Subscribe
Notify of
158 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

OT, Rauf did not “sponsor” the Turkish ship. As I said, he… like countless others… contributed to the Free Gaza Movement. As I said way above, I have no doubts that the Iman is, on the whole, anti-Israel … just as many a lib/prog and elected official. Tho it’s interesting that he enjoys the personal support of many a NY rabbi.

Still not enough to justify unequal application of US law.

Polygamy is illegal, and the Mormons have adapted their polygamy beliefs to function in the US for the most part. When not, they… like any Muslims that attempt the same… would be hauled in front of US courts.

US Muslims assimilate differently than those outside the US, as the Pew poll from 2007 I linked on the other thread reveals. Were there any viable indication that there are different degrees of modern Muslim practice, the US Muslims would be that harbinger. If Rauf believes that the US Constitution and our republic can live in harmony with his interpretation of Islam, he can take that up with Zawahiri and OBL, who believe that any kind of democratic (or republic) government is unIslamic. That disagreement is between them, and their interpretation of Islamic doctrine. I do not wander into those waters myself.

I wouldn’t brand you as intolerant, OT… because if any attempt at a Shariah parallel court system were attempted by our government, we would all be on the same side of that issue. But I still cannot justify unequal application of US on this mosque merely because someone believes something that I don’t. Nor am I likely to give them an inch beyond what our US Code allows.

OLD TROOPER: HI, WHAT more can the BIG GUNS say, [MATA, WORDSMITH, AND MIKE’SAMERICA]. you stole theirs last words; YOU WIN, they all loose: and I might have the last comment, if they can find anything else to do,somewhere else and LEAF us alone. bye 😉

Bees… surely that isn’t a “STFU” comment from you, is it? LOL

MATA: you know, i was just kidding, bye 😉

@MataHarley: How many wives does Rauf have? Do you know?

And does head wife wear the burka when in Moslem countries?

Thanks again to @Old Trooper who said: “Brand Me as Intolerant if You wish but My Tolerance and Sensitivity has limits. Sharia is not Constitutional in the US. Period. Rauf needs to be better informed than to even attempt to back Sharia in the US.
You cannot Legally Eat Your Cake and Have It Too. ”

Are you listening Mata?

And your “little brother” (oh please… watch what happens if I try that on Wordsmith) will just repeat this until you pay attention to it:

“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened….ecause we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”– Imam Rauf, September 2001

In a book published back in 2004, “What Is Right With Islam,” Feisal Abdul Rauf, he wrote of his fondness for Sharia Law and his belief that the U.S. can accommodate it. He argued, quote, that “the American political structure is Sharia compliant,” continuing, quote, “For America to score even higher on the ‘Islamic’ or ‘Sharia’ compliance scale, America would need to do two things: invite the voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation’s practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws.”

The bottom line remains the same: Build the mosque somewhere else. But not at Ground Zero!

@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, don’t be intimidate by Muzzie Harley… O.K., I’m just kidding too!
😈

MIKE’S AMERICA: PLEASE dont make that face to MATA, her gun is loaded now, I don’t want to
be hit, and lose some bees, bye 🙄

@ilovebeeswarzone: Oh, that “ol broad” (her words) doesn’t scare this “littler brother.”

I’m pretty fast on the draw myself. Though I am a much better shot with a shotgun than a pistol.

Your beehive is safe. You’ll keep your bees.

@MataHarley…”I do not wander into those waters myself”…I swim in those waters every day.
Both Politically, Socially and news arrives slowly here… Open a School where girls will attend and get “Discomfort”, treat Females as equals to Males and face “Discomfort”, give Priority of Medical Care to Children and Mothers and not to Military Age Males or Tribal or Government types and face
“Discomfort”. (Argument within Their Logic but in Confliction with My Values)

If the Cleric Rauf wants to drop a little cash, let Him take a look at AF/PAK where Sharia and Tribal crap is Knee Deep and according to my Surgeon here, care is needed…triage defeats Sharia Law in my Camp. Life threatening issues get treated first. Then Women and Children, then the rest. US wounded are always first in line.

GSW is always suspect. (WOW, why were they shot??? and by whom???)

This FA pissing contest can go on without my participation.
*****************************************

If NYFC wants to declare high dollar Real Estate as Tax Exempt, a few tens of meters away from Ground Zero, in the US or in then that is up to them. No Sharia in Montana as my Daughter says,
“Or Else!!!”.

No further posts on this subject from here.
*****************************************

@Ms Bees, I have three dogs back home. They eat dry food mixed with eggs and “bone meal” which is available from the Butcher Shop where they cut meat. Ask around. I used to buy horse meat for them but it is no longer available. They are Shepard and Labrador mix and eat like horses because they stay out on the range for company for my Hands that look after cattle.

My Daughters Cat eats dry food mixed with eggs and Tuna. A stray cat that is named “Blackie” and was adopted by Ms. Cadet Jana, my Daughter because she was found by the road three years ago.

Your reference to fresh fish and beer had me laughing. I like both. Especially during Lent as I give up Cuban Cigars that are Legal in Canada but not in Montana. We eat fresh caught Trout and no Gorton’s products there.

