Panels I Did Not Attend

My Apen schedule includes the following event:

Religion and the Modern World
Who Speaks for Islam?
Irshad Manji, Dalia Mogahed, Reuel Gerecht
Moderator: Jeffrey Goldberg

Wouldn't it be weird if the correct answer turned out to be that American Jews speak for Islam? Meanwhile, as a secular person myself I find myself very sympathetic to Irshad Manji's point of view but it's kind of odd to have only one practicing Muslim on the panel. Mogahed's work on Muslim public opinion is extremely useful factual information on a subject that tends to attract a lot of hot air.

Comments

Kind of odd? Well, only if you presume that a pundit's subject-position is a key qualification, and not - say - their academic credentials, experience, or written work. In fact, I'm rather inclined to think that those looking from the outside-in are often more qualified to render objective opinions than those engaged in the struggle themselves.

I'm not, mind you, passing judgment on these particular pundits or their qualifications. But I fail to see why one needs to be a practicing Muslim to speak intelligently about Islam, a serving officer to speak about war, or a bureaucrat to talk about government. And, from my own experience, I'd much rather have a moderator who is only moderately fluent with the subject matter but is experienced at moderating panels than one who is likely to insert his own expertise into the discussion. So why not Goldberg?

Posted by Cynic | July 1, 2008 1:50 PM

Irshad is pathetic. She basically spends her time using her Muslim background as a means to provide support for the bernard lewis school of neoconservativism, emphasizing the whole muslims are backward because their upset with modernity BS. Sort of like the Muslim shelby steele or whoever.

More egregiously, she uses her "heritage" to bludgeon the Palestinian cause and acts as a shameless Israeli propagandist.

But yeah, she's secular and fits great on a panel with Atlantic "blogger" Jeffrey Goldberg.

Posted by jeff | July 1, 2008 2:15 PM

Whatever else may be true, one thing we know for sure: no Muslim can ever speak for Islam. They're too close to the material.

Probably the best spokesman / analyst should be some non-Muslim ideologue with an axe to grind.

Of course, Muslim fanatics, pomos, America-haters, nihilists, and Communists disagree.

Posted by John Emerson | July 1, 2008 2:16 PM

i agree with Matt. How can one speak about Isam (or any religion) without being a practitioner.

Religion is an experience, not an object that could be described objectively. It's like talking about Sex without having done it..

Also, sidenote: Is it just me or Irshad Manji almost exclusively hangs out with right wing nut-jobs?

Posted by Bilal | July 1, 2008 2:20 PM

Whatever else may be true, one thing we know for sure: no Muslim can ever speak for Islam. They're too close to the material.

in that case, would someone please tell james dobson and bill donohue to shut up already?

Posted by dirk gently | July 1, 2008 2:21 PM

Whatever else may be true, one thing we know for sure: no Muslim can ever speak for Islam. They're too close to the material.

in that case, would someone please tell james dobson and bill donohue to shut up already?

Posted by dirk gently | July 1, 2008 2:24 PM

But Cynic -- the topic is "who speaks for Islam" not "let's speak about Islam." Obviously non-Muslims may have important things to say about Islam. But on a "why speaks for Islam" panel, we should hear from Muslims.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | July 1, 2008 2:24 PM

Whatever else may be true, one thing we know for sure: no Muslim can ever speak for Islam. They're too close to the material.

in that case, would someone please tell james dobson and bill donohue to shut up already?

Posted by dirk gently | July 1, 2008 2:27 PM

Whatever else may be true, one thing we know for sure: no Muslim can ever speak for Islam. They're too close to the material.

in that case, would someone please tell james dobson and bill donohue to shut up already?

Posted by dirk gently | July 1, 2008 2:29 PM

COmmenters should note that the name of the panel is "Who Speaks for Islam" not who is qualified to speak about. I believe that, in a rational world, would disqualify all non-muslims (ignoring for the moment the sweet irony that there would likely be no religion at all in a rational world)

Posted by edgore | July 1, 2008 2:30 PM

"I find myself very sympathetic to Irshad Manji's point of view..."
because she doesn't threaten your pretensions.

Irshad Manji vs As'ad AbuKhalil

Posted by seth edenbaum | July 1, 2008 2:50 PM

Manji also happens to be a lesbian if I'm not mistaken, which of course doesn't discredit her, but makes her a poor choice to be representative of the average views of muslims.

Posted by nima | July 1, 2008 2:53 PM

Matt-

I wasn't there, and so I don't know anything about the panel beyond its title. But I rather doubt that any of the panelists answered the question posed by the title ("Who speaks for Islam?") by saying, in effect, "I do!"

