Thanks for the detail and thoughts.

What precisely did she mean by a "Protestant Muslim?"

Irshad Manji may be a darling of the North American media organizations, but she has absolutely no credibility among Muslims, since she has no scholarly background. (Being openly lesbian and supporting Zionists doesn't help, either.)

Ijtihad doesn't mean "questioning"; it's when a qualified person makes a judgment. It's not up to every uneducated person to decide that Islam allows this or prohibits that, based on their reading a book or doing a Google search.

I don't know what "tikkun olam" is, but based on that wikipedia article, it doesn't seem like it's equivalent to ijtihad either.

Believing that the Quran is the final word of God is one of the most basic beliefs of Islam, and one who rejects this is not a Muslim.

Matthew – her remark was in the context of a response to a question regarding whether she felt she was still a practicing Muslim, in light of the fact that she rarely attends formal organized prayer services or sets foot in a mosque.

My knowledge of Protestant vs. Catholic theology is nearly as shaky as my knowledge of Islamic theology, but my understanding of her remarks was that she didn’t believe she needed a mosque or an imam, or formal structured prayer with certain words attached to it, to define her relationship with Allah. I don’t have my notes in front of me at the moment, but she stated basically that her belief was that organized prayer was not required in order to be a practicing Muslim, nor was adherence to the orders of any specific imam. To her, being a practicing Muslim does not require intermediaries between an individual believer and God.

And Ann- I may not know squat about Christian or Muslim theology, but I do have at least a cursory knowledge of Jewish theology, and I can assure you that in its most basic meaning, tikkun olam is about healing the world through performing mitzvot (good deeds) and has little if anything to do with self-examination or questioning. Most commonly it’s used as a theological justification for becoming involved in issues of social justice, as the Wikipedia article describes.

This has little to do with the subject of discussion, but I am reminded of something I saw on tv a while ago. I think it was on Channel 4. It was a programme about gay muslims in britain, and there was this fundamentalist woman in full 'ninja' hijab, who was also ... lesbian.
That was the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. I still smile when I remember it.

Not totally unrelated, but on the subject of homosexuality in Islam – in Judaism, it isn’t the orientation which is “forbidden,” but any action carried out in furtherance of such. What’s the Muslim theological take on that? Can one have a homosexual orientation, but still be OK from an Islamic point of view if one remains celibate?

BTW Manji’s theological interpretation was that the Quran includes passages that all God’s creations are “most excellent,” which in her mind included gays and lesbians – after all, they are also God’s creations. She didn’t quote chapter and verse, though. Any thoughts on that?

Eva-
I think what you describe also applies to islam. The forbidden part is not being gay but the actual gay act itself - of course these include having sexual thoughts and looking at sexual images (same as for heterosexuals) so I don't know how that would work.
There is no distinction I think in islam between gay and straight, as it is in the west. There are forbidden acts (gay and hetero) and lawful acts. However there cannot be lawful gay acts, so we're basically back to square one - same difference.

As for 'most excellent'; I dont remember reading something like that. I think that is in christianity, created man in his own image and all that.

Ironically, a fan of 'Aqoul who's also a major journo, Brian Whitaker of The Guardian sent us a review copy of his new book on the very subject of homosexuality and Islam, or more properly 'gayness' and the Arab world, Unspeakable Love (Amazon UK ver), also to be avail. in the USA.

I've been planning comments as I actually finished the work but I would preliminary given it a recommendation for those interested in the subject (although in advance I will confess I found its sections on literature and the like overlong and boring, but that is likely attributable to my being a heathen sub-literate with little appreication of literature, arts, etc).

As to Manji, as I think we have collectively expressed here many times, she's the perfect figure for those who fear, dislike or generally are uncomfortable with Islam, but she means fuck all for "reforming" Islam. Eerie has linked in our sidebar to someone rather more important covered in the Sunday New York Times, the popular TV preacher, Khaled.

Not totally unrelated, but on the subject of homosexuality in Islam – in Judaism, it isn’t the orientation which is "forbidden," but any action carried out in furtherance of such.

That is probably the prevailing view in Christian denominations that view homosexuality as sinful (which is the majority). It is certainly the case in Roman Catholicism.

Her view that you don't need an intermediary sounds like standard Sunni Islam (as I understand it), and it argues that she was raised in a Shia sect.

