[BRIEF NOTE] Irshad Manji Followup
Mar. 21st, 2004 07:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldI noticed this article from The Globe and Mail today, on Irshad Manji's speaking tour in New York City. Curious, naturally enough, given my attendance at the lecture she gave in Kingston, I went to news.google.ca to look for more articles on her. I found this Queen's Journal article covering that same speech.
I was interested to note, in that article, two people who must have attended a different speech from the one I attended.
I was there, and as it happens, she did answer the questions posed to her by students, at great length. There weren't questions posed to her regarding Israel's treatment of Muslims, at least nothing explicitly asking this. She didn't lump all Muslims into one category--she made it quite clear in her speech that she felt there were multiple forms of belief, and multiple reform movements operating on different fronts (religious, economic, social). And the reason that she didn't go in-depth into Palestinian affairs because she was explicitly defending Israel's right to exist despite the Palestinian problem.
I'm not fond of dishonest criticism. Oh well. At least this is a step up from calling her a dyke. That's progress, right?
I was interested to note, in that article, two people who must have attended a different speech from the one I attended.
Ali Alnasser, ArtSci ’05, attended Manji’s speech. He said Manji often did not answer the questions posed to her by students, including those regarding Israel’s treatment of Muslims.
Layal Sarrouh, ArtSci ’04, also said she felt Manji avoided answering questions and often presented her opinion as fact.
Sarrouh said Manji lumped all Muslims into one category and did not delve deeply into Palestinian issues in her speech.
"There is no mention of Palestine in there," Sarrouh said.
I was there, and as it happens, she did answer the questions posed to her by students, at great length. There weren't questions posed to her regarding Israel's treatment of Muslims, at least nothing explicitly asking this. She didn't lump all Muslims into one category--she made it quite clear in her speech that she felt there were multiple forms of belief, and multiple reform movements operating on different fronts (religious, economic, social). And the reason that she didn't go in-depth into Palestinian affairs because she was explicitly defending Israel's right to exist despite the Palestinian problem.
I'm not fond of dishonest criticism. Oh well. At least this is a step up from calling her a dyke. That's progress, right?
