Merged Obama enters GZ Mosque debate

[FireGarden]

Now these Muslims have more the right idea:

http://www.reformislam.org/

I can see why you like them:

http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/

AN INTERVIEW WITH AARON KLEIN

Author of "THE MANCHURIAN PRESIDENT" - Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and other anti-American Extremists"

http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2010/06/tower-of-terrorism-at-ground-zero.html

And sadly, such elements are gradually growing influence everywhere in the world as well brainwashing some of the naïve global leaders like Barack Hussain Obama, who continues to appease Islamists without sensing the degree of threat it poses to his very own country.

But thing that troubles me is how they say things like this:

Islam and democracy are incompatible. As democracies practice their magnificent accommodating belief, they knowingly or unknowingly lay the track for the advancing train wrecking that is Islam. Radical Islamism threatens to set a new record for brutality, contrary to the contention that there is no reason to worry about it. Jihadist Wahabism’s tentacles are reaching out from its cradle in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf Arab Emirates. The Petrodollar flush Sunni-Shia zealots are liberally financing mosques, Madrassas [Islamic indoctrination schools], Islamic centers at universities, front organizations and lobbyists to promote the Wahhabi or Shiite virulent Islamism in every part of America. That makes America the Vulnerable.

If, in this article, they ever get round to stating, "but hey, remember that our form of Islam is okay with democracy!" then they take their own sweet time. I haven't read it all, it's way too long.

They do have some good articles, like the one about the newspaper in Bangladesh which is closing because it couldn't get advertising revenue after publishing pro-Israel articles. But on the whole, I don't see them pushing for a new form of Islam.

 

[Lurker]

BAC:

I implore you to go to the primary source - Imam Rauf, for his view on sharia law instead of what other people THINK he believes. Clearly any skeptic would prefer a primary source over a secondary source, right?

Please find where Rauf has promoted cutting off hands, stoning and the like. Heck, I have yet to see his wife Daisy wearing a burkha so he clearly does not believe in that.

Read his books to get his views on sharia law, BAC. Quit relying on second hand accounts.

 

[A'isha]

You see that is the problem here. There are two things … the religion and Sharia. Sharia law is where the most extreme and dated views of Muslims are codified into *law*. And since you mentioned women's rights, it's worth noting that one of the chief elements of Sharia law is a belief that women are inferior. This view of women it is totally inconsistent with modern Western civilization.

Yes it is. However, there's no one "sharia". All it means is law derived from Allah. Sharia is interpreted as many things by different branches and sects of Islam. Extreme versions of sharia are indeed not very nice, and include rather misogynistic aspects. Other versions are a lot more enlightened and have no such aspects to them.

Some guy wrote a book about this, name of Rauf - you might have heard of him - focusing on the different ways sharia can be interpreted, and even saying how sharia can even be interpreted to be identical with the claim in the US Declaration of Independence that all men are endowed with rights by their Creator, implying no more theocratic extent to sharia than the Founding Fathers implied with their statement.

Now if Muslims would just stick to building places of worship … for prayers … their building of Mosques would be a lot less problematic. But it appears that only about 20% are just for religious prayer. It's estimated that about 80% of mosques in the US are under Wahhabi control (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/207366/wahhabism-islam-u-s/stephen-schwartz ). Wahhabism is the extreme brand of Islam which promotes Sharia law. It is practiced in Saudi Arabia. In fact, it is the state religion of Saudi Arabia with no others allowed. In Saudi Arabia women aren't even allowed to drive. The 9/11 terrorists had links to Wahhabism. Truth is, Wahhabi mosques (mostly Saudi funded) are more centers to study, teach and promote Sharia law than strictly religious facilities for prayer. And that is the problem.

That is indeed a problem. Especially for Rauf and the Park51 project, since Rauf and his wife are Sufi, and Sufism has long been considered heretical by Wahhabism. In Saudia Arabia, in fact, it was actually illegal to be Sufi until a couple of years ago, and Sufis were routinely beaten and imprisoned, prevented from worshipping or building mosques, and even had their holy sites destroyed by the Wahhabist government there.

I'm glad to see that you stand with Rauf against the Wahabbists, BAC.

Note, lefty, that the Cordoba *house* … now renamed Park 51 … is intended to be a center for the study and promotion of Sharia.

No, actually. I'll be a center for the study and promotion of swimming, basketball, and possibly low-impact cardio. Oh, and also a place to learn about interfaith understanding as well as the tragic events of 9/11, at the included memorial.

And it will likely end up mostly funded by Saudi Arabia if it is built.

You have zero evidence for this, as usual.

The Mosque will be quite secondary to it's purpose. They have even admitted as much.

Yes they have. Glad to see you admit this.I

And of the man promoting it, note that at least two of Imam Rauf's books have pushed the implementation of Sharia and Wahhabism.

Completely wrong.

And he has applauded certain Muslim *scholars* who have defended Wahhabism

If he has, it's not because they defended Wahhabism.

But surely you can name some of these scholars, right?

claimed Sharia is compatible with our Bill of Rights rolleyes. And that's the problem.

That would seem to contradict your above assertion that "Sharia law is where the most extreme and dated views of Muslims are codified into *law*"

If sharia is fully compatible with the Bill of Rights, and indeed, as Rauf has written, "American political structure is Shariah compliant", that means the Constitution of the United States of America as well as our current political structure as it operates today is also where "the most extreme and dated views of Muslims are codified into *law*", right?