Coffee is on here and I have a wound cleaning, bandaging and another freeze dried egg and cheese “Kandahar Omlette” to look forward to. The Coffee is real and the bread for toast is good. Your Dogs would not eat either nor would mine.
***********************************************

Civil Rights per the Constitution or else?… choose wisely because the Republic can go away in the blink of an eye…if too many Values get compromised. Then the things You don’t want are a “Way of Life” …

Off to Ops for a briefing on things relevant here…

OLD TROOPER:thank’s; great idea for dog food. I have a GERMAN SHEFFARD, and a mix wippet jack russel, they are getting old but good shape still: A super beautifull day after 10 days of rain, I enjoyed it outside picking weed overpowering the stawberry plant, good exersize. don’t neglect the change bandaging, or else. bye 🙄 😉

, Ms Bees, I know about Six Battalions or so folks here that would rather fight for strawberries, wild or cultivated rather than MRE’s and without hesitation.

We get citrus fruit and figs but FRESH apples, strawberries, blackberries, peaches or cherries are not available here but in demand.

Canned/Dried fruit is like Obama Government…it does not smell, taste or look like the Real Thing…

Gee, Rauf had nothing to do with the flotilla….

Other than his Perdana group forked over $366,000 to Free Gaza, the biggest single contributor.

And gosh, we all know Free Gaza wouldn’t lie.

I heard a guy from Free Gaza claim that the IDF was shooting as they rappeled down the ropes when the IDF first boarded.

I also noticed that Reuters cropped out knives in the hands of the Free Gaza personnel (who are not associated with Rauf) used to stab the IDF forces.

Israel said the activists attacked its commandos as they boarded the six ships taking tons of supplies to Gaza, while the flotilla’s organizers said the Israeli forces opened fire first.

But there goes my imagination again….never mind the video tapes. Who’re you gonna believe? Me or your own lyin’ eyes?

The US and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end, says an Islamic cleric invited to Sydney by Premier Bob Carr.

New York-based Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who impressed Mr Carr at an international conference last year, arrives in Sydney today for two weeks of meetings and public talks.

Speaking from his New York mosque, Imam Feisal said the West had to understand the terrorists’ point of view.

So if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck it’s a squirrel.

OLD TROOPER: yes they are perishable,and would not be allowed to ship. as i learn, yesterday, someone left a link and i click it was a web site that prepare packages and help in other ways to have people who want to send something and they mention what not to send as they don’t allow it when it get there: it’s name http://www.anysoldier.com; it was interesting to read, bye 🙄

: “So if it looks like a duck amd walks like a duck it’s a squirrel.”

That sounds about right since this bunch is full of nuts. 😉

@Mike’s America #118:

: How many wives does Rauf have? Do you know?

Do you?

And does head wife wear the burka when in Moslem countries?

Cute…”head wife”…..as Mata asked, are you trying to start a smear campaign?

I didn’t realize burqas were a requirement in most Muslim countries, Mike.

And your “little brother” (oh please… watch what happens if I try that on Wordsmith)

What, Mike? What would happen? 😐

To add to the debate, it’s only fair to hear from the other side:

After our proposal to build a community and cultural center two blocks from the World Trade Center site, I was pleased and gratified by the outpouring of support from city officials and a wide range of people who understand our mission.

My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America’s Muslim population into the mainstream society.

People who are stakeholders in society, who believe they are welcomed as equal partners, do not want to destroy it. They want to build it. And there’s no better demonstration of our desire to build than the construction of this center. It will help revive lower Manhattan.

The project has been mischaracterized, so I want to explain clearly what it would be. Our planned 13-story community center is intended for Park Place between Church St. and West Broadway. It is not a mosque, although it will include a space for Muslim prayer services. It will have a swimming pool, basketball court, meeting rooms, a 500-seat auditorium, banquet facilities and many other things a community needs to be healthy. The center will offer theatrical programming, art exhibitions and cooking classes. These are amenities missing now from this part of the city.

And, yes, the center will have a public memorial to the victims of 9/11 as well as a meditation room where all will be welcome for quiet reflection. The center will support soul and body.

The center will be open to all regardless of religion. Like a YMCA, the 92nd St. Y or the Jewish Community Center uptown, it will admit everyone. It will be a center for all New Yorkers.

What grieves me most is the false reporting that leads some families of 9/11 victims to think this project somehow is designed by Muslims to gloat over the attack.

That could not be further from the truth.

My heart goes out to all of the victims of 9/11. They are all heroes. But I urge you to include in your sympathy the family of Mohammad Salman Hamdani. Born in Pakistan, his parents brought him to New York as a small child. He wanted nothing more than to be an American, and he was.

A high school football player in Bayside, Queens, he graduated from Queens College. When he could not get into an American medical school, he became a part-time ambulance driver. He disappeared on 9/11; his body was found months later in the wreckage of the north tower. This 23-year-old Muslim died trying to save his fellow New Yorkers.

Religion did not separate the victims on that terrible day. Whether Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or any other faith, all of these people made up the fabric of New York. They all died together.

Freedom of religion is something we hold dear. It is the core of what America is all about, and it is what people worldwide respect about our country. The Koran itself says compulsion in religion is wrong.

American Muslims want to be both good Americans and good Muslims. They can be the best assets the United States has in combatting radicalism.

They know that many American values – freedom of religion, human dignity and opportunity for prosperity – are also Muslim values.

