Pervez Hoodbhoy-Paul Kurtz correspondence

HaiN?

Ibn Warraq has slandered somenoe? how could it be? Ibn Warraq? No, I dont beleive it. And by the way what the hell is a ``slander``. I thought you guys didn`t believe in such absurdities. What gives?

Ibn Warraq`s Article about Oreintalism is malicious at Best. I had heard of this debate about Orientalism, and When I actually read it , I found the Work to be of Immense Importance. The labours of research that Edward Said conducts over the years he wrote Oreintalism is decidedly indepth. The one thing that the Ibn Warraq and his Likes forget is that Edward Said is more than a leftist, he studied facts and presents to us the fact through literature and Poletical writings of some of the west most revered Writers. The other thing about orientalism is it never discredits any importance from those writers, he admires them for their creativity. What Orientalism shows us is how the world today has arrived at this EAST and WEST stage. How these labels are built over time by perception of racial superiority.

Mr Hoodbhoy thank you for your protest, as these so called scholars discourse their polemics to smear Intellectual Giants like Edward Said.

Following is an article I penned out of grief when I heard about the passing of that eminent scholar, recently rejected by Chowk:

Edward Said has left us. The leukaemia that crept up on him 11 years ago finally took from us one of the greatest intellectual of our age and of all ages. A man so dedicated to his belief and his causes could only be stopped by death. In one of his essays in “The Politics of Anti-Semitics” he writes “Aside from the obvious physical discomforts, being ill for a long period of time fills the spirit with a terrible feeling of helplessness, but also with periods of analytic lucidity, which, of course, must be treasured. For the past three months now I have been in and out of the hospital, with days marked by lengthy and painful treatments, blood transfusions, endless tests, hours and hours of unproductive time spent staring at the ceiling, draining fatigue and infection, inability to do normal work, and thinking, thinking, thinking.” And when men like Said think, works of genius culpability is produced. Avid readers of Said will tell you that there has not been a more secular commentator for the Arab world than Said. His emphasis on Humanism has opened new venues of study at universities across the world. He was from the beginning a bridge between the east and the west. A Christian Palestinian displaced from Palestine by Zionist Occupiers, he spent most of his life in America. He always called himself an Arab-American and described himself as having two dimensions to him, which enabled him to rationalise the world without being embedded in either. He once wrote “Perhaps you will say that I am making too many abrupt transitions between humanistic interpretation on the one hand and foreign policy on the other, and that a modern technological society which along with unprecedented power possesses the internet and F-16 fighter-jets must in the end be commanded by formidable technical-policy experts like Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Perle. But what has really been lost is a sense of the density and interdependence of human life, which can neither be reduced to a formula nor brushed aside as irrelevant. “ He kept telling us as a world that no matter what prodigious hates we nurture amongst ourselves, no matter what labels we keep giving ourselves, and no matter how many religions we front to keep declaring “Operation Enduring Freedom” or “Jihad” on each other, we are in the end, one world. A world, which after all the wars and the fires that hate flares will still depend upon each other to move on. To continue existing like it has for centuries after infinite numbers of persecution and atrocities that men continue to impose upon other men. That humanism will precede all the wars and all the hate that we so proudly brandish as our identity.
Edward Said was also terribly honest, a quality that endeared him to so many around the world. His honesty made him attack the Oslo Agreement, which America and Israel put forward as the ultimate solution. An agreement manufactured to invoke the last act of cruelty, as it displaced the Palestinians from their lands forever. Said attacked the agreement bitterly and gave us the insight into the barbarity of what Israel and the US had foreseen for the Palestinians. He resigned from Arafat’s team and pleaded to the Palestinian leader to see the Oslo agreement as it really was. Arafat in the end, after trying his best, had to give up on the Oslo Agreement, as it would have meant the final act of banishment of the people of Palestine from their lands. He writes “For the past ten years, the great fraud of Oslo was foisted on the world by the US, with hardly an awareness that only 18 per cent of the West Bank were given up, and 60 per cent of Gaza.” Yet the lies continue till this date. “Weapons of Mass destruction” to “bringing freedom and liberty” are just some of the lies that the Imperialist had bestowed upon us in the third world. Without Edward Said and his comrades we will be lost to the intricacies and the pure evil of imperialism.
He once wrote “The terrible conflicts that herd people under falsely unifying rubrics like ``America,`` ``The West`` or ``Islam`` and invent collective identities for large numbers of individuals who are actually quite diverse, cannot remain as potent as they are, and must be opposed. We still have at our disposal the rational interpretive skills that are the legacy of humanistic education, not as a sentimental piety enjoining us to return to traditional values or the classics but as the active practice of worldly secular rational discourse. The secular world is the world of history as made by human beings. Critical thought does not submit to commands to join in the ranks marching against one or another approved enemy. Rather than the manufactured clash of civilizations, we need to concentrate on the slow working together of cultures that overlap, borrow from each other, and live together in far more interesting ways than any abridged or inauthentic mode of understanding can allow. But for that kind of wider perception we need time, patient and skeptical inquiry, supported by faith in communities of interpretation that are difficult to sustain in a world demanding instant action and reaction.”
And now he is gone. Leaving us in our resistance to the occupiers, the liars and those who have imperial designs on us. A very important beam of truth has left us and burns no more. A very human heart has stopped beating from amidst us. Edward Said has left us all in a time we needed him the most. But the greatest tragedy that we have especially in the Muslim World and the world at large is that we have stopped producing Edward Saids, and are producing too many Bushs and Bin Ladins. That is our tragedy, it will also lead to our demise. Edward Said, we will miss you and the messages you have given to us to direct us towards our fate will never be taken up by the majority of the people you cared so profoundly and fought so feverishly for. But there will be a few of us who will always remember you and try our level best to carry the light of your words forward. And as you would say, Humanism will survive and live on, as you have.

