In the featured article at FrontPage today I discuss the strange case of Imam Talal Eid, who has just been named by the Bush Adminstration to the to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (many news links in the original):
When is a moderate Muslim not a moderate Muslim? How about if he is an employee of a Saudi Wahhabi organization that has been identified by the Senate Finance Committee as one of a long list of Islamic charities that “finance terrorism and perpetuate violence”?Last month, the White House appointed Talal Eid, an imam from Quincy, Massachusetts, to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan panel that, according to the Boston Globe, “monitors religious freedom in countries around the world and recommends policies to the president, State Department, and Congress.” Eid is also participating in goodwill missions overseas for the State Department. Ishan Bagby, a University of Kentucky professor and member of the board of directors of the Islamic Society of North America, was pleased with the appointment: “It’s a very good sign that a mainstream, moderate Muslim leader like Imam Eid can be appointed to such a position.” Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American Islamic Relations was pleased also, saying that Eid would bring “valuable perspective” to the Commission.
Eid was forced out of his position as imam of the Islamic Center of New England’s mosque in Quincy in July 2005, some said because he was too moderate. The Bush Administration has been determined since September 11, 2001 to find moderate Muslims with whom it could work and to whom it could show public support; unfortunately, however, in this quest it has sometimes been less discriminating than it should have been, and the case of Talal Eid is a prime example of this.Talal Eid, reported the Globe in January 2007, “no longer has a mosque.” However, “he still has the original appointment from the Muslim World League, a theological and cultural entity in Saudi Arabia that certifies imams, that sent him to Boston in 1982.” The scrutiny from the Senate Finance Committee is just one of many things about the Muslim World League that should have raised red flags for the Administration when considering Eid’s appointment. Alex Alexiev of the Center for Security Policy told a U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security in 2003 that “there is conclusive evidence from Saudi sources” that the League was “tightly controlled by the [Saudi] government.”
Given that the League’s stated purpose is to “to disseminate Islamic Dawah [proselytization] and expound the teachings of Islam,” this means that it is a vehicle for the propagation of the House of Saud’s Wahhabism, the virulent school of Islamic thought that teaches, in words that appeared on the website of the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C. until November 2003, that “the Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world, to remove all forms of injustice and oppression, and to defend the Muslims.” Waging jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world means fighting against non-Muslims in order to impose Islamic law, Sharia, over them. Evgenii Novikov of The Jamestown Foundation notes, moreover, that the League’s publications are “often radical and vehemently anti-American.”
Nor has the Muslim World League contented itself with promoting jihad by words alone. A jihadist who played a part in an al-Qaeda cell in Boston before 9/11, Nabil al-Marabh, claimed to have worked for the League in Pakistan; while this may have been his attempt to whitewash his record, also involved with the League in Pakistan was Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law and self-described “best friend,” who at another time worked to set up al-Qaeda front groups in the Philippines.
Does all this mean that Talal Eid is a jihadist and a supporter of Osama bin Laden? No, it doesn’t. But his connection to the Muslim World League is not the only troubling item on his resume. Eid has proposed “five solutions for the unique problems of Muslims in America,” including “the establishment of Sharî‘ah courts which would manage the family affairs of American Muslims and mediate their religious affairs within the scope of American law.”
A similar initiative to introduce Sharia courts for mediation of personal disputes and marriage cases into Canada was defeated in 2005; Muslim women’s groups spearheaded the opposition because of Sharia’s institutionalized subjugation of women. In the thick of the battle, Alia Hogben of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women declared: “We’ve had a flood of e-mails from people asking, ‘How can we help stop what is so dangerous to Muslim women?’” In introducing a motion to disallow Sharia in Quebec in 2005, legislator Fatima Houda-Pepin saw an even greater threat: “The application of Sharia in Canada is part of a strategy to isolate the Muslim community, so it will submit to an archaic vision of Islam. These demands are being pushed by groups in the minority that are using the Charter of Rights to attack the foundation of our democratic institutions.”
