Irshad Manji speaks up for freedom of speech and thought in Islam.
Last year, Al Jazeera aired an intense debate about Muslim reform between me and the British commentator Mehdi Hasan. Hate mail followed. So did love bombs. But I did not receive any death threats. To be sure, the reality remains that those who shatter age-old taboos within Islam do have to fear for their lives. While it is true that every religion has its extremists, in no other religion do mainstream believers routinely shrug off the murder of dissenters. This is a life-and-death difference. All the more reason for ijtihad to be revived in the 21st century.
Nowhere does the necessity of ijtihad seem more urgent than in the wars over freedom of expression. One might say that the UK led the way. More than 25 years ago, a puny hive of British Muslims demanded the death of novelist Salman Rushdie even before Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini issued his infamous fatwa.
Yes, but that was after India banned The Satanic Verses. The Bradford book-burning took its cue from the Indian ban. Not that I’m disagreeing with her, just mussing up the picture a little.
Earlier this year, I watched the British brouhaha over my friend Maajid Nawaz, the prospective Liberal Democrat candidate for Kilburn and co-founder of the counter-extremism outfit Quilliam. Nawaz had tweeted a cartoon called Jesus and Mo. Jesus to Mo: ‘Hey!’ Mo: ‘How ya doing?’ The end. That was it. Two top-tier prophets swapping props.
I call that catchy: two top-tier prophets swapping props.
The question is simple: can Islam be reconciled with free expression? The answer is yes. The Qur’an points out that there will always be nonbelievers and that it is for God, not for Muslims, to deal with them: ‘The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills — let him believe; and whoever wills — let him disbelieve.’ (18:29). Moreover, the Qur’an states that there should ‘no compulsion in religion’. (2:256). Nobody should be forced to treat tradition as untouchable, including traditions that result in the messed-up Muslim habit of equating our very human prophet with an inviolable idol. Monotheists are to revere one God, not one of God’s emissaries. That is why humility requires people of faith to lampoon themselves, and each other, once in a while.
But even revering one god is revering a human conception of that god. But I’ll try to stop quibbling. I’d rather have believers of the Manji & Nawaz type than the Just Follow Orders type, so I shouldn’t quibble.
For me, embracing freedom is an act of faith. Recognising the Almighty’s infinite wisdom means acknowledging my limited human wisdom. As a monotheist, I am not God. Nor am I entitled to behave as God. Hence my duty to let a thousand nonviolent flowers bloom. In short, to devote myself to Allah is to love liberty.
Ok, but you can do that without Allah. You get to the same place. And if you take seriously the idea of an “almighty” who has infinite wisdom, it seems all but inevitable that you try to figure out what that Almighty thinks, and back come the orders and limits and veils and priests.
I just can’t stop quibbling, can I.
I thought some rules of Islam were set up to keep people from worshipping Muhammad. The rule against images, for instance, was to keep folks from setting up shrines. But, damned if they don’t do what every other religion has done, and bring in the worship.
Yes, the very act of banning Mohammed’s image to prevent idolitory has invested his image with greater significance.
It’s like the ban on nudity to prevent people thinking about sex turning nudity itself into something sexual.
But you can start using question marks, can’t you?
“Moreover, the Qur’an states that there should ‘no compulsion in religion’. (2:256). ”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Go ahead – pull the other one!!
Moreover, the Qur’an states that there should ‘no compulsion in religion’
Pretty strange assertion seeings the faith is headquartered in the world’s only religious-apartheid state where the practice of any other religion than Islam is illegal and where conversion OUT of Islam warrants the death penalty.
A little-known variant of 18:29 adds “and whoever quibbles — let her quibble.”
sc_BoN: If you’ve not heard of a grammatical construction, in this case the rhetorical statement, trying to criticise someone on their grammar makes you look like a tool. And when you come in commenting on a post for it’s grammar alone, you need all the help not looking like a tool you can get. Because you, my friend, look like a Ti-Cr 1/2″ spanner right now.
Ophelia: I too find it hard to bite back on comments criticising people for including completely unfounded and unnecessary statements in the middle of an otherwise decent argument. But then, I value the wide dispersion of truthful knowledge over an outward appearance of unity and have trouble seeing why anyone would have that the other way around.
Off the top of my head (apologies if off) the ‘no compulsion’ line is actually in the 9th Sura.
[WRONG: the line as quoted is from Sura 2, which is abrogated by 9.]
The same one the promotes jihad most overtly. Do read the whole thing: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/9/index.htm
‘No compulsion’ in context means: conquered people have the ‘freedom’ to choose:
a) Death
b) Conversion
c) Submission to Islamic rule and the payment of tribute
Not the warm fuzzy ecumenicalism that most ‘no compulsion’ quoters would LIKE you to believe.
Much like an Act of God, innit? Not a lot one can do, really. Why even try?
Ever these (and other) Questions.
(Does Questions come after Prejudice and before Results?) Hmm. Another Divine Law.
“The Qur’an points out that there will always be nonbelievers and that it is for God, not for Muslims, to deal with them: ”
Really? Like any other sacred text the Qur’an is a jumble of often contradictory gibberish, sometimes mandating violence against infidels, sometimes simple platitudes and there are many verses in the Qur’an condemning unbelievers.The Qur’an is the credo of a 7th century bandit leader and his followers.
Apparently many pious Muslims, like Christians, have decided to help their god by oppressing and murdering infidels in his name.