View Full Version : Holy War: Should Americans Fear Islam?
I watched this town hall discussion on 'This Week' this morning and found it to be a worthwhile synopses of the current on-going debates.
Richard
Holy War: Should Americans Fear Islam?
'This Week' Transcript, 3 Oct 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=11786745
This exchange
CHOUDARY: There are many people who are justifying -- there are many people who are justifying the inability to practice the Sharia, to say, "Well, I have a different form of religion." You know, people want to claim that they're vegetarians and they're eating big beef burgers. You can not be a non-practicing vegetarian. Therefore, similarly, if you're a Muslim, you submit to the Sharia.
FRANKLIN GRAHAM: He's telling the truth.
AMANPOUR: You see, Reverend Graham says you're telling the truth. So, do you agree with Reverend Graham and our panelists on this side that Americans should fear Islam?
CHOUDARY: we do believe, as Muslims, the East and the West will one day be governed by the Sharia. Indeed, we believe that one day, the flag of Islam will fly over the White House. Indeed, there's even an oration of the Prophet where he said, "The day of judgment will not come until a group of my oma... -- "
Nothing to see here, move along folks, move along.
We keep saying a Good Muslim is one who believes in the Koran and Sharia law. Why do so many not believe them.
One needs to read the entire transcript and watch the video to understand and appreciate the context of the discussion - it is not what you may think.
Richard :munchin
(CROSSTALK)
IMAM OSAMA BAHLOUL: You can go to church in Egypt, a church in Syria. Now all this, the church -- we have it in the Middle East. This is something for you to say that Islam is is an Muslim thought, to beat a woman, this is absolutely not right.
Imam Bahloul thinks the Kafiroon are easily fooled by Taqiyya...
DEALING WITH A REBELLIOUS WIFE
m10.12 when a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife.......He may hit her whether she is rebellious only once or whether more than once...
(Reliance of the Traveller - pgs 540 - 542) http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728
Wife-beating is divinely sanctioned in the Qur'an and Hadiths...
Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is most high. (Sura 4:34)
ETA (Note: Sura 4 is of the Madinan way, the last of Muhammad's revelations)
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/madinasuras.shtml
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Madinan-Way-Soundness-Premises-School/dp/0953863905
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/004.qmt.html
Heaven forbid a woman does this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g_QwiYxvkY - Honor killing???
And about those churches in Egypt.....well,
Muslim Body Sets Conditions for Christian Citizenship in Egypt
"...Egypt is an "Islamic State" according to the text of its Constitution, which represents the social contract between its people. "From this stems the rights of citizenship, as taught to us by the Messenger of Allah in his pact with the Christians..."
"citizenship in the traditions of the Islamic Research Council is conditional to non-Muslims in the Egyptian State by their acceptance of the Islamic State, respecting the Islamic identity and accepting the rule of Sharia,"
http://www.aina.org/news/20100930232232.htm
Egypt - Persecution
Disappearing Christians of the Middle East
Sectarian strife quickly re-ignited. On November 6, 1972, an Orthodox church in the Nile delta town of Khanka near Cairo was burned. When Christians held a special mass at the site of the badly damaged church on November 12, anti-Coptic riots erupted. The rioters destroyed homes and shops of local Christians.17
http://www.meforum.org/23/egypt-persecution
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2010/10/egypt-al-azhars-statement-to-nation.html
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/town-hall-debate-americans-fear-islam-christiane-amanpour-11787545&tab=9482930§ion=1206874&playlist=6505465
Again - reading the entire script and watching the video to frame the debate, listen to the debaters, watch the expressions of those presenting and the audience, etc, is necessary for context - especially the matter of whether or not there is "one Islam" and whether or not American Muslims are seeking to bring Sharia law to the US, moderate Muslims, etc.
Without doing so...:confused:
Richard
Again - reading the entire script and watching the video to frame the debate, listen to the debaters, watch the expressions of those presenting and the audience, etc, is necessary for context - especially the matter of whether or not there is "one Islam" and whether or not American Muslims are seeking to bring Sharia law to the US, moderate Muslims, etc.