Proffessor Sahib:
My eye caught this and I felt no need to read any further...
``And Warraq? Best known for his book ``Why I Am Not A Muslim``, he has done little more than replicate Bertrand Russell`s arguments for deserting Christianity. But he is no Russell.``

With all due respect, this is UTTER BULL!! Comparing Russels` 8-page essay which might just as well have been called ``Why I am not a Theist`` to Ibn-Warraq`s well-researched an annotated scholarly treatment of Historial Islam and Prophet Mohammed takes some special disingenuous-- or even, I`m tempted to say, a bit of Saminasha Syndrome.

Need I read more to know where you are coming from in this case?? I generally do respect your views, and even more, your social concern and works. But this deserves no respect.

What say Mr. TAhmed? ;-) DO I need to read at least three books and 12 essays by the professor to be able to comment on his judgment in this case? (I mean, it`s not like I`ve taken a PoMo course or anything), and I`m certainly not out to show, anymore, how I can beat crummy PoMos using their own--what`s the word?-- ``Structure``. (Who needs to be original when you can simply recycle and `thrash`!)

Rodinson on Warraq`s book:

He accumulates quotes from works criticising religion in general, the idea of God, the notion of a miracle etc….in brief he summarises all the traditional polemic in Europe and America against the established religions. In this domain, the European reader will not learn a great deal. All that has been well-known, commonplace in the West for a long time. But the public in the Islamic world (if it dares to to acknowledge it) will be astonished, stupefied, shocked, offended.


Warraq has done little more than rehashing the traditional arguments against religion -- many of which are found in Russell`s writing. As far as the ``scholarly annotation`` is concerned...yaar there is no new research in that book. There are no new ideas. It is all old hat. I really don`t understand why people are so impressed by this book, except for the novelty value of a Muslim writing against islam.

Dr. HoodBhoy,

Ibn Warraq epitomises the mental state of a recent convert. I`ve personally met a large number of such converts, who have this need to prove themselves and rest of the world, their reason for deserting the past. They invariably show contempt for their previous path, and why not, that is the only way they can justify their conversion to wahtever it is.

