q and a

The making of a kafir

Posted in Q & A on Aug 11, 2008

I recently received this email from Azhar in Melbourne, Australia. It’s proof positive that reading The Trouble with Islam Today corrupts good Muslim boys and girls. I’m only sorry that I needed the help of a lousy airline. You’ll see what I mean. Enjoy:

“You are rude, arrogant, in-your-face, insane for doing it all, blunt, bitchy and how I love you!

You have brought to light realities that everyone including myself has always wanted to ask but never did. I am a ‘brown’ Muslim male from Kenya who recently finished studies in Australia.

It is really sad that I only got to read your book on my vacation back home and on the way back to Australia. (Can I just say that Kenya Airways sucks with common TVs and faulty headphone, so the book captured me throughout the flight with next to no sleep as I consumed page after page on that 13-hour trip from hell to Hong Kong.)

I must confess that at times I felt like you were the CIA who had found some way of reading my mind as you continuously raised questions (and gave answers) to ‘forbidden’ agendas that have tormented my mind for years. People like you and Salman Rushdie have inspired me to step up and ask questions that I have feared all my life and for this I shall forever be endowed to you.

The ignorance, the blame game, the irrationality, the Desert Islam infestation and, most of all, the fear has poisoned this faith for far too long. It is people like you who breath new hope for the future…

On reading your book, I raised a debate back home and was actually shocked to find that educated men and women were outraged by my questions and support of the book. Needless to say, I went from ‘welcomed son’ to ‘kafir’ in no time!!!” - Azhar, Melbourne

Irshad replies: Then my work here is done.

Machiavelli and Muslim reform

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts, Q & A on Jul 01, 2008

In the last post, I asked you to advise a struggling young Muslim reformer. She’s being threatened by local Islamists as well as by her own family. Whenever she confronts her father, she winds up self-censoring.

Her question: “How do I use my freedom of speech in a manner that will make people understand, especially when they are conservative?”

Of all the advice you’ve sent, two pieces stand out. One comes from a Muslim and the other from a non-Muslim. Both recommend that this young woman be strategic rather than straightforward. Subtle rather than direct. Machiavelli rather than Martin Luther.

Here’s the first advisor:

“Your freedom of speech can only be achieved in certain ways, such as patience… Your father, like any other Muslim father, is stubborn. Nothing wrong with that. However, he should hear you out.

Makes me remember a line in your email, ‘But no matter how conservative they are, I love my family and I want them to love me for what I believe in. I often find myself giving up when I face my father.’ I respect you for this so very much, for I believe that your giving spirit starts from within and you already have it.

Be patient and try explaining it to your dad, portion by portion. When you feel it’s intense, back off. I firmly believe that if you try once, twice and even thrice, you will not fail. Don’t lose sight of your goal.” - Huda

Machiavelli emphasized focus and prudence as much Huda does. Our next advisor echoes this line, and throws in a couple of shrewd tactics:

“I have dealt with Latin American cultures that resemble a few of the values of the Islamic world. Mexico has a concept called ‘Indirecto.’ That means it is usually more effective to communicate an idea in an indirect or roundabout way, especially if it has ramifications that are uncomfortable or offensive. One tactic is to discuss an idea in terms of a third party.

Another tactic is to gently make statements that on the surface seem quite innocent (and in line with the Quran), but in fact have deep implications in the long term, as they percolate and filter through society. An example would be to quote a saying that is popular throughout the Muslim world: “God is beautiful and He loves beauty!” Of itself, this sounds warm and friendly. But, as it is repeated, it slowly focuses their attention on a God who is far different from the one of violent jihad.

To the same end, I would revive concepts such as the ecstatic pleasure of communion with God found in Sufism and the poetry of Rumi, while shying away from overt mention of the Sufi tradition, which is unpopular among some elements of the Islamic world.

