Irshad Manji and Dalia Mogahed - Who Speaks for Islam?

Why don't you provide that questionable evidence? Mohammad didn't do what he did because of the reason you stated. Mohammad and all the tribes in medina including all Jewish tribes made a pact but one jewish tribe betrayed him. It was not because they're Jews that he punihsed them; it was because of the betrayal and it was done the way things were done back then. It's despicable to you to twist the facts and presented it out of context.


As if others' history were not.

Should I give weight to your quote on Mohammad or should I give weight to Gandhi's quote on Mohammad. Yes, anyone who wnats to know Gandhi's quote on Mohammad can google so.


[quot]
There is a problem with Islam in the modern world - because for its whole existence it has used violence to self regulate [/quote]

Cliche.

This has more to do with economic dependency of daughters on her family and people on their relatives.

They used the pretense of relgion. Big deal.
What is so good about the modern wold that allow the war mongers to drop bombs on helpless civilans and created Iraqui orphans and homeless?



You are full of it, Zionist.

I don't understand why no one acknowledges that the decentralized character of clerical authority in Islam is possible only because innovation and interpretation of the Quran, as well as the canon known as the Hadith, are strictly disallowed. In fact, they are considered 'shirk'. The rigid nature of the Quran and the Hadith, including their cleavage to original Arabic writings only,are the mechanisms which permit Islam to function essentially unreformed through the 21st century for 1.4 billion Muslims. It is the undeviated Quran that represents the centralized authority normally associated with a hierarchical clergy. This is not surprising in view of the exalted esteem with which Muslims regard it. Think of it thus: Roman Catholic is to Pope as Islam is to Quran.
This admittedly exempts references to the Caliphate, a central authority which came and went and certain Muslims struggle to restore.

I liked very much this debate. Didn´t know there where this kind of dialogues nowadays, and in the USA even. I opened at the School of Philosophy of the University of Zulia (in Venezuela, one of the largest universities in South America) years ago a chair of Arabic, Islamic & Jewish philosophy, and we didn't had then all this so good quality information and material as there is now in Internet. Dalia Mogahed strikes me as a very brilliant young woman, intelligent, profound and very articulate. As for Irshad Manji, when hearing her, I just couldn't help thinking how proud her father must be (I have a daughter about her age, studying Chinese literature at the University of Nanjing, China, after winning a scholarship, and certainly know what I'm talking about) and how she represents a model and example to young moslem girls who want to be different.

Just to correct you on the verse 5-32, three translations by different people are as follows and obviously there is nothing in there about "idolatry" as you had quoted,
"(that whosoever killeth a human being for other than man slaughter) i.e. premeditatedly (or corruption in the earth) or because of idolatry, (it shall be as if be had killed all mankind)"

Translations:
AL-MAEDA (THE TABLE, THE TABLE SPREAD)
Verse 32

5:32
Ahmed Raza Khan: Mohammed Aqib Qadri:
For this reason; We decreed for the Descendants of Israel that whoever kills a human being except in lieu of killing or causing turmoil in the earth, so it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and whoever saves the life of one person, is as if he had saved the life of all mankind; and undoubtedly Our Noble Messengers came to them with clear proofs - then after this indeed many of them are oppressors in the earth.


