M
Montalban
Guest
Islam is all encompassing, is it not? Affecting the whole person.
Some Moslems think that you can be gay, and still a faithfully practicing Moslem. So *you *are confused
- Status
Some Moslems think that you can be gay, and still a faithfully practicing Moslem. So *you *are confused
P
pro_universal
Guest
This is odd-stepping aside the fact that you didn’t cite a source dealing with the Norman conquests, nor the later Protestant ones, you seem to have posted that the Papal authority to declare lands legally held by such and such lord was based on fraudulent documents from the Emperor.
So…it was plainly legal? In what universe do forged documents constitute legal authority? And who said that Constantine himself had a legal right to offer such a thing or not in the first place?
Okay, even accepting your apparent assertion that feudal overlordship was automatically legal, there was no such thing as “English territory” in the feudal system. Title was a personal affair-it flowed only to a man and his inheritors. There was no “national claim” to this or that piece of dirt. So no, there was no such thing as having an “english Ireland”-there were only lords who at one point had been subordintate to this or that English noble. There was no nationality in Feudalism.
But they did not recognize that a Bull conveyed good title to land.
Again, this is completely flawed. There was only personal allegience and title holding in that system-there was no such thing as a “national sovereignty” that transcended the actual person who held title.
That makes the rest of your legal theory irrelevant.
M
Montalban
Guest
I didn’t say I sourced it. I referenced it. I ‘referred’ to it. And where I did this
- an act or instance of referring
dictionary.reference.com/browse/reference
The rest of your post doesn’t deal with any of your mistakes… Odd then that you choose to advertise new ones, such as that regarding fuedalism and ‘English territory’
There was a distinct King of England. He had over-lordship of England. This over-lordship extended to Cornwall, thence to Wales, and then to Ireland (with attempts every now and then to have Scotland and bits of France).
The statement it is English territory stands as being correct. It would be wrong to equate England then as England is now, but England didn’t cease to be when freehold title came into being.
Still, press on. Don’t admit your mistakes, just keep going! Good to see you back.
For anyone else who’s interested in this aside, here’s an interesting declaration made to the Pope by my people
(the Scots).
M
Montalban
Guest
BUMP
Pro_universal’s certainly content to extend an off-topic discussion here rather than deal with the OP
E
Ella
Guest
Wow, Pro. I thought the whole reason you were disassociating yourself with Catholicism was because posters on here were ugly to Muslims… Here is a Muslim woman you’ve been extremely ugly to -
you’ve said she’s not Muslim - how rude is that!
you’ve used her sexual orientation to attack any message she might have, ad hominem…
you’ve compared her to Madonna - when last I saw, Madonna is a pop star whereas Manji is starting a movement to counteract Islamic fundamentalism with an appeal to reason and debate…
you posted a debate link where AbuKahlil fills the whole text with ad hominems and guilt by association (fox news). BTW thanks for posting that link - Manji did quite well in it.
D
DB_AND_ALI
Guest
Many christian politicians recognised the truth and lived it…Winston Churchill ; Margaret Thatcher and Nelson Mandela —please don’t generalise ; thanks !!!
P
pro_universal
Guest
How is that rude!? She is clearly not a religious Muslim. She is a secularist-and thus, Muslim is an identifier for her, not a statement of her religious faith. That’s evident from reading her webpage.
Uh, no. Her message is that her sexual orientation should be accepted by Muslims. That’s not an ad hominem-that’s just reading her webpage.
Again, Irshad Manji is starting a movement to make everyone accept her sexual orientation and secular lifestyle. The comparison to Madonna is accurate-she criticized and ridiculed the Church and its symbols in order to promote a new, secular, highly sexualized lifestyle.
That is not healthy criticism of a religion-it’s demanding that religion accept things which it has traditionally considered abominations.
Did you read it? He pointed out a few key features:
a) She doesn’t read Arabic press, so she is clueless as to what the Arab Muslims are saying about anti-semitism and radicalism
b) She doesn’t have any real connection to the Muslim world-her criticisms are aimed for a western, secular audience that isn’t Muslim. So she’s not a reformer-she’s a polemicist.
