"Appeasing the Privileged Man": A Foucauldian Examination of Post-9/11 Muslim Apologetic Discourse in Light of Post-9/11 Orientalism
The intellectual (or the intellectually lacking) debates surrounding Muslim issues post-9/11 has shaken as a whole the foundation of the Muslim body in light of the context of the "modern world", and lead to the formation of many polarized encampments from which people base their arguments and critiques on. Amongst the most exploited camps are those of the apologetic Muslims who keep parrotting "Islam is peace", promoting flowery and "hip" images of Islam through media, and speaking out against the injustices with arguments that draw out excerpts from Islamic doctrine... all at the constant urge of those who criticise Islam. "Where are the protests?" "Islam is a religion of violence." "It needs reform". "Sharia is barbaric". Time and time again, I see new literature springing out again and again repeating the same old lame old mantra. The debate is heading into a standstill b/c both sides are repeating the same stuff over and over again. [IMPORTANT: Read disclaimer at bottom of post]
The debate itself sprung out new movements from Islamic societies (societies that consider themselves Islamic or are predominantly Muslim). A lot of these movements incorporate the so-called "superior" ideologies of "democracy" and "freedom" and "secularism" into Islamic teachings. There are movements that incorporate new ideas into Islamic teachings. Some of them go as far as to renounce certain Islamic teachings such as Sharia, certain Ahadith, and even parts of the Koran. Others arise from certain tense political situations, particularly pertaining to some sort of opposition to or by fundamentalist groups in different political, temporal, and spatial contexts. Make no mistake: I'm fully aware of Muslim liberals pre-9/11 such as Abdullah Yusuf Ali. My main concern is with movements that are (probably/most likely) products of apologist discourse, and how they are produced in terms of the domineering Orientalist/Western anti-Muslim discourse.
Before I continue, let's get a few things "out of the way", and by that, I mean delivered in a clearly understood fashion. Discourse, through media, discussion, debate... whatever medium that you can read, hear, understand, etc.... is a method of exercising power. According to Michel Foucault, a prominent French intellectual, discourse is defined as
The debate itself sprung out new movements from Islamic societies (societies that consider themselves Islamic or are predominantly Muslim). A lot of these movements incorporate the so-called "superior" ideologies of "democracy" and "freedom" and "secularism" into Islamic teachings. There are movements that incorporate new ideas into Islamic teachings. Some of them go as far as to renounce certain Islamic teachings such as Sharia, certain Ahadith, and even parts of the Koran. Others arise from certain tense political situations, particularly pertaining to some sort of opposition to or by fundamentalist groups in different political, temporal, and spatial contexts. Make no mistake: I'm fully aware of Muslim liberals pre-9/11 such as Abdullah Yusuf Ali. My main concern is with movements that are (probably/most likely) products of apologist discourse, and how they are produced in terms of the domineering Orientalist/Western anti-Muslim discourse.
Before I continue, let's get a few things "out of the way", and by that, I mean delivered in a clearly understood fashion. Discourse, through media, discussion, debate... whatever medium that you can read, hear, understand, etc.... is a method of exercising power. According to Michel Foucault, a prominent French intellectual, discourse is defined as
a group of statements which provide a language for talking about ...a particular topic at a particular historical moment. Discourse... constructs the topic. It defines and produces the objects of our knowledge. It governs the way that a topic can be meaningfully talked about and reasoned about. (1).
In light of this definition, Foucault argues that a discourse on a topic (let's call it "X", and for the sake of an example, let's assume X = "madness") requires several elements that define it:
1. statements about 'madness' ...
2. the rules which prescribe certain ways of talking about these topics and exclude others (rules of inclusion and exclusion)
3. 'subject' who in some ways personify the discourse--the madman, the hysterical woman, the Romantic hero, etc.
5. how this knowledge about the topic acquires authority, a sense of embodying the 'truth' about it...
6. practices within institution for dealing with the subjects--medical treatments for the insane, punishment regimes for the guilty, ways of reading Romantic poetry, night walk for Romantic poets, admiration of Romantic hero, etc.
