Farouk Shami is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for Governor of Texas. On his website, he "clarifies" his religious affiliation by making it clear as mud. The statement is notable for its sly obfuscations and detours, which will be familiar to longtime Jihad Watch readers:
"I want to clarify what has been reported in the press concerning my religion. I was born in the land of Abraham, believing in Moses, Jesus and Mohammad, and believing in one God.
While this statement may appear to the ignorant and unwary to be one of religious pluralism and open-mindedness, actually it is a straightforward statement of Islamic faith. For in the Qur'an, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad are all Muslim prophets who taught the same message, the message of Islam. Judaism and Christianity, in this understanding, arose later, out of corruptions of the teachings of Moses and Jesus. So for Farouk Shami to say that he believed in Moses, Jesus and Muhammad is simply to say that he was an ordinary, mainstream Muslim -- although the statement is clearly presented here in an attempt to give readers (and Texas voters) the impression that he was some kind of "all religions are one" multiculturalist or broad-minded ecumenist.
I grew up with members of my family and friends practicing multiple faiths: Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. I was also educated at a Quaker school. All of these things contributes to my relationship with God. To say simply 'I'm a Muslim' or 'I'm a Quaker' is to ignore major parts of my faith. I know it seems complicated that I do not have a pat answer to questions about what religion I am, but without my exposure to many different cultures and religious beliefs I wouldn't be the person I am today.
All right. But here again, none of these statements involve anything that a believing Muslim could not or would not say. So his family and friends include Jews and Christians, and he went to a Quaker school -- none of this necessarily involves his own belief system. And if a Muslim can say that he is a true Christian because he believes in what he believes to be the true Islamic Jesus of the Qur'an, then he can surely say that he is a Quaker -- although Farouk Shami doesn't quite say that, either.
Although I'm not a member of any specific religious tradition, I do begin every day with prayer and meditation and have a strong personal relationship with God. I respect those who practice all faiths because I believe God gave us life to help one another, the poor, the sick and the oppressed. It is through God we can achieve peace, freedom and bring justice to the world. As Governor, I know, with God's help and guidance, I will be able to help every Texan have access to the American Dream just like I did--a good job, access to healthcare, and an excellent education for their children. That's why I feel called to run for office."
He is not a member of any specific religious tradition. That could mean that he is not a Muslim, or that he doesn't believe that Islam is simply a manmade religious tradition, but rather divinely revealed and unquestionable truth. Meanwhile, the statement that "it is through God we can achieve peace, freedom and bring justice to the world" sounds very much like statements from Islamic supremacists the world over, who identify peace, freedom and justice with the imposition of Sharia.
I am not saying that Farouk Shami is an orthodox Muslim who therefore believes in Sharia, dhimmitude, the death of free speech, etc. And I am sure he would deny that he believes those things. All I am saying is that, despite appearances to the contrary, appearances which Shami obviously intended, there is actually nothing in his statement that is inconsistent with mainstream Islam.
And in any case, whether Farouk Shami is a Muslim or not, he has mastered the art of claiming victim status, an art practiced so assiduously by the likes of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslim advocacy groups in the U.S.: "Shami calls White's political ads 'racist,'" from the Associated Press, February 4:
{...] Farouk Shami, a Houston businessman who was born a Palestinian outside Jerusalem, says former Houston Mayor Bill White makes a "racist" remark by talking about being born in San Antonio....A spokeswoman for the White campaign called Shami's comment "ridiculous."
Uh, yeah.
Clever and sinister, Farouk Shami bears watching.
Judging by the feedback comments below the article, the good people of Texas are not fooled by Shami.
Robert:
I've never understood how the Moslems can claim that he's a prophet but never claimed to be the Son of God. My question has always been what possible benefit could've the Apostles have had to 'corrupt' his claim of divinity? In any case, Jesus was pretty explicity about his claims as the second person of the Trinity and was crucified for it.
As for Moses, How did he and the Jews corrupt the 10 Commandments?
Pointed questions that Moslem apologists will have some difficulty in articulating
xavier
Indeed the individual in question seems incapable of giving a clear statement about his religious affiliations. He uses a lot of nice, flowery language to say essentially nothing. If this man is not practicing taqiyyah, he has only himself to blame for the impression that he is.
