72 raisins to die

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
In an interview with an Italian newspaper, Luxemburg (which is indeed a psuedonym, because straange things often happen to those who might be perceived as not toeing the Islamic party-line) claims that written Arabic did not truly appear for 150 years after the death of Mohammed.

I don't know how posting that interview proves anything.

Do you have any comment about his statement that Arabic was not a written language until 150 years later? Previously you claimed:

"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."

Luexmburg seem to indicate it was in flux.

Regardless, take a look HERE for a complete repudiation of Mr. Luxemburg's work. I don't think it would be practicable to post it here.

Throughout the history of Islam, there have been individuals who have attempted to paint the Qur'an as a grand hoax, an enterprise in plagiarism or a deceptive conglomeration of borrowed ideas. "Asaateer-al-Awwaleen", as the pagans of Mecca used to charge the Prophet with.

What they fail to understand is that the Qur'an is a book of guidance. Guidance for all apsects of human life. From a caring, loving and just God.

The Qur'an requires the reader to have an open mind. Furthermore, his inner self has to be clean and pure. Not perverted by the evils of this world. Evils that are considered evils by one and all. Lying, stealing, usurping etc.

Most important of all, one has to want guidance to receive it. One has to have a burning desire to seek out whatever good that there is, learn it, understand it, implement it in his life and preach it to others. This burning desire has to be there! It is a pre-requisite to reading what is considered by Muslims as the Final Revelation and the Final Word of God: the Qur'an.

Any other approach, whether it be for material gain, for acquiring fame, for confusing and misleading those who already believe, for criticizing it just for the sake of it or whatever it may be, is bound to fail.

It requires time, it requires effort, it requires sincere committment. Reading an article here and there and watching a documentary or listening to soundbites on television is not the way.

The resources are there, the scholars are there. The real question is: is the burning desire there?

You know, most of what Manji says is critical of the culture of Islam, nor the Quran. Any particular reason why your focus in this thread has almost exclusively been on the Quran and not the other subjects she touched upon?

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: 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.

I don't think anyone has ever told them that there are 72 virgins. period. That is 72 for each and every worthy individual. For the mentally slow, that means they remain virgins and always will remain virgins.

Originally posted by: 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.

Religion is good. It is mankinds perversion of religion in an attempt to gain power over others that makes it seem bad. Of course, if the Quoran actually says to kill and / or tax any non-Muslim then you must remember that man wrote the Quoran and it is obviously not a true religion.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: oculus
In a sentence: They believe the author has little to no creditability, AS A MUSLIM, due to the fact that according to the Quran / Islam, SHE IS NOT A MUSLIM. Perhaps if she didn't claim to be a muslim, they wouldn't be saying she has no credibility. (that last sentence is incrediably important)

They are not saying she can't write about Islam, or even make incrediably profound points. Their point is that she lacks credibility.... as in, "well if she's willing to completely ignore this fundemental aspect of Islam, how can I trust she's not simply glossing over this other aspect?"

Again, she probably has her own views of Islam in this particular portion. How do you know that she ignores this aspect of Islam as well? Perhaps she realizes that she is 'sinning'.

In the end, her being a lesbian has nothing to do with discrediting her. It's simply homophobia from weak minded and insecure individuals.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Looks like the freaks are coming out of their holes... maybe we should point them to this thread, which is more suitable for them...

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Do you have any comment about his statement that Arabic was not a written language until 150 years later? Previously you claimed:

"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."

Luexmburg seem to indicate it was in flux.

The article does address this point. Read it carefully. You'll find that Luxemburg isn't quite the orientalist scholar he appears to be.

Another proof is there for anyone with knowledge of the Prophet's life. I have said it before on this forum.

The Qur'an challenges mankind to bring forth a book like it. The time of the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) was the climax of the Arabic language. There were annual competitions of poetry and prose in the Arabic peninsula and the work of the winner would be hung over the Ka'ba (the black cube) in Mecca until it was matched or a more beautiful/powerful piece was composed. This mastery in poetry was something the pagans of Arabia used to pride themselves over.

Hence, the challenge of the Qur'an was directed straight towards these elitists. In the beginning, they ignored it, made it a laughing matter. But soon after a few weak attempts, they had to give in to Muhammad (p.b.u.h) and admit that the Qur'an was inimitable.

Look here for more information.

