...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

The two faces of Islam: Once again the Globe and Mail opens its editorial page to CAIR-CAN founder, Sheema Khan. And once again Sheema tries to persuade us ignorant kafirs that, aside from a few blips, all is copacetic with the one true faith. In today’s piece of shillery, Sheema explains the difference between “hirabis”—“barbarians” like Osama who “evoke the Mohammed’s name but...rarely cite his example” and who “cloak their murderous intentions in the mantle of jihad to provide legitimacy for their terror”—and regular Muslims, like her, who abhor such violence:

…It is public disclosure of information that offers the best arguments against these one-sided views. As evidence is presented and rebutted, a more complete picture emerges, thereby challenging assumptions and awakening people to the blood lust of those professing jihad, to the hate of humanity pervading chat rooms, to the contempt that these young extremists have for their fellow Muslims.

One can oppose foreign policy through existing democratic channels without resorting to violence. This path requires patience and justice – like that displayed by the Prophet.

As Peter Bergen noted in The New Republic, the real, battle-hardened jihadis are beginning to confront the hirabis on their own turf with the stark immorality of their nihilistic visions. But every Muslim has a responsibility to confront the hate espoused by these hirabis. Silence is not an option.

A few blocks from the Ottawa courthouse where Momin Khawaja faces terrorism charges, Parliament Hill played host to a symposium on Cosmopolitan Identity in the Islamic World. The meeting's purpose was to create dialogue between Western policy-makers and Muslim thinkers, counteract misperceptions and facilitate Muslims' contributions to their societies, based on the rich history of Islamic thought.

The contrast between the two events could not have been starker. Each represents a metaphor for the vision of Islam offered by disparate groups. One involves engagement, dialogue and confidence in universal paradigms rooted in Islamic thought. The other presents a totalitarian vision rooted in hate, death and destruction. The choice couldn't be clearer.

In other words, why resort to bloodshed when you can spread the “universal paradigms”— ones which, sorry, Sheema, are every bit as “totalitarian” as the “hirabis’,” grounded as they all are in the same “Islamic thought”—in a far less messy way? A spoonful of da’wa makes the medicine go down, eh?

Sheema’s right about there being “two stark visions for Canadian Muslims,” though. There’s the CIC vision, which entails making Canadians shut up about Islam, as per the requirements of  sharia law. And then there’s the Tarek Fatah vision, which entails speaking out against creeping/galloping sharia insinuating itself into Canada's body politic—and eliciting lots of hate mail and death threats because of his outspokenness. Here’s his letter in the Globe responding to yesterday’s threatening communiqué from the CIC:

Toronto -- Zijad Delic of the Canadian Islamic Congress refers to "the denigration of Muslims in the pages of Maclean's magazine" (Muslims And Maclean's - letters, July 3). Wrong.

Maclean's has never attacked Muslims, but has also not shied away from critiquing Islamism as a political ideology. It is ordinary Muslims who are fed up with Islamists using Islam as a political tool. For exposing the Islamist agenda in Canada, "Thank you, Maclean's."

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:37 | link | comments (3)

Comments:

Comments: