, unadorned prose. Her style is of great assistance to her, not least because she believes in oversimplifying the world.
But Hirsi Ali is nothing if not also a seller of dreams. What she lays down on the page with such terrible earnestness is appealing because she keeps retelling the magical story of immigrant transformation. Reading her you feel redeemed. You too ought to think and write like that; if you do so, your reader will often make the mistake of going past your false righteousness and admire, instead, your grit and enterprise as a writer.
Hirsi Ali had asked once: “How many girls born in Digfeer Hospital in Mogadishu in November 1969 are even alive today? And how many have a real voice?” There’s real tragedy behind that question but at the end we only see Hirsi Ali’s high cheekbones shining on CNN.
You, Young Islamophobe, have shown great enterprise in choosing this moment to pursue your dreams. A conservative think-tank will soon be reaching out to you. I’m a messenger of your future well-being.
Yours etc.,
Amitava Kumar
[Mutineers, the Asian American Writers’ Workshop sent two dinner tickets and six cocktail-hour tickets for this event. Who wants them? And why? The first eight to convince us they should be there get the goods. More details: Featuring Amitava Kumar, Hari Kunzru, Faiza Patel, and others. Tuesday, November 2, 6-7 pm dinner with authors, 7-9pm cocktail program. At the home of Faiza Patel, 111 Hudson Street, Apt. 6, New York City. Dinner with authors 6-7pm. Cocktails & literary discussion., 7-9pm.]
I’m a lot like Razib Khan except (1) obviously not as smart or well-read (2) I self-identify more as technocratically inclined than “conservative” specifically.
I’m curious, do you think the cache progressives give to “muslims” incentivizes cultural muslims to be public muslims instead of public agnostics or atheists? My sense is that it does, and that that’s an unfortunate effect. I cringe whenver I’m in a microsocial situation and some young desi feels the social incentive to announce “I’m muslim” while the white guy in the room counters “well, I’m atheist”, like it’s a theatre of rational belief where the brown person subordinated themselves in the heirarchy of epistemological roles. So I prefer Razib Khan’s approach.
@ Sajid: It’s a very small step from “getting a couple of flowerpots broken” to getting your head broken. The very fact that this mob of so-called “aunties” had the guts to enter the compound of Roy’s house shows the frightening disregard to law there. Had it been a crowd of “uncles” or “brothers”, I’m sure more than just flowerpots would have been smashed. Just ask Taslima Nasreen, M. F. Hussai, etc. In any case, regardless of what the crowd broke, trespassing on someone’s property, whether in slums or in posh enclaves, is meant to intimidate and silence. And one should make no justifying remarks about that mob’s actions. Roy, like Hirsi Ali, is a provocateuse. Answer them with words or indifference. Not with stones and lathis, death threats and threats to slit their throats. To justify these mob actions (or to belittle their murderous intent) because these writers are “shallow” or “anti-Indian” or have “shiny cheek bones” or because they are apostates is a dangerous argument. Sticks and stones may break my bones, etc…..why can’t the leaders of these mobs make their rampaging hordes understand this?
@Sharmishtha,
Have you seen the youtube clip I have posted ? If you had, you would realize that the “mob” of 25-40 middle-aged women are protesting outside Roy’s palatial house, and not on her property. Are you suggesting that Ms. Roy be placed on a pedestal and it would be a blasphemy to protest against anything that she says ?
Moreover if you had read Ms. Roy’s essays you would realize that she actually defends and rationalizes what you are accusing me of doing, i.e. violence by mob : she defends maoists by calling them “Gandhians with Guns”, she justifies 26/11 terrorist attacks and she shares center-stage with fascist leaders like Syed Ali Shah Geelani. I am not saying that she should be shut up, but there is no need to deify her.
In fact I find it highly offensive when somebody compares Ms. Ali with Ms. Roy . Ms. Ali has suffered real barbarity and injustice, worst Roy has suffered is ridicule which she rightly deserves.
I think most Muslim-born Americans are culturally Muslim to an extent. For example: I’ve been agnostic since like age 10, but I’m still culturally Muslim: when I’m not in college, I live at home with my Muslim family – we observe Ramadan and Eid, we don’t eat pork, we can all read Arabic fluently but we’re not Arabs, etc. Even if I’m not religious at all, it’s like I’m still muslim.
I don’t see why that’s cringe-worthy. In America, people often simply go by what you’re born as, all else be damned. I’m considered Muslim by most Americans simply because of my ethnic name and since my grandparents came from a country ending in Stan. Millions of Americans identify as Protestant but are only religious 2 days a year. An atheist Muslim is considered a Muslim in America the same way an atheist Jew is still a Jew. If Razib Khan ran for President, he sure as hell wouldn’t be considered an atheist, he’d be a Muslim. Hell, a Christian-born Black guy with a funny name can’t run for office without being called a Muslim, which 1 out of 5 Americans still think he is.
So it doesn’t bother me the young non-religious Desi will declare himself to be a Muslim; that’s what most people brand him as anyway.
To clarify my last post, it is possible for someone born Muslim to not be considered Muslim in the eyes of middle America, but you have to go out of your way to denounce Islam like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. A laid-back agnostic like myself is still a muslim at the end of the day. I mean, I go to the mosque on Eid, just like my atheist/agnostic friends go to church on Christmas.
It’s a matter og majority/minority and it’s also a matter og assimilation/integration.
A white person can say say he/she is atheist in the west, but would most likely say he is christian in India. While a brown person in the US says he/she is hindu or muslim, while the same hindu in India might as well call him self atheist. The question of religion to a majority person is a question about that persons belief, but to a persons it is a question of his cultural affiliation.
Arundhati Roy is atheist in India, but hindu in the US.
