A(wo)men, eerie! As a strident secularist and feminist, it really pisses me off to see so-called social critics handing an issue to the fundie patriarchs by conflating conservative or bigoted social norms with the tenets of religion. Not that I have any use for religion mself, but it seems that there are enough factual problems in the world to address and to focus attention on without inventing new ones or tying them in to sensitive issues like religion. All they do is force a retrenchment of conservativism by wrapping it in the holy mantle of threatened religion. As far as I am concerned there could be no better example of this than the debate among South Asian feminists on Deepa Mehta's films - first Fire and then recently Water (which I just saw and was very disappointed in). Deepa Mehta sets up some highly unlikely social scenarios and sandwiches them between quotes from ancient Brahminical law to suggest a causal link between religion and women's oppression (though religion is only part of a much larger structure of patriarchy, which purrs along smoothly even among illiterate groups that never have and never will be exposed to the Brahminical texts). Then you have well-meaning but incredibly defensive and ultimately idiotic people like Madhu Kishwar (feminist who refuses to call herself a feminist) berating "Western style feminists" for attacking "our norms" and even go so far as to say that tradition is not so bad and may even be more liberating for women than what contemporary feminists propose. Dialogue des sourdes, quoi.

Manji has extrapolated from her [real?] childhood, and unfortunately her "conclusions" have led her to a certain audience. I guess it's just a "coincidence" as to what this audience actually is ...

But let's face it - a "populist" will always garner more attention than those who are more balanced and more realistic ...

In my view, religion is as religion does. Maybe Jesus should not be blamed for the Christians, Prophet Muhammed for the Muslims or Buddha for the Buddhists, but what a religion actually says does not have to relate to what the religious do. Socially, religion is conservative. To change a religion is to change society as well. To change society without changing its religion is bound to diminish the influence of that religion, or even replace it outright.

Obviously, Irshad's attacks are fallacious. But religion is part of the equation, and if the problem is patriarchy, the solution also includes something about the big patriarch in the sky.

But from that perspective, it may be just the right thing to do to call attention to what the religion is actually saying - to replace the interpretation, and thus the practice of that religion. If Jesus had been Commander-in-Chief, he probably wouldn't have cut taxes for the rich and invaded two countries.

not that it's related, but we're farily close in age, E.

also, agreed on all points. it's all just to sell books.

Very well put Eerie, but you say:

"I am not saying Irshad Manji should be dismissed because she is angry."

I think she should be dismissed because of her anger. Just as any trauma survivor who, for example, was molested as a child, and now has a distaste for men, relationships and sexuality in general. Would society accept her tainted views on any of these issues?

Klaus, of course religion is as religion does - and this bears closer reading. Too many people fail to realize the essentially social and practised nature of religion and emphasize texts instead - this is particularly a failing of those who come from monotheistic traditions and religions of the book - but even bookish religions, as it were, are interpreted and lived in a such a wide range of ways that to attack something conceived of as a monolithic tradition can be tricky at best. Klaus, there is no big patriarch in the sky, or even a fixed God, in my (on paper) religion. But there's plenty of patriarchy. And there are some strands within that religious tradition that are positively radical and sceptical. It's not all social conservatism.

Would society accept her tainted views on any of these issues

But it does happen routinely. I hate to bring up examples like this, but Holocaust survivors are routinely brought to attention as "authorities" on interracial problems (invariably outside the US, of course.) I mean, heck, Elie Wiesel was summoned to all manner of gatherings to draw connection between (insert your "genocide" of the week here) and Holocaust. Granted, these tend to involve larger political agitprop, about the evil (Serbs/Sudanese/etc.) but stuff like this also strike a chord in their audiences.

@SP, there are 'some strands' of change, but by and large, religion thrives on tradition, and vice versa. In any case, my argument should be reserved for Abrahamic religion, since I don't know a whole lot about Hinduism.

But in practice, whenever the god is given a gender, it is just about always a male one. He, His, Him, Lord, etc. When people are ruled by an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-seeing, all-good MAN, it's bound to have some political consequences. I certainly believe a strictly monotheistic religion is, by its very nature, uncompromising.

There are challengers who, like socialist Catholic priests in South America, use the Word to change things. Jesus, Buddha, Prophet Muhammed were all challengers. But the religion is often beyond criticism, because it would be blasphemy to question the god, even though its interpreters wield massive political influence. When the god is on your side, you've got it made.

This is hijacking a religion for political purposes, but it's so common I have come to believe it's how it is. I have also come to believe that those who hijack religion sincerely believe they do the right thing, that the god IS on their side, and to question them is to question the god.

Another criticism of Irshad Manji is this anti Arab vibe she has. It certainly appeals to her exciteable Zionist supporters. What is "desert Islam" or what is "Arab Islam"? There isnt even a consensus among Arabs. She is weak. How do her supports feel when she gets no love from most Muslims? Defeated perhaps? Whats her point?

Well, to be frank, among non-Arab Muslims one often hears more than a bit of bashing of Arabs (some of whose over-weening proprietary behaviour within Islam rightly generate resentment). Nothing new about this, Persian-Arab tensions date back centuries.

However, her comments do underline how terribly superficial her own knowledge is.

I'll add that her website's recent featuring of a supposed Moroccan woman - with a storyline oddly reminiscent of her own (including the queer bit about religious school and teaching hatred of other religions, the few bits of information did not sound like a real Moroccan quranic school) - rather rang false with me. I've more than my share of Maghrebine experiences, the "amy" writer rang very false indeed. Of course my gut isn't proof.

