[NOTE from Robert Spencer, April 14: Greetings, Muslim Refusenik readers! What follows below is some carefully reasoned criticism of some of Irshad Manji's positions, written respectfully by the Norwegian essayist Fjordman. It would have been refreshing if Ms. Manji had replied to the points made here, rather than simply slam Jihad Watch as "right wing." I wrote to her to ask her why she thought we were right wing: because we oppose jihad violence and Islamic supremacism? Or because we oppose the Iraqi democracy project? Or because we call for Islamic reform? Or something else? I did not receive a reply. As Ms. Manji claims to want to foster free and open debate, I find that disappointing. Name-calling isn't dialogue, now is it? If Ms. Manji would ever wish actually to discuss these or related issues with me in any forum, public or private, instead of just calling names (as fun as it is), she knows where to reach me.]
A new essay by the Norwegian writer Fjordman:
I received some criticism for a negative review I wrote at the Gates of Vienna blog of Irshad Manji's book The Trouble With Islam, which I had finally decided to read because so many people are referring to her as the great hope of a liberal Islam.Since I write under the pseudonym Fjordman myself, I try for the most part to refrain from criticizing too much those who make significant contributions to the debate regarding Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration using their own names. Hans Rustad is the editor of Document.no, which is Norway's largest independent blog and in my eyes rightfully so as it is a counterweight to the ridiculous anti-Israeli and anti-American bias among the mainstream media. I like his website and read it regularly.
While disagreeing with him on certain topics, my goal is thus not to "get." Mr. Rustad in any ways, simply to address an issue I believe to be of general interest.
According to Mr. Rustad, "I don't think your description of Manji fits at all. She is not vague and incoherent, she is among the most intelligent and sharp-sighted observers I have seen. If she doesn't suffice [as a reformist], then I believe there may be something wrong with your requirements. I do not understand why you are out to 'get' Irshad Manji. She has delivered razor sharp analyses of what's wrong with Islam of our age. She sees the infantilization and the cult of victimhood. Her openness towards Israel and Israelis shows an open-minded, unprejudiced and politically intelligent individual. You give her little credit for this."Jens Tomas Anfindsen, who holds a PhD in philosophy and is specialized
in the philosophy of religion and is one of one of two editors of the
interesting bilingual website HonestThinking, agrees with some of my
criticism of Manji. According to Mr. Anfindsen, "Manji is a positive
voice. My point is limited to demonstrating that her attempts at
reviving ijtihad are flawed from a purely theological point of view.
What she does may be great, but it cannot be viewed as a revival of
something that is already present within the Islamic tradition."Anfindsen believes that what she says about ijtihad, is, from a theological point of view, pure nonsense:
"Manji is correct that ijtihad is an established principle in traditional Islamic theology, and it is also correct that the emphasis on and freedom to exercise ijtihad among Islamic jurists has varied throughout the ages. Especially during phases when Islam expanded and conquered other highly developed societies, the need for ijtihad, re-thinking of traditional views, to solve legal problems that the Koran and the hadith didn't prescribe unambiguous solutions to, increased. However, there are strict rules for the use of ijtihad, and even a superficial knowledge of what it is about will reveal that ijtihad cannot possibly be what Manji claims it to be. If Manji were right, any Muslim could rationalize almost anything and then present the result as Islamic jurisprudence. Simple logic indicates that this cannot be true."
Some of the limitations is that ijtihad can only be exercised by someone versed in Islamic law, which has traditionally only meant men. More importantly, ijtihad cannot under any circumstances set aside legal principles that are clear and explicit. For instance, no Islamic mufti can claim that it is allowed to drink alcohol or eat pork, as these things are clearly and unambiguously prohibited in the holy texts, and ijtihad can of course not alter this.
Ijtihad is thus similar to the personal judgment of judges or those versed in law in our secular justice system. This does indeed leave some room for interpretation, but it cannot set aside what has been put down clearly in text of a statute, legislative history and legal precedent.
According to Mr. Anfindsen, "Although it would be amusing if Manji could persuade young Muslims that ijtihad entails that they can decide for themselves anything they want to, and then claim that the conclusions they reached were Islamic, this understanding of ijtihad has absolutely nothing to do with the traditional Islamic legal principle of ijtihad."
In my view, Manji is NICE, which is good, but not enough. There are about one billion nominal Muslims in the world. The more intelligent Islam critics already knew that not all of them are monsters. That's not the point. The point is that her arguments are weak. Manji gets away with this because the average Western reader knows even less about the subject than she does. We must never get so emotional over discovering a person calling herself a Muslim yet renouncing anti-Semitism and Islamic intolerance that we abstain from looking critically at whether her analyses hold true.
There are two kinds of Muslim reformists: Those who lie deliberately, either to enhance their own personal wealth and prestige or as a strategy to confuse and divide non-Muslims. And then we have the others, which I unfortunately fear constitute a minority of the reformists, who genuinely believe what they are saying. My gut feeling after reading Manji, based partly on the fact that she includes critical words about the Koran itself, something which self-appointed "reformists" slash Islamic moles such as Tariq Ramadan never do, is that Manji is genuine. However, I have read the work of other reformists. Not one of them has so far, in my view, presented a credible case of how to reform Islam, but at least some of them have argued in a more logically consistent manner and based their views more thoroughly on Islamic texts than Manji does.
What worries me about Manji and finally caused me to write about her is that presumably well intentioned individuals such as her can contribute to keeping the illusion of a reformed and modern Islam alive during the time frame when non-Muslims might have a chance of separating ourselves from the Islamic world without massive bloodshed. Manji's contribution, well meaning as it might be, may thus end up being negative because she will make others share her unfounded illusions about a liberal Islam at a time when we need to deal with and shed dangerous, Multicultural illusions.
Although she never says so explicitly in her book, I get the impression that Manji largely agrees with the mantra that "Islam is whatever Muslims make of it." I don't share this view. Why do those who behead Buddhist teachers in Thailand, burn churches in Nigeria, persecute Hindus in Pakistan or blow bombs in the London subway always "misunderstand" Islamic texts? Why don't they feel this urge to kill people after reading about, say, Winnie the Pooh?
No text is infinitely elastic, just as no rubber band can be stretched to any length. If any text was infinitely elastic by personal interpretation, we could replace the Koran with any other book and get the same result. That's obviously not the case. If you have a text that repeatedly calls for killing, death and mayhem, more people are going to "interpret" this text in aggressive ways. Islam is the most aggressive and violent religion on earth in practice because its texts are more aggressive than those of any other major religion, and because the example of Muhammad is vastly more violent than that of any other religious founder. If you return to the original Islam, which Manji claims to seek, you get Jihad, since that's what the original Islam was all about.
Ijtihad isn't magic. The dozens of explicit Jihad verses in the Koran won't all magically disappear. As long as they exist, somebody is bound to take them seriously. And since any "reformed" Islam must ultimately be rooted in Islamic teachings and texts, this probably means that Islam cannot be reformed.
I will give Manji credit for asking some sensitive questions. According to her, "Far from being perfect, the Koran is so profoundly at war with itself that Muslims who 'live by the book' have no choice but to choose what to emphasize and what to downplay. (…) What if it's not a completely God-authored book? What if it's riddled with human biases?
Yet her philosophies are not always consistent, and one sometimes gets the impression that she treats Islamic texts as merely a fashion accessory.
Manji praises the tolerance of the so-called Islamic Golden Age. If she is familiar with Bat Ye'or's work on dhimmitude, which she quotes, how can she still go on with talking about the tolerance of Islam? In the essay Andalusian Myth, Eurabian Reality, co-authored with Andrew G. Bostom, editor of the book The Legacy of Jihad, Bat Ye'or dispels the myth of the alleged "tolerance" of medieval Spain under Islamic rule during the so-called Golden Age. Moreover, not only does Manji paint a too rosy portrait of the treatment of Christians and Jews, she is suspiciously quiet about the treatment of other non-Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists etc. who hardly have any rights at all in Islam. Why? Are they not human? Has she read K.S. Lal's The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India?
I don't doubt for a second that if Muslims succeed in subjugating much of Europe, this will in the future be hailed as a Golden Age of Islam. But it wouldn't be a Golden Age of Islam, it would be the twilight of Western civilization in Europe, just as the previous Golden Age was the twilight of the pre-Islamic civilizations in the Middle East.
