The Trouble With Irshad Manji

RE: 188
You have done a far better job at reviewing this book than the article itself. Thank you for your write up.

Choos lee
why do you keep using cuss words?

I have read Irshad Manji’s book; it is a very easy read. It is written in a chatty conversational soundbite-a-minute style. Manji’s background as a television personality shows through clearly; she typically wastes no time making each point, in straightforward language, with a snappy catchphrase to round it off as far as possible. Much of the book dances lightly from topic to topic, darting off to find a fresh soft spot after landing each blow. Manji tends not to dwell on any single situation or aspect of Islam for too long after she’s revealed its absurdities, mostly leaving it to the reader to draw the expected conclusion.

If one is to take the author’s word at face value, she believes that it is possible and worthwhile to ‘reform’ Islam from within (personally I think that is an exercise in futility). I’m not sure if Manji is sincere. In my opinion her book will not change the minds of those whom childhood indoctrination has already entrenched in their Islamic faith; their reactions will be uniformly hostile. Its biggest effect is likely to be on those in the West outside the faith who haven’t made up their minds on Islam. The Islam that Manji depicts is a massively uncool, not to mention repulsively uncouth, faith, overridden with Arab tribalism, oppressing woman, mandating civic discrimination against non-Muslims, demanding unthinking submission, a sworn enemy of critical thought and free expression. It is hopelessly maladjusted in today’s world and bristles with hostility to most of the ideas that make that world run, while insisting on its own centrality and perfection. It is a dreadful religion. Despite Manji’s call for reform, non-Muslims on reading Manji’s book are likely to conclude that Islam is not worth reforming and that Islam has nothing to offer them. So Manji’s book is bad news for the future of Islam’s mindshare. It may be for this reason that Islamists have decided not to dump an apostate/blasphemer/hatemonger fatwah on Manji’s head, and thus provide her with additional free publicity.

Those who mention that the book lacks depth are quite right. For scholarship and closely-reasoned argument one would go to Ibn Warraq and his cohorts at ISIS. Ibn Warraq’s stuff is however best suited to out-and-out intellectuals and people who have the stamina to read and assimilate lengthy arguments. Manji’s book primarily targets a different but potentially much larger audience, reared on TV soundbites, with thirty-second attention spans, lacking the patience to read through Ibn Warraq and company. For these people, who prefer executive summaries, Manji’s book is just the ticket. So complaints about Manji’s superficiality from both proponents and foes of Islam miss the point. Manji’s book through its very superficiality may do more direct damage to Islam’s mindshare than Ibn Warraq alone ever could.

hamidm,

``....... now what was the reason behind the 70+ deaths in sialkot and multan over the last three days ?``

Good point. No one has ever claimed that there are no psycopaths who would kill in the name of religion. What does that have to do with Iraq or Palestine, or Sri Lanka, or Japan, or wherever? One is small-time gang-banging, paki style. The others are quite different.


``.......... i wouldn`t be surprised if you think that the carnage was part of the great zionist conspiracy - afterall i haven`t met a ``real`` muslim yet who doesn`t believe that the jews were behind 9/11``

You probably don`t even socialze with ``real`` muslims. Get off your arse and turn off the computer and the CNN...live a lil` bud.

---

BruceLee,

Hamidm and yourself are people who openly support the killing of massive amounts of civilians through state-sponsored actions. Sugar coat it however you like, but that`s the bottom line. The difference between you and supporters of terrorists, of whom I am not a part, is that the latter are simply more honest. No bullshit attempts at sugar coating the obvious.

Deal with it.

fartex said to hamidm:

``And that makes you, not these desperate suicide bombers, a rather pitiable person``

There you have it straight from the mouth of a slavering Islamic extremist, hamidm is a pitiable person, not a suicide bomber who kills innocent children women and men. hamidm says something that fartex disagress with, and that puts him lower down in the scale of morality than a psychopathic fanatic who blows himself up in a crowd of innocent people.

Oh, gosh I forgot they are poor innocent lickle fluffy bunny rabbitspoor misunderstood souls.

Fartex, do you have the same opinion of the poor teddy bears that slit the air stewardesses throats on 9/11 were they poor *sob sob* teddy bears too?

I really hope that when the psychos strike next they only kill one innocent: YOU. Then you can applaud and thank them from heaven while they scrape your head and legs and entrails from the pavement and your family will feel happy too, because they were sensitive lovely misunderstood bunny rabbits and not pitiable like hamidm and so you died for a good reason.

What an assh0le.

Malik99 -

You have done a fine job of answering this question: Why Qadiyanis are NOT muslims. Indeed, one need not dig too deep to find an answer to that. However, the question as to who IS a muslim needs some explanation.

