The Trouble With Irshad Manji

Mordant_Muslim:
I do believe that hamidm has a point that could more accurately be stated thus: More Muslims take the literal, troublesome (or troublemaking) passages of their scriptures more seriously than their Christian counterparts.

I also beleive that there needs to be more open debate within Islamia on jsut these matters.

And finally, I beleive that whatever such debate has been initiated in these matters does not go as far as it could (or as fast as it could) because Muslims, generally already having a chip on their shoulder from having lost global ascendancy, are given every reason to continue to feel victimized and exploited.

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

hamidm2``

``....the difference between islam and the other idiocies is that muslims, take their religion seriously whereas others have learned to move on with a nod and a wink .......... there is something specially insidious about islam which makes prevents muslims from taking the right turn ...........``

Friend, you continue to dive deeper into obscurity. So now Muslims take their religion far more serious than say, a Christian or an Upanishad? That`s a jump that no sociologist/ethnographer would dare take.


hamidm2:

``....... and stop apologizing for islam - everyone from george w to bernard lewis seems to be doing it ........

Appealing to authority?

Brucelee:

``Your post # 144 proves you are a slippery pompous intellectual fraud. That’s cool, i like reading your slippery oleaginous posts. Take care! ;-)``

No, no...you didn`t run out of fuel, did you?

--Ibn

PM,

...... my official position is that all religions are intrinsically bad and there is no, none watsoever, goodness in any of them ............ now, having said that, the difference between islam and the other idiocies is that muslims, take their religion seriously whereas others have learned to move on with a nod and a wink .......... there is something specially insidious about islam which makes prevents muslims from taking the right turn ........... some might protest and say that it is because of colonialism, the economic state of the ummah, the autocratic rulers, the curse of oil, etc, etc.............. maybe........ but my contention is that there is something inherently wrong with the ideology itself that keeps its followers on the path to hell (figuratively!).........what is it?......... maybe you can answer that question .....

....... and stop apologizing for islam - everyone from george w to bernard lewis seems to be doing it ........... muslims will never change if people like you keep on telling them everything is hunky dory and all they have to do is follow the book ..............

harish_hyd # 160

It is not what is written that counts, it is what is in practice that matters.

Should HisExcellency just conclude that Hindus don`t follow their religion?

If they are going to talk to others, Hindus should take time to occasionally explain what broad principles their religion does stand for!

sattar # 154 - you said - ``A fine, fine position adopted by a mullah … where “right or wrong” is rendered irrelevant``

When I used the term ``right or wrong``, i meant to say that regardless of whether qadiyanis here object to it or not, this is where i stand. And my position is not based on my personal opinion, its based on the Islamic teachings. Yes, muslims should not be declaring other muslims as `non-muslims`. But Islam also clearly stipulates the definition of a Muslim. And according to that definition, Qadiyanis are not muslims.

In Pakistan, qadiyanis are a minority, just like christians and hindus are. Their life and property should be protected, just like that of any other minority living in a muslim country. However, qadiyanis have to be tolerant and sensitive towards muslim majority too.

Mordant_Mslim

Your post # 144 proves you are a slippery pompous intellectual fraud. Thats cool, i like reading your slippery oleaginous posts. Take care! ;-)

HisExcellency # 146

That was a tremendous post, in terms of providing comedy for us all. As a matter of fact it is partially wrong becase as I understand it, Sikhism allows widows to remarry. So you are factually wrong in claiming uniqueness for Islam in that respect. Secondly the point about satti in Hinduism is pure horse s**t. In fact this point highlights part of the problem. Hindus discarded that piece of krap from their religion ages ago. Muslims need to do the same now with the krap from their religion too. Even Hindus are going to be ahead of Muslims soon, those dirty idol worshipping cow urine drinking Hindoos! Just imagine how much further your self esteem will drop then, unbelievable. In the meantime, its really hilarious to read your plaintive nostalgia for the time when the ``so called liberal societies dont live up to their liberal credentials`` on the basis of the glories of the Islamic past ;-D

Talk about TODAY, the year 2004! Look it straight in the eye and stop whining for the days of Islamic hegemony. That is never going to come back. Know your place in the scheme of things, feed your people. liberate your women, stop breeding decapitators and Jew haters, and join the modern world.

a salaam aleikum

A lot of people make the same error that HE,malik99(and other bored people in the ivory tower) are making. On paper one can have the most perfect idea or system. Its acid test is how it works in the real world. Communism was a great idea. Capitalism was a great idea. Would Marx or Adam Smith be happy with how their concoctions worked out? I bet not.