In the eyes of Irshad Manji, the problem with Islam today is literalism: "Christians have their Evangelicals. Jews have the ultra-Orthodox. For God's sake, even Buddhists have fundamentalists. But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam the literalism is mainstream." Her solution to this is to re-discover ijtihad, the Islamic tradition of critical thinking and independent reasoning.
Manji presents ijtihad re-interpretation as something bold and new for the 21st century, but it is in fact neither bold nor new. The first modern Islamic reformers in the 19th century, such as Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad 'Abduh, stressed the importance of ijtihad, argued that "the door to ijtihad" had not been closed by medieval jurisprudence and that it was a right as well as a duty to apply the principles of the Koran and the Sunna to the problems of their age. 'Abduh meant that individual ijtihad was permitted, but that it should operate within the framework of what was not laid down clearly in the Koran or sound hadith, and should thus be applied where these sources were silent or only stated a general principle.
Scholar Rashid Rida became 'Abduh's biographer. According to him, the Islamic umma was at the heart of the world's civilization as long as it was truly Islamic and can be recreated if Muslims return to the Koran. The ijtihad of the early reformers indirectly contributed to the establishment of the "fundamentalist" movement per excellence, the Muslim Brotherhood. Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the MB from 1928, became familiar with the thoughts of Muhammad 'Abduh while studying in Cairo, but 'Abduh's disciple Rida influenced him even more. Banna, too, believed that the Islamic decline could be reversed only by returning to the original teachings of Islam.
Why doesn't Irshad Manji discuss the impact of Afghani, 'Abduh, Rida and the other reformers who advocated ijtihad already in the 19th century?
Manji writes that: "'Operation Ijtihad' centrals around liberating the entrepreneurial challenges of Muslim-women through micro-business loans. These are a sort of micro-investments. The whole idea here is to give women the resources to start businesses, so that they will earn their own assets, and with those assets they can teach their own children. They can start their own schools, what's happening now in some parts of Kabul. The bottom-line to all of this is that when women have their own assets, they can read the Koran by themselves. Then they will discover verses in the Koran that imams will never tell them about. (…) Imagine if the United States, the European Union, Canada, Australia, Japan, and other rich allies launched Operation Ijtihad by recasting part of their national security budgets as micro-enterprise loans to creative women throughout the Muslim world."
I'm not against micro-credit per see. I know Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus and others have had some success with this. But I am deeply skeptical of having non-Muslims paying for this, if the objective is supposed to be an Islamic Reformation.
I'm not a feminist, and I'm not buying the assertion that Islamic aggression will disappear once women re-interpret the Koran. The problem with Islam isn't the patriarchy, it is the violence in its core texts. Exactly how are the more than 100 Jihad verses of the Koran, the dozens of aggressive military raids by Muhammad and his companions as contained in the Sunna, the hadith and the Sira going to go away because they are read by women? If women will make a difference, it will be in bringing Islam down, not in reforming it.
On pages 160 – 162 of her book, Manji writes that: "September 11 is a searing reminder of what can happen when we hive ourselves off from the problems of 'others,' the lesson being that good global citizenship has colossal benefits for domestic security. Regardless of whether Westerners want to accept this fact, Westerners have to accept it. And we have to accept it now because Arab Muslims are experiencing a baby boom. (…) Whoever denies these kids economic and civic participation will incite a degree of chaos capable of convulsing much of the planet. The Arab baby boom is as much the West's problem as it is the Middle East's. (…) Why wait until millions more Muslims show up at Australian, German, and North American checkpoints? Isn't it a basic matter of security that Muslims heading to these places arrive already knowing that Islam can be observed in ways that complement pluralism rather than suffocate it? (…) the West can't advance without immigrants. (…) In short, the West needs Muslims."
Do we? Muslim immigration costs vast sums and has seriously destabilized our nations. Manji wants us to continue Muslim immigration while France is already close to a civil war because of Muslim immigration. Frankly, I don't see any reason why we should allow a single believing, practicing Muslim to get permanent residency in our countries. And we invest in India, China and other countries because we believe they have a future. It's the duty of Muslims to fix their problems, not ours. We've done enough, and what we have donehasn't helped. If anything, Muslims have become more demanding and aggressive.
Muhammad 'Abduh, Rashid Rida and other early reformers, even Wahhabists, hailed the Golden Age of Islam and wanted to return to the "true Islam" of the earliest generations, just as Manji is doing. Jihadists want the West to give money to Muslims and keep the doors open for continued Muslim immigration. Muslim reformists such as Irshad Manji want the West to give money to Muslims and keep the doors open for continued Muslim immigration. So, what's the big difference here?
I stand by my initial assessment of her work: The best thing I can say about her book is that Manji is incoherent and vague. Her historical knowledge is poor and she ignores too many tricky issues. In my view, she brings absolutely no new insight into the question of whether or not Islam can be reformed. Irshad Manji wants to recycle an idea that has been preached since the 19th century, which Westerners should pay for when we are bleeding from the cost of Muslim immigration and while rich Arabs are sponsoring terrorism in our countries. Thanks, but no thanks. The most annoying aspect of this is that her writings have got much more attention than more deserving candidates. Buy a book by somebody who actually understands Islam, such as Understanding Islam and the Muslim Mind by Ali Sina, books by Ibn Warraq, or Wafa Sultan's upcoming book.
You should put out a collection of your commentaries, Fjordman--you are a superb writer and thinker.
Fjordman:
When I read Irshad's book, most of the criticisms you make are the ones I had too. Furthermore, Irshad never at any time in her book directly critiques the aspects of the Qur'an and Sunnah which Westerners find most troubling (at least those Westerners that have actually read the original texts of Islam). Being "nice" as you say is not enough. Eh, bien. Plus ca change, plus la meme.
http://www.migrationwatch.co.uk/pressreleases/pressreleases.asp?dt=03-January-2007#148
‘New figures out today reveal that, on the Government's own figures, the benefit to each member of the native population of the UK from immigration is worth about 4p a week - or less than the equivalent of a small Mars bar a month.
In an analysis of a series of reports on the economic impact of immigration on the UK think-tank Migrationwatch has found that overall the much vaunted contribution of immigrants to the economy is very slight indeed - a finding that coincides with the results of major studies around the world. (see report)
'The Government seek to present the record immigration levels as being nothing but good news for the host community as a means of deflecting attention from some of the many problems it is causing and to neutralise the deep public disquiet they know is out there,' said Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch. 'Of course many immigrants make a useful contribution to the economy but taken in total the economic benefit is at best marginal.
'The main beneficiaries are the immigrants themselves who are able to send home about £10 million a day, not the host nation,' he said.
Sir Andrew said that while the supporters of mass immigration were adept at publicising the 'benefits,' they studiously avoided the many downsides that result, such as the pressure on an already overburdened infrastructure, housing, health and schools as well as an increasing impact on employment and added strains on community cohesion.’
Henna-haired self-promoter, she nonetheless has her uses. But they are limited, and becoming more so by the day. If she is taken as the real thing, when the Real Thing Has Come Along -- Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan --then she merely gets in the way, the way those "commentators on Islam" who have acquired reputations as stern critics but whose words of wisdom include strange panaceas of the "moderate Islam is the solution" variety -- get in the way of those who propose that people understand things aright, and not through a half-empty glass darkly, and not askew.
Fjordman,
You've managed to persuade me that Irshad Manji's faith in itjihad is not a sufficient impetus to reform Islam .. I've been leaning in that direction (especially w// Wafa Sultan's insistence that only complete transformation .. not reformation .. of Islam will do ). Thank you.
"I'm not a feminist, and I'm not buying the assertion that Islamic aggression will disappear once women re-interpret the Koran. The problem with Islam isn't the patriarchy, it is the violence in its core texts. Exactly how are the more than 100 Jihad verses of the Koran, the dozens of aggressive military raids by Muhammad and his companions as contained in the Sunna, the hadith and the Sira going to go away because they are read by women? If women will make a difference, it will be in bringing Islam down, not in reforming it."
Exactly.
" It's the duty of Muslims to fix their problems, not ours. We've done enough, and what we have done hasn't helped. If anything, Muslims have become more demanding and aggressive."
