Home
> Abu Walid al Masri, Commentary > Steve Coll’s recent post on my dialogue with Abu Walid al Masri
Steve Coll’s recent post on my dialogue with Abu Walid al Masri
Last week Steve Coll wrote a small piece on his Think Tank blog about my dialogue with Abu Walid al Masri.
According to him, my hair colour was apparently a determining factor in Abu Walid’s decision to talk to me.
He also took it upon himself to invite his readers to translate the remaining letters on my blog without so much as contacting me.
For the record, I found his post to be demeaning to me as a female researcher in this field and extremely unprofessional.
UPDATE: It has come to my attention that Steve Coll has apologised for his earlier comments.
Steve’s comments were regrettable, however, I accept his apology.
Categories: Abu Walid al Masri, Commentary
Your friend’s criticism of Coll is well put, well deserved, and entertaining to boot. Kudos on your latest article!
Thanks!
Sorry to disagree…but why else would you put the original Arabic out there unless you wanted to share it with the broader community? If you didn’t want people to see it and be able to translate it, you shouldn’t have put it out there. Once you put something out on the net (even with a copyright, which you did not have) it isn’t yours anymore – despite the rights you may claim over it…in your blog. This is one of the central challenges of blogging about something you also may publish about. But it is also one of the advantages and spurs formal and informal collaboration. Surely you understand this. On that issue, I don’t think Coll’s post was unprofessional.
However on the other issue, I happen to think Masri was primarily interested in engaging in a dialogue with you because of your work – you had been researching him and had identified him as a key figure in the movement before perhaps most people had. I don’t think the fact that you are a woman had much to do with it (if anything, that would be more likely to deter a jihadist, right?).
Thanks Ryan. I tend to agree with Ghosts of Alexander that there exists a clear protocol for not doing what Coll suggested. I’d be very sad to have to hide my research. It goes against the ethos with which I started this blog.
I did not read Coll’s suggestion that people could get a “head-start” by going to your blog as incitement to appropriate your work – I thought that he was just letting those with the necessary language skills know that the posts were in the public domain, in Arabic, and so they could get a “head start” on reading them, while non-Arabic speakers were still waiting for you to finish translating.
I can understand why you would not like the mention of your personal appearance – I have the usual feminist complaints about drawing attention to the physical appearance of women on occasions where a man’s looks would go unmentioned. However, in this instance I don’t think that Coll was being sexist, in that he was speaking in reference to al Masri’s talk about blondes. And a researcher’s identity (generally perceived through shallow signifiers such as ethnic appearance – “blonde”) is such an important part of people’s decision to talk, and how they talk – well, I don’t think it’s off-limits to mention it. To Ryan (I’m a woman btw, and Muslim, and not blonde – just to lay my own signifiers on the table) – I haven’t interviewed senior figures like al Masri, but I’ve done some interviews (as a sidebar to other reseach, not as the main focus) with leaders from the Jamaat-i-Islami and odds and sods of Taliban other-ranks (in Pakistan), and (counter-intuitively) being a woman can help (as well as making things difficult in certain situations). I don’t mean because they have the hots for you, but because they can be anxious to show that they don’t fit the stereotype of woman-hating Islamist brute and frankly I think because there’s a bit of a novelty-factor – breaks up the usual routine with a different type of company to the usual. And on the basis of very limited observation of more “Western-looking” women in similar situations, I had the impression that this could be an even more useful identity, as well as a potentially more difficult one (harder to melt into the background…). After all, a woman of Muslim background having such a conversation is moving into the realm of “questioning a male member of her own religious community who is more important than her and who she should be listening to rather than talking with”. A woman of non-Muslim background (and a Western woman in particular) having such a conversation is showing interest in Islam in general and this version of Islam in particular – transgressing “Western” boundaries and if she isn’t quite keeping the approved norms for Muslim women – well, so long as she looks as though she’s taking an interest, that’s a start. Getting back to Coll’s post – assuming that a-Masri knew that you were blonde, isn’t it noteworthy that he talked so much about blondes? I’d have probably mentioned those points (although in more convoluted academic language) if I’d been writing about it…
I have spoken in terms of “background” rather than just Muslim, Western, non-Muslim, etc, because I think there is an “ethnic” layer as well – there’s a different dynamic with converts, for example.
I hope you don’t mind these comments, I’m very interested in the ways that conversations are shaped by the participants perceived identity.
For the record. Abu Walid did not mention that I was blonde. Steve Coll did.
Oops forgot to mention, thank you for taking the time to comment.
The bright side for me is that I found your blog, despite the inappropriate remarks. I look forward to reading it. I also agree, there are clear guidelines in academia – it was inappropriate not to revert back to you.
Wanted to take a moment here to offer my dissent on this. I think Coll’s posting was admiring of Ms. Farrall’s work. The mention of her hair is based, I think, on the numerous mentions of “beauty” Al Masri makes in his first response–Al-Masri is evidently taken with Ms. Farrall’s appearance and uses the word “beauty” no less than 7 times in referring to Ms. Farrall.
As far as the the Arabic translation. I think all this that’s going on here is Mr. Coll just telling people that read Arabic that they can go and take a look at the original correspondence if they so choose.
I see nothing here that discredits Ms. Farrall, nor do I see any invitation, implied or otherwise, for other readers to go out and publish a translation and analysis of the Arabic.
