An excellent Muslim piece.

kittie

Banned
The lipstick lesbian daring to confront radical imams
Irshad Manji has already been dubbed ‘Osama’s worst nightmare’ for her criticisms of Islam. Now she wants Britain’s Muslims to stand more firmly on the side of freedom

No wonder Irshad Manji has received death threats since appearing on British television: she is a lipstick lesbian, a Muslim and scourge of Islamic leaders, whom she accuses of making excuses about the terror attacks on London. Oh, and she tells ordinary Muslims to “crawl out of their narcissistic shell”. Ouch.

Manji is a glamorous Canadian television presenter whose book, The Trouble with Islam, has made her so famous in America that she won something called the Oprah Winfrey Chutzpah award. Even at a conference in Oxford last week she felt unsafe — despite extra security — with police sifting through “disgusting e-mails” and threats after her appearance on Newsnight.

Doesn’t the violent Muslim minority show Islam is flawed? “I ask myself the same question,” she grimaces. Far from regarding Muslims as oppressed they have a “supremacy complex — and that’s dangerous”. This, she contends, is true even among moderates. “Literalists” who consider the Koran the “perfect manifesto of God” have taken over the mainstream; and far from misreading Islam, as Tony Blair and the Muslim Council of Britain insist, terrorists can find encouragement for murder in the Koran.

The underlying problem with Islam, observes Manji, is that far from spiritualising Arabia, it has been infected with the reactionary prejudices of the Middle East: “Colonialism is not the preserve of people with pink skin. What about Islamic imperialism? Eighty per cent of Muslims live outside the Arab world yet all Muslims must bow to Mecca.” Fresh thinking, she contends, is suppressed by ignorant imams; you can see why she has been dubbed “Osama’s worst nightmare ”.

“The good news,” she insists, “is it doesn’t have to be like this.” She wants a reformation in Islam, returning it to its clever, fun-loving roots. “The world’s first ‘feminist’ was an 11th-century Muslim man. Baghdad had one of the first universities in the 9th century; the Spanish ‘Ole!’ comes from ‘Allah’; Islam even gave us the guitar.”

But now it gives us the suicide bomber: why? She does not rule out alienation and all those Muslims-as-victims explanations, but thinks the Muslim Council of Britain is negligent for “not even acknowledging religion might also have played a role”. Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, said terrorists could not be Muslims but Manji hits back: “The jury is out on what Islam is.”

The dispute centres on whether the Koran justifies suicide bombers. Manji argues terrorists can find succour in the holy book: “It says anyone who kills a human being, except as punishment for murder or villainy in the land, shall be regarded as killing all mankind.” The caveat is crucial; Bin Laden invoked it when America imposed sanctions against Saddam, so after the war in Iraq “four young men could decide to punish British taxpayers for re-electing a government that went to war there” — endorsed by the Koran.

But could religion be an excuse? Might the gang of four have just been nihilist punks who, if raised in different cultures, might otherwise have railed against life through, say, hip-hop? “A hip-hopper will still wake up in the morning. That doesn’t explain a willingness to take your own life.” To do that you need belief in an afterlife, which means these men must have been devoutly religious. Waiting to be rewarded, I suggest, with their 72 virgins.


But Manji says recent research shows all that virgin stuff was based on an erroneous translation of the Koran: what awaits in heaven are 72 raisins. What? Could 54 people really have been blown up for a bag of raisins? “Well in 7th century Arabia raisins were so exalted as to be promoted to paradise.”

Our 7/7 was especially hard to take, being committed by those brought up here; America’s 9/11 was by outsiders. Is America better at integrating Muslims? I fill Manji in on our botched attempt at citizenship ceremonies that, far from inculcating British patriotism in newcomers, taught them how to work the benefit system. “Boy, it’s sexy being British these days,” she laughs.

“In continental Europe people of faith are regarded as second-class citizens. In America Muslims are allowed to earn their status by competing. In Europe, Britain included, your past establishes your identity much more than your future. If you don’t have the lineage here people might well feel disaffected.” She points out that American mosques display signs proclaiming: “God bless America”; inconceivable here.

If we are at fault for not encouraging Muslims, they fail to “celebrate the precious gift” of British freedom: “Why do they protest against France for making it illegal to wear hijabs, but not against Saudi Arabia for making it illegal not to wear them?”; more Muslims, she contends, have been killed in recent years by fellow Muslims than by westerners.

Manji thinks Muslims should take tolerant parts of the Koran and ignore the hellfire. Does this, I ask, include Koranic references to “lewd acts” of homosexuality? She offers counter examples of its tolerance but they seem faintly absurd — should it matter what a bunch of people over a millennium ago made of homosexuality, or indeed anything else? She, not unlike the fundamentalists, picks and chooses the bits that suit her.

