this very long essay is really one of the best things i've read in a while. the issues of nationalism covered by the author state much more clearly what i was trying to say a few days back. but also, i found very interesting the way he writes about historical views of women and the history of anti-semitism in europe. a lot of this was honestly new to me - i'd never heard of the "blood libel myth", the notion of effeminism and lost manhood.
i haven't read the other posts in the series, linked to at the bottom of the one above, but hope to do so at some point soon. i find the stance of the author very courageous, to be critical of a community he belongs to which has faced, collectively and individually, such a severe degree of oppression is not an easy thing.
it's something i struggle with from the point of view of my own community, where i see many things that need to change, but know that speaking out about these things will just add another layer to the bigotry and hatred already out there. i'm afraid the main message will be lost, and that the only thing taken from my words will be "see how awful those muslims are, we knew it and here is a muslim who confirms our [bigoted] views".
i don't want to end up being another ayan hirsi ali, who makes things worse and not better in the way she approaches things. but i do try to be an agent of positive change, by trying to deal with what i see as "internal" issues in an internal way ie quietly within the community rather than through public condemnation. it's a very fine line to tread, making sure that you're not an apologist for things that are clearly wrong and yet making sure that you don't increase the level of discrimination and alienation.
i'm sure that i don't always get the balance right. i'm sure i could say more about things that i don't speak up enough about. i'm sure i'm probably a bit too vocal on other things. but i hope that sometimes i do get it right, and sometimes it does make a difference even if only in a small way.
just as a post-script, this post by maia and resulting discussion is also well worth a read.
11 comments:
What does Ayan Hirsan Ali do to make things worse?
where to start! she makes comments about her former religion that are soemtimes easily proven to be untrue, or sometimes a position held by a very small minority but she makes out that it's the view of all muslims. she treats issues that are cultural and geographical as somehow sanctioned by religion. combine that with the way that she puts her message across and the neo-con groups she works with, and all she does is increase the level of bigotry and hatred towards muslims. by doing so, the few reasonable points she makes get totally lost and so she makes it more difficult to achieve positive change. and she totally antagonises the community she wants to effect change in by doing all of the above, so that they just aren't listening anymore.
see, you can raise issues around domestic violence for example, and you'll always piss some people off - especially the "but women do it just as much" brigade. but nevertheless, you can prove through religious text and law that such behaviour is unacceptable and must be dealt with and taken seriously, an a reasonable proportion of people will take that on board. or you can just damn the whole religion in trying to make your point, and then everybody stops listening, not just the "but women do it just as much" brigade. so you've lost the chance to get effective change, as well as making it harder for others working in the field to make an impact.
and coincidentally, i come across this today from http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/02/calling-all-shakers-for-teaspooning.html:
Infidel is not objectionable because of its controversial subject matter, but because it's offered without any alternative or complementary material, which effectively turns one woman's experience into "women's experience" for an audience mostly unsophisticated enough to discern the difference.
sorry, i couldn't resist also putting this bit from the comments thread of the post i linked to above, as an example of how to do what ali seems to want to do, but in a more effective way:
Also, you might consider Shirin Ebadi's Iran Awakening. Ebadi is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, a former Iranian judge and lawyer who fought for the rights of women, children, and political prisoners following the Iranian revolution. Though repression is an inevitable part of the story, Ebadi is a personally empowered woman who attempts to de-stigmatize Muslim womanhood. In fact, she wrote legislation for the expansion of women's rights that relied on traditional interpretations of Sharia law.
she totally antagonises the community she wants to effect change in by doing all of the above, so that they just aren't listening anymore.
Do you make sure when you are criticising men that you don't antagonise them, and that they keep listening to you?
you can prove through religious text and law that such behaviour is unacceptable
How does one prove through law that domestic violence is unacceptable? Unacceptable to whom, for that matter?
What is your opinion of criticisms of domestic violence that don't depend on religion or law?
What is it that makes Infidel's 'audience' unsophisticated? Is it presumed that any criticism of Islam will attract an unsophisticated audience, or is it something else?
Hey Stargazer
I just popped over to Shakesville. It seems the quote you have used was not criticising the book Infidel itself, but the practice of providing it to schoolchildren without providing anything to contrast with it.
This explains what is meant by an unsophisticated audience and a lack of alternative and complimentary material. However, it's not a criticism of the book itself. So my question, in part, stands.
Do you make sure when you are criticising men that you don't antagonise them, and that they keep listening to you?
nice try, picking out bits of my comments and ignoring others. read the whole comment, and you'll see the bit where i say "you'll piss some people off".
How does one prove through law that domestic violence is unacceptable? Unacceptable to whom, for that matter?
i believe there's a statute in this country outlawing domestic violence, which proves it's unacceptable. and then there's plenty of case law to back that up. unacceptable to the people who made the law & apply it, obviously.
What is your opinion of criticisms of domestic violence that don't depend on religion or law?
i have no problem with that, if that's what works for you. for some people a religious or legal argument works better.
What is it that makes Infidel's 'audience' unsophisticated? Is it presumed that any criticism of Islam will attract an unsophisticated audience, or is it something else?
i suggest you take that up with the person who wrote it, back on the original post. i can only guess what s/he might have meant, i might be way off the mark. i was more interested in the bit of the comment that said:
because it's offered without any alternative or complementary material, which effectively turns one woman's experience into "women's experience"
anon, i suggest you read this:
http://newmatilda.com/2007/07/25/unreliable-narrator
from someone who has interviewed ali - you can listen to the interview here:
http://www.newmatilda.com/admin/imagelibrary/images/Jose_IrfINTFINAL.mp3
and a review of infidel by shakira hussein here:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5924&page=0
is also useful.
oops, the interview link didn't come through, perhaps this one that links to the interview will:
http://newmatilda.com/node/2292?ArticleID=2292&HomepageID=204
nice try, picking out bits of my comments and ignoring others. read the whole comment, and you'll see the bit where i say "you'll piss some people off".
Sorry, I thought we were having a polite conversation here. Obviously not. I do hope you find somebody who is willing to discuss this with you, but I'm afraid it won't be me.
Sorry, I thought we were having a polite conversation here. Obviously not.
it's impolite for me to point out that you've deliberately choses to ignore the whole paragraph i'd written in my first reply to you about the dv example, and the difference between antagonising a subset of a community compared to antagonising pretty much the whole community?
well, if that's the kind of thing you take offence at, i guess there isn't much point in discussing things further. but thank you for taking the time to comment here.
Post a Comment