I will admit this book is out of date; it is well over ten years old and written in 2004. I heard about this book on accident, I ran across Manji’s new book Don’t Label Me bought it and then while reading another book that mentions Manji’s book The Trouble with Islam; I decided to buy her first book on kindle and read it. Randomly, I found her second book at Barnes &Noble’s used section, so I bought it for cheap. Apparently, fate wanted me to read all her work.

Irshad Manji is a Lesbian Indian Ugandan Canadian Muslim, we can simply call her a Canadian. According to the book I am reviewing, her father was abusive, and her mother was a wonderfully strong person. Two of her books, this one included, have been banned in Malaysia of all places. Her writing flows wonderfully and it feels like she is speaking to the reader through the page like she is in the same room. This book makes huge points that she then would ruin by weak arguments. As a journalist I would expect her to do more research and use political journalist pages to back up her work. The book was a huge roller coaster of emotion for me because while I whole heartily agree with her points, her delivery made me want to gag with her blatant ignorance.

While visiting a conference in the Toronto area with “most of the female participants weren’t wearing the hijab, not even a fetching version of it” a man gave a speech about Muslims needing intellectuals and Islam being unchanged in thinking for 600 years. She decided to point out that if a non-Muslim said these things, then these liberal Muslim would go balls out. Then she proceeds to compare it to the “n-word” (she spells it out) and says “but why can’t proper representation depend on shared values rather than superficial similarities of skin color for blacks, sexual orientation for gays, religion for Muslims?” Which is a true enough statement Manji, we’ve been asking that our selves for hundreds of years. This statement well, pissed me off because she ignores the fact that the n-word is and was used as a degrading word for black individuals. I know its not a dead word because I’ve been called a Sand N**** a few times already. I don’t claim the word, nor will I say it because it’s not my word.

The cultural significance and the racist history of it are what makes it problematic for non-blacks for saying it. The African community’s intellectuals even discussed trying to discard the word together. The only people who should have a say about the word is the black community. Muslims get defensive when non-Muslims tell us that we need reform because it ignores all the achievements and works Muslim continue to do. The man who gave the speech, I agree with slightly. Islam is looked at through a Christian Western viewpoint, regardless if the scholar is Christian he is still using his own Western notion of religion. Which religious studies in the West were developed through Christianity. As an ex-Christian sometimes I find myself wondering why Muslims can’t have mosques function like a church. I’m like where are the bake sales and can food drives? I am far from the only person who sees the Christian lens by a Western society looking into any other religion.  The Western world has always written plays and demonized Islam since the medieval Christian times. There are plenty of Western scholars who do critique Islam and do so in a way that they don’t offend people. The difference between them and the guy that writes a book about Islam being evil is the scholar doesn’t demonize Islam and build upon tropes.

There should be freedom of the press, we all agree. What Manji likes to ignore in her book, is the fact that the Muslims who protested against the Danish newspaper did not start off violent. They had petitions signed and etc., to try to get the images down. Charlie Harbo’s image of the Prophet wasn’t an image of him, it was an image that portrayed him in sexual demonizing manner not criticizing Muslims but making fun of the already persecuted minority.

“Since my young adulthood, Muslims in the West have been sucking on the nipple of public ignorance about Islam, wailing for validation under all condition, at all costs.” No, I will say no and I will say no again. Muslims in the West do want validation, they want the right to not be murdered in their own mosques or constantly are surveillance. Muslims in France want the right to wear the hijab and pray. Muslims everywhere in the West want to limit extremism as much as the White folks; Muslim Americans do turn in people with signs of radicalism. Muslims have not sucked the nipple of the public, hell try telling Malcolm X (our favorite Muslim American) that he sucked the White man’s tit. The first Muslims (including black Muslims, which may or may not been the cargo…depending on time period) in Europe in modern times came because of colonization and through trade. The first Mosque in Britain was founded by a White convert and the first non-biased Quran in English was written by a White convert. Some of the first Muslims in West who helped Muslim communities flourish were, in fact, Black and White converts. Muslim who immigrated in the 1800s and early 1900s found themselves without a community and in a Christian dominated area. Many were persecuted because of their skin color and religion, leading to many Arab Americans to win the right to be called White. Early Mosques resembled churches and even the women did not wear hijabs but wore simple prayer shawls during prayer, similar to what the Christians wore at the time.

