Yesterday, I posted a sermon by CAIR (LA) head Hussam Ayloush on the topic of sharia law. I also recently posted the paper put out by the Center for American Progress on Islamophobia. My friend and colleague, Karen Lugo, has posted an excellent response to both on Townhall. Below is Lugo's article in Townhall.
http://townhall.com/columnists/karenlugo/2011/08/30/fear,_inc_exposes_the_real_cowards
When I posted the Ayloush sermon at the Orange County Islamic Center, I chose to let his words stand without editorial comment and asked whether the reader/listener felt that any concerns about sharia had been assuaged. Lugo goes much farther and points out the obvious gender segregation in the mosque. She also describes the much criticized Yorba Linda protest from last February and how CAIR manipulated the videos to highlight the inappropriate conduct of certain hecklers who showed up uninvited. The impression was created that the organizers and speakers were encouraging such behavior. (Both Lugo and I spoke-she was the MC. ) I can state in no uncertain terms that no speaker encouraged the actions of the hecklers. The intent of the protest was to highlight the two radical featured speakers brought to Yorba Linda by the Islamic Circle of North America-which is NOT a moderate organization in spite of their claims. Moderate organizations do not invite Siraj Wahhaj and Amir Abdel Malik Ali to speak.
As for the CAP article, I have already critiqued it on this site. Suffice to say, this is another example of the left linking arms with Islamists who aim to paint anyone who has concerns about minor issues like world-wide Islamic terrorism and the presence of stealth jihadists in our midst as right-wing, white Christian bigots who can't tolerate other religions. Strange that immigrant Buddhists who come to America-and there are plenty-have none of the problems that Muslims complain about. Why is that? Nevertheless, the anti-jiohadist movement in the West is constantly having to defend itself against charges of "Islamophobia" -however you choose to define it. For me, the line is clear; it is not against Muslims as a people or the right to practice their religion. It is about standing guard against the radical elements who wish to do us harm and/or impose their religion on others-most notably the more controversial aspects, which do infringe on others' rights as Americans. Like this one:
http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2011/s11080141.htm
Norwegian Report from Dagen
http://www.dagen.no//Nyheter//Innenriks/tabid/248/Default.aspx?ModuleId=73598&articleView=true
You see, Mr Ayloush, it is aspects of sharia like this that we have concerns about. To express those concerns does not mean we hate Muslims as a people. Quite the contrary. We don't want even Muslim immigrants to be subjected to this kind of treatment. What happened in Norway was surely a crime under Norwegian law. It still happened to this unfortunate man because he was exercising a fundamental right that is recognized in Europe as well as in America-the right to change one's religion. We don't want to see any women- including American Muslim women- to be killed by members of their family because they didn't conform to certain rules of behavior such as happened to the girl in Arizona or the wife in Buffalo who wanted to divorce her husband. (Both were murdered) We don't want to see our gays dragged back to the old days when they had to live secret lives. The penalty for homosexuality in America is not death. There is no penalty for being homosexual in America. We intend to keep it that way.
Of course, Mr Ayloush assures us that Muslims are instructed to obey the laws of whatever country they live in; thus, sharia is not threat to us because of our Constitution. Some people have not gotten the word, unfortunatel;y.
We also know that laws can change. More than one Supreme Court justice has indicated a willingness to consider foreign law in reaching decisions. Sharia has already inserted itself into Muslim communities in England. That is why so many states are passing laws preventing any future intrusion of sharia (and foreign laws) into our legal system. Some people understand what the long range goals of organizations like CAIR and ICNA truly are.
That is not bigotry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Karen Lugo is indulging in the absurd.
Because some people do bad things, therefore when Hussam Ayloush says good things, he must be bad.
By that standard, every humanitarian act ever committed by the Roman Catholic Church is evil, because Torquemada tortured heretics.
Now if someone posed a direct question to Hussam Ayloush, and asked "Is female genital mutiliation acceptable under shariah?", his answer would be worth hearing. Or, if someone asked, "Can Shariah be practiced unreservedly by someone who opposed female genital mutilation?" the answer would be worth talking about.
But on its face, what he said is perfectly sound. What you are doing is insinuating that he can't be right, because somewhere in the world there are people who also speak of Shariah who are doing bad things. Tautalogical nonsense, Gary.
You would do better to take him at his word, and then broadcast it to Muslims who do not live up to what he says. But maybe you WANT Islam to look as bad as possible, even if it takes a little more avoidable suffering to justify your position.
Siarlys,
How can I put this? I know Karen Lugo. I have heard her speak and, I have read many of her writings. As usual, you read one post and make an instant decision based on (in this case) Torquemada of all people.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
Gary, how can I put this? Your personal friendship with Karen Lugo does not enlighten any reader as to whether she makes sense. By her own words do we know her.
Your weakness, which is similar to hers, can be found in this sentence:
"You see, Mr Ayloush, it is aspects of sharia like this that we have concerns about."
You see Mr. Fouse, the crimes you refer to are not countenanced by Shariah, not as Mr. Ayloush presents it. So, take up the banner of Shariah and tell those criminals to cut it out. If they claim to be persecuted for their faith, remind them that Hussam Ayloush says they should obey the law of the land.
It seems to me that you DESIRE that Shariah should countenance crime, because then you have a platform to denounce it, and you WANT to denounce it. In short, although you insist you don't hate Muslims, you do hate Islam. You persistently deny any attempt to present Islam in a light you could find respectable, because you don't WANT to respect it.