Precisely.
It strikes me that addicts and Muslims both live in totalitarian regimes. The only way out for either sufferer is to hit bottom and find an honest spiritual partnership with a power greater than the addiction. We must not try to break their fall with our bodies, minds or lives .. if we persist in doing so .. all will be lost.
"Imagine if the United States, the European Union, Canada, Australia, Japan, and other rich allies launched Operation Ijtihad by recasting part of their national security budgets as micro-enterprise loans to creative women throughout the Muslim world"
in other words GIMME GIMME GIMME.
Can any muslim restrain for 2 seconds in his life being always the same arrogant bastard he is?
"Imagine if the United States, the European Union, Canada, Australia, Japan, and other rich allies launched Operation Ijtihad by recasting part of their national security budgets as micro-enterprise loans to creative women throughout the Muslim world"
-- from Irshad Manji's deeply self-promoting article above
And who does Irshad Manji think might be the best person to spearhead such an effort?
Hugh
I wonder if it is possible for you not, when criticising a person, to engage in personal and deingratory remarks. You just could'nt let it slip by could you? "Henna-haired self-promoter"... It certainly is one of your hallmarks.
That said, I agree with Fjordman's analysis, which is not new. Manji and others like Radmaw Masmoudi, who unabashedly claim that itjihad is the end all and be all of reform, don't seem to realise that itjihad can be used to develop stricter and narrower interpretations of Islam. This happened quite frequently during the reign of the "Rightly Guided" Caliphs.
Thomas
From Daisytoo:
You've managed to persuade me that Irshad Manji's faith in itjihad is not a sufficient impetus to reform Islam .. I've been leaning in that direction (especially w// Wafa Sultan's insistence that only complete transformation .. not reformation .. of Islam will do ). Thank you.
Excuse me, but a "complete transformation" implies that there is some kind of valid core around which a transformation may be made. What or where is that? Muhammad was evil, and his 'religion' is evil. Sure, let's get rid of Muhammad, the Hadith and the Sunnah. What is left, the incorrect retellings of Jewish and Christian tradition?
I am with Ali Sina - Islam must be destroyed.
As for Thomas Haidon - why would someone convert to AND CONTINUALLY DEFEND a religion that is in such need of fixing? He must think that there is some valid core to Islam. Let him state here what it is.
Ethelred - questioningislam@yahoo.com
Ethelred
My views on Islam are irrelevant; they are "elcectic", non-conformist and have no ummah wide support. So take them with a grain of salt, a big grain.
While I am critical of what Islam is and has become, I believe in the Qur'an. I generally, do not follow the Sunnah, because it is a man made creation that is not revelation and much of it was creation of the Caliphate to consolidate and abuse expansionist political policies. Personally, I have long been persuaded by the writings of Ahmed Mansour, Mohammed Taha, Farog Foda, Abdullahi Na'im et al who have argued that Islam should be viewed through a non literalist hermeneutical framework and contextual understanding. These are REAL reformers.
"I am with Ali Sina - Islam must be destroyed"
For all of the good Ali Sina does, etsablishing networks for ex-Msuslims, his work is rubbish compared to that of Ibn Warraq. You will not destroy Islam; you cannot destroy Islam. Ibn Waraq proposes marginalising Islam. Ibn Waraq has also worked with Muslims, like my friend and colleague Fatemollah (not ex-Muslims). This is a far better and more realistic strategy.
"Yet Sultan has met little enthusiasm for this in the West: “I haven’t received the kind of support I expected from women in the US. Recently, I gave a speech at the University of California, and during the question period, an American woman told me she didn’t believe the things I was saying about Muslim men’s treatment of women. She said: ‘Muhammed was the first man on earth to give women rights.’ I responded, ‘Would you please tell me what some of those rights are, so I can tell Muslim women to be aware of them?’ She said, ‘I don’t know, but I was invited to a mosque in LA, and that’s what the mullah told us.’ Can you believe how naive these women are?”"
That niave woman, who knows nothing about Islam, actually told a woman who grew up as a Muslim, that she did not believe her.
I suspect she would, like so many others, also believe Irshad Manji over Wafa Sultan.
She probably votes, too.
"Imagine if the United States, the European Union, Canada, Australia, Japan, and other rich allies launched Operation Ijtihad by recasting part of their NATIONAL SECURITY BUDGETS as micro-enterprise loans to creative women throughout the Muslim world."
GAG GAG VOMIT. Yeah, let's cut body armour and family benefits for our brave US troops so we can subsidize the breeders-in-a-sac with welfare money so they can churn out more jihadis. Just another slimy pseudoreformer looking for western handout. She is NOT sincere. A muslim asking you to cut money from your armed forces and instead use it for the jizya is a closet jihadi. Why not request the jizya, sorry, entreprise loans from the muslim countries such as Saudis that are awash in oil money? Oh, wait, unlike liberal dhimmies they actually know the contents of the Koran and Islamic jurisprudence. Seems like even the most "progressive" muslims know jizya is for kafirs only. Any muslim telling the west to DISARM and instead use the money for foreign aid to muslims is a closet jihadi.I don't remember the Ottoman Empire funding the Renaissance and Enlightenment through micro bussiness loans, but then that was the Golden Age of Islam, so maybe they did?
Irshad Manji is an escapist:
She left the Islamic hell behind to BS her way around the Dar-al Harb, where she enjoys celebrity status being a lesbian, 'emancipated and/or 'reformist' Muslim writer, pulling the wool over infidel eyes and ears.
Good heavens: One minute on TV with her psycho-babble is enough and you know everything!
Ship her back to wherever she came from and see how long she lasts.
I prefer to listen to the hate-preachers on MEMRI TV or You Tube...
At least they tell the truth!
"Mohammed Taha, Farog Foda..."
-- from a posting above
And what happened to them?
Hugh
Just because they were killed does not make their any scholarship any less valid. They were killed because they presented a threat to the dogmatic Islamist establishments they sought to challenge.
The desperation we non-Muslims feel to help advance the reformation of Islam is not shared by most of those who actually practice the religion.
We often hear that, "only Muslims can reform Islam." And yet, even if it were possible, which apparently it is not, most Muslims don't seem interested in any such reform.
There is only one solution, from a Western perspective, and this is to attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity on a large scale.
Christianity, a religion of peace, hope and forgiveness for the most part, has a much greater appeal than the violence and aggression commonly found in the religions with which it competes. That is the key to its success in an age where ideas of equality, justice, freedom, and benevolence are widespread.
"You will not destroy Islam; you cannot destroy Islam"
-posted by the "thin-skinned and delusional"
Haidon above
destroy Islam?
...well perhaps not. But we CAN reclaim the Hagia Sofia and Constantinople and begin the relocation of muslim immigrants living non-muslim coutries back to their country of origin.
We can set Islam out to spoil and let it rot in its own juices
And then for the Zamzam...
IT CAN BE DONE AMIGO
Sheik Yer Mami
Irshad Manji's family came to Canada after being expelled by the Idi Amin regime in Uganda.
NO! Not the Zamzam. It has been 'scientifically' determined by Muslim 'scientists' to have 'special' 'magical' 'properties'.
And Thomas Haidon, with your constituency of exactly ONE -- what light can your views on Islam possibly shed? They simply muddle the already muddied muddled waters on this nearly impenetrable subject.
What's your real motivation? You offer your own peculiar brand of darkness here.
"Irshad Manji is an escapist:
She left the Islamic hell behind to BS her way around the Dar-al Harb, where she enjoys celebrity status being a lesbian, 'emancipated and/or 'reformist' Muslim writer, pulling the wool over infidel eyes and ears.
Good heavens: One minute on TV with her psycho-babble is enough and you know everything!
