Manji, Dibi and S4H/S4B – Not the back of the bus
Introduction:
Irshad Manji is on tour to promote her new book Allah, Liberty and Love – The Courage to Reconcile Faith and Freedom. She was in the Netherlands this week and during a debate with Green Left MP Tofik Dibi in De Balie a group of about 20 Muslim activists entered the room and disturbed the debate. Here I will attempt to give a brief overview of what happened and what the reactions were whereby I will treat both Manji’s appearance and the action of Shariah4Belgium and Shariah4Holland in terms in activism. In particular with regard to the latter I will treat their mode of activism not just as a reaction to particular circumstances, but as a tactic of creating a spectacle that belongs to theatrical resistance that dramatizes their project of both refusing the Dutch state’s and Muslim’s endeavour to produce liberal Muslims and their aim to achieve justice (how they understand it). The drama is also designed to evoke a reaction of moral outrage that actually confirms their project.
What happened?
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwExkrCesKg]
According to some they are ‘salafists‘, according to others ‘radicals‘ and according the national news they were Muslims. It appears that they are part of a Belgian, Flemish, organization called Shariah4Belgium. This organization affiliated with the British Islam4Uk and with a Dutch branch, Shariah4Holland, wants to imply Sharia law in their countries of residence. It is not entirely clear what they mean with this, but for now it seems to work mainly as a powerful slogan.
They came in and shouted at both Dibi and Manji but:
Muslim Reformers vs Extremists
The speakers refused to leave the stage. Their discussion on the modernisation of Islam resumed after the police arrested a number of the extremists. Stated Manji, “I never felt afraid. Not once. Neither did Tofik. In fact, all of us refused to leave, even when police asked. We wouldn’t play on Jihadi terms. Some things are simply more important than fear.”
Emphasized Dutch MP, Tofik Dibi, “the disruption shows that even in the Netherlands it is necessary to continue the debate on reforming Islam.”
In several reports it was mentioned that the activists shouted ‘Takfir!‘ which Manji interpreted as an execution order. She also claims that the protesters pledged to break her neck (we can hear the latter indeed in the videos). Based upon the available footage however I do not recognize the ‘takfir’ call. What they do shout is ‘takbir’. It is a phrase well known and usually when someone shouts ‘takbir’ the audience responds with ‘Allahu Akhbar’. Which is exactly what happened as you could have seen in the video above. But of course the videos may not cover all what has been said. Nevertheless it would be strange if they shouted ‘takfir’ because that word is never used as a slogan, public outcry or the like. The combination of using Arab and Dutch/English slogans is interesting. The Arab slogans, as my colleague CB (checking the slogans for me) also noted, were mainly standard general religious slogans often used in protests. The Dutch/English slogans and calls were more specific for this occasion.
The next video does clarify a few of the issues mentioned above. It is in Dutch and made by the activists themselves. It appears from the video that the action was initiated by Shariah4Holland and that they asked support from Shariah4Belgium. In the video you will see the leader of Shariah4Belgium and some of their footage of them disturbing the debate:
Both the leader and the activists explain that they reject people who they regard as ‘murtadeen’ (apostates) to talk about Islam. They (Manji and Dibi) have the right to speak but then S4H and S4B have the right to protest and to object (‘verbally not physical’). They see the practices of Manji and Dibi as perverse among other things. According to Abu Imraan the mood in the debate room changed when his people entered and the speakers started to challenge them (Maybe he refers to Manji’s phrase: ‘the voices of sensationalism’?), which they responded to in a fierce manner.
Motives, means and objectives
For my Dutch readers here is the radio interview by Fouad Sidali with Abu Imraan, the leader of S4H:
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iloxWVL9gKM]
According to him the hypocrites and apostates (Dibi and Manji) mock Islam and they wanted to make a statement that the mockery should be over. He says Dibi and Manji didn’t take them serious in the debate so they resorted to plan B: ‘a little takbir and a little takfir’. The interviewer ‘criticized’ the protesters also for spitting at Dibi and Manji but according to Abu Imraan they do not deserve respect. Abu Imraan declared Dibi an infidel but also claimed that this was no problem for him as long as they did not hurt him with his infidelity. He also refers to a debate on Tuesday 13 December where S4H might appear and says the police to be ready for them. They will defend Islam and not be afraid.
The next scene
The reactions in the media about the S4H/S4B action were very negative and often portrayed as a clash between Muslim reformers and extremists and on anti-Islam sites it is regarded as a demonstration of ‘true’ Islam whilst so-called moderates are only lying or indulging in some kind of fantasy islam and therefore, at least in the case of Dibi, the action was regarded as an ironic twist of fate. The more mainstream reactions however were more in line with the reformist vs. extremist or moderate vs. radical Islam/Muslims dichotomy. Some referred to S4H/S4B as barbarians or religious hooligans and praised Manji for being brave.