Eventually, thoughts like this will prepare the road for ijtihad. It will take some time, but it will certainly come if you are patient and don’t move too rapidly. This will be a protracted campaign of causing people to see the Universe in a new and different but unobtrusive way. There will never be any arguments or bad words, just a change of tone. A change of tone and daily language that is utterly revolutionary without anyone realizing it.” - Steve

When I first reflected on the advice of Steve and Huda, I confess to being intrigued. They show an appreciation of cunning and craft that scares the bejeezus out of most idealists. These methods make us feel dirty. They’re, well, sooo Machiavellian.

In his infamous guide to power, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli writes that “those who have been able to imitate the fox have succeeded the best. But it is necessary to disguise this character well, and to be a great feigner and dissembler, and men are so simple that one who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.”

Admittedly, such words make me shudder. I’m all for foxiness. But I hate hypocrisy.

Alright, then, what if that hypocrisy is effective in pursuing a greater good — like advancing Muslim reform and moral courage?

At this point, Machiavelli would tell a young Muslim reformer to read his book more closely. Although he underscores “caution” and “prudence,” Machiavelli also advises not to get comfortable with that approach: “if it happens that time and circumstances are favorable to one who acts with caution and prudence, he will be successful. But if time and circumstances change, he will be ruined because he does not change his mode of procedure.”

Welcome to the trap for reform-minded Muslims. Most of us have been so timid in an effort to avoid offending that we don’t know how to change our “mode of procedure” when a crisis is at hand.

To get back to the young woman who needs your advice, don’t you think that being threatened by local Islamists – with no support from her own family – qualifies as a crisis?

Does she truly have time on her side, as Steve and Huda suggest?

Should she really remain “patient”?

I say no. In all honesty, I don’t know what Machiavelli would have said. But another brilliant strategist, Martin Luther King Jr., said this to eight of his fellow clergymen when they counseled him to back off, go slow and lower the tension with whites:

“Actually, we who engage in non-violent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out into the open where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured as long as it is covered up but must be open with all its pus-flowing ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must like be exposed, with all the tension its exposing creates, to the light of human conscience…”

King ended his statement by asking the clergy to forgive him for any “unreasonable impatience.” He then asked God to forgive him for exhibiting patience with anything less than full justice.

Now you know why, when advising young Muslim reformers, I prefer a particular King to The Prince.

Your advice, please

Posted in Q & A on Jun 27, 2008

You’re always great at giving advice when I bring you dilemmas, whether my own or that of other readers.

Remember the American soldier who wanted to know the best way to serve Iraqis?

And the Muslim cabbie who showed excellent customer service — until he began spewing conspiracy theories about the genocide in Sudan?

Here’s a fresh problem that I need your help to address. It comes from a reform-minded Muslim student who attended my film screening in Indonesia:

“Irshad, my home town is Solo, Central Java.  This is also the home of the National Majaheddin Council, a radical Islamist organization. 

Since 2005, I have been participating in a youth group to promote Islamic reform and pluralism. We do this by producing and distributing publications in many universities throughout Solo.

We face so many challenges.  A couple of years ago, we tried to organize a seminar on pluralism and received phone calls saying they would send hundreds of Allah’s soldiers to stop us.

My family is also very conservative. They will send me threatening letters whenever I get my work published. Recently, I was highly disappointed by a relative who is also a local imam.  He became involved in one of the terrorist groups. He is now in jail, leaving a wife and son without proper care.  What kind of jihad is that?

But no matter how conservative they are, I love my family and I want them to love me for what I believe in.  I often find myself giving up when I face my father.  Then I lie.  I don’t speak my mind. I don’t want to hurt him and I don’t want him to hurt me because I don’t want to hate him.

So how can we get along?  How do I use my freedom of speech in a manner that will make people understand, especially when they are conservative?”

Over to you, dear readers.  Please email me your advice.

To get your compassionate, creative juices flowing, you might want to review the guidance that you gave in previous situations.  Click here and here.

Making the freedom struggle “a little more real”

Posted in Q & A on Jun 20, 2008

From a reader:

“Just wanted to let you know that I signed the petition against death threats. I must confess that deciding to sign did give me pause for a moment. It made the struggle a little more real for someone like me, who’s not in the public eye and taking the heat.

