In the world of Islamic reform, the big news this week is that an eminent Pakistani sheikh has issued a 600-page fatwa against Muslim terrorism — with no qualifiers  attached. You’d think I’d be celebrating.

Not really.

The very notion that 21st-century Muslims need a fatwa confirming the immorality of blowing each other up is, well, infantile. Frankly, it’s just another relic of the tribal mentality, in which the higher-ups do all the thinking for the lowly peeps.

The sooner Muslims wean ourselves off the fatwa fetish, the faster we’ll tap our potential to engage our own minds, hearts and consciences. As I’ll explain in my next book, it’s individuality — not deference to yet more external authority — that will spark the long-overdue liberal reformation within Islam.

You know whose fatwa I can endorse? Watch the video below:

Yep, I dig the idea of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and Paine breaking the news to a violent jihadi that he’ll be spending eternity with them. After all, America’s founding fathers were a motley crew of Christians, skeptics, secularists and agnostics. That a true believer might have to share the afterlife with such infidels makes me smile.

Three cheers for a different kind of fatwa.

Does this man go through with hurling his stone at Soraya?      Watch the movie…

This week, among the most important movies of my generation, “The Stoning of Soraya M.,” comes out in DVD and Blu-Ray. You can order either version here.

“The Stoning,” starring recent Emmy-award winner Shohreh Aghdashloo, dramatizes the true story of an Iranian village wife whose deceitful husband sets her up for execution so that he can marry an unsuspecting girl in the city.

Ultimately, though, this isn’t a tale of female victimhood. Instead, it’s about moral courage. The target of the stoning — Soraya — has an aunt who shows us that even when you can’t stop the crime unfolding before you, there’s always an opportunity to use your mind, conscience and voice for longer-term good. That’s what Aunt Zahra does in this film. I won’t tell you how she does it. You’ll just have to buy the DVD!

Beyond buying it, I hope you’ll screen it in your homes, churches, temples, mosques, classrooms and community centers. The questions unleashed by “The Stoning” will generate amazing conversations.

I should know. My NYU leadership program, the Moral Courage Project, launched a human rights campaign around the film. Thanks to the participation of people worldwide, we won the 2009 Visionary Award from the Women’s International Film and Television Showcase. This couldn’t have happened without student bloggers, Facebookers and Tweeps engaging about what it means to be a global citizen today.

For example, are non-Muslims “allowed” to comment on issues that affect Muslim women — such as the so-called honor killing of Soraya? If you watch a movie like “The Stoning,” are you sticking your nose in “other” people’s business? In an interdependent world, is there such a thing as “other” people?

Aunt Zahra protecting Soraya

To get you into the spirit of hi-octane discussion, here’s what I would say if I were part of the film club that I want you to create once you buy the “The Stoning” DVD:

As a Muslim reformer, I routinely receive heart-wrenching emails from fellow Muslims whose basic human rights are being violated — not by “outsiders” but by members of their own communities. Equally saddening is that self-professed human rights activists in the West often play the purity game, suggesting that you can’t comment if you don’t represent.

Their misguided conviction: Anyone living in the West can’t legitimately expose oppressive practices in cultures elsewhere. Hmmm… Would they say the same to Muslims in the traditional Islamic world who expose America’s human rights abuses at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib? Of course not.

Nor should they. Human rights, being human, are above the politics of identity. As Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out in his Letter from a Birmingham City Jail, “Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, parochial, ‘outside agitator’ idea.”

But it seems that Elise Auerbach, Iran specialist for Amnesty International USA, can more than live with the narrow and parochial. She practices it in her baffling denunciation of “The Stoning of Soraya M.”

Tellingly, Amnesty itself released a January 2008 report that described stonings as “grotesque and unacceptable”. In its press release about the report, Amnesty called on “the Iranian authorities to abolish death by stoning and impose an immediate moratorium on this horrific practice, specifically designed to increase the suffering of victims.”

In her remarkably contradictory review of “The Stoning” — a review in which she acknowledges the report — Auerbach emphasizes that “Iranians don’t need people from outside Iran telling them what is good for them…”

Really? Then why did her own organization dare to tell Iranian authorities what to do in its report against stoning?

And why did Amnesty feature “The Stoning” at its 2009 annual film festival?