Ship her back to wherever she came from and see how long she lasts." - Posted by: sheik yer'mami
At least she is not, like some Western lesbian feminists, acting as an apologist for radical Islam. Do do so would be less courageous. Far from having left the Islamic hell behind her, she still lives it in Canada. She has to hire bodyguards whenever she gives public appearances. What I suspect is a lot of the racist sexist homophobic bigots who unfortunately sometimes post on this board are annoyed by the fact that she is both a butch lesbo (not a sexy "L-Word" bi-friendly one, the kind that exists mostly in het male fantasyland than in real life) AND a Muslim. What's not to hate? And as for sending her back to where she came from, where exactly was she born? I've heard her interviewed on the radio, and she talks just like a native Canadian. So even if she wasn't born here, she's obviously lived here most of her life. There is no rational reason to pick on Muslims like her (as opposed to, say, the Khadr family, who should be flown over the Atlantic Ocean and dropped out of the plane) other than the fact that they annoy the rednecks and bigots. Then, if the rednecks and bigots deported everyone who annoyed them there would be about 300 people left in Canada, not to mention the fact that they can't deport some of the most annoying, those pesky aboriginal Canadians with their land claims...but I digress...my problem with Manji is entirely with her naivete, but I believe her intentions are good. I don't give a damn about her sexual orientation, nor that she is, as Hugh puts it, a "henna-haired self-promoter." All successful writers are self-promoters; they have to be. Those who are not self promoters are called "failed writers." As Hugh, being a writer, could surely understand.
Mr. Haidon,
The Qur'an was "revealed" to whom? Muhammad. Allah is totally unapproachable except through Muhammad. The Qur'an cannot be totally understood without the Hadith and the Sunnah, both of which reveal Muhammad to be a thoroughly despicable man.
You say that you "believe in the Qur'an." Then you must believe that it is the immutable word of Allah (including all of the grammar mistakes and slips into the third person, etc), that it is uncreated and true for all time, past, present and future. It means that you believe that 9:5 and 9:29 are commands from Allah that are to be followed today.
And what do mean, "I am critical of what Islam is and has become"? What about what Islam WAS IN MUHAMMAD'S TIME? What about the killing, the raping, the looting, the enslaving? What about the slaughter of 60-90 million Hindus in the following 200 years?
What about the treatment of women in Muhammad's own time? And don't give me the feminist crap. Muhammad's first wife was a successful, independent business woman before he dragged her into the cesspool of Islam.
Islam is a Jim Jones cult writ large and has inflicted countless miseries on the world. It has no center to it, nothing good, and must be stopped.
As for Ali Sina being rubbish, that would come as a surprise to none other than Ibn Warraq.
Ethelred
"As for Ali Sina being rubbish, that would come as a surprise to none other than Ibn Warraq."
-- from a posting just above
Yes, it certainly would.
"I believe her intentions are good. I don't give a damn about her sexual orientation, nor that she is, as Hugh puts it, a 'henna-haired self-promoter.' All successful writers are self-promoters; they have to be."
Really? Chaucer? Larkin? Keats? Flann O'Brien? Salingr? Pessoa? Montale?
Perhaps you mean right now and right here, in this age. It isn't true. The odd appearance for an interview does not constitute the kind of self-promotion that Irshad Manji frenetically engages in -- no, she's on the Christopher Hitchens or Gore Vidal or Norman Mailer level of self-promotion.
That is, the level of unseemliness. Ayaan Hirsi Ali promotes herself, agent and all, but not quite in the same manner. Irshad Manji's manner puts me in mind of Camille Paglia. So that even when she veers into perfect sense, for a moment, one distrusts her. This is the shamelessly "I, I, I" kind, the Tom Friedman kind, and it should not be condoned just because some find that "her intentions are good." Everyone's intentions are good. Tariq Ramadan's intentions are good: Islam will save us, and Islam must be protected from any searching criticism in order that it might be thrust upon us to save us.
Irshad Manji simply gets in the way of the real full-fledged and thoughtful apostates from Islam, those who do not wish or what is often the same thing, do not know how to promote themselves.
I object. Why shouldn't I?
Ethelred and Hugh
Regarding Ibn Waraq and Ali Sina. Ibn Waraq would undoubtedly support some of the work that Sina does (so do I), particularly his work with ex-Muslims. But in terms of scholarship, there is no comparison. Ibn Waraq is clearer and more effective. He presents realistic solutions, without going through the offensive vitriolic rants taht Ali Sina does. I contacted Ali Sina about a year and a half ago, and reminded him of this distinction between himself and Ibn Waraq. He did'nt disagree with the major differences between the two.
JSLA
You ask: "And Thomas Haidon, with your constituency of exactly ONE -- what light can your views on Islam possibly shed". Perhaps you need a class in basic reading comprehension. Re-read my initial post. I remarked that reliance on itjihad by Muslim reformers is misplaced; in other words I was generally supportive of Fjordman's remarks about Manji (and Radwan Masmoudi impliedly).
An example of Ali Sina's stallar "scholarship".
In a recent symposium Dr Sina stated: "Another cuter story is when Muhammad raises his hand to beat a woman who rejects his advances. Bukhari 7.63.182". On his website Dr Sina states that 7.63.182 states: "A dignified woman, Jauniyaa (a princess) was brought to Muhammad to have sex with him but she was reluctant to give herself to him; Muhammad was angry and raised his hand to beat her...(Sahih Bukhari, 7.63.182)"
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=16441&p=1
The hadith actually reads:
Volume 7, Book 63, Number 182:
Narrated Abu Usaid:
We went out with the Prophet to a garden called Ash-Shaut till we reached two walls between which we sat down. The Prophet said, "Sit here," and went in (the garden). The Jauniyya (a lady from Bani Jaun) had been brought and lodged in a house in a date-palm garden in the home of Umaima bint An-Nu'man bin Sharahil, and her wet nurse was with her. When the Prophet entered upon her, he said to her, "Give me yourself (in marriage) as a gift." She said, "Can a princess give herself in marriage to an ordinary man?" The Prophet raised his hand to pat her so that she might become tranquil. She said, "I seek refuge with Allah from you." He said, "You have sought refuge with One Who gives refuge. Then the Prophet came out to us and said, "O Abu Usaid! Give her two white linen dresses to wear and let her go back to her family." Narrated Sahl and Abu Usaid: The Prophet married Umaima bint Sharahil, and when she was brought to him, he stretched his hand towards her. It seemed that she disliked that, whereupon the Prophet ordered Abu Usaid to prepare her and to provide her with two white linen dresses.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/063.sbt.html#007.063.182
Is this scholarship? Please.
What I wrote above was the subject of an online debate between Dr Sina and a Muslim (albeit an idiot).
http://www.examinethetruth.com/Ali_Sina_Gone_Wild.htm
I saw her lecture, heard the same points
and agree with you Fjordman. She is nice but deluded
and does us more harm than not with her illusions.
Haidon,
Is that the best you've got? We are all used to the sanitization of English translations. She sought refuge of Allah from Mohammad because he threatened to "pat" her? Puhleeze.
Just below that, on the same page, is a refuge for Pakistani rape victims from Muslim men.
Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla ('Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died.
Verily, therefore, thou mayest multiply thy favorable testimonies as well. Amen.
Haidon offers an English translation of a hadith and expects us to believe that this English translation has not sanitized and bowdlerized the original Arabic:
The Prophet raised his hand to pat her so that she might become tranquil.
Yeah, right. And Haidon supposes that Ali Sina, who knows Arabic and English fluently, didn't quote a more faithful translation (or possibly translated it himself) of this hadith, when he quoted it as "Muhammad was angry and raised his hand to beat her"...?
I have a bridge sinking in Florida swampland I'd like to sell Haidon.
I agree with Fjordman, this Manji lady is a loose cannon and she talks BS. what can be accomplished with aiding poor muslim women? we will end up with more better fed jihadis who will search out the true Islam of jihad.
I had already argued before that for us infidals these so called reformist and moderates muslims pose a more serious danger in terms of islamic infiltration than do the jihadists.
Well if its so unreliable why does Dr Sina use the very same "bowlderised" and "sanitised" language when translating the hadith?
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AbulKasem51209p4.htm
The above illustrates how lazy and shoddy Ali Sina can be sometimes when trying to prove a point. And some of you consider him to be on par with Ibn Waraq? Give me a break. His work is not the mark of a scholar, but that of a reactionary and a zealot.
So how about that bridge remote control?
Sonomaca said "There is only one solution, from a Western perspective, and this is to attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity on a large scale."
I think the answer is for Christian and other non-muslim men to marry Muslim women and make them Muslim apostates!