I’m proud to add my name to the list and I thank you for allowing me to be included. It’s sad that in the 21st century, such a statement would be necessary. Perhaps one day because of your work, love and tolerance will win out over prejudice and hate.” - Patrick

Okay, people, Saint Patrick has spoken. How about you?

Sign this open letter and show violent jihadis that we don’t fear them.

Nor are we manipulated by the politicians who want us to fear them.

Above all, we refuse to be intimidated by Muslim countries that are pushing the United Nations to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Bollocks to them all! By signing this statement for individual liberty, human rights and secular values, you and I embrace the freedom to think, express and challenge.

That’s the stuff of moral courage. And of a meaningful life.

In my next blog post, you’ll see the updated list of signatures from around the world. Hope to find your name and city on it.

A jihadi and a Bushie walk into a bar…

Posted in Q & A on Jun 10, 2008

The other day, somebody emailed an interesting question:

“Irshad, read this story about a jihadist lady who lives in Europe.  She blogs about the need to destroy the West.  She acts within the law, which makes her non-violent, and she seems willing to accept public disapproval for what she believes in.

Why don’t you select her as an agent of moral courage? By your own definition, moral courage is about speaking truth to power for the sake of a greater good.” - Amin

Gold star for the effort, Amin.  Love that you’re thinking about these things, bro. But the blogger you’re wondering about, Malika El-Aroud, is no agent of moral courage. Here’s why:

1) What “truth” is the sister speaking? Fact is, more Muslims have been tortured, raped, imprisoned, maimed and murdered at the hands of other Muslims than by any foreign imperial power.

That’s not to deny Western colonization.  It’s to point out that colonization comes in many skin shades, including Islamist colonization of other Muslims.

For example, in Sudan, Black Muslims are starved, raped, enslaved and slaughtered by Arab militias, all with the consent of an “Islamic” government. Where’s Malika’s fury against that genocide? Do Muslim lives count only when snuffed out by non-Muslims?

2) Moral courage requires you not only to speak truth, but to speak it within your own community.  That’s far more intimidating than pointing fingers at the nameless, faceless enemies of the outside.

When you indict outsiders, you can wear your indictment as a badge of honor.  “Look!” Malika effectively tells her jihadi readers.  “Look what I’m doing to stand up for Us against Them.  I know where I belong.”

Far riskier, emotionally and otherwise, to call out injustice within your tribe.  At that point, the security blanket of instant belonging disappears. Sister Malika ain’t going there.

For Malika to have moral courage, she needs to tell her anti-American, anti-Israel brethren the truth about what Muslims are doing to one another.  Beyond the genocide in Darfur, there’s this:

* in Pakistan, Sunnis target Shiites every day;

* in northern Israel, Katuysha rockets launched by Hezbollah have ripped through the homes of Arab Muslims; and

* in Egypt, the riot police of President Hosni Mubarak routinely club, rape, torture, and murder Muslim democracy activists. Read more from a young Egyptian.

3) What “greater good” is Malika striving to achieve? The defense of Muslims?  Please.  If this woman cared about fellow believers, she would take the $1,100 monthly welfare check that she gets from the Belgian government and donate part of it to Iraqi war widows.

Watch this news story about the 2 million widows of Iraq.  It points out that they receive a maximum of $41/month from their government.

Maybe Malika should learn from Scott McClennan, George W. Bush’s former spin doctor.  He’s the author of What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What’s Wrong with Washington.

On June 1, McClellan told NBC’s Tim Russert that he plans to donate a portion of his book royalties to families of the Iraq war victims — the very people hurt by McClellan’s lies when he was selling the war.

How does this situation compare to Malika’s? Many of Iraq’s women have been made widows by Muslim insurgents, the people whom Malika is encouraging in her blog posts.

You know you’re pathetic when a Bushie has more integrity than you.

But let’s not end on such a negative note.  Many Muslims in Europe qualify as agents of moral courage.  Here’s a video about Hind Fraihi, a young Muslim woman who shares Belgian citizenship with Malika.

Unlike Malika, Hind gives hope to both Islam and the West.