While none of us tolerate honor killings, whether by Muslims, fundamentalist Mormons, or Roman Catholics, and we don't want practicing Muslims subjected to honor killings either, deep down it appears you want to liberate Muslims immigrants from Islam, not to liberate devout practicing Muslims from honor killings.
And all you can say in defence of your long-winded diatribe is "you don't know what you're talking about"??? That's a kindergarten playground retort. An English professor should be able to deliver something of more substance.
Siarlys,
How can I put this?
First of all, Karen Lugo is a constitutional law attorney and teaches at Chapman Univ, where some faculty and staff tried to get her fired for her unliberal views.
As for Ayloush, yes he says that Islam says that Muslims should obey the law of the land. Yet it is a fact that shariah does not recognize a separation between the state and religion. Honor killings, stoning, death for apostates and gays were not ideas concocted by some renegade cleric a few hundred years ago. There are bases for them to be found in the Koran and the hadith. In many Muslim countries they are still carried out and it is a fact that we have seen honor-killings carried out in this country.
Do you really want to talk about Torquemada, the Inquisition and when some popes sent armies to conquers the whatevers hundreds of years ago? We can all agree that was nothing to brag about, but I am more concerned with what is happening today.
So you ask the question-do I hate Islam? Fair question-actually it was a statement. I have addressed this once before. There are many aspects of Islam that are admirable, praying 5 times a day, fasting during Ramadan, charity, and the Arabic language, which is riddled with references to God. All these can be practiced without any problem. However, there are aspects of islam that if practiced in the West would be antithetical to our concepts of law. Ayloush talks about the equality under Islam, which is true in that it doesn't seem to matter what country or race you represent-as long as you are Muslim. But it gets dicey if you are non-Muslim-especially in a Muslim country. Ask non-Muslims in Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, and Yemen among others. Then there is the divide between Shia and Sunni-not to mention Sufi and Almadi.
As you know, Siarlys, America has a pretty good record of religious tolerance unless you want to bring up the Salem witch trials. I think any Buddhist immigrant would agree with me.
To me, Ayloush is a dissembler if he wants to state that sharia is perfectly compatible with the US Constitution. At the risk of sounding like an alarmist to you, he, imams Rauf and Siddiqi are trying to lay some groundwork for the future here. Some of us see what they are up to.
Final point: Don't you think there are more than a few Muslims in the US who came here to escape living under sharia? Don't we as a society have the duty to look out for their interests as well? Speaking out is a good way to do it.
"Yet it is a fact that shariah does not recognize a separation between the state and religion."
That is, on its face, a bald opinion of yours. Can you substantiate it?
I am aware that there are many nations which have for centuries, and still do, declared Islam to be their national religion. The question Ayloush speaks to is whether Shariah REQUIRES that Islam be the state religion. He says it does not. Sounds good to me. Can you prove that he is wrong?
"Honor killings, stoning, death for apostates and gays were not ideas concocted by some renegade cleric a few hundred years ago."
No, they were old customs already when they were incorporated into the Torah. Jews seem to be able to get along without them. So do Christians. What makes it impossible to conceive of a Muslim practicing Shariah, particularly as Ayloush defines it, without resort to any of those methods?
There is no doubt that some voices insist that these methods ARE mandatory to the practice of Shariah. The Taliban lived by that assertion. But are you certain that the Taliban are the real authority, and Hussam Ayloush is not?
The relevance of Torqemada, and for that matter the Levitical injunction to stone adulterous wives, is that every religion contains verses in its holy writ mandating such things. The mere fact that you can dig up a haddith in a similar vein says nothing about whether Islam can get along without them.
"there are aspects of islam that if practiced in the West would be antithetical to our concepts of law."
No, there are aspects of law in some nations dominated by Islam that would be antithetical to our concepts of law. For that matter, France and many Francophone countries still use the Code Napoleon, in which a person accused of a crime is deemed guilty until proven innocent. That doesn't mean that French people are incapable of living peacefully under our legal jurisprudence, which states the opposite.
"To me, Ayloush is a dissembler if he wants to state that sharia is perfectly compatible with the US Constitution."
IF he is lying, a better way to prove it would be to take him at his word, and point out every time he strays in practice from what he said. If he says, a Muslim can fully abide by the Constitution of the United States of America without straying from Shariah, good, let them proceed to do so. Again, your statement suggest that you WANT to believe that a Muslim must denounce Shariah in order to be a good American citizen. That is rather like saying that an evangelical Protestant must affirm that never, never, never will "every knee bow" and "every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord." They can't MAKE anyone kneel or confess, but they can teach it all they want.
No, Muslims did not come here to escape Shariah. If they are Muslims, then by definition they came here to continue LIVING Shariah. No doubt many came here to escape many forms of oppression, including theocratic states like Iran, kleptocratic dictatorships like Mubarak in Egypt, etc.
Finally, telling me that Lugo is a professor of constitutional law is indeed a different kettle of fish than telling me that you personally know and respect her. You don't respect the President of the United States merely because he was a professor of constitutional law. Why not? His words betray a perspective that you do not share. If what Lugo wrote on this subject is offered as constitutional law, perhaps she IS unqualified to teach the subject. But I don't think this rises to the level of constitutional law at all, and I doubt she thinks so either.
Post a Comment