My presumption is that the panelists explored an ongoing (and rather fascinating) debate about religious authority in a diverse and decentralized religion. Islam, particularly Sunni Islam, has no Pope, no centralized hierarchy. The question of Who speaks for Islam? is thus critically important precisely because it admits of no single answer. An individual Muslim, speaking as an adherent of the faith, could tell us no more than who speaks for him or for her. But a scholar or expert, Muslim or otherwise, could shed some light on the subject by exploring the extent of the followings and the degrees of authority claimed by various religious leaders.

Imagine, if you will, a panel entitled, "Who speaks for Evangelicals?" You could put Dobson and Caldwell, or a pair of their followers, on the panel - and the fireworks would be entertaining, but probably not terribly enlightening. The question they'd be answering would be, "Who *should* speak for Evangelicals?" Or you could put, say, David Broder, D. Michael Lindsay, and Amy Sullivan on the panel - people who could speak about their observations, instead of their experiences. I know which I'd prefer to attend.

Posted by Cynic | July 1, 2008 3:05 PM

Wrong Broder. I meant, of course, NYT reporter John Broder, who's been covering Obama's quest to reach evangelicals, and not the fusty old dean of the beltway press. Forgive the lapse.

Posted by Cynic | July 1, 2008 3:10 PM

Of course, if you want to hear a totally objective panel on the current state of the Islamic world, why not eliminate all of the Islamic voices from the discussion? Find another neo-con to bump it up a notch on the truthiness meter!
This reminds me of the Saturday Night Live bit about a fictional show called "Women Matters" or something, with a bunch of men sitting around and saying things like "You know what's wrong with women? When they get older, they get uglier!"
But it sounds great! Mr. Goldberg can opine on his prediction that launching an unprovoked attack that killed hundreds of thousands of muslim human beings and sent milions more into exile was a supreme act of moral sublimity.
Why are we so naive these days that we cannot recognize racism, just because it is not black-white, and because it is garbed in intellectual clothing? These neo-cons simply hate Arabs, except for their useful collaborators, and they believe that their lives are expendable because they are in the way of their schemes. I get it.

Posted by J DAlessandro | July 1, 2008 3:13 PM

Does anyone else think that Irshad Manji looks like Kurt Warner's wife?

Posted by Joel | July 1, 2008 3:14 PM

No one finds it weird that Reuel Gerecht is on the panel? One of Bill Kristol's PNAC boys.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | July 1, 2008 3:14 PM

Irshad Manji is way out on the fringe - she isn't mainstream by any definition.

Posted by Slim | July 1, 2008 3:30 PM

"Does anyone else think that Irshad Manji looks like Kurt Warner's wife?"

i do now.

Posted by cha cha cha | July 1, 2008 3:36 PM

sorry about the multiple posts - kept getting server errors. hopefully the moderator will remove them (and this one)

Posted by dirk gently | July 1, 2008 3:58 PM

A session on Islamic public opinion moderated by a former Israeli soldier and featuring as one of the panelists a pro-Israel think tanker who preaches eternal war against the Muslim world makes PERFECT sense. This is America, after all.

Posted by Peter Principle | July 1, 2008 4:16 PM

Isn't the premise of panel flawed, by the lights of the kind of people running it? Aren't there "two Islams", the "moderates" who love America and Israel, and the "extremists" who range from Bin Laden to Debbie Almontaser, such that to protect the former (as well as ourselves, but we're being humanitarian here) we need to bomb the latter?

Posted by Kalkin | July 1, 2008 4:36 PM

Cynic, I think that Matt was referring the the presence of Reuel Gerecht and Jeffrey Goldberg, two non-Muslim ideologues, plus an anti-Muslim of Muslim descent (Manji). That's like balancing two anti-American leftists with Gore Vidal. Mogahed, about whom I know nothing, was going to be fighting an uphill battle.

Back when I was young, the cynics were smarter than the suckers. No longer true, I guess.

Posted by John J Emerson | July 1, 2008 4:46 PM

Thank you fellow readers. Manji not only has no business representing Muslims, but she is quite deranged on the matter.

If people can recall:

She supported the Iraq War on putative humanitarian grounds, believing in her warped mind that murdering millions would free the middle east from the strictures of their "backwards" ways.

Believes that Palestinians fled their homes willingly in 1948.

Supports the likud party of Israel (people who seek to destroy Israel through moral degradation and physical harm--settlements, anyone).

She is, in short, the prototypical "good Muslim," who is does an admirable job telling the media how right they are about the evil muslims. No credibility.

Posted by jeff | July 1, 2008 5:03 PM

John:

If that's what he meant, fine. But that's not what he wrote. He dismissed them out of hand because they're not Muslim. Actually, because two of them are Jewish. If he'd attacked their ideas, I would've been more than fine with that. But he didn't. He attacked their ethno-religious identities. And that's an absurd reason not to listen to someone, just as the fact that someone is a pious Muslim would hardly qualify them to speak intelligently on the topic.

As for cynics, they're generally easy to spot. They're the ones who, instead of simply applauding what the blogger has written, take the trouble to question his premise - even if no other poster agrees.