Why Hala was wrong to dump Mark

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts, Q & A on May 31, 2008

You’ll find out in a moment who Hala and Mark are. First:

Are you a Muslim who’s struggling with the multifaceted crapola committed in the name of Allah? You’re not alone. And you can get help right here.

Take, for example, the inter-faith marriage blessing.  This document supports Muslims who want to marry non-Muslims.  It’s written by a professor and imam who exercises ijtihad, Islam’s own tradition of critical thinking.  He re-interprets the Quran so that Muslim women know why, in the 21st century, they can love thy neighbor enough to get hitched with him.

The issue is growing. Fast.  Just last week, the Washington Post quoted a local imam as saying, “Anytime there is a program at the mosque about these things, it’s completely packed.”  The Post went on to report: “Islamic tradition, not law, holds that a Muslim man can intermarry, but not a woman…”

That distinction between tradition and law is key.  History may frown upon a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man, but the Quran? Far more ambiguous.  No wonder young Muslims are busting their community’s bigotry by downloading and circulating the inter-faith marriage blessing — in 19 languages.

With that in mind, I have good news, bad news and promising news.

First, the good news: Two of the couples featured on the inter-faith marriage page have new babies to celebrate. And are they ever cuties! (The couples, not just the babies.)

Now for the bad news: The inter-faith marriage blessing doesn’t persuade everyone that love should conquer all.  As the Post pointed out, a recent poll of Muslim Americans found that “54 percent of women said inter-faith marriage is acceptable, compared with 70 per cent of men.”

Which brings us, finally, to Hala and Mark.

Mark is a Christian in California. He wrote me a message a few days ago.  When I asked if he’d let me share it with you, he agreed on condition that I’d change his ex-girlfriend’s name to “Hala” to respect her privacy.  Mark’s letter:

“I was deeply in love with Hala, the most compassionate, most intelligent, most beautiful Shia Lebanese-American woman. She was very progressive in all things.

But she was adamant that in order for us to marry, I would have to convert from Christianity to Islam. I showed Hala your website and the inter-faith marriage blessing written by Imam Khaleel. In the end, Hala felt that if I did not convert, any marriage would be invalid and she would be living in sin.

I believe Islam is a great religion. But I also feel that you have to accept the other person for who they are, not for who you want them to be. Ultimately, that is what kept us from a lifetime of happiness.

It is not the ending I wanted, Irshad, but thank you for giving me the hope that this might have worked out.”

Wait. Dude’s thanking me for showing that he didn’t have to be ditched by the love of his life — even though that’s exactly what happened to him? Where’s the hostility, the rage, the “Islamophobia”?

Hence the promising news: If I’ve given Mark “hope,” then he’s done the same — for all inter-faith couples. He didn’t lapse into bitterness or bigotry over Hala’s decision to break up with him. You can still hear the love in his letter.

But beyond emitting a compassionate vibe, Mark sent me a follow-up email with concrete information that’s sure to empower future families:

“I understand the concern that if a husband is not Muslim, the couple’s children will be at risk of not being raised in the Muslim faith.

However, I found an interesting interview with Dr. Nuryamin Aini. He conducted a study of inter-faith couples in Indonesia and found that a non-Muslim man and Muslim woman are more likely than a Muslim man and non-Muslim woman to raise their children in Islam.

In other words, some of these inter-faith concerns may be unfounded or at least misplaced.”

To say the least, boyfriend! I’m peeved that raising one’s children within a single faith should be any condition of “inter-faith” marriage. What’s the point of marrying someone who’s religiously different if you’re going to shield your kids from exploring those differences?

Still, Mark has done us a massive favor. The research he’s brought to light can be ammo for calming the jitters of Muslim parents and grandparents. Idealism alone won’t do it. They likely need the assurances of academics.

So give your anxious Muslim mum and dad the Indonesian study, along with the inter-faith marriage blessing, and emphasize that both are produced by — that magical combination of words — “Muslim scholars.” Then get on with your wedding plans.

A final bit of advice: Before you head off to the honeymoon, remember Mark. Not because he needs your pity but because he deserves your gratitude. Email your thank-you notes to him care of this website: comments@irshadmanji.com. I’ll make sure Mark gets your good wishes.