Last but not least, Mr. Luxemburg's research is in its infancy. Hold your horses. Let the real experts respond to it.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You know, most of what Manji says is critical of the culture of Islam, nor the Quran. Any particular reason why your focus in this thread has almost exclusively been on the Quran and not the other subjects she touched upon?

Well, my simple answer would be (if you still remember):

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sorry but one must consider the source.

My focus has been one-sided in this thread because she has "written a book" on Islam claiming to be a Muslim. That has to be kept in view at all times. The book is tabloid journalism at best and NOT a sincere "wakeup call" to Muslims.

She has attacked the very foundation of Islam and must be responded in kind. That is why I question her very "Muslim" identity.

Having said that, I will still read the article and comment on it when I have the time. Although I am certain that most here would not do the same should I in the future post an article from suppose ... Michael Moore.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 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. "

Interesting, but it still seems open for debate. More scientific than I thought, but I'm not going to buy into it just yet.

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?

I need credentials? I'm simply wondering what qualifies HER to go spouting off all this stuff about Islam. You'll notice that I am not doing that, so I don't need credentials. I would also like to point out that that link does not display a staggering amount of credentials on the topic of Islam. She is certainly well know for being well known, but her comments carry as much authority as any other random person, as far as I can tell.

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.

That's not what I was saying...in fact it's exactly the opposite. I was pointing out that there have always been wackos of one form or another, and all of them found some sort of justification. Often in the various religions, often somewhere else. Islam is not the "problem" any more than Christianity was the problem during the Inquisition or witch hunts, and this applies in most cases. I'm saying terrorists are the problem, because terrorists will be terrorists. If Islam isn't their justification, then something else would have been. Like I said, the problem lies with the terrorists, nowhere else.

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.

That is exactly what you are doing, and exactly what she is doing. Call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that you are focusing on the wrong thing. "Reforming" Islam is not going to make the terrorists go away, because Islam is simply an excuse for their behavior, not a cause of it. That doesn't mean it isn't a noble cause, I don't know enough to suggest Islam is the perfect religion (and it would certainly be the first), but this idea that "fixing" Islam is a way to get rid of terrorism is kind of naive.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
That is exactly what you are doing, and exactly what she is doing. Call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that you are focusing on the wrong thing. "Reforming" Islam is not going to make the terrorists go away, because Islam is simply an excuse for their behavior, not a cause of it. That doesn't mean it isn't a noble cause, I don't know enough to suggest Islam is the perfect religion (and it would certainly be the first), but this idea that "fixing" Islam is a way to get rid of terrorism is kind of naive.

Although I don't think TLC is "rallying against Islam", I have no doubt about Manji. I have been following her ever since her book came out.

She has tried to distance herself from Muslims and present herself as the only one who knows what's wrong with the Muslim world today.

In the many interviews/debates she has had ever since on TV, there has always been that pervasive tone in her voice and attitude that suggests that she is somehow the only "enlightened" Muslim in existence. I can understand her attempt at dissociation from the extreme elements of Muslim society, but what about all the others who are trying to live by Islam as best as they can?

In all the TV shows she has been invited to, all she has done is make smartass remarks and turn the show in some kind of protest against anti-semitism. Of course portraying Muslims as the one and only cause of grief to Jews worldwide and "Jew bashing" being a favourite Muslim past time.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: oculus
In a sentence: They believe the author has little to no creditability, AS A MUSLIM, due to the fact that according to the Quran / Islam, SHE IS NOT A MUSLIM.

Are you certain that Irshad is sexually active in a homosexual relationship? I was under the impression she was single at this time. The Koran says nothing at all about a lesbian sexual identity or a gay male sexual identity. Also, are there specific condemnations of female-female sex acts in the Koran, or are the condemnations limited to male-male anal intercourse? Mohammed himself had a gay uncle, most likely had a sexual relationship with one of his younger, male friends, and of course no homosexual was ever put to death for homosexuality during Mohammed's lifetime. Homosexual males were an accepted part of Mohammed's court, they worked in female quarters, in fact they were the only males allowed to enter the female sleeping quarters where females would be unclothed. It is important to remember that the majority of references to so-called eunachs in the Koran actually refer to homosexual males, the word 'eunach' is a mistranslation.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda

Originally posted by: Rainsford
That is exactly what you are doing, and exactly what she is doing. Call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that you are focusing on the wrong thing. "Reforming" Islam is not going to make the terrorists go away, because Islam is simply an excuse for their behavior, not a cause of it. That doesn't mean it isn't a noble cause, I don't know enough to suggest Islam is the perfect religion (and it would certainly be the first), but this idea that "fixing" Islam is a way to get rid of terrorism is kind of naive.