The state has a dilemma: to encourage moderate Islam — absurdities and all — or shirk from interfering, which will let extremists blossom. Isn’t a key problem of Islam that it has no structure? Any Church of England vicar calling for a jihad would receive a pretty sharp summons to Lambeth palace; imams are autonomous. “Yes, decentralisation would be good if it encouraged people to debate. But instead people just cower to their local imam.”

She excuses Blair glossing over violent aspects of Islam as “he is only trying to divert a backlash against Muslims, bless him” but she despises the Muslim Council for not coming clean. “Even if Muslims are only interested in slick PR, it would be a great move to recognise the problem; it would spread trust. And I am not asking them to do anything Jews and Christians haven’t done.”

Britain, she says, has been slow to introduce tests for imams on their mastery of the Koran. She recalls asking Mohamed al-Hindi, political leader of Islamic Jihad, where the Koran glorifies martyrdom; he insisted it was there, but even after looking up books and phoning colleagues, he couldn’t find one reference.

“His translator suggested I better go if I wanted to leave alive,” she recalls. “I asked why he had even given an interview, and the translator said, ‘Oh, he assumed you would be just another dumb westerner’.”

Muslims, adds Manji, must find positive role models rather than jihadists: “Martyrs are the rock stars of the Muslim world, shown on the internet against a background of funky music. They feed on the self-esteem crisis of young Muslims.” That could be addressed by history lessons paying greater tribute to the Muslim contribution to the Renaissance.

She denounces terrorism and the response to terrorism, which is not sufficiently robust. It is no good, she argues, for respectable Muslims to say “violence is not the Islamic ideal” if violence has become Islamic practice. And she attacks the proposed religious hatred laws, saying: “Society needs people who offend, otherwise there will be no progress.”

Indeed. But can Manji and her followers provoke Muslims into progress?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1696968,00.html
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Isn't Manji old news? She was on Bill Maher back in ... March?[/QUOTE]

:whistle2:$ This is the part where kitty tries to show worldy knowledge in order to gain our affection.
 
If she was christian no serious media would give her the time of day. She's muslim but claims the problem is islam, the koran etc. (a combination that makes no sense). These same attacks are levied by disgruntled christians and jews against their own religion. It really is difficult to point at the koran for its content, since it has less violence than the torah (old testament) and more tolerance, while more violence than the new testament.

She makes some points that most would agree with, but she makes many that most wouldn't. It seems the only reason she gets picked up is because she can be used by bigots to condemn islam, the same reason jews and israelis are in such hot demand by palestinian rights groups (at my school almost every headline speaker on the issue was jewish), and the same reason people like michelle malkin are exalted by the right (she supports racial profiling and japanese internment). It's not the quality of their argument, or what they've done with it, but simply their background. Maybe there's more to her, but it isn't evident here.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']WTF do your posts come from?[/QUOTE]

There was a whole thing in one of the off topics about this. Kittie is lina, which may better explain the situation.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']WTF do your posts come from?[/QUOTE]
In the "what item you would bring on a trip" or whatever topic, the conversation degenerated then someone posted astroglide and kittie said anal feels better.

And only men can get pleasure from anal because the anus is not a sex organ.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']
And only men can get pleasure from anal because the anus is not a sex organ.[/QUOTE]

Women can get plesaure for the ACT of anal sex though, not that I'm getting into the whole lina he/she argument.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']kittie/lina is a gay man-whore.[/QUOTE]

Quite possibly, but we have other openly gay posters here and for the most part we respect their choice, or at least we don't scream you're a gay man-whore in their face every 5 seconds.
 
David seems pretty cool to me although I don't completely agree with his politics. I think he's been too nice with Bush on the issue of Iraq and I have to ask if Republicans weren't so intolerant of gay men would you be a Log Cabin Republican, David?
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']And only men can get pleasure from anal because the anus is not a sex organ.[/QUOTE]
What exactly are they teaching in Boy Scouts these days? :lol:
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']What exactly are they teaching in Boy Scouts these days? :lol:[/QUOTE]
I didn't learn that in Boy Scouts, it was during "extra credit anatomy homework" with my "study partner".



She was hot...
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Kittie is lina[/QUOTE]

Proof? I see kittie's posts in the wrestling thread, which, if I recall, lina did also. That doesn't mean anything though, since I'm only partially aware of the lina controversy.

Although I disagree with Manji's approach (criticize the muslim religion by overgeneralizing Muslims as terrorist lovers), it's pleasing to see that kittie seems to want to allow Islam to exist as a religion, which places them on a pedestal far above PAD's extremism.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Your appetite for hotdogs.[/QUOTE]

A Scout is:

Trustworthy,
Loyal,
Helpful,
Friendly,
Courteous,
Kind,
Obidient,
Cheerful,
Thrifty,
Brave,
Clean,
and
Reverant.

I would think an Eagle Scout would remember something so basic as the 12 points of the Scout Law.

