Who Are the MeK?

In the current discussion regarding the situation in Iran, which is becoming more heated than based on logical, political and strategical arguments - on any sides, the name of the MeK - Mujahedin-e Khalq (in English, the People's Holy Warriors) appears more often that it might be. A controversial movement, with barely any support within Iran, based on a bizarre mixture of Marxism and Islam, with clear cultish orientation, MeK invested an enormous amount of money in being taken from the list of terrorist organisations (during Obama administration) and nowadays, found its voice amplified through Pres. Trump's lawyer, Rudolf Giuliani, or the staunch supporter of bombing Iran, at any price, John Bolton. 

If people like Giuliani and Bolton are far from being naive and their participation to events in support of MeK is handsomely rewarded, there is a certain naive approach among people that all their life lived in democracies regarding who really are the 'freedom fighters'. It happened often during the Cold War, when people escaping communist states presented themselves as 'alternatives' to different dictatorships, told some moving half-truth stories about their persecutions and the role in building up a possible opposition, took the money and lived well ever after. In the case of MeK, less known is the cultish aspects of the ideological commitment. 

A couple of years ago, the prestigious RAND Corporation prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense a report about MeK in Iraq, which covers not only specific details regarding the then presence of MeK in this country -which they supported during the decade war against Iran - but also information about the elements of the cult. A welcomed reading for those who want to understand this group and have a well-informed opinion about this part of the world.
PS: Some of the MeK members were trained in the PLO camps in Jordan and Lebanon.

Against Labels

Don't Label Me by Irshad Manji is not an academic book in the very strict, elitist sense of the world. Rather a collection of thoughts and ideas about diversity, race, gender and their enemies, told as a dialogue between the author and her dog - a choice that it doesn't necessarily resonate with my academic/writing style - it analyses through examples and personal experiences the impact of stereotypes and ready-made ideas. 

Based on cultural, gender and personal history experiences, we are rather tempted to operate with labels than with open identifications. We don't have time, we don't trust our judgement and the challenges of new situations. Therefore, it is much better to apply the label used for a community to the entire sum of the individuals it is made of. It is also safe, as human nature is rather tempted towards the familiar than to the unusual and original - be it in ideas, feelings or personalities.

Irshad Manji is not stranger to controversy. Pledging for a reform of Islam, without placing herself on an atheist position, she is a person of faith that rejects dogmatism. In an approach that involves knowledge and empathy, the author demonstrates that labels - that are 'never innocent' - can be avoided following a careful deconstruction. A life where the use of labels is minimal is a life where individuals are free to be read and express themselves because once someone is instantly assigned a specific box of features, they 'involuntarily' turn into an 'avatar of other people's projections'. 'When one let labels stand in for people, we end up manipulating people. Our shared humanity, along with our distinctive individuality loses out'. 

When it comes to multiculturalism, the risk is to prefer to use the label(s) in order to designate the diversity, labels that, in fact, ignore the specificities and individual character threats. Therefore, the terms turns to be just another label which operates against the supposed openness it is aimed to represent. 'A society that revels in multiculturalism resembles a room full of folks buzzinh around with identity cards stuck to their foreheads. The first thing you see is their labels'. 

Thus, if one wants to really start a social change in terms of identity and openness towards the other, one should start with difficult dialogues about the concepts easily used without a proper critical feedback. Listening shall be a faculty used in order to understand and analyse not to win over arguments. At the end of the process, changing the mind is a state of mind and it cannot be done without a proper openness about it. 

Although the book is not stuffed with theories and critical approaches, it is guided by critical thinking, a character feature that is unfortunatelly absent sometimes from the academic discussions, as often limited to pledging pro or against a theory, based on dogmatic perspectives. 

Rating: 3.5