Former prosecutor, now writer and commentator, Andrew McCarthy, has written a thoroughly insightful piece in National Review regarding the struggle within Islam in America. I am proud to cross-post it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/244349/which-islam-will-prevail-america-andrew-c-mccarthy
McCarthy has drawn an interesting distinction between everyday Muslims in the US, many of whom came to America to escape shariah, as opposed to their "leaders and spokesmen", who are following the Muslim Brotherhood line. He mentions true Muslim heroes like Irshad Manji, Steven Schwartz and Zuhdi Jasser, who are not afraid to speak out against the Islamist agenda. If there is indeed a climate of fear within the Muslim community, it needs to be exposed. As I have said repeatedly, these are the people who we need to support. It appears our own leaders are reaching out to the wrong Muslims.
Great article, Mr McCarthy.
Everything McCarthy says is worthy of consideration. It is part of a very complex brew, and not without credibility. But it would be very sad if every Muslim had to "choose" between "American approved Islam" and "American unapproved Islam."
ReplyDeleteIf an honor killing is committed in the United States, the way to deal with it is to prosecute the perpetrators for first degree intentional homicide, not to shut down every mosque within twenty five miles. That has been done with admirable success, notwithstanding an older daughter's pathetic courtroom utterances about her father dying for his faith. We don't allow pagan cults to practice human sacrifice, we don't allow Wahabbi Muslims to kill their wives or daughters. Period.
I don't buy the way McCarthy sorts out who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are. I already commented at length on the question of the "Shariah index." It is a red herring as far as the founders of Cordoba House are concerned.
Real life comes in inconvenient shades and overlappings of belief and practice. The line we need to draw is, if you break the law, you will be prosecuted, regardless of your religion, and the government will not get involved in defining for you what the nature of your faith should be.
That's not only First Amendment law, it is essential that Muslims promoting Qu'ranic and Shariah interpretations that are non-Wahabbi should be, and be seen as, wholly independent of the American government.
Finally, I must note again that the Roman Catholic Church, and some of its adherents and leaders, have shown equally dangerous ambitions to establish church law and the independence of church canon law for Roman Catholics. I have on my shelf a book which is arrogantly entitled "The Persistent Prejudice" by one Michael Schwartz who insists that it is the God given mission of his church to "convert" the United States and to "reshape American culture" in conformity to that mission. He also dismisses the Inquisition and Roman anti-Semitism as myths.
Singling out Islam has no credibility. A broad rejection of totalitarianism in the name of religion would advance the highest principles our nation was founded on.
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteIt may be more usefulto separate Islam the religion from Islam the political ideology. The political ideology with shariah law has no place in a free country. Islam is both a religion and a political ideology. That cannot be ignored.
The problem is a lot more complex than "You break the law and you will be prosecuted." What about the Muslim success in skewing textbooks in our school to emphasize Islam? What about all the outrages at UCI that have been forgiven for the sake of not riling up the Muslims? What about the "praying Imams" who provoke an arrest on an airline? What about a Muslim major who massacres 13 people on an Army base yelling "Allah Akbar" in the process and the Army fails to mention his Islamic fanaticism in its report? What about the many phony "charities" that solicit funds for terrorist organizations? What about American kids going over to the Middle East to be indoctrinated and coming back as terrorists? What about the Muslim man who killed two of his daughters as honor killings in the US and then fled to the Middle East. What about the Muslim man who shot up the El Al counter (only) and killed an attendant, again shouting "Allah Akbar"? What about the Egyptian pilot who crashed an airliner into the sea, while yelling "Allah Akbar"? What about the first attack on the World Trade Center, not to mention the one on 9/11? Who did all these, the Ammish?
ReplyDeleteWhat about the Muslim Terrorists attacks around the world each and every day.... ALL in the Name of the Religion of Peace. See
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ and
http://www.globalincidentmap.com/
There is a thread that runs through all of these and it is not simply a criminal enterprise. Take the time to look at it.