We believe that people of good faith can use the common core of their religions to find solutions to problems that will let them live together.

I have been the imam at a mosque in Tribeca for 27 years. I am as much a part of this community as anyone else. Our mosque is as much a part of the neighborhood as any church, synagogue or surrounding business. My work is to make sure mosques are not recruiting grounds for radicals.

To do that, Muslims must feel they are welcome in New York. Alienated people are open to cynicism and radicalism. Any group that believes it is under attack will breed rebellion. The proposed center is an attempt to prevent the next 9/11.

What could be a better use for the citizens in lower Manhattan? What could be a better monument to the victims of that tragic day?

@Mike’s America: : How many wives does Rauf have? Do you know?

You brung it up, Mike. Do your own homework before you begin your smear campaign, please. I’m just calling you on your unfettered crap you insist upon spreading. But why don’t you take a wild guess, dude. He’s lived in the US since he was 23 (in 1971), and since he’s walking around a free man, he’s not likely practicing bigamy/polygamy.

And BTW, Mike…. I love OT dearly, as he knows. However I don’t consider him a scholar on Islam, or more knowledgable than an Imam on the nuances of Islamic doctrine. Also, where OT is, they don’t believe the US or any democracy or republic is Islamic. Different breed of Muslim he’s dealing with than the US assimilated Muslims. That’s why I said the question of the Constitution and Shariah is Rauf’s battle with Zawahiri or OBL… not with Old Trooper.

And most importantly, just because OT has his opinion, it doesn’t mean I have to be of the same opinion. The difference between you and the Troop is he doesn’t whine, bully, or hurdle adolescent taunts when someone is of a different opinion. A level of maturity I hope you strive to reach one day. (unless, of course, he considers them seriously anti-American…. LOL)

Other than that, I’ve pretty much made my points here… over and over and over again for the reading challenged. At the end of it all, and without knowing jack sheeet about the organization, DrJohn has decided to usurp the feds authorization and name the Free Gaza Movement as a terrorist group, and has appointed Rauf the leader. No doubt he also thinks they called Rauf personally to ask how to get the Turkish ship thru in that particular flotilla too.

You, Mike, think that property rights are doled out based on the criteria of right and wrong (not sure *who’s* concept of right or wrong, but knowing you and your Obama’esque ego, it’s likely your call…). Then we can’t forget that you believe that Rauf wants to overthrow the US government and put a Shariah government in it’s stead. Oh yes… let’s not forget that you’re surprisingly incensed to hear that a Muslim may believe that US policies contributed to 911. Wow… what a novel thought… never heard that argument before. /sarc

Oh yes, you may want to keep reprinting those paragraphs until you comprehend them, Mike.

My heavens.. do you even listen to yourselves? No matter what data, links and info are put forth, you two want to desperately cling to your conspiracy exaggerations and hyperbolic fantasies, all of which are driven by sheer emotion. I get more cogency out of a menopausal woman in the middle of hot flashes and out of progesterone. Hang, even my 7 year old granddaughter has a better learning curve and analytical mind.

So have at it. I’m with Troop… I’m done with this pissing match. My educational input here is done.

#129

As long as

1. We understand the terrorists’ point of view and

2. The President apologizes to all Muslims around the world and

3. Here comes the next flotilla and

4. America adopts Shar’ia side by side with its laws.

Then it’s all good.

YOU can fool some peoples sometimes but you cannot fool all people all of the times: SPEECH to defend the project, is not rallying the support,

“not with Old Trooper. And most importantly, just because OT has his opinion, it doesn’t mean I have to be of the same opinion. The difference between you and the Troop is he doesn’t whine, bully, or hurdle adolescent taunts when someone is of a different opinion.

A level of maturity I hope you strive to reach one day.

(unless, of course, he considers them seriously anti-American…. LOL) Other than that, I’ve pretty much made my points here… over and over and over again for the reading challenged. At the end of it all, and without knowing jack sheeet about the organization, DrJohn has decided to usurp the feds authorization and name the Free Gaza Movement as a terrorist group, and has appointed Rauf the leader. No doubt he also thinks they called Rauf personally to ask how to get the Turkish ship thru in that particular flotilla too. You, Mike, think that property rights are doled out based on the criteria of right and wrong (not sure *who’s* concept of right or wrong, but knowing you and your Obama’esque ego, it’s likely your call…). Then we can’t forget that you believe that Rauf wants to overthrow the US government and put a Shariah government in it’s stead. Oh yes… let’s not forget that you’re surprisingly incensed to hear that a Muslim may believe that US policies contributed to 911. Wow… what a novel thought… never heard that argument before. /sarc My heavens.. do you even listen to yourselves? No matter what data, links and info are put forth, you two want to desperately cling to your conspiracy exaggerations and hyperbolic fantasies, all of which are driven by sheer emotion.

I get more cogency out of a menopausal woman in the middle of hot flashes and out of progestrone.

Hang, even my 7 year old granddaughter has a better learning curve and analytical mind.

So have at it. I’m with Troop… I’m done with this pissing match. My educational input here is done.”

Hmm. Sounds a lot like bullying and whining and taunts.

A slightly smaller dose of self-righteousness might be a good thing too.

As I said, the mosque can and should have been built elsewhere. It is being planned as it is to be a stick in the eye of NYC residents, and in the eye of Americans. It is a lose-lose for us.

