Welcome to this community, Irshad. You have a fair number of critics here, and I counted myself among them before learning about the manner in which you participated at the Secular Islam Summit. I offer you an apology for my assumptions.

Truth be told I am extremely conservative in my orthopraxy, and as far as I can tell we have very dissimilar views on Islam. However, you assert your muslim identity and you have (more importantly) defended the rights of others to do the same.

I think our common framework of agreement is indeed the matter of personal freedom and ijtihad; you will probably not be surprised to learn that many who supported the Secular Summit believe the gates of ijtihad to be closed. An example of the thinking and reasoning behind such an assertion can be found at Jihadwatch, an ally of Ibn Warraq. If you are willing to participate in this community and help us work together to find areas of common agreement such as ijtihad then perhaps we can all make genuine progress. 

I look forward to your replies and continued participation at eteraz.org. I hope that you are patient with us as we are not all of the same mind. But you have suceeded in changing mine; so you surely can change others.  

--
City of Brass: principled pragmatism at the maghrib of one age, the fajr of another

Dear Irshad Manji

Asalaam alaikum

I am not entirely sure that I am correct in saying so, but allow me to voice my opinion on what you have written.

While you profess to only represent yourself, you are surely aware that at public forums such as the one you attended, you inevitably represent Islam. You and I both know this. No one has the luxury of publically representing their own take on Islam, even as individuals with Allah's gift of unique personality and talents. We are bound to rules and traditions.

I have nothing but admiration for the positions you have taken of late. I wish you would be careful not to draw Islam into controversy nor advocate disunity.

There is room for individuality in Islam and much room for disagreement. In the end, we seek unity and should never lose sight of that goal. Especially in front of people who are highly critical (and ignorant) of Islam's true nature and goodness.

Best wishes.  

I'm no Muslim, but I'm impressed too. I had lately begun seeing her merely as a bit of a flake and a bit of an opportunist and someone maybe allowing herself to be taken advantage of because it was profitable.

That  was probably not fair of me.

Dear Manji,

First time writer, long time fan. From my perspective, you are Canada's renaissance woman. A few questions:

1. Are you ever going to return to Big Ideas on TVO? The new guy drives me nuts, I have no idea why.

2. Are you going to continue your media work for any other issues than Islam? I guess its the hot ticket, but science needs some sarcasm.

3. Are you ditching Canuckistan for America? Because I don't think I can take that.

Kudos!

Salam,

I echo the earlier poster's welcome for you to post your thoughts on this forum.  You are obviously a much more 'public' figure than certainly almost anyone else here, and I'm sure many of us have read your book and/or other statements of yours. With that being said, I guess I'll begin the inquisition (...joke). 

Ms. Manji have you ever reflected on why it is that many (including most Muslims) hold your public statements with contempt (beyond just reactionary ire) for what they consider to be very shallow and misleading analysis.

Here is but one example of a past opinion of yours:

The Riots in Jalalabad

Last week, I was interviewed by CNN International about the Quran desecration report - and in particular about the riots in Jalalabad. I said that if the allegations were proven true, then we're dealing with a gratuitous provocation of Muslims. I stand by that answer. But TV doesn't give you the space that a blog does, so now's the time to say something else: Why riot violently over the mistreatment of a Quran?

It's not as if one's basic human rights have been transgressed.

Ah, my copious critics will declare, but it is like abusing a basic human right. If you're a good Muslim (which clearly I am not), your very identity and dignity are bound up in revering the Quran. After all, it is the literal word of God -- unsullied, untouched, unedited, unlike the other holy books.

Sorry. That argument just doesn't wash. One can appreciate the Quran's inherent worth, as a I do, while recognizing that it has ambiguities, inconsistencies, outright contradictions and -- gasp! -- the possibility of human editing. This is not simply Irshad Manji making such a claim. This is Islamic tradition talking.

For centuries, Islamic philosophers have been telling the story of the "Satanic Verses." These are verses that the Prophet Muhammad reportedly accepted as authentic entries into the Quran. Later, he realized that these passages deify heathen idols rather than God Himself. So he belatedly rejected the verses, blaming them on a trick played by Satan. Which means that the Prophet Muhammad edited the Quran.

Let's push the point further. If pious Muslims emulate Prophet Muhammad's life, then those who compiled and organized the Quran's verses after the Prophet's death might very well have followed his example of editing along the way. The compilers were, after all, only human -- as human as Muhammad himself was. Moreover, they collected the Quran's verses from sundry surfaces such as leaves, stones and tree bark. Is it not possible that errors could have infiltrated the process of pulling together the "official" Quran?

In asking this question, I'm not impugning the wisdom of the Quran or inviting another fatwa on my life. I'm suggesting that Muslims have to get comfortable asking such questions if we're going to avoid the further desecration of human life. Jalalabad's riots have resulted in several attacks on innocent people, including aid workers. How does this benefit the cause of dignity -- for anyone? 

