Merged Two Mosques to be built near Ground Zero

[A'isha]

Repeat it please and I will comply. There are many parallel conversations here. I'm flattered that you pay attention to mine. Sorry, but I don't have time to read all of yours.

Post 1145 in this thread. Here's a direct link to it.

 

[Elind]

Okay, having read it, I have to wonder what the hell this guy is talking about.

He says "What have you said and argued to Muslim-majority nations to address their need for reform? You have said that Islam does not need reform, despite the stoning of women in Muslim countries, death sentences for apostates, and oppression of reformist Muslims and non-Muslims."

What has Rauf said, directly, about the utterly Islamic dictatorship in Iran? What has he said, directly, about the similar dictatorship in Gaza? What has he said, directly, about the Islamic dictaorship in southern (for now) Lebanon, and the wannabe one in Afghanistan, to cut it short?

People who bandy about words like "reform" without anything more than a wish are just another politician saying what is expected.

This is false. Rauf said "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." In other words, Islam does not need "reform" in the sense of changing what it is, but that instead it needs to go back to its core values which have been ignored by too many Muslims and Muslim states around the world. And what does Rauf say those values and principles are? American values and principles.

Going back to basic principles sounds just peachy, although if we consider Abraham in Old Testament terms there is not much that is peachy.

Reform is a relative term. If something is not applied today, but was in the past, then going back to the past most certainly means reform of today.

Rauf also expands on the nature of "reform" and Islam in his book, saying in the section titled "Two Approaches to Reform" that

He calls out the latter, bad type of "reform" as characterizing "reactionary responses to excesses that arguably threw the baby out with the bathwater", and explicitly notes Wahhabism as being the most influential of this latter type. In short, he doesn't think Islam needs the kind of "reform" typified by that extremist creed. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of the position Jasser ascribes to Rauf.

Let us face the simple fact that Wahabists are recognized by the Muslim world as the "guardians of the holy places", or whatever the exact title is. Now I know that some Al Queda types have challenged that, violently, in the past, but I don't hear the Muslim world demonstrating for the Saudi king to step down and allow a moderate council control Mecca.

And the accusation that he supports an Islam that features "the stoning of women in Muslim countries, death sentences for apostates, and oppression of reformist Muslims and non-Muslims" is egregiously false. The "reformist" thing was dealt with above, but Rauf has said, very explicitly,

Let me see him organizing a demonstration, by Muslims, in the WTC against stoning women in Iran and I may believe he is a new type of modern Muslim.

The latter makes Jasser's claim that "You willfully ignore what American Muslims most need—an open call for reformation that unravels the bigoted and shoddy framework of political Islam and separates mosque and state" especially egregious, since that's exactly what Rauf does in his book.

This is laughable because there is no separation of mosque and state in Islam. There may be an acknowledgement that the state has a role outside the mosque, but if push comes to shove there is absolutely no question which comes first.

Either Jasser has never read what Rauf actually wrote and said, or he has and is deliberately lying about it.

I find it tiresome when arguments devolve into calling another party a deliberate liar, or a bigot for that matter.

 

[A'isha]

What has Rauf said, directly, about the utterly Islamic dictatorship in Iran? What has he said, directly, about the similar dictatorship in Gaza? What has he said, directly, about the Islamic dictaorship in southern (for now) Lebanon, and the wannabe one in Afghanistan, to cut it short?

That they're doing Islam wrong, basically. For instance, in the wake of the riots in Iran when the ruling Islamic extremists cracked down on supporters of Amadinejad's rival in the election, Mir-Hossein Mousaivi, when it was clear that the people supported Mousauvi, Rauf urged President Obama to tell the Iranian government that they needed to "establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, that establishes the rule of law."

In fact, most of his efforts have involved wanting America to do more about injustices in the Muslim world. In his book, he decried the lack of American efforts in that regard (and especially in doing things like supporting the oppressive governments of Saudia Arabia and Pakistan):

It's like saying "We have a special treasure - a liberal society that expresses the values of the Abrahamic ethic whose principles are part of our faith traditions - but it's not for you. It's for Americans and Europeans, even for Japanese, Russians, and South Africans. We'll suggest democracy for China, but we don't really care about democracy and human rights in the Muslim world. In fact, we'll even support dictators who deprive you of your human rights."

Again, all this is in his book!

People who bandy about words like "reform" without anything more than a wish are just another politician saying what is expected.

That's why it's a good thing Rauf travels around the world speaking about the need for interfaith understanding and cooexistence, in partnership with Jewish Rabbis and Christian Ministers, then, isn't it?