You have admitted that, and still you insult us for saying it.

@DrJohn:

#129

As long as

1. We understand the terrorists’ point of view and

2. The President apologizes to all Muslims around the world and

3. Here comes the next flotilla and

4. America adopts Shar’ia side by side with its laws.

Then it’s all good.

Dr. John, is partisanship making you reading comprehension-challenged? None of you have proven Rauf to be a wahhabi-entrenched Islamist fundamentalist or even worse, an Islamic jihadist or supporter of Islamic terrorism. When you can provide evidence (not simply other opinionists stretching the linkage) of direct ties of financial support, then you might be on to something substantive.

As far as his viewpoints #1 and #2, to spell it out for you once again, it’s no different than the one shared by multiculturalists, pacifists, and liberal progressives. It does not make him an Islamic boogeyman.

As far as 4, Mata lays out perfectly where the issue lies. He’s a religious leader, not much different than Robertson and Falwell in desiring a more spiritual country. I no more want them unionizing church and state any more than Rauf on mosque and state. What makes you so sure his idea on sharia is even the same thing as that of the salafis and Taliban breed of Islamists? Do you see his wife walking around covered head to toe in a burqa (again, since Mike brought it up, how many regions in Muslim countries actually force that on women to wear?).

Basically, Rauf says things we may like, but you no-sell them. Oh, must be practicing taqqiya (a shi’a tradition, and I’d say rather distorted by Spencerian conservatives who think it applies to any and every situation and practiced by everyone of Islamic faith; a friend of mine in Indonesia, incidentally, who is a practicing Muslim had never even heard the term when I asked him about it- [sarcasm]or he’s lying to me since he’s Muslim [/sarcasm ;)]). And when he says something that you can hate politically (views aligned with those on the left), you seize upon that as anti-Americanism and religious jihadism? What a stretch! Maybe you should be a contortionist, while you’re at this. You already have the distortionist angle covered. 😉

@DrJohn:

Hmm. Sounds a lot like bullying and whining and taunts.

A slightly smaller dose of self-righteousness might be a good thing too.

As I said, the mosque can and should have been built elsewhere. It is being planned as it is to be a stick in the eye of NYC residents, and in the eye of Americans. It is a lose-lose for us.

You have admitted that, and still you insult us for saying it.

Dr. John, you would have to go back to the beginning of this and look at how the “bullying and taunts” began. Mata’s been very restrained in her barbs, since we’re arguing with friends and allies, here; but if she’s losing patience and throwing in a few insults here and there (as I have), well there is this thing called “blowback”. Check back to how the flow of conversation began and who deteriorated the dialogue. This did not have to be a “pissing contest”; nor does it still.

As far as “stick in the eye ot NYC residents”, that’s for them to decide. And “in the eye of Americans”? Only if you think we are at war with Islam itself as having attacked us on 9/11. Do you really want to give the world, especially the Muslim world, that impression? Do you really want to hand that victory over to bin Laden and Zawahiri?

Yeah, it’s a lose-lose situation. But for the reasons I stated earlier.

As far as his viewpoints #1 and #2, to spell it out for you once again, it’s no different than the one shared by multiculturalists, pacifists, and liberal progressives. It does not make him an Islamic boogeyman.

You say this as though it’s a good thing. Yikes. They’re all screwed up.

As far as 4, Mata lays out perfectly where the issue lies. He’s a religious leader, not much different than Robertson and Falwell in desiring a more spiritual country. I no more want them unionizing church and state any more than Rauf on mosque and state.

We’re on the same side of that issue.

What makes you so sure his idea on sharia is even the same thing as that of the salafis and Taliban breed of Islamists?

Please find for me Rauf’s sharia law. Everything else I can find is not very flexible. Here’s another view from a fellow contortionist:

Mr. Rauf, please point us to your fatwas (religious legal opinions) and sources of Shariah which contradict the laws of Shariah which guide schools in Saudi Arabia, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Syria, and Pakistan to name some of the most common sources of imams (teachers who are experts in Shariah law) globally. These schools teach ibn-Taymiyyah, Ibn -Kathir, Al-Mawdudi, and other well known Islamic scholars of the primary legal schools of thought in Islam. There are four major schools of legal thought in Islamic fiqh (hanafi, Shafii, Hanbali, and Maliki) with very little significant difference between them. Many of the rulings of these schools of thought vary on some specifics of religious rituals in forms of practice but agree on most other issues. Rauf, neglects telling us which of these schools of thought he is discussing; I believe that is because it does not exist. His concept of Shariah is still in the imagination and whims of western imams sitting in the comfort of homes in the United States pretending that Islamic law has reformed without any evidence or body of rulings to the contrary.

@Wordsmith: Oh, that’s right… Neither Wordsmith or Mata started the insults and bullying!

You two are starting to remind me of Obama.

Next, you’re going to tell me this mosque fracas is BUSH’S FAULT!

I’ve heard every excuse, every tortured explanation you can muster to support your claim and yet none of it alters my basic conclusion that this is the WRONG PLACE TO BUILD A MOSQUE!!!

And as for “handing a victory over to bin Laden” how do you think he and his cohorts will view the opening of a mosque at Ground Zero on the 10th anniversary of attacks?

