When Irshad Manji penned her volume "The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim's Call for Reform Within Her Faith", she was promoted to instant stardom. Here, finally, was a Muslim who told the Western world what they wanted to hear. Joyous in their discovery, the Western media enveloped her in a loving embrace of publicity, adulation, and unquestioned faith. But that was three years ago. Since her initial entrance into the Islam reform marketplace, the field has become notably more competitive. Not least of Ms. Manji's problems is the increasingly recurrent critique that both her arguments and her rhetoric lack legitimacy among Muslims themselves. Not surprisingly, Manji � now a skilled entrepreneur in packaging the rhetoric of Muslim reform to suit the Western public � has restyled her arguments to suit the changing demands of the market. A version of this new and only arguably improved Manji was available for consumption at the recent Secular Islam Conference organized by the Intelligence Summit this past weekend in St. Petersburg, Florida.

At the Conference, whose dubious organizers and sponsors could nevertheless muster enough cash to invite not one but several "ex-Muslim reformers", Manji's keynote address presented an argument designed calculatedly to attack the very lack of legitimacy that is now possibly having an impact on Ms. Manji's checkbook. Delivered in a well-rehearsed, oft-tested "let me connect with you" manner and peppered heavily with buzzwords like "courage" and "justice" � time tested to evoke positive reactions among audiences � Manji's address represented a break from the less nuanced rhetoric of the preceding speaker, the now public ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq. Clearly aiming her speech at the wider Western media rather than the motley crew of ex-Muslims, random intelligence consultants and conservative press that constituted her immediate audience, Manji repeatedly announced her own credentials as a believing Muslim. Quoting a verse from the Koran, she emphasized the necessity of the reconciliation of faith and freedom. Deftly attempting to deconstruct criticisms of her own lack of theological knowledge or training, Manji insisted that it is the Koran itself that supports a separation of Church and State, since the Koran does not itself recommend a particular form of Islamic government. Even more convincingly, she denounced not only the zeal of religious fundamentalists but also of "missionary atheists" who promote disbelief with the same dogmatism as fundamentalists belonging to a particular faith. In an attempt to distance herself from the blatant generalizations of her co-panelist Ibn Warraq (who only minutes earlier had unequivocally stated "Islam is the problem") Manji's speech went far in claiming the trajectory of legitimacy borne out of quoting the Koran and waxing poetic about the liberating power of her spirituality. In a near Clintonian sound byte, she concluded that "religion is like technology - [it] can be used in myriad ways for good and bad."

Ms. Manji's project is certainly a worthy one, and few Muslims, especially (but not only) among those living in the United States, would argue against the need to reconcile faith and freedom or disagree with the precept that the spirit of critique needs to be revived. Even Ms. Manji seemed to recognize this, as she quoted ISNA's President Dr. Ingrid Mattson as a potential ally to her own project. What seemed curious, then, was Manji's repeated remonstrance touting her own persecution at the hands of the very Muslims she is hoping to unite under the umbrella of her brainchild "Project Ijtihad". It is in this dual rhetoric that Manji's potential for duplicity emerges to the forefront, and her prioritization of what Western audiences want to hear over what Muslims need to hear becomes blatantly obvious. If, indeed, she intends to be a community activist and provoke Muslims into her "radical traditionalism" that questions tradition and re-energizes the spirit of critique within Islam, then perhaps she needs to abandon her rhetoric of persecution by the same Muslims she is now courting.

Capitalist ambitions by themselves are hardly reprehensible. What is more problematic is the collusion of the mercenary-reformer that Ms. Manji represents. A brief look at her website on Project Ijtihad quickly reveals the extent to which she is interested in supporting reform over seeking profit. In the three years since the initial publication of her book, Ms. Manji claims to have furthered this project of critique by � you guessed it � having her book translated into various languages. The Urdu and Farsi translations are available for free on the website, quite possibly because the devalued rupee and rial would hardly render much in terms of profit in Canadian dollars. The website lists no mention of any other sources for furthering critical exchange among Muslims other than Manji's own book. As for what she does with the ample royalties from this "reformist" project she herself says, "Paying my mortgage, buying hazelnut coffee (several sugars)�"