7. discursive formation--the emergence of a new discourse, decline of the old one
--history as discontinuous, with ruptures, radical breaks
The elements require that the relayer of the discourse construct himself/herself in a position of authority or power to make such elements possible. Without such a structure, the "I" that is the "free, liberated, Western (wo)man" can not be in a position to state what (s)he calls the "capital 'T' 'Truth'"... the "absolute 'Truth'". That itself is ironic, to say the least: in order to construct the superior position, it had to be done relative to a somewhat-determined "inferior one". Those who claim they are in such a position can not possibly claim themselves to be knowledgeable of such an "absolute 'Truth'", especially since it is a "truth" that is constructed relative to another, and is done through using that discourse to justify domination and subjugation of "the other"... and one that is done so in plain sight of the "other".
Notable Palestinian intellectual Edward Said takes Foucault's analysis of power a step further by specifying such a discourse of power: Orientalism. In his groundbreaking masterpiece of the same title (Orientalism, in case you missed it a few words back), he uses Foucault's theory of power to analyze pieces of Orientalist work (art, literature, documents, etc.) dating from the Middle Ages to the present (well, up to the time he wrote the book). Said defines Orientalism as
Notable Palestinian intellectual Edward Said takes Foucault's analysis of power a step further by specifying such a discourse of power: Orientalism. In his groundbreaking masterpiece of the same title (Orientalism, in case you missed it a few words back), he uses Foucault's theory of power to analyze pieces of Orientalist work (art, literature, documents, etc.) dating from the Middle Ages to the present (well, up to the time he wrote the book). Said defines Orientalism as
[the] corporate institution for dealing with the Orient -- dealing with it by making statements about it, authoring views of it, describing it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short... a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient (2).
The last statement alludes to the power-discursive nature of Orientalism as an institution that suppresses the East and lets the West speak for it. Many writers have built their theses regarding post-colonial issues and East-West relations solely on Said's theory even a few years after its release. As a discourse, Orientalism is exercised within the systems of the East and West (i.e. within the societal and political systems and relations between the two bodies and individuals within them). However, again owing to its discursive nature, Orientalism as power is created not just through a single, one-way exchange between two bodies, but as a mutual exchange of words affirming the power of one and the subjugation of the "other". One such case is the Canadian Immigration Act, which requires immigrant women to defile the men of their former countries on the grounds of their "culture" and some "inherent" "barbarism" of some sort in order to receive aid from the Canadian government; that is, the Canadian government can only be obliged to help if those who come affirm the discourse of the dominant group, thereby maintaining the power relations (3).
... Which brings me to my topic. Ever since 9/11, I felt that Western scholars and political/social figures have upped such Orientalist discourse through speeches, newspaper articles, journal papers, books, television programs, news, radio shows, "punditry", and other forms of media. Such discourse would only serve to justify human rights abuses and violations in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the invasion of these nations, the support of tyrannical governments in the Middle East (an idea that contradicts their calls for "freedom" and "democracy", which are also forms of power discourse that I have dealt with over the past 100 posts I have on this blog). Similar to the issue of Black American "gangsterism" (as portrayed by American media during the 60's, etc.) and the responses that the media "obliged" upon Black people (The Bill Cosby Show, to show that Blacks are like everyone else, which is already a given), Muslims are constantly being given a "burden of representation", and it is apparently the duty of many Muslims to "educate" Westerners that Muslims are "not bad people" and that "Islam means peace". It's already been addressed that whenever a crime is committed by Muslims, Islam is almost immediately put on trial (4).
