She also told me she loved the interview I did of her.
With Sanjay Kak.
Me and my friends with Arundhati Roy.
ncredibly disappointed with the organizers of Arundhati Roy’s talk. First of all, there was no acknowledgement of the First Nations territory we live on. Secondly, the discussion period was led by an upper-class White man who had absolutely no connection to India whatsoever. He asked the most boring questions that did not allow Arundhati to bring out any of her work or political analysis in any meaningful way. The guy talked about typical White Vancouver nonsense such as “so are you telling me that my friends in the NGOs are doing more harm than good?” and “I’m worried that my teenage daughter will have her creative voice co-opted by corporations.” I mean, here you have a brilliant author from India who works with the indigenous people there – the discussion should have been led by a POC who knows a thing or two about India, indigenous issues there and in Canada to make that vital connection, and someone who could bring out her expertise on Indian politics. But no, a typical Vancouver night: Boring White people dominating a POC space.
Hey folks, my colleague and I interviewed Arundhati Roy yesterday. Here it is: http://thetyee.ca/Books/2014/04/01/Arundhati-Roy-Interview/
Hello folks, here is my interview of Arundhati Roy. Check it out!
My friend and I interviewing Arundhati Roy.
So many basic white people are ahead of me. I can do try as hard as I want but I’m still required to do 10 times more in order to get ahead of basic white people.
How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb ?
Liberals ain’t shit.
For most of the history of Islam, Muslims assumed that the Qur’an
demanded the political rule of a monarch, whether conceived as a khalifa, sultan, or king. This was true despite plenty of evidence of dissent in the earliest community, since many early followers of the Prophet rejected authoritarian rule. Monarchal rule by an all-powerful male is one facet of patriarchy that is deeply woven into Islamic society and religion. This is so even though monarchy is not explicitly sanctioned by the Qur’an. In previous centuries, to be a Muslim who questioned the right of monarchs to rule was largely unthinkable. If one acted upon a critique of monarchs, one would be branded an apostate. Today, most Muslims do not live under monarchies, and most Muslims think this is a good thing. Their Islam is not less faithful because they live without monarchies; in fact it might be stronger for that reason.
For most of the history of Islam, Muslims have taken for granted that
slavery was a legal and useful social institution. Islamic law adapted to
the practice of owning human beings as slaves, a practice that existed
before Islam and continued after Islam’s advent. Rights of ownership by a wealthy male is one facet of patriarchy that is deeply woven into
Islamic society and religion. This was true despite the Qur’an’s clear
emphasis on freeing slaves and the Prophet’s example in this matter. Yet today, most Muslims do not own and sell fellow human beings. Most Muslims would consider this a good thing, and consider slavery a clear form of oppression.
For most of the history of Islam, Muslims have assumed that women
were inferior to men. Some might limit this inferiority to realms of
physical constitution and legal privilege, while others would extend the
inferiority to piety and even rationality. The superiority of gendered
males is one facet of patriarchy that is deeply woven into Islamic society and religion. This was true despite the Qur’ran’s empowerment of women in many fields. Islamic law adapted to this basic assumption of patriarchy, and encoded it in all manner of legal norms and authoritative interpretations. Yet many Muslims today assert the fundamental equality of women and men in economic, social, religious, educational, and political spheres of life. Their Islam is not less faithful because they live without gender segregation and tribal honor codes; in fact their Islam might be stronger with their commitment to gender justice.
Many Muslims today cannot imagine that Islam could be a religious
practice that acknowledges and respects diversity in sexuality and sexual practices. They may not even recognize the aspects of patriarchy that oppress people characterized by same-sex desire and erotic longing. This is no different from other forms of oppressive prejudice in the past that, with struggle (that is, with jihad and ijtihad), Muslims have managed to overcome with positive results for our understanding of our faith. As progressive Muslims, we have focused our sense of justice demanded by radical tawhid on the fields of political organization, economic ownership, or gender norms. Why stop there? Why not continue to extend this challenging focus on justice into the more intimate spaces of our sexual lives, in order to think more clearly about how our erotic lives intersect with our spiritual lives?
i dont like it when liberals comment on my posts
The Qur’an accepts the existence of diversity in sexuality and sexual orientation. This is the basic fact that must be acknowledged before moving on to address any particular legal regulation of sexual acts or sexual relationships. In other words, Islamic discourse based on the Qur’an did not use a discourse of “natural” or “unnatural” to describe sexualities. European Christians introduced this concept of “natural” versus “unnatural” to describe variation in sexuality and sexual actions. It has remained the keystone of denunciations of homosexuality long after Christianity ceased to function as the moral touchstone for Western societies. Contemporary Muslims who explicitly denounce homosexuality as “un-Islamic” adopt this dichotomy of natural and unnatural, and apply it as if it were indigenous to the Islamic tradition and to the Qur’an.This is a sign of bad faith, and a signal that contemporary Muslim moralists are not insulated from modernity, even as they depict gay and lesbian Muslims as corrupted by modernity. Gay and lesbian Muslims are certainly not required to accept the posturing of self-righteous defenders of a “tradition” that they anachronistically defend with conceptual tools from Christian thought and modern Euro-American culture. These same moralists and fundamentalists blithely assert that there are no homosexual people in Islamic communities (or if they are they should be killed). On the contrary, when one looks through the historical and literary records of Islamic civilization, one finds a rich archive of same-sex sexual desires and expressions, written by or reported about respected members of society: literati, educated elites, and religious scholars. This is so much the case that one might consider Islamic societies (like classical Greece) to provide a vivid illustration of a “homosexual-friendly” environment in world history. In fact, medieval and early modern Christian Europeans have often engaged in polemics against Muslims by accusing them of being “sodomitical” and of engaging openly in same-sex practices; this rhetoric was an integral part of the Christian campaigns to re-conquer Spain — Sexuality, Diversity and Ethics in the agenda of progressive Muslims, by Scott Kugle.