Going back to basic principles sounds just peachy, although if we consider Abraham in Old Testament terms there is not much that is peachy.

That's kind of irrelevant, since Rauf explicitly said those "basic principles" of Islam were the ones in the US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights.

Reform is a relative term. If something is not applied today, but was in the past, then going back to the past most certainly means reform of today.

Not really. It's the same thing as someone who dislikes the direction the US has taken, in the era of the Patriot Act, saying "America doesn't need reform, it just needs to go back to its Constitutional principles."

Let us face the simple fact that Wahabists are recognized by the Muslim world as the "guardians of the holy places", or whatever the exact title is. Now I know that some Al Queda types have challenged that, violently, in the past, but I don't hear the Muslim world demonstrating for the Saudi king to step down and allow a moderate council control Mecca.

Yes, and Rauf has said all along that they need to (though he's said that he actually thinks a constitutional monarchy modeled after the UK would work for Saudi Arabia, too, when replacing the theological monarchy it has now).

Let me see him organizing a demonstration, by Muslims, in the WTC against stoning women in Iran and I may be believe he is a new type of modern Muslim.

Rauf wants to send a message, but he thinks other methods, such as speaking at mosques and synagogues and churches around the world, and building an interfaith center open to all, and encouraging moderate Muslims in the West to lead by example in living their lives.

Why do you think "demonstrations" are the only, or even the best, way to send this message?

This is laughable because there is no separation of mosque and state in Islam. There may be an acknowledgement that the state has a role outside the mosque, but if push comes to shove there is absolutely no question which comes first.

No, there's "no separation of mosque and state" in too many Muslim countries. Rauf says they're doing it wrong, since it's long been his view that there is separation of mosque and state in Islam itself.

Which is why Rauf explicitly says he wants to change that for those countries, and praises America for enshrining the separation of religion and state in the Bill of Rights, thus having freedom of religious worship and Constitutionally protecting religious pluralism.

I find it tiresome when arguments devolve into calling another party a deliberate liar, or a bigot for that matter.

I've quoted extensively, even exhaustively, about what Rauf believes and has said he believes. Those are at odds with what Jasser says they are. Either Jasser is ignorant, or he's lying. There's no other way to explain the discrepancy with what Jasser claims Rauf says, and with what Rauf actually says.

Or do you really think that Jasser has represented Rauf's views accurately?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

This is laughable because there is no separation of mosque and state in Islam. There may be an acknowledgement that the state has a role outside the mosque, but if push comes to shove there is absolutely no question which comes first.

<snip>

Turkey?

 

[Elind]

That they're doing Islam wrong, basically. For instance, in the wake of the riots in Iran when the ruling Islamic extremists cracked down on supporters of Amadinejad's rival in the election, Mir-Hossein Mousaivi, when it was clear that the people supported Mousauvi, Rauf urged President Obama to tell the Iranian government that they needed to "establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, that establishes the rule of law."

I don't recall. Did Obama ignore that call? I think "we" decided that to interfere would be counterproductive and give more ammunition to the "Islamists". What better voice than counter Islamists would there be? Why does Islam need Obama to reform itself?

In fact, most of his efforts have involved wanting America to do more about injustices in the Muslim world. In his book, he decried the lack of American efforts in that regard (and especially in doing things like supporting the oppressive governments of Saudia Arabia and Pakistan):

This is rubbish. No nation on earth has done more to help injustices (unless you are a Hamas fan), including those of Muslims, than the USA. Rauf is just parroting the usual both sides of the fence of a typical self serving politician in this regard. Neither Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia are actually oppressive regimes compared to, say, Iran or the Taliban. They just have screwed up principles, and I have lived many years in Saudi.

That's why it's a good thing Rauf travels around the world speaking about the need for interfaith understanding and cooexistence, in partnership with Jewish Rabbis and Christian Ministers, then, isn't it?

No it isn't. The issue is not compromise with other religions who's supposed same god gives conflicting messages. That is never resolvable. The issue is a recognition that ones own message is not the only word, just another way. For a Muslim to believe that is to be an apostate to the Koran. Change that and you will know the meaning of reform.

That's kind of irrelevant, since Rauf explicitly said those "basic principles" of Islam were the ones in the US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights.

Sure, as long as a few other issues defined in the Koran are not violated.

Not really. It's the same thing as someone who dislikes the direction the US has taken, in the era of the Patriot Act, saying "America doesn't need reform, it just needs to go back to its Constitutional principles."

