I am several month late on picking this up, but upon looking for other reading material, I came across this article: When the music stops: Extremists Disrupt Muslim HIV/AIDS Conference. In summary, it chronicled the conduct of a faction of Muslims when showing dissent at ideas that were not aligned to their own. The author, who was present at the conference, also observed that the tactics used by this faction was directed mainly at progressive Muslim women speakers, as opposed to like-minded males. The tactics deployed were what I would consider uncivilised - they chose to disrupt proceedings, instead of engaging the progressives in discussion.
Prior to reading this article, I received emails from Malaysian delegates who rallied others to support the movement against Dr Amina Wadud. I didn't really take the time to delve too much into what was so offensive, thinking that it's another one of those "We do not want talk about certain things because Islam is all about yadda yadda yadda..." arguments.
I don't know enough yet to form an opinion, but what disturbed me was the conduct of the (for lack of a better term) traditionalists in their method of engaging (in this case) the progressives.
Some tactics as reported in the article:
1. The traditionalists resorted to ambushing the targeted speakers as publicly as possible i.e. during plenary sessions.
2. The conference allowed for workshops following plenary sessions for more detailed discussion on the topics presented. The traditionalists were apparently not present at this discussion.
3. Accusations of the non-muslimness of those who opposed their views were shamelessly hurled across the conference.
The traditionalists focused on disruption rather than engagement. They focused on guerilla tactics that disregarded the basic human dignity of their victims. They allowed little room for civil communication in resolving any conflicts arising from differences in opinions.
Question: How are we going to develop if we can't present our arguments and discuss in a civil and rational manner?
Addendum:
I've received some wonderful reading suggestions from my visitors.
1. From atok: Can Muslims Handle the Truth? Amina Wadud Talks About Islam, AIDS, and Tolerance
2. From danny: Shanon Shah's Blog
3. From namiaf: The Art of Controversy
Thanks!
Posted by Najah Nasseri at 2003年10月20日 18:05 | TrackBackpersonally, i do not condone much of the rough actions taken by some (u labelled as 'traditionalist') on that occassion. from my observations, there have been many disagreements between most 'traditionalists' and Ms Amina Wadud long before the event. with regards to proper discussion, there are articles written rebutting Ms Wadud's views; in a 'professional' way.
in addition, one can also read another report in MuslimWakeUp on the matter, which has lots of readers' comments on it > http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000096.html
...every little helps (that's my usual stand)
Posted by: atok at 2003年10月21日 07:09Shanon Shah's blog contains more articles on progressive muslims, etc.
http://shanon.twofishy.net
Posted by: danny at 2003年10月21日 09:54This is a piece of interesting reading, especially for those trying to understand why people present arguments differently.
http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/
Posted by: namiaf at 2003年10月21日 11:40