Hirsi Ali is assimilated to the west rather than integrated, thus she would call her self atheist (or if she would have converted obviousl christian) rather than explaining her cultural background by adding muslim or somali to her identity. Adopted persons for obvious reasons are always assimilated and would define them selves as christians or atheist depending on their beliefs.
context matters. my personal experience is pretty wide ranging. when it comes to conservative “middle americans” i am muslim/hindu/buddhist by my name. to a south asian that’s ridiculous, as i’m obviously muslim by my name. but for many conventionally xenophobic types the distinctions are irrelevant or trivial. at least initially. OTOH, when i announced that i’m an atheist, as i invariably due if people are confused, my atheism quickly becomes much more salient, especially for conservative protestants. with brown americans i have a different problem, because as i stated above most brown americans irrespective of religious background are much more reverent of religious tradition than i am. i’ve never understood religion in a deep psychological sense from the time i was a child, and the stronger implicitly materialist (what in india would be carvaka) tradition in chinese culture is probably one reason i have felt more affinity toward its values than those of south asians. i added the modifier “the atheist” here specifically because on these message boards the assumption regularly cropped up that i was a muslim, and i didn’t want to waste time with that. additionally, i’ve corrected people on the web when they’ve labelled me a “muslim atheist.” whatever that means, i’m not a muslim atheist by self-identity. though if people want to assert i’m muslim because my father is a muslim or something, it’s their prerogative. but if i’m a muslim, the term starts to lose any utility liberal white amerians who find out i’m an atheist are occasionally ambivalent, because of generally dismissive attitude toward religion can strike them as inauthentic i think for a typical brown person. from the survey data that seems right, though to be fair south asia has a pretty strident rationalist movement, and there are a non-trivial smattering of brown atheist activists (e.g., “the friendly atheist”).
A white person can say say he/she is atheist in the west, but would most likely say he is christian in India. While a brown person in the US says he/she is hindu or muslim, while the same hindu in India might as well call him self atheist. The question of religion to a majority person is a question about that persons belief, but to a persons it is a question of his cultural affiliation
there might be something to this, but it matters the nature of the society. the same thing, where white people are coded ‘christian’, occurs in muslim societies from what i know. but that’s because in those cultures where religion and religious identity is absolutely normative you have to be christian or muslim or jewish or whatever. whatever your theology, your religious background derives from your family. unless you convert. but that’s obviously not as much of an issue in east asia, where large numbers of people are irreligious, and religious identity is not as synonymous with your culture. that’s one reason that asian americans in the USA have the lowest level of religious affiliation of any ethnic group. religion has never been that central to their identity. at least for east asians (more so for those from southeast asian, excluding vietnam).
do you find this set of preferences to be received by your liberal peers as their more conservative friend’s idiosyncrasies-which-must-be-humored-to-maintain-the-relationship or a valid opinion?
to keep it short, the initial attitude is that i’m “ignorant.” unless they’re totally stupid they realize that referring to me as “ignorant” is farcical. it is generally pretty quick & easy to expose a few contradictions in the opinions of people who espouse unexamined multiculturalism, at which point they want to discuss something else. frankly, i know more about the history and practices of various cultures than most people who nominally espouse multiculturalism, so that awkwardness helps smooth things over. as for the mate issue, i don’t have a problem, and never really have. because of creepy things which have happened in the past i don’t discuss my personal life online, but it’s a long time since i’ve thought about dating in a way that might be relevant to me.
“how Americans and others could collectively could do a better job of addressing all kinds of fanaticism (including Islamic fanaticism) by being attentive to all of them as the same type of thing”
The difficulty here is that we all fail to point out how discourse is bound up with constructing and expressing our identities. Let me explain with an example. Consider the California history textbook controversy. Let us see how this is connected with the identity of a Tamil brahmin who has grown up in Tamil Nadu.
The outstanding grievance of a Tamil brahmin who has grown up in Tamil Nadu is 69% reservation. (Tamil brahmins who have grown up outside Tamil Nadu, or outside India, do not have this grievance, as they have no direct experience of 69% reservation).
To justify that much reservation, it is necessary to present casteism as having two characteristics: (a) it is bad (b) nonbrahmins never had a role in creating it and never bought into it. If indeed casteism is presented in this way—as having the characteristics (a) and (b)—then the 69% reservation can be justified forever. You can now see why a Tamil brahmin’s identity is involved in this controversy. And from the opposite point of view, so is a Tamil non-brahmin’s identity.
What kind of discourse do you now suppose that these two groups of people, the Tamil brahmin and the Tamil nonbrahmin, now would have? A constructive dialog?
I do not know whether any Tamil brahmin was an activist in the California history textbook controversy. But if one were, would you see them as fanatics?
Let us consider another example. Why do so many second generation Indian-Americans want to side with the secular side? Isn’t it because you are a minority here? Your identity is bound up in the minority’s rights?
My intent is that discourse can proceed only if each side make full—even painfully honest—disclosure about how the issue under discussion affects our identity.
, but you have to go out of your way to denounce Islam like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. A laid-back agnostic like myself is still a muslim at the end of the day.
perhaps your experience is very different than mine, but a simple “no, i’m not muslim”, with subsequent clarifications perhaps that i’m not christian or hindu either, usually suffices (this generally comes up when people want to talk about international affairs and think i’ll be interested in foreign policy in muslim countries). of course i avoid the cultural trappings which you accept as part of your family life too. in orthopraxic religions that matters a lot in defining identity.
I’d like to attend the AAWW event! I’m interested in hearing from Patel, about her experience working in the Hague and for the ICTY (I’m studying global justice as a philosophy student at NYU). I also want to go because I am appallingly unacquainted with many of today’s South Asian authors. And of course I’m interested in the discussion about Islamophobia. Thanks!
-Saif
Woops, didn’t sign in.
