Talk:Irshad Manji

"Osama bin Laden's worst nightmare."

I like the sound of that. It's got a nice ring to it. :-)

161.142.96.92 14:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A Photo can be found if you follow this link, I dont know how to add a photo to an article so if someone can do it that would be great. http://www.sicherheit-heute.de/uploads/images/1149607676IrshRuschdie.jpg

Ok, so how to you fix a major screwup? :S

The following was the text of the paragraph titled Criticism. It was reverted without explanation by Ambi: Her views on Islam and attitude towards Israel are considered fringe by most Muslims. Most would not want her to be their spokesman any more than Osama Bin Laden is, on the other end of the spectrum. Most Muslims do not see her as one of them anymore, but rather as an apostate. Her writings on Islam have been criticized because they lack scholarly credibility, and her lack of knowledge for being one (e.g. she does not know Arabic, but insists on interpreting Quran according to her understanding of the English translation). The attention given to her in the media is seen by many Muslims as disproportionate when compared to her qualifications. It is explained as due to her saying what the media in the West want to hear about Islam, and for being favorable towards Israel, blinded towards that state's shortcomings, in contrast with the majority of Muslim. --KB 02:12, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

I disagree with the wording of this sentence: "She has also been criticised for being equally critical of Israel and Palestine." Muslims do not criticize her for being even handed. She has not criticised Israel at all (or at least this is not reported), and is almost unconditionally supportive of Israel. If you have quotes, then please provide them with a source. Muslims criticize her because of that stance on Israel, not that she is equally critical of both, otherwise there would be no criticism. --KB 14:28, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

She's criticised - by Muslims (also by the left-wing, I might add) for being critical of the current Palestinian leadership. That's not in dispute. If you're going to claim that she's anti-Palestinian or pro-Israel, then the onus is on you to find any evidence of this. She's just a moderate - she criticises both sides for their flaws, and praises elements of both sides, rather than taking a blanket stance. Ambi 01:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

She is not a moderate by any long shot. Not to most Muslims. When I say most, I mean it. I have yet to meet a Muslim who view her favorably. I am in Canada, and often see her on TV. I followed the media coverage of her book. I saw the debates she had with other Muslims, including Jamal Badawi, and others (Sheema Khan for example). She was in the local university a month or so ago giving a talk about Israel. The closest she is, is to Abdul Hadi Palazzi, an Italian 'Sheikh' who is among the 'Israel can do no wrong' crowd. Both are invited by pro-Zionist groups to speak, since all their talk is favorable to them. The issue is not that she equally criticizes both. She does not. She only talks about how wonderful Israel is, and how Muslims are wrong to criticize it. You are characterizing her as being even handed. I have not seen any quote to that effect, and therefore I ask you to provide it. Until then, the fair way to deal with it, is to remove your statement and my statement. Not put your statement only as a fact. Here is some reading material for you in the meantime. [1] [2] [3] [4]. That last link is by Tarek Fatah who is on the liberal side of the Canadian Muslim spectrum, too liberal for many in fact, and yet he is critical of Manji. Trying to present her as a moderate will not fly. She is too extreme for most Muslims. -- KB 04:03, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Now, taking a look at these. The first page is an emotional hatchet job that doesn't even try to make a rational discussion of her arguments, and there's not much that can be taken out of that. The second makes for really good reading, and it might be nice if you read it before drawing any conclusions. And I quote "I'm not denying that Palestinians have been victimized, not at all. But they are also victimized by their own leadership and not just by Israelis." That sounds a heck of a lot more like what I've attempted to put into the article that what you've said. The third link doesn't work. As for the fourth, making one incorrect conclusion - and a very minor one at that, considering that her book has very little to do with the Holocaust, does not make her pro-Israel. The second argument would be more damning, if it weren't so glaringly out of context. Muslims persecuting black Africans. Darfur, anyone? It's not the most unreasonable conclusion ever made. Ambi 06:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you know the facts on Darfur? Both the African speaking and the Arab speaking sides of the conflict are Muslims. Why do you make it sound like it is Muslims against non-Muslims? There are many factors there at play: increased desertification over the decades vs. population increase. Less resources. Nomads vs. Agrarians, and much more. It is not just 'Muslims prosecuting poor African blacks.' Better discuss that at the appropriate place, but if this is your view, then you are at best misinformed. Going back to Manji. No one thinks the Palestinian leadership (or Arab leadership) are angels. Her stating the obvious does not make her impartial. She has been crticized for many things by mainstream Muslim organizations here (such as CAIR Canada, Canadian Islamic Congress, Muslim Canadian Congress, ...etc.).

Try reading that quote again. Your argument was that she makes the Israelis out to be angels. That quote proves that that isn't true. Ambi 20:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can read it both ways. She first says they have been victimized (left open to who victimized them), then shifts the blame partially to their leaders to temper the impact. It is always a diplomatic answer: 'Yeah, I agree, but ...'. She tours Canadian universities lecturing on Israel, sponsored by Jewish organizations. She accepts invitations from Zionist organizations to visit Israel. Obviously, they like what she says, and want her to say more. However, her impact among Muslim is next to nothing, since she is not credible for the vast majority. Read more about Manji and Israel and Canadian Universities [5], [6] and [7]. Dig up Abdulhadi Palazzi sometime. Same attitude of Israel apologist, with some sprinkling of soft criticism. I don't want to go into endless debates, if the conclusion is set apriori.

