“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II,
owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many
German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our
attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said,
'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too
busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a
bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen.
Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and
the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in
a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.
We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam
is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just
want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true,
it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us
feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics
rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It
is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is
the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups
throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in
an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or
honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is
the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape
victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to
kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent
majority,' is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in
peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of
about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's
huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to
kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a
warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across
South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic
murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel,
and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not
be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our
powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of
points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up,
because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find
that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs,
Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many
others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until
it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay
attention to the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our
way of life.
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes
this email without sending it on, is contributing to
the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself
a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands,
world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it's
too late.
"Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway."--- John
Wayne
Showing posts with label Moderate Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Moderate Islam. Show all posts
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Dee Perez-Scott Ignores Sharia Law
Dee Perez-Scott has been notably silent about the legislative and constitutional developments following the so-called “Arab Spring.” She repeatedly expresses her support for illegal aliens and her tolerance for Islam even though she would be told to “sit down and shut up” if Sharia Law came to her neighborhood. If she were to be raped, God forbid, she would then have to produce four male witnesses to support her charges and to avoid being charged herself and being subjected to stoning under Sharia law. Maybe she thinks she would be able to flaunt Sharia Law in the same way she flaunts her disregard for immigration laws.
Under the Obama Administration policies, the removal tyrants like Khadafy, Assad, Hussein, Mubarak and others, as expected, is resulting in Islamic law (shari’a) being imposed as the basis of countries’ legal systems. Comments by Libya’s interim leader raised new questions about just how progressive the so-called “Arab spring” will turn out to be. The answer seems to be “not very.”
Islamists are playing prominent roles in the transitions in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, and are also believed to be a factor in the uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Praise for the removal of Muammar Khadafy – or of Assad, should he go – are being muted by growing concerns that Iran may not be altogether wrong when it characterizes the regional upheavals as an “Islamic awakening” rather than the ushering in of greater democracy.
Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC) leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil raised eyebrows Sunday when he told a rally in Benghazi that the country’s post-Khadafy legal system will be based on shari’a.
His declaration that “any law that violates shari’a is null and void legally” implied that Islamic law would not merely be one of several sources of inspiration, but the ultimate one. Although not unexpected, this should send shudders through the Western world especially among feminists, and believers in religious tolerance and basic human rights.
Abdul-Jalil’s comments appeared to preempt a process spelled out by interim Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril a day earlier – an election within eight months, followed by the drafting of a new constitution, which will then be put to a national referendum.
On Monday, Abdul-Jalil told a press conference in Benghazi that he wanted to assure the international community that Libyans were “moderate Muslims.” He also said that in his earlier remarks he had been to a temporary constitution. What is the likelihood that Sharia having been included in a temporary constitution will be later excluded in the final document submitted to a national referendum?
A draft constitutional document for the transitional stage,” released by the NTC last August, declared that “Islam is the religion of the state and the principal source of legislation is Islamic jurisprudence (shari’a).”
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said disingenuously on Monday the administration was encouraged by Abdul-Jalil’s “clarification.”
“We seek a democracy that meets international human rights standards, that provides a place for all Libyans, and that serves to unify the country,” she told a briefing. Is this further evidence of Obama’s audacity of hope? More likely the NATO assistance to the rebels in Libya will have enabled the country to jump from the pot into the fire as far as human rights are concerned. It won’t be long before they begin re-creating the Libyan version of the anti-American sentiment that pervades the Islamic world.
Asked whether the U.S. government had any objection to shari’a forming the basis of countries’ legal systems, Nuland replied, “We’ve seen various Islamic-based democracies wrestle with the issue of establishing rule of law within an appropriate cultural context. But the number one thing is that universal human rights, rights for women, rights for minorities, right to due process, right to transparency be fully respected.”
Nuland added, “I would simply say that the term [shari’a] is – has a broad application and is understood differently in different places and by different commentators.” Undoubtedly it is fully misunderstood by the Obama Administration or encouraged as a part of his treasonous outreach to Islamic nations.
Although shari’a covers a broad range of matters, it is most notoriously associated with “hudud” punishments, including the death penalty for apostasy, and stoning, flogging and amputations for other offenses. (“Hudud” – literally “limitations imposed by Allah” – are enforced in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and some Nigerian states.)
Women face severe discrimination under shari’a, according to rights advocacy groups. The legal testimony of a woman carries less weight than that of a man, and in some countries a rape victim must present four male Muslim witnesses to back her allegation – or risk being charged with adultery herself. Dee Perez-Scott doesn’t seem to mind. At least she hasn’t been nearly as adamant in her opposition to the implications of Muslims in the U.S. as she has in supporting outlaws who violate U.S. immigration laws.
Even apparently mundane aspects of shari’a can be problematic, and may lead to the loss of inheritance, loss of access to children, and the annulment of marriage in family law cases. Businesses may face penalties if they contravene the prohibition on charging or paying interest. One wonders what appeal these provisions have for Perez-Scott.