I do not see any reason to be perturbed by such individuals` remark towards anybody. Edward Said`s contribution is well known and established. Ibn Warraq does offer a counter point, though a very weak and ineffectual one to Said`s ``Orientalism``. In fact his ineffectual crtique on ``Orientalism`` only makes Said`s theory look stronger. I believe, there are plenty of socities in western countries which will encourage Ibn warraqs to openly denounce individuals with original insight into their own socieites.
Just yesterday, Hugo Chavez, president of venezuala came out saying that Columbus day should not be celeberated as he brought the worlds largest genocide to the Americas. You can bet upon a thousand Ibn Warraqs to denounce barbaric native american culture and compare it with civilized conquistadors and other europeans.
I am not denying right to criticise, but it should be exercised with intellectual honesty not personal slandering. And I sympathise with you on this issue.

Adios

This ibn-Warraq guy is interesting. Apparently, his family is from Pakistan, and he gets a stipend from Kurtz, which allows him to sit in Europe and write. I wish we were all so lucky.

There is something I have never understood about certain people who leave Islam. They leave the religion, becuase they don`t like it. That part is ok, its there choice. But why, then, do they remain attached to it, and try to make a living out of it. People who leave Islam, seem more interested in writing books about it, and making money off it, then people who do not leave it.

I consider this intellectual dishonesty. If someone wants to genuinely reform Islam, they need to have enough courage to do it from the inside. And they need to do it through social movements and ideas that appeal to Muslims, themselves. Since, after all, it is Islam that they are (allegedly) trying to, ``reform.`` Invariably they end up moving to the West, and then start wrting books about (or against, depending on how one looks at it) Islam, which appeal, only to certain portion of the Western populace and media.

The fact that the writers were/are Muslims makes them quite popular in the Western media. even if they are average of below average writers. But this popularity is not due to anything they have achieved in helping the poor Muslim, they seem so concerned about. It is due more to the controversial nature of their argument.

I think there should be an ethical criteria for judging individuals who want to reform anything - specifically religion. If the net result of their controversial efforts is more popularity for them, without any improvement in the entity they are trying to, ``reform,`` then I am afraid they are only it for the popularity or money.

I haven`t read much of Ibn-Warraq. But I have read and followed Rushdie, a hell of a lot. And I think he fits the above description, with the added benefit of having very good control over the English language. He has somehow or the other painted himself as a intellecutal Muslim, ``reformer`` in the Western circles. While there isn`t a thing the guy has done for Muslims and he can hardly get any Muslim to follow him. What has happened is that his book sales have soared. And he is thus, much better known that writers like Rohinton Mistry, who are equally good, but don`t use religion to gain popularity.

I am currently writing a book on a comp. sci topic. I am also assisting a friend in writing a book, which has had some chapters published on this site. I don`t know if any of these will be published or whether they will sell. But, if today, I were to write a super controversial book on Islam (with or without facts), and could speak English well (or not so well), due to the fact that I am a Muslim writing such a book, it would definitely be published. And I would get a few television spots. And if a maulvi were to give a fatwa against me, well, then sky is the limit. Would anyone know who Taslima Nasrin was, if she had written a novel that was not about religion?

Aren`t such individuals then, just as guilty of using religion for their own benefit, as are the mullahs thet themselves daily accuse in their writings.

Said was a great man but it would be nice to hear some some substantive arguments against Ibn Warraq.

Instead we have the following:

1. He is a convert. We can`t be telling the truth. There goes the credibility and voice of all converts.

2. He is repeating what others Russel said. Really? But how does that even matter? Should you not be looking at what he is saying? Or is that not allowed?

3. Said was a scholar. He was. But scholars can also be highly polemical. In their polemical role, some scholars may be given to saying things that would not be scholarly at all.

5. Said is dead. True, we should leave him alone. But the significance of his death can be politicized. If that happens, both his supporters and opponents have a right to air their views.

Said`s contributions are well known. But to slander Ibn Warraq by dismissing his work as just slander would not be very Said-like.

Romair #6

There is a clear reason why people who awaken to Islam`s deep problems and have the courage to leave it, speak out against it, and should do so.