Why are you so worried about the US falling under the sway of sharia, BAC? According to you, it already happened 225 years ago!

Now these Muslims have more the right idea:

http://www.reformislam.org/

Hmm...

* to educate non-Muslims about the differences between moderate Muslims and Islamists (a.k.a. Islamic Religious Fanatics, Radical Muslims, Muslim Fundamentalists, Islamic Extremists or Islamofascists)
* to educate both Muslims and non-Muslims alike that Moderate Muslims are also targets of Islamic Terror

You might want to contact them, BAC. You seem to need some education regarding these two points.

 

[nchammer326]

Here is an article explaining who Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is and what he has said/done. Pretty much debunks the claims made by a lot of people opposing Park51 (that he's a radical, he hasn't condemned extremist attacks, etc).

 

[Taarkin]

But thing that troubles me is how they say things like this:

What..what the **** is a "Sunni-Shia zealot"

 

[hgc]

What..what the **** is a "Sunni-Shia zealot"

You can't have a full-blown paranoia unless AhmadineQueda is at the bottom of it all.

 

[BeAChooser]

If we are ovverrun with wahabism here in the states it is suprising that so many of the Muslims attending those same mosques seem pretty American and nonviolent.

It's not surprising at all. I would expect that given all that America has offered American Muslims so far, the more extreme views would have difficulty taking root. For example, once American Muslim women have tasted the freedoms and rights granted to them by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, most may have little interest in seeing full blown Sharia Law take hold. But the fact that American Muslims for the most part (and that "most part" is very important) have ignored the more extreme teachings in those centers/mosques is not a reason to ignore those centers continuing to teach the extreme views. Because some portion will still believe what is taught and some of those may act on those beliefs. You forget that we are at war with the folks who believe the extreme portions of Wahhabism and Sharia. And that war has already cost hundreds of thousands of lives with no end in sight as long as so much of the Muslim world (outside the US) continues to be influenced by Wahhabism and act to institute Sharia law whereever Muslims exist. What you forget is that the violence in the Muslim world itself is being perpetrated (and funded/supported) by a relatively small fraction (perhaps 10%) of all Muslims, who are themselves being propagandized and motivated by Wahhabists and Shariasts. It doesn't take many to cause great havoc, as we found out on 9/11.

Rauf has said that the US is already sharia compliant

Sharia compliance has a specific meaning in the financial community. There are Sharia compliant funds and they can not pay interest (Riba), nor benefit from gambling, or be involved in alcohol. But the US allows all three, so how can it be Sharia compliant?

More to the point, you aren't being honest in saying that Rauf said "the US is already Sharia compliant". What Rauf said recently is that "American political structure is sharia-compliant." That's a huge difference. That may just mean he thinks they can use our political structure to make the society Sharia compliant (whatever he actually thinks that means). And in that regard, I don't think he's all that moderate.

As already pointed out he's lionized some fairly radical Muslim scholars and clerics. During an address in Australia he said he had just come from a conference in Jordan featuring “over 170 leading Muslim scholars from almost every part of the Muslim world, including some of the most important names like Sheikh Tantawi of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, who is the chief mufti of Egypt, the chief mufti of Jordan, the Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, who is a very very well-known Islamic jurist, highly regarded all over the Muslim world.” But as pointed out on the internet, Sheikh Tantawi endorsed suicide attacks against Israelis. So did Sheikh Qaradawi. And Sheikh Gomaa has defended Islam’s death penalty for those rejecting Islam, has sanctioned wife-beating, and has endorsed the terrorist group Hezbollah. Those don't sound like moderates … as least as most Americans actually view moderates … so why would a so-called moderate say such nice things about them?

Also, Imam Rauf recently said (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/08/explosive-in-faisals-own-words.html ) that "on the issue of the reformation, in terms of what is again intended by it, Islam does not need a reformation.", something which is counter to what at least some of you have agreed with me it needs.

Furthermore, even Muslims can't agree what Sharia compliance entails. Saudi Arabia, heart of Wahhabism, is amongst the more entreme in it's view and enforcement of Sharia law. To them, Sharia compliant obviously means something quite different from what it apparently means to you and what you think it means to Rauf. But since it's likely that Saudi Arabia will end up providing the bulk of funds to build the Cordoba *House* near the 9/11 site, it's seems likely their views about Sharia may have considerable impact on the message it actually presents to visitors.

Instead of your imagining what the primary purpose is why don't you actually quote from Rauf what the primary purpose is according to the owner of said development. Why don't you do that, sir? Instead you allow your fear to imagine a nefarious purpose.

Do you know that Rauf's book "What's Right with Islam is What's Right with America" was published in Malaysia, with Rauf's cooperation (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243536/raufs-dawa-world-trade-center-rubble-andrew-c-mccarthy ), under the title "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post 9/11". Now "dawa" is the missionary work by which Islam is spread. That's sounds like his primary purpose is to spread Islam in America … and at the heart of Islam as practiced by the folks he is seeking funding from for Cordoba *House* is Sharia. You think about that.

 

[Thunder]

What..what the **** is a "Sunni-Shia zealot"

a schizophrenic Muslim?

