Internal Critique

I decided to skip to the end of Paul Berman's monster essay and I see he winds up talking about Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She, of course, is every western secularist's favorite Muslim precisely because she's, well, not a Muslim. And, of course, from the point of view of western secularists it would be great if we could just partner up with secularists born in Muslim countries and together quash the menace of radical Islamist terrorism.

The trouble, of course, is that politics is the art of the possible, and history shows that it's frequently not possible to do very much of anything with secularist politics. That's why, for example, seeking arguments against Female Genital Mutilation in the Koran seems like an obviously smart move. In countries where large numbers of people believe FGM is required by Islam, arguments of the form "Islam requires FGM, FGM bad for women, therefore Islam should be abandoned" aren't going to get off the ground. Arguments of the form "FGM is not required by Islam" or, even better, "FGM is condemned by Islam" are, pragmatically speaking, much more useful. But an argument like that is only going to be credible coming from a serious Muslim, probably one whose general beliefs are wildly too culturally conservative for my taste or that of any western feminist.

Comments

"She [Ayan Hirsi Ali], of course, is every western secularist's favorite Muslim precisely because she's, well, not a Muslim."

Then consider Irshad Majid. Unlike Ali, Majid isn't an athiest, and would rather see Islam reformed than abandoned. She is also a lesbian, which might be of some interest to lefties, if they are as concerned about the plight of homosexuals in the Muslim world as they are in the plight of gays in, say, the U.S. military.

Posted by Fred | May 29, 2007 2:03 PM

Another alternative favorite of secularists might be Tawfik Hamid. Another reformer, but not an apostate like Ayan Hirsi Ali.

Posted by Fred | May 29, 2007 2:06 PM

I don't think you are getting the point, Fred.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 29, 2007 2:09 PM

Yes, I can see the Muslim masses rallying for reform behind a spiky-haired Canadian lesbian who doesn't speak any of their languages. BTW, Fred, her name is Irshad MANJI.

Similarly, I have high hopes for converting Bavarian right-wing Catholics to social liberalism by the example of Andrew Sullivan.

Anyone who appears on the Glenn Beck show probably has little chance of influencing devout Muslims. Just a hint. Also anyone on this list probably has zero chance as well, and is probably trolling for the same dollars that keep Daniel Pipes well fed.

A better bet is someone like Amr Khaled.

Posted by tequila | May 29, 2007 2:38 PM

I read a bunch of Fatima Mernissi's work back when I studied Islam, and found her pretty consistently smart. I'm not sure what her stature is now, eight crazy years later, but she was working then in significant part on philological projects, using traditional means, to challenge the authority of hadith traditions about women's subordination. That sort of work - cultural critique that upholds the values of the tradition - seems to be what Matt's talking about here.

Posted by DivGuy | May 29, 2007 3:18 PM

Berman actually addressed Matt's point:

In short, [they say] Ramadan made the right decision in refusing to condemn the practice of stoning women to death ...for political reasons: to maintain his viability on streets like Brick Lane. This ought to be a familiar argument--it was more or less the argument that Sartre invoked in order to explain why he refused to condemn the Soviet Union. Sartre invited his audiences to think of the industrial suburb of Paris called Billancourt, where the ignorant workers believed in communism and the Soviet future--and he did not want to demoralize the downtrodden, to désespérer Billancourt. And so Sartre bit his tongue; if the workers were going to learn the truth about the Soviets, it was not going to be from him. And Ramadan is right not to désespérer Brick Lane by offering a simple straight-out condemnation of violence against women.

First, this is a great example of how Berman can't get past the cold war. It's always 1968, he's always bravely condemning the Soviets, and their western apologists, from the left.

Second, Ramadan tapdances around stoning women to death in order to maintain his credibility among the devout, and hopefully convince them to adopt more liberal western views. From what I understand, this is nothing like Sartre, whose primary mission was not to lead Frnhc workers away from totalitarianism.

All that said, Bemran makes at least 2 good points in his article.

Posted by Ikram | May 29, 2007 3:36 PM

Here are Berman's 2 good points

1) Ramadan condemns terrorism. But, as a reformist Salafi, the scholars whose philosophy he extolls, like Qaradawi, are part and parcel of an intellectual atmosphere that supports terrorism.

Yeah-- it's a bit weak. But Ramadan could look to guys like Javed Ghamidi, or Khaled Abu-fadl.

2) Even at its best, ramadan's "European Muslim" vision is not progressive, and we should support true anti-clerical liberals. (Berman names a few)

This appeal to me. If I were European, I'd want nothing to do with Ramadan's pan-european muslim identity program. I'd just be a Brit (or frenchmen, etc) that happened to be Muslim. Like Jews who reject any identification with "the Jewish people", I don't want any part of a transnational Ummah, even a hugs-n'-cuddles version.