God knows he’s got mine.

Silence is a choice

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts, Announcements, Q & A on May 27, 2008

On a recent speaking tour for Project Ijtihad…

Irshad engages with students in Philadelphia…

… about expressing themselves. (Photos: Ann Snyder)

A young Egyptian recently sent me this anguished email:

“i am an animation artist and a script writer. first, i like your rebellious spirit and your haircut. although I am a traditional muslim and committed so much with five prayers a day, i wont decide to kill you immediately.

your book opened my eyes to that bad thing called free thinking. for example why the media in egypt shows israel as the evil enemy? you know [Ariel] sharon’s son is in jail while gamal mubarak [son of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak] rides government cars with a huge security?

why really a young egyptian engineer fly away and hits himself to the walls of world trade center and what was the message he was trying to say and what kind of education pushed him to do such a stupid thing?

the problem i believe is we r living in continuously suppressed-thinking STATE. i mean we egyptians have the right to shout loud in a football game but we doesn’t have the right to protest against any political or religious affair.

do you know that a girl was arrested because she made a group on the facebook - calling for a strike? and a famous journalist was jailed because he said that mubarak is maybe ill because he doesn’t show up at a recent ceremony?

i don’t think that the problem is islam but I doesn’t think anything else because in my country I doesn’t have the right to think at all.

oh irshad sometimes I dare to ask - while I am hiding in dark - is there hope for us? thanks a lot for the book. and i love you so much.” - Ahmadollah

My response:

“Ahmadollah, I sincerely believe that free-thinkers like you are the ones to save Egypt (and, frankly, the world) from corrupt, self-satisfied elites. You are right: The problem is not Islam. The problem is our silence as Muslims.

I realize that you cannot protest in the streets without being beaten up by Hosni Mubarak’s thugs. I was in Cairo two years ago and saw with my own eyes the large green trucks filled with unemployed boys. The government hires them to attack pro-freedom demonstrators. This is your reality.

Can you do something else to speak your mind freely? I believe so, and I am here to help.

My non-profit campaign, Project Ijtihad, has created a partnership with TakingITGlobal, a portal that connects social justice activists from 180 countries, including Egypt. I say more about this partnership here.

Now, Project Ijtihad is going further. We have just launched our own discussion board on TakingITGlobal. Everything can be explored: human rights, political reform, even my hairstyle (under the category, “crimes against humanity”!) You can start your own discussion thread too.

Best of all, because TakingITGlobal creates online communities throughout the Middle East, they know how to ensure that your identity remains protected from the government.

So if you have something to say (and clearly, Ahmadollah, you do), join us. Activists around the world want to listen and lend a hand to your dream of real democracy in Egypt.”

Beyond Ahmadollah, everybody reading this blog is invited to sign up. If you need assistance or have questions about participating, contact Project Ijtihad’s coordinator, Raquel Evita Saraswati.

For more evidence that anybody can speak up for justice, including an 8-year-old girl in Yemen, click here.

And to defy censorship that much more, download free translations of my book. I’ve posted it in multiple languages for those countries where it’s censored or difficult to access.

Remember: Governments everywhere expect you to be apathetic, scared and weak. The questions is not whether we can prove them wrong. Of course we can. The question is whether we will.

A response to Sam Harris - and a challenge to us all

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts, Q & A on May 25, 2008

In the past few days, this blog has hosted a robust debate about whether ardent atheists need to reform as much as uncritical Muslims do.

To appreciate how constructive the debate has become, first read this from my friend, Shahid, who started it all. Then read this response from Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation.

Now you’re ready to read Shahid’s reply to Sam, along with a challenge to us all:

Clearly I’ve been served. I have no defense against the indictment of intellectual laziness. It was, indeed, sloppy of me to lump Sam Harris in with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. My sincere and unqualified apologies to Sam.

Still, our perspectives diverge in ways worth noting. Before I go there, let me summarize where Sam and I agree.

