What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)

[Bloggingheads]

[BornAgainDemocrat]

I was glad to see Rauf say, "There will be separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths."

If he had done that several weeks ago it could have saved a lot of grief. And if the media would play up this part of his statement, well, that would help too.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

If he had done that several weeks ago it could have saved a lot of grief.

I find it very hard to believe more than a small fraction of the project's opponents would have been appeased.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

I find it very hard to believe more than a small fraction of the project's opponents would have been appeased.

Me too.

[BornAgainDemocrat]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

I find it very hard to believe more than a small fraction of the project's opponents would have been appeased.

Americans are a feel good people. If they see this as an interfaith center, especially if the financing is interfaith, they will be all for it. Would you like to bet?

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

Americans are a feel good people.

Americans are mean SOBs when we cop an attitude about religion.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

Americans are a feel good people. If they see this as an interfaith center, especially if the financing is interfaith, they will be all for it. Would you like to bet?

I'll take that bet. All you have to do read read a post by harkin to see what you're up against.

[BornAgainDemocrat]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

I'll take that bet. All you have to do read read a post by harkin to see what you're up against.

Harkin has but one vote. To make my point clear, I am predicting that a comfortable majority of Americans would favor a truly interfaith center near Ground Zero where Jews, Muslims, and Christians can all worship, if it included a memorial to 9/11 and were financed by all three faiths in roughly equal degree. But first they would have to understand that this would be the case, which won't be easy in view of the publicity so far. Rauf, the mainstream media, and the pundits have their work cut out for them if they're serious about encouraging interfaith tolerance.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

Harkin has but one vote. To make my point clear, I am predicting that a comfortable majority of Americans would favor a truly interfaith center near Ground Zero where Jews, Muslims, and Christians can all worship, if it included a memorial to 9/11 and were financed by all three faiths in roughly equal degree. But first they would have to understand that this would be the case, which won't be easy in view of the publicity so far. Rauf, the mainstream media, and the pundits have their work cut out for them if they're serious about encouraging interfaith tolerance.

That proposal seems almost perfectly orthogonal to what's actually being talked about. Why do you think it deserves to be considered instead?

[BornAgainDemocrat]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

That proposal seems almost perfectly orthogonal to what's actually being talked about. Why do you think it deserves to be considered instead?

Because not only did Rauf say, "There will be separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths." He also said, "The center will also include a multifaith memorial dedicated to victims of the Sept. 11 attacks."

This is news, though you wouldn't know it from reading the headlines.

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

This is news, though you wouldn't know it from reading the headlines.

It's old news. This was all mentioned ages ago, though hardly hi-lighted.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

Because not only did Rauf say, "There will be separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths." He also said, "The center will also include a multifaith memorial dedicated to victims of the Sept. 11 attacks."

This is news, though you wouldn't know it from reading the headlines.

That's not what you've proposed.

Originally Posted by AemJeff

That's not what you've proposed.

And what did he propose? You and your arrogant little interjections.

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

Americans are a feel good people. If they see this as an interfaith center, especially if the financing is interfaith, they will be all for it. Would you like to bet?

And people call Iman Rauf niave.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

And people call Iman Rauf niave.

Winner.

[Ocean]

These two have fun together, don't they?

[bkjazfan]

Originally Posted by Ocean

These two have fun together, don't they?

Yes, they do and I have fun watching them. They never fail to get a few chuckles out of me.

John

[dieter]

Wouldn't the UN have been aware that the fake UN plane which was to be shot down wasn't one of their own?

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by dieter

Wouldn't the UN have been aware that the fake UN plane which was to be shot down wasn't one of their own?

I thought of that too. The plan doesn't make sense without more fleshing out.

Maybe they would have given the UN a phony story about a plane gone off course. Maybe they only intended for the deception to hold up until it no longer mattered.

It does make me wonder if the story is a fabrication or distortion.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by dieter

Wouldn't the UN have been aware that the fake UN plane which was to be shot down wasn't one of their own?

I think that David meant that Bush came up with this plan on the spur of the moment, without thinking it through. The plan had most likely many flaws and wasn't feasible. The point was that Bush would come up with such trickery to start a war. And that the whole episode has been downplayed or hidden from the public.

[otto]

... that two people who decide to enjoy talking to each other make for a much better diavlog, and it doesn't get in the way of their making their disagreements clear.

[TwinSwords]

Who’s Afraid of Shariah?

Hasn’t the whole notion of shariah in America gotten a bit out of control? No, it hasn’t — it’s gotten hugely, obscenely, ignorantly out of control. How many of those anti-Islam protesters holding “NO SHARIA LAW” signs (as if anyone were advocating shariah law in the U.S.) actually know what the word means? I’d say, oh, none. Roughly.

