72 raisins to die

[TastesLikeChicken]

This woman has some interesting perspectives. She also throws some cold water on some of the standard memes about the motivations of the Islamic radicals and what causes them to be that way in the first place. Part of the problem, she claims, is not oppression but the "superiority complex" of Muslims.

She pulls no punches and it's a good read.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1696968,00.html

The lipstick lesbian daring to confront radical imams

Irshad Manji has already been dubbed ?Osama?s worst nightmare? for her criticisms of Islam. Now she wants Britain?s Muslims to stand more firmly on the side of freedom

No wonder Irshad Manji has received death threats since appearing on British television: she is a lipstick lesbian, a Muslim and scourge of Islamic leaders, whom she accuses of making excuses about the terror attacks on London. Oh, and she tells ordinary Muslims to ?crawl out of their narcissistic shell?. Ouch.
Manji is a glamorous Canadian television presenter whose book, The Trouble with Islam, has made her so famous in America that she won something called the Oprah Winfrey Chutzpah award. Even at a conference in Oxford last week she felt unsafe ? despite extra security ? with police sifting through ?disgusting e-mails? and threats after her appearance on Newsnight.

Doesn?t the violent Muslim minority show Islam is flawed? ?I ask myself the same question,? she grimaces. Far from regarding Muslims as oppressed they have a ?supremacy complex ? and that?s dangerous?. This, she contends, is true even among moderates. ?Literalists? who consider the Koran the ?perfect manifesto of God? have taken over the mainstream; and far from misreading Islam, as Tony Blair and the Muslim Council of Britain insist, terrorists can find encouragement for murder in the Koran.

The underlying problem with Islam, observes Manji, is that far from spiritualising Arabia, it has been infected with the reactionary prejudices of the Middle East: ?Colonialism is not the preserve of people with pink skin. What about Islamic imperialism? Eighty per cent of Muslims live outside the Arab world yet all Muslims must bow to Mecca.? Fresh thinking, she contends, is suppressed by ignorant imams; you can see why she has been dubbed ?Osama?s worst nightmare ?.

?The good news,? she insists, ?is it doesn?t have to be like this.? She wants a reformation in Islam, returning it to its clever, fun-loving roots. ?The world?s first ?feminist? was an 11th-century Muslim man. Baghdad had one of the first universities in the 9th century; the Spanish ?Ole!? comes from ?Allah?; Islam even gave us the guitar.?

But now it gives us the suicide bomber: why? She does not rule out alienation and all those Muslims-as-victims explanations, but thinks the Muslim Council of Britain is negligent for ?not even acknowledging religion might also have played a role?. Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, said terrorists could not be Muslims but Manji hits back: ?The jury is out on what Islam is.?

The dispute centres on whether the Koran justifies suicide bombers. Manji argues terrorists can find succour in the holy book: ?It says anyone who kills a human being, except as punishment for murder or villainy in the land, shall be regarded as killing all mankind.? The caveat is crucial; Bin Laden invoked it when America imposed sanctions against Saddam, so after the war in Iraq ?four young men could decide to punish British taxpayers for re-electing a government that went to war there? ? endorsed by the Koran.

But could religion be an excuse? Might the gang of four have just been nihilist punks who, if raised in different cultures, might otherwise have railed against life through, say, hip-hop? ?A hip-hopper will still wake up in the morning. That doesn?t explain a willingness to take your own life.? To do that you need belief in an afterlife, which means these men must have been devoutly religious. Waiting to be rewarded, I suggest, with their 72 virgins.

But Manji says recent research shows all that virgin stuff was based on an erroneous translation of the Koran: what awaits in heaven are 72 raisins. What? Could 54 people really have been blown up for a bag of raisins? ?Well in 7th century Arabia raisins were so exalted as to be promoted to paradise.?

Our 7/7 was especially hard to take, being committed by those brought up here; America?s 9/11 was by outsiders. Is America better at integrating Muslims? I fill Manji in on our botched attempt at citizenship ceremonies that, far from inculcating British patriotism in newcomers, taught them how to work the benefit system. ?Boy, it?s sexy being British these days,? she laughs.

?In continental Europe people of faith are regarded as second-class citizens. In America Muslims are allowed to earn their status by competing. In Europe, Britain included, your past establishes your identity much more than your future. If you don?t have the lineage here people might well feel disaffected.? She points out that American mosques display signs proclaiming: ?God bless America?; inconceivable here.

If we are at fault for not encouraging Muslims, they fail to ?celebrate the precious gift? of British freedom: ?Why do they protest against France for making it illegal to wear hijabs, but not against Saudi Arabia for making it illegal not to wear them??; more Muslims, she contends, have been killed in recent years by fellow Muslims than by westerners.

