The topic of "political Islam", always a magnet for reader's attention since September 11, has been cleverly and cynically trotted out for assessment and relative-values dissection in "Wanted Women", a "dual biography" of two women raised in the culture and the creed, but who espoused diametrically opposite postures on the matter. The author, Deborah Scroggins, is supposedly a "veteran reporter" but, in "Wanted Women", she abandons objectivity and adopts the more lofty position of Grand Inquisitor. The book is a terrible screed and is remarkable only for the cynicism of the author.
Unfortunately for large segments of the Arab and non-Arab Muslim worlds, their "star" has followed a rapid trajectory from the firmament. During the glory days of the caliphites, when Islamic giants strode the world, large chunks of the globe fell under the Islamic ambit, both intellectually (astronomy, math, etc) and politically. The Empire falls; the trajectory until the relatively recent past has been one of precipitous descent. Crash phase finally happened with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War.
As Western colonial empires collapsed and the Islamic world searched for a new direction, various ideologies captured Muslim public and elites' attentions, pan-Arab Nasserism being one well-known example. Apart from the fortuitous presence of oceans of oil, the social, economic and political economies of most Islamic (and all Arab) countries languished in the doldrums under various authoritarian regimes: check reports from Freedom House, United Nations Development Report for particulars (if needed).
Not surprisingly, this situation presented fertile ground for the newest (or oldest) panacea: religion, in this case political Islam. In "Wanted Women", two avitars of reaction to Islam (the religion and the culture) are chosen for scrutiny. One is Aafia Siddiqui and the oher, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The book profiles these two women in biographical form and then proceeds to render judgment on the relative "worth" of each referenced to Scoggins' peculiar standard.
Once the biographical sketches are over, the Scoggins book degenerates into little more than an undignified polemic and crudely tendentious diatribe against Ali. As an example of the author's intellectual rigor, ponder this inane and grossly insulting "insight", "Like the bikini and the burka or the virgin and the whore, you couldn't quite understand one without understanding the other." If you can grasp that formulation, it shouldn't require a giant leap of logic to accept that Ali is the "bikini baby" (whore) and the crown was bestowed on the ethnically true (and therefore politically valid) burka-wearing Siddiqui.
Consider Sididiqui's diverse virtues according to Scoggnis. They include Hitlerian-style anti-Semitism (despite attending Brandeis University), adopting the burka and, the zenith (the triple crown-achievement) becoming the unique female operative in Al Qaeda. Hirsi Ali, on the other hand, decided that genital mutilation, male-dominance, complete surrender (or subjugation, if you will) to a set of edicts, strictures and sundry limitations on life didn't fit her style. Accordingly, she moved West. She became a parliamentarian in The Netherlands, moved to the US (after receiving credible Islamist death threats, sweetened in "Godfather Part 1" fashion by the illustrative murder of her friend and Dutch collaborator Theo van Gough, replete with a death threat directed against her, pinned to his chest with a knife). Adding to Ali's sins, she took up residence at a "right wing" American think tank. Adding to this indictment, her books (including the excellent "Infidel") are, in author Scroggins' view, guilty to inciting "racial hatred" ("Islamophobia" in the jargon), thereby eclipsing Siddiqui's sins by a light-year's distance. Amongst other damning particulars marshaled against Ali: she had her hair straightened (gasp!) and supposedly used a ghostwriter (the horror!!!)
This book is intellectually insulting and entirely unconvincing in its assessments and conclusions. If Scoggins really believes what she wrote (and isn't simply manipulating for publicity), her pervasive prejudices and crude judgments disqualify her as a "serious" reporter...but they do nicely qualify her as a simple polemicist.
Viewed from another perspective, Scoggins herself is redolent of patronizing racism, denying for the individual (the Muslim dissenter) the same sort of freedom she extends to the group (Islamists). This is the argument made by French "New Philospher" Pascal Bruckner (in "La Tyrannie de la Penitence") both in the general form and in the specific as applied to none other than Hirsi Ali, this being written years before Scoggins published her book. Bruckner noted, amongst other things about some Western commentators that, "This was the inability to draw even the most elementary of distinctions. In the post-modern idea, the Enlightenment has come to be looked upon as merely one more set of cultural prejudices, no better and very likely rather worse than other sets of cultural prejudices...From this point of view, someone like Hirsi Ali, who grew up in an atmosphere of Islamist radicalism and the Muslim Brotherhood in Africa and has taken up a new outlook committed to rationalism and individual freedom, has merely gone from one fundamentalism to another...But this means that Hirsi Ali's critics have lost the ability to distinguish between a fanatical murderer [van Gough at the time Bruckner wrote this; Siddiqui in the Scoggins book] and a rational debater." Q.E.D.
Dumas wrote, "Rogues are preferable to imbeciles because sometimes they take a rest." It will be interesting to see if the author takes a rest.