Since Sharia has become one of the leading preoccupations of conservatives, it might be helpful to actually know something about it.

For example, a point that has been discussed a great deal of late:

Assuming all Muslims follow medieval Islamic rules today is like assuming that all Catholics follow 9th century canon law. Islam, like Christianity, has changed many times over the centuries, and it continues to change. Focusing only on the nutcases who advocate a return to medieval times is ignoring the vast majority of modern Muslims.

For example, stoning for adultery is a punishment that appears in fiqh, as well as early Judaic law. But it does not appear in the Qur’an. In Islam, therefore, stoning was a result of cultural norms imposed on the religious texts. Moreover, in the fiqh, though the punishment for adultery was stoning, adultery was made such a fantastically difficult crime to prove that the punishment was impossible to apply. Historically, stoning was very rarely implemented in the Islamic world, which is ironic, since today the Saudi and Iranian governments apply it as though they’d never heard of the strict Islamic constraints on it.

The vast majority of Muslims today do not believe in stoning people for adultery, and many are working hard to eradicate it. Stoning is horrific and has no place in our world. The miniscule percentage of Muslims who advocate it are imposing the medieval penalty while ignoring all the myriad limitations meant to make it inapplicable.

As for other scary stories attributed to shari’a, like honor killings, veiling of women, and female genital cutting, these are cultural practices and not Islamic. They are practiced by non-Muslims of certain cultures as well as Muslims.

Shari’a is a set of religious principles and is not the law of the land anywhere in the world. The 50-some Muslim-majority countries are all constitutional states and nearly all of them have civil codes (many of these based on the French system). Being Muslim does not require a governmental imposition of something called “shari’a law,” any more than being a Christian requires the implementation of “Biblical law” (though there are, of course, a tiny minority of both Christians and Muslims who do advocate such things, including Sarah Palin).

The whole thing...

Gays are afraid of Sharia. See here.

There is no choice!

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Lyle

Gays are afraid of Sharia. See here.

There is no choice!

Lyle, the clip you linked here shows a good example of the kind of hysteria that is being criticized. The student is trying to corner the speaker into saying something that he doesn't seem to believe in. The article that Twin linked to says about the same about this:

Shari’a is a set of religious principles and is not the law of the land anywhere in the world. The 50-some Muslim-majority countries are all constitutional states and nearly all of them have civil codes (many of these based on the French system). Being Muslim does not require a governmental imposition of something called “shari’a law,” any more than being a Christian requires the implementation of “Biblical law” (though there are, of course, a tiny minority of both Christians and Muslims who do advocate such things, including Sarah Palin).

The problem resides in fundamentalism and literalism. Religious people can respect their sacred texts without advocating that they become the law.

Secularism is the way, my friend.

Yes, the gay kid was trying to corner him and did so nicely. I think you need to watch that clip again Ocean. What's unclear about what the man said? He says (I paraphrase perhaps) "I don't have a choice about excepting sharia law"... and then "homosexuality is punishable by death under sharia law". He must certainly does believe that and at the very least says that sharia law calls for the execution of homosexuals. He straight up says it... even saying it twice, "it's punishable by death".

... and what about the enforcement of sharia law in Iran and Saudi Arabia, where they execute gays? What do you not understand about that?

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Lyle

Yes, the gay kid was trying to corner him and did so nicely. I think you need to watch that clip again Ocean. What's unclear about what the man said? He says (I paraphrase perhaps) "I don't have a choice about excepting sharia law"... and then "homosexuality is punishable by death under sharia law". He must certainly does believe that and at the very least says that sharia law calls for the execution of homosexuals. He straight up says it... even saying it twice, "it's punishable by death".

... and what about the enforcement of sharia law in Iran and Saudi Arabia, where they execute gays? What do you not understand about that?

Yes, Lyle, I heard what was said. The Muslim guy said he had no choice but to accept what the Qur'an says, but he also said that Sharia law doesn't have to be applied in Muslim countries. He also said that there are no Muslim countries that apply Sharia law completely. So what's the point?

Imagine a similar auditorium where the speaker is some Christian guy and the student asks him: so, according to the Bible, homosexuality is an abomination. Do you think it's an abomination? What should be done about it? Or something like that. The point isn't about what a religious text says, but rather that the principle that has to be placed above all is that Law shouldn't be based blindly on any religious text (secularism). The kinds of moral values that we hold in a modern society aren't the same that are reflected in religious texts. Of course there are some common principles, but there are many differences as well.

Anyhow, the idea of my comment, is to point out the hysteria that gets created. How realistic is to worry that Sharia law could possibly be applied in the U.S.? Are you concerned about how Saudi Arabia runs its country? Perhaps we should try to become energy independent and stop dealing with regressive governments. Bush is no longer in the White House, so why not?