"she didn’t believe she needed a mosque or an imam, or formal structured prayer with certain words attached to it, to define her relationship with Allah"

To "baptize" that passage:

"she didn’t believe she needed a church or a minister, or formal structured prayer with certain words attached to it, to define her relationship with God"

I suppose that is defintely more Protestant than Catholic, though most Protestant denominations have all of the above.

The funny thing is -- and Muslims out there, informed ones, please rightly guide me -- but Muslims generally boast about not being a clergy-ridden religion in theory. In other words, contra-Irshad M, being clergyless is a proud feature, not a bug.

Unless there is a Shia-Sunni thing going on here that she is leaving out, to the general confusion of us kuffar.

"The funny thing is -- and Muslims out there, informed ones, please rightly guide me -- but Muslims generally boast about not being a clergy-ridden religion in theory. In other words, contra-Irshad M, being clergyless is a proud feature, not a bug."

That would be correct, for both shia and sunna. The key word, of course, is 'theory'.

Back to the theme of the post; I don't want to sound like I'm plugging for channel 4, but coincidentally, they are showing a programme tonight about Tariq Ramadan - from the other side of the spectrum: http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/reformation.html

Sadly, I won't have time to watch it. I wish I had one of those Tivo thingies. I'm sure they'll repeat it though.

Well, speaking as someone who was raised in the precise milieu that the audience belonged to (the lecture was held in my childhood stomping grounds, and if not in the exact congregation where my sadly superficial Jewish education took place, then in one quite similar in theological viewpoints and general composition), I can tell you that for sure her remarks were aimed quite precisely at that audience; one which may be ignorant of and curious about, if not always fearful of, the specifics of Islam and its practitioners. (The series is also sponsored by a local Islamic organization, but if its members were there, they weren’t terribly visible.) So the audience was not likely to be able to distinguish the finer points of what theological tradition, if any, she was raised in or is a part of at this point in her life, or what her level of acceptance really is within mainstream Islam (if not fundamentalist Islam).

One bit I did forget to mention in the OP was the number of times she mentioned that observant Muslims, particularly young ones, have contacted her privately in support of her efforts to reform Islam from within and prevent it from being hijacked further by its most fundamentalist members. (One item she mentioned was that the Farsi translation of her book has been downloaded over 150,000 times from her website, and that the translations into Arabic and Urdu were also a response to requests from people in-country who are unable to read the English version and/or prefer the less risky privacy of being able to download a .pdf to judge for themselves, but would not otherwise have access.) This, if true, would suggest that there is interest in and/or support from the Islamic world of what she has to say.

A couple of you much more knowledgeable than I have privately expressed skepticism that parts of her story don’t seem to add up. So why the pulled punches? Discuss/poke away!

For what it's worth, I took a look at her arabic translation. It is very bad. I wonder how anyone can read that thing. I don't know about farsi and urdu though.

One interesting titbit though was that she used to be a fan of Khomeini before 'she knew better'. It might not be much, but this supports the theory that she was shia.

My guess is Twelver, but she's often mistaken for (or accused of, depending on pov) being Ismaili.

Book descriptions of her childhood appear to support Twelver, but that of course raises other issues in re her critique of Islam (Shia being a minority and all). In any case, her avoidance of the sect issue makes it rather hard to verify or evaluate her claims.

As a general matter, I don't believe anyone with a fairly decent knowledge of Islam as religion can be terribly impressed with Manji. She's the cupcake of the moment whanker, darling panderer to a certain market that would like to fantasize about a denatured Islam (which good or bad or indifferent, certainly isn't going to exist outside some elite few in any time frame relevant to most humans).

Normally boring were Islam not a hot topic and ignoramuses blithering on about people like Manji 'saving' or 'reforming' Islam (when they really mean they're uncomfortable and frightened by people who aren't in a rather familiar mode of dress and the like).

dear all,

the wiki says her family is isma'ili. but she herself says that she's not here.

interestingly, a cached version of the wiki article on answers.com claims that her family are 12er (ithna'ashari) shi'ites.

i have also somewhere else seen her referred to as shi'ite. now, she may very well not identify with any sub-group but simply as "muslim" (i know plenty of people who do that - rejecting the sunni/shi'ite/etc. labels) but still, her background is important if one wants to understand where she's coming from and what informed her points of view.

at this point she seems to have come from a 12er shi'a background. she seems to have liked khomeini, just like many western teenagers like che guevara. her understanding of islam as a complex phenomenon is ... faulty at best.