However:

Too many people fail to realize the essentially social and practised nature of religion and emphasize texts instead

It's a bit arch to make statements like this, as well as, well academic. I don't mean that as a compliment.

Factually, I would not disagree, not being very good at being a believer, but the weight of humanity goes in another direction.

Further
this is particularly a failing of those who come from monotheistic traditions and religions of the book strikes me as tripe.

Academic insight and complicated views of religion are never, ever going to characterise humanity nor the majority of any religion's believers. It's best to not make that a point of criticism if one does not want to be eternally disapointed.

This is a very good post.

I've noticed this trend as well and have labelled it victim scholarship where by because someone has suffered some bad experience they are automatically given intellectual authority.

By the way why has there been this huge deal made about Wafa Sultan. All she did was rant about jewish scientists a couple of times on aljazeera. She probably won't be heard of again.

Yes, I definitely think the "damsel in distress" image plays well in the Western media.

Wafa has a book coming out this fall. I'm sure she's opportunistic enough to create some hype beforehand.

"but Holocaust survivors are routinely brought to attention as "authorities" on interracial problems (invariably outside the US, of course.) I mean, heck, Elie Wiesel was summoned to all manner of gatherings to draw connection between (insert your "genocide" of the week here) and Holocaust. "

Or perhaps Wiesel, having experienced being a victim of a genocidal program, is anxious to do what he can to call attention to others suffering a similar atrocity.

Wiesel's personal motivation, my dear Mark, has fuck all to do (if you bother to actually think) with the observation.

The observation, if again you bother to actually use some vague semblance of thinking instead of engaging in terribly tedious and stereotypical knee-jerking, is a victim of event X does not particularly make said victim an enlightening authority on event Y.

Useful, in terms of PR perhaps, but not an ipso facto expert or even per se enlightening (although the emotional tug is certainly there).

The point was in rebuttal to the comment above about "who would listen" [i.e. the idea of being a victim taints and thus society is not accepting] - a line of thought clearly in the wrong, regardless of any factual question.

However, your response is a beautiful illustration of victimhood as authority weight.

As to the underlying point, Wafa and Irshad rather remind me of that angry American atheist woman as to their position relative to the religion. They may have some utility on the margins (may) but ultimately are only of an appeal to those already angry at the religion or religion generally.

"Or perhaps Wiesel, having experienced being a victim of a genocidal program, is anxious to do what he can to call attention to others suffering a similar atrocity."

Wasn't he a member of the Irgun at one point?

Dear Shamil,

no, Eliezer (Elie) Wiesel was never a member of Irgun. After having survived Auschwitz & Buchenwald extermination/concentration camps he was brought to France, where he lived until 1955 when he moved to the U.S. The Irgun only existed until 1948.

Next time, before you make a claim like that, the least you can do is to use the Wikipedia.

--raf*

Shamil did not make a claim, he asked a question. And he was mostly correct in his inquiry, though Elie Wiesel was not a member in Palestine.

From the Jewish virtual library: "In 1948, Wiesel enrolled in the Sorbonne University where he studied literature, philosophy and psychology. . . . In time, however, he became involved with the Irgun, a Jewish militant organization in Palestine, and translated materials from Hebrew to Yiddish for the Irgun’s newspaper."

I saw it claimed in this article by Christopher Hitchens. Not that I have much regard for Hitchens but he generally doesn't lie this directly (if it had been a lie).

http://app.thenation.com/doc/20010219/hitchens

dear matthew,

claim: wasn't he a member?
question: was he a member?

so he did translation work for irgun in france. that's a bit different than, say, blowing up things in palestine.

what exactly is the POINT of elie wiesel's connections to the irgun in regard to this aqoul article?

we've already established that having been a victim of persecution does not make one an expert on similar real or alleged persecution somewhere else.

i do not see how the irgun question is relevant.

--raf*

I mentioned it in response to the comment by Mark Safranski.

You're right that it isn't the main point though.

raf: Wiesel is an interesting parallel, and relevant. The Irgun membership was questioned, disputed and clarified as part of the Wiesel discussion.

I personally don't see a problem with comments going off on tangents. You did take up the Irgun question first, after all.

Rather testy today I see, eh Col ? Sorry, I disagree and moreover, you are wrong.

You don't need to be an expert in another culture to be able to diagnose some form of mass atrocity as being wrong and worthy of international attention. Yes, non-experts bring with them hyperbole and ideological blather sometimes but then again, so do ppl who ought to know better.

In the case of Bosnian Muslims in the mid-90's, for example, it was the so-called "regional experts" who were falsely putting about the myth of eternal interethnic conflict as something about which nothing could be done and for which " all sides" in the conflict were responsible.

It was a crock - the Bosnian serb militias were organized and advised by the Serb dominated Yugoslav Army and Milosevic's political apparatus, the Bosnians were predominantly unarmed and kept that way by Western sanctions.

You try having melted veins, see what it does for your humour.

However, regardless, it is not a matter of being expert in a particular culture, but rather being a victim does not ipso facto make one particularly expert in the crime.

I haven't a particular view on Weisel to be frank, but at the same time it does strike me he was called on to comment on all kinds of things where his obs and background wasn't particularly profound.

Re the Bosnian example I would not disagree (indeed I rather thought at the times the sanctions were a crock), I am sure some regional experts were saying the same, but I regard that as not particularly on point to the point made supra re the status accorded to say Weisel. Mind you PR is useful, but it doesn't seem to me you're really responding to the observation.