Farouk Shami needs to be asked some simple questions.
1. Are you a Muslim? That is, do you consider yourself to be a Muslim?
2. If you are a Muslim, do you agree that the best form for society, the ideal form, is one in which the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam, governs all things?
3. If you do agree that the Shari'a is the ideal toward which societies should be encouraged to strive, could you then answer a series of questions. Here's one:
Do you agree with Mr. Awadh A. Binhazim, Ph.D., that the Shari'a clearly calls for the killing of homosexuals who engage in, and refuse to give up, the practice?
Do you agree with Yousuf Al-Qaradawi, the noted Sunni cleric with a vast following, that sculpture, and all paintings that depict living creatures, are contrary to Islam and should be forbidden?
Do you agree that there is no place for music, in the ideal Muslim society, which one presumes remains, for you as a good Muslim, the ideal society?
Do you agree that Qur'an 9.29 and 9.5 are valid for all time?
Do you agree that Muhammad was the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, and that his words and deeds, are to be emulated by all Muslims, for all time?
Do you include among those deeds, his response to the killing of Asma bint Marwan? Of Abu Afak? What he saw and approved of, during the mass killings of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza? What he did at the Khaybar Oasis? His marriage, and the consummation of that marriage, to little Aisha when she was nine years old?
Do you agree that there should be laws banning criticism of anything called a "religion"?
That's a few. Once those have been answered satisfactorily (that means truthfully), we have a dozen more. And then a dozen more after that.
Und so weiter.
I used to know a Quaker who said that there are Christian Quakers, Buddhist Quakers, Muslim Quakers, Jewish Quakers, yadda yadda yadda.
By no coincidence, she was the most confused and intentionally dishonest adult I've ever met.
From a Christian angle, Shami (Arab for shameful?) needs to be asked: Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, was crucified for the sins of man, died and rose again the third day and now sits at the right hand of God?
Easy question.
There is no doubt that he subscribes to a totally evil ideology. Didn't the article say he was a Democrat and he was for universal health care?
I currently live in Texas and have been watching this man's campaign for governor for the last few months. Through the "contact" mechanism of this site, I have expressed my concern about Farouk Shami and I am glad that scrutiny is being applied to his statements.
In my mind, there is an ENORMOUS amount of skepticism about this situation. I very much wonder about how he is financed. I am quite unconvinced by his VERY weasely statements.
I wish someone was doing a thorough examiniation of this man. I suspect there may be even more to find than has been discussed here.
It's probably a mistake to vote for anyone who talks a lot about God or religion...Or who has a very high religious opinion of 'themselves'...We already have Rasool Obama...and that's enough...In fact...'Enough is enough, and enough is too much'...
No practitioners of the religoun of peaces in our gov't PLEASE.Believe not one iota of anything shami says .sharia law allows him to legally lie to you in good conscience if it furthers the advancement of i SLAM. . Google Obama's broken promises. He got elected based on lies . Now its SHAM ies turn
xavier: "As for Moses, How did he and the Jews corrupt the 10 Commandments?"
HA! Thank you, xavier, for reminding me of one of my own questions. Muhammedans claim corruption of the scriptures by the Jew and the Infidel, yet never, ever offer any evidence to prove this.
This "corruption" is Islam's raison d'etre, and evidence of this so-called corruption should be asked for and given.
"It's probably a mistake to vote for anyone who talks a lot about God or religion..."
I agree. For starters, it alienates voters who don't hold the same beliefs. Secondly, there's no way to prove a given candidate's fidelity to the religion he claims as his own.
We have before us a perfect example of this, in the White House. Obama may think he's a Christian, and so might his former pastor, Rev. Wright. It's a very strange notion of Christianity that they hold, though.
It's not so much the religous beliefs as his inability to answer a simple question.
I think, in the long term, the habit of deception causes the deceiver to compromise their ability to think logically. The habit of direct communication in one's thoughts causes the brain waves to think in a logical, direct pattern. The Muslim habit of deceptive thinking is as lethal to the mind as smoking is to the lungs. It's a s@@t habit.
I think that's why Jesus (e.g.) was so strong in condemning hypocrisy and deception. It's like condemning cigarette smoking.