Think of all the expense and drain on our economy as a consequence of the 9/11 attacks. Sit around an airport and wait an hour or two and get searched and you may realize the consequences in lost time and dollars.
This is not a police action, this is WAR. If you don't think so, that's ok. It happens that our enemies, Mulsim extremists, intent on establishing Sharia law worldwide, do.
Miggie, as you often do, you recite a long list of incidents without documenting that some of the more questionable are accurate, and without explaining the significance of the ones that are generally known to be true. I will respond to one of the more incredible, andone of the more credible:
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by text books skewed to "emphasize" Islam? I know what I would do with any text book that touched in some way on the history of Islam: I would put in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, to the extent that space permitted. (There is never enough space for the whole truth, only for a reasonably balanced summary of it). Doing this will offend fanatical Christians who want a published harangue denouncing Islam, and it will offend fanatical Muslims who want Islam elevated and glorified.
I have no doubt errors have been made, both ways. To correct them, or even discuss them, we need some details.
Now, on the other hand, I have no doubt that there was some irrational political correctness motivating, or imposed on, those who were in the chain of command responsible for Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. (See, I took the trouble to look up his name; you just ranted about "a Muslim major who massacres thirteen people." Just as we should never assume any Muslim is a likely terrorist, we should never allow the fact that a suspect IS Muslim to deter prompt investigation and precautionary measures. By comparison, many Americans of German descent served in the U.S. Army during World War II, but the tiny number loyal to the "German American Bund" or other Nazi organizations were vigorously investigated, surveilled, and when necessary arrested.
Gary, I begin to see why two reasonable American citizens such as you and I still can't get this question amicably resolved. You insist that "Islam is both religion and political ideology." I disagree. Islam is a religion. There are at least two political ideologies in the world today which are based on the Qu'ran and an interpretation of Islam. (One stems from Kutb, the other from Khomeini.) The political ideologies are not Islam, and Islam is not a political ideology.
Political ideologies based on Islam do not accept the separation of church and state. Islam often does. For example, Hindus in India continued traditional Hindu practices under Muslim Majarajahs, although many of their "untouchable" servants converted to Islam to be liberated from their status. Do you know of any historical record that Indonesia was conquered by anyone's jihad? Yet somehow, ninety percent of the population embraced Islam.
ReplyDeleteShariah... Jews, Catholics, Orthodox, all have something very like Shariah somewhere in their doctrine. Shariah is very broad and vague in its language... only when some ideologue sits down and makes out a long list of detailed prescriptions and proscriptions, announcing "this is what Shariah means" does it become repugnant.
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteI guess only Iran and Saudi actually use shariah in their legal code, but the point is that so many radicals want to establish shariah in this or that country.
We can "analyze' this to death, but how much empirical evidence do you need that the idea of shariah is incompatible with western ideals of freedom. It doesn't require a doctoral dissertaion to figure that out.
No, it does not require a doctoral dissertation. One thing we both agree on is that doctoral dissertations are worth about the same as Confederate dollars.
ReplyDeleteShariah is a rather broad and vague set of religious prescriptions, some of which I would question under any circumstances, others I would not. They have been expounded in various ways in various centuries by various schools of Islam.
At present there are cadre enamoured by two fairly recent political ideologies who have a very precise notion of what THEY mean by Shariah. It is repugnant.
That does not mean that every other Muslim in the world has to abandon the term, Shariah, nor that they have to abandon their own view of what Shariah means. One thing that impressed me about Feisal (the Sufi trying to build Cordoba House) is that he found in many ways the U.S. is more "Shariah compliant" today, as we are, than many nations which trumpet Islam as their state-endorsed religion. I find that a very interesting line of thought to pursue, even encourage.
By the way, I just read that Feisal spoke at the memorial service for Daniel Pearl, and stated, in the same spirit of sympathy as JFK at the Berlin Wall, "I am a Jew." Do you know anything further about that?