Muslim Reformers versus Muslims Moderates

[JerrySeinfeld]

Let's concede the obvious right up front: not all Muslims are raving lunatics.

No kidding.

However, to say that their is no - ahem - "difference" between some basics of Islamic culture and western culture is sticking your head in the sand.

Take, for example, the following quote from Hirsi Ali, Author of "Infidel:

In Infidel, she recounts the harrowing experience of genital mutilation, inflicted on her and her friends. And one friend, Sahra, described what it was like when her husband tried to penetrate her after they were married, "pushing his way into her, trying to tear open the scar between her legs, how much it hurt. She said Abdullah (her husband) had wanted to cut her open with a knife because she was sewn so tight ... I suppose he felt pity for that poor 14-year-old child (his wife), because he agreed to take her to the hospital to be cut."

or another:

A Muslim woman must not feel wild, or free, or any of the other emotions and longings ... A Muslim girl does not make her own decisions or seek control. She is trained to be docile. If you are a Muslim girl, you disappear, until there is almost no you inside you. In Islam, becoming an individual is not a necessary development ... You submit; that is the literal meaning of Islam: submission. The goal is to become quiet on the inside, so that you never raise your eyes, not even inside your mind.

I think it's an understatement to say modern left wing western progressives have been put in a bind here: since they've spent the better part of 3-4 decades fighting for both "cultural" sensitivities as well as "women's" sensitivities, who do you "award" with your sympathies when faced with the issue of traditional Islam in a multiculturla context?

In some circles that decision has been made in favor of "culture" over "women:

The 37-year-old Somali-born former Dutch MP has not always been applauded. Even before she arrived in Australia she was told to stay home. University of Technology Sydney Islamic law lecturer Jamila Hussain said Hirsi Ali's ideas were "narrow and radical" and she did not agree with them. Fair enough. But then Hussain added: "I think she'd be better staying where she came from." You have to admire academe for its censorship chutzpah. More from Nada Roude, of the NSW Islamic Council, who said Hirsi Ali's comments on the prophet Mohammed were a "no-go zone".

or

The bind for progressives was obvious. Would they hail Hirsi Ali's expose of the inequality and mistreatment of Muslim women? Or would they defend cultural sensitivities? They opted for the latter, a choice imbued more with anti-Western sentiment than logic given that the past 40 years have been devoted to fighting for the sorts of freedoms - for women, for gays, for non-conformists - that Islamic societies openly spurn. Normally only too eager to denounce the stifling role of Christianity, many Western European secularists found her discussion of Islam a bridge too far. And her embrace of Western culture tended to show up their own loathing towards the West.

But to the title of this topic, the interesting thing is that some Muslims, such as Irshad Manji, are calling for a distinctino to be drawn within Islam, and I personally think this is an excellent point worthy of discussion:

we must draw a distinction between Muslim moderates and Muslim reformers. "Moderates denounce terror, to be sure, but they say Islam has nothing to do with it," she said. "Reform-minded Muslims, of which I consider myself one, denounce terror and acknowledge that the manipulation of religion does play a role."

Link to the column.

Edited January 16, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[White Doors]

Nice post Jerry.

Those quotes must be Steyn, aren they?

with the exception of the last one.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Nice post Jerry.

Those quotes must be Steyn, aren they?

with the exception of the last one.

No - they are quotes from the link citde on the bottom of the post....excellent columnist to the Australian, Janet Albrechtsen, wrote the column.

[Moxie]

Great post Jerry, you are correct there is a reformation taking place in Islam and it's women leading the fight. Currently their are numerous blogs from the Middle East and the free West that denounce Sharia Law by Muslims. Here's video of women fighting for equal rights, not in an Islamic Countrie but England where equality has been negated for cultural practices.

Give them hell girls. Link: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb8shFIkx78

[JB Globe]

Ali is a joke, both academically on the issue of Islam, and with Muslims as well. She has absolutely no scholarly knowledge of Islam, her entire argument is based on this "My personal experience with Islam was terrible, so therefor it must be a terrible religion, end of story."

It's like someone who was raised in an abusive family by a reverend going on to hate Christianity and Christians in general and thinking that it/they are evil. (incidentally a close friend of mind had that kind of upbringing, but doesn't engage in the bigoted hate-mongering, so what's Ali's excuse? She's obviously smarter than that).

I mean, we're talking about the woman who on national TV tried to say "there is no such thing as Islamophobia" (of course, she couldn't do it straight-faced, she was smirking. Either she is delusional or she makes dishonest arguments. Either way she can't be classified as a reformer, because she isn't Muslim, she's an athiest now.

