To coincide with the recent US release of her controversial book, The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith, author Irshad Manji has made several television appearances. On TV, her attitude is self-assured, and when pressed, pugnacious; as a speaker she is eloquent, dynamic and forthcoming.

Her confidence is curious considering her inbox at muslim-refusenik.com is teeming with death threats. Both abroad and in North America, the rhetoric from Muslims protesting against Ms. Manji’s manifesto is vitriolic. Similar protesting will likely grow as she continues to market her book in North America, and also for upcoming releases in Australia and Germany, to name a few countries, and a future release in Israel (a marketing maneuver many Muslims consider especially reprehensible). As a result of these threats, Ms. Manji has converted her Toronto home into a bullet-proof sanctum—just for safe measure—and a bodyguard accompanies Ms. Manji on all book signings and public appearances.

What is stirring such provocation is her call, as the title suggests, for a progressive reform to Islam, both in Arab-Muslim countries, and especially among Muslim practitioners in the West. Pervading anti-Semitism, hatred of the West and the United States, the ill-treatment and history of subjugation of Muslim women, a history of violence (which according to Ms. Manji surfaced around the 12th century,) and recent terrorism, are among the problems she takes issue with in her book. Fundamentalism is marring Islam, and she explains that it is the practitioner’s responsibility to squelch chauvinism and bigotry, without having to feel compelled to abandon ones’ religiosity in order to to fight fanaticism. Of course, this remains true for all faiths, Abrahamic in root or otherwise. And since Ms. Manji refuses to abandon her own faith, she is hoping to inspire other Muslims who are equally frustrated. “To this day, Muslims use the white man as a weapon of mass-distraction—a distraction from the fact that we’ve never needed the ‘oppressive’ West to oppress our own.” I should mention that Ms. Manji rarely sugarcoats.

The Trouble with Islam is structured as a letter to Muslims. Manji’s style in the book is conversational and anecdotal, although she waffles between intellectual speak and the tone of a teenage girl. Hyperbole adds theatricality to her spoken and written voice, but it is only distracting in the book. This is only a slight complaint, since overall the book is an exhilarating read. Not to mention that she is among the moderate voices willing to speak up—among many moderates, she assures, who are frustrated with the surge of anti-Western and anti-Semitic fervor, but have no outlet or motivation to say so openly.

Inciting enmity among Muslims is her position on Israeli and Palestinian issues. Her stance is a clear quid pro quo: Israel should be reprimanded and held accountable for its human rights’ infractions and the geopolitical disenfranchisement of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. In the same manner so should Arafat for thwarting the prospect of peace under Oslo during the Clinton Administration. She also urges Arafat to answer to allegations that his administration is corrupt or caballing.

At large, it appears that political and literary theorists are impressed by Ms. Manji’s candor, and let’s be frank, her fearlessness. However, a few political theorists question the veracity of the facts and figures she’s assembled in her book regarding the history of Islam. In the long run, this might shake her credibility. In a recent critique of Trouble in the New York Times Review of Books, reviewer Andrew Sullivan avowed that she will be “widely dismissed” because she is a “young woman and she is a lesbian. She loves the West, its freedoms and opportunities.” He predicts that she will be denounced as a liberal ideologue—of the bleeding-heart variety—and her message will be ultimately lost.

I will add that aside from being a practicing Muslim who is gay and an outspoken feminist, Ms. Manji repudiates the custom of veiling, which will likely unnerve conservative Muslims further. She rebuffs the custom for a fundamental reason: women in Arab-Muslim nations don’t have much choice in the matter. In fact, granting Muslim women choice is part and parcel to her campaign for reform. She considers conferring Arab-Muslim women economic independence and opportunity to be a step closer to a viable solution for expediting their emancipation. Her logic is simple (some fear too simple): with more economic stability and more choices at home, individuals are less likely to turn their wrath outwards and towards the West. With more stability, Ms. Manji proposes, the less it is likely “tribal theology” will prevail in the Middle East, referring to Osama bin Laden as an example of a proponent of this infamous branch of “theology.” And with more stability, citizens will question their leader’s intolerant agendas.

In response to Mr. Sullivan’s predictions, I believe he might be right but only in regards to older generations' reactions to Ms. Manji. I am more optimistic about reactions from younger generations in the West. Ms. Manji’s manifesto will likely be banned in most countries in the Middle East, and she confirms this probability. But as she states, her hopes are that this will spawn a counter-cultural campaign in the West against future 9/11’s, and encourage young Muslim moderates to embrace a pacifistic agenda towards US-Middle-East relations. She believes Muslims should peacefully but ardently protest undesirable US policies, but conversely, when the United States proves to help advance Arab-Muslim agendas, Muslims should react obligingly, an attitude she considers to be simple “reciprocation.” Again, quid pro quo.

For readers who think Ms. Manji’s manifesto is falling on deaf ears, I would refer you to her website to scroll through the hundreds of letters she’s posted from readers. I was roused by the varied responses. From the cache of letters that she’s posted, many Muslims have reacted positively to Ms. Manji’s endeavoring. Some are even obsequious. However, other letters are scathing and petulant, such as one that appeared with this brief, bigoted statement: “F*** you! Nipple-eater!” And sadly, her archive is full of such disturbing reproaches.

Irshad Manji is deemed naïve by some, but a precedent for peaceful reformation exists from the last century. Gandhi’s theories of ahimsa—non-violence, stemming from Hindu theology—proved successful in ousting colonialists from South Asia. Martin Luther King, Jr. appropriated Gandhi’s ideologies to fight segregation during the Civil Right’s movement. And kudos to suffragists in the United States and in Britain for taking risks for demanding equality. Certainly, the scale of Ms. Manji’s cause and the world at large are different. However, I suspect Ms. Manji isn’t so naïve as to expect sweeping advancements. She is merely offering small, systematic steps.

© 2004 Deborah S. Esquenazi

Deborah S. Esquenazi is a freelance writer specializing in political and cultural topics. Deb is a regular columnist for How to Make a Family - read her at Demythologizing the Metropolis. She lives in NYC and can be contacted at desquenazi at howtomakeafamily.com.