It wouldn't be difficult to see where that statement flies in the face of a couple of those points.
 
Let's see how these traits refer to Quackzilla's online personality. Just for fun of course.

Trustworthy- Absolutely, he's completely trustworthy to make an ass out himself.
Loyal- Absolutely, he'll toe the most bogus of talking points and haul water for any lib position.
Helpful- Well, to whom? Or what?
Friendly- :rofl: Yep.... fits him to a T.
Courteous- Never.
Kind- Never.
Obidient- To Howard Dean, maybe.
Cheerful- He's the angriest poster I know.
Thrifty- Absolutely, this is CAG! Have to give him that one.
Brave- Eh, hard to say, it's online. I think he'd go out on a limb for a drowning scout so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Clean- Don't we all have the image of one another as sitting around in our underwear and T-shirts, unshaven and unshowered for days on end looking for $9.99 games and penny guides?
and
Reverant- reverent adj 1: feeling or showing profound respect or veneration; "maintained a reverent silence" [ant: irreverent] 2: showing great reverence for God; "a godly man"; "leading a godly life" Without sounding too callous I can't picture Quackzilla having any kind of reverence for God or having any place for religion in his life.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']This is the bloody internet, on a stupid politics message board.[/QUOTE]

And?

Does that in any way change the way which one should behave?
I realize that the psuedoanonymous nature of such boards often leads to such marked changes in behavior, which people sometimes playacting as if they are something they aren't (females pretending to be male, male pretending to be female, etc), but are manners, decorum and other such concepts just thrown out because you aren't face to face with the person?
 
Anonymity is like a warm blanket in a cold world of insecurities.

I think that applies to 100% of all message board members who use aliases.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']And?

Does that in any way change the way which one should behave?
I realize that the psuedoanonymous nature of such boards often leads to such marked changes in behavior, which people sometimes playacting as if they are something they aren't (females pretending to be male, male pretending to be female, etc), but are manners, decorum and other such concepts just thrown out because you aren't face to face with the person?[/QUOTE]
Yes.

:lol:
 
I have yet to meet a Republican on these boards who adhere to the "moral values" that they so claim to characterize.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']And only men can get pleasure from anal because the anus is not a sex organ.[/QUOTE]


I've heard that some studies show that a woman's G-spot is pushed so far back from the vaginal area that a hit from the Anal region causes some women to experience an orgasm better from the back. I'm at work, so I'm not gonna back this up right now... but I'm pretty sure that it was a medical journal that said it.

Also, she's supposidly Catholic... I've dated Catholics that only do anal until wedding day. Which I have no problem with at all.
 
Ugh, women get a sensation from anal sex as well.

And I know not to create serious threads anymore. Thanks.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I have yet to meet a Republican on these boards who adhere to the "moral values" that they so claim to characterize.[/QUOTE]

I don't drink, quit smoking a year and a half going on two years ago, I've been monogomous in my last 3 dating relationships, don't cheat on my taxes, don't do drugs and don't gamble.

What more would you like?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I don't drink, quit smoking a year and a half going on two years ago, I've been monogomous in my last 3 dating relationships, don't cheat on my taxes, don't do drugs and don't gamble.

What more would you like?[/QUOTE]

Tolerance, compassion, and perhaps a little more tact?
 
Sure, and I'm the King of Jupiter.

You word means nothing on a message board, describing your character to try and take a moral high ground is pointless.
 
[quote name='kittie']Ugh, women get a sensation from anal sex as well.

And I know not to create serious threads anymore. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

Just relax, it all comes full circle... you're taking you're hits from being Lina... and in time people will get a life and stop making you their mortal enemy.

Threads always go off-topic, and come back... you've been here long enough to know that.

If you let them get under your skin, you'll never get them out.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I don't drink, quit smoking a year and a half going on two years ago, I've been monogomous in my last 3 dating relationships, don't cheat on my taxes, don't do drugs and don't gamble.

What more would you like?[/QUOTE]

Fact: You support war, genocide, and torture. You support helping the homeless and poor so long as it doesn't cost you, the taxpayer, anything.

Assumption: You're having sex before marriage.

Sounds like you have some moral deficiencies.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']I've heard that some studies show that a woman's G-spot is pushed so far back from the vaginal area that a hit from the Anal region causes some women to experience an orgasm better from the back. I'm at work, so I'm not gonna back this up right now... but I'm pretty sure that it was a medical journal that said it.[/QUOTE]
Anyone else find the highlighted portion as funny as I did?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Anyone else find the highlighted portion as funny as I did?[/QUOTE]

Yes. But with that said, I can understand exactly why... a search to find the journals will obviously turn up some highly NSFW stuff.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Anyone else find the highlighted portion as funny as I did?[/QUOTE]

Being from Martinsville I can imagine why... its a way of life over there. Push the sheep to the water and they push back right?
 
