On the Muslim Question

The Public Square

by Anne Norton

Why "the Muslim question" is really about the West and its own anxieties--not Islam



In the post-9/11 West, there is no shortage of strident voices telling us that Islam is a threat to the security, values, way of life, and even existence of the United States and Europe. For better or worse, "the Muslim question" has become the great question of our time. It is a question bound up with others--about freedom of speech, terror, violence, human rights, women's dress, and sexuality. Above all, it is tied to the possibility of democracy. In this fearless, original, and surprising book, Anne Norton demolishes the notion that there is a "clash of civilizations" between the West and Islam. What is really in question, she argues, is the West's commitment to its own to democracy and the Enlightenment trinity of liberty, equality, and fraternity. In the most fundamental sense, the Muslim question is about the values not of Islamic, but of Western, civilization.

Moving between the United States and Europe, Norton provides a fresh perspective on iconic controversies, from the Danish cartoon of Muhammad to the murder of Theo van Gogh. She examines the arguments of a wide range of thinkers--from John Rawls to Slavoj Zizek. And she describes vivid everyday examples of ordinary Muslims and non-Muslims who have accepted each other and built a common life together. Ultimately, Norton provides a new vision of a richer and more diverse democratic life in the West, one that makes room for Muslims rather than scapegoating them for the West's own anxieties.

Genres: Islam, Politics, Religion, Nonfiction, History

231 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2013

Reviews

[Saif · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book draws out beautifully the inconsistency/hypocrisies of orientalists from the question of veil and sexuality, free speech to democracy. Norton sees the Islam question "as the Jewish question of our time: standing at the site where politics and ethics, philosophy and theology meet. This is the knot where the politics of class, sex, sexuality, culture, race, and ethnicity are entangled; the site where structures of hierarchy and subordination are anchored. It is here, on this terrain, that the question of the democratic—its resurgence or further repression—is being fought out.".

I rate this book three stars because although I would recommend it, it fails to see the roots of the problem. It's not due to inconsistency in liberalist ideals as Norton claims but rather because of liberalism and what's associated with it. The modern project with all its terms (secularisation, liberalism, democracy) is a process of disenchantment in Weberian terms, deflating the Ought and inflating the Is, a process of devaluating the secondary qualities. The clash of civilisations is a concept that Norton rejects. However, she understands that it's a manifestation and tool to justify and even moralise this process of disenchantment, cultural and even physical genocide of the ancients, removing the value judgments it seems such clashes exist but extremely one sided.

It reminds me of Edwards Said's writings, which are beautiful, and elegant but are written within the tradition and fail to break from it as such in a sense, it legitimises the tradition.

[Asim Qureshi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anne Norton's 'On the Muslim Question' is a work that is both meaningful and necessary. Her astute analysis provides us with wide field of vision of the way that West and Muslims interact with one another both inside and outside of the West. Her ability to link problems of language and identity with surveillance and mass incarceration highlight the depth with which she has thought of the Muslim question, and what it ultimately means for the West in the way that Muslims have been constructed. I do think at some fleeting moments Norton falls for the very trap that she advises against, but they do not detract from the overall argument at all. A highly recommended read for all.

[Jason Knoll · Rating 4 out of 5]

My brief thoughts on the book
http://jasonknoll.wordpress.com/2014/...

[Anastasia · Rating 4 out of 5]

More like 3.5-3.75. Some aspecta of this book are a bit outdated to me, some are dragged or unnecessary, but i still learnt a lot from this book. It made me deeply analyse the hypocrisy of islamophobia in many ways. So it was a good book overall.