Above all, why did Amnesty invite Cyrus Nowrasteh, the Iranian-American director of “The Stoning,” to introduce the film at its festival? Is it because he’s Iranian? If so, then what makes him someone “from outside” according to Auerbach?

Of course, Nowrasteh is American too.  Perhaps that’s the real taboo. In which case, isn’t Auerbach’s employer — UK-based Amnesty — also an outsider? Why does she continue to work for Amnesty and make herself part of the interference that she believes is a problem?

Within its own ranks, Amnesty International needs an intellectually honesty debate about how to realize its motto, “Defending Human Rights Worldwide.” Personally, I can attest that more than a few Amnesty activists worry about the scourge of moral and cultural relativism in their midst. That’s the single biggest concern confided to me when I presented at Amnesty’s 2006 conference in Mexico City.

Delegates disclosed to me that Amnesty International has no clear message about honor-based crimes, including stoning, because nobody wants to be deemed a bigot. As if defending human rights worldwide has ever been a matter of politeness.

It’s 2010 and apparently Amnesty has not resolved its dilemma. Auerbach condemns a movie that spotlights an Iranian heroine — Soraya’s aunt, Zahra — who tries to stop the stoning. Zahra is a Muslim who realizes her faith by speaking truth to power about the non-negotiable need for human dignity.

And yet, according to Auerbach, hapless audience dupes will respond with “disgust and revulsion at Iranians themselves, who are portrayed as primitive and bloodthirsty savages.” Thus, “we” — idiotic Westerners who can’t be trusted to reach independent conclusions — “still have to wait” for a “thoughtful” film about executions in Iran.

I hope we don’t have to wait for thoughtful human rights activists to speak truth to power in their organizations. Dissidents do exist, as I learned at the Amnesty conference that I attended. Will they exercise their own freedom of conscience? Of this, I can’t be sure. Moral courage is always more difficult than self-censorship.

To watch exclusive clips from “The Stoning of Soraya M.,” click here. And to buy the just-released DVD, click here.

The Moral Courage Project screens “The Stoning of Soraya M.” You can too.

When Tiger Woods apologized for having multiple extra-marital affairs, he confessed another sin: straying from his Buddhist upbringing. Seconds later, Twitter seized up with cynicism:

* “Did I just hear him say he’s a Buddhist or a boobist?”

* “The guy calls himself a Buddhist! Try bootyist!”

* “That’s like finding God in prison. Whatever, Tiger.”

Not so fast, folks. There could be some serious spirituality behind his decision to delay professional golf and focus on restoring trust with his family. One of Buddhism’s core teachings is that the journey matters far more than the destination. You can’t control what happens, but you can control your intentions. If you attach yourself to a healthy motive and detach yourself from the desired outcome, then all will unfold as it needs to.

Translation for Tiger: Forget about hitting the links right away, dude. Concentrate on what it will take to return with a clean conscience and authentic joy. That’s a journey worth investing in.

I got this message first-hand in India last year. One afternoon, I hung out to watch Buddhist monks put the finishing touches on an elaborate sand castle at the beach. They’d spent three days working on it. My good fortune: I was passing by as they were wrapping up.

A ceremony of prayer and laughter followed the castle’s completion. Then, all of a sudden, the young men began destroying what they’d taken so much time to craft. They grabbed chunks of sand, tossed it in the ocean air and  razed the rest of the castle with arms swinging. What the saffron was going on?

I turned to the Indian-American standing beside me. He dutifully explained that in much of the West, the result is everything. We squander our lives chasing after this or that result, only to find that upon achieving it, we’re left empty. But in mystical traditions, it’s the process that counts. Our monks drew happiness  from every step of building their sand castle.

The castle itself was intentionally ephemeral, maybe even incidental. It could have been washed away by an unforeseen monsoon or tidal wave, just like an investment portfolio, the promise of a job promotion, a brand name — and fame. Had that happened to our monks, the only loss would have been something temporary anyway. For them, the permanent accomplishment was felt moment-by-moment.

As it will be for a certain golfer who’s trying to redeem his honor. Still, I have to admit a nagging suspicion: I don’t believe it was Tiger who resolved to put off pro golf. Were it entirely up to him, he’d be back in the game, testosterone raging. But precisely because he does need help, I think Tiger’s very Buddhist mother now wields the clout that his late father once did. And her guidance is spiritual, not commercial.

