- "We, as Muslims, find it abhorrent that Islam is used to murder millions of innocent people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
- "Twenty-first century Muslims have two options: we can continue the barbaric policies of the seventh century […], or we can reform Islam to keep our rich cultural heritage and to cleanse our religion from the reviled relics of the past."
All well and good. What exactly are their prescriptions accordingly? Looking at their manifesto, we see these action items:
Inconsistencies in the Koran: they wrongly assert that the qur'an contains many passages that "call for Islamic domination and incite violence against non-Muslims." They also want to "change" that.
The Koran & the Bible: They claim that the Bible and the Torah are more pure and that the Qur'an is a corrupted text, stating baldly (and falsely on both counts) that "While neither Testament calls for mass murder of unbelievers, the Koran does."
Accepting responsibilities: This is probably the most offensive of all - they say that "we (sic) must acknowledge evils done by Muslims in the name of Islam and accept responsibility for those evils." Why should any muslim accept even one tiny iota of responsibility for evil done in the name of the faith by twisted extremists? They follow that with another call to censoring "evil passages" in the Qur'an so that "future generations of Muslims will not be confused by conflicting messages". How benevolent.
and it goes on and on. It boggles the mind that any muslim would capitulate so utterly to the Osama bin Ladens of the world thus. The answer to extremism is to expose the false fatwas and selective tajweed for what they are, not accord the extremists' warped interpretations the status of orthodoxy and try to excise them.
One more thing. The so-called muslims against Sharia aren't actually muslim at all. Among the blog team there is Pamela Geller (of the ultrarightwing blog Atlas Shrugs). If there are any true muslims at MAS who have some pride in their faith, then why do they work alongside someone who explicitly called for Islam to be banned?
With "allies" such as Pamela on board, it's painfully obvious to all but the most deluded, naive fools that the true agenda of MAS is to attack the principles of Islam from within. These people are far worse than the Irshad Manji/Hirsi Ali types who make earnest calls for "reform", because the latter are at least honest about what they are and what they seek.
3 comments:
What's next? Muslims Against God? Muslims Against The Prophet? Muslims Against Salah? How about Muslims Against Halal?
I think Muslims Against Islam pretty much covers the bases.
though, it must be emphasized that I am not accusing everyone associated with the project of being non-muslim. I am saying that a cursory look behind the facade reveals outright jafi participation. Any muslims who may be involved are muslim if they claim they are as far as I am concerned; I am not one to judge. However, they are well-advised to inquire as to whether their associates share the same goals as they.
It's hard to admit you are the pet monke, sometimes.
Aziz,
You might want to try to understand the concept of collective responsibility. Were the Germans responsible for WWII? Were the Soviets responsible for spread of communism? "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." And hundreds off Millions of Muslims have looked on and done nothing for way too long while fanatics raped and pillaged. And we are responsible for our inaction. Of course, it is easier to say that personally we have done nothing wrong. Unfortunately for you, circling the wagons is not working anymore.
Post a Comment