[Jekaterina Bjalt · Rating 2 out of 5]

Жуткий, кошмарный, отвратительный, топорный перевод, за который хочется взять и уебать. Пожалуйста, не надо так делать. Так переводят только мудаки. Все нюансы оригинальных слов потеряны в переводе ("daytime television" как "дневное телевидение", "suburban mom" как "мамаша из пригорода"), а получившийся русский текст звучит настолько странно и неуклюже, что нередко приходится по нескольку раз перечитывать одно и то же предложение, чтобы понять, о чём идёт речь. При этом, понимаешь всё-таки не всегда. Редакторов тоже можно смело увольнять - много вещей, которые стоило бы объяснить хотя бы в сносках, абсолютно проигнорированы, а где сноски есть, они абсолютно бесполезны и не проливают абсолютно никакого света на суть явления. Например, про шоу Джерри Спрингера мы имеем такую сноску: "Джеральд Норман Спрингер - британско-американский телеведущий, прославившийся своим ток-шоу "Шоу Джерри Спрингера" (идёт с 1991 года)". И что это должно объяснить читателю? Тут важно не полное имя ведущего, и не с какого года передачу стали выпускать на телевидении, а то, что это дребедень вроде "Окон" Нагиева или любого ток-шоу с Малаховым. В общем, полный стыд.


Касательно самой книги, насколько я её смогла понять вопреки никуда не годным переводу и редактуре, я могу сказать следующее: там есть пара неплохих, достойных идей, и написана она из добрых побуждений. Это если брать что-то положительное. В общем и целом, однако, если вы хотите узнать что-то новое, то возьмите почитать что-нибудь другое. Книга крайне бедна фактами, и основывается в основном на интерпретации общеизвестных феноменов и опровержении мыслей философов, писателей и публичных фигур, причём в большинстве своём делается это с помощью оголтелой и далеко идущей деконструкции, которая быстро набивает оскомину. Об исламе и о мусульманах как таковых, вопреки названию книги, тут написано не так уж и много - основная часть текста уходит под критику Запада. Часто обоснованную и оправданную, отрицать этого я не буду, но позиция "а у них негров линчуют" очень сильно отдаёт ватной риторикой. Я не считаю, что если одно общество далеко от совершенства (которое в принципе недостижимо), то оно не имеет права указывать другому обществу на его недостатки. Недостатки есть везде, давайте друг у друга учиться. Соглашусь с автором книги в том, что это никогда не должно перерастать в насилие и военные интервенции, но совершенно неоправданным я это не нахожу. Автор также старательно умалчивает и обходит острые углы, посвящая таким проблемам, как изнасилование, женское обрезание и позиция сексуальных меньшинств, буквально пару обтекаемых, ничего не говорящих строчек. Это уже попахивает вытеснением по Фрейду. В общем, книгу никому не порекомендую, информативность её крайне мала, она полна общих мест и деконструктивистского вуду, а дряной перевод сводит хотя бы удовольствие от слога и общего гуманистического настроя книги на нет.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

An intriguing but somewhat odd work by a political theorist at the University of
Pennsylvania. The approach is left of center, feminist, and sympathetic to Islam.
The author teaches both Muslim political philosophy and popular culture, and
this range is reflected by the wide range of topics examined and the eclectic variety of authors and political figures whose views Norton critiques in this
volume, e.g., Paul Berman, Pim Fortuyn, Ibn Khaldun, Sayyid Qutb, and John
Rawls,

[Erdoan A. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book and very easy going

Many time you ask yourself "she is right, why didn't I think this way before?"

A MUST READ

[Tammam Aloudat · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is without a doubt one of the best books I have read this year. The insights Anne Norton has, as a white non-Muslim, into both Muslims and those who declare them the enemies is quite astonishing and she writes beautifully and convincingly. More importnatly, she is compassionate and understanding and capable to separating the bullshit from real information, lives, and politics.

This topic has always been difficult for me as a non-believing Muslim. In my youth, I have wanted to "assimilate" to Western culture. That was a mistake, and furtunately it didn't work well. Regardless to religious piety, growing up in a Muslim-majority society like Syria imprint a certain view of the world that is different from that of a Londoner, and there is no hope (or anything good) in trying to mimic and adapt. As years went by, and by trial and error and some thinking I have moved away from wanting to be "like" others into what I hope is a more selective shaping of myself that balances way to many desparate factors. Always a work in progress.

Norton talks about identities and politics, about prejudices and opression, and about how the West has decided that Muslims are the enemy just as they have, in previous centuries made the same assumption about Jews. On the Muslim question carries shades of thought from Marx's "On the Jewish Question" as well as many reflections that are pertinent for our times and politics.