 

[A'isha]

It's not surprising at all. I would expect that given all that America has offered American Muslims so far, the more extreme views would have difficulty taking root. For example, once American Muslim women have tasted the freedoms and rights granted to them by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, most may have little interest in seeing full blown Sharia Law take hold. But the fact that American Muslims for the most part (and that "most part" is very important) have ignored the more extreme teachings in those centers/mosques is not a reason to ignore those centers continuing to teach the extreme views. Because some portion will still believe what is taught and some of those may act on those beliefs. You forget that we are at war with the folks who believe the extreme portions of Wahhabism and Sharia. And that war has already cost hundreds of thousands of lives with no end in sight as long as so much of the Muslim world (outside the US) continues to be influenced by Wahhabism and act to institute Sharia law whereever Muslims exist. What you forget is that the violence in the Muslim world itself is being perpetrated (and funded/supported) by a relatively small fraction (perhaps 10%) of all Muslims, who are themselves being propagandized and motivated by Wahhabists and Shariasts. It doesn't take many to cause great havoc, as we found out on 9/11.

Once again, you are in full agreement with Rauf regarding all of the above (well, aside from your continued failure to understand that "sharia law" isn't a single monolithic thing that has only one meaning). Especially regarding gender equality.

As you'd know if you actually read what Rauf himself had written, rather than reading out-of-context excerpts posted on blogs by known liars.

Sharia compliance has a specific meaning in the financial community. There are Sharia compliant funds and they can not pay interest (Riba), nor benefit from gambling, or be involved in alcohol. But the US allows all three, so how can it be Sharia compliant?

Because, as I said, "sharia law" doesn't say those things. Certain applications of what some sects interpret sharia law to be may say those things, but that's not the same thing at all.

For example, regarding charging interest and "sharia law":

It is ironic that enormous good has come from the inventions of banking and the corporation -- two practices that were once major sins in all the Abrahamic faith traditions: charging interest for moneylending and eliminating the obligation to fully repay one's debt. But these two institutions combined with the emergence of modern liberal democracy to radically improve the fortunes of the Western world. The beginnings of modern capitalism -- made possible by the limited liability company and its ability to borrow money and invest it in highly profitable but risky ventures without completely wiping out its owners' assets -- led to the creation of enormous wealth and fueled the rise of the West to economic dominance, which continues to this day. Not being able to accept these ideas is one of the primary reasons the Muslim world lagged behind the West and the Asian Pacific nations, which did not have to contend with the religious compunctions that held the Muslim world back. The problem was that Muslim jurists equated any amount of interest, no matter how small, with usury, which the Quran absolutely forbids. This strict prohibition on charging interest still prevails in the Muslim world and has largely prevented it from robustly developing the financial market's institutions of banking, capital markets, and stock exchanges -- the foundations of capitalism.

I'll give you three guesses as to who wrote that, BAC.

More to the point, you aren't being honest in saying that Rauf said "the US is already Sharia compliant". What Rauf said recently is that "American political structure is sharia-compliant." That's a huge difference. That may just mean he thinks they can use our political structure to make the society Sharia compliant (whatever he actually thinks that means). And in that regard, I don't think he's all that moderate.

Nope, sorry. In his books, he explicitly states that America now, right now at this very moment, is fully in line with what he views as sharia. It doesn't need to be changed to become "sharia compliant", it's perfectly in line with sharia as it is. His books extensively quote from America's Founding Fathers as proof.

Those are not the words of someone who wants to institute a Wahhabist style of sharia in the US, BAC.

As already pointed out he's lionized some fairly radical Muslim scholars and clerics. During an address in Australia he said he had just come from a conference in Jordan featuring “over 170 leading Muslim scholars from almost every part of the Muslim world, including some of the most important names like Sheikh Tantawi of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, who is the chief mufti of Egypt, the chief mufti of Jordan, the Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, who is a very very well-known Islamic jurist, highly regarded all over the Muslim world.” But as pointed out on the internet, Sheikh Tantawi endorsed suicide attacks against Israelis. So did Sheikh Qaradawi. And Sheikh Gomaa has defended Islam’s death penalty for those rejecting Islam, has sanctioned wife-beating, and has endorsed the terrorist group Hezbollah. Those don't sound like moderates … as least as most Americans actually view moderates … so why would a so-called moderate say such nice things about them?

Because you left out some important parts of Rauf's quote there. What he actually said was:

The broader community is in fact criticising and condemning actions of terrorism that are being done in the name of Islam. I just came from a conference in Jordan, Amman where there were over 170 leading Muslim scholars from almost every part of the Muslim world, including some of the most important names like Sheikh Tantawi of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, who is the Chief Mufti of Egypt, the Chief Mufti of Jordan, the Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, who is a very very well known Islamic jurist, highly regarded all over the Muslim world. They included fatwas obtained from people like ..... Istani who could not attend but also issued a fatwa condemning acts of terrorism and stating that the attribution of infidel to others is not something that should be done and is outside of the ethics of Islam.

Which, again, you'd have known if you bothered to look at what Rauf has said and wrote directly, instead of blindly trusting sites like Atlas Shrugs. In short, Rauf was saying there that inroads are being made towards changing the attitudes of people like those named, influential people in the Muslim world, and at the conference they managed to come to an accord about terrorism, even issuing several fatwas against terror attacks, and against the practice of labeling non-Muslims as "infidels".