I haven’t heard one compelling argument coming from either you or Mata (and yes, IF you made one, I would listen). Don’t you think it’s time to cut your losses and move on?

Time to put your stubbornness aside and get back to job #1 which ISN’T defending the indefensible.

@Mike’s America:

: Oh, that’s right… Neither Wordsmith or Mata started the insults and bullying!

You two are starting to remind me of Obama.

Next, you’re going to tell me this mosque fracas is BUSH’S FAULT!

😕 …….. 😐 ………..admit it, Mike: You’re the crown prince of Alinksy rule #5. 😉

I’ve heard every excuse, every tortured explanation you can muster to support your claim and yet none of it alters my basic conclusion that this is the WRONG PLACE TO BUILD A MOSQUE!!!

You’re entitled to your opinion. Quite hyperventilating. Neither of us has to sound exasperated. I understand you think it’s the wrong place to build it. I leaned the same direction until I began seeing the potential damage all this shrill opposition may have. Comments like the one Mark Williams made (and as a leader of the Tea Party movement, fer crissakes!) is harmful to us, both as Americans and as political conservatives.

I don’t think the decision for the “mosque” (is it even going to be an actual mosque?) was smart, only because this kind of opposition was predictable. Just begging for trouble and controversy, so long as so many people have it in their heads that Islam was responsible for the attacks of 9/11. American Muslims who stand opposed do so because it once again puts their faith on display in a negative light, and they stand an increased chance of being persecuted by the racists in the country and religious bigots who can’t distinguish them from the Islamists.

Now go read comment #129 and entertain the idea that Rauf may have been this naive to the backlash, on account of his desire to put Islam in a good light. If Islam was “hijacked” by the terrorists, he’s trying to take it back….but y’all won’t let him. At least not in this way (some sentiments of which I share and understand).

It’s really the Gellers, the Mark Williams, and the arguments put forth here that have pushed me over into distancing myself from the amen chorus of conservative indignation and outrage. You’ve made yourselves easy targets for the accusation of religious intolerance and bigotry; which is not to say that there aren’t legitimate questions to be asked and non-bigoted opposition involved.

And as for “handing a victory over to bin Laden” how do you think he and his cohorts will view the opening of a mosque at Ground Zero on the 10th anniversary of attacks.

Do you not understand when you ask this, that we have already been through this over and over, already?! How many more times do I need to spell out my point of view until you at least “get it”, Mike?! I don’t expect agreement, but is clarity of position too much to ask for so we don’t keep walking in circles here? I’ve heard you, loud and clear, but have you even bothered to read my comments for what they are and not what you wish to hear them, to be? Talk to me as you would a friend and not as you do one of your liberal punching dummies. Try and understand my reasons for why I take the stand that I do, even if you disagree with it.

I haven’t heard one compelling argument coming from either you or Mata (and yes, IF you made one, I would listen). Don’t you think it’s time to cut your losses and move on?

Greatness in your own mind, Mike? Obviously, that mind has no room to accept “compelling arguments” from either Mata or myself.

Not an insult, Mike. An observation.

@drjohn #`37:

You say this as though it’s a good thing. Yikes. They’re all screwed up.

Um…yeah. But do you understand the point? Should we create laws that are prejudicially opposed to liberals based upon their political beliefs? Wait! Don’t answer that….. 😛

Neither Mata nor I agree with his likely Zinnish views on American foreign policy anymore than we agree with them when they’re espoused by liberal mouth-breathers. But holding such political views that are not aligned with consevative views on matters of foreign policy is not evidence that he is a radical, Islamic fundamentalist supporter of Islamic jihadism.

@drjohn #137:

Here’s another view from a fellow contortionist:

Naw, Jasser’s more like a skilled acrobat. Let’s look at more from what he wrote, beginnging with him blockquoting Rauf:

Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law. The two pieces of unfinished business in Muslim countries are to revise the penal code so that it is responsive to modern realities and to ensure that the balance between the three branches of government is not out of kilter. Rather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is. Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam.

One must first congratulate the imam for having the courage which few leading Muslims have had to actually raise these ideas on Shariah in mainstream media. However, his hypothesis cannot be left unanswered on this blog. To do so would be to deny the core struggle, arguably the most important element of the battle of ideas between the West and Islamism in the 21st century. This battle is only just beginning within the very soul of Islam as it is practiced by Muslims in every nation across the globe. If Imam Rauf’s brief summary of Shariah teaches anything, it reveals the depth of denial and apologetics in our Muslim faithful and especially among our clerics and their fantasies on Shariah versus the reality.

To a Muslim, Shariah is certainly by definition “God’s law.” But once it is interpreted and enacted by Muslims it becomes human law regardless of what we may call it. Rauf’s comparison to our U.S. Constitution implies some kind of synonymous balance of powers in a system based in Shariah. First, no real example exists on earth of such a codified and functional interpretation of Shariah in any governmental system. And even if there were, would Imam Rauf want to live as a Muslim minority in the United States if his rights were similarly “promised” by a Christian majority which had a semblance of balance of powers in a system guided by the religious laws of the majority? Comparing the universality of our American system based in one secular law to a legal system based in the interpretations of clerics like Rauf is either uninformed or intentionally deceptive. Not only is Shariah centuries behind such checks and balances, but no matter how “balanced,” it is still theocratic where American law is secular.

