Mosque at Ground Zero

[Lord Mhoram]

Zarathustra,

In its zeal to appear open-minded and tolerant, the intellectual Left is willing to embrace Muslim leaders who advocate sharia, including the very extreme belief that people who leave Islam should be executed.

What do you exactly when you say somebody "advocates sharia"?

[rusmeister]

Zarathustra,

In its zeal to appear open-minded and tolerant, the intellectual Left is willing to embrace Muslim leaders who advocate sharia, including the very extreme belief that people who leave Islam should be executed.

What do you exactly when you say somebody "advocates sharia"?

Hi, LM,
Don't know if this comment is helpful in understanding Z's concern: I would express it from my POV that if you allow Islam inroads into the US, you allow, not only moderate peaceful and intelligent versions of the faith, but all of them. It is this very principle of freedom of all religions that must allow it - one that I myself don't support. Attempts to uphold sharia law have already been made in England and Scotland. Why do you think the US would be an exception?

[Lord Mhoram]

rus,

I'm asking what we mean by Sharia because it's a highly complex concept. Many of the 2.5 million or so Muslims living in the US (that's a low-ball estimate according to the statistics available to us) probably already believe they are living Sharia in the United States. Sharia is, loosely construed, the act of following God's will. It's more than just "Islamic law"; it's a way of living. It incorporates law as well as morality and philosophy and mysticism. Millions of devout and content Muslims are practicing Sharia in our country right now, with no harm to us. Sharia means all sorts of things, not just killing infidels. That concept is alien to most Muslims practicing Sharia. Zarathustra's article mentions John Esposito, whose landmark study Who Speaks for Islam? (Gallup Press, 2008) is the most in-depth analysis of international Muslim opinion. The results of what Muslims really think would probably surprise those of us who believe Islam is insidiously making "inroads" into our society.

If we all read many of those "leftist intellectuals" who write and know a thing or two about Islam, we would understand that.

[Zarathustra]

LM, who cares what I think or mean by "sharia?" I was talking about what Qaradawi (whom Rauf describes as “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today”) meant. And here's what he wrote in his book:

As Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari’ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions. It is indeed a false claim that Shari’ah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: “Say! Do you know better than Allah?” (Qur’an, 2:140) For this reason, 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.

Perhaps other Muslims mean something else. I don't really care. What's important is that the so-called experts (even in Rauf's own terms) believe it means the most extreme version possible. And the man who believes this exemplifies for American liberals a "moderate" Muslim.

[Lord Mhoram]

Zarathustra,

First of all, Qaradawi is probably the single best-known scholar in the Islamic world today. His views are certainly controversial and I'm not going to defend them, although it's worth pointing out that he's quite right to argue that the secular state is anathema to the Islamic tradition. I'm not so sure that Imam Rauf does believe everything Qaradawi believes. His actions as I've outlined them paint a picture of man who enthusiastically makes use of secular society to articulate his views. Are you advocating guilt by association? As for Sharia, you are the one who criticizes a scholar for "advocating sharia." Sharia is close to a nebulous concept when you can be criticized for "advocating" it, for the reasons I mentioned: all Sharia really means is following God's will. The issue becomes: what is God's will? It's worth asking what you mean by Sharia. Surely you should understand a concept for criticizing somebody who "advocates" it. It wouldn't be very sporting of me, for instance, to criticize somebody for being a supply-side economist if I had no idea what supply-side economics was.

[Zarathustra]

Surely you should understand a concept for criticizing somebody who "advocates" it. It wouldn't be very sporting of me, for instance, to criticize somebody for being a supply-side economist if I had no idea what supply-side economics was.

Good point. But even if I didn't understand every possible nuance of supply-side economics, if the leading expert in the field said that people who publicly renounce it should be executed, then I could rightly criticize others for calling him a moderate.

No, I'm not trying to draw guilt by association between Rauf and Qaradawi. The article merely said Rauf is a fan, and I admit that's a tenuous connection. My main point was about the liberals who support such "moderates," and that perhaps we can't trust their judgment when they claim other Muslims are moderates, too.

Perhaps "moderate" is just as nebulous as "sharia." Maybe I should be asking you what you mean by the former.

[Lord Mhoram]

Zarathustra,

Perhaps "moderate" is just as nebulous as "sharia." Maybe I should be asking you what you mean by the former.