Amongst many other things, most strikingly you place doubt on the incorruptibility (man-made editing as you put it) of the Qur'an, a central tenet of Islamic faith.  I don't know how one can be a believing Muslim, let alone a 'practicing' one, if you do not believe the Qur'an is the unadulterated word of G-D, but I'll leave that to you.  More than that though is your presumption that this is not simply your opinion, which you have every right to hold, but somehow an 'Islamic' position.  It's this skewing of fact and history to fit your 'point' that I most take issue with.  Here, you've reduced the whole episode of the Satanic Verses as it exists in numerous early Qur'anic commentaries and Islamic thought to somehow simply being an obvious 'white-out' job on the part of the Prophet (saw).  I have no desire to elaborate on the Satanic Verses episode to show how your simple depiction is quite frankly wrong even if the episode did happen, but the Encyclopedia of Islam is a good start (granted not the most cost-effective resource on Islam) for any interested party.  Nonetheless, any Muslim can tell you that nowhere in Islamic tradition has there ever been a suggestion that "the Prophet Muhammad edited the Qur'an," including by those who transmitted the Satanic Verses episode to begin with such as Tabari.  Furthermore, you continue on this tangent to turn the Sunnah on its head by suggesting that later scholars may have 'followed' the example of the Prophet (saw) and edited the Qur'an accordingly as well.  Needless to say, no Muslim believer would ever accept the position you suggest they consider regarding the 'editing' of the Qur'an, and would regard it as akin to not believing in the Prophethood of Muhammad (saw).  This is but one example of a very easy way to burn bridges with the larger Muslim community, and also probably an easy way to get an invite to the Secular Islam Summit.   

However, my point is not to simply critique this article or anything else you've written in the past, but some here have said they have either misread you or hoped you have somehow 'turned a new leaf.'  My question is have I too 'misread' what you suggested regarding the possible alteration/tahrif of Qur'anic revelation, or indeed have you retracted from the position that I percieved you stated in that piece?  Possibly, you still stand by that piece as is. In which case, IMO I feel you have an impossible task before you if you ever wish to connect the divide with the larger Muslim community here in the West, let alone with the larger Muslim world, as a person they will readily accept as sharing their faith.

In the past few weeks I have seen a lot of speculation here on wither or not Irshad Manji has become more conservative in her views.  Has Manji changed?  Is she one of us?  Does she still believe that the Quran was edited by humans?  Is this a ploy to garner more attention and sell more books? 

I think that such an approach misses the mark on Manji - If you can imagine Islam representing a circle, then throughout her career Manji has always stood with one foot within and the other outside of the circle.  In the beginning of her career she emphasized the foot that was out (i.e. Western Values), and today she is puting the weight on the foot that is in (Islamic tradition).  But make no mistake about it, there was always one foot securly planted within the circle. 

Perhaps this is what it means to be a modern muslim: You are be able to stand, walk, and even dance with one foot in and the other out.                  

she's not there to represent "Islam".  She readilly admits to not being an expert at theology. 

Isn't she truelly a "secular Islamic" voice then?

Honestly, IMHO - there is a fine line between Manji and Ali Eteraz.  Wouldn't you even say that Ali has changed over the course of his blog life? 

This is increadible.

For the longest time, I have noticed how increadibly unpopular Irshad Manji has been amongst "moderate" Muslims. (sorry to use that dreaded word). Eteraz and even the ultra-liberal Saudi blogger Farooha have given her the cold shoulder.

And I must admit, despite all the denials I believed her sexuality was the number one reason for these feelings, followed closely for her general positive view of Israel. 

But this is a complete 180. Suddenly she is gathering some grassroots support, if not respect. All of this from one single event that barely made the news.

Its amayzing how quickly things can change.

Anaeem and Wilow,

You write: "As Willow already mentioned, her short-sightedness is ever-apparent in how she has never accounted for the fact that this very dynamic nature of Islam can be just as easily used to perpetrate any and all manner of violence and oppression."

I know that you guys feel like you know Manji's work inside out, but I suggest that you exercise more caution next time you make such bold and empty statements.    

Here is what Manji wrote in the Times of London Higher Educational Supplement. 

"It is not so much the legalistic practice as it is the spirit of ijtihad that should be brought back, then democratized and popularised. Some scholars will object, insisting that one must wield skills honed by years of training to engage in independent reasoning. Otherwise, they say, we wind up with any old Ali quoting the Koran to justify radical conduct, as is happening amid the rise of the worldwide web and the decline of traditional authority. But other scholars suggest that such elitism only cements the pattern of submissiveness that afflicts the contemporary Muslim mind - an affliction that stops moderate Muslims from speaking up as extremists take over. According to Ingrid Mattson, professor of Islam at Hartford Seminary, Connecticut, US, "because of our very narrow vision, our legalistic vision, and our authoritarian models of decision-making, we are excluding those people who can offer us a different vision of the future".

Mattson, a devout Muslim, goes as far as to encourage ijtihad among comics, poets and musicians. Hers is a refreshing message: Before we can know who is worth listening to, we must let a wide spectrum of Muslims find their voices."

Link to the full essay:
http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/news/thes-05-10-21.html