Mr. Rauf oddly dismisses imams who disagree with him as rare aberration of a “firebrand” quality. Are lay Muslims to entrust the interpretation of Shariah to the whim that clerics like Rauf will lead the interpretations rather than the “firebrand” clerics Rauf offhandedly minimizes? Actually many of the tried and true Islamist imams are not “firebrand” but rather thoughtful in their preference of the Islamist system of Shariah over the universal secular system based in reason. That is the danger of theocracy. Lay people and non-Muslims alike are left to the devices of clerical powers. In what can sadly only be described as denial, he ignores the fact that Shariah is not a secret, it fills mosques, Islamic bookstores, and madrassas (schools) across the world. His generalization of what Muslims actually believe about Shariah has not been studied empirically and may actually be true. But to whatever Muslims he is referring in his generalizations about “what Muslims want” are certainly not from the leading “Islamic institutions” or “Islamic thought leaders” around the world in Cairo (i.e Al-Azhar University) or Saudi Arabia.

It is our mission at the American Islamic Forum for Democracy to publicly counter and debate political Islam (Islamism) and the harmful integration of the political imam and Shariah into governmental law. While many Muslims may practice a “modernized Islam,” we have very little intellectual material to counter the current state of Shariah. Rauf’s assertions come out of an assumption that Muslims want to live in an “Islamic state” run by laws which are Shariah or mimic Shariah. It is quite revealing that Imam Rauf is silent on the preference of most Americans of secular law over theocracy no matter how “balanced” his version of Shariah may be. Rauf’s endorsement of Shariah runs against our own Establishment Clause, the separation of church and state — in his case “mosque and state.”

Shariah is not just a misapplied penal code as Rauf would suggest. Just review the Cairo Declaration of Human rights of 1991 and try to explain why all the so-called “Islamic” countries of the OIC insisted on signing that document instead of the truly universal United Nations’ Declaration on Human Rights. The differences between the two documents are an affront to human rights of all citizens and especially the individuals living in the 57 nations of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference). The Cairo Declaration reflects not only the immorality of their dictatorships, monarchies, and oligarchies but also reflects the current medieval status of the body of laws which is Shariah in the 21st century.

Muslims living in the west may have modernized our interpretations of Shariah (God’s law) by living here and picking and choosing our own interpretations of how we may practice “God’s law”. But that is only of personal relevance. Rauf mixes public and private Shariah as if all Muslims see them as synonymous. Not all Muslims tow the line of political Islam despite Imam Rauf’s obvious avoidance of any condemnation of political Islam. Some Muslims do believe that real faith is abrogated when it is imposed by government as ‘law’.

There must be a clear demarcation between the domain of the cleric’s laws and the domain of our government’s laws — i.e. our Establishment Clause. The American Establishment clause is incompatible with any form of Shariah. Imam Rauf ignores this fact. It is no longer “God’s law” when it is interpreted into any manifestation of human law. “God’s law” is only “God’s law” within the personal relationship of an individual with God. Once a human collective interprets law if it is done in the name of religion, it is theocracy, not God’s law. Rauf’s linkage to the Declaration of Independence rings on deaf ears. No matter which way he spins it, one faith cannot create a system of laws for all humanity unless it comes from a supremacist theocratic mindset.

Rauf dismisses reform as simply being a matter of updating penal codes and customs associated with culture. He equates his own interpretation of Shariah with the ideas of our founding fathers. I am sorry but he does not understand American law. The word Christian does not appear in our Declaration of Independence or our Constitution. A system based “under God” is vastly different than one based under the legal tradition of one faith regardless of how “ecumenical” Imam Rauf would like us to believe his version of Shariah has become. Certainly, I would love to be referred to consensus documents and books of fiqh (human understanding of Shariah or Islamic jurisprudence) which are actually demonstrative of legal decisions which corroborate his short missive on the benevolence of Shariah. The vast majority of books on Shariah and fiqh which I have are riddled with laws and opinions incompatible with American law or any western law including rulings regarding women’s rights to name one area.

Additionally, one can academically use American law as a yard stick on a blog, but when these Shariah systems are autonomous in Muslim majority nations, they will not use American law as a yardstick and will always drift to a theocracy which does not come close to the minority rights of equality to all recognized in America. American law works because it abandoned the theocratic yardstick.

That reform away from governmental Shariah will take generations regardless of the denials and apologetics of imams like Rauf. Certainly, aside from government, a modernization of Shariah is very important and commentaries like Mr. Rauf’s demonstrate that there is certainly a profound need for real reform and in fact all Muslims have a stake in our legal tradition being updated. At the minimum we must first defeat the ideas of theocracy.

More importantly, though, is a far more significant discussion of exactly what should be the realm of operation of the clerics and their Shariah. Should it be in the mosque and universities or should it be in the public square specifically in the legislatures? This concept of a modernized Shariah which is equal and universal is impossible for a non-Muslim to accept or become a part of as a minority in Muslim majority nations — just ask the Bahais of Iran, the Ismailis of Pakistan, the Christians of Saudi Arabia (if there are any left) or the persecuted anti-Islamist Muslims of any of these nations. Minorities are not given rights by majorities as Shariah implies, they have them inalienable from God. Thus law cannot be defined by one faith — it must be derived from reason.