If I’m right, then Tiger’s one lucky son of a Buddhist. Because by learning to attach himself to a new commitment and set aside a familiar outcome, he — like our monks — could end up expanding his creative energies beyond measure.

Oh, and if Tiger needs that much more guidance, the Dalai Lama happens to be in America this week. See, you nasty Twitter negatrons? With purity of intention, there’s no such thing as a coincidence. Now go ruin your own castles.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

February 11 marks the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Ten years after the revolution, its leader — the Ayatollah Khomeini — issued a death warrant against the novelist, Salman Rushdie.

I’m keeping both of these facts in mind as I begin to write a new chapter of my next book.

A bit of background: Recently, I announced an experiment called “Notes From My Next Book.” With this experiment, I’m giving you a sneak peak at ideas being explored in my next book and inviting you to comment on them. Click here to learn more.

This week, I’m starting to write a chapter tentatively entitled, “Culture is not sacred.” My point is that Arab tribal culture, emanating from the Middle East but exported far beyond, has corrupted the practice of Islam.

For all its nasty passages, the Qur’an still speaks of personal freedom, spiritual growth and social justice. If that version of Islam is ever to be realized, then Muslims have to tackle what’s holding us back from just doing it.

I’ll argue that we have to challenge — and change — an Arab cultural custom called “honor.” Click here to understand what “honor” means in the Arab-Islamic context.

In my next book, I’ll include little-known insights about “honor,” such as the eery parallels between the oppression of Blacks in the honor-based 19th-century American south and the repression of women in the honor-based Muslim world today.

But the custom of “honor” can produce hilarity, too. Here are some of my research notes, culled from an interview I’ve conducted with Salman Rushdie…

SALMAN: “I remember, in the early days of the Iranian Revolution, a number of bizarre issues were being debated by the Ayatollahs. Seriously, this is not a joke. One of the questions being asked was, if a woman is wearing a head-to-toe veil but she’s wearing Western clothes like a skirt underneath, is it ok? I mean, given that she is completely covered and all you can see is her eyes?

It was decreed that this was not ok. The reason it was not okay was that the friction of her thighs against each other inside the skirt would generate sexual heat and this heat would be transmitted through her eyes to men who might observe her and might inflame. And that was, of course, not acceptable.

The best of these arguments, actually, had to do with the limits of incest. Is it incestuous if you were to have relations with your aunt by marriage? It might be improper and a bit upsetting to your uncle, but is it actually incestuous? In the end, they [Iranian clerics] decided that it was and should not be allowed.

But there was an exception: If you were not able to control the entry into your bed of an aunt by marriage, what then followed was not your fault. And if your aunt by marriage lived upstairs and the floor collapsed and the aunt by marriage landed in your bed from above, no man could be expected to restrain himself.

Honor culture leads to these kinds of appalling aberrations and, at worst, to the phenomenon of honor killings.”

IRSHAD: “How should clear-thinking people address this?”

SALMAN: “Dishonorably. I think that honor culture is a very dangerous thing.”

Does all the giggling, chuckling and outright satirizing mean that we, as a society, are ready to laugh about terrorism? Before you answer, watch this video clip from “Four Lions,” a new British movie about radicalized Muslims plotting an attack:

When BBC Radio asked for my thoughts about the video clip, I replied, “Hilarious. But the brilliance of comedy, like anything, depends on how it’s delivered. This particular scene makes violent jihadists look like fools. More spoofing might — might! — lessen fear among some members of the public, showing that we can challenge Islamists rather than cower before them. My worry would be that such comedy makes more of the public complacent, as if all jihadists are buffoons. We should know by now that they’re not.”

So I return to my question: Are we, as a society, ready to laugh about terrorism? Join the discussion on my Facebook page.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Frederick Douglass (Wikimedia Commons)

Frederick Douglass, the 19th-century African-American visionary, had a warning: “Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without the thunder and lightening; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters.”  In the 21st century, those who seek equality without the honest and painful discussion that goes with it might well fall into this category.

On Martin Luther King’s birthday, MSNBC aired “Obama’s America,”a two-hour debate from Texas Southern University. It revolved around race relations in America.