Who's interpretation of constitutional principles are you talking about? Glenn Beck?

Yes, and Rauf has said all along that they need to (though he's said that he actually thinks a constitutional monarchy modeled after the UK would work for Saudi Arabia, too, when replacing the theological monarchy it has now).

OK. Let the Saudi king reign in a court at Mecca dealing with issues like which ancient buildings to demolish next year, and perform some symbolic rituals at the regular democratically elected representatives councils in Riyahd. When pigs fly.

Rauf wants to send a message, but he thinks other methods, such as speaking at mosques and synagogues and churches around the world, and building an interfaith center open to all, and encouraging moderate Muslims in the West to lead by example in living their lives.

Like I said, there is enough friction in "interfaith" between Christians, Jews and others as it is. If they all heard the same message they would all go to the same church. To think the problem with Islam in the 21st century is an interfaith issue is a red herring. Are we talking of problems with Islam here, or are we discussing human nature?

Why do you think "demonstrations" are the only, or even the best, way to send this message?

Fair point. I've never been to a demonstration myself. It was a rhetorical point, but if someone sells themselves as the reformer of a faith going the wrong way, they should have better answers than I can come up with.

No, there's "no separation of mosque and state" in too many Muslim countries. Rauf says they're doing it wrong, since it's long been his view that there is separation of mosque and state in Islam itself.

A conditional separation. No literalistic religion, and Islam is based on the literal word of Allah, can ever survive the granting of a superior power than god to the people.

Which is why Rauf explicitly says he wants to change that for those countries, and praises America for enshrining the separation of religion and state in the Bill of Rights, thus having freedom of religious worship and Constitutionally protecting religious pluralism.

Rauf is either deluding himself or not listening to himself.



I

've quoted extensively, even exhaustively, about what Rauf believes and has said he believes. Those are at odds with what Jasser says they are. Either Jasser is wrong, or he's lying. There's no other way to explain the discrepancy with what Jasser claims Rauf says, and with what Rauf actually says.

I don't have time to go back and analyse what two other people said and weight the statements. This Jasser is likely in the same boat I've been earlier in this thread. Say one thing, then clarify, expound, refine, repeat, repeat again, and so on. You have to ask him, not me.

Or do you really think that Jasser has represented Rauf's views accurately?

Maybe not. I have however tried to represent mine.

 

[Elind]

Turkey?

Wait to see what happens there.

 

[quadraginta]

Wait to see what happens there.

Wow. Ominous. Foreboding, even.

Of course, no one could make any similar dire predictions about the U.S., could they? It isn't like there's been any signs of a resurgence of fundamentalism around here in the past half century or so. You know, like trying to get the constitution changed to uphold 'Christian Principles" or anything like that. Or modifying school science curricula, or ...

 

[Elind]

Wow. Ominous. Foreboding, even.

Of course, no one could make any similar dire predictions about the U.S., could they? It isn't like there's been any signs of a resurgence of fundamentalism around here in the past half century or so. You know, like trying to get the constitution changed to uphold 'Christian Principles" or anything like that. Or modifying school science curricula, or ...

You haven't been paying attention.

No significance to sending Islamists on boats to attack what they knew would be, initially, unarmed Israelis when any aid they wanted could have been send without conflict?

No significance to withdrawing their ambassador as a result of what they started?

No significance to the fact that the only fundamental support of secularism in Turkey has always been the military?

No significance to the fact that their proposed constitutional amendments are largely designed to give more, not less, weight to religious demands?

No significance to the fact that they have no compunction about bombing Kurd separatists in Iraq, yet condemn any Israeli responses to attacks on them?

And by the way, why do you start something about Turkey and then switch to the USA? Is that just a twitch you have or something more subtle?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

And by the way, why do you start something about Turkey and then switch to the USA? Is that just a twitch you have or something more subtle?

You made a claim about Islam and secular government being inextricably combined. I offered an example of where they are not.

You made dark predictions of an unknown future as some sort of weird attempt at a refutation. I pointed out that such a future is possible even in the absence of Islam.

What part of this do you find confusing?

 

[Elind]

You made a claim about Islam and secular government being inextricably combined. I offered an example of where they are not.

You made dark predictions of an unknown future as some sort of weird attempt at a refutation. I pointed out that such a future is possible even in the absence of Islam.

What part of this do you find confusing?

I find nothing confusing in this regard, even your ignorance of history and present issues, nor your avoidance of why you switched the subject.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I find nothing confusing in this regard, even your ignorance of history and present issues, nor your avoidance of why you switched the subject.