Maybe you aren’t religious and don’t believe that statements against homosexuality are proper and right. But if you are, it’s hard to see how a gay rights activist who wants religion out of the business of giving moral guidance would be a “beacon of hope” for any religion.
E
Ella
Guest
She IS a religious Muslim, she is NOT a secularist. Please prove to me otherwise. I think you just don’t like her. Is it because she is gay?
Of course she believes she should not be executed because she is gay - but that is not her ‘message’, it’s one part. Don’t marginalize the idea of Ijtihad because you dislike her sexual orientation.
It’s not accurate because again, Madonna is a pop star and Manji is not. Manji is promoting free thought and discourse in Islam - things that she says historically existed in Islam and that should be part of Islam now. Don’t you think the idea of Ijtihad is a good concept? If not, why not?
From her website:
“Khaleel Mohammed, an imam and professor of Islam at San Diego State University: “Irshad wants us to do what our Holy Book wants us to do: End the tribal posturing, open our eyes, and stand up to oppression, even if it’s rationalized by our vaunted imams… She remains obedient to the Divine Imperative: ‘O you who believe! Be upholders of justice, witnesses for God, even if it be against yourselves, or your parents and kin.’ (Quran, 4:135).””
The penalty for being gay according to sharia law is death - do you agree with that?
Well, HE said she doesn’t read Arabic press and is clueless. Why should I take him at his word? Esp. concerning her, who he clearly does not respect?
How is that so? Please back up your statement.
Yes, gay people can’t have any positive influence in this world.
But go ahead and attack me too, call her a non-Muslim and me non-religious. Ad hominem away… and to think I thought you were an upstanding, moral person. Believe it or not, Pro, I really did. I read your posts in response to the hatred on here and even when I didn’t agree with you about Islam, I felt that you were trying to appeal to everyone here to recognize all people as humans under God. Except, I suppose, when they’re gay Muslim women. I’m disappointed in you.
P
pro_universal
Guest
E
Ella
Guest
But the Jihadwatch site has published criticisms of her because she believes Islam can be reformed, and has merit -
jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/014678.php
What a great article. Thanks for posting it! Some quotes from Irshad Manji in that article:
“…most Muslims, included those with University degrees, have no clue how to challenge Islam. They don’t have to think and critical thinking skills need not apply. We were never able to question the Koran.”
“During the ‘Golden age’ - between the 9th and 11th century - there existed a tradition of critical thinking in the Muslim world.”
“I refuse to join an army of automatons in the name of Allah. This is why the spirit of my book is about questioning. It challenges Muslims worldwide to end human rights violations committed against women and religious minorities in the name of Islam. It also calls for an end to anti-Semitism which has no basis in the preaching of the Koran.”
“I don’t really need to be religious but I think I’am spiritual. There are certain rituals associated with Islam that I do practice because they speak to my integrity. For example I fast during the month of Ramadam because It helps me build character, discipline and empathy with the poor. These are values I believe in. I give ‘Zakat’, the system of charity under Islam. Those who have wealth give it away to those who do not. This rotation of wealth is a way to balance social inequality. I give more that is expected from me actually. But, at the same time, I do not pray in the conventional Muslim way. I did that until my mid-twenties but I realised that this was nothing more than an insignificant ritual. And I care enough about my relationship with God to inject it with more meaning which is why I have still spontaneous conversations with my creator. And finally, I refuse to do the pilgrimage to Mecca as long as Mecca excludes Jews and Christians for being on it soil. I don’t need to be religious in order to feel very comfortable to be a Muslim.”
Wow, this reply of mine is long enough to require two posts. So this is part one…
M
Montalban
Guest
Did anyone stop to think that this is in fact why Pro-Universal’s against her?
(that Islam can’t be reformed and has no merit)
E
Ella
Guest
And this is part two!
I never said she represented Islam or Muslims. I say that she represents a hopeful future for Islam and a way out of the violent, evil path that Islam has taken in the past several years.
That’s why her book is translated in Arabic etc.
Of course, you have nothing to worry about. This woman has no audience in the Islamic world so why even respond to my posts about her?
Do you think gay people should be executed?
Pro - think about where you’re standing.
