“Muslim writer and feminist Irshad Manji, Amel Boubekeur, leader of the Islam and Europe programme, Robert Spencer, director of jihadwatch.org and Abed Ayoub, legal advisor for American-Arab Anti-discrimination Committee, joined FRANCE 24’s Andrea Sanke to debate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Islam and its taboos.” -- from this article
Irshad Manji has certainly created her own private Islam. She is the child of Asian refugees from Uganda. She has never lived in a Muslim society. She has always enjoyed the freedoms of the West. But she feels, out of filial piety, and perhaps for other reasons, that she will do best if she continues to identify as a Muslim and if, furthermore, she keeps claiming that Islam itself is or can be made into something perfectly acceptable to people such as herself. She's wrong. And any apostate, who had been born into and grown up in a society suffused with Islam, would be able to set her right.
There are those who, recognizing this about her, nonetheless find her useful. Here and there, as here, she well may be. But her representation of Islam, and her bland indifference to the texts of Islam, and the texture of lives in Muslim societies, where everything refers, everything relates, everything is connected, to Islam, continues to mislead. And for that reason, one must be vigilant, and careful not to be misled by her.
As for Abed Ayoub, he is a lawyer. Therefore he has received a law degree, and taken the bar exam, and he knows perfectly well what American Constitutional guarantees of individual liberties are all about. And he knows how they rank in the first place, and that above all of them, freedom of speech ranks highest. He is obligated, as a member of the Bar, to support that freedom of speech as part of the Constitution. Does he, one wonders, understand that? And does the A.B.A. think it should make clear that the right to practice law can be stripped from those who do not support, fervently, the "freedom of speech" -- not as an absolute, of course, but with the modifications that have been accepted and, over time, refined?
When Abed Ayoub keeps harping on the use of "taxpayers' money" to protect those who, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have received repeated and completely credible threats of death (for she was the co-author, with the murdered Theo van Gogh, of the movie "Submission"), and who continue bravely to speak out about the nature of Islam and the ways in which it flatly contradicts the principles of advanced Western post-Enlightenment democracies, one must ask him if he thinks that the enforcement of constitutionally-protected rights should be a duty of private parties, and not of the government itself. And if the enforcement of constitutionally-protected rights should be a duty of private parties, would that not quickly become a situation in which those who are well-connected to the well-heeled will receive such protection, while those who lack such connections will not -- a selective enforcement of the right to freedom of speech that would be, that is, intolerable?
Since Abed Ayoub expresses such solicitude for hard-pressed taxpayers in the Infidel nation-states (such as France, where Ayaan Hirsi Ali's supporters have demanded such protection for her from the French state), one would like to ask him if he has any estimate of the cost, to those same taxpayers, of monitoring, in every Western country, the Muslim populations, so many of whose members pose a threat -- not a theoretical but in some cases a direct physical threat, and in other cases a threat through their financial and moral and intellectual support of those bent on conducting violent Jihad.
What does he think the Infidel taxpayers should be expected to endure, and to endure in amounts certain to increase if the size of the Muslim population increases? Or can he think of ways that those Infidel taxpayers, about whose well-being he is so concerned, could limit the amounts they have to spend on monitoring those Muslims who have settled deep behind what the Muslims themselves have been taught to regard as the borders or confines of Dar al-Harb, the Domain of War, that is, the places that still, for now, are to be considered not under Islam and rule by Muslims, for they are still outside -- for now -- the Dar al-Islam?
I suppose her being a lesbian will absolutely endear her to other of her faith.
Abed Ayoub argument is a RED HERRING to disguise his true motive--to silence Ayaan Hirsi Ali by intimidation if not by death.
Abed Ayoub's argument is a RED HERRING to disguise his true motive--to silence Ayaan Hirsi Ali by intimidation if not by death.
She's just another misunderstander of islam.
Aren't they all.
After helping a relative who has no health insurance and who, if she made $849 less per year, would have her expenses paid for by the state, I have come to believe that the government must provide health benefits for everyone or else they provide health benefits for no one. It has something to do with my interpretation of that pesky equal protection clause. In the same vein, the government should provide protection against jihadists for everyone who needs special protection. Robert Spencer and others may or may not have the financial means to provide their own protection, but if the US government allows Hirsi Ali to live here and provides her protection, it should provide the same protection for Mr Spencer and others like him at government expense. We all know that this is another example of the outrageous costs associated with living on the same planet with Islamists, and it cannot be practically done.
If Jane Doe down the street has her letter to the editor published and gets a few death threats, who will come to her aid? Who will pay for her bodyguard? This is the forced silence that is created by violent Islam.
. . . and I don't have any answers.