Although I don't think TLC is "rallying against Islam", I have no doubt about Manji. I have been following her ever since her book came out.

She has tried to distance herself from Muslims and present herself as the only one who knows what's wrong with the Muslim world today.

In the many interviews/debates she has had ever since on TV, there has always been that pervasive tone in her voice and attitude that suggests that she is somehow the only "enlightened" Muslim in existence. I can understand her attempt at dissociation from the extreme elements of Muslim society, but what about all the others who are trying to live by Islam as best as they can?

In all the TV shows she has been invited to, all she has done is make smartass remarks and turn the show in some kind of protest against anti-semitism. Of course portraying Muslims as the one and only cause of grief to Jews worldwide and "Jew bashing" being a favourite Muslim past time.

Railing might not have been the best way to describe TLC, you're right. "Blaming" might be a better word, in this case. But for Manji, I think it's dead on.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: oculus
In a sentence: They believe the author has little to no creditability, AS A MUSLIM, due to the fact that according to the Quran / Islam, SHE IS NOT A MUSLIM.

Are you certain that Irshad is sexually active in a homosexual relationship? I was under the impression she was single at this time. The Koran says nothing at all about a lesbian sexual identity or a gay male sexual identity. Also, are there specific condemnations of female-female sex acts in the Koran, or are the condemnations limited to male-male anal intercourse? Mohammed himself had a gay uncle, most likely had a sexual relationship with one of his younger, male friends, and of course no homosexual was ever put to death for homosexuality during Mohammed's lifetime. Homosexual males were an accepted part of Mohammed's court, they worked in female quarters, in fact they were the only males allowed to enter the female sleeping quarters where females would be unclothed. It is important to remember that the majority of references to so-called eunachs in the Koran actually refer to homosexual males, the word 'eunach' is a mistranslation.

The whole act of homosexuality is forbidden by Islam. Whether one is "active" or not is irrelevant. You can't BE a homosexual and BE a Muslim, period.

And what the heck are you talking about in the rest of your post? Almost like raildogg, coming into a thread and spouting off stuff that has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Irshad Manji

"superiority complex" of Muslims. "

Most of the posts in this thread tend to only add credibility to Irshad Manji's perspectives .

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
She, not unlike the fundamentalists, picks and chooses the bits that suit her.

There you go TLC. I hadn't even read the article and now that I did, it only confirms what I knew all along. There's no point in me saying anything more.

 

[Zebo]

Interesting thread. What I don't "get" about islam and these terrorists combo is how deeply religious and commited they are while at the same time going against god in killing people?

Check out this interview with a suicide bomber. Literally can't wait to die in his killing spree.
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1077288,00.html

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Interesting thread. What I don't "get" about islam and these terrorists combo is how deeply religious and commited they are while at the same time going against god in killing people?

Check out this interview with a suicide bomber. Literally can't wait to die in his killing spree.
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1077288,00.html

Being sincere and committed doesn't mean you are right. One can be sincerely wrong as well.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: oculus
In a sentence: They believe the author has little to no creditability, AS A MUSLIM, due to the fact that according to the Quran / Islam, SHE IS NOT A MUSLIM.

Are you certain that Irshad is sexually active in a homosexual relationship? I was under the impression she was single at this time. The Koran says nothing at all about a lesbian sexual identity or a gay male sexual identity. Also, are there specific condemnations of female-female sex acts in the Koran, or are the condemnations limited to male-male anal intercourse? Mohammed himself had a gay uncle, most likely had a sexual relationship with one of his younger, male friends, and of course no homosexual was ever put to death for homosexuality during Mohammed's lifetime. Homosexual males were an accepted part of Mohammed's court, they worked in female quarters, in fact they were the only males allowed to enter the female sleeping quarters where females would be unclothed. It is important to remember that the majority of references to so-called eunachs in the Koran actually refer to homosexual males, the word 'eunach' is a mistranslation.

The whole act of homosexuality is forbidden by Islam. Whether one is "active" or not is irrelevant. You can't BE a homosexual and BE a Muslim, period.

You can be a homosexual and be Muslim. Period.