And as noted above, she never said that Ijtihad was her idea. Indeed, it’s because it has a history and tradition in Islam that she is promoting it as a possibility.
Well, I noticed that AbuKahlil, the other participant in the debate you linked to, is an avowed athiest, but I didn’t feel it was pertinent to point out… because it’s an ad hominem… ah, see my point?
Oh my God. God can indeed use someone who is gay etc. to spread a message that has merit.
Why does it upset you that she is trying to promote Ijtihad?
Ah, time period, like, NOW? I don’t support executing gay people. Not then, not now, now ever. Anywhere. How about you?
I read her response. It doesn’ t strike me as odd. What DOES strike me as odd is the antisemitism in Saudi press that is permitted. And that you find her ability to read Arabic more important than the antisemitism present in the Saudi press. Yeah, that strikes me as odd.
She prays. She doesn’t go to Mecca because Saudi Arabia forbids Christians and Jews (and members of all other religions) from Mecca. What a brave woman.
I never said she represented Islam or Muslims. I say that she represents a hopeful future for Islam and a way out of the violent, evil path that Islam has taken in the past several years.
Is this really Pro? The Pro I remember wouldn’t make such vast unsubstantiated claims.
That’s why her book is translated in Arabic etc.
Of course, you have nothing to worry about. This woman has no audience in the Islamic world so why even respond to my posts about her?
What ugly things to say about someone. Then you included me as ‘not being religious’. Last I checked, calling a Muslim ‘not really Muslim’ is a real, hard, horrible insult.
Please list your quotes from her. You basically have NOT done that.
Do you think she is a bad person? I think that you think so, because she is gay.
Do you think gay people should be executed?
Pro - think about where you’re standing.
E
Ella
Guest
Ah, yes, I do think that.
There’s the elephant in the room.Do I have to agree with everything Manji supports to see that she is saying things that have merit? Of course not! Nor do I agree with everything Ghandi said. But she is at least seeking a way, to discourse, to thought.
I think she’s a brave woman.
P
pro_universal
Guest
Ella,
Well, it looks like most of your point has to do with me “not liking” Irshad Manji. I don’t know her-so I have absolutely no personal opinion as to whether or not she’s nice. Notice that none of my criticisms have anything to do with her being nice or mean.
I think your problem is that you cannot distinguish “not qualified to speak and doesn’t accurately represent Muslims” from “not a good person.” If you would do that, my point would be quite clear.
The rest of her comments, as detailed by the atheist and well qualified professor Asad AbuKhalil, are gross generalizations that have no basis in fact. The reason I challenge that part of her claims about Muslims is that she has no expertise in Islamic studies, does not read Arabic, and does not represent anyone in the Islamic community. Read the debate with Prof. AbuKhalil-you don’t have to be religious to recognize that Irshad Manji is not a good source for information on Islam or Muslims.
a) Not able to read the Arab papers she claims to be exposing as “anti-semitic and violent”
b) Completely uninterested in, and unqualified to teach, Islamic religious doctrine.
That’s just silly.
She’s exactly like the gay rights activists who claim that the Church is evil because it says homosexuality is wrong, and the new agers who think that it’s evil to tell teens that they shouldn’t have sex or that condoms are wrong. In other words, she isn’t a reformer, she’s an unqualified critic with her own agenda, the kind of person who isn’t helpful to anyone except people who don’t like Islam.
Well, it looks like most of your point has to do with me “not liking” Irshad Manji. I don’t know her-so I have absolutely no personal opinion as to whether or not she’s nice. Notice that none of my criticisms have anything to do with her being nice or mean.
I think your problem is that you cannot distinguish “not qualified to speak and doesn’t accurately represent Muslims” from “not a good person.” If you would do that, my point would be quite clear.
Again, the main point of the interview is that she is clearly not pushing for Islam, but rather, a new aged agenda. This is exactly like those gay rights activists who want the Church to stop condemning homosexuality and to sanction gay marriage and woman priests-they’re not actually interested in the religion; they’re just interested in having religion sanctify everything they want.