Tunisia, Egypt, Syria
In Tunisia, where the “Arab spring” began late last year, elections held at the weekend will give rise to a national assembly tasked with drafting a new constitution. Provisional results show the vote was dominated by Ennahdha, an Islamist party that declares itself to be “moderate.”
The English translation of the Ennahdha party platform stated: “[t]he Movement considers that Islamic thought is in need of constant innovation so that it can keep up with progress and contribute to it, stemming from its belief that Islam accepts anything that is beneficial and encourages it such as the International conventions on human rights, and which are generally compatible with Islamic values and objectives.”
On the other hand, Ennahdha and most other Tunisian parties favor retaining in the new constitution an article declaring that Islam is the official religion.
“Whether this formulation of Islam as the state religion will only be perfunctory or whether it will have a significant impact on the legal framework is difficult to foretell, given the still-untested nature of the political landscape and the growing religious conservatism of parts of Tunisian society,” Amna Guellali, a Tunisia researcher for Human Rights Watch, wrote last week.
A Human Rights Watch briefing paper, based on Tunisian parties’ responses to a questionnaire, found that most parties want new constitution to protect rights such as freedom of expression, although some differed over issues such as reserving the presidency for Muslims and the right of non-Muslims to proselytize.
In post-Mubarak Egypt, Islamists are expected to do well in a drawn-out parliamentary election process, due to begin in a month’s time.
Islamists account for two of four major blocs in the contest – the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated “Democratic Alliance,” and the Salafist Nour party-led “Islamist Alliance.” (The other two are the liberal/center-left “Egyptian Bloc” and the left-leaning “Revolution Continues bloc,” according to Cairo’s Al Ahram daily.)
The Muslim Brotherhood is campaigning under its traditional “Islam is the solution” banner while the Salafists have pledged to push for the implementation of shari’a.
As in Tunisia, the elected government will draw up a new constitution. Coptic Christians were especially troubled last March when a provisional constitution was adopted that left intact an article upholding Islam as the state religion and the principles of shari’a as “the principal source of legislation.”
In Syria, the extent to which Islamists are driving the protests aimed at removing Assad remains unclear for now.
An opposition Syrian National Council formed in Istanbul has a 29-strong general secretariat representing opposition factions including the Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Syria since 1982), Kurds, liberals and independents.
Of the 29 secretariat members, 19 have been named publicly. According to Mideast expert and author Barry Rubin, 10 of the 19 are Islamists.
On October 19 Libya’s NTC said it was recognizing the Syrian National Council as that country’s “legitimate authority.”
Iraq, Afghanistan too
Years before the “Arab spring,” troubling aspects of shari’a survived the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Baathist regime in Iraq.
In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai’s government signed a new constitution into law in January 2004 which claims to uphold freedom of religion but enshrines the primacy of shari’a.
Article two states that Islam is the official religion, but “followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.”
Article three, however, states that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.” Article 149 says adherence to the tenets of Islam “cannot be amended.”
Two years after the constitution was approved, Christian convert Abdul Rahman was sentenced to death for apostasy, and it was only after the U.S. and other coalition countries put pressure on Karzai that was allowed to seek asylum abroad.
Iraq’s 2005 constitution states that freedom of religion is upheld, but also says no law may be passed that “contradicts the undisputed laws of Islam.”
Iraqi Christian leaders made a last minute plea for the clause to be removed of amended, without success.
Under the Obama Administration policies, the removal tyrants like Khadafy, Assad, Hussein, Mubarak and others, as expected, is resulting in Islamic law (shari’a) being imposed as the basis of countries’ legal systems. Comments by Libya’s interim leader raised new questions about just how progressive the so-called “Arab spring” will turn out to be. The answer seems to be “not very.”
Islamists are playing prominent roles in the transitions in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, and are also believed to be a factor in the uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Praise for the removal of Muammar Khadafy – or of Assad, should he go – are being muted by growing concerns that Iran may not be altogether wrong when it characterizes the regional upheavals as an “Islamic awakening” rather than the ushering in of greater democracy.
Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC) leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil raised eyebrows Sunday when he told a rally in Benghazi that the country’s post-Khadafy legal system will be based on shari’a.
His declaration that “any law that violates shari’a is null and void legally” implied that Islamic law would not merely be one of several sources of inspiration, but the ultimate one. Although not unexpected, this should send shudders through the Western world especially among feminists, and believers in religious tolerance and basic human rights.
Abdul-Jalil’s comments appeared to preempt a process spelled out by interim Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril a day earlier – an election within eight months, followed by the drafting of a new constitution, which will then be put to a national referendum.
On Monday, Abdul-Jalil told a press conference in Benghazi that he wanted to assure the international community that Libyans were “moderate Muslims.” He also said that in his earlier remarks he had been to a temporary constitution. What is the likelihood that Sharia having been included in a temporary constitution will be later excluded in the final document submitted to a national referendum?
