A few nights ago Irshad Manji and Bill O'Reilly (thanks to Fosala) had this exchange:
O'REILLY: All right, but now we have a Pakistani minister saying that hey, if somebody straps a bomb to Salman Rushdie's chest, it's OK because we have to defend Mohammed, Allah, whoever, but that rationale can be used to kill anyone.MANJI: And you know what? It's a really mixed up rationale. And here's why. The Koran actually tells us that if somebody is mocking your religion, don't retaliate, walk away and only later engage in dialogue. So in fact, our so-called leaders are spewing prejudice that the Koran itself never asked them to.
Although Manji cites chapter and verse in speaking of another Qur'anic passage later in the interview, she doesn't say which one she has in mind here. My best guess is that she means 4:140: "Already has He sent you Word in the Book, that when ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme: if ye did, ye would be like them. For Allah will collect the hypocrites and those who defy faith - all in Hell." It doesn't mention the "engage in dialogue" part of Manji's assertion, and there is no explicit prohibition of retaliation, but it does say that if someone is mocking your religion, walk away.
The question is that: does that verse, or even any other verse that Manji may have in mind, establish what she intended to establish on O'Reilly -- that those Muslims who are calling for Rushdie to be killed are actually acting contrary to the Qur'an? It's a comforting thought, but as with so many comforting thoughts in this line, it is not so clear or simple as all that. Islamic law stipulates that reviling the Prophet is tantamount to apostasy (cf. 'Umdat al-Salik o8.7) and that apostasy warrants death, in accord with Muhammad's own words. Was such a law formulated by Islamic clerics who happened to overlook the verse Manji cited on O'Reilly's show? Or maybe they deliberately wanted to suppress this verse and to set up a more severe punishment for insulting Muhammad in order to discourage this kind of behavior?
I suppose such things are possible, but it seems to me that if there really were a Qur'anic verse that clearly forbade punishment of those who insulted Muhammad, there would be a significant party within Islamic tradition throughout the ages that held that punishing such people was disallowed. But there isn't. Also, Muhammad himself, the "excellent example" (uswa hasana) for Muslims (Qur'an 33:21), ordered killed many people who insulted him, as the British jihadist site Al-Ghurabaa, now offline, reminded Muslims during Cartoon Rage:
At the time of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) there were individuals like these who dishonoured and insulted him upon whom the Islamic judgement was executed. Such people were not tolerated in the past and throughout the history of Islam were dealt with according to the Shariah. Ka’ab ibn Ashraf was assassinated by Muhammad ibn Maslamah for harming the Messenger Muhammad (saw) by his words, Abu Raafi’ was killed by Abu Ateeq as the Messenger ordered in the most evil of ways for swearing at the prophet, Khalid bin Sufyaan was killed by Abdullah bin Anees who cut off his head and brought it to the prophet for harming the Messenger Muhammad (saw) by his insults, Al-Asmaa bintu Marwaan was killed by Umayr bin Adi’ al-Khatmi, a blind man, for writing poetry against the prophet and insulting him in it, Al-Aswad al-Ansi was killed by Fairuz al-Daylami and his family for insulting the Messenger Muhammad (saw) and claiming to be a prophet himself. This is the judgement of Islam upon those who violate, dishonour and insult the Messenger Muhammad (saw).
As I show in The Truth About Muhammad, these incidents weren't invented by the "extremists." They are recounted in the earliest sources about Muhammad -- sources written by pious Muslims for the benefit of their fellow Muslims.
Now, in explaining all this am I saying that Muslims cannot oppose the death fatwa against Rushdie? No, of course they should oppose it. Do I mean to say that Muslims must inevitably reject reform, and reformers like Manji, and adhere to Sharia as unchanging? Of course not. I am saying that for reform to have any chance of success it must be based on a realistic assessment of the nature of the problem. If it is based on false pretenses, on comforting fictions, it will certainly fail. Instead of flatly asserting that the Qur'an forbids retaliation against those who insult Muhammad, and ignoring Muhammad's own contrary example, as well as the unanimous consensus of traditional Islamic jurists, Manji might have done well to acknowledge all this, and outline some way for reformist Muslims to reject the traditional view.