Manji thinks Muslims should take tolerant parts of the Koran and ignore the hellfire. Does this, I ask, include Koranic references to ?lewd acts? of homosexuality? She offers counter examples of its tolerance but they seem faintly absurd ? should it matter what a bunch of people over a millennium ago made of homosexuality, or indeed anything else? She, not unlike the fundamentalists, picks and chooses the bits that suit her.

The state has a dilemma: to encourage moderate Islam ? absurdities and all ? or shirk from interfering, which will let extremists blossom. Isn?t a key problem of Islam that it has no structure? Any Church of England vicar calling for a jihad would receive a pretty sharp summons to Lambeth palace; imams are autonomous. ?Yes, decentralisation would be good if it encouraged people to debate. But instead people just cower to their local imam.?

She excuses Blair glossing over violent aspects of Islam as ?he is only trying to divert a backlash against Muslims, bless him? but she despises the Muslim Council for not coming clean. ?Even if Muslims are only interested in slick PR, it would be a great move to recognise the problem; it would spread trust. And I am not asking them to do anything Jews and Christians haven?t done.?

Britain, she says, has been slow to introduce tests for imams on their mastery of the Koran. She recalls asking Mohamed al-Hindi, political leader of Islamic Jihad, where the Koran glorifies martyrdom; he insisted it was there, but even after looking up books and phoning colleagues, he couldn?t find one reference.
?His translator suggested I better go if I wanted to leave alive,? she recalls. ?I asked why he had even given an interview, and the translator said, ?Oh, he assumed you would be just another dumb westerner?.?

Muslims, adds Manji, must find positive role models rather than jihadists: ?Martyrs are the rock stars of the Muslim world, shown on the internet against a background of funky music. They feed on the self-esteem crisis of young Muslims.? That could be addressed by history lessons paying greater tribute to the Muslim contribution to the Renaissance.

She denounces terrorism and the response to terrorism, which is not sufficiently robust. It is no good, she argues, for respectable Muslims to say ?violence is not the Islamic ideal? if violence has become Islamic practice. And she attacks the proposed religious hatred laws, saying: ?Society needs people who offend, otherwise there will be no progress.?

Indeed. But can Manji and her followers provoke Muslims into progress?

Irshad Manji was talking to Jasper Gerard. The Trouble with Islam: A Wake-Up Call for Honesty and Change will be published in paperback by Mainstream in August

 

[glenn beck]

72 raisins????

 

[OrByte]

raisins are lethal these days.

 

[irwincur]

Did you read the article. If you did (which I suspect you DID NOT), you would see where it is from...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: glenn beck
72 raisins????

From the article:

"But could religion be an excuse? Might the gang of four have just been nihilist punks who, if raised in different cultures, might otherwise have railed against life through, say, hip-hop? ?A hip-hopper will still wake up in the morning. That doesn?t explain a willingness to take your own life.? To do that you need belief in an afterlife, which means these men must have been devoutly religious. Waiting to be rewarded, I suggest, with their 72 virgins.

But Manji says recent research shows all that virgin stuff was based on an erroneous translation of the Koran: what awaits in heaven are 72 raisins. What? Could 54 people really have been blown up for a bag of raisins? ?Well in 7th century Arabia raisins were so exalted as to be promoted to paradise.?

It came to me as I was reading the article and thought it was a decent little play on words.

 

[NJDevil]

This remind anyone else of Robin Williams on Broadway?

"Where are my b*tches. Here are your raisins"

 

[dullard]

I believe that they are virgins. And they are virgins for a reason. They are the ugly, disgusting women that no one wanted during life. And no want wants them in the after-life either.

 

[Medicine Bear]

Blah, blah, my god told me to do this, blah, blah, blah.

I'm so freaking sick of religion being used as an excuse to blow people up, deny someone rights, keep you from washing your car, whatever. All of them suck equally.

 

[magomago]

I wrote a realllly long and elaborate reply...but it had a censored word, and then i couldn't get it back...grr

maybe another time

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: magomago
I wrote a realllly long and elaborate reply...but it had a censored word, and then i couldn't get it back...grr

maybe another time

Always write long posts in Word or another text editor. Saves you from the dreaded censored problem, the dreaded post got deleted problem (a windows key combination can do it), and the dreaded incorrectly spelled word problem.

 

[miketheidiot]

what makes a lipstick lesbian different from a regular lesbian?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: glenn beck
72 raisins????