I’d like to attend the AAWW event! I’m interested in hearing from Patel, about her experience working in the Hague and for the ICTY (I’m studying global justice as a philosophy student at NYU). I also want to go because I am appallingly unacquainted with many of today’s South Asian authors. And of course I’m interested in the discussion about Islamophobia. Thanks!
-Saif
Saif, you’re in! Send me an e-mail.
I’ll be on the radio tonight—Asia Pacific Forum—to talk about AAWW’s upcoming literary festival. Hope to see you Sunday in Brooklyn at powerHouse Books! http://www.pageturnerfest.org
Letter to a zimmi (or whoever else is listening),
Fresh”>http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/nov/01/slide-show-1-interview-hindus-muslims-are-separate-nations-geelani.htm”>Fresh off the press, SA Geelani in itnerview with Yoginder Sikand – see what you can do when you just switch on the recorder and let it run, in tape veritas SAG doesn’t drink alcohol, or maybe doesn’t need any!
http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/nov/01/slide-show-1-interview-hindus-muslims-are-separate-nations-geelani.htm
Q.1.So, aren’t you here saying that the conflict is essentially political, and not specifically religious?
A. For a Muslim, no action that is against Islam is permissible. How can we say that the sacrifices that the Muslims of Kashmir make, the tortures that they suffer, and the martyrdom that they meet have nothing to do with Islam, and that they won’t be rewarded by God for this? In this sense, it is a religious issue also. Islam teaches that Muslims must follow the guidance of Islam in every action of theirs — not just in prayers but also in matters such as war and peace, trade, international relations and so on, because Islam is a complete way of life. If a true Muslim participates in any struggle, it is for the sake of Islam. So, how can you say that the Kashmir conflict has nothing to do with religion?
Q.2]This might be true in theory, but surely many Kashmiris who are involved in the movement for separation from India might be motivated by other factors, including for economic and political reasons, or also due to a commitment to Kashmiri nationalism, as distinct from Islam? A]…But I am speaking from the point of view of a practicing Muslim, who accepts Islam as a complete way of life. For such self-conscious Kashmiri Muslims, it is undoubtedly a religious issue and their sacrifices are for the sake of the faith.
Then that Maulana Maududi chestnut that Koenraad Elst disabused us (at least those of us who care to read beyond the accepted canon) >12 years ago!
Q.3]Maulana Maududi, the founder of the Jamaat-e Islami, who is a major source of inspiration for you, opposed the creation of Pakistan. So, then, why is that that you have consistently been advocating Kashmir’s union with Pakistan? [A]You are wrong here. Maulana Maududi was not opposed to the creation of Pakistan and to the ‘two-nation’ theory. What he was opposed to was the practice of the Muslim League leaders, who were leading the movement for Pakistan. He told them that while they talked of the ‘two-nation’ theory and Islam, they were not serious about establishing an Islamic state in Pakistan.
Now let’s see who Roy and her gang of flunkies, are cavorting with, this is SA Geelani for you in the raw, the Hinduphobe extraordinaire
Q.4]But do you really see Indian Hindus and Muslims as two separate ‘nations’? After all, they share so much in common. [A]They are totally separate nations. There is no doubt at all about this. Muslims believe in just one God, but Hindus believe in crores of Gods.
And that other mare’s nest of Kashmiriyat, and the so called Sufi dispensation, here’s SA Geelani putting the kibbosh on such airy fairy hallucinations,
Q.5]In your prison memoirs, Rudad-e Qafas, you write that ‘It is as difficult for a Muslim to live in a non-Muslim society as it is for a fish to live in a desert’. But how can this be so? After all, the pioneers of Islam in India and in Kashmir itself, mainly Sufi saints, lived and preached in a society in which Muslims were a very small minority. I meant to say this in a particular sense. Islam, as I said, is a complete way of life. No other path is acceptable to God. So, in the absence of an Islamic polity, it is difficult for Muslims to lead their lives entirely in accordance with the rules of Islam, which apply to social affairs as much as they do to personal affairs. For instance, Muslims in Kashmir under Indian rule live in a system where alcohol, interest and immorality are rife, so how can we lead our lives completely in accordance with Islam? Of course, Muslim minorities are Muslims, too, but their duty must be to work to establish an Islamic dispensation in the lands where they live so that they can lead their lives fully in accordance with Islam and its laws. Missionary work to spread Islam is as much of a duty as is praying and giving alms to the poor. Now, as for your question about those Sufis who lived and worked in societies where Muslims were in a minority — they may have been pious people, but we take as our only model the Prophet Muhammad…………………….. As I said earlier, the Muslim League claimed that Pakistan was won in the name of Islam, but it did not give its cadre the necessary training to establish an Islamic state there. Because of this, the influence of the army and the country’s westernised leadership, Pakistan failed to become an Islamic state. But it was meant to become such a state, which is something that we want. I admit that there are weaknesses in Pakistan, but these can be addressed. India has a secular system, which we can under no condition accept. Because of the oppression that we have been suffering under Indian rule for the last 60 years, how can we opt for India?
Also Geelani doesn’t want secularism! But I thought Nandy, Bhushan, Vinod Mehta and others wanted a secular Bharat?!!
Come on people, try for those tickets. If I was in New York I’d be all over this thing. I’m going to be sad if nobody gets them.
The Nation will apparently post a podcast of the event later online. http://pageturnerfest.org/#terrorstricken -Saif
Razib, thanks for the lengthy reply(ies). You’re probably right that we may be too far apart to have a fairly brief discussion but I’ve already written what’s below.
I’m not sure if this was meant to be rhetorical, but it’s an interesting and important question.