I have no bones with his criticism of religious dogma and the evils done in its name. Islam today is dominated by fundamentalism to an extent that’s more severe than in any other major faith. Contemporary Islam is particularly infested with an aversion to debate, dissent and intellectual honesty.

So I respect that political correctness doesn’t hinder Sam from speaking his mind. I also respect that his own intellectual honesty forces him to break ranks with his fellow liberals and fellow atheists (i.e. in his promotion of what he calls contemplative practices). Our perspectives converge up to this point.

Here’s where we part ways. Let me repeat the final sentence in his response to me:

“I have spent over two years on silent retreats… And yet, I am an even harsher critic of Islam than Dawkins or Hitchens is. This is not an accident. It is, in fact, very difficult to think of a perspective that makes the contents of the Qur’an seem less wise, useful, necessary, or noble than the perspective of vipassana.”

Conversely, vipassana meditation has brought me to a place of practical compassion for observant Muslims. I’m not saying Sam isn’t a compassionate being. Practically speaking, though, I can’t see how a creative, non-violent solution to Islamic fundamentalism can emerge from Sam’s blanket condemnation of the Qur’an.

In an effort to empathize with him, I must admit that he asks a valid and incisive question: How do I reconcile the noble perspective of vipassana with the Qur’an, which he views as “less wise, useful, [or] necessary”?

Like Sam, I don’t draw a cozy equivalence between vipassana meditation and organized Islam. Vipassana is a dogma-free practice that cuts right to the root of misery and shows how to eradicate suffering. Its main virtue is not as an intellectual or spiritual ritual but as a practical means to achieve peace of mind and deep empathy for my fellow beings. It’s a no-nonsense and results-oriented technique exercised by people of many religions and no religion at all.

By contrast, the Qur’an is considered sacred by its followers and forms a crucial basis of their religious identity. Unlike Sam, I don’t believe the Qur’an is bereft of any positive moral worth. In fact, I read much in it that contests the dogmas practiced so uncritically by so many Muslims.

As Irshad routinely reminds us, the Qur’an has three times as many verses calling on Muslims to think, reflect and analyze than verses that preach what’s absolutely right or wrong. That’s a literal challenge to literalism itself!

Of course we can find scriptural support for blind faith and fear, but the Qur’an contains far more complexity than that. The more I meditate, the more I see a deeper meaning to much of its contents, a meaning premised on infinite mercy and compassion, personal responsibility, tolerance, even love.

Now back to vipassana. It’s an art that demands approaching life through the lens of harmony in thought, word and deed. I wouldn’t be exhibiting these attributes if I said, “Ok, all you Muslims, listen up. This book you recite: It’s the 7th century superstitious ramblings of an illiterate and you’re fools for clinging to it. Vipassana, on the other hand, is the bomb-diggity. For the love of Allah, you’d better adopt this path before we all perish. Got it?”

To promulgate such a message would be to serve my ego, not diminish it. I’d be reinforcing my sense of superiority, not eradicating it.

Vipassana teaches me an attitude of non-violence. That’s not to be confused with pacifism, which is a political ideology that some meditators adopt and others, like me, don’t. After all, someone committed to non-violence can’t stand by when the peace of others is being violated. So I don’t deny the Islamist threat to all our freedoms. Nor do I advocate relativism.

Rather, an attitude of non-violence continually compels me to consider which type of conflict is unavoidable, and which type will only serve to further harm others and buttress my ego. As a serious vipassana meditator, I know through experience that when I act out of self-righteous anger, the first person I damage is me.

Honoring this knowledge is what starts reversing the process of misery and forms the essence of a non-violent mind. It launches me into the fray of responsible civic engagement with eyes and heart wide open, even toward my enemies.

Irshad’s mission of democratizing ijtihad, Islam’s tradition of independent thought, seems like a compassionate common ground in the necessary fight against Islamist dogma. I call it “common” ground because ijtihad has a rich historical pedigree that’s fully compatible with the principles of modern, pluralistic, open societies. Its very basis is freedom of thought. And since ijtihad is an Islamic tradition, it doesn’t require faithful Muslims to abandon the identity they cherish.