Communism met its demise rather abruptly and the present Capitalistic society is rife with government regulation and unnatural monopolies. People like George Soros who made billions due to the invisible hand are now deeply critical of the global financial system. Does one give up years of tweaks and a constant need to reform just so?

Islam is a great idea. However, its unworkable machinations are incompatible with modern societies. Instead of going back to earlier more pristine times of the khulafa(as the urstruly and echobooms wet dreams demand), its a better idea to replace the problematic injunctions or better yet disregard them so that in due course of time they become irrelevant. If Muslims are not prepared to do it themselves, they unfortunately will be forced at gun point by others to do so.

later
-sac

re. amit: #145:

I agree with your assessment that the Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio is a complex one, but I find it odd that you should consider the Roadmap a just settlement, following which ``the remaining issues could have been resolved with some further diplomacy.`` I will get back with detail later, but suffice it to say, for now, that the statement ``the Palestinians were getting their own country on entire West Bank and Gaza`` is factual incorrect. Perhaps you would care enough to look at the proposed maps yourself.

re. the exception you take to my suggestion that the developed world has prospered at the expenses of progress in the Third World, I never suggested that successful states, per se, may only prosper at someone else`s cost. Neither did I lump China and India with the U.S. in this regard. But really, you have to be blind to not see that from Latin America to the Middle East to South Asia, almost every single military coup or, lately, military intervention, has th U.S. fingerprints all over. Need I name countries and names?

(I had typed this reply some hours ago but wasn`t able to post it due to network issues. Happily, I see now that Vertex, in 159 has provided details and a map link for us to view.)

re. hamidm2
In response to Malik`s contention that Christian men also rape women, you write: ``...... but is the rape sanctioned by the law of the land?......... that, my friend, is the difference ...... the law of the islamic lands requires you to treat women as half-humans and ahmedis as inhuman......... why is that so difficult to understand ?

Yaar hamidmian, please make up your mind whether it is the law of the land or Islam-as-law-source with which it is you have main issue. In some earlier posts, you seem clearly to suggest that it is Islam itself that is the problem, which is what prompted someone to credit you with ``loving the patient but hating the disease``. Of course, you would like us to beleive that there is no difference between Islam (as Religion or jurispudencial authority) and the laws that are passed in it`s name. That`s a bit of a stretch, wouldn`t you say? Unless, of course, you are willing to say that witch-burning and scientisit-burning are pillars of Christianity, or were anyway.

I challenge you to prove that Islam ``requires you to treat women as half-humans`` or even that it encourages the treatment of ahmedis as inhuman.``
Yes, you did say that such were the requirements of ``the law of Islamic lands,`` not of Islam, but that holds as much water as the saying Islam does so, unless, of course, Islamic lands are not found East of Kabul or West of Lahore.

You continue ``......and your excellency i know that ``Islam is the only religion that allows a wife to divorce her husband and remarry`` - i have heard this nonsense a million times......... but it is a moot point .... the fact of the matter is that most civilized countries allow women to divorce their men regardless of what the bible says whereas most islamic countries allow their men to have four wives ............ you see the difference ?``

Omigod! could you get any more obfuscating!?! yaar... pick your peeve... The comparison is being made between Islam and other religions, since you seem to hold that Islam is unique in some way (this may be true, but not, i beleive for the reasons you suggest). One could argue that if Christianity, with all IT`S discontent towards women could outgrow itself in the political space, so much so could Islam, given the opportunity. I beleive it`s already happening. You don`t see polygamy flaunted as a badge of honour among educated Muslims. The tail really does wag the dog in reality. And your earlier contention that Muslim men mistreat their womenfolk more than other men (of a similar socio-economic background) is again news to me. I understand that, yes, educated men in the West have more CONSTRAINTS over them in how they treat their womenfolk, which might make for fewer violent crimes, but that is not the same as saying that their tendency to violence is any less. And let`s not even START to talk about the incidence of wife battering in inner city households. Trust me, I`ve been in support and outreach groups there.