A draft constitutional document for the transitional stage,” released by the NTC last August, declared that “Islam is the religion of the state and the principal source of legislation is Islamic jurisprudence (shari’a).”
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said disingenuously on Monday the administration was encouraged by Abdul-Jalil’s “clarification.”
“We seek a democracy that meets international human rights standards, that provides a place for all Libyans, and that serves to unify the country,” she told a briefing. Is this further evidence of Obama’s audacity of hope? More likely the NATO assistance to the rebels in Libya will have enabled the country to jump from the pot into the fire as far as human rights are concerned. It won’t be long before they begin re-creating the Libyan version of the anti-American sentiment that pervades the Islamic world.
Asked whether the U.S. government had any objection to shari’a forming the basis of countries’ legal systems, Nuland replied, “We’ve seen various Islamic-based democracies wrestle with the issue of establishing rule of law within an appropriate cultural context. But the number one thing is that universal human rights, rights for women, rights for minorities, right to due process, right to transparency be fully respected.”
Nuland added, “I would simply say that the term [shari’a] is – has a broad application and is understood differently in different places and by different commentators.” Undoubtedly it is fully misunderstood by the Obama Administration or encouraged as a part of his treasonous outreach to Islamic nations.
Although shari’a covers a broad range of matters, it is most notoriously associated with “hudud” punishments, including the death penalty for apostasy, and stoning, flogging and amputations for other offenses. (“Hudud” – literally “limitations imposed by Allah” – are enforced in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and some Nigerian states.)
Women face severe discrimination under shari’a, according to rights advocacy groups. The legal testimony of a woman carries less weight than that of a man, and in some countries a rape victim must present four male Muslim witnesses to back her allegation – or risk being charged with adultery herself. Dee Perez-Scott doesn’t seem to mind. At least she hasn’t been nearly as adamant in her opposition to the implications of Muslims in the U.S. as she has in supporting outlaws who violate U.S. immigration laws.
Even apparently mundane aspects of shari’a can be problematic, and may lead to the loss of inheritance, loss of access to children, and the annulment of marriage in family law cases. Businesses may face penalties if they contravene the prohibition on charging or paying interest. One wonders what appeal these provisions have for Perez-Scott.
Tunisia, Egypt, Syria
In Tunisia, where the “Arab spring” began late last year, elections held at the weekend will give rise to a national assembly tasked with drafting a new constitution. Provisional results show the vote was dominated by Ennahdha, an Islamist party that declares itself to be “moderate.”
The English translation of the Ennahdha party platform stated: “[t]he Movement considers that Islamic thought is in need of constant innovation so that it can keep up with progress and contribute to it, stemming from its belief that Islam accepts anything that is beneficial and encourages it such as the International conventions on human rights, and which are generally compatible with Islamic values and objectives.”
On the other hand, Ennahdha and most other Tunisian parties favor retaining in the new constitution an article declaring that Islam is the official religion.
“Whether this formulation of Islam as the state religion will only be perfunctory or whether it will have a significant impact on the legal framework is difficult to foretell, given the still-untested nature of the political landscape and the growing religious conservatism of parts of Tunisian society,” Amna Guellali, a Tunisia researcher for Human Rights Watch, wrote last week.
A Human Rights Watch briefing paper, based on Tunisian parties’ responses to a questionnaire, found that most parties want new constitution to protect rights such as freedom of expression, although some differed over issues such as reserving the presidency for Muslims and the right of non-Muslims to proselytize.
In post-Mubarak Egypt, Islamists are expected to do well in a drawn-out parliamentary election process, due to begin in a month’s time.
Islamists account for two of four major blocs in the contest – the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated “Democratic Alliance,” and the Salafist Nour party-led “Islamist Alliance.” (The other two are the liberal/center-left “Egyptian Bloc” and the left-leaning “Revolution Continues bloc,” according to Cairo’s Al Ahram daily.)
The Muslim Brotherhood is campaigning under its traditional “Islam is the solution” banner while the Salafists have pledged to push for the implementation of shari’a.
As in Tunisia, the elected government will draw up a new constitution. Coptic Christians were especially troubled last March when a provisional constitution was adopted that left intact an article upholding Islam as the state religion and the principles of shari’a as “the principal source of legislation.”
In Syria, the extent to which Islamists are driving the protests aimed at removing Assad remains unclear for now.
An opposition Syrian National Council formed in Istanbul has a 29-strong general secretariat representing opposition factions including the Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Syria since 1982), Kurds, liberals and independents.
Of the 29 secretariat members, 19 have been named publicly. According to Mideast expert and author Barry Rubin, 10 of the 19 are Islamists.
On October 19 Libya’s NTC said it was recognizing the Syrian National Council as that country’s “legitimate authority.”
Iraq, Afghanistan too
Years before the “Arab spring,” troubling aspects of shari’a survived the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Baathist regime in Iraq.