I did both, watched and re-read the transcripts, and I applaud the discussion but was disappointed by the format, as well as the context. The discussion should not have been based on fear because it implies Islamophobia, an irrational fear rather than a distaste for Islamic Supremacism.
The context was that someone’s feelings can change 100’s of years of scholarly consensus (Ijma). Several times when counter points were brought up, those in favor of Islam repeatedly said that Islam had been hijacked with offering no proof of their claims, and with the doctrine of Taqiyya - in my mind, only actions will/can verify what they were saying in regard to Islamic reformation (Trust but verify) - talk is cheap IMHO.
IMO, the peaceful Muslims who were in the crowd do not invalidate violent, oppressive, and Supremacist teachings of Islamic Law.
I believe those who propose reform mean well, but as for 80% of the worlds population which consists mostly of Sunni, and their four schools of Jurisprudence (Shafi'I, HanbalI, Maliki and Hanafi), the following hurdle is one that will be difficult to overcome, and their schools all pretty much agree on 75% of their rulings :munchin
b7.0 SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS (IJMA’)
b7.1: Meaning of Consensus
('Abdal-Wahhab Khallaf: ) Scholarly consensus (ijma') is the agreement of all the mujtahids (def: o22.1(d) ) of the Muslims existing at one particular period after the Prophet's death (Allah bless him and give him peace) about a particular ruling regarding a matter or event. It may be gathered from this that the integral elements of scholarly consensus are four, without which it is invalid:
(a ) that a number of mujtahids exist at a particular time:
(b) that all mujtahids of the Muslims in the period of the thing or event agree on its ruling, regardless of their country, race, or group, though nonmujtahids are of no consequence;
(c) that each mujtahid present his opinion about the matter in an explicit manner, whether verbally, by giving a formal legal opinion on it, or practically, by giving a legal decision in a court case concerning it;
(d) and that all mujtahids agree on the ruling, for if a majority of them agree, consensus is not effected, no matter how few those who contradict it, nor how many those who concur.
b7.2: Scholarly Consensus Is Legally Binding
When the four necessary integrals of consensus exist, the ruling agreed upon is an authoritative part of Sacred Law that is obligatory to obey and not lawful to disobey. Nor can mujtahids of a succeeding era make the thing an object of new ijtihadm because the ruling on it, verified by scholarly consensus, is an absolute legal ruling which does not admit of being contravened or annulled.
b7.3: Koranic evidence
The proof of the legal authority of scholarly consensus is that just as Allah Most Glorious has ordered the believers, in the Koran, to obey Him and His Messenger, so too He has ordered them to obey those of authority (ulu al-amr) among them, saying,
"O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Prophet and those of authority among you" (koran 4:59).
such that when those of authority in legal expertise, the Mujtahids, agree upon a ruling, it is obligatory in the very words of the Koran to follow them and carry out their judgement.
And Allah threatens those who oppose the Messenger and follow other than the believers' way, saying,
"Whoever contraverts the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the believers' way, We shall give him over to what he has turned to and roast him in hell, and how evil an outcome" (Koran 4:115).
b7.4: Hadith Evidence
A second evidentiary aspect is that a ruling agreed upon by all the mujtahids in the Islamic Community (Umma) is in fact the ruling of the Community, represented by its mujtahids, and there are many hadiths that have come from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), as well as quotes from the Companions, which indicate that the Community is divinely protected from error, including his saying (Allah bless him and give him peace) :
-1- "My Community shall not agree on an error."
-2- "Allah is not wont to make my Community concur on misguidance."
-3- "That which the Muslims consider good, Allah considers good." (`Ilm usul al-fiqh (y71), 45-47)
c2.5 The unlawful (haram) is what the lawgiver strictly forbids…
(3) and unbelief (Kufr), sins which put one beyond the pale of Islam (as discussed at o8.7) necessitate the Testification of faith (shahada) to reenter it…
ACTS THAT ENTAIL LEAVING ISLAM
o8.7
(7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse to that does not belong to it;
(Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. Pgs 15-35 & pgs 596-598)
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728
Islam is to the Kafir religions what Nazism and Communism was to the Jews.