Concerned Citizen
The point of my posting was not to say that the Prophet was good, or that he never sanctioned the beating of women, or that Islam is good. The point was to illustrate an instance of shoddy scholarship by Dr Sina.
Thomas Haidon writes: "I believe in the Qur'an"
What does that mean? Do you believe it's the eternal, literal word of God? Do you believe the original exists in the Preserved Tablet in heaven?
And do you believe Muhammad's life and ways are worth emulating?
The Coherence of the Incoherence.
Haidon,
It is irrelevant whether Ali Sina is not a scholar of the highest degree or not. It took a child to tell the Emperor that he had no clothes.
We are here engaged in a fight against tyranny. Islam has money and power, so many sophisticated scholars are willing to give it a clean image.
We are plain tired of this.
What if it's not a completely God-authored book? What if it's riddled with human biases?
WHAT IF? For crying out loud, any sane philologist will have this as a baseline hypothesis, possibly to be proven wrong if there is some evidence for it. However, like the tens of millions of other books out there, the Koran, alas and alack, does not contain one iota of actual "God-authoring". Or even the Arabic equivalent of an iota.
The idea that anyone other than Mohammed is responsible for the contents of the Koran is balderdash.
It's called a rhetorical strategy, Muslims. Look it up. One doesn't have to be a sort of Harold Bloom acolyte to see "the anxiety of influence" working on Mohammed throughout the Koran.
Bloom's central thesis is that poets are hindered in their creative process by the ambiguous relationship they necessarily maintained with precursor poets. While admitting the influence of extraliterary experience on every poet, he argues that "the poet in a poet" is inspired to write by reading another poet's poetry and will tend to produce work that is derivative of existing poetry, and, therefore, weak.
There's Mohammed, and Islam, in a nutshell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anxiety_of_Influence
Kamala
And do you believe Muhammad's life and ways are worth emulating?
No.
Ibn Warraq is more of a scholar than Ali Sina. Sina is in the Internet trenches regularly debating people and trying to change the world. I'd take either one over Esposito or Armstrong, and it's not close. Neither Warraq nor Sina is lying for the big bucks.
Fjordman: "What worries me about Manji and finally caused me to write about her is that presumably well intentioned individuals such as her can contribute to keeping the illusion of a reformed and modern Islam alive during the time frame when non-Muslims might have a chance of separating ourselves from the Islamic world without massive bloodshed."
Bingo. We're rapidly approaching the point where we ("civilization" that is) can no longer afford to indulge the "my own private Islam" (aka Hugh) fantasies of the likes of Manji and of Haidon as well. This really is becoming about the do-gooder "Oprah-esque" fantasies of a handful of individuals who by perpetutating these fantasies are leading hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people to their brutal deaths. They should shut up about "my own private Islam" for now and instead sound the alarm that allows us to take action while we still can to contain Islam until our survival as western societies and infidel human beings is assured. Then, once that is assured, I would be more than happy to entertain their fantasies about a reformed Islam.
Until then, they're merely Pied Pipers - all of them.
Mr. Haidon, why not answer my first few questions?
Kamala
What does that mean? Do you believe it's the eternal, literal word of God? Do you believe the original exists in the Preserved Tablet in heaven?
While I believe the Qur'an is the literal word of Allah, I don't believe it can be taken literally.
He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:” and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding. (Qur'an 3:7)
Do I believe the Qur'an is perfect? No. Ibn Waraq in his study fo the Qu'ran, and other scholars have pointed put that the Qur'an we see today is incomplete and revelations have been removed, inserted. The Qur'an is not a perfect document.
Caroline
Equating me to Manji is a mistake. I don't and have never bought into such "fantasies". In fact, I have been critical of Manji and her theses, as well as many other Muslim reformers who consistently talk s*** but fail to act. I have consistently qualified my views, and have acknowledged they are not mainstream.
You wrote:
They should shut up about "my own private Islam" for now and instead sound the alarm that allows us to take action while we still can to contain Islam until our survival as western societies and infidel human beings is assured. Then, once that is assured, I would be more than happy to entertain their fantasies about a reformed Islam.
I don't disagree.
Mr. Haidon,
So do you believe God's words are that a daughter should inherit half of what a son inherits?
That God condones a husband beating his wife (of course, after first trying other non-violent means to stem "rebellion")?
That God believes those who fight the spread of Islam ("wage war against Allah and strive to make mischief in the land") deserve to be murdered, crucified, or have their hands or feet cut off or be imprisoned?
And the most important question: why are you a Muslim?
PRCS said:
"Yet Sultan has met little enthusiasm for this in the West: “I haven’t received the kind of support I expected from women in the US. Recently, I gave a speech at the University of California, and during the question period, an American woman told me she didn’t believe the things I was saying about Muslim men’s treatment of women. She said: ‘Muhammed was the first man on earth to give women rights.’ I responded, ‘Would you please tell me what some of those rights are, so I can tell Muslim women to be aware of them?’ She said, ‘I don’t know, but I was invited to a mosque in LA, and that’s what the mullah told us.’ Can you believe how naive these women are?”"
That niave woman, who knows nothing about Islam, actually told a woman who grew up as a Muslim, that she did not believe her.
I suspect she would, like so many others, also believe Irshad Manji over Wafa Sultan..."
This is the mindset of the incurably ignorant. These are the same people who denied the horrors of Communism. It is telling that many on the Left agree with the aims of Islam(i.e., the destruction of the West) and make common cause with it, thinking that their vanguard would be able to ride this tiger. Not knowing that come the Revolution they would be the first to go. Or perhaps it is pure nihilism that makes them love the Muslim. I remember a Cuban friend of mine, an emigre, who tried to explain her life under a totalitarian system to a Maryknoll Christian peacemaker type, with its erosion of morality, freedom, and creation of fear and suspicion even among family members. Evidence or personal experiences mean nothing to these people. It is an unshakeable religious faith.
PRCS and Hubert the Friar/
Please don't tar all of us on the left with same brush, however. I am definitely on the left politically - mark you, most British electors are, that is if they are compared to the electors in the USA (different society and, therefore, different mores so, therefore, no judgement given, or implied, by me about either society) - and I am awake on every suit with regards to islam and the threat that it poses with respect to our democracies and our ways of life. Not everyone on the left is as stupid as you think. Left or right, up or down, intelligent people will eventually realise where the real threat lies - I hope.
Dominic.
Hugh/
Chaucer was definitely a self-promoter - and a toady to boot (as, in that day and age, he had to be). He composed 'The Booke of the Duchesse', a poem of 1334 lines in octosyllabic couplets if you remember, in honour of John of Gaunt's recently deceased wife (the Duchess Blanche).
Yes, yes, I know that John eventually married his long-time mistress and lived happily ever after but that's not the point. 'The Booke of the Duchesse' was composed to promote himself (Chaucer) in royal circles and also amongst the limited circle of the literate in his age.
Wouldn't use Chaucer as an example if I was you!
Dominic.
Haidon,
The most generous interpretation of what Ali Sina does on that link is that he is being, not "shoddy" but sloppy -- i.e., that he knows the Arabic, and he put the more faithful translation of one portion of that hadith at the header to that fuller hadith quote, then, instead of translating the fuller quote, he just threw in an available English translation without thinking (or certainly without reading it).
We aren't talking about whether life on Mars can be proved or not; Ali Sina's initial rendering of that portion of the hadith can be easily verified by anyone who knows Arabic (and who honestly translates it). As far along as we Infidels are in our Internet prowess, it's regrettable that hunting down the answer to this simple little question could take many hours -- perhaps days -- and lots of labor.
Hugh/
And, if I make so bold, wasn't his (John of Ghent's) mistress Katherine Swynford (in somewise related to Chaucer's wife - younger sister I think I remember, but more likely a cousin) the one who gave rise to the Beaufort line which gave rise to Henry IV (Bolingbroke). If memory serves me - and it usually does - one of Bolingbroke's by-blows gave rise to the Fitzgeralds - who later, and perhaps wisely, settled in Ireland and absorbed themselves into the Geraldines in Kerry!
We English aristos never forget. It's all just gossip of course. But...
Dominic.
the West can't advance without immigrants. (…) In short, the West needs Muslims."