the problem with her isn't her "mainstream islam is too literalist" argument. many reformist muslims - from muhammad mahmud taha, to sa'd al-din ibrahim, to tariq ramadan - base their critiques on that very issue. irshad manji panders to a western audience in a way that (a) shows she doesn't know what she's talking about & (b) shows that she has some essentialist issues of her own.

so fine ... she's pissed-off and vents. she's as irrelevant to the muslim world as are fuad ajami and wafah sultan.

as for the downloads - please take into account that a lot of those were done out of curiosity ... and a whole lot more by people who already knew they don't agree with her before downloading her book. maybe her "the arabs fucked up islam" argument goes well with some hardcore nationalist persians/iranians ... but again - that's not an issue in the debate on "quo vadis, islam?" that happens between casablanca & jakarta.

--raf*

"BTW Manji’s theological interpretation was that the Quran includes passages that all God’s creations are 'most excellent,' which in her mind included gays and lesbians – after all, they are also God’s creations."

Well, we believe that God created all people, but it doesn't follow that everything those people do is acceptable. There certainly are rights and wrongs; actions are classified as being required, allowed, disliked, prohibited, etc.

Women aren't required to attend congregational prayer in the mosque, so her not going to the mosque doesn't really indicate anything. But the five-times-a-day ritual prayer itself (salat) is one of the most basic requirements; did she reject that or just performing it in the mosque?

I'd be surprised if she's even known much in the Muslim world. I live in the Middle East, and people around me have never heard of her, except for some Westerners who've seen news articles about her in the Western media.

From an interview:

Ultimately, part of the trouble with Islam is that Arab imperialism has become confused with Islam by Muslims. . . . So much of what uncritically thinking Muslims accept as proper Islam is actually [derived from] the ways of the desert. From the Arabic language, to the chador, to which way we're going to pray - there is too much Arab imperialism in the way Islam is promoted as properly practised.

What is Arab about a chador? Isn't that Iranian and distinctively so? Enlighten me.

She also writes:

And, perhaps most frightening for a child in a pluralistic suburb, that it’s sinful to befriend non-Muslims, especially Jews. Mind you, not every madressa pumped such prejudice into the souls of its nine-year-olds. Only members of the purest sect got that privilege.

So, what's her sect? She's made it an issue.

From her book:

What he [madrasa teacher] provided was an ultimatum: "Either you believe or get out. And if you get out, get out for good." With my temples throbbing and my neck sweating under the itchy polyester chador, I stood up. As I crossed the partition checkpoint, I could have uncovered my head for all the boys to see, but I didn't . . . All I could think to do was fling open the madressa's hefty metal door and yell, "Jesus Christ!" A memorable exit, I hoped.

Matthew and I were looking up Twelver attire in Canadian madrasas last night. In an Edmonton madrasa, female students seem to wear dark jilbab/abayas. In public, they seem to wear hijabs over regular Western attire (jeans, etc).

Not sure why she refers to chadors at all. Perhaps Manji can't distinguish between chadors, abayas and jilbabs?

What is Arab about a chador? Isn't that Iranian and distinctively so? Enlighten me.

Nothing, but one should be aware that there is fairly strong strain (and old) in Perso-Iranian .... for lack of a better word 'identity ideology' of anti-Arabism. It goes back centuries and I am sure was transmitted to the sub-Continent where Perso-Iranian influences were strong (indeed the Islamic ruling elite was heavily of Turkic-Persian origins - as certain of their descendants never tire of telling you).

I rather suspect her anti-Arab hook on "reforming Islam" has some roots (not all, some) in this tradition of ethnic tension between al-Arab and al-Ajam.

Considering she's rather clearly poorly educated / informed all around in these matters, plus blaming things on the Arabs (aka Wahhabis, etc.) at present is terribly popular (and not without some basis), I would mark her comments in these areas down to that.

As to her exit, by the way, well playing up these sorts of things obviously plays well to her real audience.... they get a little vicarious thrill I am sure.

MH - no clue what her sect was. She pretty effectively dodged the question and detoured straight into the Rose of Sharon, of all things.

"And, perhaps most frightening for a child in a pluralistic suburb, that it’s sinful to befriend non-Muslims, especially Jews. Mind you, not every madressa pumped such prejudice into the souls of its nine-year-olds. Only members of the purest sect got that privilege.

So, what's her sect? She's made it an issue."