In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai’s government signed a new constitution into law in January 2004 which claims to uphold freedom of religion but enshrines the primacy of shari’a.
Article two states that Islam is the official religion, but “followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.”
Article three, however, states that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.” Article 149 says adherence to the tenets of Islam “cannot be amended.”
Two years after the constitution was approved, Christian convert Abdul Rahman was sentenced to death for apostasy, and it was only after the U.S. and other coalition countries put pressure on Karzai that was allowed to seek asylum abroad.
Iraq’s 2005 constitution states that freedom of religion is upheld, but also says no law may be passed that “contradicts the undisputed laws of Islam.”
Iraqi Christian leaders made a last minute plea for the clause to be removed of amended, without success.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Interview #3 with Dee Perez Scott -- Islam
Ultima: Did you receive the transcript of my last interview with you regarding the 14th Amendment and was it satisfactory?
Dee: Yes, I understand this interview is about Islam. Is that correct?
Ultima: Yes, there have been a number of recent articles about Islam written by various authors pro and con so this is a topic of current interest. I believe you have expressed the opinion that Islam is just another benign religious movement which has and deserves the Constitutional protection provided by the 1st Amendment.
Dee: Only a handful of Muslims in this country have shown any tendency toward violence or terrorism and they have been quickly apprehended. They represent a counterpart to other terrorists like Timothy McVeigh. Both should be treated in the same manner and brought swiftly to justice. The other Muslims among us are just ordinary citizens and are identifiable only through the head covering some of the women wear and the mosques they attend.
Ultima: While what you say is true, it does not go far enough. Although there are some parallels with other religions in the sense that they permeate both the private and religious lives of their adherents, Islam goes much farther. In truth, Islam is a comprehensive political, social, and economic system with its own authoritarian legal framework, Sharia, which aspires to govern all aspects of life. Under Islam freedom is the first casualty.
Dee: If that is the system the Muslims want to live under, why should we worry about it? Our country was founded upon Freedom of Religion. Muslims believe in God. They believe that the purpose of life is to worship God. Muslims have every right to live in America and to worship as they please.
Ultima: Surely you are not suggesting that the entire Islamic system is protected and that Islam is free to do anything it wishes in all of those areas including politics and still expect the protection of the first amendment.
Dee: I am a Christian, an American and I believe in religious freedom, whether it be for Catholics, like me, Protestant, Muslim or even atheists. Think of the different life styles of the Amish or the Born Again Christians or the Jehovah Witnesses or the Mormons. ...gain tolerance and stop preaching Fear. The Muslim people are not planning a takeover of America and the Muslim people are NOT terrorists. That is ridiculous.
Ultima: I think that is a very naïve view of Islam in America. It wouldn't be hard to reframe your comment to reflect the views of Germans during the rise to power of Adolf Hitler. Had you been there then you would have complained or protested strongly and persistently against those who tried to sound warning notes about Hitler and his intentions. Hitler had laid out his plan in Mein Kampf. Islam's plan is laid out in Sharia. We can ignore it or defend it, as you have chosen to do, or we can sound the warning now so that action can be taken in the Congress to limit the application of the first amendment to only the religious aspects of Islam while all other aspects – legal, political and financial--come under careful scrutiny. It is always good to know how much someone you are interviewing really knows about Islam. How would you characterize your understanding of the basic tenets of Islam and Sharia Law?
Dee: Well, I am certainly no expert on either of them. My position is based mostly on the moderate Muslims I know and what I feel to be their appreciation of the freedoms they enjoy in the U.S.
Ultima: Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide and a favorite of the Saudi royal family has stated that “Secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” If you were to say Islam and secularism cannot co-exist, John Esposito, Georgetown’s apologist-in-chief, would call you an Islamophobe; but when Qaradawi says it, no problem — according to Esposito, he’s a “reformist.” But the facts suggest otherwise; Qaradawi has issued fatwas calling for the killing of American troops in Iraq and for suicide bombings in Israel.
Dee: Sheikh Qaradawi cannot dictate the position of all the moderate Muslims in America even if he is “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.”
Ultima: It is worth understanding why Qaradawi says Islam and secularism cannot co-exist. Secularism is nothing less than the framework by which the West defends religious freedom but denies legal and political authority to religious creeds. An excerpt from his books states: “As Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah), the acceptance of secularism means the 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 humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: Say! Do you know better than Allah?” So the question becomes, “Do you condone the barbaric practices of Sharia Law such as the stoning of adulterers, the execution of public apostates, and the amputation of a hand if someone is caught stealing, and the murder of cartoonists who depict Muhammad.
Dee: I certainly don’t condone those barbaric practices but I don’t believe moderate Muslims in the U.S. would consider them acceptable either.
Ultima: There is much more to discuss on this subject but our time is up. We will have to continue this interview later.
Dee: Yes, I understand this interview is about Islam. Is that correct?