Do we?
from the article, quoting Manji's book
Yes, do we? Well, maybe we do, and maybe we don't. In any case, the 2nd part of the statement ("needs muslims") does not follow from the 1st("can't advance. . .") The last thing the West needs is moslem immigrants, whose presence will only halt any advance we are making. If we truly need immigrants, then we should be looking for them almost everywhere except among the moslems. First we should be looking among the persecuted Christian (and Jewish and Bahai and other) minorities in the islamic countries. Second, the non-U.S. West should look to Latin America. France and Britain, for example, would both be a lot better off if they could rid themselves of, respectively, a half million Pakistanis and North Africans, and replace them with half a million Mexicans.
But even better would be not to need immigration in the first place. And we wouldn't if we hadn't been engaged in the genocide of abortion for over 30 years. We have been killing infants at the rate of over a million/year during all that time. If those infants had been allowed to live and contribute to our society and economy, would we still "need" immigrants?
ebonystone/
You wrote - "We have been killing infants at the rate of over a million/year during all that time. If those infants had been allowed to live and contribute to our society and economy, would we still "need" immigrants?"
But surely the same number of mothers ('over a million/year') would have been taken out of the workforce to care for their children as they - the children - were growing up? So where is the net gain, then?
Economics is not that simple. I don't like abortion, either. But you can't use simplistic economics to justify your position. The actual answer is much more complicated than the one you advance.
You don't need to justify an anti-abortion stance in terms of economics. This is a question of morality - what is right or wrong - so stick to that and have the courage of your convictions!
Dominic.
I agree with many of the points raised about how Manji may not be helping much, but I don't think she's hurting much either.
whatever her faults (hair color etc) she drives the Islamo-Zealots crazy (even crazier than usual) with hatred for her so she must be doing something right.
remote_control
You could be right. The USC translations tend to be reliable however. Robert, from what I recall has even used them to illustrate some points. Even still, he should take the reader through the translation process to illustrate it. Why on earth would he quote the USC version and present its text? I think he's sloppy.
At any rate, he does more good than harm. Who am I to be pedantic.
angorishlav sez:
'... like some Western lesbian feminists, acting as an apologist for radical Islam. Do do so would be less courageous. Far from having left the Islamic hell behind her, she still lives it in Canada. She has to hire bodyguards whenever she gives public appearances. What I suspect is a lot of the racist sexist homophobic bigots who unfortunately sometimes post on this board are annoyed by the fact that she is both a butch lesbo...' etc.
She is an apologist for Islam. No more, no less. I don't care whether she is lesbian or nymphomanic or into donkeys, she has that freedom in Canada. Does she need boyguards because of the rednecks in Canada? Hardly.
Why doesn't she, and all those like her, who pull the wool over infidel eyes and ears of gullible, naive infidels do their thing in some Islamic country?
They can't. They won't. Because their own body-guards would make an end to their nonsense. They wouldn't live another day.
Islam cannot be reformed.
It can be destroyed. But we're not doing that...
Haidon
It is disingenuous of you to have cited that citation from Ali Sina, and then accuse him of being a reactionary and a zealot, when in the Frontpage magazine article you cited, he goes on to elaborate on that incident further:
Maybe you object to Ali Sina referring to Mohammed being in his father's testicles. But scholarship is defined according to how much one knows, rather than how crass one isn't.As to Ibn Warraq, I've read his essay on Islam and Fascism, and here is one item that he uses to butress his point:
If the possibility that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob never existed implies that a religion is fascist, then Warraq's conclusions about Islam could just as easily be applied to Judaism. Also, since Umberto Eco's criteria required "These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.", the lack of other characterestics of fascism in Judaism wouldn't prevent it from being classified as fascist, using the above argument.In his other works, Warraq suggests that Islam's view of the afterlife is borrowed from Zoroastrianism and Hinduism (something that Robert in turn cited in The Truth about Muhammad). I don't know about Zoroastrianism, but in Hinduism, no Hindu gets to view the choreographic performances of celestial dancers in their afterlife, no matter what they do. What Warraq does there is conflate two apparently similar, but really very different concepts and regions - heavens (the realm of Gods & Goddesses) with the afterlife (abode of death), which aren't the same thing or place. I do think Warraq is a good scholar, but I've seen holes in his analogies and arguments. I therefore wouldn't put him several notches above Ali Sina.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami
She left the Islamic hell behind to BS her way around the Dar-al Harb, where she enjoys celebrity status being a lesbian, 'emancipated and/or 'reformist' Muslim writer, pulling the wool over infidel eyes and ears.
Good heavens: One minute on TV with her psycho-babble is enough and you know everything!
After two minutes on TV I thought she was Tariq Ramadan in drag/cross dressing
She is no moderate she is only giving the west what they want to hear and collecting a fat cheque by making leftie elitists feel secure in their thinking
Amern, Shiva!
I hope she reads this blog!
Assalamau Laikum all,
At least Irshad is trying. Her trying poses little threat to Islam and is probably for the benefit of the Kaffur to better understand her...muslims certainly cannot.
Mr. Haidon is correct that Islam cannot be destroyed....try to do that and it simply gets stronger...that's the magic of Islam...it's core is built on values of humanity.
That somethings need to be done though is beyond doubt, peaceful Islam is good for the world. Unlike Christianity, Strong faith is a good thing and belief in the Koran certainly provides that.
Ahmadi provides a good way forward...however if mainstream Islam rejects this (which unfortunately it does), I have read nothing better than than my own "skip-a-sura" mantra.
This involves skipping the violent verses...as a gentle protest to Allah SWT ...that muslims are suffering as a result ...and anyway this mantra may actually ATTRACT Kaffur to Islam.
I just think that "skip-a-sura" IS what muislims need....most of them don't even think about that.
Mr. Haidon...I would love to know what you think about my mantra....when reading the Koran do you read Sura 9 with complete faith and belive in it?
I prefer to listen to the hate-preachers on MEMRI TV or You Tube... At least they tell the truth!
Posted by: sheik yer'mami
I couldn't agree more; and thanks, Fjordman for an excellent article.
I think the answer is for Christian and other non-muslim men to marry Muslim women and make them Muslim apostates!
Posted by: Shahryar
Don't you mean marry "four" Muslim woman and make them apostates.
TheEternalM,
Where did Thomas say that he agrees with everything that Ali Sina has ever said? He only said that some of the work he has done has been valuable.
As for your other comments:
"Muslims are the followers of Satan and they lie instinctively"
Well, the Qur'an says unbelievers are the friends of Satan and are liars, so what's your point?
"It is not an insult to say Muslims are not humans"
The Quran says that Jews are descended from apes and pigs (and Muhammed did not have Darwinism in mind when this was revealed)
"As long as Muslims are Muslims they do not deserve to be treated in accordance to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
Many muslims themselves do not believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as it contradicts with the sharia. This is why muslims concocted the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights in Cairo in 1990/1991, which contradicts the original in many places. So again, what's your point?
I actually find Thomas Haidon's comments quite refreshing from the usual Tu Quoque and Taquiya mix that is usually presented by Tariq Ramadan and others of his ilk. This has helped me to spot true reformers from those who are not. Looks like I must be in the 0.1% at JW who doesn't hate him then, doesn't it, though I also think that the percentage figure you give, like everything else in your post, is completely misleading and innacurate.
Do not presume to know what readers at Jihadwatch actually think.
Do I believe the Qur'an is perfect? No. Ibn Waraq in his study fo the Qu'ran, and other scholars have pointed put that the Qur'an we see today is incomplete and revelations have been removed, inserted. The Qur'an is not a perfect document.
Posted by: Haidon at January 3, 2007 11:10 PM
Do you have a reference for this?
That blows a hole in the whole muslim argument that it is perfect and has not been changed doesn't it?
I wonder how anyone can follow someone who murdered and had people murdered and also robbed people.
Most people think what they are doing is right, or at least justified. Except the mentally ill who don't think about what they are doing.
The koran tells followers to do what it says "even if it seems wrong". In other words override your common sense that 'god' gave you.
Naseem says "peaceful Islam is good for the world."
Yes, except there IS no "peaceful" islam.
As you well know.