Will the U.S. now do what Canada drew back from doing, and introduce private Sharia courts, despite the harm they will cause Muslim women and the encouragement they will provide to establishing the Muslims in the U.S. as a separate, self-governing enclave? Apparently, if Talal Eid gets his way, yes. And that’s why he has no business being on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Bush Administration should reconsider this appointment, or at very least call upon Eid to renounce any desire to introduce Sharia in any form into U.S. law, as well as all ties to the Muslim World League. After all, George W. Bush said it best: You’re either with the terrorists or with us.
Talal Eid is about as moderate as any Muslim World League-certified imam is ever going to be.
Give it up!
I guess we just did not know at the time Bush said "You’re either with the terrorists or with us", that Dubya was with the terrorists.
But progressively since 911 Dubya has defined himself more and more with the terrorists than with us.
Why would a moslem of any stripe be appointed to a religious freedom organization? Has Bush lost his mind - or is he ready to convert???
Has Bush lost his mind - or is he ready to convert???
Graduate of the Jimmah Carter School of Dhimmitude (Condi Rice was this years Valedictorian).
He's lost his mind...
We will not survive as a culture unless religious people stop thinking that all religions are basically good, and share substantial meaningful ideological ground merely bye means of being religion.
And we will not survive as a culture until atheists stop thinking that all religions are equally evil, and start taking into consideration that some religions teach their adherents to behave such that we are capable of living peacefully and productively and fairly in a society with them, while other religions do not.
And if we do not survive, that is horrible, because the West is the strongest cultural force defending individual rights and individual opportunity to create and think freely, and political systems that create economic opportunity and a large, strong middle class.
Between Bush's position on effectively eliminating our national boundaries and thereby ceasing to be a nation-state, and his cozying up to Islam and contributing to marketing it as peaceful, creating a false sense of security... He's a bad, bad man.
(Skull and Bones is just a social networking organization, my Arse. Welcome to the new feudalism, except this time the kings aren't easily identifiable, and they're a heck of a lot more willing to toss us to the barbarians at the gate.)
Rev. Jim Sutter wrote:
"Don't forget to check under the bed tonight -- the bogey man may be under there."
He very well may be and if he is, he's probably named Mohammed something or other and brandishing a scimitar.
"Eid has proposed “five solutions for the unique problems of Muslims in America,” including “the establishment of Sharî‘ah courts which would manage the family affairs of American Muslims and mediate their religious affairs within the scope of American law.”"
Oh
My
God
Well, (sigh), maybe it's better to have him in the spotlight where we can see him...?
But somebody had better keep checking on Congress to see what's getting tacked onto proposed bills. They seem to love to hide "pork" and "favors" clauses in otherwise good legislation. (Why isn't there a law about making laws? So that a bill contains only items related to that bill's title? It hacks me off that our elected representatives sneak garbage into bills, and when called on it they tell us "that's how politics works: you support perks for my state or district and I'll vote for the legislation you want". They're like a bunch of scheming teen-aged girls.) There must be something in the water in Washington; as soon as a Congressman arrives there he's suddenly unable to propose or vote for a bill merely because "it's the right thing to do". It all turns into "mutual assured bribery".
Sorry for the OT rant!
"Of course, let's completely overlook the fact that the US already has, and has had for a long, long time - Catholic religious courts, Jewish religious courts and Protestant religious courts."
-- from a posting by "Rev. Jim" Sutter
What are these courts? Tell me their names, and where they are located, and tell me exactly what standing they have to completely regulate, independently of, or even against the rulings of, the civil courts, whereas Sharia courts wherever they have existed have never been subservient to 'man-made' laws, and cover not only family law, but a considerable part of property law -- including the laws of inheritance -- as well.