Black Muslims fought tooth and nail to get equal rights in the 1900s, and not once did they suckle the tit of White society. In fact, they opposed supporting any white business and some went so far as to not vote for any white man or have integration. Muslims have worked hard to counter this ignorance, having loads of interfaith councils and publishing feminist and western Islamic books. Muslims have openly criticized Islam and the creation of the Ground Zero-Mosque was not a tit sucking moment. Algerian Muslims in France are poor because of numerous factors. They aren’t sucking the tit of France because they love French breast milk so much, trust me they would like to eat cake too (get it?).

One of my favorite random and pointless critiques is one on the Prime minister of Malaysia in 1994 who said Islam has produced many love stories. By pointing out the tale of Laila and Majnun, as a classic Islamic love story. Manji said, “at the risk of ruining the romance of this moment, I must ask: Does Laila have the choice to stay single rather than marry Majnun? May she exit the country without his okay? Can she choose her career? Can she have a career? Was any one of these questions asked aloud by the non-Muslims who attended the speech?” Ahh….I love when people who never have read a piece of work trying to turn it into some modern political work critiquing a society. First Laila doesn’t end up with Majnun or marry him, she in facts marries a wealthy rich merchant. When Majnun heard of her marriage he flees and wanders the wilderness, her father didn’t want them to marry because he thought he was mentally unstable. Laila moves to Northern Arabia and dies of heartache or sickness. This work is comparable to Romeo and Juliet. The questions asked by Manji does not make sense to this work because frankly any woman in the 1100s wouldn’t have any choice in marriage or job or traveling. Perhaps in some places, she could be a nun or maybe have a small say in a marriage partner. This would be like reading Pride and Prejudice and saying “Did Elizabeth Benet have a career and be paid equal? Could Benet truly free the boobies in public and breastfeed openly? Could Elizabeth do a Me too movement? More importantly, would Elizabeth accept Darcy if he was black?” It sounds silly, doesn’t it? The problems a character in 1813 would of faced would have been hugely different than what any Western women faces. Yet we can enjoy the story today because it isn’t problematic or sexist in our Modern world view. Neither is Layla and Majnun because it is about two lovers who live apart, Majnun learns to live without Layla. Both stories are wonderful love stories that don’t need some weird wanna be woke questioning.  

What are her good points? Well, in Jerusalem at the Dome of the Rock a Palestinian woman told her Palestinians are broke. Manji replied in a condescending attitude how on earth can they be broke with all the charities being given to them. Palestinians, to her, should be rolling in dough. The Palestinian woman told her it is corruption. Manji of course scoffed and naively led the story elsewhere. I thought it was a wonderful move to point out the financial stealing in the Palestinian governments and programs trying to help the Palestinians, Manji just fell blank. Her only informant was a random schoolteacher who didn’t know where the money went. That was good enough for Manji’s journalist skills apparently. Instead of actually trying to find a liable source to the problem, she paints it as a “Muslim Problem”. Which I do think we should be aware of Charities; I have trouble with Charities because most don’t give the money to what they say they are giving the money too. That isn’t just Muslim charities, she also mentions how some Muslim charities support fundamentalist. Which is true and we need to quit giving them support. The problem is Muslims want to support Muslims, but there are plenty of organizations that also support non-Islamic fundamentalism too. Some even spread Christianity; I do not want to give to a charity that promotes any ideology.

Manji also points out the ridiculous fatwas given in Europe by Muslim Sharia councils calling for the death of Western individuals who “critique” Islam. In 1999 playwright Terence McNally got a death warrant for his portrayal of Jesus as a Gay man in Corpus Christi. The fatwa did say he should only be murdered if he went to an Islamic state and he could only escape death if he converted to Islam. Manji wondered why the Sheikh Omar wasn’t kicked out of Britain for making a death threat to a citizen. I fully agree that this “sheik” should have gotten multiple reprehensions for his signing of the fatwa. The truth is fatwas are legally binding in any Islamic country, as there are tons of them and old men tend to make them left and right, this kind of fatwa especially does undermine the principles of freedom of speech. No one should be issued a death warrant because you don’t like how they portray any figure in history, including Muhammad. Do I agree with any depictions of Muhammad, no and I think that places should understand and respect Muslims not wanting his image anywhere. People slander him easily enough without an image. These kinds of fatwas need to be prevented by the vast majority of Muslims because they create extremism and violence. Talking against the play or peacefully protesting is a better way to get a point across that you’re not okay with Jesus being a gay man. You have every right not to like something someone wrote, I hate racist comments and books that demonize Islam but I will not prevent them from being published. Otherwise, I become no better than them.

