As reported, I have sent in two comments to CAIR director of legislative affairs Corey Saylor's personal blog asking him a question on sharia law since he recently spoke on the topic and the post in question contained his speech.
No answer.
Last night, I sent in another comment to Corey's post in which he posts a letter he sent to Zuhdi Jasser explaining why he won't debate him. Here it is:
http://coreysaylor.blogspot.com/2014/03/zudhi-jasser-offered-to-debate-me-here.html
Mr Saylor,
You won't debate with Zuhdi Jasser for the same reason you won't post my question to you in your latest posting (the Sharia speech in Maine). Because you know you can't win.
PS I am signing in by copying numbers "to prove that I am not a robot". Please prove to me that you are not a robot.
As of this writing, not posted. It appears that one of us is a robot, and I know it ain't me.
4 comments:
For the most part, Saylor makes a lot more sense than Jasser. Whether he is speaking honestly of CAIR's real position could be challenged, but it would take a lot more than innuendo and chest pounding to establish that.
This however is highly questionable:
CAIR also believes that Americans should be free to incorporate guidance from their own religious tradition to resolve commercial, communal, matrimonial or other civil conflicts, so long as any agreement complies with U.S. law.
On a purely voluntary basis this is true... e.g., if two individuals raised in the Catholic Church want to marry in the Catholic Church, make requisite promises to raise their children as devout Catholics, obey God by refraining from use of artificial birth control... that is their right. But if a wife decides "no more babies, you can only sleep with me after you get a vasectomy," the husband cannot bring her before a church court to require her to have unprotected sex with him.
I deliberately used examples outside of the context of Islam. After all, Saylor asserts universal principles, not special privilege. When "incorporating guidance from religious tradition" comes BETWEEN an individual citizen and their legal rights, whether in the context of Islam, Hassidic Judaism, Branch Davidianism, the RC church, or whatever, then claims of constitutionalism ring hollow.
That's a small part of Saylor's letter, but it is something to be wary of. Paul wrote "dare any of you, having a dispute," go to the civil courts and not to "the saints." That's about what Saylor is asking for. It is not consistent with American constitutional jurisprudence. It is also hardly unique to Islam.
It appears that Saylor's big hang-up over Jasser is that Jasser receives financial support and awards from "Islamophobic" sources. This is ironic, since CAIR is quite secretive about the sources of its financial support, which is definitely not coming from the American Muslim community. (That's why they play a shell game regarding their 501(c)(3)status.)
If I were Jasser, I would be more selective about who I took money from, but I'm not Jasser. Chris has a point about what CAIR is. It is NOT the The Representative Body of American Muslims. It is a small number of Muslims with a sense of mission and self-importance pushing an agenda. They have a right to do that, but they do not speak for Muslims in America, only for themselves.
Post a Comment