Another quote, from another one of your articles. Manji, who also visited the West Bank, also had some criticisms of Israeli government policy. She saw "humiliating lineups" of Palestinians at security checkpoints, and Palestinians having to walk "miles" to get to a grocery store, to "avoid the hassles" at those checkpoints. Gee, I'm enjoying this. You provide the evidence that proves my case. Again. Oh, and that same article also explains her reasoning for accepting an invitation from a Zionist organisation, where she specifically notes that as a Muslim, she was wary about it. Ambi 07:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Repeatedly, you miss the forest for the trees, missing the big picture. You focus on a side point, and refuse to see the main thing: she is seen by virtually all Canadian organizations as merely fringe. Her view of Israel is just one of the many facets of their criticizing her. By the way, did you read up on Darfur yet, or do you still hold the notion that it is a Muslim vs. non-Muslim conflict? --KB 04:21, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

---

Ambi, you have reverted my edits, and described them as 'horrendously non-neutral'. Bear in mind that what I quoted here is what various Muslim organizations in her country, Canada, have said about her, even those she thanked in her book by the way! She is, at best, a controvertial figure, and these statements have been indeed said about her, and I quoted them and provided links. You should accept that these things have been said. Even the edits about the line of work her father and uncles had in Uganda was reverted, and the link to a New York Times article. What kind of 'neutrality' is this? --KB 04:10, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

You have your opinions, but it is not neutral to simply declare that she is really against Muslims and that no one listens to her. It's quite clear that she has a controversial figure in the Muslim world, and that she also has her enemies - although she has a substantial number of allies, as well. Nevertheless, the article is still overly biased against her, even without this grotesque addition (saying that 'most Muslims' dismiss her is both a case of weasel words and an unproven statement). Even worse, your latest additions amount to an attempt at an axe-job. Nevertheless, I won't object if you put the sentence about her parents back in, as long as it is worded more neutrally - even as that stood, it was an appeal to class warfare. Ambi 04:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've attended one of her speeches, and she talked trash about all Palestinians, not just the leadership. IT is also misleading to portray all her critics as muslim, because that is not the case. And, though it may piss off the jewish POV pushers on this site, her claims of mistreatment of jews and women in muslim countries are not universally accepted, and should not be presented as a fact.

Please provide sources for your claims, that "she talked trash about all Palestinians, not just the leadership" and that she has non-Muslim critics. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

She's a feminist lesbian, and there are non-Muslims who criticize those beliefs/behaviors. People also critique her skill as a writer. [8]. --Powergrid 17:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are there any who criticize her on those grounds? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The link is one example. There are many negative book reviews on her. The authors of those book reviews do not all appear to be Muslims. In any case, I edited that sentence of the article to avoid the appearance of world divided into Muslims versus non-Muslims. This critique is a solid one: "In her moral fervor and occasional rancor, Manji leaves one with a slightly puzzled feeling, like a United Church bishop who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity but remains in the fold (how far can you go in disowning the claims of your faith, and still reasonably call yourself a believer?). She believes that ultimately Islam should be salvaged rather than savaged - and if it comes down to such a choice, it's hard to disagree. But the idea that one-third of humanity will bend willingly to Western notions of feminism and individual autonomy seems optimistic to the point of naiveté. Especially given the explicitly Christian crusade of the Bush neocons against "evil-doers," it seems unlikely we will see any rapprochement this century between Islam and the other two major religions. Although one cannot but hope that women the world over are no longer oppressed by religious ideology of any kind, the author's demand that Islam change to her satisfaction seems uncomfortably consonant with the neocon expectation that the Mideast has the choice of accepting "democracy" willingly, or at the barrel of a gun. Random House Canada, 2003. Geoff Olson is a Vancouver writer and political cartoonist.

Gren's comments and warning

Firstly, talk. Revert wars are no good and I will protect if necessary.

Secondly. CltFn, there is no reason to delete the year of her birth that I can see. Are you disputing it? If not don't remove it in wholesale reverts. Also, "world renowned" is a peacock term and should be avoided. Widely published is a borderline peacock term as I can see. Find some facts about how widely she's published and they will speak for themselves. If you can cite about "Project Ijtihad" and the major publications then do. If not then don't add it in. They shouldn't be too hard to cite if they are true. Ambi and Brian too I suppose... she's not exactly and outspoken lesbian as far as I can tell. From what I can tell when questioned about being a lesbian and Muslim she is outspoken in saying that is fine. I don't think adding "outspoken lesbian" in such a prominent place is really representing her very well. Her lesbianism is only important in terms of traditional Islam's opposition to homosexuality. I'm also not sure that semi-colon is proper grammatically... is it? I had something else but I forgot. Your debate really isn't very substantive and I'm not sure why it's going on. gren グレン 01:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's going on for the precise reasons you note above. Peacock terms and lack of sources. I've been keeping this article out of the hands of the "all real Muslims think she's a heretic" club ever since this article was written; I'd not be doing my duty as an editor if I didn't revert POV pushing from the other side. And for the record, I take offence at that tone being used, since we both appear to have basically the same concerns, and it's just that I'm the only one actually doing something about them. Ambi 02:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

1) I did no delete the year of her birth , I moved it to her bio section.