 

[drewshin]

The Bible also says that homosexuals are sinners and will burn in hell. It's just that most of us Christians have chosen to ignore it.

I'm surprised more of the fundamentalist Christians in here haven't come to support this claim. In fact, it's the justification that Christian terrorists here in the U.S. have used to attack homosexuals.

Really though, it's the superiority complex of some Christians and Muslims that is causing the havoc in today's world. You see it all the way up through the militaries and governments of our countries. Every truly religious person that believes in their "good books" has a superiority complex. Otherwise how can you truly have faith in your beliefs? You have to believe that your way is the right way, and all others are false.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: drewshin
The Bible also says that homosexuals are sinners and will burn in hell. It's just that most of us Christians have chosen to ignore it.

I'm surprised more of the fundamentalist Christians in here haven't come to support this claim. In fact, it's the justification that Christian terrorists here in the U.S. have used to attack homosexuals.

Really though, it's the superiority complex of some Christians and Muslims that is causing the havoc in today's world. You see it all the way up through the militaries and governments of our countries. Every truly religious person that believes in their "good books" has a superiority complex. Otherwise how can you truly have faith in your beliefs? You have to believe that your way is the right way, and all others are false.

I never made any claims in this thread of Islam's superiority over other religions/ideologies. The whole argument going back and forth may seem as such, thanks to someone's insistence on 2 + 2 = 5.

Although you are correct in the latter part of your post.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: 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. "

Interesting, but it still seems open for debate. More scientific than I thought, but I'm not going to buy into it just yet.

I'm not buying into it either, nor am I discarding the notion either.

I need credentials?

Well you seem to be discounting Manji's opinion. I'm just wondering where you stand on this issue.

I'm simply wondering what qualifies HER to go spouting off all this stuff about Islam. You'll notice that I am not doing that, so I don't need credentials. I would also like to point out that that link does not display a staggering amount of credentials on the topic of Islam. She is certainly well know for being well known, but her comments carry as much authority as any other random person, as far as I can tell.

A lot of what she is speaking about is reform to Islamic society, not Islam itself or the Quran. I grew up in American society so I can speak with some authority, simply due to my experiences, about that society and praise it as well as criticise it. Why can't Manji do the same?

That's not what I was saying...in fact it's exactly the opposite. I was pointing out that there have always been wackos of one form or another, and all of them found some sort of justification. Often in the various religions, often somewhere else. Islam is not the "problem" any more than Christianity was the problem during the Inquisition or witch hunts, and this applies in most cases. I'm saying terrorists are the problem, because terrorists will be terrorists. If Islam isn't their justification, then something else would have been. Like I said, the problem lies with the terrorists, nowhere else.

Christian society was the problem in the Inquisition and witch hunts. It was at fault because even if some were against it, a silent majority of Christians passively enabled it. The same problem exists within Islam right now. Instead of overwhelmingly condemning the barbaric acts their fringe inflict on others, many in the Islamic society either actively support them or passively do it with a wink and a nod.

There's often talks of the evil of christians in America. But you know what? Eric Rudoph was brought to justice, found guilty, and deserves his sentence (and more, imo) and few would argue with that. There are thousands of Eric Rudolphs, and worse, in the ME and they get both passive and tacit approval.

Is Islam itself the problem? No. The problem is the society that enables that kind of behaviour. And that's precisely what Manji is saying needs to change.

That is exactly what you are doing, and exactly what she is doing. Call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that you are focusing on the wrong thing. "Reforming" Islam is not going to make the terrorists go away, because Islam is simply an excuse for their behavior, not a cause of it. That doesn't mean it isn't a noble cause, I don't know enough to suggest Islam is the perfect religion (and it would certainly be the first), but this idea that "fixing" Islam is a way to get rid of terrorism is kind of naive.

It's not what I'm doing, as I've already explained.

I also want to address another issue I see in here - This red herring that if someone is not a Muslim that can't possibly say anything about the Quran or Islam. I find that attitude the height of arrogance and elitism. It's a method of controlling an ideology and deflecting all criticism, deserved or not, from anyone else but "true beleivers" and faithful servants. Such an atittude precludes introspection. It stagnates thought. It strangles discourse. It's phony, fake, and a transparent excuse that seems used to eliminate anyone who might dare to criticise the status quo.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I also want to address another issue I see in here - This red herring that if someone is not a Muslim that can't possibly say anything about the Quran or Islam. I find that attitude the height of arrogance and elitism. It's a method of controlling an ideology and deflecting all criticism, deserved or not, from anyone else but "true beleivers" and faithful servants. Such an atittude precludes introspection. It stagnates thought. It strangles discourse. It's phony, fake, and a transparent excuse that seems used to eliminate anyone who might dare to criticise the status quo.