In simple english, I think Islamophobia is generally characterized by two things: 1) essentializing stereotypes and 2) talking $hit and otherwise passing value judgements on those stereotypes whether discursively or literally. This is why Islamophobia, anti-semitism, nativism, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.. have a shared family resemblance, even if they’re not identical. I also think it’s connected to political economy, history, etc., and a process and a static reality at the same time, but I’m going to ignore that for now.
There is a very sharp distinction between a descriptive statement of empirical reality about Muslim people or Islam that is coming from a social scientific discourse (even a pop one, like the one you mentioned above) and a similar-sounding statement that’s operating in a discourse in which ‘Islam’ or ‘Muslims’ are constructed as an other that is fertile (in India and in Israel), potentially colonizing (U.S., W Europe), terrorists (U.S., W Europe), hiding in plain sight (U.S., W. Europe), segregationist (W Europe, Hindu right in India), anti-women (India, U.S. W Europe), homophobic (U.S., W Europe, probably Israel), foreign (India, U.S., W Europe), intolerant of dissent (U.S.), barbaric (India), uncivilized (W Europe, U.S.). I’m only listing the places / sources I’ve actually heard or read, so I have no idea what, for example, the Brazilian or Chinese media says about Islam.
I don’t know why these particular preoccupations are the ones that have come up in most cases, and maybe I’m wrong about some of the specific ones. However, I think the practice of baselessly generalizing about Muslim people and Islam and putting those generalizations into the ‘Muslim’ and ‘Islam’ box and then, usually stupidly or disastrously, basing public policy on what you think about that box is real, widespread, and connected to other phenomena. I’m interested in further understanding this reality (my assumption is it’s connected to political economy, history, etc.), but on a basic level, I find it difficult to deny its existence and think it’s important to reiterate that it exists as a phenomenon because there are many people today who do deny its existence.
At the same time, I recognize that there is also a lazy and/or searching use of the word Islamophobia that’s almost like a remainder in the absence of other explanations, and that’s what you’re objecting to: like the Swiss population voting to ban minarets when they already had laws on the books that were implemented to prevent mosque construction (why?), the entire French polity (and beyond) having a discussion about the clothing choices of a relatively small number of women and more broadly discussions of Muslim women’s welfare which never seek to consult Muslim women (this happens nearly always, why?), both candidates in the Nevada Senator’s race feeling compelled to comment on a land use issue in New York city (why?).
All of these are examples of Islamophobia (I think they are) or not (perhaps you don’t) but the important thing is that a lazy or callous assertion of Islamophobia it can be empirically studied based on a specific definition of what Islamophobia is, in the same way that a lazy or callous assertion about Islam or really anything else in the social world can be empirically studied. In the same way, if someone says the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan were driven primarily or exclusively by Islamophobia, these assertions can be studied through history, social science etc. (I personally don’t think they were).
So I would say that I agree with you that the term should be used carefully (and probably as a description of a social reality, not leveled as an accuastion except in glaring instances), and I agree with you that there will be differences among people in how broad or narrow they will extend the term.
I disagree that the term is useless because i think it describes a phenomenon in the U.S., W. Europe, India, and who knows where else.
1) essentializing stereotypes and 2) talking $hit and otherwise passing value judgements on those stereotypes whether discursively or literally.
the two objections to the objection i have about essentializing are this:
1) you have to generalize and essentialize to actually operate in the real world in many circumstances. for example, if you have lots of muslim students in your elementary school you might want to have your food be halal as a pragmatic concession to their beliefs. but what halal is can be disputed even among muslims (and of course kosher standards are even more tendentious), but you have to eventually settle on something which is not too liberal or too conservative in its parameters (an aside: my experiences at mosque as a kid is that south asian muslims tended to be a little more particular about halal than other groups, and i always wondered if it was because they exist in a cultural milieu where there are many different and detailed food taboos among hindu groups).
2) muslims themselves essentialize quite a bit, and you have to take them at their word to enact policy which allows them to flourish. for example, when a muslim woman says that “islam requires” her to cover her head, we know that plenty of muslim women disagree, but we also know that a minority of women think that this behavior is entailed by islam, and the balance who cover their hair believe it is a choice with religious merit. since i think religion is made up this is all in their heads for me, and my own stance as an outsider is to allow for useful accommodation. i’m not going to get into an argument that their religious beliefs actually explore a particular space of ideas within their minds, and that their co-religionists may map very different sets of ideas onto the word “islam.”
as a conservative i accept that people have to often essentialize even if fundamentally they know that groups are coalitions with different viewspoints; i’ve been stereotyped by liberals my whole life. but in my case i am an outlier, as an atheist brown conservative. my atheism and brownitude doesn’t negate that i can be conservative, but it’s not common, and people shouldn’t assume that people like me are common enough that they should change their behavior (i regularly am in social situations where people insult conservatives because the presumption is that i wouldn’t be conservative because i rarely talk about my politics, and everyone they know is a liberal).
usually stupidly or disastrously, basing public policy on what you think about that box is real, widespread, and connected to other phenomena.
i think this is a major issue and can agree in the generality. though i would probably dispute with you on the details. i am for example totally sanguine about large numbers of nizari muslims.
as an aside, let me enter into the record a particular and specific issue which i’m very concerned about: and that’s the attempt to silence ‘new atheists’ like richard dawkins and sam harris based on the accusation of islamophobia (dawkins has also been accused of anti-semitism). these individuals have a lot of contempt and distaste toward islam, but it’s clearly derived from a general hatred of religion, especially the abrahamic religions. this sort of public hatred is not acceptable in muslim nations, and from my interactions with south asians from south asia they’re often taken aback by it as well, but it’s a liberty that the secularists won in the 19th century in the west (the last man executed for atheism in the british isles had the sentence passed in 1700). as a point of fact, very few people have these beliefs. i myself don’t share them, insofar as i don’t think religion is necessarily pernicious, and lack a generalized animus toward the phenomenon. but, as an unbeliever i’m VERY defensive when people attempt to squelch anti-religious criticism on the grounds of ‘hate speech’ and such. the right to blaspheme in a general sense (as opposed to destroying the cult idol of an enemy religion) is a new one in human history; even relatively irreligious people were expected to have some basal level of piety in all pre-modern societies for the purposes of social order. and i’m very sensitive to the rights of expression of this particular minority, who may seem odious to the majority of humans, but among whom i count friends. it isn’t the most pressing issue in the world, but someone has to remain conscious of it.