Ultima: Yes, there have been a number of recent articles about Islam written by various authors pro and con so this is a topic of current interest. I believe you have expressed the opinion that Islam is just another benign religious movement which has and deserves the Constitutional protection provided by the 1st Amendment.
Dee: Only a handful of Muslims in this country have shown any tendency toward violence or terrorism and they have been quickly apprehended. They represent a counterpart to other terrorists like Timothy McVeigh. Both should be treated in the same manner and brought swiftly to justice. The other Muslims among us are just ordinary citizens and are identifiable only through the head covering some of the women wear and the mosques they attend.
Ultima: While what you say is true, it does not go far enough. Although there are some parallels with other religions in the sense that they permeate both the private and religious lives of their adherents, Islam goes much farther. In truth, Islam is a comprehensive political, social, and economic system with its own authoritarian legal framework, Sharia, which aspires to govern all aspects of life. Under Islam freedom is the first casualty.
Dee: If that is the system the Muslims want to live under, why should we worry about it? Our country was founded upon Freedom of Religion. Muslims believe in God. They believe that the purpose of life is to worship God. Muslims have every right to live in America and to worship as they please.
Ultima: Surely you are not suggesting that the entire Islamic system is protected and that Islam is free to do anything it wishes in all of those areas including politics and still expect the protection of the first amendment.
Dee: I am a Christian, an American and I believe in religious freedom, whether it be for Catholics, like me, Protestant, Muslim or even atheists. Think of the different life styles of the Amish or the Born Again Christians or the Jehovah Witnesses or the Mormons. ...gain tolerance and stop preaching Fear. The Muslim people are not planning a takeover of America and the Muslim people are NOT terrorists. That is ridiculous.
Ultima: I think that is a very naïve view of Islam in America. It wouldn't be hard to reframe your comment to reflect the views of Germans during the rise to power of Adolf Hitler. Had you been there then you would have complained or protested strongly and persistently against those who tried to sound warning notes about Hitler and his intentions. Hitler had laid out his plan in Mein Kampf. Islam's plan is laid out in Sharia. We can ignore it or defend it, as you have chosen to do, or we can sound the warning now so that action can be taken in the Congress to limit the application of the first amendment to only the religious aspects of Islam while all other aspects – legal, political and financial--come under careful scrutiny. It is always good to know how much someone you are interviewing really knows about Islam. How would you characterize your understanding of the basic tenets of Islam and Sharia Law?
Dee: Well, I am certainly no expert on either of them. My position is based mostly on the moderate Muslims I know and what I feel to be their appreciation of the freedoms they enjoy in the U.S.
Ultima: Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide and a favorite of the Saudi royal family has stated that “Secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” If you were to say Islam and secularism cannot co-exist, John Esposito, Georgetown’s apologist-in-chief, would call you an Islamophobe; but when Qaradawi says it, no problem — according to Esposito, he’s a “reformist.” But the facts suggest otherwise; Qaradawi has issued fatwas calling for the killing of American troops in Iraq and for suicide bombings in Israel.
Dee: Sheikh Qaradawi cannot dictate the position of all the moderate Muslims in America even if he is “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.”
Ultima: It is worth understanding why Qaradawi says Islam and secularism cannot co-exist. Secularism is nothing less than the framework by which the West defends religious freedom but denies legal and political authority to religious creeds. An excerpt from his books states: “As Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah), the acceptance of secularism means the 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 humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: Say! Do you know better than Allah?” So the question becomes, “Do you condone the barbaric practices of Sharia Law such as the stoning of adulterers, the execution of public apostates, and the amputation of a hand if someone is caught stealing, and the murder of cartoonists who depict Muhammad.
Dee: I certainly don’t condone those barbaric practices but I don’t believe moderate Muslims in the U.S. would consider them acceptable either.
Ultima: There is much more to discuss on this subject but our time is up. We will have to continue this interview later.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Dee Perez-Scott -- Naivete Epitomized
In her naivete, Dee Perez-Scott believes that "Islam IS [just]a religion. Our country was founded upon Freedom of Religion. Muslims believe in God. They believe that the purpose of life is to worship God. Muslims have every right to live in America and to worship as they please."
Of course, she is right as far as she goes but she totally ignores the facts, as stated by Muslims themselves. Islam is not just a religion; it is a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. Yet we protect the entire thing under the first amendment. Stop and think about it. Islam is a legal system, a political system, a financial system, a dress code, a moral code, and a social structure, yet we protect it as a First Amendment issue. Surely Dee is not suggesting that entire system is protected and that Islam is free to do everything it wishes in all of those areas including politics and still expect the protection of the first amendment. If she is, that’s her fundamental mistake.
She goes on,"I am a Christian, an American and I believe in religious freedom, whether it be for Catholics, like me, Protestant, Muslim or even athesists. Think of the different life styles of the Amish or the Born Again Christians or the Jehovah Witnesses or the Mormons. ...gain tolerance and stop preaching Fear. The Muslim people are not planning a take over of America and the Muslim people are NOT terrorists. That is ridiculous."