The rest of her comments, as detailed by the atheist and well qualified professor Asad AbuKhalil, are gross generalizations that have no basis in fact. The reason I challenge that part of her claims about Muslims is that she has no expertise in Islamic studies, does not read Arabic, and does not represent anyone in the Islamic community. Read the debate with Prof. AbuKhalil-you don’t have to be religious to recognize that Irshad Manji is not a good source for information on Islam or Muslims.
Again, you seem to be missing the point. AbuKhalil’s being an avowed atheist certainly would be relevant if you were citing his books for evidence on how to be a good Muslim or how to reform Islamic religious practice. I cited Manji’s new-age, gay-rights agenda because it goes to the heart of her claims and the claims you seem to be making about her in this thread.
Sure he can. What’s that got to do with Manji being:
a) Not able to read the Arab papers she claims to be exposing as “anti-semitic and violent”
b) Completely uninterested in, and unqualified to teach, Islamic religious doctrine.
I already answered this: No.
Well, it should. How on earth can you find someone’s assessment of “Arab media” reliable when that person can’t even read the source material? That would be like me claiming to reveal the secrets of Basque newspapers…without ever actually having read a Basque language paper.
That’s just silly.
I don’t agree that Islam has taken a violent, evil path, despite what Irshad Manji says. That is the whole point of my critique of her credibility and agenda.
She’s exactly like the gay rights activists who claim that the Church is evil because it says homosexuality is wrong, and the new agers who think that it’s evil to tell teens that they shouldn’t have sex or that condoms are wrong. In other words, she isn’t a reformer, she’s an unqualified critic with her own agenda, the kind of person who isn’t helpful to anyone except people who don’t like Islam.
P
pro_universal
Guest
Well, Asad AbuKhalil’s debate is a good comment on this belief. He points out that her work only serves to bash Muslims and stereotype Arab culture as ugly and mean, when the reality is not so. She is not “seeking discourse”; she’s just repeating the anti-Arab stereotypes that you find in Spencer tracts, and as you can see…even avowed atheist, anti-religious Arab commentators find her to be completely unhelpful.Ah, yes, I do think that.
Do I have to agree with everything Manji supports to see that she is saying things that have merit? Of course not! Nor do I agree with everything Ghandi said. But she is at least seeking a way, to discourse, to thought.
I think she’s a brave woman.
M
Montalban
Guest
So if she says Islam is against homosexuality, it’s wrong?
E
Ella
Guest
Well, your comments started out with the fact she is gay, and that (according to AbuKhalil, not a fact) she can’t read Arabic, and that, according to you, she is not Muslim. All personal comments.
That’s not the point of the interview at all. The subject of the interview was the violent reaction to the cartoons.
Such as?
There’s a sweeping generalization. The testimonies on her website suggest that you are wrong, and that she does represent many people in the Islamic community. Esp. women.
I read it, and again, I belive Manji IS a good source for information on Islam and Muslims. How about, instead of trying to attack her credentials, you try to attack her project Ijtihad?
Continued in part two…
E
Ella
Guest
I see the point very clearly. AbuKhalil got defensive when Manji brought up the anti-semitic cartoons that are popular in the Saudi press. She brought up the anti-semitic cartoons in response to his claim that Islam is being ‘picked on’ regarding the printing of the Mohammad cartoons.
Oh yes, I got that point very clearly.
Response to A: you keep beliving his claim that she can’t read the papers. AND anyone with internet access can see the anti-semitic cartoons online. Are you kidding me? These things aren’t hidden by arabic text, you know. Do a web search for ‘saudi anti-semitic cartoons’.
Forgot the response to B: I’ve never seen her try to ‘teach Islamic religious doctrine’. Where did she try to do that?
Again, how can you say she’s never read an Arabic language paper?
Is this the best point you can find to argue with? That’s silly!
Please show how the path of Islam is related to Manji’s credibility and agenda. How is the ‘agenda’ of Ijtihad bad?
Is she exactly like that? How does Ijtihad fit into that agenda? Or the idea of women being given loans to start small business, so that they can afford to be taught to read, so they can read the Koran and find that they have rights and privileges, things that have been hidden to them by way of their illiteracy? Or the idea of stopping child executions in Iran?
