“Over It” – The rant of an angry, Agnostic, British, Indo-Pakistani woman of Muslim heritage
Posted on February 27, 2012 | 5 Comments | Thanks to Ophelia for the link to Opinionista’s blog
I am over Muslim communities from the same locality celebrating Eid on three different days because they believe that “sighting the moon” in Saudi Barbaria is more accurate than astronomical observatory data. I am over British employers feeling obliged to accommodate this nonsense by giving Muslims days off at short notice due to uncertainty relating to the date.
I am over conservative members of my community trying to impose religious teachings, practices and gender segregation in community gatherings, weddings etc and expecting women to cover their hair during a prayer that none of us asked them to perform.
I am over the complete ignorance by Muslims and non Muslims (particularly UK politicians and media) alike of the fact that “Muslim communities” contain non religious, spiritual people like me, as well as Atheist people and Agnostic people.
I am over my community b*tching about “The Satanic Verses”, even though most of them have never read it.
I am over UK politicians like Ken Livingstone kissing the arses of Islamist anti-human rights fundamentalists like Yusuf al Qaradawi and pretending to know what non religious cultural Muslims [like me] need and want from life in the UK.
Read more ….
Leave a comment? How do you add to that?
I left this comment over at The Opinionista:
tildeb says,
“I was very much hoping you had a tactic that could be applied, but alas! Satire will have to do.”
Satire does very well and has proven to be a very effective tactic.
By repeating “I am over. . ., opinionista shows how much she has had to get over/accept/fight against.
As I was reading ["Over It], I kept thinking about “I Want a Wife” first printed in the premiere issue of Ms. magazine, January 1972.
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/feministtexts/a/i_want_a_wife.htm
That was one helluva post by the opinionista.
I’ve Skyped the link for this piece to an aquaintance who, in the evenings, teaches at a madrassa in the south of the UK, asking for his opinion. I’m not holding my breath waiting for a response.
This article seems to be ‘inspired’ or maybe largely copied by the sentiments of other articles, and by the authenticity self-promoting guru Irshad Manji. Irshad Manji’s ‘Moral Courage’ project, which itself seems inspired or copied from the words of Bobby Kennedy.
What makes me even more uncomfortably is the desperate clinging to copyright at the end of article, in those most odious bullying official type of language. And yet, none of its sentiments or ideas are new.
I can’t help but be largely suspicious of so much inauthenticity disguised as authenticity. It all sounds like a good thing, but underneath is something more sinister.
Irshad Manji seems on a mission to reform Islam from within, so good luck with that, but again, I suspect something else is going on here. If you robotically send in your answers to the following questions:
“* I disagree with my community about…
* If I say what I think, the worst that can happen is…
* If I say what I think, the best that can happen is…
* Should I say what I think? I’ve decided that…
Well then, you pass the test, you’re now authentic and think for yourself, and you’re ready to follow Irshad’s for the greater good.
Sorry, but I can’t go along with this, there’s something sinister about it all.
Is there some direct connection between opinionista and Irshad Manji we should know about?
clod, at the bottom of the article is the following:
Acknowledgements: This post was inspired by Irshad Manji’s Moral Courage Project and Eve Ensler’s brilliant Huffington Post article on the subject of rape.
Much worse is Irshad Manji suggestion to sign a petition supporting secularism with your name and address, to challenge religious extremists.
Such a good idea in an ordinary society, but positively deadly to hundreds of Muslims who risk their own lives in their own communities.
Egbert
Could you provide a link or information on the “words of Bobby Kennedy”
Veronica, on the orginal article, where the Acknowledgements are given, is a link to Irshad Manji’s website called the Moral Courage Project here:
http://www.irshadmanji.com/moral-courage-project
If you read the website, it says at the bottom:
“What is moral courage?
Put simply, it’s the willingness to be original, unique and different from everyone else in your group.
And it’s one of the hardest things to do. Because you’ll have to take criticism from parents, friends, preachers, teachers and bosses who want you to conform.
Here’s what Bobby Kennedy said about moral courage. He was speaking to South African students in 1966 — the heydey of apartheid:
“Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change.”
That’s why I’ve founded the Moral Courage Project at New York University’s Wagner School of Public Service. The Moral Courage Project teaches young leaders to break silences for the sake of a greater good.”
Egbert
Thank you for following all the links to answer my question.
Re: This article seems to be ‘inspired’ . . .
I agree with you. The rhetorical style of “Over It” is not new/original. But as I say in my comment above, 28 February 2012, #2, it is very effective. See also A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift.
I don’t agree that there’s something “sinister” about the “desperate clinging to copyright at the end of article.” However, it does appear desperate. Ethical and scrupulous blog/website owners will respect Opinionista’s intellectual property and give credit using a link to the original; unethical and unscrupulous blog/website owners won’t regardless of the warning.
As tildeb says, in in reply to Opinionista http://tinyurl.com/85xapzw , Satire can be an excellent method for consciousness-raising and is sometimes the only way to reveal just how widespread and ingrained a problem really is.