You can really only be a reformer if you are actually PART of a community, and I'd go on to say that you'd have to have some pull within a community to be considered a true one. Manji's argument has developed since her first position, which I have to agree with Tarek Fatah's statement, which filed the role of giving comfort to non-muslims who need reasons to justify their hatred of Islam. Back then when her book launched I was at another launch for a book my friend wrote for, and it was mainly queer Muslim women who contributed to it - yet they were all clowning on Manji, mainly because she was speaking more to white, non-Muslim society than she was other Muslims, yet she was claiming to be a reformer? Didn't make any sense. But she seems to have taken the criticism and is trying to speak more to Muslims with her new writing.

Ali on the other hand is just straight up playing to the xenophobic instincts of a segment of white/non-muslim society. She has absolutely no intentions of reforming Islam, and her argument has no solutions to any of the problems which she describes (some which don't exist anywhere but in her mind, others which are blown out of proportion, and others which although exaggerated are legit). The only solution she seems to have is for all Muslims to convert to something else (completely unrealistic), or some sort of global war on Islam (no wonder she's working for the American Enterprise Institute now!)

In short, I don't really see how this woman is a reformer at all.

I'd much rather talk about the efforts of someone like Reza Aslan, who unlike the two women mentioned has made Islam, religion and politics his field of study, and speaks as a Muslim to both his community and society in general.

[August1991]

Ali is a joke, both academically on the issue of Islam, and with Muslims as well. She has absolutely no scholarly knowledge of Islam, her entire argument is based on this "My personal experience with Islam was terrible, so therefor it must be a terrible religion, end of story."

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji (for example) are perfectly entitled to say what they want about Islam. Whether their opinion meets with "academic" approval strikes me as irrelevant.

Many Muslims agree with the two women.

You can really only be a reformer if you are actually PART of a community, and I'd go on to say that you'd have to have some pull within a community to be considered a true one.

By that logic, Richard Dawkins has no right to speak about organized religion and most people on this forum have no right to speak about the United States.

---

JBGlobe, you should know that JerrySeinfeld invariably finds fault with Muslims and invariably finds a way to blame them (or women) for all the world's problems. We have another poster (Leafless) who invariably finds fault with Quebecers and invariably finds a way to blame Quebecers for all of Canada's problems. We have yet another poster (MikeDavid) who invariably blames immigrants for all of the world's problems. Other posters blame the US and Bush for all of the world's problems. And so on.

It seems a feature of Internet forums that they attract one-trick pony rants.

[JB Globe]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji (for example) are perfectly entitled to say what they want about Islam. Whether their opinion meets with "academic" approval strikes me as irrelevant.

Well, when you're making an academic argument, of course it matters if it's academically sound. And when you don't have any or much knowledge in the field you're writing about, that will always affect your final product.

For example, I'm perfectly entitled to write about astro-physics, but my opinion means squat compared to someone with a PHD in that field.

That means when Ali writes off the entirety of Islam without ever studying it, her opinions don't carry much weight except with people who have an equally ignorant understanding of the subject. ie - I might be able to fool folks who don't know anything abotu astro-physics, but does that mean that my opinion is as valid as Stephen Hawking?

Many Muslims agree with the two women.

I'm willing to bet good money that Ali's audience is overwhelmingly white, non-Muslim, and conservative. I myself have never met any Muslim that has anything positive to say about her, and have never read anything from a respected Muslim author, scholar, academic, etc. that supports her views either. It stems primarily from her "Islam is evil in and of itself" approach - it's no suprise that Muslims reject her views - they leave no room to be Muslim and good, because in her mind, all Muslims are followers of an evil religion.

I've already spoke about Manji's audience as well. Her new film demonstrates she's evolving, and I think she's realized that you can't really affect change within a community if you're not writing/working FOR that community. Her last book was written more for non-muslims than it was Muslims. Her approach used to be one of chastizing the community from the outside, which is never as affective as working with people to change things from withing, which is what she seems to be moving towards. However I still think she has a long way to go before she reaches the influence and respect that people like Tariq Ramadan, Yusef Ali, or Reza Aslan have.

[gc1765]

I think it's an understatement to say modern left wing western progressives have been put in a bind here: since they've spent the better part of 3-4 decades fighting for both "cultural" sensitivities as well as "women's" sensitivities, who do you "award" with your sympathies when faced with the issue of traditional Islam in a multiculturla context?