I'd love to discuss this and related matters with Irshad Manji, but she is apparently not interested in dialogue or debate with me. Some time ago her website posted a link, "Right-wing Jihad Watch slams Irshad," to a piece here by Fjordman that thoughtfully and respectfully took issue with some aspects of her work. It would have been refreshing if Ms. Manji had replied to the points Fjordman made, rather than simply slam Jihad Watch as "right wing." I wrote to her to ask her why she thought that all that we are here could be subsumed under the sneer-phrase "right wing": because we oppose jihad violence and Islamic supremacism? Or because we oppose the quixotic and wilsonian 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.
I am not interested in "slamming," and I don't believe that either Fjordman's post or this one constitute a "slam." But I rather suspect that all that will happen will be that this present post will end up linked at her site under the rubric "Right-wing Jihad Watch again slams Irshad."
ADDENDUM: Jihad Watch reader Carl reminds me of a singularly apposite Qur'an verse: "Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment" (33:57). The curse, you see, is both in this world and the hereafter.
I saw that exchange on O'Reilly and my first impression was that woman's sole function is to coat Islam with sugar whenever possible. She is a distractor to the root of the problem.
The witness of an Islamic female doesn't count for much in Islamistan. Why should we infidels listen to a lipstick lesbian who soils herself with all that attention she gets by clueless jerks from the MSM?
Here it is, out in the open, from an Islamic website:
The proof of the necessity of killing anyone who
curses the Prophet or finds fault with him
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm
Who do you believe: Irshad Manji or your lying eyes?
I've seen Ms. Manji on talk shows many times, and I believe she genuinely appreciates democracy and the many freedoms and protections it offers her -- especially as a woman. In that I'm sure she's quite sincere.
Unfortunately, though, as with so many "moderate" Muslims like herself, Ms. Manji has made a lifetime investment in believing that there if no God but Allah and Mohammad is his Prophet.
It wouldn't be easy for anyone to just chuck a belief system that's been drilled into their brain from birth onward, and so they try to reconcile their beliefs to the ugly truth by ignoring it.
Ms, Manji, like so many other Muslims, try desperately to avoid a crisis of faith by never really looking Islam straight in the face and seeing it for what it really is.
I pity, rather than condemn them. They know somethings wrong, but they fear knowing exactly what it is that's wrong because they're afraid of getting burned.
I saw this interview. I believe that people like Manji are just as dangerous as the Islamic terrorists, because her words poison people into believing lies and misrepresentations of the Qur'an and Islamic Law, all with the purpose of perpetuating the mythological "Religion of Peace".
Manji's Islam might sway a few people here or there, especially women. But that's not going to stop five doctors from committing attempted first-degree flaming murder.
Maybe the Left in the UK will get angry now that terrorism directly affects their access to health care. How'd you like to be one of their patients today?
I love the tolerant and compassionate Koranic dogma of killing people who try to leave Islam.
So reasonable it hurts.
She can peddle her shinola to the naive enablers like O'Reilly, who swallow it whole, but it just doesn't flush when you actually know what the Koran says.
Guess Bill can't afford a copy yet.
It's only been almost 6 years since 9/11.
"This is the judgement of Islam upon those who violate, dishonour and insult the Messenger Muhammad."
A religion has to believe it's really feeble at its core, if an insult or criticism of its prophet is viewed as causing injury to its almighty god.
"So, Moses, Jesus & Mohammed walk into this bar... " -- you'll know who the Muslims are because they're the ones throwing stones and pulling out their knives.
O'Reilly is not my first choice to have a serious, scholarly debate about the teachings of Islam, but at least he is trying to have the debate (unarmed as he is). The West has got to stop treating Islam and Muslims as if they're your neighbors next day who are Methodists and go to church for the big days: Easter, Christmas, etc. I believe this all ties into Bush's born again, turn the other cheek, any devout believer (whatever the religion or ideology) is better than non-believer naivete. Read Michael Yon's recent blog about a village (Baqubah) in Iraq in which Al Qaeda or the local islamist whackjobs shot up the village's animals, men, women and children. Muslims killing Muslims and a Jew or Infidel in sight - I paraphrase Mark Steyn...
From the interview:
Like I do nowadays when people make claims about what the Quran mandates, I look it up. Looking up that entire verse here, here's what it says:That's quite a small print that Ms Manji left out. Even if you want to take metaphorical and abstract meanings, how exactly do you get around the claim above that whenever Allah desires evil for a people, there is nothing they can do about it?