I’m always wary if someone smells a rat but I just don’t know enuf about either to come to any conclusion yet.
Is it effective? I don’t know. I would be overjoyed if the media were being overwhelmed by strong authentic liberal voices, especially from the various ‘communities’, but there’s only a deafly silence. Why is that? I don’t know. But I do tend to agree with Nick Cohen’s assessment that British culture is filled with cowards pretending to be brave, but secretly being afraid. I don’t pretend to be brave, I know I’m a coward.
Egbert
Yes, satire can be effective, but it usually takes a long time before we see a positive result, depending on the issue, from satire, or parody.
What do you mean by bravery? Do you mean be brave enough to speak out despite the threat of being physically attacked for your opinions? I’m not brave enough to risk physical harm. However, I do use my full name when I comment on blogs and websites, and I do commit some small acts of bravery and when I do so publicly, I get criticized for being too outspoken or just plain crazy. However, being called too outspoken is a small price to pay for ranting against religion and injustice, especially about injustice against women.
What makes me a coward is that I’m human. Humans are largely cowards who don’t challenge others or speak up because of fear. The immoral exploit cowardice all the time, and our biggest use of fear is after all, terrorism.
“our” = “their”. Written in haste once again, and apologies.
I wonder if we (atheist and/or secularists) shouldn’t adopt ‘Get a clue!’ as our trademark response to all the stupid assumptions and statements made by religious people.
DiscoveredJoy
How will it help “to adopt ‘Get a clue!’ as our trademark response to all the stupid assumptions and statements made by religious people”? What will be the benefit?
One of the things that crops up over and over again (not just in Opinionista’a blog) is the ‘automatic respect’ that religions expect and how this affects their behaviour.
My suggestion was aimed at puncturing this expectation of respect. If in every interview the interviewer said ‘Get a clue!’ and set the tone of the interview as questioning, then the religious nuttery behind homophobia or misogyny or rejection of fertility control or assisted dying has to be properly justified rather than merely stated as a consequence of god’s will.
If some Creationist gives a reason why the earth is only a few thousand years old, the a response like ‘That’s your reason for overturning years of science? Get a clue!’ It moves the debate from talking about the religious ‘evidence’ presented to the lack of other evidence presented.
It’s not enough on its own, of course, but I see it as a possible way of helping establish the sceptical viewpoint as the natural mode of debate, rather than the automatic respect granted to the religious arguments. Make it a common saying makes it a more prevalent attitude.
I’m open to better suggestions.
DiscoveredJoy
Thank you for your reply. The reply “Get a clue” doesn’t seem strong enough. I’m all for challenging the expectation of automatic respect, but our reply has to be something that makes the religious apologists think about their assumptions.
This episode from Mrs. Brown’s Boys gives at least one suggestion for a response: Think about it.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QarofaycN3c
While it would be disrespectful to challenge a Christian for wearing a crucifix , I wonder what would happen if an atheist were to wear a t-shirt printed with symbols of atheism or a pin in the shape of an A? Christians feel comfortable wearing a crucifix in public and even at work. Would atheists be challenged if they wore a symbol of their unbelief in public or at work.
Another assumption we should challenge is that prayer in government meetings is acceptable. The answers I always get when I object to the practise are you don’t have to pray, just sit quietly, or wait until the prayer is over before entering the room. Atheists have been sitting quietly for far too long.
Veronica Abbass
Thanks for your thoughts. I too have been thinking about this for a while – I can’t say that I have it all worked out yet.
Here in the UK praying before council meetings has just been ruled illegal, but that law has also just been replaced, so the ruling won’t hold. I do wonder about continuing to work or make phone calls while others are praying but others will say that that is disrespectful. They are right, of course, because the disrespect is true. People insisting on praying is also disrespectful and bullying, but the social ‘manners’ favour the religious.
So what do we do? I’m pretty sure that accommodation doesn’t work, there’s no impetus to change the views of the religious. I’ve also come to the view that outright challenge (although very natural and necessary to rally those of like mind) just results in the religious automatically resisting and attacking back – with no unsettling rational thought required.
My suggestion is that being gently dismissive, over and over again, wont be enough to trigger the automatic defences but will erode the certainty of the special respect the religious accord themselves. When people praying is seen as being boorish then rationality will have won. I think it has started, but it will take a time though.
Gutta cavat lapidem [non vi sed saepe cadendo] — a water drop hollows a stone [not by force, but by falling often]. One of my favourite Latin phrases.
DiscoveredJ,
Replace is a polite way of saying Eric Pickles is using a law made for something else, to protect religious privileges. It’s completely insane, and it only motivates me more to donate to the NSS.
I think the only thing we can do is voice loudly against hypocrisy, against unreason, in the same way Hitchens did. We need louder dissent, more challenging against the insanity and abuse of politicians and the media. Reason is our biggest weapon, until of course we’re silenced by being put into prison or worse.