Is it OK to insult Islam in Canada?

[bloodyminded]

I'm not sure where you're getting that information from. Can you be more specific about how you're measuring respect? Are you talking about airtime in the media or something along those lines? Those who sell lots of books? There are so many critics out there of so many policies from countries of the Western world all over the media from all slices of life.

Are you contesting the claims from some Muslim critics of components of their culture/religion that the mainstream is of their communities is falling short in several ways with respect to reigning in fundamentalism and radicalism, as well as undesirable values regarding intolerance of difference(s) as well as improper gender roles? You seem to be suggesting that there is widespread criticism of certain trends within the Islamic culture among those belonging to the culture/religion, but that they are ignored due to some sort of systemic censorship within our media?

I disagree. First of all, Irshad Manji isn't some sort of media-whore. She definitely isn't regularly on the mass media circuit. There are others like her, though, that do the not-so-popular circuit of giving lectures and participating in debates.

What establishment are you talking about? Please be more specific. I've read very little about him, so I can't comment much on it. Still, in contemporary times, there are plenty of well-known critics of the West who get plenty of airtime from all streams of society. You seem to be suggesting that these critics are somehow shut out by "the establishment".

Who's ignoring him?

You've lost me. Mentioning some Afghani MP? What has she got to do with anything we're talking about here? I'm not sure what Manji's "alliance" with the AEI (please be more specific) has anything to do with her credibility. If you've got a beef with her arguments or opinions, then address them specifically. I suspect that you don't know much about where Manji does stand, perhaps that's why you're attacking her "alliance" with the AEI rather than specifically addressing her opinions?

Who's "we"?

I think I'm beginning to regret replying to you...

Your final remark is pretty facetious, as you're undoubtedly aware of methods to delete your remarks before posting them.

But ok, I'll try to break it down a bit:

People like Manji are trotted out in order to show not only the ills of many Muslim nations, but also in order to support the narrative that there is a Good Guy "we" fighting a Terrorist Menace "they." Which would be bad enough if it were an oversimplification; but it's actually nonsense, straight out of Orwell. You'll note that the Muslims we hear the most from (on news media outlets) generally tend to be relatively hawkish supporters of a "War on "Terror," a notion of dubious credentials. There is some movement throughout the ideological spectrum, but it's rather in the way tv "debates" were premised during the run-up to the Iraq War (ie a good idea, or a bad idea...strategically; never mind anyone's "right" to unilaterally invade somebody; and never mind the intent of the invaders, taken to be well-intentioned as a truism, rather than a debatable opinion.)

Now, people like Said and Joya (the latter of whom you bafflingly dismiss on account of her position as an Afghan MP...why, you don't elucidate), happen to hold many points of agreement with Muslims like Manji: they believe a massive Islamic Reformation is sorely needed; they condemn the treatment of citizens, particularly women; they oppose terrorism. Said, in fact, had been doing so his entire adult life; though of course, he would never be an "expert" summoned to talk on CNN, since his critiques were institutional denunciations of the excesses of Power...and the way that THIS relates directly to the issues faced by Muslim nations.

No, better to get Manji, who will underline every single opinion already held by those True believers in the West's moral probity in foreign affairs.

However, unlike Manji, they approach from a more global, historical, nuanced and considered approach; instead of proclaiming the United States and its allies as the Good Guys fighting Terror, they consider past and present alliances, possible and predictable consequences of Western policies towards Muslim nations and regions such as Iran, Afghanistan, the Palestinian Territories, Iraq, and so on.

But more to the point: while they agree, and agree absolutely, with many of the criticisms launched towards pre-dominantly Muslim cultures, they also launch criticisms--which are totally related--towards the Western powers and their actions. Further, they speculate about intent, rather than assuming benignity. The former is elementary sanity and intelligence; the latter is brute, ignorant nationalism with the taint of bigotry towards the "other."

Said and Joya, to name the two I've summoned to this debate, are not little-known voices in the wilderness; they are more well-known than Manji.