No "left-winger" supports genital mutilation, or any other extremist aspects of Islam, and to suggest otherwise is a joke.

Where the left-wing differs from some of the right-wing is recognizing the fact that most Muslims are not extremists, and therefore do not make sweeping generalizations about them.

[Leafless]

Where the left-wing differs from some of the right-wing is recognizing the fact that most Muslims are not extremists, and therefore do not make sweeping generalizations about them.

You are simplifying by suggesting the difference is comparable to differentiating a male vs. a female.

Digest this, and tell me how one is supposed to identify an extremist, unless of course they found out by investigation or by accident.

All Muslims could be recognized as being extremist as the burden of proof lies with Muslims and not hapless, innocent Canadians.

FRANK GUNN/CANADIAN PRESS

http://www.metronews.ca/news_feature_detail.asp?id=16644

Family members and friends of 15 Canadians charged in an alleged terror plot make their way through a gauntlet of media as they leave court in Brampton yesterday. A total of 17 people were arrested Friday, accused of plotting to stage a massive terrorist attack in southern Ontario.

The terrorism suspect who allegedly plotted to behead the Prime Minister was a Canadian soldier for four years and likely received weapons training.

The Toronto Star has learned that Steve Vikash Chand was a member of the Royal Regiment of Canada, a reservist unit that meets in Toronto.

Chand, who later converted to Islam and went by the name Abdul Shakur, is charged with belonging to a terrorist group, receiving training and recruiting or training others to participate in terrorist activity. The charges partly involve allegations that Chand and eight other suspects spent five days last winter in a remote field in Washago, Ont., to participate in terrorist training.

Cmdr. Denise Laviolette confirmed yesterday that Chand was once in the military, but sought to dispel any suggestion that the 25- year-old was a well-honed soldier.

Chand was one of 17 suspects arrested as part of a massive police raid late last week. They are accused of being members of an alleged homegrown terrorist cell, plotting attacks in Canada.

At a Brampton courthouse yesterday, 15 of the suspects appeared for a brief hearing and will remain in custody for a week until their bail hearings begin.

Two suspects are already serving time in a Kingston penitentiary on weapons offences.

Chand's lawyer, Gary Batasar, stunned the courtroom by revealing that his client and the 16 others are accused of being involved in a "detailed terrorist plot," which included plans to storm the Parliament buildings, take political hostages, harm hostages if Canadian troops didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and attack media outlets including the CBC.

Relying on a government lawyers' synopsis, Batasar indicated that Chand was also alleged as a suspect "likely to behead Prime Minister Stephen Harper."

-------------------------------------------

THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS Terror suspect wanted to kill PM, court hears

http://www.mississauganews.com/mi/topstori...p-4081521c.html

Louie Rosella Jun 6, 2006

A terrorist group headquartered in Meadowvale and with suspected ties to an international network planned to bomb Canada's Parliament buildings, take politicians hostage and demand the release of Muslim prisoners abroad, according to documents released in court yesterday.

One of the 12 adults facing terrorism charges also wanted to "personally behead the Prime Minister of Canada," according to allegations made by the federal government and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in a synopsis document.

Ten of the 12 suspects, including six men from Mississauga, appeared at the Brampton provincial courthouse yesterday for a bail hearing, but were all remanded to later dates. Nine of them next appear June 12, while one appears July 4.

Gary Batasar, the lawyer for 25-year-old Toronto resident Steven Chand, who is accused of receiving terrorist training, said the synopsis of accusations provided by the Crown included allegations that the group wanted to "storm the Parliament buildings, and "take politicians hostage."

It also indicated that the CBC building in downtown Toronto was a potential target.

Batasar told reporters outside the court his client was accused of wanting to decapitate Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Batasar said the group also allegedly planned to behead the hostages if their demands - the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and the release of Muslim prisoners - weren't met.

Batasar accused those authorities, as well as the U.S. government and President George W. Bush, of trying to instill fear in the public.

The accused have been charged under the anti-terrorism act introduced into the Criminal Code in December of 2001, a few months after the attacks of Sept. 11.

This is only the second time the terrorism laws have been used in Canada.

The arrests were made Friday night and Saturday morning in raids conducted by 400 officers and led by the RCMP's anti-terrorism task force.

Terror suspect accused of wanting to behead prime minister: lawyer

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...b9ec&k=2219

CanWest News Service

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

CREDIT: Global National

Terror suspect Steven Chand's lawyer Gary Batasar.