Posted by Ikram | May 29, 2007 3:48 PM

If western countries didn't keep taking in more Muslim immigrants, why would they need to worry about Muslim reformers?

Posted by Fred | May 29, 2007 4:32 PM

If western countries didn't keep taking in more Muslim immigrants, why would they need to worry about Muslim reformers?

Cause they breed just as fast as them wetbacks, Fred.

Posted by BP | May 29, 2007 5:20 PM

Fred's not the only one not to get the point.

Rule #1 for what Matt's talking about: forget a woman. sorry, not gonna fly. it's got to be a dude. and he has to be "conservative". actually, there's a strong argument to be made that there's no such thing as liberal Muslims (unlike Christianity or Judaism). there are conservative Muslims and then there's apostate Muslims. and the apostates won't do.

so what you're really trying to do is emphasize Muslim figures with a hermeneutic that is conducive to a (relatively) tolerant society.

Posted by Nathan | May 29, 2007 5:47 PM

This is kind of pointless, no? Support any Muslim reformer, either in the West or back in their old countries, and that reformer becomes tainted -- no more capable of influencing the nihilistic young men in his society than Bill Cosby is of influencing gangster rappers.

Posted by Fred | May 29, 2007 6:06 PM

Fred's last point is a decent one. It follows that an attack by Paul Berman and the New Republic enhances Ramadan's credibility, which is good if he's actually an OK guy.

Posted by Pithlord | May 29, 2007 7:15 PM

If western countries didn't keep taking in more Muslim immigrants, why would they need to worry about Muslim reformers?

Muslim people who are not recent immigrants can still have some effect on our lives.

Posted by Matt Weiner | May 29, 2007 7:46 PM

Ummm dude, no offense, but FGM is NOT required by Islam and in most African countries that have a history with it, e.g. Nigeria, the Muslim inhabitants have lower rates of FGM than do the other citizens. Circumcision, however, seems to be required.
Just sayin'.

Posted by Fo rizzle | May 29, 2007 7:51 PM

I think this feeds into how our greatest unwitting ally in this is Al-Jazeera. On Al-Jazeera, you get the America and Israel = evil line from both a secular and religious perspective, which gives them credibility on what Ajami hates to call "the Arab street." On the other hand, AJ also has real debates on their show where the views we wish to see find root in the ME can be argued forcefully.

I'm not really sure though that women can and should be kept out of this. Even in UAE, which has the lowest proportion of women in the world, women are still around 1/3 of the population. Radicals are never going to go away much like the KKK and co. have never really gotten away as white America has drifted away from overtly violent terrorism and racism at home. Being in the US or its capitalist umbrella didn't prevent Baader-Meinhoff, the Weather Underground and the Japanese Red Army from rising, but capitalist values did help to stem the reach, popularity and influence and thus the extent of their violence potential. The best that can happen is that the mainstream in the umma and the ME strongly reject the radicals.

Posted by Reality Man | May 29, 2007 7:57 PM

The "we need reformers who aren't so extremely different from what the people we're trying to reform actually believe" line is an interesting one.

Particularly interesting is seeing all its different permutations, and which ones are accepted.

"We need muslim reformers who aren't secularists. They need to be conservatives to appeal to the muslim population."

"We need democrats who aren't so aggressively anti-war. They need to be less aggressive about this to appeal to the american public, which reflexively rejects anti-war credentials as anti-american."

"We need democrats who aren't so pro abortion. They need to be less strident about this to appeal to the american population, which is ambivalent to negative about abortion rights."

I have a theory that one's view on the accuracy of the above types of arguments hinges VERY HEAVILY on how much one actually cares about the goals of the alleged "extremists."

Posted by Patrick | May 29, 2007 10:14 PM

I'm reposting the following from below as friendly advice to Matt: don't bother engaging Berman - he is a fool who is out of his depth.

First off, why does he think anybody in the Islamic world cares what he has to say? Nobody's (in the Islamic world) listening to him and perhaps even unconsciously he even knows it.

Secondly, he foolishly thinks the current climate is similar to the Cold War. I can see the superficial similarity, but even getting beyond the relative threat of communism vs. Islamism (I think communism was greatly more threatening), the big problem is that Islamism is not a political discourse that comes from the west in a way Communsim did, which is a direct product of the western/Christian philosophical tradition. People in the Islamic World - specificially the Arab world - simply don't share the same intellectual, cutlural, historical, and political referents. The way they see the world, as such, is just different - and the writings of an underinformed, well-connected writer in New York will not do anything to change that, as that writer is simply not engaging in them in an intellectual relevant context.