In the final portion of her speech at the Secular Islam Conference, Ms. Manji introduced a "novel" idea in the realm of promoting critical exchange among Muslims - a "website" which she hopes to launch as part of her "grassroots" project. Perhaps unaware of the many existing ones already devoted to this task (and who do so without simultaneously pursuing profit), Manji went on to describe who would be featured on this promised website. It's star would be "Kamran" (too dangerous of course to use his real name) � none other than an "ex-terrorist" who was inspired to leave the terrorist lifestyle by � you guessed it � reading an interview by Irshad Manji! Such self-glorification is hardly rare among public intellectuals; if anything it is perhaps a necessity of their chosen trade. Where Ms. Manji departs from the mold is in her desire to pretend to be a grassroots reformer while constantly cashing in on the very problems she consistently deplores. Certainly, the Muslim world is bereft with problems: the manipulation of Islamic doctrine to justify the subjugation of women, the appropriation of Sharia law as a tool to legitimize illegitimate rulers, the disregard for human rights, the punishment of dissenters, and others. All are problems plaguing the Muslim world which undoubtedly deserve the attention of every Muslim. The issue posed by Ms. Manji's initiative, however, is whether someone who profits from the very existence of these problems can also claim the title of reforming them while doing nothing concrete other than promoting her own book.

The remaining presenters at the Secular Islam Conference made no pretense of their distaste for Islam. Ibn Warraq's presentation vacillated between his regular brand of fear mongering detailing the incipient "threat" Muslims pose (an argument the intelligence consultants in his audience must certainly like, since it insures their livelihoods) to blatantly racist and illiberal statements such as "not all religious traditions are worthy of respect". More entertaining was the presentation of Tawfiq Hamid, who filled the role of the ubiquitous "ex-terrorist". Like the American and French Worlds Fairs of the 1800s made spectacles of "oriental" specimens often held in captivity for Western gawking and consumption, intelligence consultants now seem to hunger for the "ex-terrorist" as a venue for satiate their lascivious curiosity. In keeping with the persona he was hired to project (or perhaps disappointing those who expected him to be a kinder gentler Osama look-alike), Mr. Ahmed entertained his audience with antics deigned to please. Among these was a particularly ludicrous theory regarding suicide bombings based entirely on the individual terrorist's desire for sex. Shiites terrorists, Mr. Ahmed explained, are far less likely to engage in suicide bombings because they have the institution of mu'taa marriages which allows them to have sexual relations without long term commitments. Sunnis, on the other hand, do not have this institution. Hence the ease with which Sunni Muslim youths can be duped into chasing paradise (and hence sex) through committing suicidal acts of terror.

A recurrent theme that dotted nearly every single presentation was the litany of abuse that the speakers insisted they routinely face from the Muslim community. Inflated thus with this rather deluded sense of self-importance, each one spent considerable time detailing their undaunted courage in the face of such terrible adversity. One could not help but wonder the number of hours each one of them spent scanning fatwa factories of dubious origin and even more questionable authority in the hope of finding one that even remotely mentions them. After all, a fatwa is the ticket to fame in their industry.

Another painfully recurrent theme in the presentations, one that was echoed in the "St. Petersberg Declaration" issued at the end of the meeting, was the treatment of Islamophobia as a "myth" constructed to outlaw critique of Islam. The speakers' consequent ignorance of the frequency of hate crimes against Muslims in Europe became thus yet another glaring act of partisanship fracturing their already minimal credibility. A report by the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia provides empirical evidence in this regard and proves the inaccuracy of their position. It includes reports of vandalism on Muslim businesses and desecration of Muslim graveyards in Denmark, racist graffiti on Muslim mosques in Germany and Greece, repeated attacks on Muslims by Neo-Nazi groups in Spain, and desecration of mosques and vandalism of homes of Muslim politicians in France. In one of many incidents in the UK, a Muslim woman wearing a headscarf was harassed with the slogan "Barbarian with no culture, go back home" and "you certainly bought your visa, you terrorist". Added to this are recent studies which state that British Muslim youths have twice the rate of unemployment as their white counterparts and that the chances of getting a job in France are reduced by half if you have a Muslim name.

I document this data not to promote the image of a victimized Muslim minority justified in its reticence to address the problems of growing extremism, intolerance of critique, or inattention to women's rights. Instead, the aim is to demonstrate that the problem lies not in demonizing one or the other but instead in recognizing the complex dimensions of the issue and the need to recognize the counterproductive nature of the mercenary rhetoric found at the Secular Islam Summit. In this sense, the criticism leveled at the speakers at the Secular Islam Conference should be directed not at the fact that the speakers chose to critique Islam. Indeed, they are free to voice their opinions, however misguided, hateful, and factually incorrect they may be. Instead, the criticism focused toward them should expose how they have reduced the necessity of dialogue between Muslims and Westerners to a profiteering activity that dupes their audience with perversions and generalizations, and cashes in on fear and intolerance.

>Because we desire to.<

But the question remains, WHO are you make such demands?