Read in full, 13:11 seems to state that aside from Allah, the 'evil' people have no protection from Allah's followers: in other words, they'd have to convert or accept dhimmi status if they want to avoid a head on confrontation. Did you skip that, Ms Manji, or is it rather something you'd rather not have us notice? ;-)
The sad truth is that as more news report like what has come from the UK come out more, as much as Ms. Majid tries, non-Muslims will see the full truth for their own very eyes about Islam.
After reading her book I had mixed feelings about this woman as her stance on islam seemed to be very superficial and inconsistent. So I asked her directly if politely, whether she would hold any views regarded as non mainline for islam if she was not a lesbian. Naturally I received no answer.
(plse not that I do not care about one's sexuality but it was a relevant question)
So my view is that she is a professional poseur in that she pretends to be a dissident and makes a fair income out of doing so but that she does it insufficiently so to make her a worthwhile target to the Muslim frothing mouth set and by so doing makes her stance almost useless and a distraction to the media from those really trying to be useful by sticking out their necks.
I don't like Irshad Manji because she still believes in "Allah" and thinks Muhammed's a great guy. So, even though she's obviously intelligent she's also a big fool. And, concerning what the Koran says, a "taqiyya"-peddler. I once thought about buying her book but now I'm glad I didn't.
Irshad Manji certainly seems sincere.
I couldn't finish her book; perhaps it's because I'm not a Muslim and therefore not her target audience, but I got bored midway through it.
She seems optimistic and a bit fuzzy about anything that doesn't fit her own, personal, feel-good Islam. I have the impression that she is doing her best but is not a heavyweight intellectual or scholar. (I am not suggesting that she is not intelligent but that she seems more emotion-based rather than logic-based in her "reasoning").
I listened to a CBC-Radio interview of Irshad Manji and her mother when Manji's documentary on Islam was about to be aired on PBS. (Manji said she had no objections to the process or having her documentary vetted by anyone.) Most of the interview seemed to be taken up with Manji gushing about her wonderful mother and her mother gushing about her wonderful daughter and both gushing about how their two interpretations of Islam co-exist wonderfully. It was fairly mushy stuff and I got the impression that Ms. Manji likes her Islam mushy.
Robert Spencer, on the other hand, is an intellectual and a scholar.
I get the impression that Irshad Manji doesn't want to have the kind of debate that Robert Spencer wants to have.
Trouble is, O'Reilly has no understanding of Islam, so an interview conducted by him has little merit. He reacts with his instincts and emotions, which does not shed any light on this issue.
O'Reilly's greatest failing, in my judgment, is that he is intellectually lazy. Rather than study issues deeply to gain some expertise and knowledge, he prefers to let his staff do all the preparatory digging and investigating. Then he simply conducts interviews from these talking points.
He's not stupid, just lazy or too consumed by time with his O'Reilly Inc. projects -- radio show, TV show, newspaper column, book writing, etc. -- to really become a credible authority on anything.
This is a shame, because he does really have some media clout, and could do some good in the fight against jihad -- if only he knew what he was talking about.
These are not insults to Islam, but a proclamation of what are our 'boundaries in reciprocity' with Islam.
First thing is what Muslims feel in their private hearts regarding us, the 'infidels', and if they hold some animosity to us and our way of life, it does not matter. That is their private matter, and if they hold some personal grudge in their belief system against the lands of the 'infidels', then it is their business, not ours. Their loss, not our responsibility, nor something we have to carry on our shoulders of guilt if they do not like us. Better to let it go. But where this becomes our affair is when they act upon this grudge and attack us. Then it becomes a political act, where their beliefs are politicized into actions against us, against our freedoms, our laws, our constitutional rights. Then it matters, because now they have politicized their religion into action, hostile actions, against us and our way of life. That is the first thing, not to ridicule Islam, nor their Koran, but to be clear that a personal faith is allowed, but its politicized version is not allowed.