IMO, Islam is the guiding ideology behind Islamic terrorism and until we realize that the enemy is not simply Al Qaeda or the Taliban, and that it is the ideology of Islam itself, we will only continue to play the never ending game of “whack a mole”
I’m crossing my fingers for the reformers, but I’m not holding my breath…
:munchin
I read this article in Haaretz while in Tel Aviv on 9-26.
Richard :munchin
Some Zionist Groups Stoke Fear Of Islam for Political Profit
Matthew Duss, Haaretz, 26 Sep 2010
After the last several months, it should be clear that the controversy over the Park 51 Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero is about more than sensitivity to the families of the 9/11 victims and the sacredness of the site where their loved ones were murdered. In places as far from Lower Manhattan as Murfreesboro, Tenn., and Temecula, Calif., Muslim houses of worship, and the people who pray in them, have come under attack by conservative activists as representing an American beachhead for Muslim extremism.
Whether it’s Newt Gingrich peddling false stories of “creeping sharia” (strict Islamic law) to an audience of very serious people at the American Enterprise Institute, or the Washington Times running endless editorials and op-eds from conspiracy theorists like Frank Gaffney warning that President Obama “may actually still be a Muslim,” or Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney shamelessly and falsely asserting that Park 51 leader Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has “terror-related connections,” it’s clear that quite a few conservative elites see political profit in stoking Americans’ fear of Islam.
Such hostility toward Muslims is unfortunately not marginal in the pro-Israel community — unless one is prepared to define the huge annual policy conference of one of Washington’s foremost lobbies as “marginal.” At an AIPAC conference in March 2009, to take just one example, terrorism expert Steve Emerson spent 40 minutes stoking the worst fears of the mostly elderly attendees with a talk called “Tentacles of Terror: The Global Reach of Islamic Radicalism.” It could just as easily have been called “Scaring the Living Crap Out of Bubbe and Zayde.” As long as Jews are encouraged to believe that scary Muslims are hiding under every American bed, the idea is perpetuated that support for the Jewish state is a zero-sum contest between favoring Israel and favoring Arabs and Muslims. For too many American Jews, smearing Islam is seen as a legitimate expression of Zionism.
Groups like The Israel Project, the Middle East Media Research Institute and Middle East Forum seem to exist for no other reason than to spotlight the very worst aspects of Muslim societies. Magazines like Commentary and the Weekly Standard regularly traffic in the crudest stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims, and promote the harshest measures for dealing with them. Musing over the appropriateness of targeting Palestinian civilians during the Gaza conflict, Standard contributing editor Michael Goldfarb wrote approvingly, “To wipe out a man’s entire family, it’s hard to imagine that doesn’t give his colleagues at least a moment’s pause.”
Martin Kramer, a fellow at the Washington Institute of Near East Policy, president-designate of Shalem College and frequent AIPAC panelist, took things even further, suggesting that Israel’s siege on Gaza, could, by depressing population growth, “crack the culture of martyrdom, which demands a constant supply of superfluous young men.”
In 2007, in what could be seen as a precursor to the current uproar over the Park 51 Islamic cultural center, Middle East Forum Director Daniel Pipes played a key role in flaming controversy over the Khalil Gibran International Academy, a planned New York City public school emphasizing the study of Arabic language and culture. Pipes asserted that such a school represented a potential threat simply by virtue of teaching Arabic.
It would be wrong, however, to pretend that these sorts of smears have been the work solely of conservatives. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a liberal who promotes himself as Israel’s leading public defender, regularly rehearses the most clownish calumnies against Israel’s adversaries, real and perceived. Citing the Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini’s collaboration with the Nazis, Dershowitz wrote, “the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust.” The obviously ahistorical stupidity of that claim aside, it hardly needs pointing out that a similar attempt to lay collective blame upon Jews would be immediately — and rightly — condemned, by Dershowitz and others.