I am not probably not the intended audience of this book, but I have enjoyed it thoroughly, both for the arguments and for the ability to write convincingly and with compassion. I will go now and look up more of Anne Norton's work.

[Junaid Matlub · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fearless and thought provoking read that ultimately I agree with, the "otherization" of Muslims is indeed a way to avoid the difficult domestic conversations about our own failures and anxieties.

Despite covering a wide range of topics, this remains a concise book; a less talented writer would have to constantly remind the reader that quoting the Muslim brotherhood along with other controversial groups and regimes doesn't mean they support them.

As a Muslim, whilst I do appreciate Norton's attempts to present Islam as compatible in the West there are points where she feels forced to use very liberal examples of Muslims which don't always represent the average Muslim. I have no qualms in admitting for example that the majority opinion of Muslims is that homosexuality is a sin. It is also a defining feature of Islam that regardless of what humans do, they are all a creation of God and we have to tolerate and respect them. So Norton can still make her points using the average Muslim. If we're going to have the conversation then it must be honest on both sides.

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 1 out of 5]

someone on here had the best one liners to explain the structure of this book

"An intriguing but somewhat odd work by a political theorist at the University of Pennsylvania, the approach is left of center, feminist, and sympathetic to Islam."

[Mckinley · Rating 1 out of 5]

Didn't get into this one, something about the structure.

[Alden · Rating 5 out of 5]

pertinent

[Gini · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really like this book. For one, it shows that the world is very complicated, and how often we in modern life forget to take the long view--both of the future and of the past. We assume that Now is when values have been made, and there never were values before (likewise, we often make the mistake of supposing that values are made Now and changed Now or never, that we cannot or will not or that it is impossible to wait for change because the future is guaranteed to be chaos, forgetting that we are someone else's future from the past, and in some ways that past person would be disappointed and in other ways they would be proud, and that is pretty much how everyone feels about everything and such is life). But I digress.

I don't take Norton's analysis of the fallacies of anti-multiculturalism at face value, though, and here is why. Someone so keen on the complicatedness of the world is primed to exploit that complication for their own sophistry. I know that because I do it all the time. And if you are acutely aware that all arguments are merely constructed frames that by necessity ignore certain parts of the world, and that everyone constructs their own world/narrative by pulling together selected pieces of history or fact, you can do that same thing and use it as a tool very effectively. I see Norton use her particular frame again and again to construct her arguments, and it is very effective and convincing. But it also puts her at risk to be disregarded by opponents, since she is building a tight argument that is nevertheless artificially constructed. This will give opponents of her work and those with an anti-multicultural leaning license to disregard her ideas, because under examination they can be determined to be "inaccurate." So in other words, i know that she is constructing a frame very expertly. But I am aware that I do the same, and that we all do, and that it would be a mistake to discard everything because a person says because of that. However, that isn't how the world works, or at least the worlds of publishing, academia, social theory, and editorial. People got to take sides.

That being said, I can't remember much of the substance of this book, but it was a pretty framing, and a nice mind exercise. Reminds me why I didn't go into academia, but why academia is attractive. Armchair academicians FTW!

[Azzam To'meh · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, Norton shows how the questions which arise against Muslims are actually highlighting much of the problems of the West. Whether it is sexuality, equality, freedom of speech, democracy, and much more, the West is facing a crisis, and Muslims are put under question that. Much like the Jewish question before, the Muslim question is shaping modern Europe, and Muslims, though shaped by Europe, are simultaneously shaping it. Past the Vienna wall, the question is not in whether Europe is Christian or not; whether liberalism is a dictator regarding itself, and whether women have taken their proper role in society yet. Originally recommended by Jonathan Brown, it is a baffling book that is very well-written, and that drives the reader to question much of his/her presumptions on the West and Muslims.

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars. Interesting but kind of sloppily argued. Does a good job though of highlighting some of the more irresponsible and half-assed anti-multiculturalist tropes going around (I'm looking at you, Slavoj).

[Naz Hassan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Re-reading again. An incredible, surprising, and unexpected book from a ivy academic.
I really have to digest this one to write anything meaningful for a review.