"Rev. Jim" should put his detailed answer, wsith the precise legal issues that he believes are disposed of, whatever jurisdiction civil courts may think they have, in the case of these "Catholic religious courts, Jewish religious courts and Protestant religious courts" to which he so airily refers."
We'll wait right here. His continued appearance at this site depends on his presenting, and in detail, the evidence for his assertions.
Dear "Rev." Sutter,
As Hugh has already pointed out, religious courts in America have no standing over against civil courts. For example, a Catholic who gets an annulment from a Catholic religious court still has to get a civil divorce -- actually, the civil divorce must come first. The ruling of the religious court deals with religious matters, and has no authority beyond those matters.
For Sharia to operate in this way would require a large-scale overhaul of Sharia. You have failed to note that when Sharia arbitration courts were proposed in Canada, Muslim women's rights groups led the fight against them. You would do well to ponder why.
You have also failed to note that Eid's connection to the Muslim World League was reported by the Boston Globe in January 2007. It does not come, as you claim, from a 25-year-old Center for Security Policy assertion. Finally, you have failed to note that the MWL has been identified by the Senate Finance Committee as one of a long list of Islamic charities that “finance terrorism and perpetuate violence.”
It does seem that you see only what you wish to see.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the light of the world: he that followeth Him shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
I'm sure "rev. jim" must be talking about the fact that our laws in the US are based on a foundation that springs from the Holy Bible, and so he calls them religious.
Interesting that if our land was under Sharia law and not Judeo-Christian, he would not have this forum in which to spew his deluded imaginings, and he would skulk around in fear of his life for having the opinions he has, for his neighbors surely would find him deserving of death should his view conflict with theirs.
Rev. Jim, take a Taxi and go home.
“Wow, we'd better hurry up and arrest everyone who proslytizes. Priests, Rabbis, Imams, evangelicals of every religion. Surely they are incredibly dangerous.”
Islam is not a religion Rev. Sutter. It is a cult and cult members should not be appointed to Commissions on International Religious Freedom. The bogey man was real and his followers walk the earth with fervor. And yes, they are incredibly dangerous, especially to us Infidels.
“told Congress that the Muslim World League certified him as an imam 25 years ago, and that the MWL's stated purpose is to proslytize the teachings of Islam?”
And that’s supposed to make us feel better. EXACTLY WHICH RELIGION TODAY CONSISTENTLY VIOLATES FREEDOM OF RELIGION RIGHTS, BY WHICH NO OTHER RELIGION COMES CLOSE!
This is sickening by any standards.
Jim Stupider
You want to escape the "Christian fanatics" and "Christian Identity" go to Saudi Arabia. Do us all a favor! It seems it is the hellhole you seek as a home. And guess what! It is Christian free!
"Christian Common Law courts (CLCs) in the US grew out of the fanatics in Christian Identity and White Supremacist groups"
As opposed to just Christian folks, right?
Let me guess, he's a "man of peace" and Dubya can "see into his soul."
ofcourse:
The "Christian Identity" groups are no joke. They are extremely racist, anti-semitic, and violent. They have been responsible for numerous murders and domestic terrorist acts. McVeigh had links to these groups as well as Eric Rudolph. Islam may be a major threat, but that doesn't mean that it is the only threat.
Well, Jim, I tried to read all that stuff, but in my present condition, it was impossible.
Whatever you wrote, I dont care. There is no good defense of Islam, or jihad, or Sharia. There is no way to fix ugly except by make-up.
Allah need's to open a new cosmotology school. Graduate some new cosmotologists. The old one's are wearing out. 'Ugly is what ugly doe's'. No matter how much make-up is put on Islam, it's ugliness stand's out like a sore thumb.
Bush need's to take a hike. He is getting too old and feeble for the job. Sure, he 'usta' be a two fisted John Wayne type , but look at him now.
He's so lazy that four people are employed full time, just to keep him propped up.