Second, not all Muslims will harbor in their hearts this aggressive attitudes towards us and our way of life. There will be those who, though they profess their faith of Islam, are nevertheless willing to coexist within the cultures of freedom, so that by our rules of separation of church (or mosque) and state, they are free to practice their beliefs, privately, as they will. Where this becomes a trespass upon our values and way of life is when this is taken from the private domain into the public domain. Then they are trespassing against us. This includes visible signs of personal seclusion, such as women covered behind veils, or public displays of animosity towards us, such as vocally rude and at times violent demonstrations targeting our way of life. This also includes their mosques, where the voluble sermons and calls to their Allah affects the surrounding community. These are trespasses against us with noise pollution. The same applies to heir aggressive building programs of highly visible minarets towering over our living areas. They should be banned, or cut down to normal size without polluting our skyline. If a neighbor offers to build an edifice that will cut into his neighbors' natural light and views, there are procedures to insure against this. The same must apply to mosques and minarets, since their structures are an overt politicized proclamation of their faith.
Third, engage Muslims with dialogue, but not of the kind that extends Da'wa, but rather the other way, that they are made to understand that they may not trespass on our centuries of civilization and achievements with their religious dogmas. This is not to offend them, but rather to keep them from further offending us with unreasonable demands that we change our understanding of life and our place in it to suit their dogmatic views of the world. These dialogues must be controlled to not allow for them to seek to change policy, or law, to suit their dogmatism, but instead directed to force them into understanding our cultures with our most valuable asset, that which has brought to us our culture, and that is reason. Muslims must be directed to use reason, and not dogma, in their dialogues with our established cultures. If not, then we are brought down in such dialogues to their levels of dogma, a dogma that is socio-religiously imperialistic to promote a 7th century Arab-Muslim imperialism in the west. This must be forbidden at all cost in any dialogues with Muslims. There is no Da'wa in dialogue, nor threats of violence, or actual physical violence, if we are to talk freely. Criticism and dialogue are both sides of the same coin, and to threaten anyone who questions dogma is unacceptable to us, since it directly negatively impacts our natural freedoms to seek the truth.
Lastly fourth, Islamic Jihad must be explicitly outlawed. It goes against every maxim of human rights, of preserving our social freedoms, including our freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, and freedom of belief. Reciprocity in these matters demands that they respect our freedoms same as we respect theirs. This means they are not free to impose their ideology on anyone else, whether by legal or illegal means, not by deceit, nor by violence. We cannot tolerate for Muslims to create for themselves exclusive enclaves in which no outsiders are allowed to enter. They may not act as common criminal gangs who attack anyone not belonging to their turf. It is all our turf, all of society, and neither Jihad nor physical threats against our common citizens can be tolerated. Intolerance and 'hate crimes' go both ways, reciprocally. None may be condoned in a free society of human beings, both men and women, who are equal before the law. Muslims must respect that, or else they behave criminally.
The purpose of these four points is to stop the insanity. To force religious dogma on the freedoms of the west, freedoms earned through great thought and very hard work, is a travesty and trespass against our rights. We must draw the boundaries in such simple terms so even the slowest of them will understand. They may not trespass against us further, at any level, and most of all, they may not do Jihad in our lands. Without being totally clear on these points, that our societies have a right to be free, the lands to which they migrated of their own free will to partake in the fruits of our social freedoms, they will remain confused as to what is permissible for them in their advances on us. We may not be tread on by their philosophy of life, at any level. Our tolerance of their religious beliefs, whether or not we agree with them, and regardless of whether they will us good or ill, may not be materialized into political actions against us. They must be made to understand this, with absolute clarity, that we will not be tolerant of their beliefs if they fail to be tolerant of ours. To do this, we must therefore demand reciprocity at all levels of our social behaviors, that they fully respect and obey our laws, and that our safety is guaranteed in their presence. We cannot co-exist in our societies if there are 'no go' areas for non-Muslims. This they must understand without a shadow of doubt.
When our leaders, and our constitutional laws, respect our rights as individuals, equally before the law, regardless of religious beliefs, or gender, then Jihad and threats of violence, or death fawas, or 'honor killing', threats against those who are not religious, forced marriages, female circumcision, and overtly aggressive behaviors towards common citizens, all these must be done away with. If there is to be reciprocity of equality before the law, then Muslims must be made to obey the laws of our lands, or else they will make themselves unwelcome. It is not their personal beliefs that are offensive to us, regardless of how they see us 'infidels' in their beliefs, but their actions, their politics, that must be confronted with absolute clarity, that these are not acceptable to us. Given time, they will understand. Or if not, then through a Darwinian process of elimination, they will not survive our freedoms, because then we are offended.
