In "The deadly face of Muslim extremism" in the National Post, Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan, the courageous Canadian Muslim reformers about whom I wrote here, call for the searching self-examination that Muslim leaders are so far evading in the wake of the murder of Aqsa Parvez:
...If convicted, Aqsa's father and brother must be handed the strictest penalty available under the law. As for the imams and clergy of Canada's mosques, who constantly berate young women for not wearing the hijab or snub them for "violating Islam," they need to reflect on the consequences of their sermons.Consider, as an example, the Montreal mosque that recently posted on its Web site a warning to the effect that if young girls took off their hijab, they could end up getting raped and having "illegitimate children." Other proffered risks included "Stresses, insecurity and suspicion in the minds of husbands" and "instigating young people to deviate towards the path of lust."
As if the threat of rape and the fear of illegitimate children were not enough, these pre-teen girls were told that if they took off their hijab, they would cease to be Muslims: "By removing your hijab, you have destroyed your faith. Islam means submission to Allah in all our actions." Little wonder then, that Canadian girls walk away from sports tournaments rather than remove their hijabs.
Muslims need to stand up to this sort of emotional and religious blackmail by imams who spread the competing agendas of Saudi Arabia and Iran into Canada. Young Aqsa Pervez's death cannot be reversed. But in her memory, we can at least challenge those whose message leads to rage and madness.
Indeed.
Well said.
"Islam means submission to Allah in all our actions."
-- from the article above, quoting an imam
Isn't this merely standard Islam? And if it is, what is it that makes those who are willing not to "submit to Allah" in many areas, who are willing to start to think and behave and express the indignation of free men, in the non-Muslim West, to continue to call themselves "Muslims" at all? Possibly it is a matter of filial piety. Possibly the depth of the societal link is so great, and their desire to maintain an "identity" -- a name to give themselves ("I am a Muslim") so strong. Possibly they think to themselves that "I can do more good as a 'reformer' within Islam" than I can by leaving"). Possibly they are simply fearful. Possibly more than one of these tugs at them.
But if all of those disaffected, Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslims, were to start openly discussing that the fact that they were no longer Muslims, had abandoned Islam as a belief-system, what would be the effect? Possibly many others, so born into Islam and also possibly wondering what to do, would be heartened by this display of numbers - of mass defections from Islam in the West, that would make it harder for non-Muslims to deny the essence of Islam.
Furthermore, if one is born into Islam, comes to the West, and begins to think for oneself, and silently defects, there is still the problem of children who think of themselves as "Muslim" and who, therefore, at a later date, may -- even if brought up in a "moderate" household -- "return to Islam." Such, for example, has been the case with some of those accused of terrorist acts in this county -- such as the boy who, raised by "moderate" Iranian exiles, in a fit of mental desarroi took up Islam again.
The only way for an advanced "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-Muslim" to ensure that his (her) own children, or their children, will never "revert" to the True-Blue Islam is to cut the cord completely, to simply declare themselves Not-Muslim, apostates, with no hesitation, and no looking back. We know the names of some famous apostates: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq. But tens of thousands in the West may be in the Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslims. By continuing to allow themselves to be counted as Muslims, they inadvertently swell those counted as Muslims, and hence the perception of Muslim power (in other words, their mere existence as "Muslims" helps to increase the power of the very Muslims, the full-bodied kind, whom they deplore).
More of those who still think of themselves as Muslims, but deplore, when they think about it, almost everything that makes Islam Islam, should declare themselves, openly, to have left Islam, and encourage others, openly, to do the same.
Living in Toronto and having graduated from the school Aqsa attended this hits home with me.
Tarek and Irshad Manji are the only muslims i know of that have a sane voice in the community
Any chance one or both of these people could be nominated for the anti dhimmi awards
these pre-teen girls were told that if they took off their hijab, they would cease to be Muslims: "By removing your hijab, you have destroyed your faith. Islam means submission to Allah in all our actions."
And under Islam, the penalty for apostasy is death
If you take away the blackmail, what does islam have?
Consider, as an example, the Montreal mosque that recently posted on its Web site a warning to the effect that if young girls took off their hijab, they could end up getting raped and having "illegitimate children."
Hmm. And just what belief system would we expect to find in a person who would be more likely to rape a woman without a hijab than one with? Do they think Infidel rapists are going to bypass the nice, sweet, modest, virginal, hijabed muslim girls out of respect for their religious beliefs?
Islam is truly a one-of-a-kind "religion." Most of the world's faiths try to encourage their adherents to strive to be better than than their basest natures. But islam expects its men to be rapists.
Isn't the reason they could be raped because muslim males would not be able to control their sexual urges at the sight of all that naked, errr, face.
I'm sure I've heard imams saying words to the effect that you can't expect the males to control themselves.
"By removing your hijab, you have destroyed your faith. Islam means submission to Allah in all our actions."
How sick is this? Any religion that relies on terror to keep innocents "in line", doesn't deserve to be called a religion. There's nothing uplifting, spiritual, or wonderous in this.
And, yes, I mean any religion, including any bastardized brand of Christianity. Yet, this is "pure" Islam, here. Pure venom. Pure hatred for women who aren't even women, yet.
How I despise the purveyors of any "faith" like this one!
The greatest danger to any Muslim is Islam.
Greetings:
From the above: "...If convicted, Aqsa's father and brother must be handed the strictest penalty available under the law."
I am kind of struggling with the absence of any charge against the girl's mother. Are we to believe that this conspiracy to kill went on without her knowledge or involvement? Where was momma?
From what I understand the investigation in still on-going, but I suspect the "momma" will be charged as well. I just hope that those Canadians involved will see through the BS and find the perps guilty. Unfortunately here in the states the co-conspirators would stand a good chance of getting off.
Is there such a thing as islam lite ?
Too risky and for us self defeating.
Just bad in the bone is islam - agree, -just leave it - ta ta, so long, good bye, good riddance.
11B40
For what its worth (anyone not familiar with Canadian law)
The father was charged with 2nd degree murder, which i believe carries a maximum of 25 years with the possibility of parole within 7 years.
But that will not fly,he will end up charged with manslaughter (irony not intended) which i believe carries a 7 year sentence with parole within 2 years.
Now we have to take into account his time in incarceration.
Any time he spends holed up,he will get double or triple time credited.
Long story short, 2 years less a day.
So this piece of excrement should be able to get out of jail free within 7 months
Based on a true life story
Notice that when writing specifically about the hijab, the authors are quick to cite the lack of specifics in Qur'an as the defense:
And more goodness in the Qur'an: "The Koran exhorts compassion upon parents, caretakers and guardians of young girls."
But the negative follow-up doesn't mention the Qur'an: "Yet some families instead exhibit a strict conformity to doctrine and dogma."
Further, when writing about the "ethos that treats women as nonpersons, unable to decide for themselves what they should wear, where they must go and what they must accomplish in life," no mention of the Qur'an. This time, it's a "medieval," "austere religious outlook."
Maybe it's just me, but it seems the authors were very careful to portray their positive messages as coming directly from the Qur'an, while any negative/oppressive/violent interpretations come from "religious outlooks" and a "strict conformity to doctrine and dogma." Can't say they're wrong, but...