Finally, even if Berman could find interlocutors that he desires, he's hindered by the fact that he doesn't know any of the region's languages and he doesn't have any real knowledge about the relevant fields he trying to engage - Islamic thought, Middle Eastern/Arab history, Developmental Economics, International Relations, etc.

Posted by Ben P | May 29, 2007 10:42 PM

"I think this feeds into how our greatest unwitting ally in this is Al-Jazeera. On Al-Jazeera, you get the America and Israel = evil line from both a secular and religious perspective, which gives them credibility on what Ajami hates to call "the Arab street." On the other hand, AJ also has real debates on their show where the views we wish to see find root in the ME can be argued forcefully."

Exactly. And you know why? Because AJ is engaging its viewers in their own context, not that of a public sphere shaped by what I will rather clumsily refer to as "Western Civ." Its part of the reason the US cultural outreach into the region has been such a flop: they think its the Cold War, part deux (much as does Berman, in his own way). But it simply isn't.

Posted by Ben P | May 29, 2007 10:47 PM

Ben P- the only, very limited response I'd make to your critique is to remind you that not all of the modernization of cultural islam occurs in the middle east. Some occurs down the street from my house, and I imagine down the street from the houses of most of us here.

Posted by Patrick | May 29, 2007 11:26 PM

Matt Wiener:

"Muslim people who are not recent immigrants can still have some effect on our lives."

True, but a moratorium on new immigration helps recent immigrants assimilate, by distancing them from the old country culture. An example of steady immigration having the opposite effect is the experience of the Turks in Germany, as Christopher Caldwell wrote about in Sunday's NYT Mag.

Posted by Fred | May 30, 2007 1:02 AM

ummm, astounding as this may sound to many of you, there is no shortage of reformist-minded women (and men) in the muslim world.

hirsi ali and irshad (whom i actually know and quite like, despite her politics) may be the only ones that you have ever heard of, but there are far more serious, knowledgeable, and effective reformers at work in the trenches of the muslim world every day.

check out this piece by laila lalami in the nation for a lucid discussion of hirsi ali and manji:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060619/lalami

it is not a question of either having to side with hirsi ali/manji or the mullahs. there are other points of view and many other sigificant actors. fatima mernissi is certainly one. asma jehangir in pakistan is another.

there are many active, incredibly courageous, and indispensible women (and men)and movements in every muslim country in the world.

check out, for instance, the work done by women living under muslim laws (wluml)

http://www.wluml.org/english/index.shtml

or shirkat gah in pakistan or ASK in bangladesh or women for women's human rights in turkey or any of the dozens more organisations like them.

to be credible, a reformist voice need not be conservative, per se, but it does help to have a respect for the religion, know what you are talking about, understand the social and cultural milieu in which you are operating, and to be on the ground working in (or closely with women in) muslim countries, and to be aware of the issues that are of most importance to them and the dangers they face.

too many people in the west assume there are no such voices in the muslim world but this is far from the case.

"But an argument like that is only going to be credible coming from a serious Muslim, probably one whose general beliefs are wildly too culturally conservative for my taste or that of any western feminist."

this statement is incorrect and could only come from someone who is unfamiliar with the muslim world. sorry, matt, but you shouldn't buy into the "there are no credible liberal reformers in the muslim world" nonsense.

"there's a strong argument to be made that there's no such thing as liberal Muslims (unlike Christianity or Judaism). there are conservative Muslims and then there's apostate Muslims."

agin, nathan, this statement is incorrect. you really need to educate yourelf on the issues a little more before mindlessly picking up osama bin laden and national review (strangely identical!) talking points.

Posted by zafar | May 30, 2007 4:42 AM

What's with the no capitalization before sentences, zafar?

Posted by AlanC9 | May 30, 2007 5:46 AM

Fred, leaving aside whether what you say is true, I was also thinking of Muslims living outside Europe. Many people worry about Islamism in other countries' governments; as MY has pointed out, this is part of the reason that we sponsor Egypt's repressive government and have an uneasy relationship with elected governments elsewhere (Turkey, Palestine). You may also have noted that we are currently fighting a war in a Muslim country, and I don't think you're in favor of withdrawing the troops.

Posted by Matt Weiner | May 30, 2007 8:22 AM

"You may also have noted that we are currently fighting a war in a Muslim country, and I don't think you're in favor of withdrawing the troops."

I am absolutely in favor of withdrawing the troops -- just not yet. I'd rather we withdraw them after the Iraqi government feels it is strong enough to keep a lid on its pot and coordinates a time table for our withdrawal with us.

Posted by Fred | May 31, 2007 1:19 AM

Here is the definitive Paul Berman Ramadan piece takedown. Right here:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/06/09/paul-berman-should-not-fear-tariq-ramadan/

Posted by Mikey | June 9, 2007 10:39 PM