I searched an old chowk article by Muhammad Gill. Its title is ``Who is a Muslim``. In one of the responses of that article, a certain interactor provided a very clear definition of the definition of a muslim. I am not going to name that interactor, unless he himself comes forward. Here is what he wrote, and I completely agree with him.

Her is a list of beliefs by three catagories. One has to have belief in every one of them to be considered a Muslim:

CORE BELIEFS

a. Iman-e-Mujammil

I believe in Allah with all His attributes as described by His names; I accept all of His orders and testify that they are true.

b. Iman-e-Muffassal

``I believe in Allah, in His Angels, His Scriptures, His Prophets, the Day of Judgement, and in the fact that every thing good or bad (in the world) is pre-destined by Allah the Exalted, and in the resurrection after death.``

DERIVATIVE BELIEFS

Derivative Beliefs i.e. the beliefs that follow the core set of beliefs but they are also specifically mentioned in Qura`n

1. Allah the Most Exalted is One.
2. None is worthy of worship and devotion except Allah.
3. There is no partner of Allah.
4. He Knows everything; nothing is hidden from Him
5. He is All Powerful and Mighty.
6. It is He who created the earth, the sky, the moon, the sun, the stars, the angels, human beings, genies and the entire universe.
7. He gives life and death. In other words, life and death of all creatures take place by His command.
8. He feeds all His creation.
9 He does not eat, drink, or sleep.
10. He is Self-existent from eternity and will last till eternity.
11. No one has created Him.
12. He has no father, no son, no daughter, no wife, or other relations. He is above all such relationships.
13. All depend on Him. He does not depend on anyone, and He has no needs.
14. He is Peerless. There is nothing like Him. Nothing resembles Him.
15. He is free from all imperfections.
16. Unlike His creatures, He does not have hands, legs, nose, ears, face and shape.
17. After creating the angels He has appointed them to carry out specific tasks, and to manage the affairs of the universe.
18. He sent messengers for the guidance of His creatures; to teach people how to follow the true religion, do good deeds, and forbid them from the evil things. Prophet Mohammad is the most exalted of all those messengers and LAST IN THE LINE OF PROPHETHOOD.

Is it not time to move beyond cave stories, flat earth and ritual impurity?

Re: #135 by sameerJB

You guessed correctly. I count myself in category 1[c].

Your first objection is that 90% consistency is not good enough. I agree. The 10% contradictions within Islam (or whatever % you may believe) are largely a phenomenon of the last 8 centuries only. During the lifetime of the Prophet, Islam and the Quran were still evolving and therefore doctrinal controversies didn`t arise. But eventually Islam would spread beyong Arabia. New races and nations would enter the fold of Islam along with their cultures, languages and customs. Controversy was bound to arise. To accomodate this, the Prophet provided a way out to his followers in the form of ijtihad (analysis) and ijma (consensus).

Islam already has a built-in safey valve for getting rid of unforseen contradictions that arise with the passage of time. For centuries, this safety valve helped Islamic civilization outclass Christendom in medicine, science, astrology, taxation, social welfare, urban planning, architecture and military technology. If Islam had an inherently defective gene (as you suggest), Muslims would always have been poor, illiterate and militaristic. But we know from Islamic history, that this is not the case. Europe`s Dark Age were Islam`s Golden Age.

This Golden Age ended when Muslims stopped the practice of Ijtihad and Ijma. Imam Ghazali played a significant role in this. He basically opined that the revelation is the only way of discovering truth; human reasoning cannot discover the truth. Unfortunately, his views prevailed over those of the Mutazillites (Rationalists).

By encouraging Ijtihad and Ijma, we can ensure that 100% of the Islamic message remains consistent. (Naturally, the Mullah shall resist this because Ijtihad and Ijma require consensus and discussion not just among the clergy, but in the Muslim Ummah as a whole. Any democratization of Islamic jurisprudence weakens the hold of Mullahs). Ijtihad and Ijma will also address your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th objections.

However, I vehemently disagree with your 6th objection i.e. about women`s role in Islam. I do not believe that women enjoyed a better status before Islam in Arabia. Pre-Islamic Arabia was stricken with tribal wars and female infanticide. After each tribal war, the conquering tribe enslaved the women of the vanquished tribe. Tribal wars were so common that the father of new born girl was certain that she would become a slave at some point during her life. To save them from ignominy, many fathers killed their daughters at birth.

Islam re-defined the role of women in society. Instead of being objectified as courtesans, artists and concubines... these women could now become judges, and administrators. The Prophet`s wife Ayesha is one example. At different times in her life, she served a judge, administrator and commander-in-chief of Muslim Army at Battle of Jamal. Several prominent women played a crucial role during the seige of Medina by the Meccans (the Battle of Khandaq).

