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.

>despite BTW's usual off-point negativity<

Please, what you consider "negativity" is merely non-compliance with rabidly pro-American views and critique of zionist zealotry as shown by the likes of solomoan. What arrogance and negativity coming from a guy who comments on countries he can't even find on the map!
More interesting is the fact the jewish and christian extremists of the neocon variety make demands for Muslims to "reform," as are the opinions of self-declared Shariah experts like bigmo who avoids the skeletons in his own closet and oversimplifies the situation in the Middle East for the benefit of his shoddy argument in favor of failed pax americana.

Look who's complaining -

Since you restrict yourself to attacking me personally but not the opinions I expressed about the article, why shouldn't readers conclude that you agree with me entirely?

"The problem, as I see it, is that the supposed "dialogue" ( attempted by the Secular Islam Conference) with Muslims is engaging people who have scant credentials as either reformers or activists within Muslim communities. In that sense, summits like this one are little more than a sham designed to affirm existing prejudices and do nothing to make inroads toward mutual understanding."

Rafia, I am somewhat familiar with some of the presenters from this summit. Many of them come from countries within the Middle East with whom dialogue with other Muslims that may be critical of Islam is forbidden. Al Azhar, in Egypt for example, punishes those who criticize Islam, which has been written about in other articles on this website.

it seems to me that the objective of many of these presenters is to point out what needs to be addressed by the Muslim mainstream. I whole heartedly agree with you that much is lost in the infighting that occurs, but it is understandable from both ends.

I look forward to the continuing dialogue among concerned Muslims about the substantive issues you raise in this as well as your other articles.

>Since you restrict yourself to attacking me personally but not the opinions I expressed about the article, why shouldn't readers conclude that you agree with me entirely?

Probably because readers aren't stupid or as disingenuous are you are. Don't delude yourself, you're a third rate jewish extremist as your opinions and the pro-terrorist idiots you link to on that horrendous blog of yours shows. Your attacks on Irfan Yusuf are proof of this.
No doubt you'd be yelping and screeching endlessly if a bunch of extremist Muslims with a political and religious axe to grind masqueraded as Jews calling for a "reformation" of your faith.

Oversimplify?!

The muslim brotherhood slogan in the elections in Egypt last year was:

"Islam is the solution"

Talk about over simplifying.

Government of Sudan claims the international campaign towards Darfur is:

"A campaign against the Islamic State"

Saudi Arabia says its constitution is the Quran.

its the Islamist who oversimplify their ideology never finding real solution and hiding behind islam.

Shariah was a concept invented by the Abassyids 200 years after the pophet's death. The muwatta of Imam Malik, the first compilation of hadiths written was compiled under the Abassyid patronage 165 years after the prophet's death to help create the "Islamic" state.

Never has and never will. There is no such thing.

Islam is a religion and not a state. The Islamist want BTW and his likes to vote for them and then they can rob the country blind, which is really all they do anyways. They reduced Kabul to ruins, turned Darfur to a massacring ground, Algeria to a bloodbath and recently nearly brought "Islamism" to Somalia. Everywhere they go they wreak havoc.

The government of Sudan and Saudi Arabia can hardly be called Islamic in the true sense of the word. The concept of the Islamic state derives from the State of Medina, not the abbassid caliphate. The Koran is against kingship and monarchy, nor do I find anything prohibiting woman from driving. Bush calls himself a Christian yet few believe he takes his examples from the life of Christ. Using dictators and US client regimes as the standard is a red herring. Most dictatorships in the Muslim world are secular and derive little from the religion. Just like the meaningless term "islamist" label you throw around so carelessly. If thats not an oversimplification of what the people there want, I don't know what is. If you believe in democracy you ought to respect the choice of the people.
Perhaps a self-proclaimed expert of your caliber(with a political and religious axe to grind) can offer some prefabricated solutions which aren't manufactured in Washington(as if that den of corruption isn't in need of cleaning up).

BTW, the right wings of Israel and the US are *not* the only ones who want some kind of reform of at least Islamic cultures! There are many Muslims ourselves who want this, too, and not just converts or those raised in the West. Recent polls showed that only 9% of Iranians favored the current Islamist form of governance. There are many Muslims who tire of the political abuses of humanity and of Islam itself and women and minorities and want it to change. Desire for reforming to a more humane and spiritually centered practice of Islam does not a zioinst or neocon make!

Agreed Omar, but I doubt cultures under attack will focus on a moment of reflection with vicious external enemies at the gate. It may in fact have the opposite effect and make them close ranks. Iranians may not be fond of their government, "islamist" or not(far better then any US client state in the region though), but they are even less fond of the enemy threatening them on daily basis.

"Agreed Omar, but I doubt cultures under attack will focus on a moment of reflection with vicious external enemies at the gate. It may in fact have the opposite effect and make them close ranks. Iranians may not be fond of their government, "islamist" or not(far better then any US client state in the region though), but they are even less fond of the enemy threatening them on daily basis."

You do Muslims no favors, no favors at all, by laying the blame for the behaviors of what is being referred to as Islamist states at the feet of outsiders. Take a poll of how life has become better for those living under shar'ia law as opposed to other "US sanctioned dictatorships" as you refer to them ( a spurious description at best) and let the Muslim people tell you which they prefer.