I see an accomplished, Pulitzer-prize winning journalist here calling attention to the “amazing” work of another academic who just came to the former’s attention.
I see a well-meaning post, though perhaps inartful, done in good faith with good intentions/
I’m reacting from my vantage point as an American, white male who is also a big fan of Steve Coll’s work. But, for whatever it’s worth, I wanted to put in my two cents.
I also hasten to add I’m a big fan of the All Things CT site, and come to it daily.
Leah, thank you for your work and your analysis. You really are doing amazing work, and as someone who really values your work, I’m excited to see that it’s getting more and more noticed.
Paul, thanks for your readership and feedback on my blog. In relation to your comments, I feel that irregardless of the intent, the post in question was demeaning. Malice does not have to be overtly involved for something to be demeaning.
just had to post because i came to your letter exchange precisely because of Steve Coll’s post; which i had to go back & re-read (after he posted his apology today).
Of course, your right to call “demeaning” any critique you find so; however, after reading & re-reading everything again– Steve Coll’s fascination with the exchange seems very much more with Masri & Masri’s way of interacting with you, than with you personally or as researcher.
The post above, Gardennoc, I think best captures what Coll was speaking to.
Given the huge gap between these two worlds– that both you and certainly Coll have been trying to reach across; it’d be my hope that unnecessary ugliness would be avoided. Speaking directly with Coll (even across blogs) would certainly be more in the vein of like minded allies if you felt that journalist etiquette had been breached– especially so if you do in fact feel that offense was given without malice. Clearly, Coll was admiring and offering help– please reconsider your response if the goal is to change behavior you see as misguided.
Hi Leah,
I too would never have stumbled on your work were it not for Coll’s link, and I am grateful to have found it. Steve Coll has consistently proven himself to be one of the most insightful, thoughtful, and level-headed analysts of the current situation in Afghanistan — so I’m saddened that you were offended by his post. In particular, I am shocked that you find his invitation to readers to translate your work inappropriate. After all, the glory of the internet is that I, a non-Arabic speaking male sitting in Cambridge, MA, can read the correspondence between an Australian and an Afghani Talib, translated by a similarly interested person in who knows what part of the world! Of course, we will defer to your final translations — but the power of the internet is that minds can meet and contribute. By posting the original Arabic, you invite analysis of it. And Coll was both gracious and clear in acknowledging the important role you played in acquiring the letters.
I was surprised by your response: echoing others who have already posted, I read Steve Coll’s article and didn’t see what you saw, even after going back and re-reading the article in the context of your complaint, in case I missed something. It’s a foolish and insecure person that looks to find insult where none exists. And Mr. Coll was exceptionally gracious to offer an apology where none seems necessary. If Mr. Coll’s remarks needed a response (and I’m not convinced they did) the response could have been done in any number of ways that would have been more professional.
You have a great blog and a number of people, including myself, did not know it existed until Mr. Coll provided a very favorable mention of it. It’s unfortunate that what should have been an appreciated recognition by a well-known and deservedly-respected researcher and writer is marred by this response. I look forward to reading more of your blog and sincerely hope it doesn’t digress into a “tabloid” postings like this one.
Steve Coll is probably one of the most intelligent thinkers and writers on Afghanistan we’ve seen in a long time. More importantly, he is a very kind man. He is eager to celebrate other people’s research and point readers to things (like your blog) that he finds insightful. The fact that you’re upset about his inviting readers to translate Arabic letters on your blog is bonkers to me — why would you post them if you didn’t want people to read them? And why should interested non-Arabic speaking readers have to wait for you to translate the letters? If you want a monopoly on readers’ ability to decipher the letters…. don’t post them until you’ve translated them.
It’s a real shame that you reacted with such a lack of grace when one of the world’s most widely read and respected Afghanistan thinkers wrote a post saying how fascinating he thought your research was. He was paying you a compliment, for God’s sake! This exchange reflects much more poorly on you than it does on Steve Coll.
Leah,
I have to agree with the above comments, please set your ego aside for just one moment and realise the benefits Steve’s post, and praise of your work, will have on your blog and research.
As others have mentioned, if you don’t want people translating the original Arabic you posted there is a very simple solution: don’t release it to the public domain.
It would sadden me to see this unnecessarily hostile and infantile attitude detract from an otherwise interesting and competent blog.
- A concerned reader.
Ms. Farrall,
I also found your blog via Steve Coll as well. Congratulations on your research and your recent Australian article on your exchange with Abu Walid. I am eagerly forward to more posts.
Unfortunately, I thought your taking offense of Coll’s “blonde” comment was unfounded given the quote from Abu Walid he cites. How do you know your photo was a (not the) determining factor in Abu Walid’s decision to conduct a dialogue with you? He even says:
“So we become ready for an intellectual dialogue with the security beauty and the terrorist fighter, Mrs Farrall, we take a tour with her in the different field of terrorism.”
Did you not take offense to Abu Walid’s “security beauty” reference either? And if the color of your hair should not be a factor in assessing your research, why publish your own photo on this blog?
Leah,
You are acting like a spoiled child. I suspect your hysterical nature and emotional instability makes you unsuited for field work. I, for one, wouldn’t want to have to work with you.
RJS
RJS, I wonder if you were deliberately using the phrases “hysterical nature” and “emotional instability,” which are commonly used by those who feel uncomfortable or insecure in proximity to competent women. I for one, would not like to have to work with you.