From the article:

"But could religion be an excuse? Might the gang of four have just been nihilist punks who, if raised in different cultures, might otherwise have railed against life through, say, hip-hop? ?A hip-hopper will still wake up in the morning. That doesn?t explain a willingness to take your own life.? To do that you need belief in an afterlife, which means these men must have been devoutly religious. Waiting to be rewarded, I suggest, with their 72 virgins.

But Manji says recent research shows all that virgin stuff was based on an erroneous translation of the Koran: what awaits in heaven are 72 raisins. What? Could 54 people really have been blown up for a bag of raisins? ?Well in 7th century Arabia raisins were so exalted as to be promoted to paradise.?

It came to me as I was reading the article and thought it was a decent little play on words.

I saw that...and that sort of makes me doubt her viewpoint here. I was listening to NPR the other day (right after the terrorist attacks on London in fact) and a caller to the show suggested the same thing. The guest on the show (who's name I can't remember) was an professor or something or another on Islam, and said that this was a load of crap.

Now I'm not suggesting that guest is any more of an authority on Islam, but what exactly are Manji's credentials? That she's a Muslim? Well so are a lot of people, including the terrorists, lest we take THAT too seriously. In any case, this sounds more like telling people what they want to hear. Instead of answering the hard (maybe impossible) questions, she simply attacks Islam in general (or the majority of Muslims at least). If Islam was to blame, surely we would see far more Muslim terrorists, and normal, average Muslims would be few and far between.

Actually, if you really read what she says, she is simply saying that Islam is their excuse. Fair enough, but almost every religion in history has served this role, Islam is simply the most recent. It's not a problem with the religion, since the very beliefs that make religion such a powerful force can also be twisted for one's own reasons. It's a problem with the terrorists, plain and simple. Islam is simply their justification, if they didn't have it, they would find something else. I see nothing in her statements, or those of ANYONE else, that show a true cause and effect relationship. If it's there, why can't we see it?

Of course I don't think violent video games or rap music are to blame for school shootings, or any of that other psychobabble. People are responsible for their own actions, period. Even if Islam is full of evil ideas, that doesn't make it the problem. The problem is people who kill random innocent people, period. I would think that the very people who rail against Islam in this thread would be the first to place the blame squarely where it belongs...on the shoulders of the terrorists.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
what makes a lipstick lesbian different from a regular lesbian?

Rely on sensationalism in the media to "break into the scene" and appear as if they have great points, when all their answers have no foundation and could be considered specious reasoning at best

 

[Starbuck1975]

what makes a lipstick lesbian different from a regular lesbian?

Lipstick lesbians don't ride Harley's, gravitate towards flannels and khakis and tend not to live in Seattle.

 

[Tsunami982]

can anyone confirm that the proper translation is raisins?

 

[yllus]

Irshad is a local girl.

I've always liked her take on Islam - less strict rules mainly meant to hold back various natural human impulses, more about spirituality and becoming in touch with yourself. Wish more people would see religion that way.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: glenn beck
72 raisins????

From the article:

"But could religion be an excuse? Might the gang of four have just been nihilist punks who, if raised in different cultures, might otherwise have railed against life through, say, hip-hop? ?A hip-hopper will still wake up in the morning. That doesn?t explain a willingness to take your own life.? To do that you need belief in an afterlife, which means these men must have been devoutly religious. Waiting to be rewarded, I suggest, with their 72 virgins.

But Manji says recent research shows all that virgin stuff was based on an erroneous translation of the Koran: what awaits in heaven are 72 raisins. What? Could 54 people really have been blown up for a bag of raisins? ?Well in 7th century Arabia raisins were so exalted as to be promoted to paradise.?

It came to me as I was reading the article and thought it was a decent little play on words.

I saw that...and that sort of makes me doubt her viewpoint here. I was listening to NPR the other day (right after the terrorist attacks on London in fact) and a caller to the show suggested the same thing. The guest on the show (who's name I can't remember) was an professor or something or another on Islam, and said that this was a load of crap.

He was probably old-school. There was a scholarly treatment on this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,631357,00.html

"Scholars have long pointed out that these images are clearly drawn pictures and must have been inspired by the art of painting. Muhammad, or whoever is responsible for the descriptions, may well have seen Christian miniatures or mosaics representing the gardens of paradise and has interpreted the figures of angels rather literally as those of young men and young women. A further textual influence on the imagery found in the Koran is the work of Ephrem the Syrian [306-373 CE], Hymns on Paradise, written in Syriac, an Aramaic dialect and the language of Eastern Christianity, and a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew and Arabic.