>Let me get this straight: you, the non-muslim is telling us that we *must* be political?? <

English isn't my first language but I didn't say you MUST be political, I simply asked why Muslims should be asked to stay away from politics when their Christian and Jewish counterparts have shown no intention of doing so themselves. Its a straight forward question.

>Sorry, but the days of Leftists trying to get Muslims to sign on to communist agendas is not only over, it never really took off.<

I agree, but I'm no communist as erroneously assume.

>Please, let us be and mind your own house.<

No, I don't think so. This is a global debate. This is a free forum for the exchange of ideas and thoughts on issues which concern both Muslims and non-Muslims and I have no intention of censoring myself for your convenience.

I have to agree that this is an open forum and I think that the questions that BTW asks are interesting. Why are particular religious groups asked to separate religion from politics and others are not? This is a fair question.

I am not an Islamist (at least I don't think I am!) but I am not a strict universalist secularist. In many ways, religious discourse have fueled some of the most radical and liberatory struggles. Here my most immediate references are the abolitionist movements, Civil rights, Malcolm X. Of course, these movements existed within a larger framework of separation of church and state but they showed the potential for a creative alliance between religion and politics.

I am not a scholar of the Middle East but I think that we need to do have a more nuanced view of Islamist movements. In what ways are these groups challenging oppressive regimes? In what ways are they empowering women to become active agents despite patriarchal models?

Rafia, thanks.

Borat snarfer: >>Muslims and non-Muslims and I have no intention of censoring myself for your convenience.

So the difference between you and Bush is what?? Both of you have a "Vision for Muslims" that not all Muslims agree with, so... But, thanks for showing us that outsider paternalistic Orientalism is a universal feature of both the Right and the Left. I had almost forgotten.

Anisah, yes, I also think there is a spectrum of thought among Islamist parties, all the way from devout Muslims who think Liberalism is good and compatible with Islamic life to those who will fascistly impose the most drastic interpretations of Shariah on people without any voting or such. The real question, then, is which faction(s) are in the ascendant and which will control their party's platform?

>So the difference between you and Bush is what??<

I think this would be a more fruitful debate if you refrained from putting words in other peoples mouths. Why should I keep silent for your pleasure? Your attempts at playing gatekeeper here and stifling debate makes you far more like Bush then me.

> Both of you have a "Vision for Muslims" that not all Muslims agree with, so... <<

I don't have a "vision" for Muslims, but I do have an opinion and a desire to exchange views with Muslims. You're just going to have to tolerate opinions which don't conform with your black and white worldview.

>But, thanks for showing us that outsider paternalistic Orientalism is a universal feature of both the Right and the Left. I had almost forgotten.<

Your statements make no sense. The people who display "paternalistic orientalism" are the ones behind this sham of a summit. Read the article again.

No, you've taken a political viewpoint and then are surprised / dissapointed when not all muslims fall into line behind whatever you think we should do! Elsewhere, you said you find it hard to believe that Dr Khan is considered a scholar by Muslims. Maybe you are or are not familiar with his work about Islamic Law, but i suspect you denigrate him and expect Muslims to disregard him simply because he appreciates the opportunities he gained from within American society. Tough crap. Its not up to people like you totell us who our scholars should or should not be based on your hatred of us, our country or our soon-to-be-voted out president.

There are plenty of non-Muslims who are quite civil and ask questions and express thier own opinions in ways which are not paternalistic or politically preaching down to us or telling us who we should follow or not. All I ask is that you leave your paternalism at the door and don't tell us who to follow or what to think about our dissenters and scholars.

Omarg, you're uttering more confused nonsense. You're not even posting in the right thread. Civility? You're the one who labeled me a communist! Your problem is I'm asking questions and raising points which exposes the double standards inherent in all your arguments.
As I have stated twice already, I will not censor myself for you nor allow you to set the parameters for any debate. This is an open forum, and your sacred American cows and "scholars" are all fair game.

So, can you explain what authority gave you the right to tell us Muslims who to lsiten to or not? Censorship! Indeed, it is you who wants people to be censored based on whether they are "sacred American cows and 'scholars'". And of course, there you go again using quotes around scholars to insinuate who is a legitimate Muslim scholar and who is not. Your arguments are full of non-sequitors and other non-sensical, knee-jerk rantings. Why don't you discuss Khan or Manji or others' ideas and why they are or are not accurate or will or will not work? Engage the ideas, because as was said elsewhere, your negativity is wearing thin, really thin.

>So, can you explain what authority gave you the right to tell us Muslims who to lsiten to or not? Censorship!<

When did I claim to be authority? Its an opinion, and a far better and informed one then yours. Look up what censorship means, thats what you've been trying to do, to silence me and dismiss and smear me as a "non-Muslim communist." Ever heard of free speech?