It seems that you have ignored mostly everything I've said here. Islam is NOT above criticism. It has been under the microscrope since its inception and it still is. Every single human being on this planet has the right to question everything about Islam. Every one.

I would have absolutely NO problem if Manji stops claiming to be a "Muslim". Why that is a problem in the first place, I have answered that over and over and over again in this thread to whoever's listening.

If you purposely want to ignore it, you are free to do so.

 

[mOeeOm]

I also want to address another issue I see in here - This red herring that if someone is not a Muslim that can't possibly say anything about the Quran or Islam. I find that attitude the height of arrogance and elitism. It's a method of controlling an ideology and deflecting all criticism, deserved or not, from anyone else but "true beleivers" and faithful servants. Such an atittude precludes introspection. It stagnates thought. It strangles discourse. It's phony, fake, and a transparent excuse that seems used to eliminate anyone who might dare to criticise the status quo.

Oh no, ANYONE has the right to judge Islam, thats fine, but that is not why we are mad. Manji is claiming to be Muslim, while being a homosexual...the Quran forbids homosexuality among Muslims. But Manji is claiming she is a Muslim and judging Islam AS a Muslim....which is simply not true, she is NOT a Muslim because she is a homosexual. If she didn't say she was Muslim, we would have no problem with it, but she claiming to be a homosexual Muslim.....it just doesn't make any sense.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I also want to address another issue I see in here - This red herring that if someone is not a Muslim that can't possibly say anything about the Quran or Islam. I find that attitude the height of arrogance and elitism. It's a method of controlling an ideology and deflecting all criticism, deserved or not, from anyone else but "true beleivers" and faithful servants. Such an atittude precludes introspection. It stagnates thought. It strangles discourse. It's phony, fake, and a transparent excuse that seems used to eliminate anyone who might dare to criticise the status quo.

It seems that you have ignored mostly everything I've said here. Islam is NOT above criticism. It has been under the microscrope since its inception and it still is. Every single human being on this planet has the right to question everything about Islam. Every one.

I would have absolutely NO problem if Manji stops claiming to be a "Muslim". Why that is a problem in the first place, I have answered that over and over and over again in this thread to whoever's listening.

If you purposely want to ignore it, you are free to do so.

Well I'm not going to get into the homosexual discussion with you because that devolves into an entirely different issue and that seems to be your biggest issue for slamming her.

What I do want to ask is - If Islam is not above criticism and criticizing it is free for all, then why does Manji receive death threats? Why is there still a fatwa against Rushdie? Why does Luxemburg have to write a book under a pseudonym? How many lesser, unknown people have fatwas issued against them for criticizing Islam?

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What I do want to ask is - If Islam is not above criticism and criticizing it is free for all, then why does Manji receive death threats? Why is there still a fatwa against Rushdie? Why does Luxemburg have to write a book under a pseudonym? How many lesser, unknown people have fatwas issued against them for criticizing Islam?

Perfectly valid question. She receives death threats for the same reasons innocent women were executed for being "witches" in medieval Europe. The difference being that some of these women actually were completely innocent but many of these modern orientalists are not. Some of them write material that is flamebait-worthy by any standards. Does this justify death threats? Of course not.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I also want to address another issue I see in here - This red herring that if someone is not a Muslim that can't possibly say anything about the Quran or Islam. I find that attitude the height of arrogance and elitism. It's a method of controlling an ideology and deflecting all criticism, deserved or not, from anyone else but "true beleivers" and faithful servants. Such an atittude precludes introspection. It stagnates thought. It strangles discourse. It's phony, fake, and a transparent excuse that seems used to eliminate anyone who might dare to criticise the status quo.

Well, this is true of all religions. The Ayatollahs can't talk about Catholic theology with any sort of expertise required at that level. The same goes vice versa.

 

[0roo0roo]

she had an interesting article on the inside back cover of this weeks Time magazine.

 

[MegaWorks]

Homosexuality is forbidden by Islam, you cannot be a homosexual and then call yourself muslim.