Irshad Manji lives in denial about the true message of the writings that define Islam. There is no "positive", "moderate" or "progressive" Islam, because any such qualifier implies a perversion of the original texts. Irshad will never be able to change Islam, no matter how badly she tries. Instead of "reforming" Islam, the focus should be on discrediting it and abolishing it, just like civilization has done to the Nazi ideology, which shares several principles Islam (racial supremacy, global domination, etc.).
posted by Naseem
Strong faith is a good thing and belief in the Koran certainly provides that.
Strong faith in oneself is far beyond having strong faith in any form of religion
TheEternalM
Amicus is right. Don't assume that simply because most of us hate Islam and may hate Muslims, that spills over to Haidon. Haidon can speak for himself, but I've seen nothing in this thread that suggests that he and Hugh are buddies, their areas of agreement notwithstanding.
Also, I do not believe that the existance of people like Haidon or Manji furthers the slow Jihad; what it does do is allow unwary Infidels to assume that there is a majority of Muslims who share their views, and do not wish ill of the Infidel world. I for one think that's dangerous, but I blame the Infidels who buy into that myth, not the Muslims who may genuinely wish things were different.
Ethelred,
You wrote, "Excuse me, but a "complete transformation" implies that there is some kind of valid core around which a transformation may be made."
I hope this is helpful. Transformation can be a matter of spiritual change conducted within the deepest aspects of human spirit by Divine intervention. Muslims are human and therefore do have a spiritual nature - which is a valid core for the purposes of transformation. Wafa Sultan claimed 'complete transformation' as a valid solution for totalitarian Islam. I believe she said this out of her experience as a Psychologist (and of course, as a refugee from the totalitarian regime of Islam). I work in the same field as Dr. Sultan (and have had the privilege of corresponding with her), so perhaps that's why I'm pragmatic about the basic inefficacy of "total destruction" of anything. What can actually be created or destroyed? Furthermore, people have a strong tendency to become whatever it is they want to "totally" destroy.
On the other hand, you also said, "Muhammad was evil, and his 'religion' is evil. Sure, let's get rid of Muhammad, the Hadith and the Sunnah. What is left, the incorrect retellings of Jewish and Christian tradition?"
I agree. A power mongering Islam has obscured the truth from the get go .. which is why reformation will not work - a rearranged totalitarian state is still totalitarian. Both Judaism and Christianity have undergone successful (albeit more or less bloody) Reformations - successful because the core beliefs of those religious systems are eternally consistent and fully based within Truth. Islam stubbornly resists all efforts to reform and in fact takes pride in its own petrified status. Islam is extremely defended against self-inquiry and so remains effectively unconscious. Are Islamists aware of this? No. Of course not .. that's the problem .. if they were conscious .. or willing to become conscious (instead of petrified) .. the necessity of change would be accepted as a fact of life. Totalitarians of all stripes are terrified of change .. they deal in ersatz change by attempting (and, terribly enough, often succeeding) to impose their own "perfected system" on everyone .. the fantasy involves everyone living happily ever after in total-Islam. Needless to say, this is dangerously insane.
Any potential transformation of Islam may be made more possible through a variety of interventions ... from military to missionary to miraculous. However, all false rescuing efforts of failed Muslim regimes through air-headed "business" ventures that the well-meaning but ill-informed Ms. Manji proposes will only prolong the destructive illusions of Islamists and harm all involved.
I'd like to add my 2 cents on this:
We know that there can never be a translation of the Qur'an that would be recognized as "authoritative," because only the original version in Arabic is regarded as such.
But I think the USC site is useful for several reasons:
1. It's free to the public, and can be linked to specific verses for quick reference.
2. It helps reinforce the fact that, no, we Infidels are not making this stuff up, but instead, can refer to translations by Muslims, who had benevolent intentions toward their religion in propagating its text... and yet all of the things we cite are still there.
3. True, translation can affect shades of meaning. But the substance of the message stays the same. Side-by-side translations at the USC site bear that out; none differ so drastically as to change the overall message.
4. That said, some things are particularly hard to lose in translation due to divergences on shades of meaning, and are thus hard to dismiss due to matters of translation. As Walid Shoebat said in Islam: What the West Needs to Know, "What part of 'kill' don't you understand?"
Indeed, there's no translation of Sura 9:5, by Muslims who are happy to be Muslims, that comes out "Send the unbelievers a cookie bouquet wherever you find them," thus making it the Verse of the Cookie Bouquet (yes, I'm being silly, but trying to drive home a point).
Hence, I find no fault in our use of the USC resources.
godfreyofbouillon posted: Any muslim telling the west to DISARM and instead use the money for foreign aid to muslims is a closet jihadi.
You dont need a Muslim, Tony Blair is doing preecisely that.
Infidel Pride,
"I blame the Infidels who buy into that myth, not the Muslims who may genuinely wish things were different."
I go further: I blame the Infidels for 99% of the problems we are having with the War of Ideas in general. All the cleverness, slickness, sophisticated PR, and money that is utilized by Muslims would have little or no effect were the West -- including millions of ordinary people, in addition to the Goddamned "elites" -- not currently profoundly diseased with PC.
Hi Marisol
Just to let you know for the record, I was not calling Robert sloppy for the the use of USC resources.
Cheers
Thomas
The point of my posting was not to say that the Prophet was good, or that he never sanctioned the beating of women, or that Islam is good. The point was to illustrate an instance of shoddy scholarship by Dr Sina.
Posted by: Haidon at January 3, 2007 10:17 PM
And my point was to illustrate that, as the consensus seems to be developing here at JW/DW, no translation above reproach.
Following are two links demonstrating a lack of unanimity regarding Muhsin Khan's English translation of Sahih Al-Bukhari, including a blatant attempt at sanitization, as well as charges of attempts at introduction of pseudo-Salafi theology, and hadith omission:
http://www.themajlis.net/Sections-article94-p1.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-translation-of-the-meanings-of-sahih-al-bukhari
Why on earth would he [Robert] quote the USC version and present its text? I think he's sloppy. - Haidon
My God, what do you think you did in using it to accuse Sina?
Marisol concluded her post "I find no fault in our use of the USC resources."
A situation, thing or process can be optimal, yet still have faults. It can be the best we have, under the circumstances, but it doesn't mean we should rest on our laurels.
Secondly, to base our effective use of texts on whether they will satisfy Muslims is a dubious enterprise, as most Muslims are not engaged in a genuine debate, but merely supremacist propaganda, whether cleverly disguised or not; and under those terms, they will try to dance around the translation issue until Kingdom come.
Also, as Marisol implied, the USC translations serve us best when they can't help transmitting the ugliness, ridiculousness, perilousness and/or evil of Islam, since it would be hard to accuse them of vilifying their own Islam; but all the renderings that smell like a rose (like Mohammed patting Jauniyya on the head to make her tranquil) should be guilty of whitewashing until proven innocent.
Our War of Ideas is more importantly directed at the millions of Infidels who are lagging on the Learning Curve about the Problem of Islam. A project to get all the hadiths and the Qur'an translated by ex-Muslim Arabs and Christian & Jewish Arabs, with interlinear notations explaining the translation process in comparison with extant translations, should be our goal in the War of Ideas. In the meantime, we can try to educate the millions of Infidels who, because of their PC disease, will have difficult trusting these non-Muslim Arab translators -- but that leg of the War of Ideas shouldn't deter us from pursuing the other in tandem.
Infidel Pride posted: Also, I do not believe that the existance of people like Haidon or Manji furthers the slow Jihad; what it does do is allow unwary Infidels to assume that there is a majority of Muslims who share their views, and do not wish ill of the Infidel world.
Exactly. All they do is to delay the day when it is recognised that Islam cannot be integrated, assimmilated, or accommodated within democratic societies. In fact such merchants of dissimulation, are far more dangeruous then the likes of Bakri and Hamza, who afterall are telling the truth.
Concerned Citizen
My point (evidently it is unclear) was that if Sina was going to use the USC translation and present its text, which I have no issue with in principle, and simltaneously use his own translation, he should walk the reader through his methodology.
I was not criticising Robert's citation use but Sina's use.
DP111
You wrote:
Infidel Pride posted: Also, I do not believe that the existance of people like Haidon or Manji furthers the slow Jihad... All they do is to delay the day when it is recognised that Islam cannot be integrated, assimmilated, or accommodated within democratic societies. In fact such merchants of dissimulation, are far more dangeruous then the likes of Bakri and Hamza, who afterall are telling the truth.