It wouldn't be hard to reframe this comment to reflect the views of Germans during the rise to power of Adolf Hitler. Had Dee been there then she would have railed against those who tried to sound warning notes about Hitler and his intentions. Hitler had laid out his plan in Mein Kampf. Islam's plan is laid out in Sharia. We can ignore it or defend it, as Dee chooses to do, or we can sound the warning now so that action can be taken in the Congress to limit the application of the first amendment to only the religious aspects of Islam while all other aspects -- political and financial--come under careful scrutiny.
The second thing is, people, like Dee, who have no understanding of Islam’s history or its basic tenets have no basis for defending it under the protections offered by the first amendment. Dee needs to understand that Islam’s objective in America is to replace our Constitution with Sharia law and she needs to understand what that will mean.
Islam has said this in so many ways that there is no excuse for anyone to be naive about this. Dee needs to understand what the leaders of moderate Muslims really think and what they say.
It is sad that she has shown repeatedly that she is unwilling to confront mainstream Islam and its Sharia agenda.
‘Secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” The writer of that statement was not one of those sulfurous Islamophobes decried by CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations] and the professional Left. Quite the opposite: It was Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide and a favorite of the Saudi royal family. He made this assertion in his book, "How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah", an excerpt of which was published by the Saudi Gazette just a couple of months ago.
This was Qaradawi the “progressive” Muslim intellectual, much loved by Georgetown University’s burgeoning Islamic-studies programs. Like Harvard, Georgetown has been purchased into submission by tens of millions of Saudi petrodollars. In its resulting ardor to put Americans at ease about Islam, the university, like Dee Perez-Scott, somehow manages to look beyond Qaradawi’s fatwas calling for the killing of American troops in Iraq and for suicide bombings in Israel. Qaradawi, they tell us, is a “moderate.” In fact, as Robert Spencer quips, if you were to say Islam and secularism cannot co-exist, John Esposito, Georgetown’s apologist-in-chief, would call you an Islamophobe; but when Qaradawi says it, no problem — according to Esposito, he’s a “reformist.”
And he’s not just any reformist. Another Qaradawi fan, Feisal Rauf, the similarly “moderate” imam behind the Ground Zero mosque project, tells us Qaradawi is also “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.”
Rauf is undoubtedly right about that. So it is worth letting it sink in that this most influential of Islam’s voices, the promoter of the Islamic enclaves the Brotherhood is forging throughout the West, is convinced that Islamic societies can never accept secularism. After all, secularism is nothing less than the framework by which the West defends religious freedom but denies legal and political authority to religious creeds.It is worth understanding why Qaradawi says Islam and secularism cannot co-exist.
The excerpt from his books continues: “As Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah), the acceptance of secularism means the 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 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 Shar’ah is downright apostasy. Apostasy is an explosive accusation. On another occasion, Sheikh Qaradawi explained that “Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished.” He further acknowledged that the consensus view of these jurists, including the principal schools of both Sunni and Shiite jurisprudence is “that the apostates must be executed.”
Qaradawi’s own view is more nuanced, as he explained to the Egyptian press in 2005. This, I suppose, is where his vaunted reformist streak comes in. For private apostasy, in which a Muslim makes a secret, personal decision to renounce the tenets of Islam and quietly goes his separate way without causing a stir, the sheikh believes ostracism by the Islamic community is a sufficient penalty, with the understanding that Allah will condemn the apostate to eternal damnation at the time of his choosing. For public apostasy, however, Qaradawi stands with the overwhelming weight of Islamic authority: “The punishment …is execution.”
The sad fact, the fact no one wants to deal with but which the Ground Zero mosque debate has forced to the fore, is that Qaradawi is a moderate. So is Feisal Rauf, who endorses the Qaradawi position – the mainstream Islamic position – that Sharia is a nonnegotiable requirement. Rauf wins the coveted “moderate” designation because he strains, at least when speaking for Western consumption, to paper over the incompatibility between Sharia societies and Western societies.
Qaradawi and Rauf are “moderates” because we’ve abandoned reason. Our opinion elites are happy to paper over the gulf between “reformist” Islam and the “reformist” approval of mass-murder attacks. That’s why it matters not a whit to them that Imam Rauf refuses to renounce Hamas: If you’re going to give a pass to Qaradawi, the guy who actively promotes Hamas terrorists, how can you complain about a guy who merely refuses to condemn the terrorists?
When we are rational, we have confidence in our own frame of reference. We judge what is moderate based on a detached, commonsense understanding of what “moderate” means. We’re not rigging the outcome; we just want to know where we stand.
If we were in that objective frame of mind, we would easily see that a freedom culture requires separation of the spiritual from the secular. We would also see that Sharia — with dictates that contradict liberty and equality while sanctioning cruel punishments and holy war — is not moderate. Consequently, no one who advocates Sharia can be a moderate, no matter how well-meaning he may be, no matter how heartfelt may be his conviction that this is God’s will, and no matter how much higher on the food chain he may be than Osama bin Laden.