You're missing the point... all the gay kid was trying to get was that the Koran and sharia law argue for the execution of gays.

The Muslim doctor from Vanderbilt fouled the kid up by making the point that Sharia law is not fully implemented anywhere, but only in parts. He is correct when he says there is mixed law in the despotic Muslim countries. That's not what matters though. What matters is what the Koran and sharia law say... and they say homosexuals should be executed.

That was what the gay kid wanted the Muslim doctor to say... and he got him to say it, and that he agreed with by virtue of having no choice but to follow what the Koran says.

So if you're gay... Sharia is something to think about. Not America with regards to being executed, but with bigotry perhaps. And yes, if you're gay in Iran or Saudi Arabia, sharia law is out to get your ass.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Lyle

You're missing the point... all the gay kid was trying to get was that the Koran and sharia law argue for the execution of gays.

The Muslim doctor from Vanderbilt fouled the kid up by making the point that Sharia law is not fully implemented anywhere, but only in parts. He is correct when he says there is mixed law in the despotic Muslim countries. That's not what matters though. What matters is what the Koran and sharia law say... and they say homosexuals should be executed.

Since pretty much anybody has a access to a Qur'an, and can read what it says, why was so important to have this man confirm what the Qur'an says?

That was what the gay kid wanted the Muslim doctor to say... and he got him to say it, and that he agreed with by virtue of having no choice but to follow what the Koran says.

That's what wasn't really established. Having no choice but to accept what the Qur'an says is different from being willing to enforce the suggested punishment. That would require a literal interpretation and a desire to enforce, which may or may not be present. That's the part that I object to. The student kept confirming the obvious but not asking what would have been the most important and interesting question, which would be whether the guy would be willing to enforce such punishment.

So if you're gay... Sharia is something to think about.

I don't need to be gay to reject anything resembling Sharia. I'm a woman.

Ocean,

The gay kid wanted to confirm whether or not it is true the Koran and sharia law call for the execution of homosexuals. You think the gay kid shouldn't have asked the Muslim doctor to confirm this? Maybe he wanted to see if he would deny it?

And again... the Muslim doctor thinks homosexuals should be executed. That is what he is saying. Of course he can't do that in the United States, but as an observant Muslim he's compelled to following the teaching of the Koran and the Koran says that homosexuals should be executed. Think of what that means for gays in his life Ocean.

I'm not addressing the notion of sharia creep, I'm simply saying that there are people who are worried about sharia, maybe not for themselves, but for others. Don't you worry about evangelical Christians influencing the making of law?

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Lyle

Ocean,

The gay kid wanted to confirm whether or not it is true the Koran and sharia law call for the execution of homosexuals. You think the gay kid shouldn't have asked the Muslim doctor to confirm this? Maybe he wanted to see if he would deny it?

And again... the Muslim doctor thinks homosexuals should be executed. That is what he is saying. Of course he can't do that in the United States, but as an observant Muslim he's compelled to following the teaching of the Koran and the Koran says that homosexuals should be executed. Think of what that means for gays in his life Ocean.

I'm not addressing the notion of sharia creep, I'm simply saying that there are people who are worried about sharia, maybe not for themselves, but for others. Don't you worry about evangelical Christians influencing the making of law?

Yes, Lyle, I worry about any religion influencing law.

I guess that the student was satisfied in his curiosity to confirm what he obviously knew already. I think that the interesting question to ask a Muslim speaker in a university setting would be a different one. I would have asked, how a Muslim decides when the precepts contained in the Qur'an should be enforced or not. Recently we had a diavlog and that topic was discussed. I thought it was interesting to know that historically Islam has interpreted those precepts in a much more flexible way.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I think that the interesting question to ask a Muslim speaker in a university setting would be a different one. I would have asked, how a Muslim decides when the precepts contained in the Qur'an should be enforced or not.

Ah, a much briefer way of saying what I went on and on about.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Ah, a much briefer way of saying what I went on and on about.

Heh. You reminded me of my best friend in high school. We would always get the best grades but in a test she would write thirty pages and I would write ten. Neither the teachers nor we could figure out how that worked, but we both covered the topics completely. She went on to Law school. I went on to Medical School. Maybe there's something about the humanities as opposed to science that makes people write more.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Lyle

And again... the Muslim doctor thinks homosexuals should be executed. That is what he is saying.

He didn't say that. He seemed to be avoiding giving a straight answer and he should have been pressed, but the student didn't ask the straightforward questions, either, or at least if he did the video failed to show them.

Specifically, he established that the Qu'ran says that the punishment for active homosexuality is death, he established that the doctor said that he has to believe in the Qu'ran as a Muslim, he established that the doctor accepted disapproval of homosexuality (which is how the doctor reframed the question), and he established that the doctor seems not to believe that as a Muslim one must live under sharia law, at least not in all respects.

