Islam defined by primary sources
Jun. 19, 2006. 01:00 AM
How much sacrifice for the price of oil?
Religion, June 17.

The Star's continued preference for the views of so-called secular Muslims over those who actually believe in and practise their religion is distorting the public's understanding of Islam and frustrating committed Muslims.
Raheel Raza's article about Saudi Arabia as the source of terrorism is as ridiculous as it is telling. What appears to be Raza's deep dislike for Saudi Arabia and the phantom of Wahhabism is actually a deep dislike for the Islamic belief system and way of life. How else is one to understand Raza's mockery of Muslim women who "dress like penguins" and her bemoaning the razing of monuments built on graves and worshipped besides God, while Prophet Mohammad himself ordered this during his lifetime? If written by a non-Muslim, much of Raza's article would be seen as prejudiced and narrow-minded. When espoused by a so-called Muslim, however, such views are seen as groundbreaking and progressive and are widely promoted.
Islam is defined by its primary sources — the Qur'an and the life example of Prophet Mohammad — not the whims and desires of people. Islam is not a cultural background that one is born with, but a set of beliefs that one either holds or doesn't and a way of life that one chooses to adhere to or not.
If "secular Muslims" — who pick and choose what they like about Islam and label as extremist all who don't follow suit — do not believe the sources of Islam are accurate and complete, why do they remain intent on identifying themselves as Muslims? After all, the meaning of the word "Muslim" is "one who submits" to God.
Asmaa Hussein, Toronto