UPDATE: I’m also told by a good authority, that Rahell Raza stated at a dinner in the presence of Bruce Bawer, that: “no one should have the right to offend the prophet of Islam, Mohamed, by calling him a pedophile etc.” So she is for traditional Islamic law (sharia) after all, that includes the non-Muslim as well. That’s a ‘progressive’ Muslim feminist for you.
TT: If Raza was being a honest broker, she would have admitted, that which has taken root, was the literal understanding of what Mohamed, in both the koran and in the officially trusted hadtiths, has handed down as law to his followers for all times. That being, jihad against the infidel, and their eventual subjugation wherever they may be.
It’s not just the OIC waging a campaign of disinformation against the West, it’s these pseudo reformer ‘kum ba ya‘ types like Raheel Raza, and her more than happy supporters like David Suissa, promoting a myth that the overwhelming majority of the Islamic world rejects.
Face the facts folks, if Islam was not a messianic, and most importantly, proselytizing ideology with global aims, rather, being interested in a tiny plot of soil in the Arabian Peninsula, we wouldn’t be having to deal with its followers presently. But that’s not the case, now is it?
Raheel Raza in the Suissa piece goes on:
“Is it because ‘Cyber Mullahs,’ ‘Hadeeth Hurlers’ and ‘Qu’ran Thumpers’ are invoking their interpretation of the Qu’ran, and insisting that armed jihad is valid and needed today while we say it is time to make it obsolete?
“Is it because there are verses in the Qu’ran that can be, and have been, used to justify violence against non-Muslims?
“If this is the situation, then it is time for us to lift our heads out of the sand, and understand that the enemy is within.
Their (jihadis) ‘interpretation’ finds legal basis within all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali (codified law). There is no ‘personal interpretation’ (ijtihad), according to Andrew Bostom:
i.e., ijtihad being a formalized process of “independent reasoning” on Islamic Law, which ended in ~900 C.E.; see Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law, p. 70).
Saying so is not being just an anti-reformist nay-sayer, it’s being truthful about what is, and most importantly, what can be hoped for. How can one realistically expect the key pillar of Islamic expansionism, jihad, to be done away with by Islamic orthodoxy before their goal of Islamic supremacy is achieved world wide?
Clue bat, this is what all Muslims who follow their creed desire, and in part, pay their tithes for.
Like Dr.Zuhdi Jasser, these Muslim/Islamic ‘reformers’ are long on gab (while they obfuscate key issues) and very short on the means and strategy to carry out their ‘reforms’. We have to face facts, Islam as a whole rejects the liberal advances of modern western society, and fight tooth and nail against it. Having the benefit of hindsight, they too will reject an enlightenment for Islam, since they now know exactly where it will lead.
As I read her piece, I wondered: Is this courageous woman in trouble?
I tracked her down to find out.
“My fear is minuscule compared to the work that needs to be done,” she told me on the phone from Toronto. “If I give in to fear, the extremists win.”
Who are these extremists? She calls them “seventh-century Muslims.”
Here Raheel Raza comes to the truth of the matter, Jihadis, are indeed ”seventh century Muslims”, the followers of basic Islam 101, who follow the words and precepts of the founder of Islam. Remember folks, the later period in the Koran, the Medina period, being violent and intolerant and genocidal, is as relevant as the earlier Meccan (more tolerant) period it abrogated. This is the duality of the koran that Bill Warner so eloquently elaborated on (here as well).
A just and merciful God, she says, “would never relegate half of humanity [women] to the lower rung of life.”
She doesn’t deny that the Qu’ran can be interpreted in violent ways, especially by extremists with a radical mission, but that’s precisely why she believes new interpretations are desperately needed from Muslims who have a more human and universal agenda.
As an example of a more humane interpretation, in the Qu’ran, she says, “Men and women are created from one soul,” unlike in the Judeo-Christian tradition, where woman was created from the ribs of man.
“My feminism is not anti-men, it’s pro-equality,” she says. “We come from the same soul.”
Again, like I pointed out earlier, Andrew Bostom answers the bogus claim of their being any ‘new interpretation’, for ijtihad has been closed since 900 C.E., and there will be no move by the major leaders of Islamic orthodoxy to change that reality. Also, Suissa takes note that Raza admits that the jihadis are using violent Islamic verses to validate their deeds in the jihad, but therein lies the rub that I alluded to earlier, the duality of the koran, with the more violent verses abrogating the more tolerant verses from the Meccan period. That is fact.
Also, in spite of the Adam rib-cum-woman comparison, Judea-Christian society developed into one that values rights for all, while Islam….does not. Perhaps its because Jewish-Christian texts do not disparage women as in the koran and hadiths. There is no call for rape-jihad, the allowing of rape of women taken as booty during raids or conquests.
A different understanding on women explains why Jewish and Christian communities in Muslim lands from time immemorial, do not partake in honor killings as in Muslim communities throughout the Islamic world, and in the West. Islam by default, is highly anti-female and can never be ‘feminized’, such a thought is an absurdity in the historical context.
Lastly, Raza makes one of her more egregious disingenuous remarks:
“When we pray five times a day,” she adds, “we pray for Abraham and for the progeny of Abraham, who are the Christians and Jews.”
Andy Bostom counters: Koran 1:7 CURSES the Jews as having engendered Allah’s anger and the Christians for going astray and that verse is repeated up to 17 X daily during the 5 prayer sessions.