Islam is not a religion of the self. It is a religion of the other. It encourages you to force your understanding of Islam on others. It calls for a `virtue` police, and the creation of a `virtuous` Islamic state.

If anyone finds Islamic `virtues` offensive, as most non Muslims do, they must speak out against them. Ex Muslims are best placed to do so, since they suffered Islam first hand. What better proof of what these ex Muslims say than the fact that they have to hide behind pseudonyms. Some Islamic idiot will count on having good time in Islamic heaven were he able to kill such an apostate, a duty not discouraged in Islam.

If Islam left others alone, others will have very little interest in this set of arabic beliefs. But Islam does not leave others alone. It has unmistakable fascist tendencies. For proof again one has to rely not on what some Muslims may want to believe, but on the entire expanse of Islamic history and geography.

I know you oppose those who oppose fascism because you call opposition to fascism by the name of fascism. But that is too tricky for most people. They refuse to get it.

#7

My Dear RationalFaith,

Welcome to the world of ``I don`t really have a counter to the argument, so I`ll attack the man.`` I don`t really hold a brief for Ibn Warraq one way or the other, other than to think that Romair does have a point of sorts, but you really cannot criticize Said on this website without being immediately labelled a lackey of the right-wing Americo-Zionist anti-Arab anti-Muslim worldwide conspiracy. I`ve been attacked for weeks for trying to ask some questions about Said`s scholarship without anyone actually coming out and saying here is where Said`s critics are absolutely wrong.

Don`t hold your breath waiting to be told just where Ibn Warraq is wrong on Said.

Regards.

PS: Let me wave my pro-Palestinian credentials here. Israel is the last of the European White Settler colonies (although the majority of its Jews are now Sephardic); many Palentinians were ethnically cleansed from what is now Israel; there was a massacare at Deir Yassin; the settler policy is morally and legally unjustifiable; having a Jewish but not Palestinian Right of Return is, again, morally unjustifiable; the Palestinians are being punished for the White European engineered Holocaust; etc. etc.

correction
``So has, I suppose, every one who has ever set out to write a critical history of belief post Russell.

re. MNI #3
``Warraq has done little more than rehashing the traditional arguments against religion -- many of which are found in Russell`s writing``
So has, I suppose, every one who has ever set out to write a critical history of belief. I mean, given Russel`s prolificness o nthe subject, you cannot avoid having traces of him in your work. More power to you then!

But Professor sahib`s contention was that Warraq`s magnum opus was a bad copy of Russel`s ``Why I am not a Crhistian``, which is an 8-10 page essay. Has Prof. sahib even read the essay?

RationalFaith #9: ``I know you oppose those who oppose fascism because you call opposition to fascism by the name of fascism. But that is too tricky for most people. They refuse to get it.``

I have never interacted with you, so I don`t know how you can make statements about knowing me. I oppose all types of fascism - including Islamic fascism, Hindu fascism, Secular fascism, Christian fascim and any other fascism. I also oppose individuals who try to create controversy by abusing any religion, without facts. As you have done, in your reply. If you notice, I have not made a single derogatory comment about Hinduism, or any other religion, ever in my replies. While you have made racist generalizations about another religion, in your reply. And then you have the audacity to state, ``I know you oppose those who oppose fascism.``

You have, in essence, declared a whole religion and all its followers to be fascist. And on top of that are accuising me of that crime. This is the kind of controversy, which is big bucks, and which I consider to be intellectual dishonesty. Any kind of a, ``reform`` based on hatred of a religion never works. If I tried to, ``reform`` Hinduism, by hating the religion, to begin with, I doubt I would be successful. Same is the case of individuals like yourself, you try to use the facade of, ``reform`` to vent their hatred of another religion.

``Islam is not a religion of the self. It is a religion of the other. It encourages you to force your understanding of Islam on others. It calls for a `virtue` police, and the creation of a `virtuous` Islamic state.``

You seem too sure of yourself and your knowledge of Islam. You should attach a disclaimer of, ``In my opinion`` before each one of your statements. Since you are greatly generalizing and providing no facts. I would be interested in a statistical discussion with you on these issues, to point out the lack of factual information in your arguments.