Chris Matthews, the host, asked me point-blank why students voted overwhelmingly for President Obama. I reported what a number of students at New York University had told me: they supported Obama because he’s Black. As I questioned them further, students explained that they wanted to right a historic wrong by ensuring that the land of opportunity would finally have an African-American president.

My fellow panelists, Jeff Johnson of Black Entertainment Television and Tom Joyner, a renowned radio personality, flipped. I didn’t win any popularity contest by asking them a few questions of my own:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Later, I pointed out that in the United States, “non-whites” increasingly include Asian and Hispanic immigrants. Therefore, we’d better get serious about treating race relations as multi-layered:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

But I have a feeling that for most Americans, it’s comfortable clinging to Black and White.  It’s what they know — and it’s far from resolved.  Hence the uproar over my remarks about Obama and the student vote.

For the past week, viewers have been weighing in through emails, Facebook posts and Tweets. Here’s a snapshot of U.S. racial politics in 2010:

* “Americans are thumb-suckers when it comes to race. There is nothing wrong with reporting what students said about why they voted for the President… If I had to put my finger on what made everyone feel uncomfortable, it was the moment you asked, ‘Are these students racist because they say they voted for President Obama because he is black?’ Even I was taken aback by the question. But scholars like you are supposed to ask the tough questions to spark candid debate… I would make no apology to the people who live in the angry corner or who act like children on these issues.” - Courtney

* “Why should you be asking people on a historic Inauguration Day who they voted for and why? It was not only a very Special Day for all African-Americans but ALL Americans whether you voted for him or not… African-Americans made extraordinary sacrifices to get American race relations to this point, which has ultimately paved the way for a Muslim girl like you to have these limitless opportunities in America. You should be grateful to all African-Americans [instead of] pushing your agenda of mass migration of Asians to the United States…

I hope and pray that the land of the free will never be swamped by those from the Indian sub-continent, as you have already swamped Great Britain.” - buzzmaster007

* “When [U.S. Attorney General] Eric Holder says that Americans are a ‘nation of cowards’ for how we discuss race, he is pounced on by both sides. The fact of the matter is, you are a professor who challenges students and brings their answers to a larger group. It is the group who fails to see the shades of color. Culture has indoctrinated them to see the world in black and white only.” - YB

* “I was embarrassed by [your] performance of overbearing arrogance as you attempted to defend the indefensible position that you had solved the question of Obama’s youth support on the basis that ‘he’s black.’ As one who has far more understanding of the black experience and white attitudes toward blacks both in the US and Canada than you can ever hope to have, I believe that any assertions you make in that regard should be proffered with far more modesty than you displayed…

[Your] insertion of immigration policy before an audience for whom the history of the US is all about Black/White relations was simply to have missed the point as you accused the audience of doing. To them it was you who missed the point.”  - Howard

* “I was truly embarrassed by the arrogance of your co-panelist, who intolerantly attempted to dismiss your point, suggesting instead that Obama won the election because he ‘had swagger.’ I wonder what he thought of Bush’s swagger. It was saddening to see that you were the only panelist willing to ask the right questions.” - Steve

* “Race has been a deciding factor in every election. I know it was the reason that I voted for Obama. I promised myself, for this election only, I’ll be a bigot and vote for the black guy. And if Barack won the election, I’d never do that again. So that’s what I did… You said what I would have probably been too afraid to say in front of all those people! The Raw Truth. For you to voice the truth like that shows that YOU have SWAGGER.” - Antar

* “Your argument about why the youth voted for Obama was ridiculous. Unless you are a pollster, why would you present some unfounded data at such a public event?… Your biased statement may cost you something in the future.” - Asamnew

* “Truth be told, I was ecstatic that the Democratic candidate was going to be either a woman or a Black man. I couldn’t take one more old white guy. I look forward to a time when I can look ONLY at the content of the character, but we are not there yet. I would cast my vote for the same simple-minded (?) reason again.” - Lauren

* “I have two degrees from NYU and many years of teaching at both the undergraduate and graduate level and I have never known students who were unaware of political issues or voted based on zero knowledge of a candidate except some external quality. And I teach in business schools. You teach in a graduate school of public service? What in the world are you teaching?” - Virginia, Ph.D., M.B.A