Also, Imam Rauf recently said (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/08/explosive-in-faisals-own-words.html ) that "on the issue of the reformation, in terms of what is again intended by it, Islam does not need a reformation.", something which is counter to what at least some of you have agreed with me it needs.

EDIT: Forgot this part, sorry. Anyway, for some reason, Geller isn't releasing the unaltered audio. And at the very least, this quote is incomplete. "On the issue of reformation, in terms of what is again intended by it, Islam does not need a reformation. It needs just a going back to its basic principles of application," is what Rauf said.

In other words, Rauf here seems to be saying that Islam doesn't need "reform" per se in some specific context that he's referring to (that Geller conveniently seems to have cut off), but it does need to change. That change is a return to its "basic principles of application".

And what are those? Well, again, Geller cuts off that bit. But if you, y'know, read his books, he actually lays out a very similar concept. And, strangely unquoted by the likes of Geller and you, BAC, those "basic principles", Rauf argues, are not just compatible with, but effectively identical to, the principles that the Founding Fathers talked about when establishing the United States, and subsequently enshrined into our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Why do you think that part gets left out so much, BAC?

Furthermore, even Muslims can't agree what Sharia compliance entails.

I'm glad you finally see that, since all your other points above contradict that realization of yours here.

Saudi Arabia, heart of Wahhabism, is amongst the more entreme in it's view and enforcement of Sharia law. To them, Sharia compliant obviously means something quite different from what it apparently means to you and what you think it means to Rauf.

No, not what I "think" it means to Rauf. What Rauf has actually said it means to him, in his books and statements.

But since it's likely that Saudi Arabia will end up providing the bulk of funds to build the Cordoba *House* near the 9/11 site, it's seems likely their views about Sharia may have considerable impact on the message it actually presents to visitors.

And, as recently shown, Fox News also gets a lot of funds from "Saudi Arabia", including entering into joint partnerships with the very Saudi prince who may be giving money to Park51. I eagerly await your concern about Fox News' sharia-promoting message as a result.

Do you know that Rauf's book "What's Right with Islam is What's Right with America" was published in Malaysia, with Rauf's cooperation (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243536/raufs-dawa-world-trade-center-rubble-andrew-c-mccarthy ), under the title "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post 9/11". Now "dawa" is the missionary work by which Islam is spread. That's sounds like his primary purpose is to spread Islam in America … and at the heart of Islam as practiced by the folks he is seeking funding from for Cordoba *House* is Sharia. You think about that.

You wouldn't have to rely on what it "sounds like" if you bothered to actually read the book yourself, you know. Because the contents don't match with your (and the National Review's) interpretation of what the title implies.

By the way, I especially liked Andrew McCarthy's portentous quoting of the copyright page of a certain edition of that book, showing to all National Review readers the true pernicious purpose behind the book's publication: "A special non-commercial edition to promote a proper understanding of Islam and common ground between Islam and the West."

I mean, how much more extremist can you get than wanting to promote the common ground that Muslims and Westerners share! Right, BAC?

 

[The Painter]

I agree. And then let's let them have sex with our wives and eat our children.

But ridiculous, nonsensical, completely-pulled-out-of-my-backside hyperbole aside, we need to stop these dirty Muslims while we can. Am I right?

*high-fives The Painter*

Actually you are wrong. I don't believe I've called them "dirty Muslims". I'd like you to show evidence that I have. I would like you to show evidence I've called them names. My position the whole time is that it is in very bad taste and poor judgment to build at that location. Show me where I said they don't have the right to build there. Or is that just in your head. I've seen on threads about drunk driving wear mods come in and tell people to be sensitive because people here may have lost someone to a drunk driver. I have yet to see that same sensitivity toward people here who have lost someone in 9-11. BTW isn't your post a rule 12 violation?

 

[johnny karate]

Actually you are wrong. I don't believe I've called them "dirty Muslims".

I never said you did.

I'd like you to show evidence that I have. I would like you to show evidence I've called them names.

Why don't we start with the evidence that I made these claims in the first placed?

My position the whole time is that it is in very bad taste and poor judgment to build at that location.

Why is it very bad taste? Why is it poor judgment?

Show me where I said they don't have the right to build there. Or is that just in your head.

Show me where I claimed you said they don't have the right to build there. Perhaps in your head would be a good place to look.

I've seen on threads about drunk driving wear mods come in and tell people to be sensitive because people here may have lost someone to a drunk driver. I have yet to see that same sensitivity toward people here who have lost someone in 9-11.

How is a Muslim community center two blocks away from Ground Zero insensitive towards people who lost someone on 9/11?

BTW isn't your post a rule 12 violation?

Hardly. I didn't attack you; I directly attacked your silly argument by satirizing it with an even sillier argument. But feel free to report my post anyway.

 

[Praktik]

so nice I read it twice ANTpogo...

 

[Lurker]

Sharia compliance has a specific meaning in the financial community. There are Sharia compliant funds and they can not pay interest (Riba), nor benefit from gambling, or be involved in alcohol. But the US allows all three, so how can it be Sharia compliant?