So when Irshad Manji says that the "Koran actually tells us that if somebody is mocking your religion, don't retaliate, walk away and only later engage in dialogue," do the same in return. This is what this 'boundaries of reciprocity' is all about: Respect for the other, with calm dialogue and understanding. It is also what defines in our free world the word 'tolerance', that we not allow trespass, that no one allows trespass against the other anywhere, within boundaries of the law. A free society means that we are all free to come and go in any part of it, without danger or harm. That is what human constitutional laws do, they protect us, both against trespass as well as against politicized aggressive inroads by dogmatic laws, religious or cultish, or otherwise. This is why in our lands we have a 'separation of church and state'.
prman-
O'Reilly thinks on a day to day basis about things.
Because it's not as Islam is really a serious subject to understand in the modern world.
Or that a basic knowledge of the Koran has much use in intelligent discourse or planning.
Bill seems to have a sparsely-highlighted Cliff's Notes version of the Koran in mind.
It's a shorter book than the New Testament, so I don't understand the studious avoidance of "The Recitation"'s contents and intentions among the chattering class.
Unless it's naked fear.
The Post-Theo Van Gogh Syndrome?
Luckily I have only seen her once, and that was enough.
She was being interviewed by some-one on ABC Australia.
She revealed her selve as being when she quoted
a famous line from the Koran's verse 5:32.
"...whosoever killeth a human being... it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind..."
This famous line is actually only a small part of the verse, and is not even a complete sentence. The line, is usually quoted, clipped and cropped, by apologists, and used to "sugar coat islam.
I doubt that she will ever debate with Mr Spencer or any body esle who have a knowledge of the Koran or Hadithes
In fact she is just as dangerous as Tariq Ramadan, by the way she flaunts/abuses her sexuality to win the admiration of the pseudo liberals
If there are problems with islam as she states them why doesnt she get out.
She is playing a false fiddle to a tone deaf crowd.
As I stated before, The Bill O'Reilly Variety Hour.
That's variety, not depth.
An updated version of the Ed Sullivan Show.
Still waiting for those dancing bears, Bill.
I have to say that I like the idea of reform minded Muslim's such as Irshad Manji, however every time she opens her mouth she makes me wonder.
As Infidel Pride quoted further up "Whensoever Allah desires evil for a people, there is no turning it back; apart from Him, they have no protector. " This makes me wonder what planet she's on, how could she be sincere and have omitted this ending from her previous quote?
I believe she so desperately doesn't want to accept the truth about her culture and religion that she creates more confusion than anything else.
Time for Ms. Manji to take a closer look at what her favorite book actually says.
"I'd love to discuss this and related matters with Irshad Manji, but she is apparently not interested in dialogue or debate with me."
.....a few days ago, the subject of RS not willing to debate or speak with certain Muslims was raised by the poster known as "sublimer"...this poster presented a list of names and challenged me to do my homework...well boys and girls, I went over this list of names , one of which is Ms Manji...
I found several to be dead....now they would make interesting debaters...
I found several to be women authors or professors in American Universities...all of whom related bad Muslim experiences, but all have remained Muslim...I have no doubt the professors are twisting the minds of students who know little of Islam and who no doubt reinforce the minds of the Muslim students that Islam will dominate..
I found several men who were authors, who like the women, write about bad Muslim experiences, but continue to be Muslims, the men write about Islamic reform and most profess that Islam is only experiencing problems caused by "a small number of radicals who use Islam to further personal agendas." Some of the men have held Islamic government positions, some have been imprisoned, some still hold affiliations with organizations such as the Muslim brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, or other notable Muslim organizations. All remain Muslim, All still adhere to the notion that Islam is destined to dominate...
Here it the list, with some notations, see if you can spot the taqqiyya:
Abdullahi Ahmed An- Na'im writes:
"The tragedy of Islam today is that the Muslim leadership has locked itself into being intimidated by its extremist elements. These Muslim leaders, whose moral bankruptcy and weakness are represented by the opulent lifestyles of the Saudi Sheikhs, live on the fringes of Islam as well as Western civilization. They lack the essence of either. In that sense, they are twice as corrupt and twice as Satanic as radical Muslims claim the West to be.
As a result, a few militant and highly motivated gangsters-real criminals-are holding Muslim cultures and Muslim leadership hostage."
