Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Raheel Raza Speaks Out Against The Ground Zero Mosque On Bill O'Reilly
Raheel Raza is the Canadian Muslim woman who wrote this editorial.
You know what? I'm not too sure about this woman.
These words, which spilled directly from her lips, in this video, are the hallmark of Taqiyya:
"I read in my Holy Book, the Koran, that we should be very tolerant towards people of other faiths, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE LIVING IN LANDS THAT ARE NOT MUSLIM LANDS."
Look, it's good for our side that she opposes the Mosque, but this woman is essentially saying that, were this kind of provocative act being done in a Sharia state, well then, that would be fine with her.
And, that is according to Muslim law after all; Muslims are to taunt and beat the Infidels until they are subdued.
Screw that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Well, actually it wouldn't be done in a Sharia state because they would already have won.
I thought it was a good statement. However, the phenomenon of "reform" muslims publicly speaking out against a project such as this by criticizing, rather than excusing, the motives behind it is relatively new and we do need to evaluate what we hear in light of what we know about islam. The Muslim Canadian Congress has taken some strong public stands against jihad, sharia, Ahmadinejad, Hamas, polygamy, honor killing, the burqa, and Obummah's islamist ties. I'm probably the last person to comment on how to reform a religion instead of simply getting out. I am much more inclined to listen to and trust apostates. When the MCC states that something is not islamic are they practicing taqiyya or are they sincerely trying to drain the swamp?
I don't think she is consciously attempting to practice Taqiyya.
I do, however, think she makes it clear that her framework for thought is Islam, and that includes Sharia.
She may make statements against Sharia, and I am happy she does, but that statement, especially when we are living in lands that are not Muslim lands, is clearly a reference to Sharia.
If she does not support Sharia, then why does she reference Sharia when she speaks?
I have a feeling it just because of habit.
A quick perusal of the Muslim Canadian Congress site reveals a lot of good news, and a bit of not-so-good. The group has been consistent over the years in its oppostion to Sharia, gender apartheid, polygamy, the burka, and the Muslim Brotherhood. They have openly supported Salman Rushdie, denounced the OHRC for its attacks on free speech, condemned muslims who won't distance themselves from jihad, supported the Ahmadiya Muslims against Jamaat-e-Islam, and advocated separation of religion and state. However, they appear to be pro-Palestinian and are often critical of Israel's self-defense. Raheel Raza roundly denounced the Danish Cartoon riots, but she also runs an "interfaith group" that, among other things, promotes a whitewashed version of the life of Mohammed.
I don't think she practices taqiyya either, but to a significant degree she probably wants to eat her cake and have it too. She tries to scrub that "religion" clean of every negative aspect she can find and then present what's left as the "real" Islam. It's a fantasy, but at least it rejects jihad.
Perhaps the best we can hope for sincere muslim reformers is comprehensive support of separation of church and state within a context of non-violent dawah. I agree that the only rational choice is to reject Islam completely. But then, I'm atheist. Living in a predominantly atheist social world was a joy for me as a young woman. But I'm satisfied with one in which nobody tries to impose their religion on me by force. If that includes muslims, fine. But it's up to them to convince us that this is possible.
If I recall correctly, Pamela's interview with Zudhi Jasser revealed him to be almost identical to this woman.
Zudhi Jasser supports the existence of the state of Israel "behind internationally recognized borders".
I don't know if this Canadian group recognizes the same thing.
Post a Comment