"What does he think the Infidel taxpayers should be expected to endure, and to endure in amounts certain to increase if the size of the Muslim population increases? Or can he think of ways that those Infidel taxpayers, about whose well-being he is so concerned, could limit the amounts they have to spend on monitoring those Muslims who have settled deep behind what the Muslims themselves have been taught to regard as the borders or confines of Dar al-Harb, the Domain of War, that is, the places that still, for now, are to be considered not under Islam and rule by Muslims, for they are still outside -- for now -- the Dar al-Islam?"
Oh, Hugh. What an islamophobic question. I'm shocked, shocked that there is questioning of islam going on in this establishment. {He says while pocketing the gleanings.}
Hugh,
an excellent point about what we taxpayers have to come up with to protect ourself from radical islam.
(Just begin by thinking about airport security and associated inconvenienc.)
I was amazed just how many times he mentioned "taxpayers". It was truly pathetic.Does he really care? I doubt it.
Hirsi Ali is alerting people to the dangers of islam and it costs a lot of money to ensure any protection for anyone, including herself.
If this Abed Ayoub is sincerely worried about taxpayers' money perhaps he could persuade his co-religionists to stop attacking us worldwide.
Now that would save a lot of money!
As for Irshad, someone on another thread mentioned that perhaps she is more useful as a muslim, than an apostate. I think there is some truth in that.
manji admits that osama is a literalist, but then argues for a NEW figurative reading of the koran.
admitting that osama gets the koran literally corrects is tantamount to admitting that islam is evil, but she can't quite take this additional step.
unfortunately this 1000 year old war will continue until we change minds like her's and get muslim like her to convert.
since the radicals think she's an apostate anyhow, this isn't asking too much.
Doesn't Irshad Manji represent the bulk of Muslims, in the sense that she is indifferent to the Quran and the hadiths and doesn't really worry about the calls to jihad?
Isn't the idea presented that "we aren't like that, you shouldn't treat us like you do the jihadists"?
Irshad Manji (or any Muslim you know) has her own form of Islam. So do the jihadists. So does Osama bin Laden. There are many sects.
They have an advantage because the West respects and celebrates the freedom of the individual. It also holds the individual responsible for his actions. Irshad Manji is peaceful and stands as proof that not all Muslims are out to destroy the West. Irshad Manji can't be held responsible for the actions of al Qaeda. Any act directed against Muslims as a group (like immigration restrictions) becomes unjust on its face, a denial of Irshad Manji's civil rights.
Western society will forever be at a disadvantage because Muslims will be able to claim the protection of the group or the rights of the individual, whichever is called for at any point in time.
Irshad Manji can call Islamic spirits from the vasty deep. As so can I, and so can any man. But will they come?
"As for Irshad, someone on another thread mentioned that perhaps she is more useful as a muslim, than an apostate. I think there is some truth in that."
-- Gramfan
As a "nominal" Muslim, yes. Does anyone believe she is devout? She is an individualist who prizes her individuality and freedoms. Hugh makes a good point about her never living under the boot of actual Islamic dominance. I doubt, however, that she is under any illusions about how well her views are received in Dar-al-Islam. Much better to be feted in the west as a lesbian dissident standing up against Islamic Patriarchy (the one area where even leftist western intellectuals widely accept where there's a problem with Islam).
Manji's 'Live and Let Live' Islam is her own private vision, a quaint chimera, but it does serve a valuable purpose. It actually highlights and starkly contrasts how far mainstream Islam falls from those ideals of tolerance, flexibility, freedom, and universal human rights.
Yes she holds out a false hope that Islam is as reasonable and elastic as any other religion, but on balance I think she helps.
I've thought a lot about Irshad Manji ever since I read 'The Trouble With Islam.'
One is reminded of Russia's Roy Medvedev, who bravely and forthrightly deconstructed Stalinism in his seminal work, 'Let History Judge'...a man who openly embraced the idea of Democratic-Socialism, and yet who remained a committed Marxist-Leninist right to the end. He was out in front of history in the late 60s, when he wrote 'Let History Judge' (and brought the Soviet establishment down upon him)...but by the 90s, history had passed him by and he'd become irrelevant...a footnote.
I personally feel that Irshad Manji is - at least at this time - more valuable inside the faith than outside. When weighing the utility and worth she provides to the overall equation, we should keep in mind...
1) Unlike most so-called Muslim moderates, the majority of Manji's efforts are NOT geared to convincing gullible Westerners that there is a moderate Islam. Instead, her efforts are directed precisely where they should be, at a Muslim audience, trying to convince the faithful that there are indeed problems in the religion that must be acknowledged and addressed.
2) Just as she concurred with Robert on the program above, her position on almost every other issue is closer to the anti-Jihad than it is to most Muslim moderates (and even most Liberal/Lefties), and this includes the question of Israel.
Irshad has indicated in the past that she's been very close to breaking with her faith on more than one occasion...and there is every possibility that she someday might. As for now, she is a dissident INSIDE the faith, providing an example to other Muslims that the established parameters of Islam can be defied.