Yusuf Ali:
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

Pickthal:
For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

I really enjoyed this debate. Dalia was very well-spoken and Irshad very repetitive. What was left out of the discussion and critique was the role of the "West" in promoting certain ideas over others when it is to there benefit. Irshad as a product of Western imperialism and cultural ethnocentrism makes a point of saying that the "Reformers" are defenders of "reason" and independent thinking ie. supporting the U.S.(the reformers, rationalist, peace loving empire) hegemony that has led to two wars and the weakening of U.S. authority and legitamacy in the world. Nobody likes a bully and often times bullies create bigger and badder bullies (a well known fact in psychology). Is it really too much to ask to allow Muslims and people all over the world to learn from the U.S.'s model of democracy without having it shoved down their throats. America is not perfect, its history shows that, but we are willing to look at ourselves and see our mistakes and try to fix them. What we should not do is constantly judge entire groups of people for the actions of a few- that is called stereotyping and often leads to worse ideas about the "innate" nature of a people(S) when every community is filled with diverse "independent" thinkers who try to leave their lives as best as they can (lets learn from our history of labeling native americans, african americans, asian americans, irish, latino, jewish, muslim americans innately savage, stupid, intelligent, violent, illegal, evil, etc.). Labeling people on a scale of Western belief and history is an ineffective strategy, especially when cultures all over the world have their own history, philsophy, knowledge and systems of living with one another. The only thing that makes us better at this moment is not our "Freedom" but our willingness to constantly reflect and look to a horizon for a better day. Thank God that we have a president who understands this and will lead this country back to its glory and make us a model for effective leadership in the world today. Muslims should not be put into the boxes we create (moderate, reformist, extremist) and not allowed to get out until they agree with everything that is culturally and morally acceptable to us in the United States. If we want to people to change, we have to be the change we want to see in the world. It appears that the future is looking brighter, but lets continue reflecting and working to make it a better place for EVERYONE.

Islam has to be brought into the modern world -

To suggest that all Muhammed's wars were just wars is questionable - for ex. Muhammed killed 700 Jewish men in Mecca/Medina because they rejected his new vision of the old Kaaba religion - and took their wives and daughters as slaves - one for himself.

He even said that his men were allowed to rape these captive women -

Moreover Islam's history is littered with these same kinds of atrocities - in order to take over India for ex. 80 million Hindus were killed - many millions were enslaved, converted and turned on other Hindus -

It is good that the subject of Muhammed's example - as a warrior and the Koranic verses that call for the death of non-Muslims were brought up - without these you cannot have an honest discussion.

There is a problem with Islam in the modern world - because for its whole existence it has used violence to self regulate - if a daughter misbehaves - there is honor killing - if a person offends Islam - they should be put to death - if a person leaves Islam - there is death and or harsh punishments (torture and imprisonment) that exist today across the Islamic world -- in order to expand the Islamic realm - there is Jihad such as was waged in to conquer India and across Persia for 900 years -

In the modern world - in order to live among others - these actions need to be reeled in - and that is the challenge that those who choose to be Muslims will have to face - if they don't - well politically correct can only help for so long - and they'll be left exposed to much harsher criticism and scrutiny.

excuse me: nothing is "statistically identical"; please, review your concept.

Dalia Mogahed, believes that any Muslim that doesn't believe in violent Jihad is mainstream, or "moderate"? You mean they can believe that women should wear burka, and stay indoors, and suffer beating as described in surah 4:34? Or that apostasy could be tried as a capital offense and those who believe and impose these things can still be called moderate or mainstream? It's ridiculous and absolutely destroys her credibility and the conclusion of her book: "That Muslims are mainstream". The next time you see a rally in London, or New York, by Muslims declaring the flag of Islam will fly over the White house, and that Shari'a will be supreme, and that Christians and Jews will live as protected citizens, albeit with limited political, civil and religious rights, as long as they pay a special tax, the amount unspecified, you can be comforted by the fact that they are mainstream, according to Dalia, and they mean no harm.

Also, I don't think she's being entirely honest about classical interpretation. When Irshad and her where discussing surah 5:32, Dalia dismissed the fact that it could be interpreted in violent ways, and maintained that the classic view didn't need changing. Now, if she studied classical Islamic interpretation, she probably would have studied the tafsir (commentary on the Qur'an) of Ibn Abbas (The prophet Muhammad's cousin) who was considered the expert on the subject at the time, and is basically considered to be the first. Join me in reading his interpretation of the surah in question: http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?...&UserProfile=0

"(that whosoever killeth a human being for other than man slaughter) i.e. premeditatedly (or corruption in the earth) or because of idolatry, (it shall be as if be had killed all mankind)"

Ibn Abbas understood "corruption in the Earth" as meaning idolatry, and that if someone were killed for idolatry, it wouldn't be considered as killing an innocent person. It's unfortunate for the Hindus. I'm certain Dalia is aware, and that's why she never bothered to give any examples of these classical interpretations, since they do in fact preach supremacism and intolerance.

a brilliant demonstration of constructive debate. Congratulations to all panelists, public and organisers!!