Maybe Islam should carry a cigarette type warning:
Caution: The surgeon-General has determined that Islamic Taqiyya compromises the ability to think logically.
This is a good u-tube vid re "The Habit".....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne0PqFm6h_k
"I am not saying that Farouk Shami is an orthodox Muslim who therefore believes in Sharia, dhimmitude, the death of free speech, etc."
Right, this is the kind of sly smearing a-la "Im not saying Barak Obama is a secret Muslim but barack HUSSEIN OSAMA (sorry Obama) WENT TO A (not necessarily TERRORIST INFILTRATED) MUSLIM SCHOOL AND HIS FATHER WAS A MUSLIM."
This is a cleverly deniable smear campaign.
As long as he swears to uphold the constitution on Thomas Jefferson's Koran he'll fit right in, no?
James Randal says: "He states that he is NOT a Muslim."
Yes, he said that. He also said, "I'm a Muslim Quaker. Have you ever heard of that?"
First of all, given the beliefs of Islam and beliefs of the Religious Society of Friends, one CANNOT be genuine to both without SEVERE conflict of belief. That said, I find it difficult to trust anything he says since he is so evasive and contradictory when answering this and other questions.
And since he has claimed to be "not a Muslim" and "Muslim Quaker" I submit that one must consider the possibility that he is being entirely deceptive in that regard.
That is troubling.
While Shami may be deliberately obscuring his true religious beliefs, it is also possible that he truly holds religious beliefs that are obscure and muddled.
In being obscure about his religious beliefs, or in having obscure/muddled religious beliefs, Shami is not out of step with other politicians in the U.S. and throughout the West. The vast majority of politicians, if they want to be elected, have to be obscure about their religious beliefs, or hold muddied/obscure religious beliefs. Western politicians have to be seen as not being clearly against any particular mainstream religion, or against religion generally. Otherwise they will alienate the majority of voters.
Note how, in Shami's written presentation, he doesn't say he is against any religion or any aspect of religion. All of the statements are phrased in terms of positively embracing the major religions of his potential constituents. This is consistent with standard political rhetoric. Moreover, there is no more popular and loved position among the media than the so-called moderate religious believer who embraces diversity and multiple religious traditions, without taking any of them particularly literally or seriously. Hence, it is difficult to tell whether or not this is just mundane deception in the standard political public relations sense of deception. Or, again, it may the case that Shami actually believes the mush he describes, and that this is why others have urged him to seek public office.
Also note how he has nothing to say in the way of embracing or at least associating himself positively with Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, etc. He need not, since they do not constitute a sufficient percentage of the potential vote in his region. Yet, nor does he come out and make negative statements about disbelievers and "polytheists," though his religious beliefs as described, however mushy, can reasonably be assumed to be in staunch opposition to disbelief and polytheism. What would he gain by going out of his way to alienate a few percent of the potential voters? This is all understandable as politics-as-usual.
It is not only religion, of course, about which politicians must be particularly careful. Any issue that is important and potentially divisive to the voting population must be handled with great care by the politicians and their public relations experts. In particular, politicians must generally be seen to be embracing popular positions, and generally must not be seen to have a strong opposition to any position that is held by a significant percentage of voters. This is my view of the political system at present.
Another potential reason why candidates may play up the moderate religious pluralist posture is that, deliberately or not, this serves to deflect attention away from more substantive, yet politically-riskier, issues. Endorsing a mushy moderate religious posture is a political freebie, like being shown shaking hands, smiling, holding babies in front of the cameras, etc.
As I see it, we still live in primitive superstitious societies which, however technologically advanced, have an underlying set of political rules that favor nice and seemingly agreeable deception over unpleasant and uncomfortable honest statements--at least in the area of politics. (Much of this in unintended and unconscious, but political experts are aware of it and exploit it). We still vote on the basis of primitive tribal memberships and declared affiliations. This is unfortunate, and it need not be the case. Journalists, for example, could do a great deal to change this sad state of affairs, but, alas, they are woefully uneducated these days and are more interested in trivialities and "gotcha" moments than they are in asking genuinely important, good, tough, and ruthlessly honest questions.
Abscedere and xavier,
The Islamic principle of "corruption" with regard to the Judaeo-Christian religious heritage can be clarified, once it is broken down:
1) Everything the Koran and Mohammed say is the Absolute Truth.