Were you to make such a racist comment about Judaism, the Jewish organizations would be on you like a blanket on a bed. You wouldn`t know what hit you. Just remember, they made Micheal Jackson delete the phrase, ``Jew me`` from his song. And are now targeting Mel Gibson for his latest movie.

This is exactly the kind of comments I oppose whole-heartedly about any religion - not just about Islam. And this is exaclty why I consider many of the writers who try to make a living through controversy about Islam, to be intellectually dishonest. They in fact, make very self-righteous comments, accusing ironically, Islam of being self-righteous.

There are hundreds of millions of Muslims following Islam, who are just trying to make end`s meat. Including me. They have never tried to force Islam on anyone. How many Goras working in Pakistan have been converted to to Islam. How many Muslims do you see on the US media, trying to, ``force`` themselves onto anyone. The poor guys are on the defensive even before the interview starts. In fact, the only Western media I have seen where the Muslims aren`t afraid to go toe to toe with everyone is the Canadian media. Everywhere else, they rarely get a fair deal. Do a calcuation, and you will soon discover that Muslims get a disproporitionatley lower access to media outlets in the Western world in comparison to other groups with equivalent populations.

In fact, the only individuals I see getting time on the US media are Muslims who have successfully been able to create contrversy in their books. There are other, ``Muslim`` scholars in the world, yet they are never given the time of day. Why?

I have nothing against genuine research in Islam. I try to indulge in it myself. But it has to be based on fact. And it would be great if it were well-intentioned. But even if it isn`t well-intentioned, it should at least be factual. What one sees are individuals who just create controversy, with half their arguments based on facts, and the other half based on fiction, trying to proclaim themselves as a, ``refomers`` of Islam. It is big business.

Nobody would listen to a Muslim or ex-Muslim if he claimed himself to be a reformist of Financial theories or the international banking system, or of Christianity etc. But the moment a Muslim starts creating controversy around Islam, he becomes a reformer. Why? Why not just consider him a guy who likes to create controversy. I don`t think such guys should be forced to shut up. But they should not be considered the next, ``big hope`` for Islam either.

And why in the world do such individuals keep trying to reform Islam, when they themselves are not interested enough to follow it? Such individuals then rely on extremist generalizations to push their points. Just in your reply alone, you have made many such generalizations:

1. ``clear reason why people who awaken to Islam`s deep problems and have the courage to leave it, speak out against it, and should do so``

There is in fact no clear reason. It maybe clear to you. But that does not mean it is clear to everyone. Generally if someone wants to reform something, they will be far more effective if they do so from the inside. For example, it would be a bit difficult for me to reform Pakistan, if I migrated out of it. Who would listen to me? There are in fact, far more individuals, perhaps hundreds to thousands times more individuals who are trying to carry out genuine, ``reform`` in Islamic countries, without changing religions. They just do not create controversy to promote themselves.

``Islam is not a religion of the self.``

Once again, this is your opinion. I don`t agree with it. Nor would most Muslims.

``It encourages you to force your understanding of Islam on others.``

Another generalization. Do you have any facts to back this up with? Are a majority of Muslims in the world forcing their Islam on others? They can barely support themselves. They don`t even have the power to force others to come an invest in their countries, much less force others to follow their religion.

``It calls for a `virtue` police, and the creation of a `virtuous` Islamic state.``

This is really news for me. And I have been a Muslim all my life. Could you highlight how you have concluded it. I certainly don`t believe in it. Overwheliming number of Muslims have voted for non-Maulvi leaders till the 90s, even when the non-Maulvis have been extremely corrupt. In fact, if you go to literally any Muslim country and offer someone a visa to get out of the country, he/she will jump at the opportunity. If they were trying to create a virtous Islamic state, why in the world would they want to leave it? If you don`t believe me, just go and see the visa queues outside foreign embassies. Also can you point me to any Islamic organzation in North America, whose agenda it is to, turn the USA and Canada into virtious Islamic states?