That's a very worthwhile question. I should mention two things about the men we're discussing first off. A profile of Qaradawi (page 54 of the PDF) states that his "popular Al-Jazeera program Islamic Law and Life...is watched by an estimated 40-50 million people worldwide" and calls him "one of the most widely commented on scholars of Islam" on the planet. No matter the content of what he says, in the Islamic world, he is mainstream. There's nothing fringe about a show on the biggest television network in the region that reaches 50 million people. We may see that influence as negative or positive; but the influence is there nevertheless.

Much of what Rauf says about foreign policy is accepted worldwide. International polls -- both informal (Time) and formal (Pew Research Group) -- regularly cite the United States as the biggest threat to world peace. Or take the extensively studied public opinion polls on the invasion of Iraq. I've studied these results carefully. Across the board, with few exceptions (the usual suspects like Israel and the UK mostly), international citizens bitterly opposed that war and decried America's influence.

So when somebody like Rauf speaks critically about US foreign policy, his views may not poll well in our country. But across the world they're standard views.

[Zarathustra]

LM, that's quite a repositioning of the goalposts. One the one hand, mosque supporters are using the U.S. constitution and American definitions of religious freedom ... but when talking about "mainstream" you expand the scope of the discussion to the rest of the planet?

For the sake of this particular discussion, I don't think it's relevant to consider what is mainstream for Saudia Arabia, or any other place that's predominantly Muslim. I don't care how many people watch the guy on Al-Jazeera. To use this as your example of "mainstream" completely ignores the fact that we're talking about an American issue. Al-Jazeera itself isn't mainstream (here). Conservatives are told that it's none of their business if they don't live in New York, but suddenly it's okay for you to bring in people who don't even live in this hemisphere to define "mainstream?"

Anyway, the question which you said was very worthwhile was about "moderate," not mainstream. I don't think they are exactly the same. Part of my point about Islam is that, for this belief system, extremism is mainstream.

One final point ... the fact that much of the world is anti-American doesn't really add to Rauf's case just because he agrees with them. I know that the U.S. isn't the biggest threat to world peace. And I know who the rest of the world will expect to get them out of their jam once a threat materializes. So, again, I'm not sure why the opinions of anti-american foreigners matter to this debate at all.

[Lord Mhoram]

Zarathustra,

LM, that's quite a repositioning of the goalposts. One the one hand, mosque supporters are using the U.S. constitution and American definitions of religious freedom ... but when talking about "mainstream" you expand the scope of the discussion to the rest of the planet?

Supporters of the mosque aren't "using" anything. They're insisting that the rule of law be applied as written. There's nothing inconsistent with insisting upon action in accordance with US law and me citing international opinion to define what is mainstream and what is not. Here's why: "mainstream" is not a US-centric notion. Constitutionality (when we're talking about our own Constitution, as we are) is by definition US-centric.

For the sake of this particular discussion, I don't think it's relevant to consider what is mainstream for Saudia Arabia, or any other place that's predominantly Muslim.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that the polls I cited come from places far more disparate than merely the first Muslim country that came into your head: oh really? Why wouldn't the opinions of the religious group of which these men are members count in a discussion of their views? You say Imam Rauf is a radical. I'm pointing out that according to the best studies of international opinion, he's in accordance with widespread views. (More on that distinction in a minute.)

Anyway, the question which you said was very worthwhile was about "moderate," not mainstream. I don't think they are exactly the same. Part of my point about Islam is that, for this belief system, extremism is mainstream.

On the notion of extremism as mainstream among Muslims, I suggest you take a look at Esposito's study I cited a couple posts above. It empirically dispels that fallacy. On the distinction between the moderate and the mainstream, ideological radicalism is a measurement of a view's approximation to widespread beliefs. When the widespread belief shifts, the definition of "radical" shifts with it. When the perception of the US becomes increasingly negative, by world standards it becomes more and more implausible to call anti-Americanism "radical." It may be radical among our own citizens; but we can't judge international perception by our own perceptions.

One final point ... the fact that much of the world is anti-American doesn't really add to Rauf's case just because he agrees with them.

I'm not judging the truth content of what he says, although undoubtedly I'm more sympathetic to his views than you are. I'm judging the extent to which his views are "radical." If international polls tell us anything on this front, it's that Rauf's views, no matter how much you disagree with them, aren't unusual.