2) Other sources may only be true if they agree with the Koran and with Mohammed.
3) The God of the Old Testament is really Allah.
4) Allah intended to reform the world after the Fall through passing his Guidance to the Chosen People -- but they rejected his Guidance out of their wickedness and corruption.
5) The Old Testament as passed down in Jewish and Christian traditions represents a garbled account of Allah's relations with the world and with the Jews and the peoples around them. It is garbled because of the ignorance, wickedness and corruption of the Jews (and later of the Christians). The Jews received the True Guidance of Allah, but because they tend to be wicked and corrupt, they botched that Guidance and compounded that error with transmitting corrupted religious texts.
6) The world thus stumbled along in darkness and ignorance as wicked men (Jews and later Christians, and of course, as always, surrounding pagans) ignored the Guidance of Allah. Once in a blue moon, rare prophets of Allah sprang up to try to guide people back to the truth -- such as Issa (Jesus) -- but the people persisted in their ignorance and wickedness; even in their perversity blaspheming against the One God by elevating His human prophet as a god himself.
7) Finally, Allah decided to raise up one last Prophet to lead people back to the correct path of His Guidance -- Mohammed.
8) From the time of Mohammed forward, people in their wickedness and ignorance resist this True Guidance that Mohammed finally illuminated the world with. That resistance represents an evil mortal threat to that Guidance, and must be fought in righteous battles in defense of God and God's revelations for the salvation of Mankind as that salvation is steered inexorably by God toward the Eschaton.
The above adumbration represents the puritanical half of the schizophrenia of Muslim fanaticism. Fused indissolubly with this puritanical half is a demonically depraved other half of the Muslim mind, by which all ideals of goodness, nobility and purity are not only pursued in zealous fanaticism (this may be found more or less in other religions), but also pursued precisely through their grotesque perversions into their Satanic opposites.
Islam is the biggest lie people have been fooled to believe in
just by associating it with Jesus,Moses and their teachings.
But christian and jew leaders have never openly refuted this
claim? It is left to people like R.S. on this site and people
commenting on articles to prove and show that Jesus and Moses
and their teachings have nothing to do with islam and have nothing in common with islam; even the name Yesu(Masih=Christ)
which became Jesu or Jesus Christ is wrong in quran i.e. eesa
which mohammad/muslims claim/believe is same?
In my opinion, pope and other christian and jew leaders have
the duty to inform people about the truth if they believe that
what they believe is the truth; perhaps Geert Wilders should
be the pope, he is not afraid to tell the truth about islam and quran.
Hesperado...1-8 sound like a script from a Stephan King horror movie...
From article...I was born in the land of Abraham, believing in Moses, Jesus and Mohammad, and believing in one God.
If that god is Allah, he is a Mahoundian...If he is not a pious Mahoundian, that is between him and Allah, who see's and knows everything...
I wouldn't vote for anyone who had to use an eight inch paragraph to justify themselves religiously...The more you say, the less credible you get...
You need YOU leave this site IF you think you can say this about those of us who follow this blog and get away with it!!!!!
You stated:
"He is a politician and isn't a raving mad JW'er who is going to state that Islam is the devil's religion and Mohammad was a mass murdering pirate."
You lie and insult. You related to the RANDAL of CAIR who is a convicted felon???
Islam is NOT a religion but a group of nuts like you who think mohammed was NOT a murdering pedophile!
You are so LOST.
"Did it ever occur to you for even a microsecond that perhaps he isn't a Muslim and perhaps he was being sincere in his official statement? Is that even within the realm of possiblity?"
No.
James Randal said: "ALL Muslims, even those who claim they are not Muslims, are secretly practicing Taqqiya and ...."
I would say "ESPECIALLY those Moslems who claim they are not Moslem...."
James Randal said: "He CLEARLY stats that 'I'm not a member of any specific religious tradition.' Can't get ANY clearer than that."
Sure you can. If he'd said "I'm not a member of any religion.", that would be MUCH clearer.
He also said, "I'm a Muslim Quaker." If he really said that, and if he really believes that, he is in a state of mental confusion that, alone, ought to disqualify him for any elective office higher than high school freshman class vice-president. It's akin to saying "I'm a beef-eating vegetarian."