Leila Ahmed
Professor of Women's Studies in Religion
Harvard Divinity School
45 Francis Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138 United States
Phone: 1-617-495-5705
Fax: 1-617-496-8564
Email: wsrp@hds.harvard.edu
Web: www.hds.harvard.edu/wsrp/
Nationality: Egypt
Profession: Professor/Teacher, Scholar/Writer
Languages Spoken: Arabic, English
Area(s) of Expertise: Arts & Culture
Country/Region of Expertise: Egypt, Middle East, North Africa
Dr. Leila Ahmed is Professor of Women’s Studies in Religion at Harvard Divinity School. Prior to this appointment, she was Professor of Women’s Studies and Near Eastern studies at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, where she also served as Director of the Women’s Studies Program from 1992 to 1995 and as director of the Near Eastern Studies Program from 1991 to 1992. She was a distinguished visiting professor in 1992 at the American University in Cairo, Egypt. In 1997 she was elected to a life membership at Clare Hall in the University of Cambridge in England and also received a distinguished faculty fellowship award for the 1996–97 academic year.
Mehdi Bazargan.....died in 1995....
Samira Bellil (writer)......"I was gang raped by three people I knew, and I couldn't say anything, because in my culture, your family is dishonored if you lose your virginity,” says Bellil. “So I kept quiet, and the rapes continued. The next time, I was pulled off a commuter train and no one lifted a finger to help me. …Everybody turned their head away. They were all looking out the window.”
When Bellil's family discovered that she had been raped, they weren't sympathetic. They threw her out onto the streets. But she's since discovered that what happened to her was not the only case.
Assia Djebar (writer)...Assia Djebar (1936-to date ) - pseudonym of Fatima-Zohra Imalayen
Assia Djebar has been the Silver Chair of French at New York University since fall 2001. She previously held the post of Distinguished Professor of French and Director of the Centre for French and Francophone Studies at Louisiana State University (1997-2001). She is the author of numerous books, including Femmes d’Alger dans leur appartment (Des femmes, 1980, in translation Women of Algiers in Their Apartment, UP of Virginia, 1992), LÕamour, la fantasia (J. C. Latt’s, 1985, in translation Fantasia, an Algerian Cavalcade, Quartet, 1985), Vaste est la prison (Albin Michel, 1995) for which she was awarded the Prix Maurice Maeterlinck in 1995, and Ces voix qui m’assiegent (Albin Michel, 1999). She also received the Prix de la Critique Internationale in Venice for her film, La nouba des femmes du mont Chenoua, 1979, the International Literary Neustadt Prize (1996, USA), the Prix Marguerite Yourcenar for her collection of short stories Oran, langue morte (1997) and the Prix international de Palmi (1998, Italy).
Hamid Dalwai....Died 1977
Shirin Ebadi...Iran in 1947. Her family were academics and practising Muslims. Shirin Ebadi gradutated from Tehran University and went onto become Iran’s first female judge, serving from 1975. However after the Islamic revolution of 1979 she was forced to resign, as women were no longer allowed to serve as judges.
During a long period of unemployment Shirin wrote many books and articles on issues of human rights. In 1992 Shirin finally obtained a lawyers certificate enabling her to set up her own practice, she has defended many victims of child abuse and murder. Shirin Ebadi has also established two non-governmental organizations in Iran, the Iranian Society for Protecting the Rights of the Child and the Centre for the Defence of Human Rights.
Mawlana Faizani....Mawlana Faizani disappeared from prison in 1979 shortly after the communist Khalqis came to power. It is believed by some that he was martyred (executed) by this regime.
Ahmad Ghabel....Ahmad Qabel has issued a fatwa about hijab or covering head and neck by Muslim women. He argues that only covering the body of Muslim women is obligatory, and covering other parts of the body like hair and neck are recommended.
Asma Jahangir.....She has spent most of her career defending the rights of women, religious minorities, and children of Pakistan. Aided in her mission by fellow activists and colleagues from the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, she has continued her battle for justice amidst constant threats to her safety. Her willingness to relentlessly defend victims of rape, women seeking divorce from abusive husbands, people accused of blasphemy, her work on the issues of child labor, and her continuous criticism of political parties has made her one of the most controversial figures in Pakistan. She has served as the chairperson of the Pakistan Human Rights Commission. In 1998, she was appointed Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights
Ghada Jamshir...a Bahraini womens activist....Islam is hell for women. This is what Islamic outspoken Ghada Jamshir repeats over and over again. She, a Muslim, speaks worldwide, seeking to change Islam regarding females in Muslim and non-Muslim countries. She proclaims that in particular Muslim females are imprisoned for life; therefore, if Muslims put her in jail, it will be no harsher fate that what Muslim females endure now.
