|
Hanifa participated in a
special panel discussion that was held at the Parliament of the World's
Religions in Melbourne December 2009. See below:
PANEL DISCUSSION
ABSTRACT: THE HAZARDS OF WRITING ABOUT RELIGION
The panel comprises of
writers representing different writing genres including:
non-fiction, journalism, reportage, and academic writing.
Writing about religion
is fraught with potential hazards for authors. How does one deal
with sensitive themes like religious vilification, conversions,
persecuted religious minorities, conflicting beliefs, claims of
supremacy and the interface between religion and politics? How can
one deal with difference and possible tensions without falling into
a crusading spirit or becoming a bland harmonist ‘papering’ over
conflicts?
Sometimes writers who
articulate their own traumas provide fuel to polemics. So how does
one explore differences in a way that keeps dialogue open? How do
you bridge the distance between your own religious background and a
religion not your own?
On the other hand it
is the writer’s task to harness subjectivity to create a
colourful, page- turning narrative without distorting the truth or
writing fiction. And often it’s the journalist’s role to write
about complex issues within a 350 word-limit while coping with an
impatient editor.
How do you stay true
to yourself as a writer without censoring yourself and how do you
avoid being sued? Finally how do you engage a wider readership not
necessarily interested in ‘religious topics’?
Panel: Hanifa Deen, Dr James Jupp, Barney
Zwartz (Religion Editor,
The Age),
Dr. Khotari (Indian Newspaper Editor)
Chairperson: Rabbi Aviva Kipen
OVERVEW
BY CHAIRPERSON, Rabbi Aviva Kipen, January 2010
From the academic
to the practical, the four speakers captured the audience’s
attention despite the obvious signs of ‘conference fatigue’. I
was impressed by how very focused audience members were which was
reflected in their questions during the Q & A session.
Having never
written a book, published for a newspaper, or written a blog etc, I
wondered initially why I was invited to chair the session. But,
perhaps after 15 years of work in the interfaith scene in
Melbourne
, there was a place for a woman rabbi—even if only for a little
gender balance!
Trying to
anticipate the content and the dynamics of the session in advance
represented a challenge, especially as Dr Kothari, the distinguished
editor of a major Indian newspaper in Rajasthan, joined us at the
last minute. Writing about religion has the potential to be so
hazardous, but it soon became clear that no one was out to be
inflammatory or sensational. Speakers and listeners worked on a
two-way exchange with a clarity and directness that never became
brusque.
Many of the
questions focused on newspaper journalism. It was clear that the
driving philosophy of
Melbourne
’s The Age is very different to that of the
India
’s Patrika. Whilst Dr Khotari and Barney Schwartz occupied
different positions on many issues, because of the differences in
Indian and Australian society, especially communal tensions between
Hindus, Muslims and Christians, which Indian newspaper editors and
journalists needed to be mindful of, they also shared some of the
same problems plaguing journalists the world over: expediency vs.
quality, polish vs.
sales, reflective pause vs. ‘news’.
Deciding whether a
story should be published because it was in the public interest do
so, led to a discussion over who exactly made these decisions and on
what criteria.
The audience was
also interested in the workings of the daily press. What were the
realities of getting stories to print? The Parliament of Religions
with its plethora of different faiths also provided a template for
the resolution of many of the problems faced by writers as they
‘wrestled’ with religion.
The new electronic
media came in for some scrutiny. In this age of new media, official
websites are only a small part of the news landscape. Questioners
asked about the status of journalism credentials in an age when
every blogger and tweeter simply put their opinion ‘out there’
without any certification.
But questions also
suggested a degree of optimism, inquiring as to whether against this
burgeoning e-landscape, a “wanna-be” journalism student ought to
be encouraged towards a career in writing about religion.
Asked whether the
coverage of religion might be seen as analogous to that of sports
coverage, there was a certain “ah-ha” moment of recognition. If
the Parliament of Religions was analogous to a Footy Grand Final,
though, what constitutes the following pre-season coverage? And in
whose hands will fair and comprehensive writing on religion be
safe—and what comes next?