``If anyone finds Islamic `virtues` offensive, as most non Muslims do``

Do you have any statistics that state that most non-Muslims find Islamic virtues offensive. Most non-Muslims barely know anything about Islam. To know about Islam, one has to at the very very least study the Quran, end to end. Are you seriously stating that a majority of non-Muslims have studied the Quran. My guess would be that less than five percent of non-Muslims have read the Quran, end to end. How then can they even form an opinion, about the offensiveness or lack their off, of Islamic virtues? If I form an offensive opinion about Hindu virtutes, without having read the Hindu religious texts, then I think I should be the one who is considered offensive. Not the Hindu religion.

And even after reading Hindu texts, If I were to find Hindu virtues offensive, should I make a living of speaking out against them. What would I gain? I would just piss off a lot of Hindus, and cause unnecessary violence. I should avoid those virtues, and leave them to the Hindus. That is why I feel if someone finds Islam offensive, he/she should switch religions. But after that, he/she should go on his/her own merry way. Why do they feel such an addiciton to remain attached? Because it makes good money, that is why.

``Ex Muslims are best placed to do so, since they suffered Islam first hand.``

This is another generalization with no factual basis. Most prominent Muslims who switched religions were not, ``suffering,`` when they switched. They were actually quite well off as Muslims. They switched religions because they just did not like Islam. That is fine. It is their choice. But to say they, ``suffered`` is a cheap shot. Let us take the case of Salman Rushdie. He switched religions (and then maybe came back). Did he suffer as a Muslim? He was one of the richest Muslims in the world, living it up in England. He switched for intellectual reasons. He only, ``suffered`` when he wrote a book after having switched religions. Granted the fatwas against him were wrong, but he, himself was also milking religion to sell books.

I doubt Ibn-Warraq suffered. Though I don`t know much about him. From whatever I read, he lived in Europe from an early age. Again, any Muslim who can move to Europe is generally one of the richest Muslims in the world. Where is the, ``suffering?``

So on and so forth. Generally the Muslims who do suffer, like the poor labourer in Pakistan, are the most devout Muslims. You will rarely see them switching religion. I could understand if such individuals switched religions and then got on the controversy bandwagon. But I fail to understand the individuals who switch religion (any religion) for their own reasons, and then become, ``reformers.``

``What better proof of what these ex Muslims say than the fact that they have to hide behind pseudonyms.``

This is wrong also. Was Ibn-Warraq attacked by Hoodbhoy (who is a Muslim) at the conference he attended. How many Muslims are calling for the heads of Ibn-Warraq on this site, because he is an ex-Muslim.

Have you done any analysis and comparisons on how many ex-Muslims write under a pseudonym? There are many ex-Muslims who do not write under pseudonyms. In fact, my guess would be that most don`t. Rushdie doesn`t write under one. Tariq Ali, is an ex-Muslim and he does not write under a pseudynym. In addition, the ones who do write under pseudonyms do so not because they are afraid that they will be torchered by the Muslim walking on the street. But, because they are afraid of the act of a single Muslim. My guess would be the later.

Could you name ten ex-Muslim writers who are hiding under pseudonyms?

``Some Islamic idiot will count on having good time in Islamic heaven were he able to kill such an apostate, a duty not discouraged in Islam.``

This is another ridiculous and racist comment. There are idiots in every society. Why attach the prefix Islamic to it? Do a quick calculation, and you will figure out that more Muslims have been killed by individuals of other religion in the past ten years than vice-versa. And in the case of the Muslim deaths, they have been carried out with the consent of the general population of the countries, killing them. While the Muslims, who have been carrying out the deaths, generally operate in independent organiztions.

I would seriouly encourage you to do the calcuations. If you are unwilling to do them, I will count them out for you in my next reply.

``But Islam does not leave others alone. It has unmistakable fascist tendencies.``

This is ridiculous also. How many countries has, ``Islam`` colonized in the past century? How many Islamic countries have been colonized in the past century? Can you provide teachings in Islam, which state, that, ``A Muslim must colonize.`` Once again, I would encourage you to answer the question, or I will provide the statistics for you.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Romair,

``This ibn-Warraq guy is interesting. Apparently, his family is from Pakistan, and he gets a stipend from Kurtz, which allows him to sit in Europe and write. I wish we were all so lucky.``


Your sentiment is understandable.