Bedouins were extremely crude before Islam civilized them. Husbands would often discuss bedroom stories about their wives with their friends. Islam bestowed dignity, right to own property, inheritance rights, etc upon women. These rights were not available to most women in pre-Islamic Arabia. (Khadija was an exception in the sense that her first husband was an influential man in Mecca. Just because influential women like Hind and Khadija enjoyed independence in pre-Islamic Mecca does not mean that even ordinary women enjoyed those rights).

malik99

What is the definitionn of a Muslim, by the way? You should read Munir Enquiry Report which is the last word on the subject. Incidently, the Shias who were the ardent supporters of the movement for declaring Ahmadies as non-muslims by incorporating a `Fatwa` against them in the Islamic Constitution of Pakistan are now facing the worse on that very count and the citizens in general who consider themselves Muslims are condemned to submit insulting `Hallafnamas` about their faith. According to this Hallafnama you have to believe only in `Khatme Nabuwat` and abuse a person whom you may not be knowing at all.

Is it not paradoxical that all the people not subject to the `Fatwa` of the Islamic Constitution of Pakiastan can call themselves Muslims as a matter of right except the citizens of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. What would happen if the Indian Constitution declares the Kashmiries who call themselves Muslims as `Maleechhas`? I am afraid we are driving the world to the point of declaring all the Muslims as Terrorists through a resolution in the U.N..

vertex,

....... now what was the reason behind the 70+ deaths in sialkot and multan over the last three days ?.......... i wouldn`t be surprised if you think that the carnage was part of the great zionist conspiracy - afterall i haven`t met a ``real`` muslim yet who doesn`t believe that the jews were behind 9/11 ........ it is all quite hopeless - ramadhan is around the corner and the world is in for more killings and bombings, suicides and homicides, as the faithful, feverish with renewed iman, rush to get into heaven before iftar ............

Romair, I can write an extremely long response to your questions, but in the interest of not losing the readers, i will keep it succinct and focus on the heart of the matter - Who is a Muslim?

Here is what Quran says:

``O people ! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, but verily, He is the Apostle of God and the Last in the line of Prophets. And God is Aware of everything.`` (Surah Al Ahzab 33.40)

Here is what Prophet Muhammad (saw) says:

``The tribe of Israel was guided by prophets. When a prophet passed away, another prophet succeeded him. But no prophet will come after me; only caliphs will succeed me.`` (Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Manaqib).

The Prophet of Allah (PBUH) affirmed: ``The chain of Messengers and Prophets has come to an end. There shall be no Messenger nor Prophet after me.`` (Tirmidhi, Kitab-ur-Rouya Babu Zahab-un- Nubuwwa, Musnad Ahmad, Marwiyat-Anas bin Malik)

The Holy Prophet (PBUH) said: ``If an Apostle were to succeed me, it would have been `Umar bin Khattab.`` (Tirmidhi,Kitab-ul- Manaqib)

The Holy Prophet (PBUH) told Hadrat `Ali, ``You are related to me as Aaron was related to Moses(peace be upon him). But no Apostle will come after me.`` (Bukhari and Muslim, Kitab Fada`il as-Sahaba)

Here is what Mirza Ghulam says:

``I have been given the attribute of destruction and giving life; this has been given to me from Allah.`` Khutba Ilhamiyah #6.

``It is evident like daylight that the door of prophethood is open after that Hadrat (Muhammad(S)).`` Haqiqat an-Nubuwwah, p.329.

``I swear by that God who owns my life that He has sent me, He named me a prophet and He called me the Promised Messiah.`` Closing of Haqiqat Al-Wahy, p. 68.

Now as to who has the right to declare someone a non-muslim, is a secondary question that can be debated later. But first, let me ask you this: is there still any doubt in your mind that in the light of Quran and Sunnah, qadiyanis are muslims?

By a gigantic margin, the highest number of suicide bombers in the world are produced by the Tamil Tigers. Not the Palestinians.

``The Tamil Tigers are notorious for their suicide attacks, and the LTTE has carried out at least five times more such attacks than other similar organisations put together.`` http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/526407.stm

``the group that has probably made greatest use of suicide bombings is the Tamil separatist group in Sri Lanka, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), commonly known as the ``Tamil Tigers.`` The Tamil Tigers committed numerous bombings during the 1980s and 1990s aimed at both military and civilian targets, including leading Sri Lankan government officials and politicians.`` http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-03.htm

I don`t think suicide bombing has anything to do with religion. In most cases, it has more to do with political causes, and the desire of the furstrated (and often misguided) weak to take on the strong (who is priverlaged enough to just bomb and bomb, without have to commit suicide). But if people are bent upon bringing in the religious aspect, then one has to consider the fact that the Tamils are predominately Hindus. After that they are Christians (with a tiny number of Muslims). So, statistically, the highest number of suicide bombers in the world are actually Hindus.

