The Trouble With Irshad Manji

Whassup Sac? Long time..been hanging with Saminasha in your free time??

This article proves what it claims; just take a look at the responce of majority of Muslims on this forum.

And those who strive and wish to downgrade Islam and Quran, should think seriously; what is the reason that this book ``Quran`` and Islam are still thriving in peoples ``hearts and minds``. What is the reason that people are still inspired by this Quran: and I mean ordinary people; without any personal greed, inclination and bias; without any desire of self promotion and popularity; without any desire for progressing personal views.

And then why this is source of jealousy for other creeds?

And shariah which is so much misused and misunderstood; so much politics is played with it; by mullah and non mullah. Yet, there are millions ( yes millions) who have no problem in adopting and employing shariah in thier lives. I mean if someone has internal desire to follow ``Quran`` and ``Islam``, then who can stop him from doing that. Is not this is what shariah is? who said that it need to be implemented or rahter enforced through law? which is good upto the point that a policeman and a jugde and govenment should be present it to enforce it; the moment these external pressures are removed, individual compliance to shariah is gone. Whereas those millions of practising Muslims, at varying levels of understanding and compliance to shriah, living in different countries find an internal magnatism to follow sharaih and they do, even at this moment, all over the globe.

What is in that book ``Quran`` which attracts us to it? and which pope with all his grandiose station and authority and opulance is unable to match in any way; I mean pay attention to the point`` a book ``Quran`` vs a contemporary (though temperary) Man. Why the followers of other creed do not have same love for their books? If one thinks and reflect, earnestly, one can find the answer. As long as ``Quran`` remains, Islam remains, without any effort from ``Mullah`` or anyone else; and even with all the resistance of its temporary haters.

Someone Quoted Fareed Zakriah on this forum that one finds goodness in Quran, if one has that or at least has the desire to has that.

hamidm2,

Farid Zakaria is an Indian muslim. Now would you please stop bashing Indian muslims?

#93 of Amit:
What do you have against people who worship rat, snakes, elephants or monkeys? How do they bother you?

I hope to see your answer.

Pmirsha:

``there are deep problems with the history and legacy of islam. These include the tenet of islamo-supremacy (islam is the only true way), a long history of collusion between military rulers and mullahs, the willingness to use extreme brutality (genocide) in wars against ``unbelievers``. Until these are recognized by many muslims, things cannot change for the better.``

I don`t see how recognition of past delinquencies would change reality for the better. Hitherto, in the West, there was a similarly romantic view of the glory that was Greece and grandeur that was Rome. Anyone with elementary knowledge of antiquity knows that the ``classical`` age was actually full of brutality and squalor. Would you concede that recognition serves as a guide for today? Apologists for every defeated civilization speak of a return to a pure past. Nostalgia is paradise because the present is hell.

``You are correct to say that other traditions have their own problems. The christianity created after Constantine is in a large part a murderous cult, as militarized and vicious as the worst of islam. Hindus have tolerated and encouraged the most horrific forms of inequality in the name of tradition.``

Then the question would be: do actions speak louder than a religion? If so, how?

amit:

``Ergo, any political struggle in the Islamic world has a religious component to it. Muslims themselves argue that Islam covers their entire span of existence and can`t be looked at in isolation from politics. Hence the political issues in the Islamic world automatically assume a religious connotation.``

As one put it, ``it aint necessarily so``. Islam does argue that autonomy of politics is purely a handmaiden of Christianity, but not all Muslims see it that way. Take Iraq, for example. Both Iraq and Kuwait share the same religious conviction and language (both speak Arabic). Yet, their obvious similarities played no part in Saddam`s an all-out invasion of Kuwait, nor did the similarities thwart Saddam from mutilating his own people. The same point can be made for the Kurds. In each case, actions spoke louder than conviction

--Ibn

BruceLee,

``Muslims talking about the brainswashing of others is like a skunk telling other people that they stink.``

Well, I think a skunk has every right to tell an asshole it stinks ;-)

amit,

``Suicide bombers read out Quranic verses on video before blowing themselves up. Beheaders chant Allah-o-Akbar prior to committing their deed. This is a reality that you cannot wish away.``

Yet, when hapless civilians are daisy-cut to oblivion, we are to believe this is tolerable, or acceptable? Does the invocation of `freedom`, secularism, or any other facet of Western civilization in otherwise unjust causes, (weather it is the `containment` of Palestinians or the `democratization` of Iraq), in any way shape or form invalidate these concepts or call them into question? They don`t...so why do we have this double standard on Islam?

``Now you will argue that Israelis and US have harmed civilians as collateral damage. But the difference is that they have never gone out and willingly killed civilians as a state policy just because these civilians were easy targets.``

The very term `collateral damage` is dehumanizing. The fact is, disproportionate/asymmetric use of force to accomplish a military/political objective is commonplace. Terrorists strike civilians because they know that attacking military targets is certain death. Military types bomb places they could otherwise send ground troops in to cut down on their causalities, knowing full well that civilians will neccessarily die as a result of their actions.