To clarify James Randal's doggedly simplistic point and our posture with regard to Farouk Shami: At best, he is a non-Muslim dhimmi unfortunately rather common in the Middle East -- one who tends to enable, rather than undermine, Islam. Of course, most Western politicians, academics and news reporters & analysts also tend to enable, rather than undermine, Islam. That would be no reason to let Shami off the hook, however. And whether or not he's a Muslim, or a crypto-Muslim, he is employing rhetoric that, as Robert points out, serves to obfuscate, not clarify, the problem of Islam. In this regard, I disagree with Kinana's point above: while I agree with Kinana that for Western politicians this kind of obfuscation is common, when we see a politician of provenance from the Islamic milieu (whether Middle Eastern or elsewhere in the world), it is a safe bet that more is going on here than merely PC MC warmth & fuzziness in order to lubricate the political process and not rock the boat of their campaign with anything controversial. And that more is that if he's Muslim, then we must assume he is doing stealth jihad, and if he's not Muslim yet of provenance from an Islamic milieu, his mind has been dhimmified into enabling the stealth Islam agenda.
Lets compare Farouk Shami's situation to Keith Muhammad Ellison's...
Shami is running for Governor in Texas, where if he flat out said he was a muslim, he would get about 0.2% of the vote...so he dances a fine line by saying "I'm a muslim quaker" [what ever the hell that is].
Ellison ran for a seat in a ultra liberal district, where he could have claimed to be a muslim satanist and the people would have cheered him a "visionary".
So Shami is forced to cake on a few more layers of subterfuge.
Winning the Texas Gov. seat would be a huge feather in the Turban of stealth Jihad. People of Texas - please don't believe this guy's hope n' change snake oil rhetoric.
Admitting to being a Muslim is shameful? Exactly as it should be.
The art of taqiyya. Muslims are sanctioned to twist words and lure people to Islam at all costs. Once one becomes or agrees to become a Muslim, then he can't leave. If one chooses to leave Islam, then one becomes an apostate. So, since we are all schooled on this already, then I have a quesiton for anyone out there.
Question:
If Obama was in Indonisia and went to school in a madrassa, then he and his mother must have admitted him to the school that he was Muslim. A child doesn't go to a madrassa unless his religion is ISLAM. If he was a Muslim then, then why is no one in the Muslim world calling him an apostate?
Excellent analysis, Robert. I would add one more point, with regard to Farouk Shami's words:
"I respect those who practice all faiths because I believe God gave us life to help one another, the poor, the sick and the oppressed."
"The oppressed" is often a very specific term in Islam, referring to Muslims who are assumed to be constrained—in any way—from spreading Islam and imposing Shari'ah.
James Randal said:
"To say simply ‘I'm a Muslim’ or ‘I'm a Quaker’ is to ignore major parts of my faith.
That is what you are referring to."
No, I was referring to when Shami said exactly what I quoted: "I'm a Muslim Quaker. Have you ever heard of that?"
Now, even what YOU quote is deceptive. So now, he has said that he is "not a Muslim," he is a "Muslim Quaker," and he is a Muslim + Quaker + some unspecific added element (Baptist? Buddhist? Wiccan? Scientologist? Jedi? Specifics do not matter.) The point is, he is muddying the waters on purpose. This is beyond mere politics. This is snake oil, Three-card Monte, even more: Machiavellian manipulation. Make no mistake, troll, you are not convincing anyone here, nor are you convincing more than the most gullible of my fellow Texans.
An even more important point is that he comes from a tradition (Palestinian/Islamic) where we can find endless current documentation and real evidence that where he came from promotes moral and political ideas that are antithetical and destructively antagonistic to the most fundamental concepts on which we as Americans depend for the defense of our freedoms and well-being.
As such, we have an ABSOLUTE right to DEMAND that he reveal his TRUE beliefs on these subjects in as many ways and with as many questions as we want. Yet he has been obfuscating and avoiding.
The governor of a state such as Texas is a powerful political person who can facilitate change both constructively and destructively.
Mr. Shami must be REQUIRED to answer questions such as those posed by Robert and others here, and your faulty defense of Mr. Shami does not and should not dissuade us.
