Liberal viewer warning: The below link comes to us from Andrew Breitbart's Bigpeace blog.
The below-linked article discusses Feisal Abdul Rauf's connection to something called the Shariah Index Project. The writer's (Cristine Brim) premise is that the projected 15 floor Ground Zero mosque has 6 floors that cannot be accounted for in terms of what is to be housed in the structure. Then the writer links Faisel Abdul Rauf's connection to the Shariah Index Project, whose reported aim is to rank nations according to the amount of their compliance with shariah law. Below is the article from Bigpeace contributer Cristine Brim.
http://bigpeace.com/cbrim/2010/08/17/ground-zero-mosques-hidden-websites-follow-the-shariah/
After the Shirley Sherrod flap, I tread carefully with Breitbart. Yet, I note that Frank Gaffney's name is on the website. That means something to me in terms of credibility. It means I continue to read. Having said that, I note that the writer (Brim) is suggesting that the 6 unaccounted-for floors could be devoted to this so-called Shariah Index Project. She also states that this project is intended to study ALL countries. That would be an important question for me. If it includes only predominantly Muslim countries, I won't lose any sleep over it. If it includes this country, then that is an issue that must be discussed.
Here is the website of the Cordoba Initiative (also linked in the Brim article):
http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/shariah-index-project
There doesn't seem to be much question about whether this project really exists. Not only are there links on the website of the Cordoba Initiative, but there is this article from The National in the UAE:
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090721/NATIONAL/707209836/1138
And there is Mr Rauf front and center.
There may be an innocent explanation to all this. It would seem, however, that this raises an additional question that Mr Rauf needs to explain.
3 comments:
I don't know why he needs to explain anything. He is in full compliance with the law. That some Americans don't approve of what he's doing is par for the course. I don't approve of everything you do, or Dr. James Dobson does, or MoveOn.Org does. We can debate each other, or ignore each other, but none of us "have to explain" ourselves to each other.
However, I found adequate answer in the article you linked:
“And we’d like to index both Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) and non-OIC countries, because we know some non-OIC countries will score higher than some OIC members on some principles like justice, protection of minorities and so on.”
That's the most important. Showing up that some of us in the west are, in some important respects, more Shariah compliant than the most fervently Muslim countries, puts the entire global discussion into a whole new context, which will be inimical to fanatics. No doubt there are also Muslims who are, in some sense, more Catholic than the Pope.
Then we move on to the hoary question, what is Shariah?
The pillars of Shariah are based on five – some say six sacrosanct rights and principles. Breaching any of them is considered a major sin that requires punishment. (NOTE: In the USA, the secular authorities may not inflict punishment, nor may private parties take the law into their own hands by doing so. Shunning and excommunication remain available to any religious community.)
The most important is the protection and furthering of life. (Oh good, now the entire pro-life movement will support Cordoba House).
Then there is the protection of religion – which includes all three Abrahamic faiths and, through most of Islamic history, other religions as well. (We view this differently than many in the Middle East do. But contrary to the notion of secular agnostics, the First Amendment does provide affirmative protection to religion.)
Another pillar is the protection of dignity and honour, which can be used as a basis for punishing slander, which recently became a crime in the UAE under the country’s new media law. (Who could argue with dignity and honor? However, we don't allow a man to beat his wife here. Brazil does, even allows honor killing - something to do with its Roman Catholic culture. Should that be put forward as a vital component of this pillar of Shariah, I will be proud to say my country is NOT compliant.)
Protection of lineage, another pillar of Shariah, is the basis for criminalising adultery and, as was decided by muftis in Dubai last year, for banning IVF. (I don't much care about this. There are no pure bloodlines.)
Protection of the mind or intellect includes the protection of sobriety, the basis for prohibiting Muslims from drinking alcohol or using any mind-altering substance, except under a doctor’s orders. (Not bad, but when the Temperance fanatics tried to enforce this aspect of Shariah, we got Prohibition, which was a disaster, so we're not going there again. As Henry Clay said, compliance must be voluntary.)
The final pillar of Shariah is the protection of property, an element that many scholars say contributed to the economic growth of early Muslim states. (All capitalists and advocated of the Free Market should approve. I don't, but then, I don't have to. I live in the USA).
So, we can still debate the fine points of what these broad principles mean, and there are literally hundreds of ways to interpret and expound them, sort of like Christianity, or even the broad language of our Constitution. Let a hundred schools complete, let a hundred flowers bloom!!!
Siarlys,
Point number one. No, you are right. Rauf doesn't have to explain anything. Since he is out of the country, he isn't. On the same note, the backers of the mosque can simply rest on the legal right to build the mosque and tell the rest of America to go to Hell. Would that be a wise move? I don't think so-not if they want to win hearts and minds.
As for your analysis of Shariah, let me cut through the fog. Shariah is incompatible with every standard of freedom we have. In this country, we do not allow for death for gays. Nor for apostates. Nor for "honor killings" (which have occurred) or stonings for adultresses. We don't have a law that says a rape victim must produce 4 male witnesses to the act in order to convict.
Some-as in UK may say-why not let the Muslim community alone practice shariah? The answer is no because we guarantee our constitutional protections to all Americans-including American Muslims.
As for freedom of the three Abrahamic religions, we can debate that. Some Coptic Christians in Egypt may diasgree. Some of the remaining Jews in Yemen may disagree. Those Jews who were forced to leave Arab countries after 1948 may disagree. Christians and Animists in Sudan may disagree. Christians in Pakistan may disagree.Surely the Baha'i of Iran will disagree. They are being persecuted as we speak (murder, rape, arrest, death penalty) in Iran because thir religion is outside of the Big 3 and not recognized.
For the sake of the United States of America, I pray that Cordoba House WILL be built right where it is planned to be. That will vindicate the nation I love. Nobody is telling me to go to hell.
As for Sharia, you are not cutting through the fog, you are kicking up a cloud of dust. If you look at Harvey's recent post at Alexandria about Christ-Like Hate, I noted in response that every religion, if you cherry pick its writings and its history, can be shown to be a huge variety of things.
Christians in Pakistan were not suffering under Muhammed Ali Jinnah, nor were Amaddiyah Muslims. They have been suffering at the hands of the Zia ul-Haq generation -- raised by a government the U.S. supported. Henry Kissinger always wanted to "tilt toward the Paks."
Ba'hai faith arose in Iran in part because Islamic leaders didn't take the slightest offense, until AFTER Khomeini's revolution.
While it is not legal to kill gays in America, there are not a few Christians who think it is OK to do so, and some of them aspire to political dominion. The murderers of Matthew Shepherd blithely told "60 Minutes" that "I'm going to heaven because I repented and I'm forgiven, he's burning in hell."
Anyone who tries to take some version of Shariah and make it into enforceable law is my mortal enemy -- just as the Roman Catholics who seek to subordinate the United States to the rule of the Magisterium are my mortal enemy (and there are some). Nothing in the article you link to suggests any such design. It is not inherent in Shariah, it is a way of using Shariah as a tool for political domination. The distinction is essential. (Some of my best friends are Catholics).
One of the great tragedies to result from the creation of Israel as a state, from the way it was created, from the way the world gave credence to the effete monarchies who were the initial opposition to its existence, is that Jewish communities which had lived peacefully in Muslim lands for centuries suddenly became a suspect fifth column and were hounded out of their homes. That was bad politics by their neighbors, but it wasn't an application of Shariah. It was bad politics.
Post a Comment