Why don't you ask Rauf instead of making your own interpretations of sharia compliance. Rauf talks about freedom being paramount. Other religions also take a dim view of alcohol and gambling. Are you going to accuse them when they proselytize of attempting to make our country Seventh Day Adventist compliant (for example)?

More to the point, you aren't being honest in saying that Rauf said "the US is already Sharia compliant". What Rauf said recently is that "American political structure is sharia-compliant." That's a huge difference. That may just mean he thinks they can use our political structure to make the society Sharia compliant (whatever he actually thinks that means). And in that regard, I don't think he's all that moderate.

Aren't you attempting to read his mind here? May? He supports the Constitution and has said so. You mind-read that to mean he wants to use our freedoms to get rid of the Constitution? That is an unfalsifiable position. I can apply your mind-reading to ANY group and conclude that they secretely want to destroy us, they just aren't admitting it. Those contemptible Shriners are really plotting to destroy the US - they just won't admit it!

As already pointed out he's lionized some fairly radical Muslim scholars and clerics. During an address in Australia he said he had just come from a conference in Jordan featuring “over 170 leading Muslim scholars from almost every part of the Muslim world, including some of the most important names like Sheikh Tantawi of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, who is the chief mufti of Egypt, the chief mufti of Jordan, the Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, who is a very very well-known Islamic jurist, highly regarded all over the Muslim world.”(...)

Have you actually read the speech or just Geller's interpretation of it? You might be suprised. I could not find him praising them, I just saw him talking about them being leading Muslim scholars. Feel free to find where he endorses their viewpoint and then get back to me.

Also, Imam Rauf recently said (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/08/explosive-in-faisals-own-words.html ) that "on the issue of the reformation, in terms of what is again intended by it, Islam does not need a reformation.", something which is counter to what at least some of you have agreed with me it needs.

I guess you better ask him how he is defining refomration and what that means. It is a nebulous term open to interpretation. It sure does not look like he is endorsing conservative Muslims by what he ways and does. but I guess if all you have is this niggling statement that is far too nebulous to have any real meaning then that is what you go with.

Furthermore, even Muslims can't agree what Sharia compliance entails. Saudi Arabia, heart of Wahhabism, is amongst the more entreme in it's view and enforcement of Sharia law. To them, Sharia compliant obviously means something quite different from what it apparently means to you and what you think it means to Rauf. But since it's likely that Saudi Arabia will end up providing the bulk of funds to build the Cordoba *House* near the 9/11 site, it's seems likely their views about Sharia may have considerable impact on the message it actually presents to visitors.

So your fear is the money source may taint Rauf's message? OK, there is some validity to that fear so I won't argue against it much.

Do you know that Rauf's book "What's Right with Islam is What's Right with America" was published in Malaysia, with Rauf's cooperation (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243536/raufs-dawa-world-trade-center-rubble-andrew-c-mccarthy ), under the title "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post 9/11". Now "dawa" is the missionary work by which Islam is spread. That's sounds like his primary purpose is to spread Islam in America … and at the heart of Islam as practiced by the folks he is seeking funding from for Cordoba *House* is Sharia. You think about that.

Oh no! A religion is attempting to spread their word and convert people! Say it isn't so! Good thing Christians don't do anything nefarious like that. I could care less about the title. You think it some great insult to us but why can't it be him being shocked by the event and trying for Muslim outreach? I guess if you live in fear like a xenophobe then you will always interpret these things in the worst possible light despite what the book actually says. READ THE BOOK! Enlighten yourself.

 

[BeAChooser]

In his books, he explicitly states that America now, right now at this very moment, is fully in line with what he views as sharia.

No, that is not what he has said. In his book, "What's Right with Islam …" , he says that "any system of rule that upholds, protects, and furthers these rights [the God given rights of life, mind (mental well being), religion, property and family] is therefore legally "Islamic," or Shariah compliant, in its substance. … snip … What I am demonstrating is that the American political structure is Shariah compliant." That is NOT the same thing as saying the individual laws in America and individual rules that have been enacted are Sharia compliant. It is silly to claim that two systems that treat women so differently are both compliant with Sharia law. If that is true then Sharia law is meaningless, and we both know extremist Muslims (and Rauf) don't believe that. The claim in his book that the "American Constitution and system of governance uphold the core principles of Islamic law" is also nonsense. The US Constitution would not allow many, many of things that are done in the name of Sharia Law. His statement is BS being used to negate attacks on the 14th century extremist aspects of Sharia Law. Nothing more.

Those are not the words of someone who wants to institute a Wahhabist style of sharia in the US, BAC.

Maybe, maybe not. People sometimes disguise their true intentions (just look at Obama and other politicians). But in any case, how that center is used is not just up to him. It will be up to his financial backers … they will be the ones with the real power … and right now the expectation is that Saudi Arabia will be one of the major sources of funding. In which case, one of the more extreme views of Sharia Law may take hold at the center. It may end up being like so many of the other centers that Saudi Arabia has funded around the world … teaching Jihadist notions and anti-Western ideas. All Rauf is really selling is the idea of a center for teaching Sharia Law and a Mosque near the site of attack where Shariaists and Wahhabists murdered over 3000 people. What it will be beyond that is very uncertain. And it would not be wise, when engaged in a war with Shariasts and Wahhabists, to allow them another foothold in the US, or to win what may appear to many of their fellows to be a great victory.

you left out some important parts of Rauf's quote there.