Certainly, for a Muslim to live with internal harmony as citizens in our nations, we must come up with a personal interpretation of Shariah which is not at odds with the laws of the land. More importantly we should have the freedom to practice the personal parts of Shariah (God’s law as we understand it) which we believe in as Muslims. But this application of Shariah should never become a platform for political activity or for government. Once it does, it becomes theocracy. Does Imam Rauf not see a difference between a nation of laws like the United States and nations of the medieval era which ran under Canon law? Or would Imam Rauf rather live under a system of Canon law with priests giving our Muslim minority dismissive guarantees that the rights of non-Christians would be guaranteed just like our U.S. Constitution provides?

Mr. Rauf, please point us to your fatwas (religious legal opinions) and sources of Shariah which contradict the laws of Shariah which guide schools in Saudi Arabia, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Syria, and Pakistan to name some of the most common sources of imams (teachers who are experts in Shariah law) globally. These schools teach ibn-Taymiyyah, Ibn -Kathir, Al-Mawdudi, and other well known Islamic scholars of the primary legal schools of thought in Islam. There are four major schools of legal thought in Islamic fiqh (hanafi, Shafii, Hanbali, and Maliki) with very little significant difference between them. Many of the rulings of these schools of thought vary on some specifics of religious rituals in forms of practice but agree on most other issues. Rauf, neglects telling us which of these schools of thought he is discussing; I believe that is because it does not exist. His concept of Shariah is still in the imagination and whims of western imams sitting in the comfort of homes in the United States pretending that Islamic law has reformed without any evidence or body of rulings to the contrary.

Tariq Ramadan, a rather deceptive European “reformist” and grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, in a widely televised debate with now President Nicolas Sarkozy could not even get himself to definitively rebuke corporal punishment as still called for in Shariah law rulings rather calling for a moratorium. He instead cited a process of change which has to be approached methodically. This consensus process (ijmaa) in rulings of Islamic law, while it may ultimately begrudgingly evolve towards modernity is not ever going to be as egalitarian as western liberal democracies since it is based on one faith regardless of the utopian principles which any Muslim may paint for western audiences. Until Muslims are able to separate mosque and state, the slippery slope of Islamic supremacy will be a constant regardless of how deceptively modern the version of Shariah being presented is.

None of the legal schools of thought in Islam have abandoned laws which criminalize blasphemy, apostasy, or womens’ liberation to name a few. None of these schools of thought or classic Islamic jurists have well known established texts which contradict the political system of Shariah which identifies Christians and Jews as “dhimmis” (protected peoples) who are “given” rights by a dominating Muslim majority and pay a separately identified tax (the jizya) at the behest of the Muslim majority in control. None of these schools of thought have given women equality in inheritance or in the value of their vote in legal proceedings. None of these schools of thought have abandoned the concept of the Islamic nation state and the association of citizenship with faith identity (the ummah). A common Muslim legal text sold at large Muslim bookstores and conventions — The Reliance of the Traveler — is a widely held treatise on Islamic law which contains a plethora of legal rulings at odds with all principles of western morality and equality. There is no modern text of Islamic law to counter this. Even if these laws were modernized globally by some heretofore unseen movement of imams, that again would not abrogate the slippery slope of Islamic supremacy which is present when Shariah involves itself in governmental and public rulings which apply to an entire citizenry.

So, ultimately Imam Rauf, yes, Shariah is “God’s law” to a Muslim including myself. And yes, Muslims generally probably just want their society not to conflict with what is God’s law. But Mr. Rauf mentioned that “Muslims do not want secular laws to conflict with Shariah.” That is way too overly simplified and actually not what many Muslims believe –especially non-Islamists.

I, as a Muslim, can certainly argue for the legalization of many things which I may not want to practice or believe should be practiced as an individual or as a Muslim. But to argue that I want my secular laws to mirror my Shariah is flat wrong. Rauf is denying the fact that one can, for example, be a libertarian in mindset and believe in the minimization of the role of government in imposing its values through law while also being a devout orthodox Muslim. The two are not mutually exclusive and Rauf’s oversimplification gives Islamist groups (those who favor Shariah law in government) what they want to hear rather than to lead them in new thought which can only happen when Islamism (political Islam) is abandoned.

Excellent! Basically, neither Jasser nor myself think religious law has any business here. Rauf, like Robertson or Falwell and other spiritual leaders can’t see the harm in mixing government and religion. But to the side argument of Rauf’s ideas on Sharia- are they the same ones held by salafis, wahhabis, the Taliban, and other “radical” fundamentalists? Or is his version more of the “new agey” “Islam is a religion of peace” ilk? I don’t know. Is it relevant to the argument against the “mosque” at Ground Zero what kind of Sharia he believes in?

I ask again the question that’s gone unanswered: If there weren’t these questions as to his status as a “moderate” Muslim with questions of ties to terror financing- if it were Jasser himself- a proven “moderate” who happens to also be aligned with pro-war-on-Islamic-terror conservative Republicans- wishing to build this Muslim community center at Ground Zero, would there still be this opposition? If so, then these arguments trying to dig dirt up on Rauf with wishful wanting of his “radicalism”….isn’t it all just smoke cover? Isn’t it really about being against Islam itself?