You've shown great ignorance when it comes to what Rauf's position about islam is.

 

[JihadJane]

You haven't been paying attention.

No significance to sending Islamists on boats to attack what they knew would be, initially, unarmed Israelis when any aid they wanted could have been send without conflict?

The Israelis were not unarmed, initially or otherwise.

 

[amb]

Have you really read and understood what she says? Because her views stand in stark contrast to all the other authors you list below, and to what you yourself describe as defining characteristics of Islam. She's a hell of a lot closer to Rauf's interpretation of Islam than she is to theirs or yours, in fact.



Her book is a genuine and harrowing tale of what she and others like her have suffered under extremist brands of Islam in Somalia and Saudi Arabia, where she lived before coming to the West. But she's not any kind of authority on Islam as a whole, since she apparently thinks all Muslims think that same way, making such bizarre assertions like "every devout Muslim who aspires to practice genuine Islam" is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, which anyone who knows anything about the divisions and conflicts within Islam knows is false. The Muslim Brotherhood is doctrinally Sunni, which makes it rather problematic for say, Shia Muslims to follow them, to say nothing of other non-Sunni sects and the millions of moderates out there. It's also outlawed in some Muslim countries, like Egypt, which places her and another author on your list, Nonie Darwish, at direct odds about just how "devoutly and genuinely" Muslim that country is.

In other words, it's akin to saying "every devout Christian who aspires to practice genuine Christianity" supports the Family First Party, and just as untrue [edited to provide a more Australian example for amb].



She's not Muslim, she's Lebanese Christian. Her book also says stuff like "Islamic terrorists [...] are really just very devout followers of Muhammad. They are following his example and doing exactly what the Koran teaches and their mullahs exhort them to do with a daily diet of righteous jihad," which is trivially proven false simply by talking to any one of the millions of moderate Muslims in America and Europe.

It also says "[T]hey have an ingrained corruption that runs throughout their societies. They respect craftiness and deceit over honesty and virtue. They are consumed with hate for one another," which could have been cut-and-pasted from Mein Kampf talking about Jews!



She was born Muslim, but converted to Christianity over thirty years ago.

She's written about the backwardness and cruelty of sharia law as many Muslim countries practice it. However, she seems to be caught between an odd contradiction where her books say things like describing Islam as "an entire religion and its culture believes God orders the killing of unbelievers," while in interviews she talks about encouraging more moderate Muslims to speak out and that "it’s the terrorists who are giving Islam a bad name."

In any case, her book is an okay (if sensationalistic) work about the excesses of a particular brand of extremist sharia, but she's not a Muslim scholar, and extremist sharia is not Islam (as proved by the fact that there are a whole lot of different versions of "sharia" throughout the Muslim world).



Jerome Corsi?! The guy who says that the Hawaiian birth certificate that Obama showed the world is a photoshopped fake, thinks Obama's really a secret Muslim, and went on Alex Jones' radio show to talk about how he supports Steven Jones' ridiculous theory that "nanothermite dust" really brought down the WTC towers?



I'm seeing a distinct absence of any books exploring Islamic theology or history. What you seem to have done is read a bunch of Dawkins, Till, and Hitchens (and one book by David Icke), and decided you've learned everything you need to know about Christianity.



Okay, I have a question for you. Sura IX, verse 5 in the Qu'ran, often (mis)quoted as "Kill the disbelievers wherever you find them."

Who spoke it, when, and why?

You forgot to comment on The Trouble With Islam Today [Irshad Manji]

 

[A'isha]

You forgot to comment on The Trouble With Islam Today [Irshad Manji]

Uh, I comment on Manji and the views contained in her book in the first paragraph of what you quoted.

I also follow up on it in post 1174, which is solely about Manji and the views contained in her book.

Are you gonna answer the question I asked you, by the way?

 

[Elind]

The Israelis were not unarmed, initially or otherwise.

The initial ones stabbed beaten and taken hostage were armed with paint guns and pepper pellets.

 

[Elind]

You've shown great ignorance when it comes to what Rauf's position about islam is.

I note that most of your comments are expressing your opinion about me, as opposed to anything concrete. At least some like Ant, whether we disagree or not, are capable of making arguments addressing a topic.

 

[Chaos]

You forgot to comment on The Trouble With Islam Today [Irshad Manji]

Stop evading. Respond to his criticism.

And when you´re done, answer my questions.