This naturally leads to the most fascinating book ever written on the language of the Koran, and if proved to be correct in its main thesis, probably the most important book ever written on the Koran. Christoph Luxenberg's book, Die Syro-Aramaische Lesart des Koran, available only in German, came out just over a year ago, but has already had an enthusiastic reception, particularly among those scholars with a knowledge of several Semitic languages at Princeton, Yale, Berlin, Potsdam, Erlangen, Aix-en-Provence, and the Oriental Institute in Beirut.

Luxenberg tries to show that many obscurities of the Koran disappear if we read certain words as being Syriac and not Arabic. We cannot go into the technical details of his methodology but it allows Luxenberg, to the probable horror of all Muslim males dreaming of sexual bliss in the Muslim hereafter, to conjure away the wide-eyed houris promised to the faithful in suras XLIV.54; LII.20, LV.72, and LVI.22. Luxenberg 's new analysis, leaning on the Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian, yields "white raisins" of "crystal clarity" rather than doe-eyed, and ever willing virgins - the houris. Luxenberg claims that the context makes it clear that it is food and drink that is being offerred, and not unsullied maidens or houris.

In Syriac, the word hur is a feminine plural adjective meaning white, with the word "raisin" understood implicitly. Similarly, the immortal, pearl-like ephebes or youths of suras such as LXXVI.19 are really a misreading of a Syriac expression meaning chilled raisins (or drinks) that the just will have the pleasure of tasting in contrast to the boiling drinks promised the unfaithful and damned.

As Luxenberg's work has only recently been published we must await its scholarly assessment before we can pass any judgements. But if his analysis is correct then suicide bombers, or rather prospective martyrs, would do well to abandon their culture of death, and instead concentrate on getting laid 72 times in this world, unless of course they would really prefer chilled or white raisins, according to their taste, in the next. "

Now I'm not suggesting that guest is any more of an authority on Islam, but what exactly are Manji's credentials? That she's a Muslim? Well so are a lot of people, including the terrorists, lest we take THAT too seriously. In any case, this sounds more like telling people what they want to hear. Instead of answering the hard (maybe impossible) questions, she simply attacks Islam in general (or the majority of Muslims at least). If Islam was to blame, surely we would see far more Muslim terrorists, and normal, average Muslims would be few and far between.

Her credentials are here:

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/aboutirshad.html

What are your credentials? Are you a Muslim?

Actually, if you really read what she says, she is simply saying that Islam is their excuse. Fair enough, but almost every religion in history has served this role, Islam is simply the most recent. It's not a problem with the religion, since the very beliefs that make religion such a powerful force can also be twisted for one's own reasons. It's a problem with the terrorists, plain and simple. Islam is simply their justification, if they didn't have it, they would find something else. I see nothing in her statements, or those of ANYONE else, that show a true cause and effect relationship. If it's there, why can't we see it?

Islam is the problem at the current time. What other religions have been responsible for is really neither here nor there in this discussion.

Of course I don't think violent video games or rap music are to blame for school shootings, or any of that other psychobabble. People are responsible for their own actions, period. Even if Islam is full of evil ideas, that doesn't make it the problem. The problem is people who kill random innocent people, period. I would think that the very people who rail against Islam in this thread would be the first to place the blame squarely where it belongs...on the shoulders of the terrorists.

I'm not railing against Islam. Neither is Manji. She a reformer who wants to see change and who is tired of power-hungry nihilists and absolute creeps usurping her religion of choice.

 

[0marTheZealot]

You don't pick and choose verses in the Koran.

It is the Word of God and should be treated as such.

I admire the Martyrs only because they believe so strongly in an issue that they were willing to die for it. How many here are willing to die for anything, let alone an idea.

While the idea is rephrensible (Islam strongly forbids the killing of innocents, even innocent kuffar), their conviction is not.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

1) Manji has no Islamic education. That is indisputable. She doesn't know how to read, write or understand Arabic, let alone criticize the Qur'an.

It is NOT raisins, it is what it is and what has been understood for the last 1400 centuries by Muslim scholars and Arab linguists who have spent their lives in trying to understand the Qur'an and explain it to others.

The word "hoor" is not the only one used in the Qur'an when referring to the virgins. The word "Azwaaj-um-Mutahharaat" has also been used numerous times which literally means "pure partners" or spouses. There is no mistaking it whatsoever. It is still a very common usage.

So there go your "raisins".

2) Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden in Islam. There is no arguing it. The prophet Lot and the horrendous fate of his nation have been mentioned in the Qur'an many times for Muslims to take note and protect themselves from what is considered in Islam to be a grave social perversion.