During the initial invasion, it is folly to think the Americans would not have carpet bombed any civilian area of Iraq from which there was fierce resistance that actually threatened their military objectives. Currently, we`re only seeing relatively small groups of lightly armed fighters (hundreds) in various locales, we see them being hunted down with armored vehicles and gunships...so I guess you could say that the response is proportionately disproportional ;-)

The two are incredibly close in mentality. With one difference: the number of civilians killed by military forces is always order(s) of magnitude greater than the number of civilians killed by terrorists. Yet this greater violence is somehow more acceptable or even justified? I`m sorry, but that doesn`t fly.


``In any case, two wrongs don`t make a right. At least people shouldn`t use religious symbols in the process as it wrongly associates the religion with violence.``

Yet, when secular states use violence in the names of their ideology, you somehow think there is no such association the other way?

``What can ordinary muslims do about this?``

When ordinary Muslims are elevated to a status beyond `collateral`, then perhaps we can find the peace to discuss this....

96/stuka

Truer words have never been spoken :)))

#90 by mohar11

“How can you be a ``skeptic of secularism`` when you continue to enjoy the good fruits of a secular society has offered you?”

Mohar,
I can understand your frustration! Most of the Pakistanis are actually confused about secularism. In Pakistan secularism was presented as an anti-Islamic ideology for a long time. So people of Pakistani origin, when asked about secularism jump to the definition ingrained in their heads that secularism is some how anti Islamic. Thus, you see this knee jerk reaction couched in sort of non committal language which otherwise just means that they are totally confused about the whole concept despite living in the west now, where perforce of social structure around them; they are in fact, following secularism.

The Pakistani society is a one school of thought society for several reasons and one of the major one is the Army influence over the media, social and political machinery. For a long time and even today, army will not allow any discussion that would challenge the basic ideology that enables the army to manipulate public opinion in its favor.
Islam is merely a tool in the army hands to perpetuate its power in Pakistan. Allowing people to learn about other ideologies or social concepts would greatly endanger the ideological and political base of the army.
Now, a vast majority of the people in any country is gullible and can be influenced by constant barrage of propaganda and manipulations, especially when the media is controlled and the disputing opinions are not allowed to be expressed. What you see here are people who can write eloquently about Islam and its schools of thoughts but they would come up short when confronted with other social, philosophical, and ideological influences on societies outside of Pakistan. A good number of Pakistanis have been able to distance themselves from the officail idealogy thru their natural tendency to disagree with the official line or simply because they are in constant conflict with army over the political rights of their provinces or other natural rights.

Islam is not something that needs elaborate discussion in this modern world. It is just a religion like many other and it should co-exist with other religions w/o imposing its militancy on people of other faith.
I must add that even though I believe that Indians pretty much have unrestricted access to several sources of knowledge, still, it appears that their Indian Nationalism borders on, at least on this board, religious fervor despite claiming to be secular in thought. They actually end up spreading the most virulent kind of religious fanaticism in the guise of nationalism that matches the velocity of the religious fervor of some Pakistani posters. It does not appear to be a reaction to Pakistani posters and it does show that religion still has undue influence on people from our part of the world.

Ibn
//...Many apologists for secularism haven’t the faintest clue who first coined the term—much less its sociological function..//

``Apologists for secularism`` ??? Never heard that one before :)

Anyway - good luck with your anthropology career :)

mordant i am impresed you have used many long words.

If you have read, the last post, and thinking about bulldozing me with a tirade. I will urge you to think about the question posted.

Why is Quran able to inspire people at individual level and all ove the globe?

Sure, Quoting from Quran is not contemporary fashion and I will not quote from it, either. But I should say, this 1400 years old book, and considered by many to be what not? Take a pause and just reflect and think, and it does not come out most of the time on news media ( which is a recent phenomenon anyway ) that this book used to inspire people throughout history and it is doing so unabated, no puase no break.

Quran give a reason; and indeed a very strong reason. Now it is a challenge to all those who hate this book and say that there is no rationality in it.

Quran gives the example and reason of vegetation, that grows on the earth; for which waters comes from the sky; which grows and bear fruit; and then which turn yellow and go away. Similary water of guidance and inspiration comes from the skies and ``Plant of Islam`` is ever green and ever nourishing. Few people are deceived when they see some branches of it turn dry and some leaves of it turn yellew; those who hate it feels good and those who love feel sorry for it. But as the natural process of plant growth and sustance is given as an example; the root of the tree is strong and deep and off course that is ``Quran``. Other creeds are root less.