* “Your statement is correct. Some students, citing the body here at the University of Texas at San Antonio, did vote for Obama because he is Black.” - Thomas (student)

* “If some excruciatingly small minority of people do something for some silly reason, that doesn’t mean it needs to be pointed out by public figures such as yourself. If you think it’s that important, then fine – but you have to be self-aware enough to understand the impact of shining a light on those comments.” - Nathan

* “So what? Lots of people voted for McCain because he was white. Welcome to America.” - Yusuf

* “A good number of people on my own campus cannot give one solid reason why they voted for Obama. They just did. They had no idea how Obama felt on a number of issues. For example, some in my college’s LGBT group believed that Obama was for gay marriage, which was simply not true…

Obama’s presidency will not heal race relations but rather begin the process of dealing with the bigger issues. Unfortunately, far too many from the previous generations do not really want to deal with these issues because it requires us to speak frankly and tear down 40+ years of politically correct speech and ‘acceptable’ behaviors, which honestly hurt everyone more than they help.” - Richard

* “I think it was stupid for you to say ‘Obama cause he’s Black’. It was the wrong thing for you to do. You should have left it out. Never should’ve come out of your mouth.” - Rumar

* “You were great in Houston. We Blacks can be hyper-sensitive. The Blk racism polizi went from identifying overt racism to hidden racism to imaginary racism. What’s next?” - BH007

* “There is a difference between truth and discretion.” - Nakia

* “You did the right thing to report what was told to you. However, often people want confirmation of what they already think and you going on there, talking the truth, made them feel really uncomfortable. Irshad, you’re not here to encourage people’s racial fantasies. I’m proud of you.” - Kosta

* “Why are you bent on creating a bad name for Muslims?… In this program, you managed to create ill feelings towards yourself (a Muslim) in all of BLACK America. Please note: only Blacks identify themselves with Muslims in their struggle to live in America. But in this program you have managed to alienate them also from Muslims. Please have mercy on us (Muslims of America).” - Haroon

* “Should you have said it? I think your whole message is that you should, whether it’s non-Muslims telling Muslims that some of their actions and culture don’t fly, or non-African Americans telling African Americans that racial preference is a form of prejudice even when they benefit from it…

Like Muslims, African Americans have a history of not brooking criticism of their community, believing their victimhood makes them immune. This is not intended to deny any of the African American community’s current and past suffering, but wrong is still wrong. Just think of the audience member who stood up after you and pointed out that African Americans were all survivors of slavery. On some level, true, but that doesn’t make them infallible.” - Mehdi

* “I am an African-American. You said one phrase that caught my attention and it was something like, ‘Every race wants to be recognized for their uniqueness but not reduced to it.’ It is the TRUTH! I feel like we African-Americans get enough recognition, especially compared to the other races. The problem is that some Black people abuse the benefits we get. I see it first hand and I personally know many African-Americans who do so.

My Father, who was born  in Ghana, came to the USA with no citizenship and only $50 to his name. If he could become very well-off, send his four other siblings to college and live in a two-storey house, then anything is possible. We need to stop crying about our past and worry about our future or else we will never get over this thing called ‘RACE’!  What you said at Texas Southern University inspired me. Unfortunately they cut you off because it was not what they wanted to hear.” - Nana

* “I am thankful for people like you who don’t make political correctness a higher standard than sincerity… BTW: I was in Ghana when Obama visited. He was celebrated as an outstanding hero for being the first ‘Black’ president of the US.” - Sonja

* “You weren’t trying to portray all of his supporters as people who voted for him only because he was black, you were trying to shed light on a particular group of people and a disquieting trend among them. That’s totally valid and is important in confronting race relations in the country. The men who responded to you were clearly partisans who seemed incapable of distinguishing the fact that your comment wasn’t actually about Obama, but the people you were talking about about.” - James

* “You played the role of the small child in The Emperor Has No Clothes parable – except it wasn’t the emperor that you pointed out was a nit wit. It was the the nit wits themselves. Instead of being outraged at the state of the world and their (and our) culpability, they are outraged about you reporting that some people made a serious political choice based on a superficial skin adaptation. No wonder we’re all in the shit, eh?” - Martin

* “Water can shape a dense rock – if but one drop at a time. Bring on the rain, Irshad.” - Phillip

Click here for Part One of this series on racial politics in the US today.