Ayub is not concerned about the cost for the taxpayer for the billions that go to Muslims in the Bilad-al-kuffar for welfare, housing, schooling, medicare, child-support:
Ayub is concerned that Ayaan tells the truth and that she is not killed for it.
That is the unpalatable truth here. And the question, whether we owe it to free speech and to Ayaan to protect her, is wrong in itself.
The question should be: why do we allow large numbers of people from a hostile cult to settle behind enemy lines, where they are able to pervert everything by threatening us and everything that our society stands for? To keep our society intact we have to reverse Muhammedan infiltration.
Full stop.
Cornelius,
Irshad Manji lives in the West, where she is free to practice her personal form of Islam. She doesn't reach those who hear the message of jihad and are prepared to die by it. They aren't interested in what she has to say.
How far does Manji go with "problems in the religion that must be acknowledged and addressed", when following through on them would make Islam virtually unrecognizable to its current practitioners? Having her inside the faith may make us feel good but who on the inside will listen to her? Did Ibn Warraq make large numbers of Muslims sit up and take notice when he left the faith? How many of them read "Why I Am Not a Muslim" and took it to heart?
"This is the forced silence that is created by violent Islam. . . . and I don't have any answers.
Posted by: Pelayo [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 12, 2008 5:07 PM"
Yes you do. We all do. The answer is screamingly obvious. Stop and reverse Muslim immigration to the west. It's really that simple. And there's nothing cruel about it when one realizes that there was virtually no Muslim immigration to the west until about 40 years ago. And also when one reflects upon the fact that it is only the west who seems to have a problem with drawing lines against invaders who would destroy them and their culture. No other culture has this problem. As everyone here knows, even the Mexicans don't allow anyone to just come across their southern border. The Japanese don't allow rampant immigration. Muslims don't allow infidels to immigrate en masse (not that anyone would want to) and proselytize their infidel religions.
Obviously we all know the answer. Short of eventual violence which may not even succeed in stemming the tide, we all know the answer.
Well, someone blasted me on the other thread (with the video), so I replied there, but those were about posts 78 & 81, so I doubt they'll be read much, so I thought I'd chime in here, too.
I totally agree that Irshad Manji is out of touch with reality as regards Islam, BUT I think she is quite in touch with reality as regards freedom of speech, so I was glad to hear what she said. And I still hope that some let's-just-all-get-along-and-have-a-group-hug types will see something like that debate & see the need to defend free speech against the intimidation and death threats of MUSLIMS - yes, that's what they are, like it or not. That lawyer was such a joke saying he wouldn't call them Muslims, but radicals instead - what a loser.
And taxpayers wouldn't be having to pay a security fee to protect free speech if a bunch of the people (who are often already receiving plenty of tax-payer money in the form of welfare, by the way) weren't vicious, murderous, easily-"offended" thugs who follow Islam. And note, not just CLAIM to follow Islam, but they really DO follow it!
Irshad Manji can call Islamic spirits from the vasty deep. As so can I, and so can any man. But will they come?
Posted by: Hugh
They do for me...maybe I should lay off salt.
If Irahad was not a muslim fighting for muslim causes, she would be a political liberal fighting liberal causes, and if not that, a hippie fighting for hippie causes. You know, fee sex, pot, and rock and roll. She said a few things I agree with but don't usually hear from muslims. I doubt her Islamic credentials anyway.
Admed was like a fish out of water. I wonder what he expected, or why he even showed up. The commentator asked dumb questions, and you could see Robert cracking up over some of it. This was not even a debate, but a display of dullardship by every one but Robert.
So many people here are dismissing Irshad Manji, and their blind kneejerk reaction is troubling.
As any who have read her book "The Trouble With Islam" know, Irshad Manji differs from Jihad-enabling muslims in the heart of the matter:
She consistently stands for human decency and the golden rule. She is profoundly horrified by the lack of these things in the Ummah, from which she necessarily lives in hiding. Equality of dignity for all is non-negotiable for her.
She does insist on adapting jihad-free elements from Islam into her personal spiritual life in a manner worthy of death fatwas. She knows about the fatwas, and still she wages a straight uphill struggle to *try* to change Islam or make a statement by the relentless if unsuccessful attempt.
Is it fanciful for her to think she can change Islam when Mohammad would never recognize her "version" of it? Boy, is it ever. But she is a fierce warrior for decency and against jihad, consistently and indefatigably. The opposite of the apologists. And what an articulate firecracker she is!
In many ways, I consider the entire conflict as a manifestation of the struggle between the Decent and the Indecent among humanity (the only category that matters according to Victor Frankl, and me).
In that divide, Irshad Manji is on the right side.
