Author
|
Topic: Irshad Manji: The Trouble with Islam
|
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785
|
posted 17 September 2003 04:30 PM
quote: Calling the Muslim religion fundamentally anti-Semitic, antifeminist, racist and antihomosexual, Ms. Manji further contends that Islam needs to stop regarding its holy book, the Koran, as the absolute, indisputable word of God, and open itself up to discussion, debate and dissent.
Globe and Mail Here is a leftist, feminist gay author who happens to be a Muslim. She is demanding a change in Islam and has acknowledged that within Islamic society there is viscious antisemitism which also targets Israelis as the evil incarnate.
To be sure the book is about the need to reform Islam and to be sure many here will condemn her. Irshad in the Star Irshad: Globe and mail
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714
|
posted 17 September 2003 04:54 PM
A great idea to start this thread Mishei! (I am serious)I read this article in the Globe yesterday and having followed her career ever so slightly was not surprised to see her publish this book. I would be very interested to read it. I just wonder where you got your quote from Mishei. It wasn't in the Globe or Star stories. I just question whether she would actually say that Islam is "fundamentally" anti-semitic and mysoginist. She seems to argue a more nuanced view: quote: The Islamic holy book, she writes, "is not transparently egalitarian for women. It's not transparently anything except enigmatic. . . . It's Muslims who manufacture consent in Allah's name. The decisions we make on the basis of the Koran aren't dictated by God; we make them of our own human free will." ... As Manji sees it, extremists have seized control of Islam because "we moderates have turned our back on independent thinking and let them."
"Fundamentally" would imply no possibility for change, yet her whole argument is that Islam should be modernized.
From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785
|
posted 17 September 2003 05:09 PM
quote: Originally posted by Sara Mayo: A great idea to start this thread Mishei! (I am serious)I read this article in the Globe yesterday and having followed her career ever so slightly was not surprised to see her publish this book. I would be very interested to read it. I just wonder where you got your quote from Mishei. It wasn't in the Globe or Star stories. "Fundamentally" would imply no possibility for change, yet her whole argument is that Islam should be modernized.
The quote was attributed to a Globe and Mail story dated Sept. 10/03here is the link to the story. Globe and Mail quote
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888
|
posted 17 September 2003 06:52 PM
Problem with people like Irshad Manji and Taslima Nasreen is that they make depends that basically attack the very definition of Islam. Islam as a fundamental tenet holds the Qur'an as the Word of God. Both of them want to change the Qur'an--they attack the text itself rather than merely its application--and if you believe that the book is the Word of God, then how can you edit it? And if you don't believe that the book is the Word of God, then how can you be a Muslim? Both of these people are looking in from the outside of Islam and have no more status than, well, Mishei in their commentaries. Worse, their rhetoric makes them look like pro-Zionist "infiltrators," doubly discrediting and Misheifying them. Really, people like Manji and Nasreen and Rushdie, have either no effect or a negative effect on these things. They are actually fundamentalist poster-boys and girls for the viewpoint that the importation of liberal ideas from the West leads to the repudiation of the very basis of Islam itself--I know this because I have heard them being used in this argument, Manji included. It hurts rather than helps.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 17 September 2003 07:31 PM
quote: and if you believe that the book is the Word of God, then how can you edit it? And if you don't believe that the book is the Word of God, then how can you be a Muslim?
Similar things have been said about those who attempted to desacralize the Bible, too, for example the Goettingen school in Germany in the 19th century. Whereas once the words of the bible were unchallengable and "the word of God", there is certainly now a large group of Christians who understand the Bible historically and ethically, yet recognise it does not represent the last word on anything. As I understand it, Muslims say that God is all-powerful. When this idea came into Christianity, it led to the idea of a deceiver God who might (who can know?) try to test humans by leaving false clues as to His way. Descartes is inconceivable without this influence, for example. So why shouldn't some intelligent Muslim come up with a way to make the word of God a little less absolute?
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 17 September 2003 08:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by Mandos: Problem with people like Irshad Manji and Taslima Nasreen is that they make depends that basically attack the very definition of Islam. Islam as a fundamental tenet holds the Qur'an as the Word of God. Both of them want to change the Qur'an--they attack the text itself rather than merely its application--and if you believe that the book is the Word of God, then how can you edit it? And if you don't believe that the book is the Word of God, then how can you be a Muslim? Both of these people are looking in from the outside of Islam and have no more status than, well, Mishei in their commentaries. Worse, their rhetoric makes them look like pro-Zionist "infiltrators," doubly discrediting and Misheifying them.
