Saturday, August 28, 2010

Bin Talal, Rauf, and the Ground Zero Mosque

Someone in response to my complaints that the Left has no arguments painted a Business Journal with ad hominem innuendo. What does the business journal article say? This is interesting because we both, this person and I, jumped to conclusions. I thought it only a matter of time before Rauf was exposed as the Sharia supporter I believed him to be, but this person I am referring to on the other hand jumped to the conclusion that anyone who attacked the Mosque backers or the Mosque must be associated with Fox News and Glenn Beck. Is that bizarre? Not to him, obviously.

While I don't watch Fox News or Glenn Beck, I don't believe that the mere invoking of their names is an argument. Is what they say true or not, that ought to be the focus, and since they are among the many things-people I pay little attention to I am not going to be able to answer that question. But I can scoff at people who invoke names as an argument.

As to the billionaire Saudi Al-Waleed bin Talal, I'm sure he spreads his money around quite a lot, but I am only concerned about his political orientation. Saudi Muslims are Wahhabi, and that fundamentalist Sunni sect is the predecessor of the Muslim Brotherhood out of which Sayyid Qutb came. I haven't studied bin Talal personally, but I would ask him, if I could, whether he is a religious Muslim, for if he is, then he is sure to be Wahhabi. A Wahhabi billionaire might invest in many things to make his money grow, but if he supports a religious cause then it is going to be consistent with the Wahhabi religious orientation. Osama bin Laden came out of that milieu as did all those who took place in the bombing of the Twin Towers. Osama's beliefs are consistent with both the Wahhabi sect and Islamism. Their disagreements are more about who should be running things than substance. It was no very great leap for the Wahhabi Osama to broaden out to the Islamist leader of Al Qaeda. Of course the Wahhabi's denounce Osama bin Laden, but that was only to be expected.

If I tell someone I'm Presbyterian, then it wouldn't be out of line for someone to ask me about Presbyterian doctrine. Questions about my religious beliefs logically follow from who I say I am. As far as I know the Wahhabi sect is the only form of Islam being adhered to by Saudis; so is Al-Waleed bin Talal a Wahhabi or not? That is a fair question. That he is associated with the Muslim Brothers which grew out of the Wahhabi sect isn't surprising. Wahhabis and the Muslim Brothers have a traditional relationship. To question his relationship with the Muslim Brothers is another logical question we can ask.

Let's look at one of Rauf's statements, that the American form of government is Sharia compliant. One writer, Nonie Darwish of FrontPageMag took the trouble of creating a list of Sharia requirements. Rauf never said precisely what he meant but he did say that he thought our form of government "Sharia Compliant" so it isn't out of line to look at some Sharia requirements to see whether we agree:

"Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf claims that the U.S. constitution is Sharia compliant. Now let us examine below a few laws of Sharia to see how truthful Imam Rauf is:

1- Jihad, defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion,” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

2- A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

3- A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

4- A percentage of Zakat (charity money) must go towards jihad.

5- It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

6- A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

7- The Muslim public must remove the Caliph if he rejects Islam.

8- A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.

9- A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostate 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Vigilante street justice and honor killing is acceptable.

10- A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim, but will get it for killing a Muslim.

11- Sharia never abolished slavery, sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

12- Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

13- Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims under the law. They must comply to Islamic law if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

14- It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. But Muslims can curse non-Muslims.

15- A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

16- Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

17- No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or bathhouse attendants. Women in low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

18- A non-Muslim cannot rule — even over a non-Muslim minority."

Darwish's list isn't complete. Sharia is far more extensive than this list, but this list is accurate. The items on it are part of Sharia law; so it would be fair to confront Rauf with this list and ask him what he meant when he said our foe of government was Sharia compliant -- specifically how his words could be made to relate to Darshish's list.

3 comments:

Undercurrent said...

Fox News is one of the most vocal critics of the Park 51 project. And yet Bin Talal - who is stumping up the money for the project - owns 7 per cent of News Corp shares, while News Corp recently purchased 9 per cent of the company owned by Talal.

Now business might really just be business, News Corp might not care a jot about its investors or maybe Bin Talal has little or no malice in the way he invests his money.

The test, I'd guess, is whether News Corp ends its business relationship with Bin Talal because of Park 51.

Or maybe you'll assert that Bin Talal might be funding Islamic terrorism while he's doing business with News Corp. In which case, would this be similar to the Bin Laden families' associations with the Bush family?

Anonymous said...

It's shame this radical Saudi owns a 7% share in Fox News parent company. I generally like Fox but you've got to understand Fox leans toward and has sympathies with this extremist. It is apparent especially in the reporting from Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Both lean toward these Islamic extremists in their reporting.

Stephen said...

I can only read portions of what you write now and again for to read too much or even enough would drive me to act and I believe I have another purpose. As best as I can tell, I have only two prejudices: willful ignorance and Islam. I find nothing redeeming in either.

I was talking to a person the other day who reminded me of a person he and I know, we'll call him "Joe". Joe is part of a team that stalks/hunts for Muslim groups in Africa, specifically groups committed to training militant Muslims (an admitted redundancy). When they locate them, they eliminate them as a threat, often from great distances.

This didn't make me sad. As a Christian, I wonder why I'm not sad. Perhaps, I need to repent or perhaps, Joe's actions are just.

I do know this, Muslims with few numbers speak of peace and tolerance. Muslims in large numbers publicly kill everyone that disagrees with them.