that is fertile (in India and in Israel), potentially colonizing (U.S., W Europe), terrorists (U.S., W Europe), hiding in plain sight (U.S., W. Europe), segregationist (W Europe, Hindu right in India), anti-women (India, U.S. W Europe), homophobic (U.S., W Europe, probably Israel), foreign (India, U.S., W Europe), intolerant of dissent (U.S.), barbaric (India), uncivilized (W Europe, U.S.).
right. and some of these assertions are i think empirically justifiable. some are not. for example, most people don’t know this (i didn’t until a few weeks ago), but the jewish birthrate in israel has surpassed the muslim one. that’s because “ultra-orthodox” haredi jews have the highest birthrates, and their proportion of the population has increased to the point where they’re driving jewish population growth. “barbaric” is something which i class as a component of culturally-conditioned relativism. for example, in the USA we consider dog consumption barbaric. but older people in much of east asia consider it normal. younger people, influenced by global culture and the surge of pet ownership driven by affluence, also consider it barbaric (korea has an anti-dog eating movement which has forced public dog consumption somewhat underground). using that context muslims are barbaric in india, depending on their behavior. the last mughal apparently did not eat beef out of respect for the views of his hindu subjects. but if he was a monarch in a non-hindu land he would perhaps have eaten beef, and not given any offense. as for muslims being homophobic, of course they are, at least by the standards that my friends would judge as homophobic. i already presented the data for british muslims. see the data:
http://www.gnxp.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/fig321.png
they’re homophobic in the USA too.
http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#
click comparisons
50% of americans think homosexual should be accepted by society 26% of evangelical protestants 24% of mormons 27% of muslims 48% of hindus 79% of jews
and so forth. now, one could point out that a substantial minority of muslims aren’t homophobic. but then one could say the same about white evangelical protestants and mormons too, and i’d be laughed out of the room if i brought up this issue when my liberal friends are inveighing against the regressiveness of these religious communities.
Doc Anon,
You are essentializing and steretyping several groups here in an attempt to show Islamophobia arises from this very method.
Doc Anon,
You are essentializing and steretyping several groups here in an attempt to show Islamophobia arises from this very method.
Has there been any critic of Islamic extremism who has not been called an Islamophobe? Mahfouz, Manto etc. are fine, but I am more interested in nonfiction (published in English) on this subject. Hirsi Ali often sounds like Ayn Rand on crack. Naipaul goes a bit deeper, but ultimately his sneering contempt overwhelms his (many) valid points. On the other hand it’s equally annoying to see any criticism of Islam getting branded as Islamophobia. It’s just dishonest and intellectually lazy. The New Atheists mentioned upthread, case in point.
ali has called moderate muslims apostates and says that islam is inescapably violent because of book teachings. that’s some pretty phobic ass shit. read hitchens if you want anti extremist screed without the hyperbole and pandering of ali.
“Hirsi Ali often sounds like Ayn Rand on crack”
that’s some funny $hit meth!
She’s Kola Boof, Part II, remixed for a mainstream audience.
I meant that a muslim-born American turned atheist/agnostic is still regarded as “muslim” by the general public. Naturally all my my friends who know my personal beliefs don’t regard me as muslim. But if I were to run for office, of course I would be a muslim in the minds of most Americans. People are kind of tainted by what they’re born as.
I don’t understand how there can be any debate to this. It clearly states in the quran, as well as in the hadith (sayings of prophet muhammad) that muslim women are required to cover their hair once they reach adolescence. I’m no expert in Islamic Studies by any means, but I have read the Quran 7 times – 3 times in its native Arabic and 4 times in English, and attended islamic school for 10 years. The quran is not some vague book of poetry like a lot of people think, it’s pretty clear, cut-and-dry, in its instructions on this matter. In my experience, a lot of muslim women living in western nations try to “modernize” their beliefs to accommodate their 21st century lifestyles by following following along with the parts of the Quran they like, and ignoring the bits they don’t like (anything violent or sexist). The same way most American catholics don’t actually wait until marriage to have sex, don’t go to confession regularly, etc – most religious people don’t follow the traditional rules of their religion. But as to what Islam actually dictates on the subject, I don’t think there’s room for legitimate argument.
Amitava, given the relationship we have, you know I am not going to ask you anything about Islam unless it is a sincere question. So my question is, what do you think of Irshad Manji’s “The Trouble with Islam?” She is far more nuanced in her disillusionment with Islam than Hirsi Ali and I personally can’t dismiss her as a purveyor of Islamophobia, if indeed Hirsi Ali can be called that. You seem to think so but I don’t. Is it a coincidence that the two well known anti-Islamic writers in the west are both women?
I purposely asked you this in a public forum rather than privately. Readers here will benefit from your response.
I meant that a muslim-born American turned atheist/agnostic is still regarded as “muslim” by the general public. Naturally all my my friends who know my personal beliefs don’t regard me as muslim. But if I were to run for office, of course I would be a muslim in the minds of most Americans. People are kind of tainted by what they’re born as.
no, you’d be agnostic. irreligion is more political poison than exotic religion (there are two muslims and two buddhists in congress; only one admitted atheist, who “came out” only after decades in congress). there are plenty of irreligious people in congress who lie about being jewish or episcopalian or whatever. many people suspect that in terms of religious belief obama remains the agnostic that he was raised (he’s admitted that he’s not certain about the existence of an afterlife or angels in his books).