This sounds to me like salafist ideology. It could be that her parents were shia but her madrassa was not. It is a minority afterall, and I am sure if there was only one school as she claimed then it couldn't have been a shia school.

She dodges it on her site as well:

”Please, can you tell me which Islamic sect do you belong to? The Holy Prophet has said: ‘The People of the Two Scriptures divided into 72 sects. This Ummah [worldwide Muslim nation] will divide into 73 sects, all in the Fire except one. Some of my Ummah will be guided by desire, like the one who is infected by rabies; no vein or joint will be saved from these desires... Waiting for your reply.” - Mombasa

Irshad replies: Sects are led by people. But I don’t worship people. I worship only one entity – God. If that means I’m going to hell, then I can’t imagine a better reason to burn.

Pretty sure that if we were certain of her sect, it wouldn't be very hard to look them up in Vancouver and start asking questions.

Added - The question was posed again elsewhere in her letters archive:

1) Why do you not mention in the book from which branch/sect of Islam you hail?

Irshad replies: To your first question, I don't indulge sectarianism. It violates the principle of belief in one God by promoting belief in the human beings who claim to best represent the religion, thus leading to sectarianism. People of all faiths like to play the game of dismissing each other based on what sect one hails from. I refuse to play that game.

Oh, and this tidbit amused me:

Finally, onto your third question. No, I don't feel that my credibility is undermined by the likes of Daniel Pipes. He goes out of his way to emphasize that only a thin minority of Muslims is fanatic, and that the moderate majority has the right and responsibility to challenge the fanatics. There's nothing colonial about such a position; if anything, it expresses faith in the capacity of Muslims to be reasonable.

dear all,

since i'd put html-links in my previous post it got held up 'till eva approved it.

i researched and it's pretty clear that irshad manji's family is 12er shi'a. she herself stated that she's NOT isma'ili.

so ... now you can call up them shi'ite modroshoo in vancouver.

but that would only explain her background. she really seems to not "do" islamic sub-groups.

--raf*

i researched and it's pretty clear that irshad manji's family is 12er shi'a. she herself stated that she's NOT isma'ili.

Uh, thanks. I was already pretty sure she was Twelver and said as much well before your Wiki comment. That bit of trivia isn't as interesting to me as her tendency to avoid answering questions related to her sect. My point: Western journalists with little knowledge of Islam will a) take her claims at face value because she says the right things and/or b) won't know how to validate her claims because she is so evasive about her background. If she's embellishing, that would be a pretty good reason to avoid the question. Hiding a minority background would also make sense if one is making grand, sweeping claims about the religion based on a personal experience that does not reflect majority (read: Sunni) Islam.

Now as to why she explicitly denies being Ismaili, the latter point holds true because Ismailis are fringy Muslims at best. However, it's also possible that the Ismailis demanded she clarify that point.

The reason I asked Eva to pose the question directly was to see whether or not she'd evade.

If one is going to talk about religion and development, and emphasize one's own personal experience, sect issues are important.

The fact that she lumps it all together with only passing mutterings about differences shows how she plays into the "they're all the same" mentality that underlies the bigotry.

"Perhaps Manji can't distinguish between chadors, abayas and jilbabs?"

It seems that way. When she talks about her neck sweating under the itchy polyester, that doesn't sound like it describes a chador. Besides, you'd wear a hijab under it, so a chador wouldn't be against your neck anyway, would it?

It's too bad she's allowed to gloss over the question of whether she's Sunni or Shia. Even in something as basic as praying, you have to make a choice and either pray as Sunnis pray or as Shias pray; it's not as if you can just pretend there's no difference.

Frankly, I don't think it matters that much if she was shia. If that was the case then observations or criticisms of sunnis by definition cannot apply to shia. Yes it is useful, but it is not a reason to throw out her criticisms wholesale. Afterall, her 'criticisms' in that talk were shared by tariq ramadan and others as raf was saying.

The interesting part, however, is why is she so keen on hiding her sect? We have already established that she is not preaching to muslims, so we can discount their alienation as a reason - although a good reason if she were.
What we are left with are two options: either (a) she really does think of herself as a 'generic' muslim. or more cynically (b) since her audience is mostly western journalists, she was afraid that her 'message' -whatever that is- would not be as well received if they knew she was in a minority.