Afrasiab Ahmad...appears to be a Pakistani author...
Afrasiab Khattak...president of the Human rights Commission of Pakistan (HRC).
For his work Khattak, has been called a communist, a heathen, an enemy of Islam, a traitor to the country and an agent of the West. Untrue as they are, Mr. Khattak accepts all these attributes with good grace and a hearty laugh.
During the turbulent 70’s Khattak was a student leader on the campus of the University of Peshawar where he studied English literature and law. His advocacy for the legitimate rights of smaller provinces of Pakistan got him in trouble with the military rulers. He was tried for incitement and opposing the ideology of Pakistan. At the trial the prosecution could not explain the ideology that he was accused of opposing. He was sentenced and spent three years in jail.
A few years later in 1978 during General Zia-ul-Haq’s rule he was again imprisoned for opposing the military rule and spent fourteen months behind bars. Fearing for his life after his release- he was tipped off by friends in the government- he crossed the Khyber Mountains into neighboring Afghanistan. It was only after the death of General Zia in a mysterious plane crash in 1989 that he was able to return home after two years
Kadizadeli....not enough info furnished.
Mohammad Khatami...He served as the fifth President of Iran from August 2, 1997 to August 2, 2005, and was succeeded by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Mohsen Kadivar...To the dismay of hard-line clerics, his most important work presents a devastating critique of velayat-e faqih, the Shi'ite Muslim doctrine expounded by Khomeini that effectively grants the power of dictatorship to a top Shi'ite cleric. Kadivar argues that because the concept was conceived by clerics rather than by Allah, it cannot be considered sacred or infallible. And if clerics have no God-given right to rule, he says, that means that Muslims may freely select their government in a democratic Islamic republic. Kadivar has also formulated a theory on why terrorism is forbidden in Islam—an indirect reproach to an Iranian regime that is widely accused of backing terrorist groups.
ASTo the dismay of hard-line clerics, his most important work presents a devastating critique of velayat-e faqih, the Shi'ite Muslim doctrine expounded by Khomeini that effectively grants the power of dictatorship to a top Shi'ite cleric. Kadivar argues that because the concept was conceived by clerics rather than by Allah, it cannot be considered sacred or infallible. And if clerics have no God-given right to rule, he says, that means that Muslims may freely select their government in a democratic Islamic republic. Kadivar has also formulated a theory on why terrorism is forbidden in Islam—an indirect reproach to an Iranian regime that is widely accused of backing terrorist groups.
Syed Ahmed Khan...died 1898?
Fatima Mernissi...Fatema Mernissi (Arabic:????? ??????) is a Moroccan feminist writer and sociologist. Born in Fez in 1940, she studied political science at the Sorbonne and at Brandeis University, where she earned her doctorate. She is a notable Islamic feminist.
Mernissi is largely concerned with Islam and women's roles in it, analyzing the historical development of Islamic thought and its modern manifestation. Through a detailed investigation of the nature of the succession to Muhammad, she casts doubt on the validity of some of the hadith (sayings and traditions attributed to him), and therefore the subordination of women that she sees in Islam, but not necessarily in the Qur'an.
Irshad Manji (born 1968) is a Canadian feminist Muslim, author, journalist, and activist. She is a well-known critic of radical Islam and orthodox interpretations of the Qur'an, calling herself a "Muslim refusenik"[1].....
Mostafa Malekian...(Born in Iran), is a prominent Persian (Iranian) philosopher and thinker. While trying to make Islam and reasoning compatible, Malekian defends human reasoning in social affairs. He is working on a project called spirituality and wisdom. His most important book, that is about spirituality and wisdom, is A Way to Freedom.
Mostafa Malekian was formerly a Professor of philosophy at Tehran University.
Asra Nomani...Asra Q. Nomani is the author of the critically-acclaimed Standing Alone in Mecca: An American Woman's Struggle for the Soul of Islam. She is also the author of Tantrika: Traveling the Road of Divine Love.