I’m no expert in Islamic Studies by any means, but I have read the Quran 7 times – 3 times in its native Arabic and 4 times in English, and attended islamic school for 10 years
ah, and your islamic school was of course totally objective and gave you a good sense of islam was because they’re the final arbiters? 😉 remember, you didn’t attend islamic school, you attended an islamic school. next you’re going to tell me that obviously ismailis are kufars, if you take islam seriously 🙂
The quran is not some vague book of poetry like a lot of people think, it’s pretty clear, cut-and-dry, in its instructions on this matter.
this just isn’t true from what i’ve heard. in fact, this really isn’t true of any literary works. they aren’t written in formal logic. you sound like you haven’t talked to an ismaili or other type of muslim about how they view interpretation of the koran. don’t confuse your fundamentalist background as definitive about these sort of things. your opinion about head-covering is probably the majority among the world’s muslims, and probably american muslims even if they don’t practice it, but there are minority of muslims who strongly disagree, and they’re not all secular types at all. religion isn’t like mathematics.
alina-m, and just so you know where i’m coming from, i would have agreed with you 100% when i was your age. i’ve never been a believer, but i come from a long line of ulams and have several imams in my family, and islam was very clear and distinct in terms of what it meant, from the books (koran + hadith) that my family had. but as i got older i met other types of muslims, and it became clear to me there is some diversity on issues that i thought were totally clear. much of this has to do with the fact that i didn’t know any shia muslims, and that group has a lot of diversity in belief and interpretation which sunni islam lacks. a lot of generalizations about muslims would be more robust if people just said sunni muslims.
“no, you’d be agnostic. irreligion is more political poison than exotic religion (there are two muslims and two buddhists in congress; only one admitted atheist, who “came out” only after decades in congress). “
and an incoming Aqua Buddhist.
Look, I’m sure my Islamic school was biased beyond belief, (hey, it’s a religious school…) but it wasn’t Fundamentalist, and it did represent a variety of thought. My teachers were Shia AND Shi’ite, Muslim-born and converts from other religions, desi’s and arabs, blacks and whites, American and foreign, some with PhDs, some fresh out of college, etc. We even learned about Sufism, which is a mystical branch of Islam most Fundy’s don’t even consider “real Islam.” Never got the real Ismaili perspective though, so I’m not going to pretend all schools of thought were covered.
But I think the best way to approach Islam is by examining the Quran, strictly in its native Arabic. Naturally culture plays a role in religion, so Islamic practice varies from Somalia to Bangladesh to Lebanon. The Quran is what ties Islam together. And imo it’s pretty clear in regards to women and head-covering. It’s definitely vague when it comes to dress, I’ll give you that – although I’ve heard some muslims vehemently claim it specifies “everything covered but face and hands!” but I’ve never read that.
I know you were raised Muslim, but you were never a teenage Muslim girl being told to cover her hair, so you weren’t obsessed with this topic like I was. When I was 14, I tried to “prove” to my sunday school teacher (a Fundy that year, ughhh) that Islam doesn’t require a head-covering at all. I tried to do this by thoroughly searching several versions of the quran, and other sources and texts to “prove” my point. The best I could come up with is head-covering is required, but the other crap about Burka’s and all that is misconstrued BS. But I haven’t put any research into the matter since then, I’ll admit. I should re-examine this now that I’m in college and have more resources at my disposal.
Are you fluent in Arabic (meaning you have read, written and spoken it from a young age) and have you read several versions of the Quran in its native Arabic multiple times? I hope that doesn’t sound condescending or something, but it’s hard to discuss when you don’t understand where the other person is coming from, and you’re going by what “you’ve heard”.
But I think the best way to approach Islam is by examining the Quran, strictly in its native Arabic. Naturally culture plays a role in religion, so Islamic practice varies from Somalia to Bangladesh to Lebanon. The Quran is what ties Islam together. And imo it’s pretty clear in regards to women and head-covering. It’s definitely vague when it comes to dress, I’ll give you that – although I’ve heard some muslims vehemently claim it specifies “everything covered but face and hands!” but I’ve never read that.
i disagree that the koran has that much to do with islam really in a determinative sense. same with the bible or the vedas on christianity and or hinduism for the “fundamentalism” of both sects. i agree that religionists think their holy books are central. i just don’t believe that the books are driving their beliefs and practices that much.
Are you fluent in Arabic (meaning you have read, written and spoken it from a young age) and have you read several versions of the Quran in its native Arabic multiple times? I hope that doesn’t sound condescending or something, but it’s hard to discuss when you don’t understand where the other person is coming from, and you’re going by what “you’ve heard”.
the comment is fair enough, but really i’ve known people who do know arabic and have studied the stuff (even professionally) who disagree with you. so as a matter of fact either those people are just plain lying, or your opinion is your opinion. that’s all religion is to me see, a bunch of opinions by people who can’t agree. unless arabic has the clarity of formal logic i simply won’t accept that the people who disagree with you are lying to me. so, they just draw different inferences and interpretations. knowing a language doesn’t mean that the interpretations of given words are clear, right?
True, the interpretations aren’t always clear. Like 97% of what I’ve read in the quran can be interpreted in different ways, it’s in shades of gray. Also although I learned Arabic at age 4, naturally the meaning of words/phrases changes over time. I guess my opinion is just that, an opinion, but it hasn’t changed. I think when I read a page in a book that explicitly states that women should cover their hair, I take that at face value. And when I read a similar statement in various versions of the book, and in 2 languages, and it’s explicitly there, I don’t know how else to interpret it.