In addition the Tamil Tigers draw (drew) their support initially from Hindus in India, and the Indian govt., itself. Hence the country that has supported the largest number of suicide bombers is India (not Iraq, Syria, etc.). Also, to the best of my knowledge, one of the only countries to have lost its head of government to suicide bombings is India, when the Tamils turned on their old benefactor, and targeted Rajiv Gandhi. Infact, uptil the post 9/11 days, the head of government with the largest security detail, in the world, was the Indian Prime Minister (not the American President).

All of this is immaterial in the big picture, in my opinion. Since bombings of any kind (be they suicide or daisycutter-based) are politically motivated, not religiously motivated. Religion is only one of the vehicles, used by those who cannot afford B-52s.....So people, specifically Indians, need to check their own statistics, vis-a-vis suicide bombings, when discussing these issues......

Another society that had the tradition of the suicide bomber was Japan, with their kamakazis.............The kamikazis took only one week to train. And Japan planned around 2000 kamikazi attacks. And I believe (though not sure), it actually launched all of them. This figure of suicide bombings by Bhuddhist Japanese, completely dwarfs those by Hindu Tamil Tigers, which furthur dwarfs those by Muslim Palestinians.............

Of course, the mother of all attacks against civilians (though not suicide) was the dropping of atomic bombs on a Bhuddhist Hiroshima and Nagasaki by a Christian American.............

Malik99:

Could I request you to provide me some information from the Quran, on the exact procedure of declaring someone a Muslim or non-Muslim. Also could you provide me with some information, from the Quran, on exactly who is allowed to declare someone a Muslim or non-Muslim, i.e.

- Who has been given the judicial authority to make such a decision.
- How are such decisions to be made
- Does a State have the right to declare someone a non-Muslim? Are such decisions based on the majority view, e.g. If a country has 95% Ahmedi population, can they declare the non-Ahmedis in their country to be non-Muslims.
- Where is the borderline drawn on who is a Muslim, a lesser Muslim, or non-Muslim, e.g. you consider Ahmedis non-Muslims, but Shias and Sunnis to be Muslims. Naqshbandi considers his group of Sunnis to be Muslims, other groups of Sunni Muslims to be lesser Muslims, Shias to be lesser Muslims or non-Muslims
- Many Shias have declared Ahmedis to be non-Muslims. Do those Shias still retain a right to complain if various Sunnis declare Shias to be non-Muslims.......

etc......

hamidm2,

`` of course, just look around you - how many christians or hindoos do you see blowing themselves up ? (and please, don`t go into the usual muslim lament about the palestinians !)................ it is evident to anyone who is not blinded by faith ........ now, why they do it is a matter for sociologists, ethnographers and other time-wasters......... ``

This is a foolish rebuke. Even secular causes have their share of suicide bombers...weather it`s Kamikazes, a secular Palestinian outfit, or a fighter from the Tamil Tigers, or even an American GI with his back up against the wall.

The fact that you REFUSE to acknowledge that there is a reason beyond religion as to why people are driven to these acts speaks of your own inhumanity, and callous disregard for the sufferings of others who don`t share your world view. And that makes you, not these desperate suicide bombers, a rather pitiable person.

hamidm miaN,
Me, an Islam apologist? Gee, what next? ;)
And I`m saying everything is hunkydory within Islamia?? (insert confused look vala icon here)

Mian, if I come across as defending Islam and Islamia here, it is only in the spirit of trying to maintain a balance. And no, I`m not suggesting for every negative pointed out, one should mention a positive. But clearly, far too much is being laid at the doorstep of Islam and Muslims here than is justifiable.

My point wrt to your posts is simple... You are doing the patient no favours in misdiagnosing the illness. Even if the illness is what you believe it to be, shouldn`t you take more methodological and, frankly, more honest, measures in reaching your diagnoses and prescription? Shouting out that Islam requires the dehumanization of women and minorities, after all, may liberate you with a sense of release, but really doesn`t stand up to tests of any sort.

I have in the past happily been a critique of both Islam and the ummah. I will no doubt do so again. But it`s not likely to happen as long as the patient is being suffocated with antibiotics treating him for a disease he has not.

mordant,

``So now Muslims take their religion far more serious than say, a Christian or an Upanishad? ``......... of course, just look around you - how many christians or hindoos do you see blowing themselves up ? (and please, don`t go into the usual muslim lament about the palestinians !)................ it is evident to anyone who is not blinded by faith ........ now, why they do it is a matter for sociologists, ethnographers and other time-wasters.........