However, Muslims are obliged by some Western media outlets to provide such "burden of representation" over and over again. And to my disgust (I bet you didn't see this one coming), I see new articles repeating the same things over and over again. Like the abovementioned case involving Black Americans, Muslims have come up with shows in the West such as "Sleeper Cell" (5) in America and "Little Mosque on the Prairie" (6) in Canada, which, suggesting from clips on YouTube, seem to portray Muslims not only in a Western light, but also in one that seems to allude to the idea of what the West considers, in the words of Mahmoud Mamdani, a "good Muslim": one who is not as religious and is complicit with Western policies abroad (7). To expound further,
... Which brings me to my topic. Ever since 9/11, I felt that Western scholars and political/social figures have upped such Orientalist discourse through speeches, newspaper articles, journal papers, books, television programs, news, radio shows, "punditry", and other forms of media. Such discourse would only serve to justify human rights abuses and violations in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the invasion of these nations, the support of tyrannical governments in the Middle East (an idea that contradicts their calls for "freedom" and "democracy", which are also forms of power discourse that I have dealt with over the past 100 posts I have on this blog). Similar to the issue of Black American "gangsterism" (as portrayed by American media during the 60's, etc.) and the responses that the media "obliged" upon Black people (The Bill Cosby Show, to show that Blacks are like everyone else, which is already a given), Muslims are constantly being given a "burden of representation", and it is apparently the duty of many Muslims to "educate" Westerners that Muslims are "not bad people" and that "Islam means peace". It's already been addressed that whenever a crime is committed by Muslims, Islam is almost immediately put on trial (4).
However, Muslims are obliged by some Western media outlets to provide such "burden of representation" over and over again. And to my disgust (I bet you didn't see this one coming), I see new articles repeating the same things over and over again. Like the abovementioned case involving Black Americans, Muslims have come up with shows in the West such as "Sleeper Cell" (5) in America and "Little Mosque on the Prairie" (6) in Canada, which, suggesting from clips on YouTube, seem to portray Muslims not only in a Western light, but also in one that seems to allude to the idea of what the West considers, in the words of Mahmoud Mamdani, a "good Muslim": one who is not as religious and is complicit with Western policies abroad (7). To expound further,
"good" Muslims [are] really pro-American Muslims, and... "bad" Muslims [are] anti-American Muslims.
Mamdani goes on to explain that the "bad Muslim" is generally traditional and adheres to his faith, while the "good Muslim", as defined by Orientalist discourse (which he bases his theory on), is secular, Westernized, and supports Western policies.
This culture-talk, he claims, displays itself in the "burden of representation", a form of exercising such power. That is, the Muslims are obliged to prove that Islamic doctrine is compatible with Western values and has teachings that comply to Western values. That is, Islam is a religion for "good Muslims", not "bad Muslims". Personally, I find such arguments to be loose and superficial: to burden Muslims with proving that a religion (Islam) is compatible with certain (Western) ideologies (democracy, freedom, liberalism) is akin to submitting a religion to that ideology, as discussed in an earlier post (8). It is therefore not difficult to see why such "burden of representation" serves to legitimize the position of Western political bodies, feminist groups, and other rather Orientalist institutions; the "burden of representation", like the case of the Blacks in the States and the Canadian Immigration Act mentioned above, is a form of affirming the superiority of the West. And such apologist discourse, especially when it comes to democracy and liberalism, serves much to interpret Islam as a Western ideology and thereby submitting it to Western ideology, thereby alienating other interpretations of Islamic doctrine and justifying the continuing subjugation and interventionism of the lives of "bad Muslims", those who do not agree with Western policies and resist any submission of Islamic doctrine to Western interests and influences.
What saddens me most is that many groups have come out to maintain this disturbing status quo. There are Muslim groups that call for a total reformation of Islamic doctrine. One such group is the Islamic Reform Movement, which has come out with a call for reforming Islamic doctrine in light of Western notions of "freedom" and "democracy", and have gone as far as to introduce an abridged Koran that is supposed to be taken "literally". Their mission statement literally reads
This culture-talk, he claims, displays itself in the "burden of representation", a form of exercising such power. That is, the Muslims are obliged to prove that Islamic doctrine is compatible with Western values and has teachings that comply to Western values. That is, Islam is a religion for "good Muslims", not "bad Muslims". Personally, I find such arguments to be loose and superficial: to burden Muslims with proving that a religion (Islam) is compatible with certain (Western) ideologies (democracy, freedom, liberalism) is akin to submitting a religion to that ideology, as discussed in an earlier post (8). It is therefore not difficult to see why such "burden of representation" serves to legitimize the position of Western political bodies, feminist groups, and other rather Orientalist institutions; the "burden of representation", like the case of the Blacks in the States and the Canadian Immigration Act mentioned above, is a form of affirming the superiority of the West. And such apologist discourse, especially when it comes to democracy and liberalism, serves much to interpret Islam as a Western ideology and thereby submitting it to Western ideology, thereby alienating other interpretations of Islamic doctrine and justifying the continuing subjugation and interventionism of the lives of "bad Muslims", those who do not agree with Western policies and resist any submission of Islamic doctrine to Western interests and influences.