2) Check out the list of articles published by her or about her at the bottom of the page, she is indeed widely published. I did not want to explicitely list all the publications on the page to make that point. However if you want I will but do we really want that? I can assure you there is plenty of material available.

3) Ijtihad ? Come on Gren , I cannot believe anyone would even question that , since this is a core issue that she mentions in almost all her articles.

4) If you want to add stuff about her being a Lesbian , go ahead , i do not believe she would consider that reprehensible.

5) Ambi , nothing personal OK? , I simply do not buy into some of the PC filtering which plagues wikipedia sometimes.

6) Now if anyone has any further doubts about my inserts then they can go to Irshad's website and read all about them. --CltFn 03:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

1) According to the manual of style, that belongs in the lead, as on every other biographical article in Wikipedia.

2) A lot of people are widely published. It's being used in a puff sense here, which is why I object to the term; it tells us nothing.

3) Some mention of itjihad may be appropriate in the lead, but the current version of that paragraph is quite biased.

4) Frankly, what you do or not buy into is not my problem. Making sure this article stays neutral is my problem. Ambi 03:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder what is your real agenda here , since the intro is quite neutral and absolutely factually verifiably accurate. I am also wondering just how much do you really know on the topic in question here , as you seem to lack a lot of info , and if that is the case you might ask yourself what you are doing editing an article you know so little about.--CltFn 03:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have an agenda; I am just here to make sure that the bias of either side stays out of this article. It is telling at this point that you've just stopped trying to justify why your material should remain in the article and instead started attacking me for trying to keep things neutral. Ambi 04:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we can agree on some basics here. The birth should go next to her name as a matter of consistent style. No POV arguments there I wouldn't think so can we do that first? Secondly... you said "Project Ijtihad", (what is it, why is it important, etc.) not just ijtihad. You need to cite where you got that fact. As for ijtihad it's not fair to call it a "lost tradition". She is by no means the first modernist to make use of it. Take Muqtedar Khan for example, he believes in it. For the "Irshad's articles appear in virtually all major publications around the world" I would change that to "Irshad's articles appear in many major world publications including xxxx". Firstly it's a little Western centric... does she appear in Chinese media? Brazillian? etc. However, I have no problem with youl listing the major news networks. I personally don't mind "and widely published" being used... I see Ambi's point... but, if I were him I'd compromise. I still have my problem with Ambi's prominent use of lesbian since that's not her focal point as far as I can tell. It can be mentioned but my argument remains the same as above. gren グレン 05:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, the first for reform minded Muslims? Well, Ibn Wahhab was "reform minded" and he had networks no doubt. Reform is broad and first is not someting easy to place. Basically that statement just isn't true... you'd have to narrow the scope a lot. gren グレン 05:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Based on your repeated questions regarding Project Ijtihad. I invite you to look here. She also talks about Ijtihad extensively in her book The Trouble with Islam.--CltFn 06:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

He asked you specific questions regarding the wording of that particular paragraph. I notice that again you choose to attack the person, impliedly suggesting that he knows nothing about itjihad, instead of discussing the issues. Ambi 06:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Irshad Manji's ideas

Here are 46 lessons drawn from her web-site Posted November 12, 2005. I would be curious to know which of these do you disagree with.