[Avatar]

So you just have to let things you disapprove or don't like slide and take root? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

No, I mean even if you fight against everything you (any individual I mean) don't like or approve of, some of those things are still going to become part of the next version of society, regardless of any one person's personal opinion of it.

--A

[rusmeister]

rus,

I'm asking what we mean by Sharia because it's a highly complex concept. Many of the 2.5 million or so Muslims living in the US (that's a low-ball estimate according to the statistics available to us) probably already believe they are living Sharia in the United States. Sharia is, loosely construed, the act of following God's will. It's more than just "Islamic law"; it's a way of living. It incorporates law as well as morality and philosophy and mysticism. Millions of devout and content Muslims are practicing Sharia in our country right now, with no harm to us. Sharia means all sorts of things, not just killing infidels. That concept is alien to most Muslims practicing Sharia. Zarathustra's article mentions John Esposito, whose landmark study Who Speaks for Islam? (Gallup Press, 2008) is the most in-depth analysis of international Muslim opinion. The results of what Muslims really think would probably surprise those of us who believe Islam is insidiously making "inroads" into our society.

If we all read many of those "leftist intellectuals" who write and know a thing or two about Islam, we would understand that.

Thanks, LM,
I won't pretend to be an expert on Islam - that I've read a little al-Ghazali (aside from some general knowledge that most moderately educated people have) is the most I can say. But from my perspective it doesn't matter. I don't need to read ten thousand books on Islam to, as you say, understand that. It teaches heresy (what is heresy according to my faith) from the get-go - just as religious pluralism is heresy, btw - and so really IS insidiously making inroads, just as secular pluralism - aimed at reducing all beliefs to "nice" personal opinion, rather than revelation of truth - has already made itself the super-highway of the Western world.

I am not at all surprised that Islam has developed profound teachings about human behavior and how one should live in the world. The same is true for all major world faiths that have traditions measured in millennia - it is only the person with little or no such tradition that could find it surprising.

I think Islam to be far superior to secular pluralism - at least it actually finds truth and teaches it as true regarding human purpose and destiny. Of course, I think I've found something even better than Islam. But the salient point for the general public is that all of these ideas are at war with each other, and cannot truly live at peace with each other without either one of them dominating public life, or a reduction of all of them to mere personal opinion, as I said, which is a denial of the heart of what the traditional religions teach.

[shadowbinding shoe]

So you just have to let things you disapprove or don't like slide and take root? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

No, I mean even if you fight against everything you (any individual I mean) don't like or approve of, some of those things are still going to become part of the next version of society, regardless of any one person's personal opinion of it.

--A

I'm not sure what's your point here. You're trying to say some things are inevitable and therefore should be accepted without a fuss? That to struggle would only stir waves and make lives worse for everyone?

Sounds like a recipe for losing your basic rights. Also you ignored my other point that people can make a difference. Especially so in democratic societies. Shrugging your troubles off with a "What can you do? That's life" and "acceptance and letting go of your anger will make you feel better" will make certain you don't make a difference.

[shadowbinding shoe]

Lord Mhoram - Your argument while grammatically enlightening has no substance to the argument. Zarathustra says that even mainstream Muslim and maybe even moderate ones don't live up to his (and Western society's ideals for a pluralistic society) standards of accepted religious beliefs and practices.

Instead of addressing that you reply with: well that's the best Islam (according to you) has to offer. Therefore we must embrace it.

[Cybrweez]

yes, I'm quite confused as well. LM you acknowledge Qaradawi is mainstream, and due to his popularity, would say his views are common in Muslim world? Yet, its a fallacy to say extremism is mainstream in Muslim world? Qaradawi has no problems executing apostates, and he's mainstream, yet, extremism is not mainstream? Apparently, we don't know what extremism itself means.

Feel free to start a thread about anti-Semitic hate crimes in the US, Weez.

Well, the thing is ali, I'm not the one worried about anti-Muslim feelings in America. I see an inconsistency in those worrying about that and not other anti-religious feelings, like Christianity. I don't know when you've ever defended Christianity in fact. Yet, you make the comment that only .06% of Americans are Muslim, so its no big deal, but if only 8% hate crimes are anti-Muslim, that should be no big deal either, what's the worry.

Besides, don't you think its kind of silly to think if one is worried about the spread of Islam, its not just b/c of American Muslims? I mean, most terrorist attacks against this country are not from American Muslims, but foreign Muslims.