What saddens me most is that many groups have come out to maintain this disturbing status quo. There are Muslim groups that call for a total reformation of Islamic doctrine. One such group is the Islamic Reform Movement, which has come out with a call for reforming Islamic doctrine in light of Western notions of "freedom" and "democracy", and have gone as far as to introduce an abridged Koran that is supposed to be taken "literally". Their mission statement literally reads
Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy.
In this, they state the necessity for aligning Islamic doctrine with such principles. In a previous thesis, I deconstructed that notion, claiming that there not need be a necessity of implementation of democracy nor a necessity of the compability issue to begin with (9, for those who want to read another long and boring essay, but I don't blame you).
Twenty-first century Muslims have two options: we can continue the barbaric policies of the seventh century perpetuated by Hassan al-Banna, Abdullah Azzam, Yassir Arafat, Ruhollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, etc., leading to a global war between Dar al-Islam (Islamic World) and Dar al-Harb (non-Islamic World), or we can reform Islam to keep our rich cultural heritage and to cleanse our religion from the reviled relics of the past.
Here, the organization uses names of figures associated with current Islamist political movements, in effect neglecting the social, political, and historical circumstances that lead to such groups being formed... not that I support these groups to begin with. The ironic part of this excerpt is that they used a historical representation of the Muslim nation and the nations that were at war with the Muslims (the "Dar-ul-Harb" and the "Dar-ul-Islam") to try to get at the crux of the problem as being cultural and/or ideological rather than political, social, or historical. Regardless, politics can't be reduced to culture or traditions, as Mamdani has postulated. Never mind that there are radical Christian groups in Indonesia, radical Zionist parties in Israel, and radical Hindu groups in India, but in common discourse, there is not much literature analyzing Christian, Jewish, or Hindu doctrines based on the actions of these groups, but rather analysis of political circumstances that brought these groups about. It is taken for granted that these religious groups act out of political interests. However, when the case involves Islamist political parties and reactionary groups, which are focal points of such Orientalist literature, there is a sudden historical and political amnesia surrounding the origins of such groups.
We, as Muslims who desire to live in harmony with people of other religions, agnostics, and atheists choose the latter option. We can no longer allow Islamic extremists to use our religion as a weapon. We must protect future generations of Muslims from being brainwashed by the Islamic radicals. If we do not stop the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, our children will become homicidal zombies.
The identification of the "good Muslim" as well as the further dichotomization of Muslims by this reform group are underscored in this last bit. Apparently, the only alternative to their ideas of Islamic reform are bad, and will lead other Muslims to become homocidal maniacs. This is one such group that has submitted itself to Western ideologies and principles and created a dichotomy that may in effect divide Muslims. Now, one might say that yes, Islamic doctrine does call for harmony and peace with nations and people, but one does not have the authority to call one's own interpretation of the religion as "Truth", especially when it involves a horribly abridged and therefore incomplete interpretation of doctrine (i.e. cherry-picking verses) such as the case presented here.