Your quote shows that he named three specific names of Muslim scholars, implying they have "condemned actions of terrorism that are being done in the name of Islam". That is only partially true.

By Istani, the one person it would appear from your quote he specifically named as issuing a fatwa condemning acts of terrorism, I assume he meant Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani who said in 2006, that Muslims should "obey the laws of the countries" in which they live. He said "Any Muslim man or woman must act in the best interests of his or her country of residence by protecting it from all acts that might put this country in jeopardy." He issued the statement following arrest of 17 Muslims in Canada on charges of terrorism. The group had obtained three tons of ammonium nitrate and were plotting bombs attacks at various buildings in Ontario. And Sistani is indeed to be commended for this, and also for his earlier help in stabilizing Iraq by calling for more unity between the Muslim sects in Iraq. Now perhaps if funding for Cordoba *House* were to come specifically from him …

And while Sheikh Gomaa has stated there is "no excuse for suicide bombing", Sheikh Tantawi (who died in 2010) was less consistent. At times he unequivocally condemned all attacks on civilians (on America and against Israelis), but at other times he seemed to condoned them, saying, for example, that Palestinian attacks against Israelis are fundamentally different in moral quality from those by al-Qaida against the US. He was on the right track, but he never quite got there. And he and Gomaa certainly hadn't come all the way towards speaking against the many other harsh (and unacceptable to America as it now stands) aspects of Sharia law.

Sheikh Al-Qaradawi offered rebuttals against those who issued statements criticizing suicide bombings, especially against Israelis. When Tantawi and others issued statements condemning such action in the 2000s, he responded that their statements were a betrayal. He maintained that Israelis were not civilians but combatants in a war of occupation. And he also has not done much to change the more extreme aspects of Sharia law that would simply not be tolerable in the US. In fact, he has stated that "secularism is incompatible with Islam" (http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010061175024 ). He said "the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari’ah is downright apostasy." This view is TOTALLY incompatible with the way we do things in America. Isn't it?

Anyway, for some reason, Geller isn't releasing the unaltered audio. And at the very least, this quote is incomplete. "On the issue of reformation, in terms of what is again intended by it, Islam does not need a reformation. It needs just a going back to its basic principles of application," is what Rauf said.

But in the next line he said "From the very beginning the prophet urged his followers to seek knowledge, even if they went as far as China." So it seems to me that he says Muslims should return to the basic principles, apparently as applied by the Prophet Mohammed. So what was the application of it's basic principles by Mohammed?

His first preachings were that "God is One" and that "surrender to him is the only way". He then led his followers in conquest … in jihad … and after 8 years of fighting conquered Mecca. Wasn't that the application?

The Sira is Mohammed's biography. Now I haven't read it but by all accounts it is filled with violence. Much of his prophecies speak of violence against unbelievers. Half the book is about Jihad. It's the book that contains the "model" for the perfect Islamic life. The Quran directs Muslims to imitate Mohammed. And clerics interpret the Sira to do that. So the fact the Sira is non-stop violence, primarily against unbelievers, and filled with all sort of antiquated notions about gender roles, etc., is very disturbing. Disturbing when clerics call for the death of Westerners who even depict Mohammed in any way. Disturbing when we see Muslims supposedly applying Sharia stoning pregnant women to death for adultery. Disturbing that Iman Rauf want's Obama to reaffirm and recognize the radical Islamist foundation on which the Iranian regime is based? A dictatorship of clerics. When in fact, what Islam badly needs is separation of church and state.

And, as recently shown, Fox News also gets a lot of funds from "Saudi Arabia", including entering into joint partnerships with the very Saudi prince who may be giving money to Park51. I eagerly await your concern about Fox News' sharia-promoting message as a result.

Alwaleed own just 7 percent of News Corp, so he doesn't exercise all that much control over the content of Fox News. How much impact has the 9% stake that News Corp has in Alwaheed's Middle Eastern media and entertainment company, Rotana, had on the contend of what their news stations broadcast? And are you claiming that Saudi Arabians will provide only 7% of the funds used to build and maintain the Cordoba *House*? Also, investments in News Corp and Rotana aren't about religion … just money. Any *investment* in the Cordoba *House* has to be about religion and Sharia law, since it will be a center for promoting Sharia, not an investment that makes money.

You wouldn't have to rely on what it "sounds like" if you bothered to actually read the book yourself, you know.

But why rename the book in the first place for Muslim audiences? Why link the 9/11 event to the concept of dawa? What good can really come of that? Doesn't that play into the hands of the more extreme factions in Islam? Afterall, much of the violence by the extremists is justified by (according to moderate Muslims) misinterpretation of the Quran, Sira and other documents. Why add one more opportunity for misinterpretation to the list?

 

[A'isha]

No, that is not what he has said. In his book, "What's Right with Islam …" , he says that "any system of rule that upholds, protects, and furthers these rights [the God given rights of life, mind (mental well being), religion, property and family] is therefore legally "Islamic," or Shariah compliant, in its substance. … snip … What I am demonstrating is that the American political structure is Shariah compliant." That is NOT the same thing as saying the individual laws in America and individual rules that have been enacted are Sharia compliant.