Mandos, this is not in principle different from Christians who selectively obey certain tenets of the Bible and ignore others. They are, in a sense, deciding that the "Word of God" is subject to human decisions. (which kind of puts the lie to the notion that there are "absolute core standards of truth", but anyway...) The only real difference is that Christian fundamentalists do their own selective interpretation and so they are simply arguing about whose selective interpretation is going to count. The Muslim fundamentalists are going a step further and insisting on the inerrancy of the Koran without any selective interpretation whatsoever. Literalist readings of religious texts have never made me very comfortable.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
EarthShadow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3391
|
posted 05 November 2003 03:24 PM
quote: Originally posted by Mandos: Really, people like Manji and Nasreen and Rushdie, have either no effect or a negative effect on these things. They are actually fundamentalist poster-boys and girls for the viewpoint that the importation of liberal ideas from the West leads to the repudiation of the very basis of Islam itself--I know this because I have heard them being used in this argument, Manji included. It hurts rather than helps.
Uh Huh, everybody should just shut up lest the theocratic fascist freedom crushing Ayatollahs find a point on which to hang their despicable misogynist gay hating bigotry. Go Manji!
From: somewhere in a circle | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44
|
posted 05 November 2003 04:54 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house:
Whereas once the words of the bible were unchallengable and "the word of God", there is certainly now a large group of Christians who understand the Bible historically and ethically, yet recognise it does not represent the last word on anything.
Even though the Bible is referred to as the word of God, Christians, Jews and in particular their religious experts have known that it is more than that. It is a history of the Jewish people, a biography of Jesus, a source of law, mythology and prophecy, all written by different authors and collected together over time. There still is some amount of disagreement among various denominations of Christian as to what should or should not be included. On top of that, there is the problem of translation, since it's all gone from Hebrew and Greek to Latin and then to various vernaculars. The translations are still considered authoritative for religious use - this being an idea at the core of the Protestant reformation and since adopted by Catholics. It's going to be rather more difficult, if not impossible, for Muslims to come to the same sort of conclusion about the veracity of the Qu'ran. The tradition is that the prophet Muhammed heard and memorized it from the angel Gabriel, who delivered it as a message from God. Muhammed then dictated it to his literate clansmen. It is generally assumed that the text now is the same as it was then - a perfect quotation of the divine word. As such then, translations, however faithful, have no religious authority. There's apparently some historical evidence for change in the text over time, but this is very controversial, especially since a lot of the research suggesting it is Western. See this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran.htm
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888
|
posted 05 November 2003 05:36 PM
Some of my feelings about Manji are summed up by Rick Salutin: quote: Israel itself has brave dissenters, like the reservists who refuse to serve in occupied areas, and often go to jail. They are sustained, you could say, by the Biblical tradition of dissent and their own solidarity. Canadian writer Irshad Manji calls her new book on Islam, “a wake-up call for honesty and change.” She talks about bulletproof windows on her house and her “burly” bodyguard, as well as her own “integrity,” as she awaits reaction from, presumably, Islamists. The book, though, seems aimed mainly at non-Muslims, reassuring them that what they thought about Islam is true: “What's with the stubborn streak of anti-Semitism? . . . What's our excuse for taking the Koran literally? . . .” It reduces the multiplicity of a vast faith to a unity — we . . . our . . . then stereotypes that unity and proceeds to rebut the stereotype. It's a good example of what the late Edward Said called Orientalism. I'd say true courageous dissent is usually not marked by self-advertisement.
From http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=27836 Doug also notes correctly that the Christian solution will not work for Islam. The Qur'an is considered as a fundamental matter, a sine qua non, the literal dictated word of God, not a document built up over time. There's no "divine inspiration"---to Muslims it really is the Word of God. There are many many people who have come up with all sorts of interpretations of it, indeed people like Manji rarely manage to acknowledge this, without demanding that the book be edited, which essentially negates the entire point of the book. Wente's columns cites an interesting attitude of Manji's: quote: Ms. Manji admits that if the faith cannot reform itself, she may have to leave. But first, she wants to see if it is capable of letting in some oxygen. She points to a tradition of self-criticism and introspection in Islam that she hopes can be revived. And she hopes that her book (which also is being published in the U.S., England, Germany and France) will help to rally the silent moderates who have not had a voice, or the courage, or the words to speak out.
Most Muslims are wary of religion-shoppers. Religion is not just there to make you feel good.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192
|
posted 06 November 2003 01:49 AM
quote: it will be a cold day in hell, before I bow to Mecca....