A former Wall Street Journal correspondent, Nomani has also written for the Washington Post, The New York Times, and Time magazine on Islam. After Sept. 11, 2001, she went to Pakistan to cover the war in Afghanistan for Salon. She risked great danger in helping to lead the hunt to find kidnapped fellow reporter and friend, Daniel Pearl, who was visiting her home with his wife, Mariane Pearl, when he left for the interview from which Muslim militants kidnapped and murdered him.
Abdolkarim Souroush...is a leading Iranian thinker, philosopher, reformer and Rumi scholar. He is a well-known figure in religious intellectual movement in Iran.
Ali Shariati...died 1977
Mohammad MOjtahed Shabestari..Shabestari goes so far as to declare that the values anchored in the Koran and the sunna have no predetermined definitions. Rather, they represent universal and abstract formulations which in every new case must be checked and interpreted with regard to the concrete capabilities, needs, realities and possibilities of the people involved.(13)
Similarly, Shabestari denies the assertion made by the proponents of velayate faqih that political actions, including the founding of a state, are a religious duty or a form of worship. Instead, such actions are for every person a right or a practical measure (tadbir). People who cite Koranic verses and the sunna to assert that founding a state is a religious commandment both confuse different concepts in these sources, and interpret their meaning erroneously.
Yousef Sanei...Ayatollah Yousef Sanei: "The Exploitation of Religion Must Be Opposed... Those Who Wish to Destroy the Universities or the Independence of the Religious Seminaries Are Sinners and Criminals
Hassan al-Turabi...His supporters have been accused of being directly involved in the Darfur crisis, which raises important questions about Bashir's willingness to end the carnage.
Mahmoud Mohamed Taha...died 1985
Mahmoud Taleghani...Died 1979
Amina Wadud...teaches: The Qur’an provides women with explicit rights to inheritance, independent property, divorce and the right to testify in a court of law. It prohibits wanton violence towards women and girls and is against duress in marriage and community affairs. Women and men equally are required to fulfill all religious duties, and are equally eligible for punishment for misdemeanors. Finally, women are offered the ultimate boon: paradise and proximity to Allah: ‘Whoever does an atom’s weight of good, whether male or female, and is a believer, all such shall enter into Paradise’ (Q 40:40).
Fareed Zakaria...is a journalist, columnist, author, editor, commentator, and television host specializing in international relations and foreign affairs.
He was named Editor of Newsweek International in October 2000. He writes a weekly foreign affairs column for Newsweek, which appears fortnightly in the Washington Post. In 2003, his book The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (Norton) was published
Nasr Abu Zayd....Egyptian-born professor Dr Nasr Abu-Zayd lives in the Netherlands. He lectures on Islamic studies at Leiden University, and on Islam and Humanistics at the University of Humanistics in Utrecht where he holds the Ibn Rushd chair.
Mo had poets assassinated who insulted and mocked him. What say you Irshad Manji?
Thats how O'Reilly should have responded.
Irshad Manjit:
The blind leading the blind.
That's a great point, Elric66. Yeah, if O'Reilly had only known that bit of historical truth - how Muhammed killed his mockers - he would have won the battle, instead of her frying him like an egg.
A shame.
Irshad Manji is, plain and simple, a lying, dishonest woman! In many ways she is as bad as her jehadist brothers, because her fairy-tale representation of the Koran and Muhhammad are meant to clearly pull the wool over the eyes of the non-believers. As bad as her jehadist brothers are, they are at least not hypocrites and do not try to present the Koran and Muhammad as they clearly are not.
I agree with you, Razdan. She's a Taqiyya-peddler.
Correction to my post (late) last night - it should read: Muslim killing Muslim and NOT a Jew or Infidel in sight - paraphrasing Mark Steyn.
Thank you Robert. I wasted considerable time trying to find this citation Manji alluded to in that incompetent interview by O’Reilley (prman descrbed him well). I’m sure Manji had 4:140 in mind, which she naturally misinterpreted as a call to come back latter and make discussion. This is hardly the idea and Manji is mentally ill.
4:104 is just another example illustrating Muhammad’s evil shrewdness. He realizes his fabrications lack credibility and cannot stand up to criticism and accordingly he has Allah ordering Muslims to run away from any discussion that could endanger their brainwashing. Muslims are only to know that Allah will punish these critics with hellfire later so the rule is to ignore infidel criticism. When it comes to Islam, it’s believe it or else, period!