Questioners from
abroad, including some from among the Parliament staff and volunteer
corps, together with well-known players in the Victorian multi-faith
scene attended the session. That was heartening, as several of them
are regular letter writers and expressed their appreciation to the
press corps for coverage of the PWR.
After a full week
of conference sessions, our panel could have kept answering
questions long after the official session time. Hanifa
had sensed that there was a need for this session and was gratified,
not just by the Full House, but also the quality of interaction.
Extract
from Hanifa Deen’s Presentation
I
don’t see myself as writing about religion: theology is not my
domain. I’m an investigator interested in minorities. I like to
think of myself as a Muslim free agent, and so far in my writing
career I’ve been free from public community censure although I’m
always hoping for a fatwa… it does wonders for one’s print run.
As a writer I’ve taken advantage of growing up without a community
and written myself back into the picture…. Not feeling comfortable
in a society can be productive for a writer.
Even
today when there are 350,000 Muslims in Australia, I prefer to stand back,
observe and participate on my own terms and I thank Australian
Muslim groups for allowing me to “excommunicate” myself for my
own ends... to come and go as I please and avoid the potential
hazard of writing as an insider blind to the weaknesses of
their own community.
There’s
always the risk these days of creating “victim writing” when you
write about Muslim minorities. Where you are so busy (often for good
reason) defending Islam against the Muslim bashers—a popular sport
today that you lose your capacity to be self critical and to
empathise, for instance, with Christian & Hindu minorities, or
groups labelled as heretics—who live under duress in Muslim
societies.
Another
danger for my style of writing lies in ‘harmonising’ tensions.
I’m curious about tension; it’s great material for a writer. I
am not particularly interested in harmony…in my eyes it’s not a
page- turner. I don’t want to paper over human nature and produce
bland ‘self help’ pages. I’m interested in clarifying
conflict, asking what the boundaries are between honesty and
vilification; it’s a recurring theme in what I write.
I’m
also curious about what lies behind the official versions of some
event that makes the headlines, I often find that myth and memory
have merged and a story takes on a life of its own and you end up
with something more fictional than factual. And I quote South
African author Nadine Gordimer ‘Myth is a genre between fairy tale
and a detective story.’
Self-censorship is something we all struggle with. You want to be
honest and self-critical. You need to have an understanding of your
ethical framework. Avoiding bias is difficult; your critics are
always waiting to sniff this out and to some extent trying to strike
a balance is the best one can do. I admit to harnessing subjectivity
and making it work for me; allowing myself to use creative
techniques. As a character in my own books, however, I’m allowed
to have irreverent thoughts.
Disappointing
your publishers’ genre expectations can also be problematic as I
discovered in my Taslima Nasreen book The Crescent & the Pen.
My first publishers wanted to turn Taslima into a saint, another
female Salman Rushdie and I wanted to write about human rights
politics and how as one ‘Dragon Slayer’ said to me, alluding
about how he helped ‘rescue’ Taslima ‘ We were enchanted by
the goodness of our motives’.
And
now for a personal peeve if I may..
Writing about Muslims means I always run the risk of being
classified under ‘religion’ when my books are about human rights
and women’s issues, with a dollop of travel writing, and memoir...
so in book shops you often find me on the
‘Religion’ shelves when I should be under human rights or
current affairs. My last book The Jihad Seminar is an example
of what I mean. I find this disappointing because the religious
shelves are usually at the back of the shop!
There
are also the usual author risks of becoming neurotic or narcissistic
and impossible to live with. Upsetting one’s partner or one’s
relatives. I don’t think my mother liked my books very much; she
was given to lament: ‘Hanifa you have a good sense of humour, why
don’t you write something like Rumpole of the Bailey.’
Finally,
for me is the risk of ‘MUSLIM FATIGUE ‘setting in. I’m always
saying, ‘this is the last book I’m writing about Muslims, I’m
fed up!’ But it’s my tribe for better or for worse, in the good
times and the bad and in the end I think it’s preferable to write
about yourself than sitting back waiting for others to write about
you.
|