 

[A'isha]

This is rubbish. No nation on earth has done more to help injustices (unless you are a Hamas fan), including those of Muslims, than the USA. Rauf is just parroting the usual both sides of the fence of a typical self serving politician in this regard. Neither Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia are actually oppressive regimes compared to, say, Iran or the Taliban. They just have screwed up principles, and I have lived many years in Saudi.

Iran is more oppressive than Saudi Arabia!?

In one of those countries, women can drive, often wear makeup and western clothing such as high heels and narrow jeans in public despite religious dictates otherwise, has 70% of new university students being female, and has at least some semblance some democracy, with government positions actually open to regular elections both national and local, with disparate political parties running candidates for office.

And it's not Saudi Arabia.

The issue is a recognition that ones own message is not the only word, just another way. For a Muslim to believe that is to be an apostate to the Koran. Change that and you will know the meaning of reform.

Rauf disagrees with that, and has even said it's vital that any reform give people the ability "to recognize when there is, and can be, more than one right answer." And I'm pretty sure he's a Muslim who's not "an apostate to the Koran."

Sure, as long as a few other issues defined in the Koran are not violated.

Such as?

OK. Let the Saudi king reign in a court at Mecca dealing with issues like which ancient buildings to demolish next year, and perform some symbolic rituals at the regular democratically elected representatives councils in Riyahd. When pigs fly.

So, it seems your issue is not that Rauf doesn't speak out in support of an Islam that is moderate, Western, and "reformist" to be established in extremist Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia (because he does), but that you think such "reform" will never happen?

Like I said, there is enough friction in "interfaith" between Christians, Jews and others as it is. If they all heard the same message they would all go to the same church. To think the problem with Islam in the 21st century is an interfaith issue is a red herring. Are we talking of problems with Islam here, or are we discussing human nature?

What are you talking about? The problem with Islam isn't an interfaith issue (or, rather, the interfaith issues are just a consequence of the other issues0. Rauf just uses interfaith dialogue as one method with which to address the issues. Other methods involve writing books laying out his views, publishing op-ed pieces in newspapers (in both Western and Muslim countries, where he can) condemning extremism, and trying to build a Muslim community in the US that is fully embracing of Western values and principles in order to act as an example to both Muslims and Westerners that the two sides can fully coexist.

A conditional separation. No literalistic religion, and Islam is based on the literal word of Allah, can ever survive the granting of a superior power than god to the people.

You appear to be begging a whole lot of questions with the above.

Suffice it to say that everything in the above sentence applies to Christianity, and yet millions of Christians in America are perfectly happy with the Constitution and laws of the country as they stand, above any one church or question of religious nature. The more devout agree with the Declaration's statement that all our rights come from the Creator, and the Constitution just codifies and describes those rights, allowing those particular Christians to still think that God's law is above all while also still embracing the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the proper expression of that law (including everything in the First Amendment). This is, for instance, how many extremely devout Catholics, such as my own grandmother, feel.

As you really should have been able to gather from the excerpts form his book that I posted, this is also what Rauf thinks.

Rauf is either deluding himself or not listening to himself.

What, exactly, are you trying to say here? No, really, what? Your argument now seems to have diverged so much from your earlier support for Jasser's essay claiming Rauf isn't really a moderate and hasn't spoken out against extremist Islamic regimes that I'm not sure where to fit the above in.

Are you saying that Rauf is wrong about his own religion? That despite his birth and education in Muslim countries, religious authority as the imam of a mosque for several decades now, and authorship of a number of works on the subject, that you know better about the nature and core beliefs and Islam and the prospects for change and reform among its adherents?

Because that's what it looks like.

Maybe not. I have however tried to represent mine.

So, is Rauf a voice for moderate Islam who thinks it is fully compatible with Western core values as embodied in the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, and urges Muslim countries to reform along those same lines, or not, in your view?

Because that's what this whole thing was originally about.

 

[amb]

Uh, I comment on Manji and the views contained in her book in the first paragraph of what you quoted.

I also follow up on it in post 1174, which is solely about Manji and the views contained in her book.

Are you gonna answer the question I asked you, by the way?

Are you trying to say that verse is taken out of context? That there is no violence in the qu'ran. Read literally it has as much violence as the babble. Not suitable for children to read. Both are rated R.

 

[A'isha]

Are you trying to say that verse is taken out of context? That there is no violence in the qu'ran. Read literally it has as much violence as the babble. Not suitable for children to read. Both are rated R.

No, I simply asked you who revealed that verse, when, and why.

Does this mean you aren't able to answer that?