Who would attack a person for leaving their religion? Who would attack a person for defending the right to leave one’s religion? These seem like absurd questions. But they’re not — it seems that “moderate” Mohammedans in America have been attacking an organization for defending even the right to leave the Mohammedan religion.
Honest to Murgatroyd, I’m not getting my material from the Onion.
On The New English Review blog site The Iconoclast, the very valiant Nonie Darwish — who is also a respected contributor to FrontPageMagazine.com — mounts a defense of Former Muslims United (FMU) against attacks by “moderate” Muslims. Article here.
Ms. Darwish tells us that:
Some Muslim leaders in America deny that there are any threats to the lives and safety of Muslims who decide to leave Islam. It is as though they have no role to play in changing the status quo of tyranny of Islam. Muslim groups who call themselves ‘moderate’ are strangely silent about the persecution, torture, killing and imprisonment of apostates, women and non-Muslims all over the Muslim world. All they seem to care about is to pacify the American public and convince them that Islam is a religion of peace, while hiding from view the fact that 1.2 billion Muslims are living in the tyranny of Sharia Islamic law, and how that tyranny is creeping into the West.
Certainly it is easy to observe that after every headline that exposes some new criminal excess by Mohammedan fanatics, the self-appointed spokesmen for America’s Mohammedans rush forward to discuss the image and reputation of their faith — and invariably they conflate any even potential criticism of the faith, with insult against the faithful. (Sooner or later those allegedly represented are going to catch on to this scam.)
We hear repeatedly about how important it is that outsiders understand Mohammedanism (nobody has ever insisted to me that I have to understand Sikhism or Hinduism.) It is as if all the mischief of the sharia supremacists would go away if only the rest of the world became experts in Mohammedan theology. No attacks. No bombings. And no more murders of people who renounce their faith. All it takes is for everybody else to understand the doctrine.
Clearly this is absurd on it’s face. The people who have to get it straight about the allegedly humanitarian nature of Islam are the congregation, not outsiders. But the obsessive focus outward, toward issues of image in the outside world, persists obdurately. In the meantime the mental gulag of Mohammedanism stands unshaken. Even in the much bowdlerized western press we read stories of apostates condemned to death by regular courts in Mohammedan countries around the world.
It is to defend the rights of those unfortunates that FMU was founded. According to their mission statement:
Former Muslims United does not criticize any religion, in the sense that the religion is practiced as a personal relationship with God. But if a religion expands itself to become a one party totalitarian State, ruled by an elaborate legal system controlling every aspect of private and public life, and requiring the killing and incitement of violence against those who leave it, then that religion cannot be immune from criticism. It is no longer a private religion, but has become instead a totalitarian dictatorship. It is in this sense, since Islam’s apostasy laws condemn former Muslims to death and allows vigilante violence against apostates, that Islam itself has opened itself to criticism. Therefore, Former Muslims United, welcoming all former Muslims including converts to all other religions, as well as atheists or agnostics, will pursue these goals:
And first among those goals it lists:
Develop a legal framework for and ensure the civil rights of American individuals and organizations to provide sanctuary for former Muslims without being subject to legal penalties or threats.
There’s more there and I encourage you to go have a look. But bottom line, this sounds to me like something any American would find fairly easy to relate to.
But apparently not those moderates.