Mosque Debate

The religious freedoms that the Pilgrims sought and found in America translate over to the debate over the mosque to be built two blocks from Ground Zero. Legally we should allow the construction and I am inclined to agree with Mayor Bloomberg's speech. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a Sufi (of the mystical branch of Islam) who grew up in a family that worked to dialogue with different religions. I believe he continues in his father's work to represent a moderate Islam still willing to dialogue. Some American Muslims find this mosque debate characteristic of the umbrella of hatred that many Americans have towards them. Opponents of the structure find this offends what has become "sacred ground" of those who died at the hand of extremist Islam. I agree the victims should be honored. But does this dishonor them? I have to think more about this.

I doubt the opponents of the mosque would describe or recognize their stance as hatred; fear or distrust is more likely the emotion. We see in Europe the growing Muslim populations and unrest. We hear Muslim leaders speak of populating the West so as to eventually bring all under Sharia law. We read of sleeper cells training and plotting to bring the downfall of America. That is what this proposed building has come to represent in many American eyes. If we are to chose a representative or authority of Islam, Imam Rauf would be ideologically closer to American ideals, a counter to that extremism. As all atheists are not Pol Pot and Stalin, nor all Christians witch hunters and pedophiles, so also not all Muslims are terrorists. I want this to be a step in the right direction to allow free speech, assembly, freedom of religion. Am I misinformed?

Scare Tactic

Enough with rumor that Obama is Muslim as a scare tactic-- a tactic that is is somehow demeaning to a group of Americans and not true.

But most people understand this. I myself have been wary of the violence against Christians and against those who leave or criticize the Islamic religion. This however has not been the case for moderate Islam; extremism within any people group subsists in the fringes yet they can act as though speaking as representative. (So it is a sad that the Wahabist movement in Islam cannibalizes the rich, open culture widely found even as late as the 1970's.)

Watched a few episodes of a fascinating show called America at a Crossroads. This show documents modern day Islam with a perspective sympathetic towards moderate Islam--the most visible form in the U.S. A distinction is drawn between radical versus peaceful interpretation of the Qur'an with radical being fundamentalist, extremist, violent as embodied mainly in the spreading movement of Wahhabism. In Europe the show drew attention to cases of such violence in Madrid, London, Holland, and Morocco. In Holland there was a cell of 20-something-year-old men, notable since they were citizens born and raised in Holland, yet somehow captivated by Wahhabism. One of the cell members threw a grenade into a group of Holland police. He was arrested and so was his younger brother. The younger brother was released as he wasn't at their meeting building at that time. Nonetheless, he holds to the cruel (and evil) ideology as seen by an interview of the younger brother. When asked about his brother, he laughed as if he couldn't contain his excitement in recalling what his brother did. Sick.

One thing that irked me was the note that the U.S. is different from Europe in that there are no terror cells in the U.S. because the Muslims in the U.S. are peaceful. This is blatantly wrong. The terrorist group which led to 9-11 had their cell in Florida. An more recently a group was arrested in New Jersey.

A question that many people in the U.S. are asking is: if Islam is a peaceful religion why haven't the moderates denounced violent acts committed in the name of Islam? At a Muslim Q&A session on a college campus the forceful answer was: "How many times do we have to denounce it?!" So it is often cited that Islam means "peace" and "submission." I think the harder question is if peaceful Muslims believe their holy book, they have to reconcile the following verses:

1. “Fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah” ~Surah 8:39
2. “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free” ~Surah 9:5
3. “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah…and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low” ~Surah 9:29
4. “Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end” ~Surah 9:73
5. “Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you…” ~Surah 9:123
6. “So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners…” ~Surah 47:4

Note #3 "those who have been given the Scripture" refers to Christians & Jews. (Source is from International Christian Concern).

And so essentially these commands were carried out recently in Turkey when a group of Turkish Muslims gruesomely tortured three Christian missionaries:

ICC then continued to describe the nature of the torture, which included disembowelment, emasculation, and the slicing open of various orifices.
“Tilman was stabbed 156 times, Necati 99 times and Ugur’s stabs were too numerous to count. Finally, their throats were sliced from ear to ear, heads practically decapitated,” ICC reports.