I really have a serious problem understanding precisely what Irshad Manji's agenda is.

I have no qualms with saying precisely how opposed I am to Irshad Manji and her mindset -- granted not as opposed as I am to the atheistic Wafa Sultan who got called a "Daring Voice for the New Islam" by Time Magazine even after she said on al-Jazeera "Lastu muslimah"/I am not a Muslim.

Ms. Manji's Ha'Aretz article "Good News About Islam" gives a glimpse into precisely what it is about her that raises the ire of this author. First of all:

Brace yourselves: During the same week that India and Israel were reminded of Islamist brutality, liberal Muslims made progress in reclaiming our faith, both in the East and in the West.

I let this go in general conversation, but I think the point needs to be made: one does not need to extend their liberal political views to their faith in order to be an enlightened individual. The mindset that Wafa Sultan said "belongs in the middle ages" -- namely Islamic Law, shari'a -- is responsible for some $270 billion worldwide in shari'a compliant investments and Islamic banking software is being used in Pakistan now.

And as I continually stress on MySpace.com's "This is Babylon" -- even a cursory reading of the Quran and ahadeeth makes Nasrallah and his ilk seem sorely in need of ideological Scriptural support. Living by Qur'an and living according to al-Zarqawi almost look antithetical at times when one compares the speech transcript to the Qur'anic text.

So let's hear the progress made by "liberal Muslims". After telling of abuses of shari'a in Pakistan under the "Hudood" -- laws meant to make Pakistani civil law more in line with Sharia, namely the law proscribing punishment for adultery and its requirement of "4 male adult witnesses" for zina bil jabr - rape:

As more and more of Pakistan's Muslims recognize that these laws emanate from humans, they acknowledge that the duty to re-think them rests in their hands, not God's. Muslims believe that Allah is perfect. We are learning to appreciate that Allah's interpreters are not.

You see, it's right there. I'm not going to advocate the divinity of shari'a -- I'm Jewish and I have a Divinely guided and inspired halacha to guide me in the path of Torah.

But for a Muslimah to say that shari'a "emanates from humans"? As SunniPath.com points out (quoting the BBC):

“For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had God willed, He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He has given you. So vie one with another in good works. Unto God you will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein you differ.” (Qur’an, 5: 48)

[...]

God decreed for each soul a time on earth so that He might try them. Then, after the completion of their appointed terms, He would judge them and send them to their eternal destinations: either one of endless bliss, or one of everlasting grief. This life, then, is a journey that presents to its wayfarers many paths. Only one of these paths is clear and straight. This path is the Shariah.

Now, why is it inconceivable that the living G-d -- as we know Islam is not idolatrous and therefore All-h = Hashem -- would have decreed that the prayers of unjustly oppressed females should be answered, that perhaps they would find an advocate in a Shari'a court? Is this act of intervention any less Divine?

Why is the instant instinctive response within humanity trained to be -- "X messed up my life and said that he was doing it for religious reasons therefore my religion must need fixing"? Abuses of shari'a are abuses. But like I point out on the other "This is Babylon" -- for virtually every terrorist incident is some sheikh, somewhere who's saying otherwise. Ms. Manji even points out disputes among Imams regarding whether or not "Islam was the only path to salvation". Are there not such disputes in many other areas of Islamic law?

Why must the solution be -- "the liberal reformation of Islam"?

At the same time, the liberal reformation of Islam picked up speed - in Copenhagen, the city that served as Ground Zero for worldwide riots over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Right. I'm still pissed about that and I'm not even Muslim.

One of the ultimate disrespects that one could possibly make to a Muslim person -- and this is justified how? "We will not apologize" for printing the article, Jyllands-Pøsten said, citing their own freedom of the press. An apology for emotions, but not for the actual offense.

So what happened in Copenhagen?

I joined 99 other "Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow" in Copenhagen to debate how Islam and the West can enrich each other. We came from the United States, Canada, Australia and across Europe.

[...]

Maybe the most compelling insight came from a surprise guest: Flemming Rose, publisher of the reviled Prophet Muhammad cartoons.

He said that the reception he got from Muslims was more welcoming than the reception he got from many humanists.

Granted, the subject of pictures of Muhammad is a debated topic among Sunni and Shia scholars alike. But Islamic reformists have taken it upon themselves to make their own cartoon contest. In fact IslamicReform.org is pitching a "Reformist Qur'an Translation".

Why is this necessary? Why MUST practice and tradition be watered down instead of adapting?

I think it should be axiomatic:

G-d is good.

G-d wants good for all of us.

G-d, wanting good for all us, would not set up a system whereby any one of His creations would be automatically screwed.

That being said, I think it behooves religious people to look inside their holy texts -- both theological and practical -- before choosing to infuse secular ideas into their worlds.