• 1. Accept the truth from whatever source it proceeds.
• 2. All human beings are entitled to think for themselves.
• 3. All systems of belief need to be constantly challenged to maintain equilibrium.
• 4. Always struggle to create a voice for the voiceless.
• 5. Arabic is a richly symbolic language in which one word, pronounced with a slightly different inflection, can have the exact opposite meaning of what it started with - thereby leading to ambiguous and wholly imperfect interpretations.
• 6. Are my beliefs passionately moderate, humane, and open to evolution?
• 7. Bear true witness, even if it be against yourselves, your parents, or your family.
• 8. Being tolerant of intolerance is something that doesn't make sense.
• 9. Believe in mind, not myth.
• 10. Blast away at the hardened slag that suffocates religion in order to reveal its golden, beating core.
• 11. By asking questions, we create conversations rather than make sweeping statements.
• 12. Complacency gets us further into a hole.
• 13. Demonstrate your love by how it manifests in your own life.
• 14. Do we separate ourselves by the narcissism of small differences?
• 15. Dogma compels us to cling. Faith frees us to explore.
• 16. Even when disagreement can be almost forbidden, a state that insists on compelling assent can be relatively easily made to look stupid.
• 17. Every issue must be debated. Every last one.
• 18. Faith is not threatened by dissent. Dogma, on the other hand, is.
• 19. Fundamentalism of any stripe reduces each of us to something less than our whole, multi-faceted, paradoxical and eminently interesting selves.
• 20. How precious freedom of speech and expression is for a healthy and functioning society!
• 21. I have been a silent Refusenik. While I sat around, you acted. While I listened, you spoke. What I observed, you wrote.
• 22. Is optimism a lack of information, and pessimism a lack of imagination?
• 23. Is unswerving belief in scientific supremacy an orthodoxy unto itself?
• 24. It's better to speak the truth, no matter how much it may hurt, than to remain silent about it.
• 25. Keep drinking from the fountain of independent thinking, but quench your thirst without getting drunk in the process.
• 26. Laughter is the best medicine.
• 27. Legitimacy requires consulting sources far and wide...
• 28. Literalism quickly turns into fundamentalism.
• 29. Love all creatures because of the One who created them.
• 30. Moralistic, legalistic religion which emphasizes external conformity and blind following betrays its own highest aspirations.
• 31. Prayer is about thanks, not about endless traditions.
• 32. Questioning is not intolerance. Denial of questioning is.
• 33. Questions and answers both root for truth, so go ahead and question.
• 34. Religion is about how (well) we treat our fellow human beings.
• 35. Religion often sees God as an answer. Spirituality sees God as a question.
• 36. Sadly, many of us love to do nothing but blame others.
• 37. Seek, question, challenge, explore, and grow!
• 38. Self-esteem and pride are involved in any dispute... (Ego rears its ugly head).
• 39. Thanks to religion - or my rebellion against it - I learned to distinguish between authority (eg. one's conscience) and authoritarianism (one's clerics).
• 40. The "Straight Path" is also exceptionally wide.
• 41. The moderate majority has the right, and responsibility, to challenge the fanatics.
• 42. There's no shame - and, indeed, great value - in asking questions of sacred texts.
• 43. Thinking, rather than merely imitating, is key to ending prejudice.
• 44. What is a religion if not the actions of those who practice it?
• 45. What's the moral value of being complacent?
• 46. When religious faith becomes a ruling political principle, all hell breaks loose!

--CltFn 04:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's quite funny that you assume that I'm an opponent of Manji's just because I'm reverting your edits. Actually, I'm a huge fan. That does mean, however, that I have a responsibility to make sure that I don't support the article taking on my bias; just as I should make sure it does not take on the other extreme. Ambi 04:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Well then, you ought to find another article then , where bias is a lot more apparent and put your talents to work there, might I suggest Islamophobia for starters. Have fun! --CltFn 04:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Er, no. Nice try, but no cigar. Ambi 06:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Surname

What is her actual surname? There seems to be a bit of confusion in the article. Ambi 01:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Critic of Islam category

See Talk:List of critics of Islam and Talk:Samira Bellil for discussion on this point. Palmiro | Talk 16:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

So according to Palmiro and Ambi Irshad is not a critic of Islam? I guess 2 and 2 does not make 4 then does it. ( An allusion to the book 1984 by George Orwell )--CltFn 23:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Two and two does not make nine. She is a prominent critic of some groups and trends within Islam, but she's not a critic of Islam. You're still missing a fundamental distinction there. Ambi 00:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on , look at the title of her book , The trouble with Islam , read her website , watch her videos , read her articles. The dictionary defines a critic as "One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter." Does she or not "Forms and express judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of Islam." If you are trying to imply that she is criticising the application of Islam by certain groups , that would be incorrect . She actually critisizes verses of the Qu'ran , and that is criticism. I happen to believe that criticism is a good thing , and it is a good thing for Islam too. Its another way of saying critical thinking or Ijtihad. --CltFn 22:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

She's still criticising tenets of Islam. Irshad is a Muslim reformer, and is in that category. She's a believer trying to change certain tenets from within - not, what this category implies, which is someone who has a problem with Islam as a whole. By your definition, the entire content of Category:Muslim reformers would be in Category:Critics of Islam. Ambi 23:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

DELETION FROM THE VIEWS SECTION

I have deleted the following from views, "Manji is a friend of controversial writer Salman Rushdie and has received numerous death threats. The windows of her apartment are fitted with bullet-proof glass." Certainly none of these three facts belong in Views. I do not believe they belong on the page anywhere.

Who is or is not a friend of a person is not properly a part of a biography meant for the general public to read. If, for example, Manji and Rushdie were co-founders of a political organization that would be appropriate information.

Many celebrities receive death threats of one kind or another. The fact that a celebrity has received death threats is not normally important information. If you ambi (or whoever) feels that it is important, then I suggest that you first research the specific content of the threats. In the context in which this fact was placed, the implication is that they were threats from Islamic fundamentalists objecting to her being a woman with a political viewpoint that they are very much against. However, this may not be the case. She may, for example, have received death threats from people of Christian or Jewish background objecting to her being a lesbian and being the writer and host of the TV show QueerTelevision.