The Qur'an is very rigid on the basics of the faith. Very. Such that there can be no two interpretations about any of the fundamental beliefs of Islam.

What crediblity then does a homosexual "Muslim" have? Judge for yourself.

3) Her book "The trouble with Islam" has been debunked by numerous "progressive" Islamic scholars in North America. I'll provide the references to anyone who wants.

4) Here's a review of her book.


Edit: I have said it before, I'll say it again. The things being done in the name of Islam today are disgusting. Whether it be terrorists or this new breed of secular "Muslims", a reformation is being imposed on Islam which is not possible in this particular sense. As I have said, Islam is VERY rigid on the basics and on those who want to pick and choose. In this sense, the Qur'an has many safeguards against such "reformation" efforts.

Terrorism was never and will be never be allowed in Islam. Same goes for homosexuality and many other social evils.

Edit: Also, aside from all the hate mail that she received in the wake of the release of her book, respectable Muslim scholars have simply brushed her aside. She simply doesn't hold any crediblity with her sexual disposition and severe lack of Islamic education.

Let me ask you, would you waste your time reading a book on human rights by Saddam Hussain?

 

[GreatBarracuda]

 

[maluckey]

To play the evils advocate here, I heard that Christoph Luxenberg is a Lebanese Christian, writing under a pseudonym. I also read a few reviews not favorable to his/her skill in linguistics. It is said that a few points are well done, but overall the translation is fairly flawed.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: maluckey
To play the evils advocate here, I heard that Christoph Luxenberg is a Lebanese Christian, writing under a pseudonym. I also read a few reviews not favorable to his/her skill in linguistics. It is said that a few points are well done, but overall the translation is fairly flawed.

Frankly, the whole raisins thing is laughable. The climax of the arabic language was at the time of Muhammad (p.b.u.h), 1400 years ago. The understanding of arabic that the contemporaries of the Prophet had is unparalleled.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Terrorism was never and will be never be allowed in Islam. Same goes for homosexuality and many other social evils.

Edit: Also, aside from all the hate mail that she received in the wake of the release of her book, respectable Muslim scholars have simply brushed her aside. She simply doesn't hold any crediblity with her sexual disposition and severe lack of Islamic education.

Let me ask you, would you waste your time reading a book on human rights by Saddam Hussain?

How insulting...you are somehow saying that her homosexual behavior somehow eliminates any credibility of hers in regards to the subject.

No, I think it's clear that fundamentalists of these religions are the clear social evil.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Terrorism was never and will be never be allowed in Islam. Same goes for homosexuality and many other social evils.

Edit: Also, aside from all the hate mail that she received in the wake of the release of her book, respectable Muslim scholars have simply brushed her aside. She simply doesn't hold any crediblity with her sexual disposition and severe lack of Islamic education.

Let me ask you, would you waste your time reading a book on human rights by Saddam Hussain?

How insulting...you are somehow saying that her homosexual behavior somehow eliminates any credibility of hers in regards to the subject.

Not somehow, that is exactly what I am saying. You seem to have not read my post.

She lives in a free society and is free to do whatever she wants. The problem comes in when she decides to write a book on Islam when she is ignorant of the basics of it. No wonder her book has been called "tabloid journalism" at best.

Not to mention the glaring her lack of knowledge of Islam. It's fundamentals and historical development. People have spent their lives trying to understand and explain Islam to humanity. Take John Esposito for example. This is no child's play. It is a grand undertaking. Her "book" is an emotionally charged diatribe. Read it for yourself.

Edit: Let me add, however, that she is fully entitled to her political dispositions.

Another thing to notice when reading the book is her almost-antagonistic and scornful tone that pervades her entire message. One feels that she is trying to distance herself from the rest of the Muslim world while claiming to be one of their own at the same time. Not useful when the book is to serve as a "wakeup call" to Muslims worldwide.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Not somehow, that is exactly what I am saying. You seem to have not read my post.

I did read your post, but you didn't read my statement correctly. I'm saying that you cannot say that her sexual orientation somehow eliminates any criticism of religion. Stop your bigotry.

She lives in a free society and is free to do whatever she wants. The problem comes in when she decides to write a book on Islam when she is ignorant of the basics of it. No wonder her book has been called "tabloid journalism" at best.

Not to mention the glaring her lack of knowledge of Islam. It's fundamentals and historical development. People have spent their lives trying to understand and explain Islam to humanity. Take John Esposito for example. This is no child's play. It is a grand undertaking. Her "book" is an emotionally charged diatribe. Read it for yourself.

Stating that she her education or knowledge of the subject is lacking is fine, but bringing in your bigotry and hatred to discredit her statements is not.