[Lord Mhoram]

rus,

I'm glad you think it's a given that Islam may have something to teach us; in my experience, most Americans do not think that's a given. I am not personally a spiritual or religious person; I've studied Islam with an objective eye. It fails to move me. But I have an appreciation for the richness of its historical texture.

shadowbinding shoe,

Zarathustra says that even mainstream Muslim and maybe even moderate ones don't live up to his (and Western society's ideals for a pluralistic society) standards of accepted religious beliefs and practices.

Instead of addressing that you reply with: well that's the best Islam (according to you) has to offer. Therefore we must embrace it.

That is not an accurate restatement of my argument. I say that Muslim opinion, though varied and disparate, is much closer to Western standards than we might suppose. If we actually examine Muslim opinion, as experts have done, we would be surprised by the humaneness of many of their beliefs. I say that Rauf's views on US foreign policy are widely believed all over the world, and that Qaradawi is popular and mainstream in the Islamic world. Some of his more controversial beliefs are far more accepted there than they would be here, such as his stance on secularism; I'm not suggesting that Western views are in accordance with Islamic ones everywhere. Just because he's a popular and mainstream figure does not mean his views are widely accepted, any more than Sarah Palin's status as a mainstream figure means all of her views are standard American ones.

Cyberweez,

LM you acknowledge Qaradawi is mainstream, and due to his popularity, would say his views are common in Muslim world? Yet, its a fallacy to say extremism is mainstream in Muslim world?

See what I said above. I can more or less prove that negative perceptions of US foreign policy is internationally mainstream. If I wanted to make the same case about Qaradawi's views based upon studies of Muslim public opinion, I would not be able to make that case. Qaradawi, for instance, is well known for saying suicide bombing is justified, a stance that is increasingly unpopular among Muslims.

[aliantha]

Feel free to start a thread about anti-Semitic hate crimes in the US, Weez.

Well, the thing is ali, I'm not the one worried about anti-Muslim feelings in America. I see an inconsistency in those worrying about that and not other anti-religious feelings, like Christianity. I don't know when you've ever defended Christianity in fact. Yet, you make the comment that only .06% of Americans are Muslim, so its no big deal, but if only 8% hate crimes are anti-Muslim, that should be no big deal either, what's the worry.

Besides, don't you think its kind of silly to think if one is worried about the spread of Islam, its not just b/c of American Muslims? I mean, most terrorist attacks against this country are not from American Muslims, but foreign Muslims.

Why would I defend Christianity? I'm not Christian, I'm Pagan.

And I'm not defending Islam. I'm arguing that under the First Amendment to the Constitution, people can believe anything they want, and have the right to practice their beliefs -- until they violate the law. Which is true of any religion in America. Christians who oppose abortion are free to protest until they harass people on private property, or kill someone. Native Americans have gotten in trouble in the past for using hallucinogenic mushrooms in their religious ceremonies, and they have to get approval to harvest eagle feathers because eagles are an endangered species. So hey, come to think of it, the gummint *has* made special accommodations for religious beliefs in the past -- those Muslim football players aren't the first example of an insidious trend.

I don't recall *ever* saying that hate crimes are "no big deal." I'd appreciate your pointing out to me where I said it. They are, in fact, a very big deal.

As for attacks by foreign Muslims, I was under the impression Rauf was an American. We *are* still talking about the Park51 rec center, aren't we?

[Cybrweez]

Why would I defend Christianity? I'm not Christian, I'm Pagan.

Ok, to be accurate, defending Christians, and defending Muslims. Certainly, defending Muslims is a staple in the liberal mindset, defending Christians is not.

As for attacks by foreign Muslims, I was under the impression Rauf was an American. We *are* still talking about the Park51 rec center, aren't we?

I don't know, why did you bring up .6%? Were we still talking about Park51? Apparently not, so why are you asking now? You said why worry about Islam taking over America, its only .6%, I said its kind of silly to only worry about that .6%, there are other Muslims. You respond by asking if we're talking about the Park51 center?

EDIT2: sorry, but I scanned the link about the poll of support for suicide bombings, and I group such polls in w/something like polling Americans if they're racist. We might get close to 0% of Americans are racist, so then I guess we could move past the racist debate, b/c there would be none right? Instead, I look at actions, and suicide bombings are prevalent all over the world, to me, that speaks louder than a poll. And its mainstream clerics or jurists in Islam who condone such things.