Mr.Khan is not the subject of this article so you can discuss it in the appropriate thread. This forum isn't your personal chalkboard, hence your bully tactics are useless. Your tantrums only reveal your lack of substance. Don't like other peoples opinions? TOUGH!

>>smear me as a "non-Muslim communist."

I'm sorry. It was unfair of me. I will engage your ideas only.

>>and a far better and informed one then yours.

I claim being informed about the topic because, as a Muslim and part of Islam in America, it directly relates to me. Whle outside commentary can be valuable, it takes some amount of courage for a person to claim that, as a self-proclaimed not-part-of-the-community to say that thier opinion on a community matter is better than those who live the reality of being Muslim every day. My "Muslimness" is my starting point and source of authority and relevance to the topic. And yourself?

As for "silencing you", talk all you want, but you must expect me or any persons to take issue with what I think are your inappropriate and in my eyes, mis-informed opinions about our faith community. I, too, have the right to point that out and excercise my own right to free [removed]henceforth to be more civil than I was). If you think that counter-critique is censorship or bullying, I say you are wrong and expression and critique of that expression go hand in hand.

I accept your apology, but you have yet to demonstrate that I have misinformed views on your community.
When someone calls themself a "reformer" of Islam and then says that the religion can't be reformed and must essentially by wiped out, common sense tells me that that person is far from sincere and has an divisive political agenda. Don't have to be a Muslim to see something isn't right with this picture.
I did google some of these people and lo and behold, all are have close ties to zionist extremists. Coincidence? I don't think so.

I don't think it is a coincidence either, and no, these specific persons are by thier own admissions not Muslim (except Manji, who dissented quite a bit with the majority). I think, that when they say "Secular Islam" they are wrong because secularism is intended to be an overarching social and political framework wherein religions cannot impose on each other in the public arena, or that's the theory anyway, and what a fine theory it is. Religion, itself, cannot be secular, and given the tone of some of the presenters, they do seem to want Islam to go away period. However, the conference was also notable for the anti-chauvenism / anti-Islamophobic currents which are starting to ripple through the rightosphere thanks to D'Souza, Manji and others which I thought was fairly unexpected.

That said, I often find that people who change things are often not representative of their community at the beginning. It takes some time for a new idea or mode of seeing the world to take root and predominate. For example, the idea that Blacks should not be slaves took almost a century and make a change in merely the Law of the US; thus, abolitionists were not representative of late 1700's or even Colonial America. So, I'm not sure how whether a person or thier ideas is representative or not even matters that much except at the ballot.

I agree with your points about secularization, however I believe Manji was set up to be the "good cob" in a sea of bad ones. For her to be the "moderate" one shows how extreme the participants at the summit were. The fact that all are active zionists who are being promoted by jewish extremists betrays their quest for "reformation." Pawns used in the "clash of civilizations."
The comparison to abolitionists isn't a convincing one and can't be compared to this situation.

Omar, glad to see you spotted one of the hopeful trends in right-of-center, nearer the body than the wingtip, affairs (the "rightosphere", very good). There are indeed "anti-chauvinism and anti-Islamophobic currents" as well as anti-totalitarian ones (whether Zionist, communist, fascist, jihadist, left or right wing variety). There are many non-Muslims of a conservative (fundamental/traditional, just as in Islam) orientation who are seriously, maybe in some cases even desperately, seeking for actual or potential points of connectivity between Islam and non-Islam. For some such observers and "grass roots" practitioners of the art of the possible, separating "political Islam" from "religious Islam" doesn't mean prohibiting Muslims from political life and practice (as BTW misinterpreted in earlier comments above). Rather, as I see it, the separation of Church and State ideal (what some call secular, others call pluralist) means Muslims may, and in my opinion, should, include themselves in public political processes, as well as leaving them free to pursue communal Islamic politics within their Muslim community. Which brings me to ask seekers like Rafia and Anisah1 if, ref comments above, one can distinguish between Islamic and Islamist? For me, there is a germane, even crucial, difference, defining which Muslim currents of conservation, change, reform, modernization, moderation, etc., fall where along, and on which, side of the line between comfortable or worrisome. Beg your indulgence of a personal note, but my hope is that reading these and similar blogs and sites increases my ability to distinguish between Islamic and Islamist, and to recognize who is a Muslim under most any circumstance except deliberate deception. Of course, some of it is just plain funny, too...except when its not.