Everywhere except in Western news and commentary media, that is.

Said, especially, is a veritable giant of late 20th century humanist scholarship (this is true whether or not one agrees with him).

The reason they are ignored--and the reason you haven't heard much (Said) or any (Joya) from them--is because they are presenting the wrong narrative. They are not talking about a well-intentioned hegemon and its morally-upright allies flitting about trying to save civilians from the terrorist threat. Indeed, there's a lot of evidence to make such conventional pieties the dark comedy that they are.

Edited May 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

People like Manji are trotted out in order to show not only the ills of many Muslim nations, but also in order to support the narrative that there is a Good Guy "we" fighting a Terrorist Menace "they."

No, Manji is trotted out because she's attractive and well-spoken, which are prerequisites for appearing on television, and because the media want to show a Muslim face which will seem, to western viewers, as reasonable, and "norma.". It is not, as you seem to believe, part of a conspiracy to show Islam is evil, but the reverse, to support the case that the majority of Muslims are just ordinary folks, and that some "ordinary muslims" also disagree with the (to western eyes) extreme beliefs of many Muslim governments and spokesemen.

Said and Joya, to name the two I've summoned to this debate, are not little-known voices in the wilderness; they are more well-known than Manji.

And one of them is dead, and the other is neither pretty nor a former television personality. What's your point anyway? Telelvision likes glib? This is not news. Television doesn't like complicated messages? The news media go for simple stories without side issues? Again, do you ascribe this to a grand conspiracy of some sort?

Said, especially, is a veritable giant of late 20th century humanist scholarship (this is true whether or not one agrees with him).

And do academic giants spend a lot of time on television? Said was highly influential yet you complain he was ignored. There's a problem here somewhere.

[bloodyminded]

No, Manji is trotted out because she's attractive and well-spoken, which are prerequisites for appearing on television, and because the media want to show a Muslim face which will seem, to western viewers, as reasonable, and "norma.". It is not, as you seem to believe, part of a conspiracy to show Islam is evil, but the reverse, to support the case that the majority of Muslims are just ordinary folks, and that some "ordinary muslims" also disagree with the (to western eyes) extreme beliefs of many Muslim governments and spokesemen.

First, I not only said nothing about a "conspiracy to show Islam is evil," or any conspiracy at all...but I firmly know it is not a conspiracy. I'm talking about the institutional effects of a propagandizing organization we call "the news."

And no, they don't bring Manji on to show that Muslims are ordinary folks that disagree with many Muslim governments and spokespersons; or else they'd have their pick of Muslims who are "attractive" and well-spoken, who disagree vehemently with the harsher strains of Islam, but who might not necessarily be supportive of Western designs or actions.

In other words, most Muslims would be as reasonable like Manji is on Islam, but differ dramatically in his or her view of the actions and performance of the most powerful nations.

She's allowed on because she's a Muslim who is a hawkish supporter of US actions, and presents a worldview commensurate with conventional pieties..

And one of them is dead, and the other is neither pretty nor a former television personality. What's your point anyway? Telelvision likes glib? This is not news. Television doesn't like complicated messages? The news media go for simple stories without side issues? Again, do you ascribe this to a grand conspiracy of some sort?

No conspiracy. Rather, parameters are set. "This far and no farther." As for Said's death...I don't think he was a staple of the news media while he was alive. But again, I'm not just talking about tv. I'm talking the news media generally.

And it's not a complicated message they're pushing. So we could have:

Manji: The US and its close allies, beacons of freedom, are flitting about the earth trying to save us from terrorism.

Joya: The US and its allies, not beacons of freedom, are partnered with the Taliban's ideological twins, and calling them freedom fighters.

The first is more palatable, particularly to moral cowards; but opening it up is not something impossible to do for the news media. They simply choose not to do so.

And that's because they are, by and large, propagandists for Power.