Hatred of Arabs has also had a home in one of America’s oldest and best-respected liberal magazines, The New Republic, for over three decades, courtesy of owner and editor-in-chief Marty Peretz, who never seems to tire of identifying ways in which Arab society is “hidebound and backward,” as he wrote in 2007. Observing the devastation in Iraq, Peretz wrote: “I actually believe that Arabs are feigning outrage when they protest what they call American (or Israeli) ‘atrocities.’ They are not shocked at all by what in truth must seem to them not atrocious at all. It is routine in their cultures.” Peretz reiterated that view in September of this year. “Frankly, Muslim life is cheap, especially for Muslims,” he wrote. “This is a statement of fact, not value.”
While it’s tempting to dismiss Peretz as a racist old kook, he does serve as editor-in-chief of a major magazine, and he has been able to help define the boundaries of acceptable liberal discourse for 30 years. And he has chosen through those years to place the most retrograde anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bigotry — including constant denials of Palestinian nationhood — within those boundaries.
It wasn’t so long ago that Jews in America were targets of similar slander and knee-jerk opposition. Liberal American Jews have been at the forefront of all of America’s struggles against bigotry, but they need to do a better job of calling out the hate in their own communities. Moderate Muslims are often called upon to condemn the extreme rhetoric of their co-religionists. It is not too much, at long last, to call upon moderate Zionists to do the same.
http://www.forward.com/articles/131502/
Whether it’s Newt Gingrich peddling false [?] stories of “creeping sharia” (strict Islamic law) to an audience of very serious people at the American Enterprise Institute, or the Washington Times running endless editorials and op-eds from conspiracy theorists like Frank Gaffney warning that President Obama “may actually still be a Muslim,” or Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney shamelessly and falsely asserting that Park 51 leader Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has “terror-related connections,” it’s clear that quite a few conservative elites see political profit in stoking Americans’ fear of Islam.
Of course it’s all just a Zionist Conspiracy :D
Downplaying and ignoring the threat, IMO, doesn’t refute an expansionist ideology.
Pretending the threat of creeping Sharia doesn’t exist, and that it can't happen here, is not a very good method of dealing with those whose stated goal is to ensure that it does happen here.
What would Molly Norris do - WWMND :confused: :D
16744
:munchin
I read this article in Haaretz while in Tel Aviv on 9-26.
Richard :munchin
Some Zionist Groups Stoke Fear Of Islam for Political Profit
Matthew Duss, Haaretz, 26 Sep 2010
One needs to read the entire article to understand the context. It is clearly labeled an opinion piece and the author is identified as an editor for the Center for American Progress:
Matthew Duss is National Security Editor at the Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogressaction.com/aboutus)
The Center for American Progress is a progressive organization.
Who We Are
Center for American Progress Action Fund is a progressive think-tank dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through ideas and action. We are creating a long-term, progressive vision for America—a vision that policy makers, thought-leaders and activists can use to shape the national debate and pass laws that make a difference.
The Center of American Progress is a progressive organization.
Proposed and funded by George Soros and Morton Halperin, "It's the official Hillary Clinton think tank" :eek:
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6709
It appears ABC promoted “Revolution Muslim” as a first line of defense against terrorism, the ones who threatened the “South Park” creators…
Interesting clip > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNsj1d7cn3c
Revolution Muslim has pledged its support for Sharia, not the US.
The Jawa Report has been following Revolution Muslim for some time now:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/203821.php
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/202091.php
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/203400.php
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201485.php
I read this article in Haaretz while in Tel Aviv on 9-26.
Richard :munchin
Some Zionist Groups Stoke Fear Of Islam for Political Profit
Matthew Duss, Haaretz, 26 Sep 2010
Was the article also in Haaretz? The link provided is for The Jewish Daily Forward.