Practically, supporting ijtihad means supporting those Muslims, many of them young, who are willing to be agents of moral courage in their communities and who boldly use the Qur’an to defy harmful reigning orthodoxies.

It means creating a space that affords Muslims the human dignity and human right to openly question and explore faith on their terms.

It means encouraging them to deepen their relationship with questions, encounter spirituality over and above rituality, and discover a shared human consciousness.

Irshad can bear witness that renewing ijtihad is a life and death business. It doesn’t mean sanitizing the practices of many Muslims or ignoring the bloodthirsty bits of sacred text. Ultimately, it means rocking the status quo from a foundation largely devoid of practical compassion, in both the secular and religious camps.

After reading Sam’s reply and seeing how he commendably organized a meditation retreat for his fellow scientists, I realized a remarkable omission on my part. While I challenged my atheist friends to sit a vipassana session, I let my Muslim brothers and sisters off the hook.

So here it is Muslims — reform, moderate, orthodox, or otherwise. You’ve officially been served. In the spirit of ijtihad, I challenge you to undertake a ten-day vipassana retreat. That includes you, Ms. Irshad Manji.

And just because Irshad calls me a Bu-Mu (Buddhist Muslim), please don’t assume I’m asking anybody to become a Buddhist. I’m not. Vipassana has nothing to do with institutional religion. See for yourself. I’m speaking to Muslims in Tehran too, where there’s a vipassana center.

While I’m at it, why stop at Muslims? Jews, Hindus, Protestants, Catholics, agnostics, Episcopalians, Jains, pagans, Mormons, witches, dreads, francophones, World of Warcraft elves, communists, Stalinists, snowboarders, waitresses, friends, enemies… Consider yourselves all officially served.

In case you’re wondering, vipassana is free. You hear that, my fellow South Asians? (*Wink*) If it sounds like I’m trying to convert, I assure you of this: The only conversion I hope to see is from misery to happiness.

If you do sit a retreat and feel like having company, let me know when and where: mr.shahid.man@gmail.com. I just might join you.

South-Asian-girl post-script from Ms. Irshad Manji: Did Shahid say “free”? Hell, I might join you.

Sam Harris responds

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts, Q & A on May 23, 2008

It appears that my Buddhist Muslim (Bu-Mu) friend, Shahid, has hit a raw nerve.

In my previous post, I featured the Bu-Mu’s advice to “hard core atheists.” (Notice that he’s singling out only those whom he considers extreme. He’s not generalizing about all atheists.)

Shahid counsels atheist crusaders to transcend their “self-righteousness.” They can do so, he says, through a particular approach to meditation — vipassana, which means to see reality as it is. Once missionary atheists are humbled by vipassana meditation, “intelligent consideration and practical compassion” can be their guide. And that’s bound to make for a more harmonious world, right?

Not so fast, says Sam Harris. He’s the best-selling author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. He’s also someone whom Shahid explicitly names and directly challenges. Today, Sam sent me this spirited response. Call it his Letter to a Buddhist Muslim:

Irshad:

It is obvious that this person has not actually read my work. The entire last chapter of The End of Faith is devoted to deconstructing the “self” and to the benefits of meditation.

I have frequently spoken and written about these subjects (to the consternation of many atheists). For example, read this. I have even organized several vipassana retreats for scientists.

I would especially turn your friend’s attention to the remarks I made at the largest gathering of atheists in the country. The talk is available on YouTube, entitled “The Problem with Atheism.” The last ten minutes or so are devoted to meditation. Here’s the transcript.

I normally would not take the time to respond to a misinformed blog post but I find your friend’s approach to this subject far worse than intellectually lazy. The irony is worth pointing out: I have spent over two years on silent retreats of the sort that he recommends. And yet, I am an even harsher critic of Islam than Dawkins or Hitchens is.

This is not an accident. It is, in fact, very difficult to think of a perspective that makes the contents of the Qur’an seem less wise, useful, necessary, or noble than the perspective of vipassana.