I mean there are other pakistanis too...living in the west...being paid to write.
Silently they toil....day and night...with many nicks and IP addresses.

Are they recognised, do they win awards, Hell no!

Romair #6

{{There is something I have never understood about certain people who leave Islam. They leave the religion, becuase they don`t like it. That part is ok, its there choice. But why, then, do they remain attached to it, and try to make a living out of it. People who leave Islam, seem more interested in writing books about it, and making money off it, then people who do not leave it.}}

The most salient fact is that Islam is not simply a personal and private faith. It forcibly injects itself into the public realm by rejecting the separation of mosque and state and demanding a say in worldly affairs. It implies a certain social and political order. It is in practice the most overtly political of the major religions. Serious adherents to Islam whenever they attain substantial political power invariably try to remake their surroundings in the image supposedly dictated by Islam.

Consequently, like all political ideologies, Islam becomes fair game for anyone – Muslim, ex-Muslim, non-Muslim - to analyze, scrutinize, dissect, attack, ridicule, savagely satirise, pummel, pillory, mercilessly lampoon, etc. It is of course to be expected that Muslim dogmatists would resent such attacks and try to muzzle them, just as political and religious dogmatists of all other shades try to suppress hostile opinions. But in free democratic countries they have no recourse but to learn to tolerate the contrary opinions that they would rather see snuffed out.

You might also want to consider the possibility that people can make a living out of attacking Islam precisely because the state of Islam in practice is so utterly scandalous. Other religions have had to suffer decades if not centuries of open attacks and muckraking as a consequence of which their worst abuses have been somewhat ameliorated. Not so with Islam.

{{I consider this intellectual dishonesty. If someone wants to genuinely reform Islam, they need to have enough courage to do it from the inside. And they need to do it through social movements and ideas that appeal to Muslims, themselves. Since, after all, it is Islam that they are (allegedly) trying to, ``reform.``}}

Here once again is the familiar Muslim error of conflating the religion and the host society. There may be no desire to reform Islam at all. A person’s desire may be to reform the society he belongs to or comes from by purging it of its most pernicious ideologies. For a society that happens to be ‘Islamic’ in the sense of majority birth religion, the most harmful ideology might be identified as Islam itself. It is perfectly consistent for a person to judge that he can only reform an ‘Islamic’ society and improve the lot of Muslims-by-birth, by attacking, discrediting, ridiculing, undermining and eventually destroying Islam itself.

Not to mention that Islam despite being decentralized has very powerful mechanisms for punishing open dissent and enforcing an unusual degree of public conformity. Someone who tries to ‘reform Islam from within’ is quite likely to be declared a blasphemer, an apostate, wajib-ul-qatl, etc. the moment he steps outside narrowly circumscribed bounds, and would be lucky to escape with his life.

{{Invariably they end up moving to the West, and then start wrting books about (or against, depending on how one looks at it) Islam, which appeal, only to certain portion of the Western populace and media.}}

There is actually a very strong parallel with Soviet Communism, another totalitarian religious ideology. A Russian patriot might have strongly believed that Communism had to be destroyed for Russia and Russians to survive and eventually prosper. Those naïve and idealistic enough to try to ‘reform the reform the system from within’ would find themselves in the Gulag in fairly short order. Meanwhile the analogues of Romair would have been excoriating dissidents for ‘intellectual dishonesty’ for not working through social movements that appealed to the proletariat itself.

A number of intellectual opponents of Soviet communism did indeed manage to move to the West and started writing books about (or against) Soviet Communism, with a certain following in the West. The best known of them was Alexander Solzhenitsyn. It turned out that his works also had substantial underground circulation in his native land. I hope the day is not far off when Ibn Warraq’s books are clandestinely circulated and eagerly read in Pakistan and other Islamic countries.