On a similar tone is the notable "good Muslim", Irshad Manji, host of the site "Muslim Refusenik" (kids, can you spell "irony"?). I've recently had the displeasure to watch her latest film, "Faith Without Fear". Other than the historical inaccuracies present in the film (Irshad, the Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) homeland is not Yemen [don't believe me? She actually said that]), the movie itself seems to be a genuine call for reform, and she raised a few points that are sound at the surface. However, the undertone of the entire movie was the marginalization and misrepresentation of Muslim women and men: women in the movie were shown wearing hijabs, and men were shown supporting and glorifying martyrdom. She also associated herself with the body of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another secularized, Westernized "good Muslim" (or does she consider herself otherwise?). At the same time, she delegitimized criticism towards her cause by showing excerpts of clips with Muslim leaders and people seemingly throwing ad hominem attacks at her. Even more absurd is her insistence on revising Islamic doctrine at its core, and placing herself in a position of authority to do so. From what I've heard, however, her book, "The Trouble with Islam", addresses a different audience, villifying Islamic doctrine and further fueling the "burden of representation" on other Muslims. This was actually confirmed in her DemocracyNow! debate with As'ad Abu Khalil (10) in regards to protests by Muslims towards terrorist acts and such apologies on part of Muslims towards what "other Muslims" do. In effect, Manji and the Islamic Reform Group seek to interpret Islam from outside the framework of Islam, not from within it, as this only fuels the status quo of dominance over the East.
There are other "good Muslims" the West has exploited to re-affirm their position of power relative to the "East" such as Tarek Fatah, Tawfik Hamid, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, among others. Some of the aforementioned don't consider themselves Muslim, but are on par with those who have been warped by the discursive dominance of the West over the East. In short, they are merely apologists who have taken the next initiation rite that is the Westernization of the East.
Let me make myself clear: this is not a critique of arguments against Islam. This is a critique of the power relations that underscore the East-West divide that has been constructed in post-9/11 discourse on Islam. My opposition here is to those who interpret Islam and consider themselves absolute authorities over other Muslims rather than viewing other interpretations as simply interpretations in light of different individual, social, political, and historical contexts. In English, I would debate Manji if we both opened our minds to each others' interpretation of doctrine as well as other interpretations of Islamic doctrine... as opposed to having her state that she is an authority primarily based on self-granted Western "moral superiority". I personally believe that if one loves one's own religion, one must continuously study his/her religion's doctrine and in effect be able to question it or ask questions about it and try to seek rationale from within the framework of the religion. And that could easily apply to being a rather pacifict and devout Muslim as equally as to a conservative hardliner who is more concerned about shoving religion down other people's throats than self-reflecting one's own believes (that is, when both of these cases follow their own interpretation of doctrine blindly).
As with my discussion on Islam, Reform, and Democracy (see above for link), the aforementioned arguments underscore the importance of reaching a resolution of this issue. On a slightly different note than my discussion on allegations of "Islamic Misogynism" (11), the post-colonial social, political, intellectual, economical, and discursive relationship between Orientalist and Islamic scholars, the West and the East, and Western governments and Eastern governments should be altered. This discourse only perpetuates dominance of Western powers over the East and over the Muslim body. Such discourse is detrimental and dishonest, and should be removed. Muslim scholars, in my opinion, should put their foot down and deconstruct the discourse in a "take-it-or-leave-it" manner. In other words, they should stop apologizing (that's right) for what other Muslims do out of political, individual, and social circumstances, and identify Muslims as individuals with motives and desires like everyone else, rather than perpetuate the collectivizing dichotomy constructed by Western Orientalist discourse and thereby "appease the privileged man". Here's how I would see it: my defense of Islamic doctrine is not based on appeasing anyone. I write it out or say it once, and that's it. I could care less if anyone did not care or listen. I did what I had to, and if someone is going to drone on about how Islam is "bad" or that there are no Muslims "protesting these vile attacks", there is absolutely no need for me as a person to come out and protest when people would already know my position and arguments against such interpretations. If they don't consider it, then that's their problem. This alread applies for Christians with regards to abortion clinic bombers, Jews with regards to radical movements like Kach, and Hindus with regards to nationalist parties such as Bharatiya Janata. Why, then, as a Muslim, do I have to constantly apologize for the actions of members with Islamist movements such as Hamas, AQ, etc. who have absolutely no connection with me whatsoever other than the common identification as followers of the Muslim faith?