The fact that she has had the windows of her apartment fitted with bulletproof glass is a comment on her fears whether founded or unfounded. This also does not belong on the webpage. -- Mair

CHANGES BY MAIR ON JAN. 23, 2006 aprox. 7:45 EST

I moved the Oprah Winfrey Chutzpah award to an Honours section as is often done on other Wikipedia pages. I reworded it to make it more correct and neutral. Here is the page about Irshad on Oprah's website http://www.oprah.com/spiritself/omag/slide/ss_o_slide_200405_chutzpah_04.jhtml

I was going to include the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Award for Valor in that section too, but I cannot yet find any reference to it within the website of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=242023

I also skimmed through the first 100 google hits using the search parameters of "Simon Wiesenthal" "Award of Valor" "Irshad Manji" but could not find a direct connection to a reference on the Center's website. I will keep trying to find the original record of this honour. If anyone else can find it, please let me know on this discussion page. It DOES belong on the Irshad Manji wikipedia page if properly verified. Mair Jan. 23, 2006

I made some changes to the article and gave thorough explanations of why I did so. Then CltFn reverted this article without any explanation. His or her behaviour is counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. ~~Mair

by Strive for Truth aka Mair - Jan. 24, 2006 This is certainly interesting. "Your search - "Wiesenthal" " Award of Valor" -Irshad -Manji - did not match any documents" from a google advanced search. The search engine could not find a reference in any web page to the word "Wiesenthal" and the phrase "Award of Valor" which exluded the name "Irshad Manji" A most peculiar phenonmenom if the Award actually exists. ~~Strive for Truth

CtlFn - The citation you gave, http://www.watsoninstitute.org/news_detail.cfm?id=226 is from Sept. 2004. This was already on this Wikipedia page prior to that date, i.e. Revision as of 09:14, 23 August 2004. The person who wrote that about Manji, may have gotten it from Wikipedia. Can you find a citation that pre-dates Wikipedia's use of it? Strive for Truth 16:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Strive for Truth

On Manji's official website, her year of birth is given as 1968, not 1969 Strive for Truth 16:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Strive for Truth

Actually if you do your research on the points of the article you mention , you will find plenty of supporting evidence.--CltFn 16:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Not good enough. Read further up on this page starting at paragraph "I was going to include..." It seems no such award exists. Also Irshad's own website makes no mention of it. Also date of birth according to her website is incorrect in this artice. But you reverted anyway. Strive for Truth 18:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I cited a source for the statement.--CltFn 23:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism/NPOV removed

I took the liberty of removing this passage:

IRSHAD MANJI is an angry lesbian. No one accepts her so she takes out her anger on innocent people and religion. As an educated Christian I am deeply offended by her work. In the end, the lesbian will go to hell regardless of the religion she bashes. She needs to grow up!

I think your highly judgmental comments would offend many Christians as well. Lesbians are humans too, with the same faults and beauties as you... I think you are missing an important lesson from the bible... "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...". I find it funny how you as an "educated" Christian are so quick to judge who will go to hell... I bet you would have been one of the major propenents of burning innocent women at the stake for being witches back in those days. How sure you that you won't go to hell for condemning and judging and spreading hate? You are entitled to your opinion but it is obvious you are the angry hateful one... who by the way needs to write more "grown up" comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinthaso (talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 October 2006

I am agree with removing these passage. It is a heavy POV. However I do disagree with the following comments. Lesbian are human? yes. Should be treated as human being? yes. Same faults and beauties? No. The very core of human understanding is capacity to differentiate wrong or right. The very process of learning which should not take the middle position. Either it is right or wrong in a particular time. To the people who embrace Christianity or Islam as the people of the book has clear perspective of this issue. Choice is clear for the people of the book not to embrace lesbianism. The people of the book do not take comfort by agreeing to everyone position and tolerance without limit. There is no teaching in the book about burning innocent women. People of the book condemn the choice of lesbianism and not the person herself. The wisest people of the book always follow this teachings of 'to forgive and explain in patience' and 'to influence quietly' and ' to follow yet quietly leads'. This establish that we should not treat lesbians as enemies but to embrace them and slowly enlighten with choices only with enough knowledge the wisest choice can be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.158.33.162 (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Israeli Apologist

I have reverted a referenced statement that was deleted in the Views section noting her support for Israel. This is due to the fact that it is clearly evident from the link that she has a fairly Pro-Israeli stance. Second of all, it was deleted without any real explanation than, "This isn't really true." I have noticed that pro-Manji POV editors have often tried to delete any reference to her support of Israel. Therefore, I strongly request that if you don't want to be labelled a pro-Manji vandal, please try and give some context to your edits. Otherwise, it just looks like you're denying the facts, to put ehr in a better light. I will also note that I did reword it slightly, to try and be less POV (I know I have one, I try not to let it affect my edits too much). Nlsanand 20:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The term 'Israeli apologist' is an extremely biased one on it's face. It presupposes that any defense of Israel is a blind defense of wrongs done by Israel. Very manipulative language.

71.208.215.185 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms Should Have a Counterpoint

It is valid to post comments from Irshad's prominent critics and I'm sure Irshad herself would support the freedom of discourse that such references reflect. However these crtitics should also be subject to counterpoints that (factually and with citations) also hold them to account.

71.208.215.185 17:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism/NPOV removed

I thought it appropriate to remove "She is thick as shit" from the criticism section.