 One last point, she weirdly bashes Bangladesh for banning a female writer’s work. One who she uses throughout her entire book as proof of Bangladesh being an evil Islamic place. The Bengali author is Taslima Nasrin and her books are banned in both West Bengal and Bangladesh, both Bengali communities. The first novel is about a Hindu family who is attacked during the Bengali anti-Hindu riots that were sparked because India destroyed an old mosque. I have not read the book or her work, so I can not say how “evil” it portrays Islam. I don’t think her work should be banned in the first place, people have the right to read her critiques. Yet Manji paints her as the leading voice of Bangladesh, who according to her are fundamentalist Muslims. Which honestly makes me laugh hard, I mean it. I’m not just saying that because my husband is Bengali and Bengalis themselves have a mixed practice with veiling with many women on tv not even wearing hijab and women in the street could be wearing a niqab, abaya, or just sari. It’s a pretty diverse society when it comes to veiling practices. Has it become more popular for women to wear a niqab in Bangladesh? Nope. When writing my paper on feminism in South Asia, I ignored Bangladesh because they had no need of Islamic feminism. They already had a feminist organization and their constitution gives equals rights. Does that mean the poor village women gets her rights? No. Are there Hindu bashing policies in the 99% Muslim majority country…..um yes. However, the Christian Hill people get most of the bashing. Most of the rhetoric actually comes from economic problems, such as India flooding the country by opening their dam and killing hundreds of Bengalis. The country is mostly lakes and rivers, which makes it hard to build good infrastructure. Then there are the Muslims in India who are lynched, raped, and murdered; which because of Media fueling the fire makes the average Bengali outraged.

It is hard to find any real reason about why Taslim Nasrin book is banned in Bangladesh, it’s not her feminist rhetoric because Bengali women have written and produced enough documents on the subject. Nor is it her pro-Hindu book, because again it isn’t the first book to critique the prejudice the majority culture has over the minority culture. The fact is Manji uses Nasrin book to promote this idea that Bengalis are religious fundamentalist who scream “Allah” every ten seconds. She basically just glosses over the problems Bengalis do face, and the government has worked on preventing extremism and providing for the people (It is a corrupt government). There are waves of terrorist groups in the country that target both Muslims and none Muslims alike. I am assuming she wrote about Nasrin because there were many articles about her in 2002 and to Manji that would have been relevant news at the time.

The Trouble with Islam does try to make good points. I couldn’t help but nod at all the bullet points she made in every chapter. The problem with this book was I found too many faults in her logic that backed up her points, which honestly left me slightly pissed. It felt like I was on a reading rollercoaster with going up to a great point, then constantly plummeting down the hill with her back up. I will say as a White Western woman; it makes me sick how much she romanticizes Western values. Trust me I love Western values and pretty much am proud of them. I have no problem with her loving Western thoughts and wanting Western Muslims to use Western values to stop fundamentalism. The problem is she assumes Muslims don’t already do this or never have, and they do. The fact she has this idea in her head that Muslims stopped thinking since the fall of Spanish Islam makes me cringe. Some of the greatest authors that critiqued Islam are from the 1800s and 1900s in Arab and South Asian world.

Should you bother reading this book? I don’t’ think this book is relevant for 2019, as it was for 2004. While she does make awesome remarks, you can easily read plenty of books that critique Islam that actually use more resources. If she actually researched her points, instead of randomly having discussions with random guys then she probably would have made a timeless piece. Yet her alluding that Islamophobia and Black racism isn’t real and that people just need to “work harder” and “stop falling for dessert Islam” frankly put a bad taste In my mouth.