I assure you I'm not Irshad Manji. I've never said I have all of the answers. I have openly acknowledged that Islam may be incapable of reform. So for you to say that I am far worst than Bakri or Abu Hamza is outrageous. Unlike Manji, I actually work in my Muslim community... walking the talk so to speak.
I don't pretend that Islam is going to undergo a reformation. But I do spend a significant amount of my time, at risk, working and discussing these issues with fellow Muslims. So please...
The interesting thing about Irshad Manji is when she is pressed as to why she does not leave Islam, considering all she knows of Islam, replies in an apologetic and devious way, that there are many good things in Islam and she hopes for a more peaceful interpretation of the Koran or a Reformation. On both counts, she must knowthat this is not possible. As long as she continues to define herself as a Muslim, ipso facto, she believes that Mohammed is the messenger of Allah and is the role model for mankind. How on earth anyone can honestly regard Mohammed as a role model for mankind beats me.
How on earth anyone can honestly regard Mohammed as a role model for mankind beats me.
Posted by: DP111
He had sex with multiple women, robbed and killed people, and was revered for it.
Had he been a musician, he could have been the original gangsta rapper.
DP111
Are you familiar with the Mut'azallite's or the Qur'anic movement. While these arent likely to take traction any time soon, these movements provide the way forward for a proper reformation of Islam. This is through recognition of the fallability of the Prophet and a de-emphasis on the so called Muslim tradition. The Muslims of today shouldnt really be called Muslims, they should be called ahl a'Sunnah.
http://www.free-minds.org/books/shahroor.htm
http://www.free-minds.org/books/kassim.htm
http://www.free-minds.org/books/quran_enough_arabic.htm
Haidon posted: I have openly acknowledged that Islam may be incapable of reform.
And yet you believe in the Koran.
I did not say that you were Irshad Manji. What I wrote is " All they do is to delay the day when it is recognised that Islam cannot be integrated, assimmilated, or accommodated within democratic societies".
You yourself admit that Islam may be incapable of reform. If so, then Islam cannot be accommodated in liberal democratic societies, without it doing irreperable damage to the West. The danger is, that growing Muslim population in the West, poses a threat by its very numbers. The sooner this is realised, the better, and that is why I believe that Hamza and Bakri, paradoxically, are almost our allies. And your position and Manji's, are by extention, far more dangeruous. This is no fault of yours or Manji's but the product of the situation that are in.
Mr Haidon, I wish you nothing but the best. If you were representative of Muslims in the West, we would not be having this discussion, and I would not have fears for the survival of Western civilisation. But you must recognise that your position, and Manji's, are isolated ones.
Concerned Citizen posted: Had he been a musician, he could have been the original gangsta rapper.
LOL. Thanks for that, at this late hour of the night. One needs a laugh just to relax and have a good nights sleep.
DP111
"But you must recognise that your position, and Manji's, are isolated ones".
I definitely acknowledge this.
Mr Haidon
Thank you.
I hope then you recognise, that the large scale and growing presence of Muslims in the West, with few if any among them, who subscribe to your views, poses a threat not just to Western civilisation, but to yourself and Manji.
The reformation of Islam, if at all possible, and you acknowledge this, is far in the future. But alas, we dont have that time. I see no hope for the West unless we realise that Islam cannot be integrated, assimmilated, or accommodated within democratic societies within a realistic time frame, and it is in the interest of all, including Muslims, that we live in separate houses.
In the meantime though, wish you all the best in this year of 2007.
Manjii said:
"the West can't advance without immigrants. (…) In short, the West needs Muslims."
We do not need immigrants and we especially do not need muslim immigrants.
This British anti jihad site has been discussing the 'benefits' of Muslim immigration (31st December and onwards):
http://uppompeii.blogspot.com/
here's a section from the site:
"like to suggest we work on a list of muslim 'contributions' to the UK and send it to TB (appropriate initials!) and any other clueless politicians who go on about 'the invaluable contribution to this country of the muslim community' - without naming a single one, of course!)
1. The return of tuberculosis.
2. The return of polio.
3. The increased threat of MRSA.
4. Increased cost to the NHS of unhealthy infants as a result of 'cousin marriage'.
5. 'Honour Killings'.
6. Increase in incidence of rapes.
7. Increase in child molestation and abuse.
8. Increase in domestic violence.
9. Increase in racial/cultural tensions.
10. Cost in lives and treasure of our military presence in Afghanistan.
11. Cost in lives and treasure of our military presence in Iraq.
12. Cost in lives, injury and damage of 7/7 atrocities.
13. Cost of damage and increased policing of muslim riots in various areas.
14. Cost of policing almost weekly muslim demonstrations in our cities.
15. Increased social security bill as a result of muslims' unwillingness to work for or with non-muslims.
16. Block voting.
17. Unprecedented voting irregularities in some areas.
18. Increased bribery & corruption in public and political life (Mohammad al-Fayad scandals etc.)
19. Widespread insecurity about travelling on trains, buses and the underground.
20. Insecurity about air travel post 9/11.
21. Attacks on members of the public by the 'Muslim Boys' and similar gangs.
22. Attacks on police including the shooting of policewomen.
23. Increased attacks on Jewish people and Hindus.
24. Torture murders of non-muslims.
25. Huge cost of increased security in all aspects of life post 9/11 and 7/7.
26. Erosion of traditional aspects of British life - i.e. downplaying Christmas, banning crucifixes etc.
27. The banning of 'Piglet' images and pig money boxes.
28. Censorship of theatre plays.
29. Censorship of art galleries - e.g. the Tate Modern and Whitechapel Gallery.
30. Self-censorship by artists and writers.
31. The presence of extremist mosques.
32. The presence of extremist and threatening imams.
33. The proliferation of Saudi-financed islamic schools and academies.
34. The uncontrolled dissemination of Islamic propaganda fuelled by foreign oil money.
35. 'Tourist litigation': the use of British courts by wealthy Arabs to intimidate and silence critics of Islam even if they live outside the UK.
37. The development of 'no-go' areas where non-muslims no longer feel secure.
38. The use of hijabs and burkas as tools of political intimidation.
39. Intimidation of unveiled non-muslim women in areas dominated by muslims.
40. Desecration of Jewish cemeteries.
41. Burial plots for non-muslims facing Mecca.
42. Tolerance of Halal slaughter methods repugnant to many Britons.
43. The foisting of halal meat on non-muslims in schools and prisons etc.
Well, that's 43. Can we make it 50 or even 100? Suggestions welcome!"
44. The re-orientation of correctional toilets not to face Mecca, done at public expense.
45. The popularization of the BNP.
Haidon wrote:
"...these movements provide the way forward for a proper reformation of Islam. This is through recognition of the fallability of the Prophet..."
Ghandi was "fallible". Churchill was "fallible". The decent corner grocer down the street is "fallible". I think the problem with Mohammed is that he was a wee bit worse than just "fallible" -- nothing less than "vile", "evil" and "seriously deranged" would be pertinent to describe him -- and the employment of such a euphemism as "fallibility" bodes ill for any beneficent and honest deconstruction/reconstruction of the Prophet and Islam that Haidon might have in mind.
Haidon, do you think that we care if ali sina is a scholar or not?
at this point ANYTHING OR ANYBODY that's against islam is an ally. Got it?
English Blondie
#47 The removal from public thoroughfares, courtesy taxpayers, of desecrated animal blood and carcasses after orgiastic Eid slaughter frenzies.
#48 The emergency room treatment, courtesy taxpayers, of self-inflicted wounds by Butchers for Allah during self-same Eid festivities.
and 1 to go to make it an even 50!
Ooops -- I numbered mine incorrectly and then didn't add properly :( .. ought to have read, #46 & # 47 .. with 3 to go .. There, now that's better :) !
Most people will delude themselves as to the moderation of most Muslims, or that the religion will reform itself and take back its tolerance from the extremist. They are wrong and they suspect it, but the reality is so horrible that we don't care to confront it. But, in a fight for our survival, if it's between you or me, I will make sure it is me that's around at the end of the day. So, lets get used to the idea that they must disappear if we are to survive as a species.