BAC, he spent an entire section of his book praising the American separation of powers, so that it could not "adversely affect the liberties of the people" (his words).

He also said

What I now aim to demonstrate may surprise readers, namely that America is substantively an "Islamic" country, by which I mean a country whose systems remarkably embody the principles that Islamic law requires of a government. From a different perspective, it means that Muslims around the world believe in the principles that undergird American government and want those principles upheld in their own societies.

Note very closely the present tense he uses there, BAC. And also note that far from saying that Muslims want America to be more like their societies, they want their societies to be more like America.

It is silly to claim that two systems that treat women so differently are both compliant with Sharia law. If that is true then Sharia law is meaningless, and we both know extremist Muslims (and Rauf) don't believe that. The claim in his book that the "American Constitution and system of governance uphold the core principles of Islamic law" is also nonsense. The US Constitution would not allow many, many of things that are done in the name of Sharia Law. His statement is BS being used to negate attacks on the 14th century extremist aspects of Sharia Law. Nothing more.

Or it could be that you have no understanding of sharia law, and Rauf's view of such. No, wait, I take that back...there's no "could" involved.

Again, had you bothered to read Rauf's book, you'd have encountered him saying this:

The problem lies in confusing cultural norms with religious belief or law. Unless we separate the theological from the sociocultural dimensions of the issue, we are likely to misread the situation. What complicates the understanding of the gender issue, even by Muslims, is that Muslim jurists regarded the custom (adah, 'urf), or common law of a society, as a source of law when the Quran or the sunnah was silent on an issue. Thus, what was custom in a particular time or place found its way into Islamic law.

Today, the Muslim world is a vast and varied cultural landscape; the realities of women in Malaysia, for example, are not the same as the realities of women in Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, or Senegal. So to investigate the status of women in Islam, one must start with a look at the realities of Muslim women from a theological perspective.

Gender equality is an intrinsic part of Islamic belief.

And also this, a couple pages later:

In surveying the women who have been prominent in the history of the Islamic world, it becomes increasingly clear that there is a strong prototype for Muslim women and that women's rights are alive in the very theology of Islam. But, as in most countries the world over, the reality for women does not match the ideals we all know are right and just. As American women are fighting for equal pay for equal work, for reproductive rights and affordable childcare, Muslim women are fighting for compulsory education (in Afghanistan), the right to drive (in Saudi Arabia), and the right to cover their hair (in France and in Turkey). As American women are knocking through glass ceilings to acquire the rights due to them in the Constitution, Muslim women are doing the same to gain full access to their rights as laid out in the Quran and sunnah.

Many of the limits placed on women in Muslim (and non-Muslim) societies are the result of custom, and these limits continue because people have a hard time changing their customs. In terms of realizing social rights, the Muslim world is following a similar trajectory as in the West, and changing a society's notions of what is acceptable in gender roles takes generational change. Just as in America roles have changed dramatically, especially in the last hundered years as America has implemented the Abrahamic ethic to a greater degree, it is reasonable to expect that Muslim societies implementing the justice called for in Islamic theology will undergo parallel transformations.

This is why granting political rights is the most effective way to redress legitimate women's grievances. For as a nation becomes increasingly democratized, the ballot box becomes the means by which each constituent group in society attains its objectives.

Maybe, maybe not. People sometimes disguise their true intentions (just look at Obama and other politicians).

"Okay, so maybe Rauf didn't actually say all those 'extremist' things that all those right-wing blogs that I blindly trust claim he said. That just means he's lying!"

But in any case, how that center is used is not just up to him. It will be up to his financial backers … they will be the ones with the real power

That's not a given, and you know it. Especially since even if Saudis such as al-Waleed give money, it's not like they're the only ones involved.

… and right now the expectation is that Saudi Arabia will be one of the major sources of funding.

Only by you.

In which case, one of the more extreme views of Sharia Law may take hold at the center. It may end up being like so many of the other centers that Saudi Arabia has funded around the world … teaching Jihadist notions and anti-Western ideas. All Rauf is really selling is the idea of a center for teaching Sharia Law and a Mosque near the site of attack where Shariaists and Wahhabists murdered over 3000 people. What it will be beyond that is very uncertain. And it would not be wise, when engaged in a war with Shariasts and Wahhabists, to allow them another foothold in the US, or to win what may appear to many of their fellows to be a great victory.

For one thing Rauf has never once declared that he wants to teach any kind of "sharia law" at Park51, much less the Wahhabist brand practiced in Saudi Arabia, and his writings and statements have, in fact emphasized the opposite.

For another, as I've noted before, Wahhabists see Rauf as a heretic. Your fears about them using his Park51 project to secretly promote their religious philosophy are about as stupid as worrying that the Pope is going to use a nearby Mormon Temple to secretly promote Catholicism.

Your quote shows that he named three specific names of Muslim scholars, implying they have "condemned actions of terrorism that are being done in the name of Islam". That is only partially true.

It's true enough to show that Rauf was not praising those he named for their positions on sharia or their theological viewpoints, but for agreeing to condemn terrorism at that meeting in Jordan which he was talking about.

Contrary to what your favorite lying bloggers have tried to claim, of course.