Islamist(polite for "islamofascist") is an absurd term born out of modern day orientalism. Imagine calling someone a Christianist or Jewist.
Terminological disputes are academic. Whatever term is selected, it acquires only the merit of exposing distinctions the observer wishes to consider, and hiding alternative distinctions that might also be considered.
Thus, ‘Islamists’ tells us next to nothing about Muslims themselves, but it does reveal a great deal about non-Muslims observing Muslims.
When ‘Fundamentalists’ were vogue, it suggested something about the American view of religion in American government. The term ‘Islamists’ similarly indicates American prejudices: ‘Fundamentalist beliefs’ are acceptable, just not Muslim ones.

These people in the summit are not reformers.

Reformers are like Dr. Subhi Mansur, Gamal Al Banna and Lakhdar Afifi and Nasr Abu Zayd etc. The problem is they operate in arabic and thus still do not have an audience in the west.

As far as why even the ex muslims bother about reforming islam, its because in the west they have an identity issue and stll somehow regard themselves as muslims like jewish atheist still see themselves as part of the jewsih community.

Real reform in Islam is emphasizing the Quran as the criteria of Islamic thought and recognizing that islam is a religion and all the laws and specific legal regulations are historic and not an integral part of the faith. Islam thus is seen by real reformist as a religion and not a state rather than sunni islam or shia islam that sees it as a religion and a state and the first community's (medinah) legal and political framework as an integral part of the religion which they refer to as islamic law or islamic shariah.

This is the real issue, are the legal and political framework of medinah part of the religion like prayers, zikr, ramadan and haj and so on or are they a historic necessity in establishing a community with these legal and political framework(such as caliphate) that was relevant to their times and islam has no special political and legal framework outside the theological, rituals and the do and don't.

Reformers then look at the Quran to see what was the Divine intention and purpose of sending a prophet in anlayzing and answering that question.

All real reformers look at the Quran to analyze its thought while all non reformers or traditionalists look at the hadiths to formulate its thought.

I scan this article by Rafia Zakaria and find it very disappointing. Too much unsupported name-calling. Poorly-organized writing. I'd think a lawyer could do a better job of presenting his or her own arguments.

Right on Bigmo! Until this issue is addressed on a worldwide basis, Islamophobia in the West will only get worse and worse. Already, the fundamentalists are gaining greater power in Egypt through the Muslim Brotherhood, Palestine through Hamas, and Lebanon with Hezbollah. As Iran gains greater influence in Iraq, it might be just a matter of time until shar'ia law outweighs any hope of constitutional rule of law anywhere within the Middle East.

Should that happen, how will that influence how Islam is practiced in the West and, even more so, how it is perceived?

>I scan this article by Rafia Zakaria and find it very disappointing. Too much unsupported name-calling. Poorly-organized writing. I'd think a lawyer could do a better job of presenting his or her own arguments.<

Look who's complaining. Aren't you the same zionist fanatic who attacked Irfan Yusuf for his article exposing one of your fellow jewish nutters? You are good at projecting your fantasies on other people, a legend in your own mind you are - small mind, hard heart, totally bereft of any honesty.

>it might be just a matter of time until shar'ia law outweighs constitutional rule of law anywhere within the Middle East.<

Constitutional rule of law? Is that what pro-US dictatorships claim to have now?

Thanks, Bigmo and RoS, your comments are to the point and helpful--despite BTW's usual off-point negativity, the next turn of the wheel does seem to demand choices between shari'a or constitutional rule of law, unless some sort of secular totalitarianism masquerading as "peoples' democracy" is a third possibility -- maybe something retro like that is what a voice such as BTW would deem sufficiently unlike US or Israel to be acceptable? Latter hard to address, since BTW never offers anything useful. Sol2, have you dusted off the residue from the driveby you suffered?

Right on Bigmo! Until this issue is addressed on a worldwide basis, Islamophobia in the West will only get worse and worse. Already, the fundamentalists are gaining greater power in Egypt through the Muslim Brotherhood, Palestine through Hamas, and Lebanon with Hezbollah. As Iran gains greater influence in Iraq, it might be just a matter of time until shar'ia law outweighs any hope of constitutional rule of law anywhere within the Middle East.

Should that happen, how will that influence how Islam is practiced in the West and, even more so, how it is perceived? END QUOTE

They won't be able to apply sahariah, its a concept thats never been fully applied for the last 1,400 years and can't. Its a slogan used to help them come to power, once they are there they will not be re-elected. Their incompetency and unrealism will manifest itself as it has in Sudan, iran and Saudi and Iraq. Coming to power will blow the bubble for them.

In fact the best way to get rid of them is letting them come to power and putting their 7th century state concept for the test. They hype will blow away.