Also, is there a better way of phrasing "As an out of closet lesbian" in the biography section. It is at best, clumsy. Is it even necessary, given that her sexuality is highlighted in the first sentence of the page? Nicholas wright 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know if this works or not. Anyway, for anybody who may read this, Manji is a Zionist. She's charismatic and well-spoken, but she still is blind, deaf and stupid in regards to the crimes committed by Israel. Yet, anybody who has a big mouth and half a brain will do well, since our mainstream media is, for the most part, owned by Zionists. Anyone who is also a gay woman who pretends to be a Muslim is a novelty, and that is all Manji is. I know, you'll call me an "anti-semite," but you can stuff all your religions. I'm just an "anti-murder" type of person. To hell with anyone who doesn't mind the slaughter of innocents. To hell with Manji.209.226.38.212 06:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

. . . i'm speechless. is she really lesbian?

death threats

The article calls for a citation in the line: "Manji is a friend of controversial writer Salman Rushdie, who was subject to a fatwa. Like Rushdie, she has received numerous death threats. The windows of her apartment are fitted with bullet-proof glass.[citation needed]"

If it is helpful, Manji appeared on the Glenn Beck show, on CNN, on 02-13-07. On the show she did confirm that her apartment has bullet proof glass, though she hastened to note that it was installed for the benefit of her family. I'm sure that a transcript of the program is available from CNN. I hope that helps.

12.170.195.34 21:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Disrael62

Thank you for adding this information. Please consider creating an account, which brings many benefits, including being able to keep track of your changes. Welcome to Wikipedia! Drop me a note on my talkpage if you need any help. BrainyBabe 23:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed sexual orientation in intro

Mentioning sexual orientation in introductory descriptions of individual seems unnecessary as well as unprofessional. Furthermore I do not believe sexual orientation is relevant really, to this article since it has little to do with what she is most known for , which is her human rights activism. --CltFn 06:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is not "What Irshad Manji is most known for" or "Irshad Manji, human rights activism of". The article is "Irshad Manji". Ms Manji seems to consider her sexual orientation to be an important aspect of her public persona (and as well, it is an important aspect of the public controversy about her), and we should therefore include it in this article.

From her own site -- FAQ "Priority Questions: I've identified three priority questions based on your emails to me: ... 'I'm a lesbian/gay Muslim. Any words of support?'" ( http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/contact.html ) -- Queer Muslims - Got a Question? ( http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/queermuslims.html ) (links) -- Irshad Manji Interview with Al-Arabiya.net: "You are a Canadian, lesbian, feminist and Muslim at the same time. How is that happening?" "Well, the Prophet himself was a Muslim and a feminist, so I do not think that is such an odd combination." ( http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/news/IM_AL-ARABIYAinterview_070911.html ) -- 201.19.93.178 05:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about this myself. I think the fact that she is a lesbian should be fairly prominent in the article, and I would like to see it in the intro, but perhaps not in the first sentence. Reasons: she is a very out lesbian, i.e. she is public about her sexual orientation (her detractors would say "in your face"); she got her media start with queer TV; her human rights work started with issues of sexuality, e.g. the treatment of gay people in the Muslim world; it is one of the reasons her opponents consider her not to be a Muslim, which she of course contests. In other words, it seems central to her public identity and career, not a peripheral or private or prurient detail. Thoughts? BrainyBabe 16:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it can be mentioned deeper in the article but it just seems so unprofessional to describe someone by their sexuality as the first description of the person.--CltFn 19:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprofessional in what sense? I am trying to work out what is most fair (i.e. NPOV) to the subject, and useful to the readers -- both in this article, and more widely as a general rule. I haven't got a fixed rule in my own head for this yet. Irshad Manji's lesbianism is part of her professional persona, as far as I can see, and deserves prominence of mention equal with its importance in her public life. (Oh, that sounds like I've just clarified a tentative rule for myself!) Do we agree on that as a principle? Then the next issue is how much her lesbianism affects her politics -- I would say, a lot, but you might disagree. BrainyBabe 21:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

PS For another example of the intersection of human rights and gay rights, see the veteran Uk-based campaigner Peter Tatchell, and the edit wars that have gone on about how to classify him! BrainyBabe 21:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think her lesbianism should be mentioned somewhere, so I've taken the liberty of inserting it into the section on her career, on the grounds that it helps to make sense of her involvement with LGTB television. Is that a reasonable compromise? Nick.wiebe (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

confusing

She says that she is absolutely a devout Muslem. Her whole point is that she is a modern, liberal, pro-Democratic Muslem and she is challenging Islamic extremism in favor of a modern interpretation of Islam.

71.208.215.185 17:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is confusing. Is she a muslim or a critic of Islam? The two kind of contradict each other. Is there any source to clarify that she is a muslim or a critic of Islam?--Sefringle 04:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think she is a Muslim. That is not my opinion, but she seemed to suggest that in her book.Bless sins 20:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

However, she calls her book "The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith". The "Muslim" is presumably her. In my personal opinion, you can call her a Munafiq.Bless sins 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

- From Ms Manji's own FAQ on her own site ( http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/contact.html ):

"Are you really a Muslim?

Yes. Faith is secure enough to handle questions. Faith never needs to be threatened by questions.

Dogma, on the other hand, does. I'm a faithful Muslim, not a dogmatic one."

-- That would seem to be very clear. -- 201.19.93.178 04:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Scholar?