[quote name='JSweeney']Tolerance, compassion, and perhaps a little more tact?[/QUOTE]

Tolerance for what? Terrorism? Sin?

Compassion for what? Terrorism? Sin?

Tact is not a moral value.

[quote name='E-Z-B']Fact: You support war, genocide, and torture. You support helping the homeless and poor so long as it doesn't cost you, the taxpayer, anything.

Assumption: You're having sex before marriage.

Sounds like you have some moral deficiencies.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I support a war on those that would kill us and destroy our country if given the chance. I have never advocated genocide but have advocated an overwhelming response to a nuclear attack on our soil. I have never supported torture.

When have we EVER had a debate on helping the homeless or poor? There's no way you know my position on those issues as we never discuss them.

This entire board is based on current events, no one ever talks political of social philosphies. Don't blame me that you're ignorant on my views.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']I've heard that some studies show that a woman's G-spot is pushed so far back from the vaginal area that a hit from the Anal region causes some women to experience an orgasm better from the back. I'm at work, so I'm not gonna back this up right now... but I'm pretty sure that it was a medical journal that said it.

Also, she's supposidly Catholic... I've dated Catholics that only do anal until wedding day. Which I have no problem with at all.[/QUOTE]

:rofl: a perfect example of why mooky is one of my favorite posters on cag
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']Being from Martinsville I can imagine why... its a way of life over there. Push the sheep to the water and they push back right?[/QUOTE]
Hey, don't rag on Martinsville. We got us a NASCAR track! :roll:
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']I've heard that some studies show that a woman's G-spot is pushed so far back from the vaginal area that a hit from the Anal region causes some women to experience an orgasm better from the back.[/QUOTE]
Huh? I hate to get into this discussion, but that statement makes no sense to me. How can the G-spot be "pushed so far back" for it to be felt, uh, back there?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Yes, I support a war on those that would kill us and destroy our country if given the chance.[/QUOTE]
So you would support a war on the Saudis who attacked us on 9/11 but not the Iraqis who didn't... Good to know.
 
[quote name='judyjudyjudy']Huh? I hate to get into this discussion, but that statement makes no sense to me. How can the G-spot be "pushed so far back" for it to be felt, uh, back there?[/QUOTE]

Yeah ... that doesn't make much sense.
 
[quote name='judyjudyjudy']Huh? I hate to get into this discussion, but that statement makes no sense to me. How can the G-spot be "pushed so far back" for it to be felt, uh, back there?[/QUOTE]

Not really pushed, literally... just that it formed back from the vaginal area.

Seriously, I've seen chicks cum so hard they were shaking like an epileptic after climax. I call it "seizure sex"... (dont use that, its trademarked ;-) )

Sorry to get graphic, but you asked.

I know its a half-dollar sized swell on the top, but some women grow it further up, and some ( I think 4%) grow it mutated in the back. Where the penis cant arouse it. I've dated a girl who couldnt cum without anal... and my current has it towards the top... which is a pain in the ass.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']So you would support a war on the Saudis who attacked us on 9/11 but not the Iraqis who didn't... Good to know.[/QUOTE]

Were they state sponsored? No. The Saudi government did not support or fund those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

It's also pretty hard to declare war on 19 people that you know..... died.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I have never advocated genocide but have advocated an overwhelming response to a nuclear attack on our soil.[/quote]

That's the biggest fucking lie you've ever told. I'll be back in a few hours, so perhaps someone will cite your overgeneralized hatred by then. If not, I'll take care of that.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']Not really pushed, literally... just that it formed back from the vaginal area.

Seriously, I've seen chicks cum so hard they were shaking like an epileptic after climax. I call it "seizure sex"... (dont use that, its trademarked ;-) )

Sorry to get graphic, but you asked.

I know its a half-dollar sized swell on the top, but some women grow it further up, and some ( I think 4%) grow it mutated in the back. Where the penis cant arouse it. I've dated a girl who couldnt cum without anal... and my current has it towards the top... which is a pain in the ass.[/QUOTE]
If it was further up, wouldn't there be a uterus in between the g-spot and anal cavity?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Were they state sponsored? No. The Saudi government did not support or fund those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

It's also pretty hard to declare war on 19 people that you know..... died.[/QUOTE]
You'll wash the Saudis hands of this but you think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11? We should have finished the war on al Qaida (and the Taliban hiding them) instead of taking out Saddam.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's the biggest fucking lie you've ever told. I'll be back in a few hours, so perhaps someone will cite your overgeneralized hatred by then. If not, I'll take care of that.[/QUOTE]

Distrust of a religion is not a call for genocide. Posting distasteful facts, note that word facts, about adherents and prostelytizers of Islam is not a call for genocide. Dislike of a religion or even overt hatred is not a call for genocide.

Cry me a river.
 
bread's done
Back
Top