It is up to you which one you choose. Personally I think (b)

If that was the case then observations or criticisms of sunnis by definition cannot apply to shia. Yes it is useful, but it is not a reason to throw out her criticisms wholesale.

Well, it's important to be aware of one's own biases. Many of the generalizations about Islam in Manji's book come from childhood recollections. Generalizations based on personal experience are often inaccurate and can be terribly misleading for people who don't know anything about the subject (e.g. most Western readers). Her book conveys a highly monolithic, simplified view of Islam, based on her own bad experiences.

In contrast, Ramadan spends quite a lot of time explaining, defining, providing parameters and offering alternate opinions on what it means to be Muslim. His arguments are tighter and much more interesting to read because he is keenly aware that the Muslim experience can vary greatly depending on all sorts of factors (regional, cultural, sect, etc).

Anyway, I think option (b) is plausible.

According to most Muslim scholars that I am aware of, both sunni and shi'a-though I'm a twelver so that's what I'm most familiar with-- the sin is in homosexual sex, not in the orientation. Its really not a big deal to see a lesbian in hijab or a gay man making salat, homosexual orientation doesn't suddenly boot you outside of Islam. We've all got our,ummm, crecents (?) to bear. :0)

From what I've read of Ms. Manji, I think it matters little what tradition she comes from, because it's clear that by both Sunni and Shi'a standards she knows very little about Islam.

"What we are left with are two options: either (a) she really does think of herself as a 'generic' muslim. or more cynically (b) since her audience is mostly western journalists, she was afraid that her 'message' -whatever that is- would not be as well received if they knew she was in a minority."

Well, there's always the possibility that if she gets specific, some nutjob member of that sect will get violent and target her for some imagined offense against the sect. If she doesn't get specifc, then some member of the sect she was born into can't take upon themselves the responsibility of punishing her as an apostate.

Or maybe it's just like Christians who identify themselves as "Christian" rather than as Catholic or one of the myriad Protestant denominations, sects, and sub-sects.

This is idiotic
Well, there's always the possibility that if she gets specific, some nutjob member of that sect will get violent and target her for some imagined offense against the sect.

No, there isn't.

That's a bloody stupid, ignorant dumbass excuse.

Her offensiveness is already there, copping to be generally Sunni or Shia (which are hardly "sect" in the sense of coherent) is not upping her danger level.

If she cops to being a very specific sub-brand of Shia, well then maybe there is tiny, tiny added angle of offence, but not really.

If she doesn't get specifc, then some member of the sect she was born into can't take upon themselves the responsibility of punishing her as an apostate.

No, doesn't work like that mate, so please, spare us your ignorant dumb ass excuse making.

Apostate is apostate. For those who are inclined to declare Takfir, the detials of whether she is 12 Shia or a Sunni hardly matter - her extent comments, writing and the like are quite fuel enough.

The only thing the specific leads us to is a better understanding of her history - and the why of her deliberate vagueness, as well as the why as to her rather sketchy and peculiar knowledge of her own religion. As said supra, everything suggests a subcon 12 Shia background. that has specific senses.

Or maybe it's just like Christians who identify themselves as "Christian" rather than as Catholic or one of the myriad Protestant denominations, sects, and sub-sects.
That is at least not implausible, although when it comes down to it, Sunnis normally think of themselves as "plain Muslims" and Shias as the wierd splitoff - in most of the majority Sunni world people do not go around id'ing as "Sunni"

"Apostate is apostate. For those who are inclined to declare Takfir, the detials of whether she is 12 Shia or a Sunni hardly matter - her extent comments, writing and the like are quite fuel enough."

Not to mention that to those with a takfiri inclination, she is already an apostate by being shia. That's why I said that had her message been directed to muslims I would have understood her vagueness re origin.

True, among the Takfiri sorts, being Shia is often (not always one has to confess, but usually) reason enough.

Regardless, while he vagueness might be an attempt to make a general appeal, her approach is such that I don't see it appealing to anyone but Western Islamophobes and Muslims who've had a truly terrible experience with their religion and are jut leaving it.

The sort of people in Catholocism who use terms like "recovering Catholic." Not the sort of people influential internal to a religion. (Nor remarkable one finds such, any human religion generates its discontents)

After reading the above comments, all I can say that here in France, where I live with my Muslim Algerian husband, and in my daily contact with many strictly observant and less observant Muslims - family and friends -, the questions voiced by Manji reflect many of those I hear around me, especially but not exclusively, the women.