More on Akbar Ahmed

I recently blogged about a lecture I attended by the noted Pakistani Muslim intellectual Akbar S Ahmed. Here's a good op ed on him from a veteran Pakistani columnist. It isn't new but I just noticed it. Probably the best summary of the man, from someone who has known him personally for some time (although not necessarily on totally friendly terms!). So yes the basic conclusion on Ahmed is it's good that Muslims have him around, people in the West listen to him. But he's also a tireless self promoter, and his message lacks something of a critical edge. Ahmed may have pulled some punches to promote interfaith dialogue. I suppose someone has to do it.

UPDATE: I'm sure I'll sound like a cyber stalker now. But I've been checking out other blog reactions to Akbar Ahmed. And there seems to be a lot of respect and sympathy for his views on both sides of the political spectrum. Those on the right tend to view his latest book as a message that he is trying his best to champion the cause of the moderate Muslims. But it's an uphill battle because most Muslims are pretty backward these days. Which is something of an insight, perhaps. In other words, might the price of trying to remain 'neutral' and not offend anyone be actually to support the status quo? While it's too early to be entirely definitive, I'm beginning to think the answer is yes, and the biggest hint of this is the fact that Akbar's discourse operates within the framework of "Islam and the West". Not only does this play into the idea of two separate civilisations with alarming parallels to the Cold War. It also marginalises the rest of the humanity who don't happen to be in 'the West' or the 'Muslim world'. The cynic in me thinks, well, at least Ahmed has got a good paying job in the US with an impressive title. Of course I say that reluctantly because Akbar is a fellow Pakistani and one of the few eloquent voices we've got internationally.

Anyway this situation sort of reminds me of the entire humanitarian industry which is lined with a lot of well intentioned people who end up not really fundamentally changing the lot of the world's poor while, at the same time, managing to get a healthy income. Certainly that was my experience working in native title for four years in Australia.

On a slightly more broader note, reading about the Akbars and the Malloch Browns, the supposed saviours from within the establishment, does get me feeling a little down. It makes me think that to get into a position of influence, to change things, one has to be something of a self promoter. To put it another, more eloquent way; does a person have to be a wanker to get a bit of attention?