re. divorce, remarrying, and polygamy, it;s interesting to note how even the torch carriers of uninhibited individual liberty use the West (read Christian) insistence on mongamy as a measuring yard for all forms of conjugal relationships. What is so fantastic about NOT allowing me to take a second, or a third wife, if that`s okay with my first and/or second? Can`t work? would never happen? Hello? Visit a Mormon Reservation near you!

hamidm is the official stand-up comedian of chowk..and a bad one at that...chowk staff, we need some new meat, his words and antics are getting boring!

As usual - Amit spouts his ignorance. He tries to equate ``religion`` with the Indic
perspective of adhyatma vidya. Amit pretended to be an expert on Islam now
he expounds on what ``urban Hindus`` want to do. If anything a large number
of Hindus love ``Lakshmi`` - So are they religious ?

Amit have you read anything on Dharma other than maybe briefly skimming
through the Gita ?

You should stop pretending to be an expert on everything in this world.
Learn some humility.

``Egyptian mummies are still being paraded in the museums instead of getting back to life for almost 3000 years.``(Sameejb)

a startling new point raised by Sameer as -- EVIDENCE -- there is no after life folks -- there is just none -- whatever the Qoran, Bible, Torah, Vedas, Puranasa say -- THERE IS NONE --

.....the best you can do or hope (if your priest, rabbi, padre imam will help) is a shriveled emaciated body -- living ever after -- on a rack in a Museum -- if it`s not looted by a Mongoloid Invader -- and people lineed up gawking at you....!

amit,

Urstruly has a point. Exactly what is your suggestion? For Muslims to develop so they can slaughter thousands of innocents like developed/developing nations like China, Russia and America are?

To a large extent, it is true that the geopolitical situation some Muslims find themselves in is a consequence of our economic and military/technological weakness...however Muslims are not being invaded because we are as such and outside forces want to change us for the better. No, the development on countries like China and Russia have not been necessarily at the cost of Muslims, but does the fact that these countries are developed excuse the brutal policies they have towards Muslims?

Our lack of development, and the awareness of this among non-Muslims, is a parallel issue. If we were developed, our grievances would be the same and instead you would see thousands more on ``the other`` side slaughtered in turn - possibly even another MAD scenario. Quite frankly, I think we all need to move beyond that.

So yes, Muslims need to do much better on the development side. But no, that won`t eliminate the seed of conflict which stems from inherent injustice and the blanket approval of these injustices through real politick rhetoric.

---

Amit, you wrote:

``There were some issues with right of return etc. but otherwise Palestinians were getting their own country on entire West Bank and Gaza. The remaining issues could have been resolved with some further diplomacy but Arafat chose to walk away and launch the new intifada``

The Palestinians where getting pockets of the west bank and Gaza - banthusatans if you will. They were not getting a contiguous allotment of land. The Israelis pretty much had a ``take it or leave it`` attitude, and the Americans were of the attitude that the Palestinians should be grateful for Israel for even giving that much up. I`m sorry, but your version of history needs to be challenged.

This map shows the west bank, and it is infested with settlements. Did you expect the Israeli’s to seriously give these up?

#146 by HisExcellency

[Perhaps you don`t know that Islam is the only religion that allows a wife to divorce her husband and remarry. Catholicism, Hinduism and Orthodox Judaism do not give a woman this right. A Hindu woman is bound to one man all her life. If the man dies, the woman must die as his ``Satti`` on the cremation pyre.]

Except that in practice I have never seen a Hindu woman burn herself on her husband`s pyre after 1984 when Roop Kanwar did that. Nor have I seen a single Muslim woman go ahead and divorce her husband, at least not until now. If you know of it, please enlighten us with proof.

It is not what is written that counts, it is what is in practice that matters.