Harmony be damned! Awaiting the Buddhist Muslim’s response…

What Muslims can learn from the Pope’s U.S. tour

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts, Q & A on Apr 20, 2008

When I ask Muslim-Americans what they appreciate most about living in this country, the answer usually comes back, “the First Amendment.” That’s the U.S. constitution’s guarantee of free worship, free assembly, free press and, ultimately, free speech.

This past week in America, Pope Benedict gave plenty of free speeches. We all expected him to be on his best behavior. But I hoped that his “best” would mean daring Americans of all faiths — Muslims, included — to use their constitutional freedoms and push their own religious leaders.

Push them to do what?  To speak up for the human rights of all, from Muslims facing genocide in Darfur to Buddhists fighting Chinese occupation in Tibet to Christians struggling for survival in Iraq. Delivered from the podium of the UN general assembly, what a message this would have sent on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

His Holiness might even have celebrated American Catholics as an example of how constitutional liberties can elevate people of faith into people of conscience.

For years, Catholics in the U.S. have exercised their freedom of expression to defend the dignity of young parishioners who’ve been molested by priests. In short, they pushed their religious leaders to respect human rights.

They’ve finally succeeded: On his American tour, the Pope surprisingly — and repeatedly — acknowledged that the Church has abused Catholic children through sexual malfeasance and official silence. According to The New York Times, victims, many of them adults by now, may be getting more opportunities from the Vatican to report their experiences.

The moral of my story is simple. Full-bodied use of the First Amendment can compel a Pope once known as “God’s rotweiller” to reveal his deeply human conscience.

Muslim-Americans ought to follow the Catholic lead. And, having shown that he’s trying to practice what he preaches, the Pope should challenge them to do so. No doubt, many moderate mouthpieces of Islam would accuse Benedict of “offending” Muslim sensitivities. Let them howl.

The Pope’s past perceived slights against Islam have sparked new conversations between Muslims and Catholics. At seriously high levels, I might add: An open letter from 138 Muslim scholars, a response to it from numerous Christian authorities and, later this year, an unprecedented formal dialogue where the participants will be received by the Pontiff himself.

To be sure, I’m no fan of scripted inter-religious dialogues, which usually amount to heart-tugging, mind-numbing gestures of little impact and less consequence.

But I’m a huge partisan of unexpected conversations.

Which is exactly what I had in Rome a year and a half ago with Pope Benedict’s then-deputy for inter-religious affairs, Cardinal Paul Poupard. At one point, the Cardinal grabbed my hand and showed me around his personal library. The 76-year-old effused about his books like a child who’d just decorated his room with the funkiest glow-in-the-dark planets. I say that affectionately: Cardinal Poupard couldn’t contain his joy at hosting a young Muslim woman who shared his love of big ideas. It was utterly charming.

It was also sincere. On the day that I met him, he and the Pope had just arrived home from a diplomatic mission in Turkey. They wanted to mend fences after the global uproar over Benedict’s speech at Regensburg University, in which he quoted an obscure Byzantine emperor who thought Islam had nothing to offer civilization. (In a minute, I’ll link you to a statement I made about why I don’t share Muslim anger about those remarks.)

In the wake of a bridge-building breakthrough, and exhausted from the trip anyway, Cardinal Poupard could have canceled his appointment with a Muslim reformist. But he kept it. Truth is, I’m the one who had to beg off to make my next engagement! What can I tell you? I figured that my audience with the Cardinal would be 15 minutes of polite formalities. It became a hi-octane 90-minute exchange about the need for an intellectual renaissance in every faith, including that religion called atheism.

See my point about embracing unanticipated dialogues, even (or especially) when they emerge from “offensive” remarks?

With that in mind, here’s a TV commentary I delivered after the Pope’s controversial speech at Regensburg U. I’m addressing why, as a faithful Muslim, I don’t believe he should have to apologize for causing offense. Once you watch the video or read the text, tell me where you think I’ve gone wrong. Create a conversation where none would have existed before.

Meanwhile, may His Holiness continue to hear Catholic dissidents. In so doing, may he affirm that introspection is the enemy of dogma, not of faith.

Pages (9): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next ... Last »