Friday, June 24, 2016

Farzana Hassan Tells Muslims to "Actively Counter the Extremism In Their Midst" By Rejecting Their Islamic "Values"

She may not put it into those exact words, but that, in essence, is her message:
They must not just condemn outrages and disown the perpetrators, but advocate positively for tolerance toward Westerners, women, homosexuals and those of different religious beliefs, or no beliefs.
If more Muslims imparted these values to their children, violence in the name of Islam would decrease.
If more Muslims imparted these (Western) values to their children, would they still be Muslim? Or would they be Muslim in name only? And isn't that, in fact, part of the problem--immigrant parents who move away from their traditions only to find that that makes their children feel adrift in the larger society, and therefore more inclined to want to search for the identity--and the "values"-- their parents had shunned?

How many "lone wolf" jihadis are born right here in the West?

Hassan's suggestion sounds eminently sensible, but, alas, when it comes to Islamic supremacism and all the bad stuff it engenders, including jihadi terrorism, there is no magic bullet.

Update: Here's another problem--"moderate" Muslims who, instead of copping to the reality of what Islamic scripture has to say about homosexuality, insist that it says no such thing:
Raheel Raza, president of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, and an author who tries to fight hate in Islam, said the video is shocking and Quick's remarks dehumanize gay men. She said the comments do not reflect the teachings of Islam. 
"It's an appalling video, it's shocking. We have a responsibility to not make statements that lead to violence," Raza said. "What right does one human being have, no matter what faith, no matter what religion, to condemn another person to death? This is at the core of this issue." 
Raza said the belief Quick expressed in the video that gay men should die is not found in the the (sic)  Qur'an. She says the Islamic holy book does not accept "homosexuality," but it does not condone violence against the gay community, either. 
Raheel's on the right side, but she does her cause a grave disservice by misrepresenting the contents of the Quran (which calls for homosexuals to be stoned to death, the reason why gays are executed in Muslim countries--Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen--that practice Quran-inspired sharia law).

This assessment by another moderate is far more honest (my bolds):
Mainstream Muslim-American imams or religious leaders believe that everything the prophet said was true. Cognitive dissonance is the fundamental psychological issue that is swept under the rug, but that needs to be a conversation in American mosques. On the topic of homosexuality, most American-Muslim scholars, such as Yasir Qadhi, will argue that in a pluralistic society such as that of the United States, we must tolerate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans even while we believe that they live sinful lives. 
More liberal American-Muslim leaders will advocate that we are obliged to fight for the LGBT community. Reza Aslan and Hasan Minhaj, after last year’s Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage, followed the liberal line in  An Open Letter to American Muslims on Same-Sex Marriage. They cited the Quran ("Be just, for this is closest to righteousness") and said God's mercy and compassion extends "to all people, not just those who are straight.” 
But if it were really that simple, their letter would not be necessary. Their logic, unfortunately, is torn apart by any honest reading of the prophet’s words.
Update: This letter appears in the National Post:
Re: Islamism? Perish The Thought!, Barbara Kay, June 22.It is unbelievable so many individuals try to blind themselves to the fact some Muslims advocate hostility against those who are not in their particular faith group, and that includes other Muslims. From all evidence, it appears Omar Mateem was gay, that a local iman inspired Muslims to act compassionately toward gays by killing them, and that by doing so Mateem could erase his guilt of being gay. 
Barbara Kay is correct in pointing out the methods other than firearms, used by terrorists who were all motivated in some degree by their interpretation of Islam. It is not Islamophobic to face the facts there are such people in this country, as evidenced by attacks by Islamic-inspired terrorists and that the Mounties and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are surveilling as many as their budgets and physical resources will allow. Fortunately, there are Muslims who advocate for a reformation in the interpreting of wording that might encourage those looking at terrorism to adopt a more tolerant approach to others.
Norman Gardner, Toronto
My response:
Letter-writer Norman Gardner thinks that Muslims who call for a reinterpretation of  "wording" in Islam's sacred texts could prompt potential terrorists to "adopt a more tolerant approach to others."

Well, that's certainly one possibility--and a highly optimistic one at that.

The more likely scenario, however, sees such  "moderate" voices being shunned, not only by young Muslims searching for "authenticy"--which means a literalist interpration of the texts--but also by non-Muslims, who think the only "authentic" Muslim leaders are imams who dress and think in the most traditional ways.

Therefore, the best--and one might argue the only--way for Muslims to effect the sort of change that will result in more tolerance is not by performing Cirque du Soleil-worthy contortions in a vain attempt to try to make the wording say something it does not. Instead, it is via a wholesale rejection of what is actually written.

1 comment:

Earl said...

Ya know what the Islamic faithful call a Muslim In Name Only?

A murtad.

And ya know what "murtad" rhymes with?