For example, I can easily see how people misinterpret the quran to justify burka’s, because what I’ve read roughly translates into “covering ones bosom” or “wearing loose clothing” and things like that. I think the burka is purely cultural with some BS religious justification. But not the hair-covering part. Also, I wonder if the scholars you know who professionally study this stuff think muslim women are exempt from covering their hair during prayer? because to that, I honestly can see no wiggle room for interpretation. I think it’s there, plain as day, probably in every version of the quran that exists, in hundreds of languages.
Also, I wonder if the scholars you know who professionally study this stuff think muslim women are exempt from covering their hair during prayer? because to that, I honestly can see no wiggle room for interpretation.
interesting. i don’t recall, but you might be right. but this is the sort of “wiggle” room that i can see them using. the issue here is that from my perspective a fundamentalist interpretation of christianity or islam is pretty simple and makes sense. but talking to “non-fundamentalist” christians and muslims, and seeing how the fundamentalists themselves interpret selectively, has made me change my mind about how clear all of that stuff is. at this point i put a lot of inferences made from religious texts in the same category as assertions such as “shakespeare is a great work of english literature.” it seems self-evident today, but historically it turns out that this wasn’t the view in the 17th or 18th centuries. rather, he was “re-discovered.”
Nothing is really concrete but the laws of physics imho. But if religion is just a bunch of opinions shared by a group of people, and the overwhelming majority of people in that religion share X opinion based on a statement in their central text, then X becomes a “fact” of that religion for me, whether or not a minority disagree. If that minority has a different opinion, and religion is just a bunch of opinions, then whose to say that minority isn’t simply a different religion?
For example, I’ve heard a Catholic state that her religion doesn’t ban pre-marital sex after all, and she blames it all on misinterpretation and the Church wanting to control sexuality, etc, I’ve never read the new testament so I can’t argue, but in my (very limited) knowledge of catholicism, pre-marital sex is banned. Now, could you dig up a scholar somewhere who might somehow try to re-interpret things to prove pre-marital sex IS ok in catholicism? Well sure you could. But I don’t think that would change what’s actually there in the bible, or what millions of Catholics around the world think (or what the Pope thinks, hah). In that way, pre-marital sex = wrong is like a “fact” of catholicism for me. The reason I’m putting “fact” in quotes here is because I know it’s not a concrete fact like say, the force of gravity on earth or ohm’s law would be.
But if religion is just a bunch of opinions shared by a group of people, and the overwhelming majority of people in that religion share X opinion based on a statement in their central text, then X becomes a “fact” of that religion for me, whether or not a minority disagree. If that minority has a different opinion, and religion is just a bunch of opinions, then whose to say that minority isn’t simply a different religion?
right. this why i said earlier that i’m a ‘nominalist’ when it come to religion. there isn’t a ‘real islam’ or ‘real hinduism’, it emerges out of consensus of the believers. the only reason it matters for us who don’t believe in religion is that public policy is affected by the reality that we have to accommodate religion. for example, if a sikh says that his religion dictates that he has to wear a head-covering at work in a service position, he would get a hearing because the majority of sikhs would agree this is a valid opinion. OTOH, if a sikh said that his religion dictated that he he be pierced, most would disagree, and the case would be dismissed.
But I don’t think that would change what’s actually there in the bible, or what millions of Catholics around the world think (or what the Pope thinks, hah).
just remember that catholics don’t have the same attitude toward the bible as protestants. they’re guided by church teaching, even if the bible is important to them. the consensus of the church change. the catholic church opposed liberal democracy well into the 20th century. the church also accepted slavery, though it encouraged humanitarian treatment, and banned enslavement of christians.
btw, slavery is an interesting case. the texts of islam, judaism and christianity seem to sanction slavery, within humanitarian limits. but i bet that aside from a few ultra-orthodox jews, calvinist christian reconstructionists, and salafis, very few abrahamists would agree that slavery is acceptable in their religion.
Well I agree with a lot of what you’ve said here. I think one of the reasons Ayaan receives so much negativity is because her books (and I’ve only read 1) clearly portray Islam in a negative light, and much of them can be misinterpreted to make it seems like Islam condones a lot of stuff it doesn’t. For example, a westerner unfamiliar with Islam may interpret them to mean the religion is ok with torturing women, when it’s clearly not. So naturally Ayaan gets a lot of backlash from the muslim community. And I’m sure she’s aware of exactly what she’s doing here…but it’s also hard to attack her because she’s really just writing about her experiences here, and you can’t argue about someone’s experiences.
Also obviously the image of the broken oppressed woman breaking free of her burqa and embracing secular individualism is going to be popular in Western culture, so naturally she’s well received in America.
also didn’t mean to italicize like half my last post, sorry about that.
Also obviously the image of the broken oppressed woman breaking free of her burqa and embracing secular individualism is going to be popular in Western culture, so naturally she’s well received in America.
well, well received by conservatives. but many liberals/progressives see her as a tool of reactionaries. basically there are two tribes, and she’s picked the wrong one. this is unfair, but that’s how it is. i don’t think liberals/progressives normally case aspersions at the mental states of women who claim to have been oppressed as they do with ali, but that’s because she’s on the “wrong side.”
well I think she’s often well received by liberals too, at least feminist-type liberals. I can understand why the uber PC types of liberals might not like her, but I think she appeals to the more libertarian-leaning sort. I also understand why people might find her offensive. Personally I’m really intrigued by her, and not offended at all, but I guess it’s really hard to offend me to begin with.
razib – a half awake observer of the american intellectual scene can deduct that there are certain things you can not say openly if you seek the liberal intelligentsia’s blessing. hirsi probably understood this but given how important her core message was to her she chose to ignore the monetary opportunity cost of her alliance.
huh? a cushy job at aei and royalties of book upon book is a monetary cost?
i have no interest in her mental state, but it is perfectly fair to describe her as an islamophobe given her use of textualism to slam islam as a whole and description of moderate muslims as apostates by definition.
don’t know how much she gets from aei, doubt it’s much compared to what she could have made had she received the mainstream/leftist media’s imprimatur.
