Salman Rushdie has also waded in on the Amnesty and Gita Sahgal situation. I remember at the time in ’88 when the fatwa by Khomeini was issued against his book The Satanic Verses being shocked that this was happening to a writer. Women Against Fundamentalism was borne out of this struggle against censorship, religious fundamentalisms and freedoms. And I certainly supported WAF’s aims and objectives and attended the first conference in 1989.
But on this Rushdie is wrong because he is using a broad brush approach based on assertions. I don’t know if he is coming into this debate with all the weight that he could. It maybe is that he is less convinced of the position that he is defending than he is letting on. One thing is clear is that those with a neo-con line on these things (Cohen, Aaronovitch et al) are possessed of the ideological certainty that was attacked in the Satanic Verses. Rushdie must twig this unless he has politically degenerated further and faster that otherwise thought. These certainties are not based on a mustering of hard evidence but on a collecting together of broad and vague catagories such as “islamist” and “islamo-fascist” which are then in turn elided into each other. With such intellectual mush the “liberal-left” (another such category) is lectured on its errors.
It does need pointing out though that it is the lack of evidence that is the complaint here. Secular arguments are based on observable evidence or evidence that is reported where possible reported in a rebuttable way. Hard evidence can change minds.
If you have got evidence flaunt it!
I posted this on Pickled Politics but it seems relevant to your site too. By the way, if you don’t know what Islamism is, or what is meant by the Islamic Right, why not look them up? I’m pretty sure Gita herself would never use the term Islamo-fascist (correct me if I’m wrong).
A good place to start is Chetan Bhatt’s “the Fetishism of the Margins” – that’s what I read when I googled ‘Islamic Right’. I’ve been reading ever since. The left wing, not the right wing stuff.
We may never get ‘evidence’ such as an outrageous quote from Begg. This is a bit disappointing to me, but I don’t feel I need it. You can certainly get the politics of CP easily enough, if you know a bit about Islamism.
Anyway, the comment is below. I wrote it for Sunny, Earwicga etc at Pickled Politics, the last para is not directed at you:
best,
Rachel
Please, if you don’t know this name, look it up.
Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow
You will see that Aisha was a 13 year old girl stoned to death for ‘adultery’ in an al-Shabaab controled area of Somalia. Amnesty tried to save her.
One of the fans of al-Shabaab and their attempts to impose Shariah is Anwar al-Awlaki. One of the fans of Anwar al-Awlaki is Moazzem Begg, as you will find on the Cageprisoners website.
Anwar al-Awlaki is a former Guantanamo detainee, never charged, among the thousands whose cases CP publicises, is right to publicise in its attempts to bring justice to some of the victims of the war on terror. But Anwar al-Awlaki is not just a one of the prisoners listed there. He has been invited to speak at CP events and was interviewed by Begg. Read the website. Now, probably he was only going to speak about the plight of the prisoners, and not about his views on Sharia and the rights of women. But, all you ‘feminists’ on this site, so outraged by the presence of the media junkie Rushdie in this debate, consider how you feel about al-Awlaki. Consider how CP does not distance themselves from his views. Maybe they don’t share them, but they don’t feel the need to distance themselves from them. Do you feel happy about Amnesty promoting CP (and if they weren’t before, they are now)? Remember, as we are taught by Women Living Under Muslim Laws and the dozens of secular organisations from South Asia, it is Muslims who are the main victims of the Islamic Right.
Amnesty’s website says two of their big campaigns now are Stop Violence against Women and Terrorism, Security and Human Rights. Maybe these should not be as separate as they seem to be now.
The work of SBS/WAF/Gita Sahgal developing the connections between authoritarian nationalist and religious movements and the oppression of women has been profound and radical. It’s not very surprising that she could not carry on living the contradiction she was in at Amnesty. How could she not speak out? I’m sure she would have raised the same doubts about an Amnesty having a sustained relationship with supporters of Hindutva or Christian or Jewish theocrats. Look at her history.
I can understand that many people disagree with her. Gareth Pierce certainly must. I still respect her. But you can disagree with Gita without calling her an Islamophobe, a careerist, a neo-con, a dupe or a liar.
It is still guilt by association though. Begg also associates with Guantanamo guards. Perhaps he sees himself as someone who keeps links with people who do or support bad things? Perhaps he is misguided and mistaken. Who knows? With the lack of evidence it is all speculation.
I think you miss the point about Islamism and islamo-fascist. It is not so much that there is not a dictionary definition for the terms somewhere as the political process that takes place when they are used. There is an elision in peoples’ minds. The terms will cover a range of beliefs…think of the range of people who would regard themselves or be regarding by others as socialists or conservatives in western political culture. Islamist and islamo-fascist are similarly broad categories. Both terms currently carry a heavy ideological charge. It is better to say what is sexist or otherwise objectionable in what someone says or does.
I can see the point of Begg associating with ex-Gitmo guards. This has created a powerful space to expose the black prisons and humanise it’s victims. I think this work could really resonate where it counts, in the American heartland. This is impressive work.
What is the point of associating with al-Awlaki? Interviewing him about Islam? Is this somehow in aid of the prisoners?
There are different forms of Islam, as there are all other religions. Cageprisoners seems to me to promote political Islam as preached by al-Awlaki. Rushdie’s pretty foul creature, but give me him over a supporter of al Shabaab any day.
I would never use the term Islamo-fascism (and I don’t think Gita S does either) but I have no problem with Islamism. It is not an exact term but it is distinct from Islam, or at least I expect it to be for any educated person. Islamism may carry a heavy ideological charge, but that’s because it is an ideological movement. Read about it. I think it is you who are eliding Islam with Islamism, not ‘people’.