I applaud her for trying to open a door to debate and thought in a system of ‘law’, sharia ‘law’, that mandates execution for homosexuality.
P
pro_universal
Guest
Ella,
For starters, commenting on someone’s education and language skills is not a “personal attack.” Let’s just get past that please: I don’t have any ill will towards Irshad Manji. I do not know her. I just read what she says.
That was the point AbuKhalil’s critique, and it’s a good one. You should try reading it. She also admits that she doesn’t read or speak the language.
This is why Muslims and experts, including non-religious experts, do not see her as a member of the Islamic community, and don’t find her claims at all convincing. They also see her as someone who stereotypes all Muslims. Hence, her “project Ijtihad” is just a label taken from a language she does not speak, in order to mask what is pretty obviously new-age, anti-religious, material.
But of course, Manji doesn’t notice that, because it doesn’t fit her stereotype of the woman-hating, book-burning, crazed Arab. Either she just doesn’t know that the Islamic organizations have been doing this…or, it’s not what she wants. I think it’s quite clear that what she wants is education that says “secularism is good, you don’t need to pray in the traditional way, and being gay is cool!”
That’s really not a parody of what she says, either. Just read her own words.
Here’s yet another article, this time from a British perspective, that details what’s going on with Manji’s “project ijtihad”:
commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2006/06/native_misinformants.html
For starters, commenting on someone’s education and language skills is not a “personal attack.” Let’s just get past that please: I don’t have any ill will towards Irshad Manji. I do not know her. I just read what she says.
Her claim that there are no voices for human rights in the Muslim world. She is flat out wrong on that-there are human, and specifically women’s rights groups all over the Muslim world. But because they don’t fit her new-age, gay-rights secularism, Manji ignores them.
That was the point AbuKhalil’s critique, and it’s a good one. You should try reading it. She also admits that she doesn’t read or speak the language.
Well, in case you haven’t noticed, that’s what I’ve been doing here. Her “project Ijtihad” is not a voice from within Islam for reform-it is a voice for pro-gay, western secularism. She does not advocate anything Muslim except the word-her idea is to have Islam become more like her “spirituality”, as she says frankly in her interviews.
This is why Muslims and experts, including non-religious experts, do not see her as a member of the Islamic community, and don’t find her claims at all convincing. They also see her as someone who stereotypes all Muslims. Hence, her “project Ijtihad” is just a label taken from a language she does not speak, in order to mask what is pretty obviously new-age, anti-religious, material.
No, he correctly pointed out that she can’t read Saudi papers because she can’t read arabic. Then he pointed out that many papers and writers do condemn the anti-semitism, but that Manji does not know this because again…she does not read them.
It’s in the interview. Re-read.
That’s what “Ijtihad” is.
The agenda of Ijtihad isn’t bad-it’s just that Manji isn’t interested in Islamic law or Islamic reform. She makes the same generalizations about Islam and Muslims that Robert Spencer does-which is why her audience is mainly in America, and why Arabs (including atheists) and Muslims find her to be completely wrong and unrepresentative of their society.
Actually, these are good things. Muslim fundamentalist organizations, Ironically, have long been the far and away leaders in precisely these kinds of programs for women.
But of course, Manji doesn’t notice that, because it doesn’t fit her stereotype of the woman-hating, book-burning, crazed Arab. Either she just doesn’t know that the Islamic organizations have been doing this…or, it’s not what she wants. I think it’s quite clear that what she wants is education that says “secularism is good, you don’t need to pray in the traditional way, and being gay is cool!”
That’s really not a parody of what she says, either. Just read her own words.
When someone is only concerned with abuse of children in Iran, and has nothing to say about the widespread abuse of children in America or elsewhere…you have to wonder what her agenda is.
The problem is that she’s not opening the debate-she’s just repeating stereotypes in such a way that she gets applause in American audiences, and confusion or rejection in Muslim ones. The debate already exists-it’s just that Manji doesn’t notice it because she wants to stereotype, and then substitute her own secular, new-age vision for the real work towards reform that’s already being done.
Here’s yet another article, this time from a British perspective, that details what’s going on with Manji’s “project ijtihad”:
commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2006/06/native_misinformants.html
- Status