Instead, abandoning reason, Dee Perez-Scott and others have deep-sixed their own frame of reference and substituted mainstream Islam’s. If that backward compass is to be our guide, then sure, Qaradawi and Rauf are moderates. But know this: When you capitulate to the authority and influence of Qaradawi and Rauf, you kill meaningful Islamic reform.
There is no moderate Islam in the mainstream of Muslim life, not in the doctrinal sense. There are millions of moderate Muslims who crave reform. Yet the fact that they seek real reform, rather than what Georgetown is content to call reform, means they are trying to invent something that does not currently exist.
Real reform can also be found in some Muslim sects. The Ahmadi, for example, hold some unorthodox views and reject violent jihad. Witness what happens: They are brutally persecuted by Muslims in Pakistan, as well as in Indonesia and other purported hubs of moderation. Meanwhile, individual Muslim reformers are branded as apostates, meaning not only that they are discredited, but that their lives are threatened as well. The signal to other Muslims is clear: Follow the reformers and experience the same fury. As Qaradawi put it in the 2005 interview, public interview, public apostates are “the gravest danger” to Islamic society; therefore, Muslims must snuff them out, lest their reforms “spread like wildfire in a field of thorns.”
Today, “moderate Islam” is an illusion. There is hardly a spark, much less a wildfire. Making moderation real will take more than wishing upon a star. It calls for a gut check, a willingness to face down not just al-Qaeda but the Qaradawis and their Sharia campaign. It means saying: Not here! Not now! Not ever!
Adapted from Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.” This is a book everyone should read before they take any position on Islam in America.
Posted by ultima at 8:39 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Dee Perez-Scott, Islam, moderates, Obama
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/
http://lonelyconservative.com/2010/06/sharia-law-in-the-us-dont-be-surprised-when-it-comes-to-a-neighborhood-near-you/
http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/06/25/sharia-law-and-the-u-s-constitution/
Of course, she is right as far as she goes but she totally ignores the facts, as stated by Muslims themselves. Islam is not just a religion; it is a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. Yet we protect the entire thing under the first amendment. Stop and think about it. Islam is a legal system, a political system, a financial system, a dress code, a moral code, and a social structure, yet we protect it as a First Amendment issue. Surely Dee is not suggesting that entire system is protected and that Islam is free to do everything it wishes in all of those areas including politics and still expect the protection of the first amendment. If she is, that’s her fundamental mistake.
She goes on,"I am a Christian, an American and I believe in religious freedom, whether it be for Catholics, like me, Protestant, Muslim or even athesists. Think of the different life styles of the Amish or the Born Again Christians or the Jehovah Witnesses or the Mormons. ...gain tolerance and stop preaching Fear. The Muslim people are not planning a take over of America and the Muslim people are NOT terrorists. That is ridiculous."
It wouldn't be hard to reframe this comment to reflect the views of Germans during the rise to power of Adolf Hitler. Had Dee been there then she would have railed against those who tried to sound warning notes about Hitler and his intentions. Hitler had laid out his plan in Mein Kampf. Islam's plan is laid out in Sharia. We can ignore it or defend it, as Dee chooses to do, or we can sound the warning now so that action can be taken in the Congress to limit the application of the first amendment to only the religious aspects of Islam while all other aspects -- political and financial--come under careful scrutiny.
The second thing is, people, like Dee, who have no understanding of Islam’s history or its basic tenets have no basis for defending it under the protections offered by the first amendment. Dee needs to understand that Islam’s objective in America is to replace our Constitution with Sharia law and she needs to understand what that will mean.
Islam has said this in so many ways that there is no excuse for anyone to be naive about this. Dee needs to understand what the leaders of moderate Muslims really think and what they say.
It is sad that she has shown repeatedly that she is unwilling to confront mainstream Islam and its Sharia agenda.
‘Secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” The writer of that statement was not one of those sulfurous Islamophobes decried by CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations] and the professional Left. Quite the opposite: It was Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide and a favorite of the Saudi royal family. He made this assertion in his book, "How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah", an excerpt of which was published by the Saudi Gazette just a couple of months ago.
This was Qaradawi the “progressive” Muslim intellectual, much loved by Georgetown University’s burgeoning Islamic-studies programs. Like Harvard, Georgetown has been purchased into submission by tens of millions of Saudi petrodollars. In its resulting ardor to put Americans at ease about Islam, the university, like Dee Perez-Scott, somehow manages to look beyond Qaradawi’s fatwas calling for the killing of American troops in Iraq and for suicide bombings in Israel. Qaradawi, they tell us, is a “moderate.” In fact, as Robert Spencer quips, if you were to say Islam and secularism cannot co-exist, John Esposito, Georgetown’s apologist-in-chief, would call you an Islamophobe; but when Qaradawi says it, no problem — according to Esposito, he’s a “reformist.”