Posted by Cynic | July 1, 2008 5:38 PM

Who speaks for Islam? Clearly it's the American protestant conservative evangelical movement. But not in the way they think. Everything the modern evangelical movement demands is everything the worst of Islam demands; Middle-East culture (important distinction!) just tends to actually act on their threats and proclivities to militia attacks... at least in greater numbers than lazy Americans.

But, just as the modern evangelical movement is not the definition of, nor even any majority of even American Christianity, the fanatical bits of Islam represent a small minority.

As it is, I agree with the sentiment that discussion on Islam ought to involve a few Muslims. You don't have to be a Muslim to understand Islam, but, I think it's always helpful to include a native voice-so to speak. However, having a native voice as an excuse to agree with the most egregious opponents is worse than fruitless.

Posted by brenna | July 1, 2008 6:43 PM

"sorry about the multiple posts - kept getting server errors. hopefully the moderator will remove them (and this one)"

Sorry - there are no moderators - including Matt.

And there's no competent IT staff which is why you get those server errors.

Everybody: when you get a server error, cut and paste it into an email to Matt. Maybe he'll get a clue and start complaining to his bosses.

When you post and get a server error, ignore it. Your post arrived and will appear eventually.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 1, 2008 7:19 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

For once in his life, Mr. Hack is absolutely correct. This is probably a statement that Mr. Yglesias should make at the end of every post as these multiple posts are just wasting computer storage space.

Posted by SLC | July 1, 2008 7:31 PM

They should put it underneath the posting block where they have that stupid disclaimer about deleting "obscene" posts.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 1, 2008 9:28 PM

Jeffrey Goldberg is not qualified to moderate any intellectual discussion, period. I don't know anything about Mogahed, but the others are like having a panel of white people discuss who speaks for African Americans. Or a panel of men discuss who speaks for feminism. Or whatever other absurd comparison you prefer.

Posted by Karin | July 1, 2008 10:22 PM

Jeffrey Goldberg is qualified to speak about how momma got him a job or where the best bagels are but nothing more.

Posted by bronco214 | July 2, 2008 12:55 AM

Jeffrey Goldberg is qualified to speak about how momma got him a job or where the best bagels are but nothing more.

Posted by bronco214 | July 2, 2008 12:56 AM

Jeffrey Goldberg is qualified to speak about how momma got him a job or where the best bagels are but nothing more.

Posted by bronco214 | July 2, 2008 12:57 AM

Sorry!

Posted by bronco214 | July 2, 2008 1:00 AM

At berkeley I took a course from a Middle Eastern scholar named Ira Lapidus. He was brilliant, breathtaking actually, a real expert on the subject of Middle Eastern and Islamic history.

If he were on/moderating the panel, fine. Jeffrey Goldberg is no Ira Lapidus.

Posted by mike | July 2, 2008 1:23 AM

"'Whatever else may be true, one thing we know for sure: no Muslim can ever speak for Islam. They're too close to the material.'

in that case, would someone please tell james dobson and bill donohue to shut up already?

Posted by dirk gently |"

Dear Dirk

John was clearly writing ironically. However I am delighted to comply

Dear James Dobson and Bill Donahue

Shut up already.

Sincerely yours,
Robert Waldmann

Hmm mildly fun to type, but I don't think it will be effective.

I really think that Dobson and Donahue contribute nothing of value to the discussion and should just shut up. On the other hand, I think that many religious people should talk about their religion. I wouldn't have told Martin Luther King Jr to stop talking about God and stuff as I think he had a valid point about the stuff.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | July 2, 2008 1:40 AM

No one can speak for Islam! I'm 1/4 Afghan-Iranian, my Muslim family is Shia.

Islam and politics have always been intertwined. Muslims invoke the name of God in common everyday speech. However, Islam is a religious theology that is utilized by different people for different reasons.

There is no singular Islamic experience or central authority in Islam. Islam has no Vatican, no Pope, no College of Cardinals, or authoritative Canon Law.

Shariah varies from country to country, and in most societies, Islamic religious law is a parallel set of laws paired with Western-influenced legal laws governing business and commerce.

Most Shariah deals with morality and family law primarily.

Muslims overall are poor and live in developing nations, that have been subject to imperialism and unaccountable, undemocratic oligarchies.

Women are not educated, in many cases, men are not educated either. Furthermore, Muslims are not educated about their faith, charismatic preachers manipulate sacred texts to justify their nihilistic agendas.

Islam is too complex to sum in one phrase or even paragraph.

My Islam is different from the Islam of Irshad Manji or Osama bin Laden. Islam is a lived experience, that varies depending upon time and space.

Posted by Gustavo Gutierrez | July 2, 2008 11:38 AM

Salaam Gustavo,

Thanks for making by far the most intelligent comment on this thread.

Posted by Hana | July 2, 2008 6:35 PM