Did anyone ask you? Rick Salutin's point is very clearly demonstrated by the first post in this thread. "See? See? Islam's fundamentally bad! Muslims are fundamentally wrong! Fundamentally! I told you so!" If the Koran is enigmatic, then why would anyone claim it is fundamentally one thing or another, unless to denigrate and diminish the people who embrace Islam? There are people who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, who believe that the Bible is the word of God. But there's plenty in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, that's hideous. (I find the tales of Joshua's conquests/genocides a fine example.) But we don't say the book itself, the text itself, is flawed; we say it has to be considered in context. We cannot turn our brains off and allow ourselves to be spoon-fed whatever's in there; those who do are mostly treated as the lunatics they are. Does the Koran really not admit that kind of study, or is it a question of whom you talk to? Are there not varieties of interpretation? There must be metaphors and ambiguities in Arabic just as there are in Hebrew and Greek and English. [ 06 November 2003: Message edited by: Smith ] [ 06 November 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804
|
posted 18 November 2003 12:42 PM
quote: Originally posted by Mandos: Daniel Pipes and Irshad Manji, luvvy luvvy:http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1270 "A Muslim Reformation?" is the title. As though Pipes had the right to authorize and direct Muslim political positions so that he feels better. Arrogant racist.
Since when was "Muslim" a race?
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 18 November 2003 02:08 PM
quote: Well, certainly, just as I doubt you'd find support in many mainstream Christian churches for removing Paul's statements condemning the Jews, or in yeshivas for removing the Old Testament directive that children who curse their parents should be stoned to death, but that doesn't mean that Christians have to be antisemitic or Jews have to endorse the death penalty.
What, exactly, would be the difference between editing on the page, and editing by one's actions? And why would someone who, for example, believes that hatred of homosexuals is wrong not support removing any exhortations to hate homosexuals from their holy book? In case they do maybe want to hate gays someday? In case the more conservative members of their faith make the "tsk-tsk" face at them? They're already as much as saying that either their god was wrong, or that the exhortations aren't really their god's words... so what would be the difference if they just ripped those pages out?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 18 November 2003 02:28 PM
Then just do it like this:And Gawd did sayeth: Go forth, and hate Fags and Joos and make women thy bitches. Suffer not a free thought amongst thee. When choosing between looking away, and scribing an angry missive to the editor demanding that all men be made to look away, the wise man chooseth the latter path. If a woman or a child getteth uppity, then taketh thy rod...
etc.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804
|
posted 18 November 2003 02:35 PM
quote: Originally posted by Mandos: Well, sure. It's within the bounds of discussion as to how you deal with certain Divine Statements, what they are intended to cover, when, how, why, and so on. The problem with Manji and company is that they criticize the book in such a way as to make it at the very least noncentral (when it is an article of faith that it is) or that it must be edited to satisfy demands. They too admit no distance between text and action.
So liberal, non-literal interpretations of holy scripture are not valid religeous beleifs?
Thats what the fundies have been saying all along. This makes no sense at all. Are you saying that there is no such thing as a liberal Chirstian? What about those "social gospel" types like Bill Blaikie or Bill Phipps? Are you saying that their religeous views are invalid because they obviously do not take literal interpretations of every passage in the Scripture? If we can have progressive Christians, there is no reason at all why there cannot be progressive Muslims.
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777
|
posted 22 November 2003 02:47 AM
quote: when I see her hosting "Big Ideas" she sounds very condescending and smug, kind of like a left wing version of Tucker Carlson.
I saw Irshad Manji on Daniel Richler's show on CP24 (CHUM TV). She was on a panel with Tarek Fateh and another Muslim woman (who's name I'm sorry I can't recall) and they were discussing her book. Both Fateh and the woman were Muslims who are very clearly on the left of the spectrum. Richler did a terrible job of moderating (it seems most TV moderators of talking heads programmes are terrible ...except maybe for when Avi Lewis was doing Counterspin). I really wanted to hear what the Muslim woman had to say but she couldn't get a single point across because Manji kept butting in and cutting her off in mid-sentence. I've got to say that my opinion of Irshad Manji dropped like a stone after seeing her arrogant performance on this show. quote: I heard somewhere that fundamentalist Islam is a recent development and if you look further in the faith's history you'll find that more liberal ideas have existed within the religion.
Certainly when the Moors occupied southern Spain in the middle ages they had a reputation for being very tolerant of both Jews and Christians. The religious persecution of Spanish Jews was by the Roman Catholic Church in later years.
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|