The questions to follow up with, then, would have been: do you, as a Muslim, believe that countries should establish sharia law in all or certain respects and, specifically, with respect to homosexuality. If he said no (as I think he would, as he seemed eager to point out that countries, even Muslim countries, don't necessarily follow sharia), then the interesting question might be why not, how do you understand the Qu'ranic rule, then?

It's not like it's impossible to have such a statement in one's scripture and nevertheless not enforce it or seek to have it become the law of the land. It's in Leviticus, after all, and even fundamentalists who claim to believe every word of the Bible in a literal way don't generally seek to make that the law these days, and Orthodox Jews don't either. Obviously, there are more Muslims who seem comfortable with the notion of executing gay people, at least as compared with people in the US, but I think to leap from that to the notion that Muslims, especially in the US, are inherently suspicious is poor reasoning. Asking them how they deal with the scripture with regard to their own beliefs is fair. (Ignoring their answer and claiming that whatever they say they must really want to kill gay people because of the Qu'ran is not.)

The Muslim in the video didn't deal with the question well, I'd bet because he feels unable to say he doesn't accept certain aspects of the Qu'ran, but I bet you could find lots of Christians who would deal badly with the same question about Leviticus, not because of some secret agenda to enact it into law, but because they aren't comfortable saying they don't agree with it, even though in reality there are lots of bits of the Bible that they have to twist or justify to claim to believe in the way they claim to believe it.

No, he didn't say it directly... but by implication. You gals can think the Muslim doctor didn't say it, but I disagree. He tells the audience he has no choice in following the Koran and then goes on to say the Koran says gays should be executed (and repeats himself for effect even). What the heck does that lead you to believe about his general view of gays? He was defensive for crying out loud!!! He could have said himself he welcomes openly gay Muslims. He could have said he doesn't support that aspect of the Koran. He didn't though, did he?

Furthermore, being gay gets actual gay men executed in some countries. The Taliban throws them off buildings or buries them alive. The gay kid, sticking up for gay men the world over, said absolutely nothing about his concern for sharia law being implemented in the United States... he just wanted to know what Islam teaches about gays, you know, like that they should be executed.

Gay is not the way say these Muslim kids!!!

[harkin]

"One can only conclude that Imam Rauf's selective citation of Koran 36: 58, without the requisite context of the accompanying verse 36:59, is a deliberate act of "taqiyya" -- sanctioned lying to infidels."

"Now keep yourselves apart, you sinners, upon this day!"

Further context: Koranic Verse 3:28

"If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them ... [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers-except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion."

[kezboard]

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't taqiyya more about being able to practice Islam in secret if you'd be persecuted for doing it in the open? And isn't it more of a Shiite thing anyway?

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by kezboard

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't taqiyya more about being able to practice Islam in secret if you'd be persecuted for doing it in the open? And isn't it more of a Shiite thing anyway?

Quit confusing the issue with facts, kez. I think you're violating his rights.

It's not just a Shia thing, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya...f_the_Practice

Origin of the Practice


The practice of concealing one’s faith in dangerous circumstances originates in the Qur’an itself, which deems blameless those who disguise their beliefs in such cases [3]. The practice of taqiyya in difficult circumstances is considered legitimate by Muslims of various persuasions. Sunni and Shi’i commentators alike observe that Q 16:106 in particular refers to the case of ‘Ammar b. Yasir, who was forced to renounce his beliefs under physical duress and torture.[4]

Similarly, Q 3:28 enjoins believers not to take the company of doubters unless as a means of safeguarding themselves. “Let not the believers take those who deny the truth for their allies in preference to the believers – since he who does this cuts himself off from God in everything – unless it be to protect yourself against them in this way…”[5] Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir, a prominent authority writes, "Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil may protect himself through outward show." As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad's companion, al-Hassan, who said, “taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity].”


[4] # ^ Virani, Shafique. The Ismailis in the Middle Ages: A History of Survival, A Search for Salvation (New York: Oxford University Press), 2007, p.48.
[5] # ^ Asad, Muhammad. http://www.islamicity.com/quransearch/

[kezboard]

I believe it's more prominent among Shia though -- I guess because they've had more occasion to use it. I remember reading something about how haters of the Sunni persuasion often use Shia practice of taqiyya to the same effect as Harkin is trying to here.

[BornAgainDemocrat]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Quit confusing the issue with facts, kez. I think you're violating his rights.

It's not just a Shia thing, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya...f_the_Practice

Beware Wikipedia on controversial subjects.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

Beware Wikipedia on controversial subjects.

Always read the footnoted cites, if you can find them. And I have high confidence in what I quoted - far more so than harkin ought to have invested in his cites.