Now sustanance of Islam as a religion is not dependet upon intellectuals and genius who visit this forum. Neither it is dependent upon Mullahs as coustodians; as tree and its roots are stronger and widespread. Even, it is not dependant upon media projection and publicity and coverage. The triumph of Islam is: if its book can do what it cliams it can do; which is to provide guidance to people in their ordinary lives and to provide comfort to their hearts and minds, and sure it does to millions. Islam is matchless in this aspect; this is the source of envy and jealousy.

Now triumph of Islam is not to subjugate the whole world; taliban style; it is neither a bargaining and compromise which some think what reformation is, in the name of accepting gays etc. If they want to turn to yellow leaf, it is their choice. Triumph of Islam and Quran is; it is capable of inspiring humans ( yes read humans, not confined to Muslims) and it is able to provide guidance. And this happens, across the spectrum, across the globe, from complete illiterate to highly intellectual, at a pace amazingly consistant for last 1500 years, and it happens just by one book ``Quran`` without any human effort.

For those who hate Islam, dont waste your life, do something else, constructive. And dont rely on popular media, as your source of information and as your basis for making conclusion about Islam.

Even in this time of negative coverage; Islam is still amazing and beyond human comprehension, dont be deceived by your limited esposure and mental thought processes.

inyourface,

.... no, fareed zakaria is not an indian muslim, he is an american wine critic who lives in manhattan .......... he happens to be an indian by birth and a muslim by sheer bad luck !....... kind of like me - we both wish we were born white to some nice anglo-saxon parents so that we could drink without guilt, have sex without shame and wage war against desert bedouins without feeling we were commiting fratricide ............. it is all an accident of birth ........

........... indian muslims eat idlee and make a big wet mess in my bathroom when they wash their feet in the toilet bowl before they bow down to mecca ....... no sir, fareed is no indian and no muslim ...........

Amit,

You made all those grand statements about Islam. Do you think you know more
about the Koran than the mullahs of Arabia - who know arabic very well.

What do you know about dharma or what it means to ``worship`` - do you know
how the language of indic-traditions differs from that of ``religions`` ?

I dont think you know anything - and neither have you spent time studying anything.

my friend, it is easy to post nonsense on the web. It takes more time and effort
to spend time understanding what others have to say.

Regards,

re:#93 by amit
Rats are worshipped by some tribals. In some areas, snakes are worshipped. But, these could at best be attributed to the ignorance of the people who indulge in such acts.
Hinduism, in its all encompassing embrace, did not exclude these tribal belief systems either. If it had, India would have not one but several religions called Vaishnavism, Shaivism etc. These are today just belief systems under the broad umbrella of Hindusims.
The fact is: our sages and seers saw whole cosmos as a manifestation of Divinity. The God is in every atom. So, however despicable rat worship was, sages condoned even that!
As one goes up on the spiritual ladder, one realizes the folly of such practises but then one has to first learn to count before one can do calculus, right?
Rat worship never killed anyone. But look at the harm a beautiful religion like Islam is doing through extreme teachings of Wahabism. I do not know what u will prefer but i will anyday accept rat worship to extremist religous beliefs.
BTW, such things like rat worship are often shown on Westerm media TV channels to defame hinduism. Needless to say, it is a pathetic attempt.
Sridhar

There are at least two kinds of people wishing reforms; [1a]those who wish to reform Islam and [1b]ones who wshe to reform Muslims. Out of these two, those who wish to reform Muslims are more liberal, more secular or less Islamic. Islam is not important for them.

There are at least two groups of people wishing to refrm Islam; [2a]those who think that Islam is inherently good but corrupted by the varied and wild interpretations from the scholars over the centuries who were on the payroll of rulers and twisted it to suit best the emploter/ ruler. Others [2b] think that Islam is tribal, Bedoin, Arab and in its original form might have suited the Muslim converts but now it is way out of sync with the modern world and society. Both of these groups have same target but they do not see eye to eye.

Where do hamidm and sac fit in these four categories? I guess in 1b and 2b. I am 1b for the easiest reason. I dont believe in the existence of god. Anything propagated now or in the past in the name of god, to me, is obsolete and north worth shaping life around it.

Most Pakistani liberals, particularly those in Pakistan belong to 1a and 2a categories. They can`t go as far in public as people living abroad can, as seen on chowk. Irshad Manji has not make a clear break from category 1 to 2 like Ibn warraq or Salman Rushdie. she is a believer, both in god and mohammed`s prophethood. She can`t ask for rational reforms like category 2 people except treading the murky Islamic methodology of Ijma and Ijtehad. That is like accepting the supremacy of Islam and testing the limits through Ijma and Ijtehad knowing well that when it comes to resisting change, Islam is notoriously well entrenched with high thick boundry walls. It is much easy to leave it and then chip it from out side. The dome will fell upon reformers if they try to break it from inside, crushing reformers before anybody else.