BTW, if you genuinely care about the welfare of Muslims, you will use your rage and place it in an area that may do some good. Take the lead from OmarG, a Muslim who does not fear looking into what is taking place within Islam itself.

I'm not here to do anyone favors, RoseofArielSharon. Please don't pretend to be a fair minded observer because your words would betray you outright. People like you know next to nothing about Islam, yet you insist that you know whats best for Muslims including telling them what needs to be "fixed" in their religion. I doubt you know anything factual about Shariah law. I doubt you would be as snarky if a bunch of Muslim miscreants decided to play "reformists" on your faith.
I don't like repeating myself but people like you just don't get it, in fact I would you are a disingenuous ill wisher. There are no Islamic states in the Koranic sense of the world, and if you deny the existence of pro-US dictatorships and client regimes, then you are living in a fool's paradise. Even more bizzare if your claim that Muslims would prefer such states to the ficticious Islamic state strawman you've constructed. Pew Global surveys shows that Anti-American views rife in the Islamic world and its easy to see why. People don't appreciate foreign installed despots, nor do they have any love for those who drop bullets and bombs with a "made in America" label on their homes. This seems to be the case in Latin America where Bush got a less then pleasant reception from the locals. Last time I checked they were Catholics.
The one who are truly in need of reformaton and redemption are the messianic militants running the US and their zionist overlords in Israel. Leave Muslims and other peoples to their own affairs and they will content to leave you to yours.

Omar G....you score no points for getting an endorsement from roseofsharon :))
I equate this to an Islamic Conference endorsed by Glenn Beck!!!

ROSE OF SHARON:

I like the process of sublimation where solid state goes to gaseous state by bypassing the liquid state. ITS CALLED AUSCHWITZ, LOL.

>>you score no points for getting an endorsement...

meh. We walk a fine line...

BTW, the shariah that people idealize that may or may have not existed in medieval times or in Islam's classical age does not exist today! Before we can even think about implementing shariah systems, I absolutely want to see vital changes occur in our muslim cultures so that they become Islamic in character before they become Islamic in Law.

And just becuase my government does not already do it has no bearing on whether I want to see respect for the rule of law, human rights and plurality in interpreting Islam. Before we achieve that, any implementation of shariah will only be as bad as the culture it exists in. In these times, that's pretty bad... Case in point: wherever pseudo-shariah systems are implemented today, they are often used to justify authortarian oppressions of the populace. This is NOT what Islam was intended for. Law, life and liberty are only as good as the culture / society one has.

BTW obvioulsy needs a week with the Taliban to shut up.

Nappy, very racist cheap shot, you're better than that. For general info, article of related interest at WaPo by G. Abdo, who keynoted CAIR's counter-conference in Ft. Lauderdale. She seems quite offended that the Seculars got more press than the CAIRs. Also seems to allude to possibility that Islam and non-Islam cannot share space peacefully, truly a dreadful prospect.

>BTW obvioulsy needs a week with the Taliban to shut up.<

I have no interest or love for the Taliban, and I don't plan on shutting up either. Maybe you can go hang out in the Green Zone and pray to whatever deity you worship that the pro-occupation mercenaries you cheer lead don't play "shoot the haji"(after the appropriate water boarding and carnal torture) with you. That would definitely shut you up, now wouldn't it?

The problem with this critique is its relentless harping on some standard of 'authenticity'. Comments posted here have also used 'authentic Muslim' or variations thereof. I wonder what renders authenticity to a person's critique of Islam. I don't know, but according to this article and some of the commentators, persons lacking authority are easier to isolate:
(a) Any 'Muslim reformer' who is a 'rightist' 'neoliberal' or 'allied with US/Israel' (in terms of guilt by association)
(b) Not well-versed in every surah and exegesis of the Qu'ran (standards for 'Secular reformers' are set higher than for some Islamic preachers!)
(c) A hypocrite. This hypocrisy has not been adequately defined. Is it that Hirsi Ali is now nestles in the cozy confines of the AEI? Manji wants to be religious while being a lesbian? Shame!

The intolerance towards ‘Secular Reformers’ from those at the meeting grounds of the Left-liberal *and* Muslim dialogue is surprising. The hatred of the neo-Imperialist/neo-conservative agenda seems to color their ability to recognize the importance of dissent. Yes, Irshad Manji can sometimes be a painful figure as she gives her spiel on Glenn Beck. But by refusing to take her ideas (rather than person) seriously - despite the fact that her "project is certainly a worthy one" - shows that reactionary forces now exist on the Left as much as on the Islamic conservative-religious Right. Is the project of reform so off track now that the Left must ally itself with them?

Who does the author of this article see as candidates for the project of reform? Perhaps they believe reform is not urgently needed (to speak of any urgency is to be an Islamophobe). This is clever denial. ‘Islamophobia’ has become as much of a bogeyman on the Left as it is a cause on the neo-conservative Right. This bogeyman shouldn't prevent enquiry itself. After all, some of what Chomsky says is illogical and odd, but he performs an immensely valuable service of reasoned dissent. This ad hominem smearing of dissent is eerily similar to what the Right does to people like Arundhati Roy. Ms Zakaria and others attempt to manufacture the same consent around an accepted brand of critique of Islam that fits their notions of geopolitical, social, and religious resistance. This is unfortunately not the formula for change - just further infighting in a movement that needs to bring new blood to the stultified process of internal reform in Islam.