This page say that the article on Manji is part of Wiki Islamic scholars yet the article states she has no formal degree in the study of Islam,its history, etc. SO why is she considered a scholar?Doindo 20:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your beef is with that project, not this article, because nowhere does the article say she is an Islamic scholar or has any formal degree related thereto. Check out their page, which reads This is a project aimed at increasing the quality of the articles related to the Muslim scholars of all fields and non-Muslim Islamic scholars, elevating the articles to "Good article" standard, and then all the way to "Featured article" standard.--Beaker342 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

POV/unverified claims/ vandalism removed

I removed this statement from the intro.

"It becomes immediately apparent to one who is watching Manji speak that she has a very keen sense of her own self-importance. To put it another way, she is very high on herself"

It seems to be some users' personal and therefore worthless opinion. If you wish to include criticism in the intro, then use a referenced statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truth 06 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Talk:Refusenik (Muslim)

POV tag

I'm not taking off the POV tag myself, but I hope that it's unnecessary now, and that some other editor will agree and take it off. I tried to rewrite based on what I can actually confirm via googling. Zora 12:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. Does anybody else think this article should be moved to Muslim refusenik? - ulayiti (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That would be OK with me, but Humus Sapiens might object. Zora 13:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I am only seeing this many months later. No, I do not object. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

removing the sentence

"However, it is not clear that the term is actually used by anyone other than Ms. Manji, unless it is in reference to Ms. Manji."

1. See for example [9]: "The Muhammad cartoon crisis with Muslim refusenik Ibn Warraq..."
2. "However" is WP:WTA. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

I don't want to edit war, but I'm going to remove the two reviews from Muslimwakeup.com and Quantara.de unless someone can explain why they're notable. This article can't include every review of the book, so there has to be some criteria which make a review notable, and random websites without Wikipedia articles seem very unlikely to meet any such criteria.

A quick Google finds: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Why are these reviews less notable than the others? They're apparently higher in Google rankings. Should we add them all? Anyone who wants to keep the two noted above needs to explain why they're more notable than these.

Kalkin (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If the choice would be to either include every review or none at all there could be no review sections in Wikipedia at all. And Google rankings are not the only criterion for notability. Cutting down the praise section in favor of the criticism section might also violate WP:Undue Weight.--Fan of Freedom (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not demanding that we either include every review or none at all, precisely the opposite. There are a bunch of reviews that I agree are notable - in major newspapers. There are two that I do not think are notable - from random websites with no Wikipedia articles and low Google rankings. You seem to want to keep those two reviews. So, unless you are advocating that we include every review, you need to explain why those two reviews in particular are notable. An unexplained reference to WP:UNDUE - what makes the article unbalanced? - doesn't cut it. Kalkin (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The additional mentions seem to provide a balanced view as far as who is making the statements. You can see that the criticism has some heavy hitters from Muslim sources and so including praise or positive mentions from Muslim sources balances the two sections and more accurately represents the audiences who follow Manji's work. MuslimWakeup does carry weight in the Muslim world so i can see why that is included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnsariM (talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Your bare claim is insufficient evidence that the site is notable. Honestly, I don't believe you, but that's neither here nor there, Wikipedia requires something verifiable. Regarding balance, if there really are a proliferation of Muslims praising Manji, it ought to be easy to find an obviously notable source. If there aren't, then balance does not require that we track one down. Kalkin (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality

I have included that Irshad is a lesbian in he introduction and I have included an article from the San Fransisco Chronicle. I have done this in keeping with wikipedia standards.--99.245.200.141 (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I initially reverted this IP user's edits thinking they were vandalism. The IP user has since presented me with a source that is a popular newspaper that cites its own sources, so I have allowed him to put it in the article. In doing this, I am keeping with Wikipedia standards, rather than my own knowledge, as I know nothing about this person, which is why I have told the IP to let you all know here. If you have any concerns, please let me know, I'll be happy to help. With regards, Lradrama 18:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe sexuality can go in the criticism section? It's part of the controversy but not part of the aims of her work. Makes sense maybe to keep all parties happy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.5.167 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Praise and Criticism

These sections are inherently POV and should be merged with only the material relevant on this article kept with the rest being moved to reviews of the book. -- Banjeboi 06:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done. —Godheval^{T C W} 20:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

Shouldn't there be a criticism section? She has many critics Faro0485 (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections are inherently POV and any notable criticism should be woven into the regular text with due weight. -- Banjeboi 12:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense.

They are called Controversy sections, and they are quite common.

And I personally do not have a problem with her.

Varlaam (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Tom Of Islamic Women

Please stop deleting my posts about this subject. There are numerous sources I can cite about her POV being clearly a fringe element within Islamic society. It should be clearly stated in the article that she does not speak for the vast majority of Islamic men OR women and that her perspective is not only defamatory but very "Uncle Tom" - ish. I feel that as an outsider I can neutrally make this claim.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.175.204 (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Cite sources if you have them, but using this talk page to make ranting attacks on the subject is a breach of the BLP policy and a misuse of an article talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Reputable sources that disagree with Manji...WOW. In fact it is ridiculous to say that that she would be as well known *without* her critics as she is essentially shock media at its worst... self righteous and wrong. How can this be missing from an article about her? Here are just a few..