Dr. John, you would have to go back to the beginning of this and look at how the “bullying and taunts” began. Mata’s been very restrained in her barbs, since we’re arguing with friends and allies, here; but if she’s losing patience and throwing in a few insults here and there (as I have), well there is this thing called “blowback”. Check back to how the flow of conversation began and who deteriorated the dialogue. This did not have to be a “pissing contest”; nor does it still.

I think it’s gone both ways, but it’s your blog, not mine. I’m only an interloper.

As far as “stick in the eye of NYC residents”, that’s for them to decide.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/06/new.york.ground.zero.mosque/index.html

And “in the eye of Americans”? Only if you think we are at war with Islam itself as having attacked us on 9/11. Do you really want to give the world, especially the Muslim world, that impression? Do you really want to hand that victory over to bin Laden and Zawahiri?

What kind of impression was there already when we were attacked on 9-11, WTC 1, or Khobar or the embassies or the Cole?

Islam must separate religion from government.

If there weren’t these questions as to his status as a “moderate” Muslim with questions of ties to terror financing- if it were Jasser wishing to build this Muslim community center at Ground Zero, would there still be this opposition?

I don’t think he ever would. And that’s the difference.

@drjohn:

As far as “stick in the eye of NYC residents”, that’s for them to decide.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/06/new.york.ground.zero.mosque/index.html

Yeah, not all of which are NYers. Nor do picketers represent and speak on behalf of all NYers/Americans; not unless you think all those hippies protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan represent the majority of mainstream Americans.

What kind of impression was there already when we were attacked on 9-11, WTC 1, or Khobar or the embassies or the Cole?

bin Laden and Zawahiri already believe American imperialism and American decadence and modernity are to blame for the state of affairs in the Muslim world. They failed to convince the vast majority of their religious brethren on this. Their failures in Iraq and the murderous killing spree of Muslims there by Zarqawi only marginalized and exposed them even further as Islamic apostates by more mainstream Muslims.

So how does crapping on Islam itself help us and not al Qaeda?

@drjohn:

If there weren’t these questions as to his status as a “moderate” Muslim with questions of ties to terror financing- if it were Jasser wishing to build this Muslim community center at Ground Zero, would there still be this opposition?

I don’t think he ever would. And that’s the difference.

That’s side-stepping the question. Of course Jasser wouldn’t. He’s not an imam Islamic scholar. And he fervently believes in the separation of mosque and state while considering himself a devout Muslim. But even if someone like Jasser did want a Muslim community center built there for reasons stated by Rauf in the article I posted, would there still be fervent opposition? Against him because of who he is, or because of his faith, for what people think it is (different from the one believed in by al Qaeda)?

That’s side-stepping the question. Of course Jasser wouldn’t. He’s not an imam Islamic scholar. And he fervently believes in the separation of church and state while considering himself a devout Muslim. But even if someone like Jasser did want a Muslim community center built there for reasons stated by Rauf in the article I posted, would there still be fervent opposition? Against him because of who he is, or because of his faith, for what people think it is (different from the one believed in by al Qaeda)?

Why not ask “What if Reagan became a Communist?”

I think a reasonable person inquires into motives, especially with hot button issues. Someone like Jasser would be more likely to be more successful than Rauf because of his quasi-First Amendment philosophy.

But he just wouldn’t pick that spot, and that would make him far more successful. Rauf is picking the spot so it becomes an issue. He could have picked somewhere else for a “community center” but it would not have attracted the attention this did.

@Wordsmith said: “Obviously, that mind has no room to accept “compelling arguments” from either Mata or myself.”

Well, once again YOU ARE WRONG!!!

But let’s put that to the test. When you make a compelling argument I’ll let you know if I agree with it. You might have noticed that I have in the past MANY TIMES.

I’m going to let you have the last word on this since I think we have ALL wasted ENOUGH time. So, you go ahead and get in whatever final dig you need to boost your ego. My ego is already inflated to full pressure. 🙂

IMAM and others, have to realise that they are a minority, in AMERICA , like it or not. and his RIGHTS are promised by a CHRISTIAN MAJORITY, which are not a senmblance but a real power from the real CONSTITUTION.

MIKE’S AMERICA: don’t be a quiter, just when we have WORDSMITH in our pocket. bye 🙄

@ilovebeeswarzone: Not quitting. I just don’t want Wordsmith, or Mata, in my pocket. 🙂

Besides, I think we have won the argument. Don’t you?

MIKE’S AMERICA: THEY QUIT also, so like MATA would say; Does that men, they won?. bye y’all. i love this blog. 🙄

@ilovebeeswarzone: We love you too Bees. And I am sure I speak for Mata and Word.

Though, not so keen on the use of the contraction “y’all.”

Wordsmith’s bad habits must be catching! :mrgreen:

MIKE’S AMERICA: i love the expression “Y’ALL” i find nothing wrong with it. but WHAT mrgreen does mean? bye 🙄

CURT: how come”DOCUMENT COMPARISON” gave a comment, but does not appear here, only in my home place where i receive the comments. bye just curious to know, he said [very interesting post]

CURT: to be precise he said[very very interesting article.

Bees, it was a spam site origination. We get those that just put things like “great blog” or “I really like your website layout” or “very interesting” or “you gave us much to think about”. Just robots trolling and spamming. It was sent to the spam filter, where it belongs.

MATA: thank’s, first time i experience that one. bye 🙄