But in the next line he said "From the very beginning the prophet urged his followers to seek knowledge, even if they went as far as China." So it seems to me that he says Muslims should return to the basic principles, apparently as applied by the Prophet Mohammed.

No, it says that the Prophet urged his followers to seek knowledge. Anything else is your totally fictional attempt to put words in Rauf's mouth.

The Sira is Mohammed's biography. Now I haven't read it

And that's your problem right there, BAC.

Disturbing that Iman Rauf want's Obama to reaffirm and recognize the radical Islamist foundation on which the Iranian regime is based? A dictatorship of clerics. When in fact, what Islam badly needs is separation of church and state.

Hey, whaddaya know; once again, you and Rauf are in accord regarding the importance of the separation of church and state. Which, yet again, you'd know had you read his book:

Muslims believe that America needs to reestablish its original understanding of the First Amendment, which balances the separation of church and state with religious freedom by allowing all religions equal standing[.]

EDIT: Here's a better passage, since as part of his argument for how America is currently fully compliant with his interpretation of sharia, he makes a really interesting argument about religion in America. In this paragraph, though, he's explicit about religious freedom and Islam.

Pluralism of religions and churches is the foundation of the establishment clause [in the First Amendment to the US Constitution]. This is similar to the Islamic injunction in the Quran: "Say: O disbelievers. To you your religion, and to me mine" (Quran 109:6). This verse and others together demonstrate that pluralism of religions is a fundamental human right under Islamic law.

Alwaleed own just 7 percent of News Corp, so he doesn't exercise all that much control over the content of Fox News. How much impact has the 9% stake that News Corp has in Alwaheed's Middle Eastern media and entertainment company, Rotana, had on the contend of what their news stations broadcast?

Actually, Al-Waleed and News Corporation are in a strategic partnership with each other, with News Corp. representatives going to meetings directly with him. They don't just own each others' stock, they're actively working and planning together.

And are you claiming that Saudi Arabians will provide only 7% of the funds used to build and maintain the Cordoba *House*? Also, investments in News Corp and Rotana aren't about religion … just money.

They're discussing partnerships in media. You do know what the media in Saudia Arabia says, right?

And I'm not the one making any claims about the level of Saudi funding for Park51, you are. I suppose it's too much to ask you for evidence of your numbers and percentages?

Any *investment* in the Cordoba *House* has to be about religion and Sharia law, since it will be a center for promoting Sharia

Once again, this is utterly false.

But why rename the book in the first place for Muslim audiences? Why link the 9/11 event to the concept of dawa? What good can really come of that? Doesn't that play into the hands of the more extreme factions in Islam? Afterall, much of the violence by the extremists is justified by (according to moderate Muslims) misinterpretation of the Quran, Sira and other documents. Why add one more opportunity for misinterpretation to the list?

Because he wanted to, again, emphasize that the West and Islam are fully compatible, and that the questions and concerns raised among Americans by 9/11 are a good opportunity for dialogue to begin, and to a Muslim audience telling them that the book addresses their fears about how they can practice their religion in America in a post-9/11 world is a pretty apt thing to do in the title.

From the introduction to his book:

My commitment to improving relations among the religious communities and to ministering to the hurts in life to which we humans are subject propelled me onto a speaking circuit of synagogues, churches, seminaries, and interfaith groups, seeking ways to help others understand and recognize the higher ground that unites our faith traditions.

This book is dedicated to that effort. Here we will analyze the divide between the Muslim world and the United States and identify what is precious in the heritage of each. We will address some of the burning questions raised since September 11 on issues of religion, politics, economics, sociology, and psychology. Through increasing our understanding of how the relationship between the Muslim world and the West went wrong, we can begin to discover ways to rebuild it.

 

[Lurker]

BAC:

Do you ever get angry at your right wing sources for so badly misleading you? I mean, I find it hard to believe they are doing so by accident when the take quotes totally out of context like they do with such regularity. Does that not bother you in the slightest?

Or do you explain it all away as they can see through the writings of Rauf and know what his real intent is. Much like you have been doing here.

Again, what would a moderate Muslim look like to you? Do they have to agree with America 100% of the time?

 

[funk de fino]

Mmmmmm....mind reading bigots.

 

[Thunder]

Again, what would a moderate Muslim look like to you? Do they have to agree with America 100% of the time?

haven't you heard? Moderate Islam does not exist.

any Muslim who does not accept and preach the ideals of Jihad and Holy War, is a bad/fake Muslim.

Just ask Pam Geller and Oliver North.

 

[Thunder]

Oh, and by the way, the building is already a mosque.

so why can't Muslims make it bigger and better?

 

[pgwenthold]

BAC:

Do you ever get angry at your right wing sources for so badly misleading you? I mean, I find it hard to believe they are doing so by accident when the take quotes totally out of context like they do with such regularity. Does that not bother you in the slightest?

Or do you explain it all away as they can see through the writings of Rauf and know what his real intent is. Much like you have been doing here.

Again, what would a moderate Muslim look like to you? Do they have to agree with America 100% of the time?

His problem as I see it:

1) Rauf is a muslim, and is therefore evil
2) Given 1, stuff he said must be evil
3) If you doubt what he said is evil, see 1

When you start with the premise that the guy is bad, then you must interpret everything he has said as bad, regardless of whether it is or not.