BRAMPTON, Ont — A 25-year-old restaurant worker is accused of planning to storm Parliament Hill, behead Prime Minister Stephen Harper, take hostages and behead them unless the group's demands were met, accoridng to his lawyer.

Gary Batasar, the lawyer for Steven Chand (also known by his Muslim name Abdul Shakur), emerged from court Tuesday saying Crown prosecutors had provided him with an eight-page "summary" of the charges against his client and 16 other men arrested last week.

"My client is being accused of plotting to storm the Parliament buildings, take hostages (and) make demands to remove Canadian troops from Afghanistan and to free Muslim prisoners," Batasar said outside the Brampton, Ont. courthouse.

"He is supposed to have planned to behead hostages if his demands weren't met ... and to want to behead the prime minister. The last thing was that they were going to storm the CBC building downtown (in Toronto) to take over communications to broadcast their message."

Chand is one of 17 men, all Muslims, who were arrested Friday and charged with planning a terrorist attack. Police said the men were planning to build a simple but effective bomb using fertilizer and diesel fuel.

Sources said the men were in an advanced stage of planning two attacks: a truck bombing to destroy a significant building and an attack involving opening fire on a crowded public place.

Fifteen of the accused, including five young offenders, appeared in court Tuesday under tight security for an initial hearing and to set dates for bail hearings.

Batasar would not comment on whether his client denies the accusations, but said: "Mr. Chand is certainly quite perturbed by these allegations."

In Ottawa, Harper brushed off the alleged death threats with a joke as he exited the House of Commons following the question period.

"I can live with all these threats as long as they don't come from my caucus," he told reporters.

At Tuesday's hearing, the accused shuffled into the crowded courtroom in three separate groups, handcuffed together and wearing white T-shirts and grey sweatpants. Friends and family of the men filled almost all of the available seats, with about 15 reporters lining the back rows of the court.

The men listened while their lawyers argued over their clients' treatment since they were jailed last Friday night, the inadequacy of Crown disclosure of evidence and their clients' inability to meet with their lawyers or family members.

Asad Ansari, 21, Fahim Ahmad, 21, Zakaria Amara, 20, Qayyum Abdul Jamal, 43, Amin Mohamed Durrani, 19, and Jahmaal James, 23, are to return to court June 12 for bail hearings, along with three of the young offenders, who cannot be identified.

Shareef Abdelhaleen, 30, will return on July 4 for a bail hearing. One of the youths will also have a bail hearing on June 16 and Saad Khalid, 19, is to be back in court on June 30.

"What we have received today is such bare bones, so little, that it's virtually impossible to comment on the authenticity of the synopsis that has been provided to us," said Arif Raza, the lawyer for Khalid.

He said his 19-year-old client is accused of attending a training camp in Ontario and was arrested at the time of the delivery of the tonnes of ammonium nitrate, which police had intercepted and replaced with an inert substance.

Donald McLeod, lawyer for Jahmaal James, said defence lawyers have complained their clients were being held in segregation, under 24-hour supervision and were not allowed to use the telephone or to speak to their family members.

He also complained of restrictions in his access to his client, including only being allowed to speak to him through a Plexiglas shield and then only with guards present. He added that the accused are being refused their religious rights.

"They're Muslim," McLeod said. "Clearly they'd like to be able to pray as a group. I'd like to facilitate that religious freedom they're entitled to."

Anser Farooq, who is representing a number of the accused men, questioned whether his clients would receive a fair trial, given the extensive media attention the case has drawn.

"My clients are entitled to a fair trial ... and to be treated the same way as anyone else who has been accused of an offence," he said. "They are presumed innocent — they are innocent until they are proven guilty in court."

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1977

[gc1765]

Digest this, and tell me how one is supposed to identify an extremist, unless of course they found out by investigation or by accident.

All Muslims could be recognized as being extremist as the burden of proof lies with Muslims and not hapless, innocent Canadians.

Well that makes a lot of sense, and by that reasoning, we should assume that every white person is a member of the KKK unless they can prove otherwise.

[Leafless]

Well that makes a lot of sense, and by that reasoning, we should assume that every white person is a member of the KKK unless they can prove otherwise.

What you are saying is silly.

Naturally I do not condone violence and their are many views relating to the White/Black conflict, but in reality members of the KKK are home grown citizens of their own country trying to defend their perceived or real cultural interests.

To-day the KKK are pretty well inactive.

Muslims are not and their cultural interest are worldwide and include the slaughter and murder of innocent victims who are no way tied in to Muslim cultural and religious ideologies.