And he’s not just any reformist. Another Qaradawi fan, Feisal Rauf, the similarly “moderate” imam behind the Ground Zero mosque project, tells us Qaradawi is also “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.”
Rauf is undoubtedly right about that. So it is worth letting it sink in that this most influential of Islam’s voices, the promoter of the Islamic enclaves the Brotherhood is forging throughout the West, is convinced that Islamic societies can never accept secularism. After all, secularism is nothing less than the framework by which the West defends religious freedom but denies legal and political authority to religious creeds.It is worth understanding why Qaradawi says Islam and secularism cannot co-exist.
The excerpt from his books continues: “As Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah), the acceptance of secularism means the 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 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 Shar’ah is downright apostasy. Apostasy is an explosive accusation. On another occasion, Sheikh Qaradawi explained that “Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished.” He further acknowledged that the consensus view of these jurists, including the principal schools of both Sunni and Shiite jurisprudence is “that the apostates must be executed.”
Qaradawi’s own view is more nuanced, as he explained to the Egyptian press in 2005. This, I suppose, is where his vaunted reformist streak comes in. For private apostasy, in which a Muslim makes a secret, personal decision to renounce the tenets of Islam and quietly goes his separate way without causing a stir, the sheikh believes ostracism by the Islamic community is a sufficient penalty, with the understanding that Allah will condemn the apostate to eternal damnation at the time of his choosing. For public apostasy, however, Qaradawi stands with the overwhelming weight of Islamic authority: “The punishment …is execution.”
The sad fact, the fact no one wants to deal with but which the Ground Zero mosque debate has forced to the fore, is that Qaradawi is a moderate. So is Feisal Rauf, who endorses the Qaradawi position – the mainstream Islamic position – that Sharia is a nonnegotiable requirement. Rauf wins the coveted “moderate” designation because he strains, at least when speaking for Western consumption, to paper over the incompatibility between Sharia societies and Western societies.
Qaradawi and Rauf are “moderates” because we’ve abandoned reason. Our opinion elites are happy to paper over the gulf between “reformist” Islam and the “reformist” approval of mass-murder attacks. That’s why it matters not a whit to them that Imam Rauf refuses to renounce Hamas: If you’re going to give a pass to Qaradawi, the guy who actively promotes Hamas terrorists, how can you complain about a guy who merely refuses to condemn the terrorists?
When we are rational, we have confidence in our own frame of reference. We judge what is moderate based on a detached, commonsense understanding of what “moderate” means. We’re not rigging the outcome; we just want to know where we stand.
If we were in that objective frame of mind, we would easily see that a freedom culture requires separation of the spiritual from the secular. We would also see that Sharia — with dictates that contradict liberty and equality while sanctioning cruel punishments and holy war — is not moderate. Consequently, no one who advocates Sharia can be a moderate, no matter how well-meaning he may be, no matter how heartfelt may be his conviction that this is God’s will, and no matter how much higher on the food chain he may be than Osama bin Laden.
Instead, abandoning reason, Dee Perez-Scott and others have deep-sixed their own frame of reference and substituted mainstream Islam’s. If that backward compass is to be our guide, then sure, Qaradawi and Rauf are moderates. But know this: When you capitulate to the authority and influence of Qaradawi and Rauf, you kill meaningful Islamic reform.
There is no moderate Islam in the mainstream of Muslim life, not in the doctrinal sense. There are millions of moderate Muslims who crave reform. Yet the fact that they seek real reform, rather than what Georgetown is content to call reform, means they are trying to invent something that does not currently exist.
Real reform can also be found in some Muslim sects. The Ahmadi, for example, hold some unorthodox views and reject violent jihad. Witness what happens: They are brutally persecuted by Muslims in Pakistan, as well as in Indonesia and other purported hubs of moderation. Meanwhile, individual Muslim reformers are branded as apostates, meaning not only that they are discredited, but that their lives are threatened as well. The signal to other Muslims is clear: Follow the reformers and experience the same fury. As Qaradawi put it in the 2005 interview, public interview, public apostates are “the gravest danger” to Islamic society; therefore, Muslims must snuff them out, lest their reforms “spread like wildfire in a field of thorns.”
Today, “moderate Islam” is an illusion. There is hardly a spark, much less a wildfire. Making moderation real will take more than wishing upon a star. It calls for a gut check, a willingness to face down not just al-Qaeda but the Qaradawis and their Sharia campaign. It means saying: Not here! Not now! Not ever!
Adapted from Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.” This is a book everyone should read before they take any position on Islam in America.
Posted by ultima at 8:39 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Dee Perez-Scott, Islam, moderates, Obama
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/
http://lonelyconservative.com/2010/06/sharia-law-in-the-us-dont-be-surprised-when-it-comes-to-a-neighborhood-near-you/
http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/06/25/sharia-law-and-the-u-s-constitution/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)