The alteration of such power relations would then lead to the next step: debate between groups on the same intellectual level as opposed to a dominant vs. oppositional relationship. This can come through interfaith dialogue, understanding, and mutual reconciliation. At the same time, it must be taken that all groups must be represented in dialogue... even extremist ones. Religious and Orientalist (would you call them that after the removal of power relations?) scholars should in turn be as open to legitimate criticisms of their arguments as possible as to promote understanding. Moreover, different Muslim groups must, in my opinion at least, reconcile with each other and with other (non-Muslim) religious groups to gain more understanding of their own religion, Islam, and of other religions and people. Of course, this whole post alone can not remedy the entire grand scheme of things that is the status quo, but it is imperative, from my perspective, that the East-West relationship overall should be altered at its very core, and that must start through discourse and political reconciliation before the amends mentioned in this paragraph be applied.
I would like to sum my piece with a couple of messages. First, to the Muslim apologist crowd, a few words of caution: you must realize when your actions are either in defense of Islam or in appeasement of those who criticize it from positions of self-proclaimed authority and "superiority". There is a clear line between defending Islam and defending Islam to appease those who give you the "burden of representation". Remain strong in faith, but not blind. Question your doctrine, but do not consider yourself in a position of authority from within the framework of Western secularism, "democracy", and "freedom". Feel free to engage your community in discussion, and highlight the fact that Muslims are individuals and not just collectives, and that the Islamist groups have political and historical origins that must not be forgotten when analyzing political situations such as the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel/Palestine. Not doing so is intellectually dishonest, and serves to appease the ideological constructs of the "Us vs. Them" and other false dichotomies.
Second... to those who give Muslims the burden of representation, whether they consider themselves Muslim or not: give it a rest. As a Muslim, I am not obliged to appease you. Muslims have already stated their defense, and their responses can be found over the net. They're there for you to research and read. Muslim scholars are available to answer your questions by phone, fax, email, or SMS. If you ignore such a wealth of informational resources, then you're the one remaining purposefully ignorant, and I could care less. Also, don't think that your wanton ignorance of the social, political, and historical circumstances surrounding Muslim societies in the grand scope of time and space, as well as your unabashed criticism of Muslims based on "culture", has gone unnoticed. If you think Muslims are bad, look at all other civilizations, including yours, which has a history as bloody as if not more than others that also continues to this present day. It's about time you look in a mirror to realize that your society is as capable of violence as any other societies, and when it comes to such actions, it will always be reduced to the individuals (in power), not the culture nor the collectivity as a whole. Drop your act and seek out Muslims on the same level. You're not superior, nor intended to be. God created us as equals, so see each other and others who are not part of your society as equals, and deal with them as equals. Don't perpetuate the dominance. It goes against your so-called "ideals".
In conclusion, Muslim apologists should break the cycle of appeasement and start standing on their own feet by re-examining their own faith as well as the social, political, and historical conditions that make each case surrounding Muslims and Islamist groups unique. The appeasement only serves to perpetuate such power relations and justifies the colonialist and interventionist policies both pre- and post-9/11. In effect, Orientalist writers are not in a position to demand that Muslims subjugate their own religion to Western values. There is absolutely no justification for burdening Muslims with proving that their religion is submissive to Western ideas and values. The discursive, political, and social power relations between the East and West should be changed on individual, societal, intellectual, and governmental/political levels. Such a change can promote better and more serious (i.e. intellectual) understanding between people of different religious groups, namely Muslims and non-Muslims in this case, and resolution of political and social crises that ail Islamic and Western societies of today. As mentioned before, however, it is imperative that the power relations be amended; otherwise, the overall status quo will continue. People around the world, Muslims and non-Muslims, will suffer and pay for their bodies, their minds, their souls, their lives, their families, their homes, their people, their land, and their humanity (when they could be diverting their resources to alleviating oppression and building a better tomorrow)... all for the sake of "appeasing the priveleged man".
Salaam, from Saracen
P.S. Mind the long title and post. I know it sounds somewhat formal, but rest assured, this is not a formal post. This is just me trying to get at the crux of an issue that I see as problematic not only in Islamic societies, but the world in general.