EDIT: LM, so you're saying even though Qaradawi is popular and heavily viewed, his opinions are not commonly agreed with? Sort of like though Bill O'Reilly is heavily viewed and popular, no one agrees with him? Sounds a bit off to me. I mean, regular posters on this board fear O'Reilly b/c of his rhetoric, maybe we should let them know its probable no one actually agrees w/him, they just watch him for fun. Especially when its a guy talking about executing apostates. Come on kids!

[rusmeister]

rus,

I'm glad you think it's a given that Islam may have something to teach us; in my experience, most Americans do not think that's a given. I am not personally a spiritual or religious person; I've studied Islam with an objective eye. It fails to move me. But I have an appreciation for the richness of its historical texture.

Hi, LM,
One quick clarification - I don't think Islam has anything to teach Orthodox Christianity - although I as an individual have by no means learned all that it has to teach - and I think a Roman Catholic has a fair leg to make the same claim about his faith. Everything of both value and truth in Islam can be found in Orthodoxy. But yes, Islam does say many true and profound things that would come as a surprise of depth and wisdom for most people, particularly coming from a materialist world view and no tradition except their own personal experience.

[aliantha]

Weez, I linked to an article on religioustolerance.org that was a poll of self-reported religious affiliations in America. The poll showed that in 2008, just .6% of Americans self-identified as Muslim. Not sure where you got the 8% figure on hate crimes -- if my link took you somewhere other than the article on religious affiliations, then that was my bad.

Anyway, the stuff I've read about Rauf seem to indicate that he would like to see a "kinder, gentler" Islam developed here in America -- one that moves away from its admittedly bloody past. That sounds to me like the sort of thing we should be *encouraging*.

As far as "foreign Muslims" coming in and taking over America, I've seen and heard my share of conspiracy theories over the years, and this whole thing about foreign Muslims infiltrating the US sounds to me like another one. I don't doubt there are factions out there that want to see the US go down, but we have been relatively attack-free since 9/11. For such porous borders as we supposedly have, we seem to be doing a pretty good job keeping terrorists out. Don't you have *any* faith in the Department of Homeland Security?

aliantha wrote:
Why would I defend Christianity? I'm not Christian, I'm Pagan.

Ok, to be accurate, defending Christians, and defending Muslims. Certainly, defending Muslims is a staple in the liberal mindset, defending Christians is not.

<sigh> Okay, one more time: We have freedom of religion here in America. Anybody can worship anything they choose to worship. It's in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Which I support. So I have no problem, none, zilch, nada, with Christians practicing Christianity. Just as I have no problem with Jews practicing Judaism and Muslims practicing Islam.

What I have a problem with, in terms of Christianity, is when they try to convert me. I don't have that beef with other religions because nobody else proselytizes the way Christians do. (Maybe Muslims do, I dunno, but I've never met one who tried.)

And btw, many liberals *are* Christian. I believe we may even have some on this board.

[rusmeister]

Anyway, the stuff I've read about Rauf seem to indicate that he would like to see a "kinder, gentler" Islam developed here in America -- one that moves away from its admittedly bloody past. That sounds to me like the sort of thing we should be *encouraging*.

My one contributing thought on this, Ali, is that the only thing of value in a religion is that which is eternal truth. That which was true in the 15th century and is true today (and all other times).

From that standpoint, the religion is not something that 'had an inferior version in the past, that we want to develop a better version of today'. Either the bloodshed committed in its name was caused BY the teachings or was IN SPITE OF the teachings - which must, logically, be the same teachings both then and now in order for us to even be talking about the "same" religion.

The only kind of religion I could accept as having and teaching eternal truths is one that has always been consistent; if it was changing its "values" every century or so, it would disqualify itself as a purely human construct.

What a thinking person should be interested in is what is true, and conforming one's own life, and insofar as possible, one's own society, to that. That goes for Rauf, and all the rest of us. If Islam actually teaches Jihad, then a Muslim can't discard it just because he personally doesn't like it or is uncomfortable with it. But the problem in such discussions is authority to interpret, and my understanding (which is open to correction) is that there is no ultimate authority - court of reference - for the interpretation of the Koran - but that makes it equivalent to Protestantism - where the individual is the authority that interprets, based on his own knowledge and understanding.