Newspaper article - http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/11/16/1100574465155.html?from=storylhs Publications / book reviews - http://www.web.net/sworker/En/SW2004/419-08-islamophobia.html http://psreview.org/content/view/26/72/ Other online wikis - http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Irshad_Manji —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.175.204 (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit so be bold but bear in mind the requirements of WP:BLP. – ukexpat (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Irshad's early life

I recently listened to a CBC radio program entitled "Ideas" featuring a discussion with Irshad. The discussion, called "Human Rights and Multiculturalism: An Evening with Irshad Manji", was hosted by Paul Kennedy.

During the discussion Irshad spoke of her childhood growing up in Richmond, BC with an abusive father who chased her around the kitchen with a knife, threatening to cut off her ears. I'm wondering if this awful experience had/has any role to play in her present day life-view/philosophy and her subsequent challenge to many forms of political and/or religious authority? Skyhunk (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Ole Nielson

What relevancy would "wondering" have to the article in Wikipedia on her? "Wondering" can lead to supposition without any factual references. What what little I've heard from her, she's not challenged much more than the average citizen challenges or criticizes of certain religious groups or governments. Still, any you slice it, "wondering" has no place in Wikipedia. Facts, with sources, are what belongs on Wikipedia.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Was this article written by Manji herself?

"Among the most visible Muslim reformers of our era, Manji draws on her experience in the trenches to share stories that are deeply poignant, frequently funny and always revealing about these morally confused times. "

The bias is laughably visible. This is written like an advertisement. Needs to be made into a proper and objective article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlightlyInsane (talk • contribs) 17:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Early life and Education

Although traceable to a verifiable source, the phrase, "She is openly lesbian" has nothing to do with Manji's early life and education. It is a statement about her sexuality and doesn't give readers any information on her early life, or on her education.

Cmwaniki (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Then we should put it elsewhere in the article, not just delete it without explanation.--ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I just added a personal life section.--ukexpat (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Career: timeline update

Old phrase: At a recent book launch in Amsterdam "Muslim extremists stormed in" and ordered her execution. Suggested new phrase: At her December 2011 book launch in Amsterdam "Muslim extremists stormed in" and ordered her execution.

This event is not so recent as it's been a year since it occurred.

Cmwaniki (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense.--ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Allah Liberty and Love

I added information of an attack that also took place during Manji's stay in Indonesia

A few days later, hundreds of men from the Indonesian Mujahidin Council assaulted Manji's team and supporters in Yogyakarta. Dozens were beaten and many had to be treated in hospital.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/05/10/irshad-manji-injured-mob-attack-yogya.html Cmwaniki (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Also added information on published criticism of Manji's most recent book in order to provide a more neutral and objective representation of reactions to the book. I referenced Omar Sultan Haque's review on The New Republic, http://www.tnr.com/book/review/allah-liberty-love-irshad-manji# as well as Rayyan Al-Shawaf's on The Boston Globe, http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2011/06/25/manjis_allah_implores_muslims_to_think_freely/.

Cmwaniki (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Awards

I added one honorable mention and one recent award.

The first mention: "The Jakarta Post in Indonesia has named Manji one of 3 women making a positive change in Islam today." This has been mentioned on various sites including pbs.org http://www.pbs.org/weta/crossroads/about/show_faith_without_fear_film.htmlCmwaniki (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The recent award: And in November 2012, New York's Ethical Society awarded Manji with its highest honor, the ethical humanist award. http://www.nysec.org/photo-galleries/12Cmwaniki (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Film

I added that Manji's film, Faith Without Fear was nominated for an Emmy in 2008. This information can be found on the Moral Courage Project page: http://wagner.nyu.edu/leadership/affiliates/moral_courage.phpCmwaniki (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Trouble with Islam Today

The phrase: "To date the Arabic translation alone as been downloaded more than a quarter of a million times" cites a reference on Manji's website https://www.irshadmanji.com/the-book that does not contain any such information. I propose deleting this phrase since it is not verifiable.Cmwaniki (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I added the following paragraph with two references from the text, to reflect Manji's objective views towards both Israelis and Palestinians. While the paragraph on Manji's positive views on Israel is true, it is not an accurate representation of all her views on the Isreali-Palestinian situation.

However, Manji also condemns Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, voicing her opposition to "illegal Jewish settlements, assault helicopters, checkpoints [and] curfews..." "Day in and day out," she writes of Palestinians, "they witness what I've only glimpsed: young Israeli women and men with guns strapped to their chests. Miles of dusty road to tread between checkpoints. Brusque soldiers who won't utter a word of Arabic, even if they know how. ID cards, razor wire, armored tanks, sprawling Jewish settlements that look like suburbs and would take years to dismantle, delaying Justice for Palestinians that much longer."

Cmwaniki (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal Life

I added the following paragraph on Manji's views of Identity politics. Since being openly lesbian is not part of her work, it's important to portray her views on her sexuality with more substance.

But she expresses disdain for the politics of identity. In an interview with MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry, Manji describes herself as a "misfit in every category". She encourages her audience to "challenge conformity within our own tribes - be they religious, cultural, ideological, or professional - and to do so for a more universal good."

Cmwaniki (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)