On a similar tone is the notable "good Muslim", Irshad Manji, host of the site "Muslim Refusenik" (kids, can you spell "irony"?). I've recently had the displeasure to watch her latest film, "Faith Without Fear". Other than the historical inaccuracies present in the film (Irshad, the Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) homeland is not Yemen [don't believe me? She actually said that]), the movie itself seems to be a genuine call for reform, and she raised a few points that are sound at the surface. However, the undertone of the entire movie was the marginalization and misrepresentation of Muslim women and men: women in the movie were shown wearing hijabs, and men were shown supporting and glorifying martyrdom. She also associated herself with the body of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another secularized, Westernized "good Muslim" (or does she consider herself otherwise?). At the same time, she delegitimized criticism towards her cause by showing excerpts of clips with Muslim leaders and people seemingly throwing ad hominem attacks at her. Even more absurd is her insistence on revising Islamic doctrine at its core, and placing herself in a position of authority to do so. From what I've heard, however, her book, "The Trouble with Islam", addresses a different audience, villifying Islamic doctrine and further fueling the "burden of representation" on other Muslims. This was actually confirmed in her DemocracyNow! debate with As'ad Abu Khalil (10) in regards to protests by Muslims towards terrorist acts and such apologies on part of Muslims towards what "other Muslims" do. In effect, Manji and the Islamic Reform Group seek to interpret Islam from outside the framework of Islam, not from within it, as this only fuels the status quo of dominance over the East.
There are other "good Muslims" the West has exploited to re-affirm their position of power relative to the "East" such as Tarek Fatah, Tawfik Hamid, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, among others. Some of the aforementioned don't consider themselves Muslim, but are on par with those who have been warped by the discursive dominance of the West over the East. In short, they are merely apologists who have taken the next initiation rite that is the Westernization of the East.
Let me make myself clear: this is not a critique of arguments against Islam. This is a critique of the power relations that underscore the East-West divide that has been constructed in post-9/11 discourse on Islam. My opposition here is to those who interpret Islam and consider themselves absolute authorities over other Muslims rather than viewing other interpretations as simply interpretations in light of different individual, social, political, and historical contexts. In English, I would debate Manji if we both opened our minds to each others' interpretation of doctrine as well as other interpretations of Islamic doctrine... as opposed to having her state that she is an authority primarily based on self-granted Western "moral superiority". I personally believe that if one loves one's own religion, one must continuously study his/her religion's doctrine and in effect be able to question it or ask questions about it and try to seek rationale from within the framework of the religion. And that could easily apply to being a rather pacifict and devout Muslim as equally as to a conservative hardliner who is more concerned about shoving religion down other people's throats than self-reflecting one's own believes (that is, when both of these cases follow their own interpretation of doctrine blindly).
As with my discussion on Islam, Reform, and Democracy (see above for link), the aforementioned arguments underscore the importance of reaching a resolution of this issue. On a slightly different note than my discussion on allegations of "Islamic Misogynism" (11), the post-colonial social, political, intellectual, economical, and discursive relationship between Orientalist and Islamic scholars, the West and the East, and Western governments and Eastern governments should be altered. This discourse only perpetuates dominance of Western powers over the East and over the Muslim body. Such discourse is detrimental and dishonest, and should be removed. Muslim scholars, in my opinion, should put their foot down and deconstruct the discourse in a "take-it-or-leave-it" manner. In other words, they should stop apologizing (that's right) for what other Muslims do out of political, individual, and social circumstances, and identify Muslims as individuals with motives and desires like everyone else, rather than perpetuate the collectivizing dichotomy constructed by Western Orientalist discourse and thereby "appease the privileged man". Here's how I would see it: my defense of Islamic doctrine is not based on appeasing anyone. I write it out or say it once, and that's it. I could care less if anyone did not care or listen. I did what I had to, and if someone is going to drone on about how Islam is "bad" or that there are no Muslims "protesting these vile attacks", there is absolutely no need for me as a person to come out and protest when people would already know my position and arguments against such interpretations. If they don't consider it, then that's their problem. This alread applies for Christians with regards to abortion clinic bombers, Jews with regards to radical movements like Kach, and Hindus with regards to nationalist parties such as Bharatiya Janata. Why, then, as a Muslim, do I have to constantly apologize for the actions of members with Islamist movements such as Hamas, AQ, etc. who have absolutely no connection with me whatsoever other than the common identification as followers of the Muslim faith?