It appears that the dichotomy moderate vs. radical is used to not only alienate other Muslims from mainstream society but also used as a mobilizing frame. While S4H and S4B here use mobilizing frames such as ‘true Islam’ and ‘insults against Islam and the prophet’ people like Manji and Dibi use ‘moderate’, ‘liberal’ or ‘reformist’ Islam / Muslims as a way to call Muslims to stand up against intolerance and bigotry. The next part of the Dutch TV program Halve Maan which features Irshad Manji is not only very clear about the dichotomy but also about the attempt to mobilize people (the introduction is in Dutch, the interview in English begins after 30 seconds):
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6vryEzvZWs]The problem according to Manji, and many others with her I think, is that too many ‘self-declared moderates’ do not stand up against these radicals. And if they don’t, or because they don’t, they are not only complicit to ‘this problem’ but she even challenges their self-definition of the moderates by saying ‘what is moderate about you when you are allowing these gangsters to define what Islam is’. She is therefore asking the moderates where their insistence and humility is to call upon the radicals to show their humility to God: “I want to hear your voices”. Such frames are used to inspire, mobilize and legitimate social movement activities and campaigns but ultimately always reduce the multi-dimensional realities. The dichotomies used by Manji but also by S4H and S4B do not cover, for example, the wide range of reactions among Muslims with regard to the actions of S4H and S4B. The same happens with people like Manji and Dibi of course. By some seen as collaborators (or traitors) with the infidels, by others seen as still too Muslim even though she tries to resist such reductionist views.
The reactions among Muslims I have seen so far are mixed but with a clear dominance of rejecting and disapproval. For my Dutch readers, watch here the debate at De Halve Maan, the girl you see on the videos vehemently opposing S4B/S4H is also in this debate:
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZtadb2uMT8]I also have checked some of my informants and websites. Many see the attack as intimidating and agressive. Others think that the tactic goes against Islam; the tactic of intimidating but also throwing food (eggs) at Tofik Dibi. Several people think that an action such as this will only result in an increasing stigmatization of Muslims. Others however, although not approving the action, are a little more supportive since they see S4B as an organizations that ‘at least tries’ (without specifying what) with trial and error. And again others although some even disapproving the action say it is nevertheless necessary to support ‘the brothers’ against the infidels reagardless of what they do. And several support both the ideas and actions of S4H but also call for a ‘MuslimsAgainstShariah4Belgium‘. Several condemn the action, not because they agree with Dibi and Manji (on the contrary) but because it is against Islam, against tolerance and taints the image of Islam and Muslims. One calling them hooligans and a disgrace. Others condemn the action but also emphasize the need for reflection on the question if we do not have something of Abu Imraan as part of our self. Supporters of Manji define her insistence to remain on the stage during the protest as a ‘Rosa Parks‘ moment: “she didn’t move to the back of the bus”. Interestingly that is actually the statement of S4H and S4B as well: they dont want to be moved to the back of the bus (albeit with different tactics, aesthetics, frames and political identities).
Theater and Spectacle
It is not the first time S4B disrupts a meeting and I’ve written about it earlier as well. Every time the reactions among many Muslims are very negative even among those who do not necessarily object to the messages of S4B. The amount of support remains rather low in my impression. What is the use of tactics like these then? I guess we can look at it in terms of theatre and spectacle. What is happening here is that protestors orchestrate an event that breaks the usual order of things in debates and debating rooms. They do this in such a way, with dramatic acts of rupture, that dramatizes injustice experienced by the protesters and engages with media conventions in which the sensational is prioritized and whereby continuously social problems, enemies, leaders and followers are constructed, prioritized and pacified. So when, almost in a parade, they enter the debating room )with its highly formalized and stylized conventions for both speakers and audience), creating rwina (chaos, when things are not going the way they are supposed to go) they produce a stark contrast with what people expect and accept in such an environment. Violence is such a tactic, standing up and shouting in a debate is another one, spitting, threatening and so on are other tactics as well as using Arab slogans. And it works, immediately after the event the hunt for eye-witness accounts and video footage began.
The idea, also apparent among opponents of S4H, that no one is standing up for Muslims and against injustice, is significant. What S4H tries to do with this theatre and spectacle is to pursue visibility; both for their cause (injustice) as well as for themselves (as the true representatives of the oppressed). At the same time they try to render invisible any disagreement and weakness on their part or among Muslims in general. As such they use the media and how the media covers such an event is just as much part of the spectacle as the actions themselves as can be seen from Abu Imraan speech who turns the use of the label ‘radicals’ or ‘extremists’ against his opponents.
The media’s reaction confirms the S4B/S4H worldview and this theatrical resistance is meant to create that interplay because they know their message and performance will be interpreted through prevailing frames, concerns and norms. I wouldn’t be surprised therefore if they actually would agree with the Dutch intelligence service that fears a growing radicalization. I don’t. This is what we have seen before; a whole series of oppositional, provocative and militant disruptive spectacles that, taken together, can be seen as theatrical resistance. Using a video camera and Youtube shows they perfectly understand the power of theatre, spectacle and sensationalism in the age of social media.
At the same time however this spectacle is a site of contestation where different actors use the spectacle for their own agenda and interests; therefore the understandable fear among opponents that S4B/S4H only serves to legitimate islamophobia and to denounce all Muslims as freaks, barbarians and terrorist-in-disguise. Which is indeed what happens, showing that it is difficult to escape the islamophobic and anti-religious attitude whether one engages in such militant actions, responds to such militant actions, or not respond at all; actions designed to challenge the existing order may end up confirming them. Within this perspective, the insistence of Dibi and Manji to remain on the stage was by the way highly effective. Not only in the sense that the debate could go on but also in the sense of performance: by remaining steadfast within the ethic and aesthetic terms of the usual debate (not shouting, being supported by others) and by foregrounding themselves as defenders of free speech.
2 Responses
[…] Manji, Dibi and S4H/S4B – Not the Back of the Bus […]
[…] as to what that actually means). In several incidents, for example by disturbing a debate between Irshad Manji and Dutch politician Tofik Dibi, they have shown to be prepared to use force in pursuit of their politico-religious agenda. This is […]