And the propaganda is successful precisely because the press is relatively free, and because there is no conspiracy.

That way, so long as the proper parameters are drawn, and the proper commentators can dominate, we cna point to it and say "See? There's debate on the major issues." But in fact, the debate tends to be quite narrowly defined.

Like I said, the debates running up to the Iraq War, even the angry exchanges, were largely about feasibility. The war can be won; or it can't. That was the debate.

Which begs a few questions, I should think.

We should always remember that propaganda as we know it (in its negative connotations) is a concoction not of the Soviets, but of the UK and the United States. We in the West are very accomplished at it.

Edited May 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

And no, they don't bring Manji on to show that Muslims are ordinary folks that disagree with many Muslim governments and spokespersons; or else they'd have their pick of Muslims who are "attractive" and well-spoken, who disagree vehemently with the harsher strains of Islam, but who might not necessarily be supportive of Western designs or actions.

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me about how many Canadian born Muslims the media could present as opinion makers on Islam and the world. Because Manji is one of the very, very, very few Muslims I've seen on TV who doesn't speak taxi-driver-English. Oh, the media shouldn't care if they're Canadian born? Shouldn't care if they speak with heavy accents? Grow up.

She's allowed on because she's a Muslim who is a hawkish supporter of US actions, and presents a worldview commensurate with conventional pieties..

While I haven't followed Manji's opinion all that closely I find it difficult to believe a lesbian who was a former speech writer for the NDP and a journalist was really all that strong a supporter of George Bush, and never criticised him.

For the record, I googled "Irshad Manji George Bush" and this was the first link which appeared.

Irshad Manji George Bush

[bloodyminded]

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me about how many Canadian born Muslims the media could present as opinion makers on Islam and the world. Because Manji is one of the very, very, very few Muslims I've seen on TV who doesn't speak taxi-driver-English. Oh, the media shouldn't care if they're Canadian born? Shouldn't care if they speak with heavy accents? Grow up.

You say "grow up" in a cute little fit of pique, because you can't answer any of the points I've made on the institutional factors governing news media. Not one point. Just facile remarks about "accents," assuming that everyone is as plagued by such things as much as you are.

And only Muslims who hawkishly support US foreign policies can speak without sharp accents, evidently. You know, the "good" Muslims.

If you are intellectually incapable of responding, that doesn't demand you become an effete little bully.

While I haven't followed Manji's opinion all that closely I find it difficult to believe a lesbian who was a former speech writer for the NDP and a journalist was really all that strong a supporter of George Bush, and never criticised him.

For the record, I googled "Irshad Manji George Bush" and this was the first link which appeared.

Irshad Manji George Bush

I never said she "never criticize[ed]" Bush. Sure, once the damage is done, the liberal hawks like Manji, Thomas Friedman, et al will suddenly discover the sanity of the anti-war's position, and plagiarize it without attribution. (And without mentioning how they scorned their betters for the same things they now present as "insight.")

Indeed--like I said--successful, institutionalized propaganda works best when there is some debate, some intelligence and thoughtfulness exposed (if only after the fact). Otherwise, we're left with transparently false propaganda, which has limited utility. That's why the "Saving Jessica Lynch" and Pat Tillman stories--which were blatant, Soviet-style propaganda exercises--simply didn't work (thanks to Lynch herself, and to Tillman's family, both of whom exposed the total fabrications of the war propaganda; meanwhile, it was only the war's supporters who were utterly credulous to every distortion printed by the news media...even as they denounce it for being "left wing." Meanwhile, most of the "left wing" didn't take it seriously).

I believe Manji is sincere (again, propaganda doesn't work without True Believers); and she sincerely is servile to power, and to the great, laughable myths about Western nations flitting about ther globe trying to conquer evil in the face of an ungrateful world.

But you keep believing it's all about the "glib" nature of tv (as if vaunted, respected and influential print media don't give us roughly the same thing, albeit with more words) and Arab "accents" or whatever it is that exercises you so.