The alteration of such power relations would then lead to the next step: debate between groups on the same intellectual level as opposed to a dominant vs. oppositional relationship. This can come through interfaith dialogue, understanding, and mutual reconciliation. At the same time, it must be taken that all groups must be represented in dialogue... even extremist ones. Religious and Orientalist (would you call them that after the removal of power relations?) scholars should in turn be as open to legitimate criticisms of their arguments as possible as to promote understanding. Moreover, different Muslim groups must, in my opinion at least, reconcile with each other and with other (non-Muslim) religious groups to gain more understanding of their own religion, Islam, and of other religions and people. Of course, this whole post alone can not remedy the entire grand scheme of things that is the status quo, but it is imperative, from my perspective, that the East-West relationship overall should be altered at its very core, and that must start through discourse and political reconciliation before the amends mentioned in this paragraph be applied.
I would like to sum my piece with a couple of messages. First, to the Muslim apologist crowd, a few words of caution: you must realize when your actions are either in defense of Islam or in appeasement of those who criticize it from positions of self-proclaimed authority and "superiority". There is a clear line between defending Islam and defending Islam to appease those who give you the "burden of representation". Remain strong in faith, but not blind. Question your doctrine, but do not consider yourself in a position of authority from within the framework of Western secularism, "democracy", and "freedom". Feel free to engage your community in discussion, and highlight the fact that Muslims are individuals and not just collectives, and that the Islamist groups have political and historical origins that must not be forgotten when analyzing political situations such as the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel/Palestine. Not doing so is intellectually dishonest, and serves to appease the ideological constructs of the "Us vs. Them" and other false dichotomies.
Second... to those who give Muslims the burden of representation, whether they consider themselves Muslim or not: give it a rest. As a Muslim, I am not obliged to appease you. Muslims have already stated their defense, and their responses can be found over the net. They're there for you to research and read. Muslim scholars are available to answer your questions by phone, fax, email, or SMS. If you ignore such a wealth of informational resources, then you're the one remaining purposefully ignorant, and I could care less. Also, don't think that your wanton ignorance of the social, political, and historical circumstances surrounding Muslim societies in the grand scope of time and space, as well as your unabashed criticism of Muslims based on "culture", has gone unnoticed. If you think Muslims are bad, look at all other civilizations, including yours, which has a history as bloody as if not more than others that also continues to this present day. It's about time you look in a mirror to realize that your society is as capable of violence as any other societies, and when it comes to such actions, it will always be reduced to the individuals (in power), not the culture nor the collectivity as a whole. Drop your act and seek out Muslims on the same level. You're not superior, nor intended to be. God created us as equals, so see each other and others who are not part of your society as equals, and deal with them as equals. Don't perpetuate the dominance. It goes against your so-called "ideals".
In conclusion, Muslim apologists should break the cycle of appeasement and start standing on their own feet by re-examining their own faith as well as the social, political, and historical conditions that make each case surrounding Muslims and Islamist groups unique. The appeasement only serves to perpetuate such power relations and justifies the colonialist and interventionist policies both pre- and post-9/11. In effect, Orientalist writers are not in a position to demand that Muslims subjugate their own religion to Western values. There is absolutely no justification for burdening Muslims with proving that their religion is submissive to Western ideas and values. The discursive, political, and social power relations between the East and West should be changed on individual, societal, intellectual, and governmental/political levels. Such a change can promote better and more serious (i.e. intellectual) understanding between people of different religious groups, namely Muslims and non-Muslims in this case, and resolution of political and social crises that ail Islamic and Western societies of today. As mentioned before, however, it is imperative that the power relations be amended; otherwise, the overall status quo will continue. People around the world, Muslims and non-Muslims, will suffer and pay for their bodies, their minds, their souls, their lives, their families, their homes, their people, their land, and their humanity (when they could be diverting their resources to alleviating oppression and building a better tomorrow)... all for the sake of "appeasing the priveleged man".
Salaam, from Saracen
P.S. Mind the long title and post. I know it sounds somewhat formal, but rest assured, this is not a formal post. This is just me trying to get at the crux of an issue that I see as problematic not only in Islamic societies, but the world in general.
Comments
Post a Comment