Caroline, I do not have the answer for the immediate problem. The long term solution is exactly as you and others state. Does anyone have the moxie to call it the final solution? I too have written a few times that Muslim immigration must be ended and the INS must deport all those whose visas have expired. As far as those Muslims who are nauralized citizens and permanent residents, great changes in US law will be required to push them out. Unfortunately those steps will not be undertaken in the current political climate in the US. Furthermore, a natural born US citizen cannot be deported. That is US law and since their country of origin is the US, there is no country to send them to.
The immediate problem is the threat of and perpetration of violence on those who speak the truth about Islam. For that, except for providing security on a case by case basis, I have no answer.
Manji did well today, in my estimation. She called for the allowance of the criticism of Islam, via free speech, as acceptable as a debate, without justifying any form of violent retaliation, unlike the clown Islamist lawyer from D.C.
That's good enough for me at the moment, while remarking that Robert has been doing that very same thing for about 6 years now, with more clarity, and apparently, more success.
"Did Ibn Warraq make large numbers of Muslims sit up and take notice when he left the faith? How many of them read "Why I Am Not a Muslim" and took it to heart?" -- PMK
No one knows, but for those Muslims open-minded enough to read Ibn Warraq it is inconceivable to me that what he writes could be easily shaken off. Truth contains power and Warraq possesses both in abundance. All it takes is an open mind, and there's the rub....
WestwardHo, very well put. I think we all underestimate her bravery even as we excoriate her for not going far enough. She certainly goes far enough for the jihad set to want her stone cold dead. We shouldn't casually condemn someone putting her life on the line like she does on a daily basis.
For my part I retract my public suspicion that she is not really a believer, or "devout" as I said. I can't look into her heart. I'm entitled to my suspicions but I have no grounds for making a public pronouncement over it. If she is a believer still, and working to steer Islam to where it peacefully co-exists with everyone else on the planet, then more power to her. We can scoff at her quixotic effort, but at least she's making one. And while doing so she's reaching people that we "Islamoophobes" here could never touch.
So, yes, I count her and those like her as imperfect allies, as we are imperfect allies to her/them. We are all in this fight together or we succumb separately over time.
Why are people picking on someone that wants to STOP jihad? I notice that there's a link in the sidebar to the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. They are muslim reformists with ideals much like Ms. Manjis'. Why are they acceptable and she is not?
I know a lot of people think that Islam in itself is detestable and that EVERYONE should leave the religion. Well, that's just not going to happen (though I would prefer that as well, but I only live in the clouds half of the time...).
This woman is suggesting that muslims leave jihad and the violent passages in the context of the 7th century and learn to find a way to reconcile their faith with secular and free societies. She wants muslims to acknowledge that even though they revere mohammed as a prophet, that he was still a human and subject to imperfection.
How are these suggestions in any way NOT good?
She is constantly reminding people that more muslims have been killed by OTHER MUSLIMS than anyone and everyone else in the world COMBINED.
Who is she misleading so dangerously? Would-be jihadists??
PMK,
You largely confirmed my contention: the ummah wrote Ibn Warraq off the minute he formally apostated. He became an enemy, to be opposed...killed if possible. The same would be true of Irashad Manja were she to formally leave the faith.
While I agree with you that her current influence inside the ummah is very limited, I wouldn't say it's nil. Muslims - particularly Canadian Muslims - certainly know who she is. Progressive Muslims in Europe and America must be familiar with her. I would also assume that closeted lesbian and gay Muslims the world over are aware of her and take great solace from her example.
She's not going to move mountains...that's not what I'm saying. But by her example, she's just one more element of unwelcome pluralism contesting the monism of Islam.
Irshad Manji has certainly created her own private Islam. [...] And for that reason, one must be vigilant, and careful not to be misled by her."
I think that Hugh is right in one respect, i.e. that one should not be misled into thinking that Manji is representative of the Muslim community and Muslims in general.
It seems only fair to recognize however that as she is essentially an apostate who continues to identify herself as Muslim, her message and respectability might conceivably lead other Western Muslims to invent their own little private Islam as well -- the more unlike the original, the better -- and in this she ought to be encouraged (while pointing out all the same, as does Mr. Fitzgerald, that she is not yet, or anytime soon, representative of the mainstream).
As a French tax payer let me put it very simply, do I get value for money every time the EU and even the French government (which is massively in debt) send millions of €'s to the PA. If my proportion of tax went to the protection of Ayaan Hirsi Ali then I will be getting value for money.
As for Irshad Manji I see a Muslim who has her own personal Islam, in terms of the majority Muslims she is no longer a Muslim. But she is a decent human being who I cannot help but respect.
The problem is simply this, how much easier would Islam be to deal with if people like Irshad Manji left it, then people would see it for what it really is and no more excuses could be made.
I have thought for a long time that those decent human beings who hang in there do not help at all however much I admire them for trying to reform the unreformable.
"Progressive Muslims"
Would this be another name for "Secular Muslims" ?