Gender, Sexuality, and Islam under the Shadow of Empire
Discourses of race, gender and sexuality have always served an
important ideological function within imperialist projects. The current
phase of American imperialism, characterized by the Global War on Terror
is no exception, as evidenced by the cynical deployment of 'women's
rights' by the Bush regime to legitimate the bombing of Afghanistan.
Given the contemporary geo-political context, the current imperialist
project requires the deployment of increasingly explicit forms of
Islamophobia, and 'queer rights' have become the latest front in this
purported battle between Civilization—liberal modernity as embodied by
'the West'—and Barbarism—as connoted by Islam. Within this
neo-Orientalist discourse 'the Muslim' enemy is today configured as
both misogynyst and homophobic, with an essentialized
Islam comfortably posited as the roots of his illiberalism. This
illiberalism is then presented as both the mark and the evidence of
Islam's radical alterity from Western civilization, an alterity that
cannot be tolerated and must, in fact, be destroyed. Like colonial and
imperial projects in the past that relied on 'civilizing missions'
(cl)aiming to 'save brown women from brown men' (for a counter argument
see Spivak 1999), the new imperial project thus uses the imperative to
'rescue' Muslim queers (as well as women, of course) as an ideological
cover for racist wars abroad and xenophobia at home.
The main thrust of this essay is to show how misleading the
contemporary mainstream Western discourse on 'Islam' and
gender/sexuality is, and the degree to which it is premised on an
essentialized and monolithic 'Islam' emptied of history, diversity,
complexity, and dissent. I begin by highlighting some of the
constitutive elements of this discourse and the central role played by
certain key neo-conservative Muslim intellectuals in ventriloquising a
racist Islamophobia. I then juxtapose this discourse and its claims
with a close reading of two cases involving women and sexual minorities
from Pakistan in order to show how a framework which begins with the
prior assumption that something called 'Islam' determines the status of
women and sexual minorities in 'the Muslim world' is simply not
intellectually useful and is in fact politically dangerous.
Everybody Loves a Good Native (Informant)
Of course, this new ideology of Empire requires its organic
intellectuals or 'native informants' and, as always, collaborators are
readily available. Enter Irshad Manji, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Salman
Rushdie, along with a slew of lesser-known 'experts'—writers, artists,
etc. Rushdie was one of the earliest supporters of the Global War on
Terror, claiming in a Washington Post op-ed that what lay behind
the September attacks was not international politics, but a mindset that
abhorred Western freedoms, in particular the freedom for women to wear
miniskirts (and, presumably, the freedom for men to enjoy women wearing
miniskirts[1]).[2]
Since then, he continues to be one of the strongest
voices within the clash of civilizations framework, undeterred by the
fall in popular support for the war in Iraq.
Irshad Manji shot to instant stardom in 2003 with the publication of
her book The Trouble with
Islam.[3] A "narrow polemic," filled
with inconsistencies, selective citations and brash generalizations,
nevertheless—or rather, therefore—continues to be
popular.[4] Manji
also carefully cultivated a persona to go along with the book—that of
a young, smart, and brash queer Muslim woman. The cover of the book
features a head shot of Manji in partial profile looking plaintively up
(presumably towards God/Allah); the title of the book is superimposed on
a band which cuts across the cover at a point where it strategically
covers Manji's mouth. The symbolism is anything but subtle, but then
subtlety is not a hallmark of this new Orientalism.
This posturing has paid off—The New York Times declared her "Osama
bin Laden's worst nightmare."[5]
Manji is the recipient of the first-ever
'Chutzpah' award bestowed on her by Oprah. And what is it that Manji
has the 'chutzpah' to do? Why, to confront "her fellow Muslims on their
blatant anti-Semitism, for the misleading clarion call against American
imperialism, for silence in the face of terrorism, for the abuse of
Muslim women in conservative Islamic communities."[6]
The list is revealing; it is in essence a reflection of the various aspects of
neocon discourse: Zionism (characterized by unqualified support of
Israel, the coding of Palestinians as 'terrorists,' and the vilification
of Edward Said as someone who stifled reasoned debate on the
Israel-Palestine issue[7]),
as well as unqualified support for U.S. imperialism
based on the humanitarian imperative to 'save' Muslim women from the
violence of their religion and their men. The urge to cite Gayatri
Spivak has never been greater.
Manji's endorsement by such icons as Salman Rushdie
and Thomas Friedman underline her status as an organic intellectual of
empire. In no less than The New York Times, Manji proclaims that
"[w]hile every religion has its fundamentalists ... only in Islam is
literalism in the mainstream, a recipe for generating hatreds that can
spawn suicide bombers."[8]
One of her most valuable contributions to neoconservative politics is her critique of liberal
multiculturalism that, according to her, prevents liberals from
exercising their moral imperative to civilize the barbarians. Belying
the claim made in the subtitle of her book ("A Muslim's Call for Reform
in Her Faith"), which appears to intimate that her audience are 'her
fellow-Muslims,' she asks 'Westerners' (i.e., White non-Muslims): "Will
you succumb to the intimidation of being called 'racists,' or will you
finally challenge us Muslims to take responsibility for our role in what
ails Islam?"[9]
This implies, of course, that the Muslims are a
monolithic community, devoid of any internal complexity and in fact
incapable of effecting change from within; in order to make this claim,
she (like Hirsi Ali) needs to gloss over the ubiquitous dissent in
'Muslim' countries across time and space, and render invisible the
thousands of (Muslim) activists fighting for progressive values in these
places.
Western academia has rewarded Manji handsomely for her 'courageous'
stand against her essentially illiberal religion and
community.[10] She
was invited to head the
"Moral Courage
Project" at New York University which "aims to develop leaders who
will challenge political correctness, intellectual conformity and
self-censorship." This, despite the fact that critics have pointed out
the deep and consistent inaccuracies—conceptual, historical, cultural,
geographic—that characterize Manji's discourse.
Page: 1 | 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7
Next page
|