Ok then. I guess that bit of convincing evidence settles it 🙂
Ayan’s problem with the “progressives” or whatever you call them, is that she is an ex-Muslim. That’s the same problem Geert Wilders runs into, which is why Tehelka dumps on Geert but allows the other clown Kancha Illiah free regin! Anti-Hindu and anti-Christian is OK, but anti-Islam is Islamophobia. It also depends how cheesy, oppressive/repulsive or gruesome the practices are.The hijab is cheesy and sanctimonious, as is Karva Chauth. Ingesting cows urine/dung is repulsive/stupid. The shuttlecock burqua is oppressive/repulsive, FGM/honor murder/sati etc are gruesome. Christian fundamentalists get the stick in America because they are terribly backward moronic nutcases, and societies that have put Christian fundies in their place, Canada, W.Europe, Australasia are nicer places to live. We all know that covering up women is simply a means to keep them under control, whatever apologists like Nussbaum or Muslim women might say.
“Christian fundamentalists get the stick in America because they are terribly backward moronic nutcases
And sadly with the republican wins we’ll be seeing a lot more of them in the months/years to come.
Kidpoker666,
Christian fundies get dumped on in the US but still are v.powerful, although they can’t have a PZMyers or a Dawkins executed. In W Europe,Canada and Australasia, they have been rendered irrelevant. Society has moved past them. So Christian extremists make much of the expansion coming from new areas in Asia and Africa (and in the case of the non-Catholics, they make much of new harvest in Latin America and Phillipines. But then in every one of these places as people become more prosperous and better educated they gradually go the way of Augustine (using reason rather than blind faith. Many of these people are more comfortable congregating with Rev. Jefferts Schori rather than a nutcase televangelist.
[quote]nutcase televangelist[/quote] It is funny that some of these charismatic televangelist outfits have managed to combine all the unreasoning superstition and credulity endemic among pagan religions with the hectoring moral absolutism among the Abrahamic faiths and rolled it all together into just one big odious ball of bigotry and religious megalomania.
Wonderful times we live in.
Yoga Fire, Buying into Abrahamic congregations is a great way to acquire social capital, India as well as the US. In India in Meenakshipuram, where sensationally a group of Pallars converted to Islam, is an intriguing case. The Pallars have otherwise been powerful in Tamil Nadu, and produced several stalwarts and are a traditional “martial race”. Unfortunately in Meenakshipuram the local dominant community (I shall not name them) relegated the Pallars economically and socially. There are very few hereditary professions that qualify one for “automatic untouchability”. In TN these are sanitation, leather work and funeral services. Even among these there has been a great deal of churning, explaining which is beyond the scope of this thread. In hte case of Meenakshipuram some Pallars became Muslims, some of them returned to Hinduism, and an even smaller number became Christians. The neo-Muslims prospered by taking advantage of the guranteed opportunities for Muslims in the Middle East. Rediff.com’s report here is illuminating http://specials.rediff.com/news/2006/sep/27sld5.htm. Similarly in the US, Islam in the African-American community as well as Christianity for Indian-American-Hindus has offered a way into the power structure in the backward South.
“Phobe” means unreasonable fear. I believe that Muslims have given us lots to be legitimately afraid of.
if the critique by laila lalami hasn’t been brought up yet…
http://www.thenation.com/article/missionary-position?page=0,0&comment_sort=ASC
So Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a provocateur and not a voice of reason, but Deepa Mehta with her film “Fire” is a brave feminist holding aloft the torch of emancipation of Indian/Hindu women from evil religious patriarchy, who is unfairly hounded by Hindutva bigots? (It’s another issue that Deepa Mehta didn’t personally experience any of the oppression that Ayaan Hirsi Ali did.)
So Islamophobia is a valid phenomenon, even though Islam is diverse (so all criticism of Islam is null and void), but all those who criticize Islam are lumped together as Islamophobes?
What other intellectual gems do people have to offer here?
And what would constitute a valid criticism of Islam? Or is Islam above criticism? Going by the collective knee-jerk reaction of Islamic apologists who have drunk the kool-aid, seems to be so.
What’s really funny is that most liberals/leftists talk about giving voice to Muslim women, but then indulge in mud-slinging and ad hominems when Muslim women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji do speak their minds. So much for intellectual honesty and not indulging in hypocrisy!!
Furthermore, Islam is diverse when it comes to any criticism of it, thus invalidating that criticism. But when it comes to American imperialism, suddenly the entire Islamic world and all Muslims become unified victims, and the diversity of Senegal vs Morocco vs Iraq vs Pakistan, which was on display just a moment ago, magically disappears into thin air. So Islam is a shape-shifting phenomenon, which displays its diversity or unity per convenience of the leftists. laughing
I can understand why white people like Zazou indulge in such hocus-pocus (they have a mountain of white liberal guilt to expiate), but I’m puzzled as to why “brown” people (to use the Sepia Mutiny label) indulge in the same. Is this what’s known as the coconut phenomenon?
Your snide tone suggests that she is a careerist, but I know nothing to suggest that she is not sincere. It’s a trap to oppose your opponent’s views by implying that even the opponent cannot hold such views sincerely, that they are somehow so preposterous that they must be espoused with an ulterior motive. That’s begging the question. It isn’t her fault that conservatives (especially Christian conservatives) embrace her. A lot of feminists embrace her too, and when she goes into the conservative camp she will meet a lot of people whose views of a woman’s role she can challenge.
@Amit
You are engaging in way too many questions that you created from your framework. Maybe a kool-aid or reading Laila Lalami’s articles (as posted above) about these two women would clear a thing or two.