That's why he doe's wierd things like annoint Imam Eid...EID, around here that mean's, 'Empty Irrigation Ditch'. I dont think any of these ditches have ever been annointed. But we know for sure that the Imam will do a good job. What we are not sure of, is, for who?
Of course that kind of question would never enter Bush's head, he is busy thinking pure thought's.
It's hard to think a pure thought without passing out, that's why Geo has a dazed look on his face most of the time. I wonder what pure thought he has in store for us next? He may have even bigger plan's for Imam EID. Secratary of Defense maybe? Bush need's to take a hike...And take Rice with him...
The "Rev." Sutter above employs a tactic favored by the apologists for violent jihad that he is now so eagerly abetting: marshalling what appears to be an impressive mass of data showing that whatever is being said by anti-jihadists is wrong, wrong, wrong -- but the only catch is that there is nothing to that impressive mass of data. Nothing at all. It may dazzle the lazy, the gullible, and the unwary, but anyone who troubles to examine it will see that there is nothing at all to it.
There is a note in the original Jihad Watch posting above: "news links in the original." That phrase means that at FrontPage, where the article was first published, there are embedded links for all my sources. And those links show that what the "Rev." is saying here is completely false.
Sutter says: "in reviewing the Senate Finance Committee's investigation of Islamic charities, the Muslim League wasn't even on the list of charities they examined." But in my original article at FP, I linked to a State Department Press Release, "Senators Request Tax Information on Muslim Charities for Probe." You can find that here:
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2004&m=January&x=20040114155543zemogb0.8868524
Scroll down to look at the list there of organizations that are designated as targets of the terror finance probe, and you'll see "Muslim World League," the charity that the "Rev." says wasn't on the list. Not the "Human Relief Committee of the Muslim World League," as he claims, but...the Muslim World League.
The "Rev." also claims that the Muslim World League and the World Muslim League are two different organizations. He claims that Alexiev's testimony (which I also linked in my original article at FP) establishes that. In fact, that is false, and only someone with no knowledge of Arabic could think these two names are different. In Arabic, the name of the organization is Rabita al-Alam al-Islami, رابطة العالم الإسلامي. That can be and is translated either as Muslim World League or World Muslim League. But do a simple search for both names, and you'll find the same stories coming up, and not only the same stories, but the same claims made about the organization[s], the same personnel, etc. Why? Because they're the same group.
The "Rev." Jim Sutter shows here the same commitment to truth and accuracy that he always shows. He sees what he wants to see, not what he does not, and reality be damned.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
As for the Courts, the "Rev." contradicts himself. Even taking his claims about Christian Common Law courts at face value -- although after seeing what he does with other matters, including his own biography, I would never accept any statement of fact he made without checking it myself -- he seems to deplore their existence while simultaneously using them as evidence that no one should be concerned about Sharia arbitration courts in the U.S.
He can't have it both ways. If the Christian Common Law courts as he describes them should be shut down, as he evidently believes they should, then Sharia courts should not be established.
Once again, he is amassing pseudo-facts that may seem impressive until one gives them a moment's examination.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Note, finally, that the "Rev." Sutter can't even keep his own story straight.
He spends a great deal of time trying to establish, on false pretenses, that the World Muslim League and the Muslim World League are not the same organization, and that it's the World Muslim League that has terror ties, not the Muslim World League.
Then he excoriates the Boston Globe for its coverage of Talal Eid: "Now the Globe has smeared a man who they cannot show even have an imagined connection to any terrorist organization. Which is probably why the English don't even consider the Globe worthy enough to wrap fish. But, as always, never let facts get in the way..."
Heavens! What did the Globe say? That Eid was a terrorist? Nope. That he had bombs in his study? Nope. All it said was that he was still connected with the Muslim World League.
That's right -- the Muslim World League, the group that the "Rev." is trying to convince people has nothing to do with the group that the Senate Finance Committee investigated for terror ties.
So now the Globe is "smearing" Talal Eid by pointing out his link to a group that the "Rev." thinks is guiltless!