Muslims in general are more clever and sinister, but yet a small proportion of the population realizes that and fewer still among the elites. Most of the people and most of the leadership are utter fools. Islam is an existential challenge that the West refuses to face. Honestly, watching the game yesterday I could not help repeat the term "bread and circuses."
The link given at 9:57 above goes to a piece by Debbie Schussel which contains this information and suggestion:
"Shami, Yasser Arafat’s and the Saudis' fave former hairstylist, is the owner of Farouk Systems, which produces and sells the BioSilk, CHI, and Sunglitz hair products (don’t buy them!)."
Make of that suggestion what you will.
This is a truly odd one. Farouk Shami may or may not be a particular strong or desirable figure to be governor of Texas, but it seems Mr. Spencer may be hard up for material, if citing somebody from the Middle East is going to be made into a major topic of discussion.
Nothing inconsistent with mainstream Islam? Since when is attending a Quaker school and saying that it has had an enduring positive, meaningful impact upon one's personal theology consistent with mainstream Islam? That's certainly not the understanding of mainstream Islam one gets from Jihad Watch. And it's not the one I've gotten in my conversations with Islamic mujtahid and theologians.
And what about his having good friends who aren't Muslims? Aren't we told on JW that this is inconsistent with mainstream Islam? Where's the dutiful trotting out of Quran 5:51?
Sounds like another example of JW wanting to have its cake, but now eat it too.
Mr. Spencer needs to watch more classical gangster movies and TV crime series: don't you know you're suppose to get your story straight before you start talking?
MP11 makes a rather interesting point regarding passive deniable smearing. I never really thought about it that way before. Let's run with that for a moment and try it on:
"I am not saying that _____________ is an ignorant, unethical, immoral, detestable, lying bigot. All I am saying is that despite appearances to the contrary, appearances which _________ obviously intends, there is actually nothing in _________'s attitude, statements and conduct that fully preclude such a real possibility."
So if I pick a name out of a hat, say, among the names of figures who are prominently associated with Jihad Watch, and fill that one name into my three blanks above, I can trust that person will have no objection to the statement due to its contingent, conditional locution, correct?
First rule to remember: Muhhammad says it is ok to lie, even cheat, steal and murder, in support of Islam.
IT IS OK TO LIE. No way to put a Muslim under oath that would mean anything.
In the movie "Ronin", Robert DeNiro character to Jean Reno character - "If ever there is any doubt there is no doubt, that's the first thing they teach you". Perfectly well said don't you think?
No, James Randal, I have not--why do you ask?
Texans didn't elect Kinky Friedman governor, and I hope they will be equally scrutinous with this guy at poll time.
loup. You're being loupy. Let's try lucidity.
Why the long comment about religion? Too much explanation when the American people generally don't want or care about religious explanations from their candidates, except by way of clarifying contradictory statements, etc.
If the long explanation is because he thinks being perceived as a Muslim is a bad thing, then he's learned a lot about freedom-loving people since separating himself from that Palstinian cesspool.
He lost me at Democrat.
Hugh suggests a reasonable follow-up question to be asked of Shami, in response to Shami's clear-as-mud "clarification":
"1. Are you a Muslim? That is, do you consider yourself to be a Muslim?"
James Randal responds:
"(1) HE HAS STATED THAT THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS NO."
and
"He states that he is NOT a Muslim."
Perhaps Randal is hallucinating. Or perhaps Randal has a quote from somewhere else, wherein Shami actually says this, but Randal does not provide any such quote. In the relevant press blurb put out by Shami and dissected by Robert above, Shami does not claim to be either a Muslim or a non-Muslim. But Randal is inserting his own interpretation, and then citing his own interpretation as though it were data in support of his conclusion.
James Randal again:
"This is a disgusting and libelous attack on a self made American."
No it isn't; unless you consider suggesting that someone may or may not support sharia, the dhimma arrangement, and restrictions on free speech (i.e., the most pertinent aspect here being restrictions on criticism of Islam) to constitute defamation per se. (Hmmm...I thought the line apologists were taking was that sharia, the dhimma, and restrictions on free speech viz. Islam were all supposed to be good and progressive? Or is Randal suggesting that sharia, the dhimma, and Islamic restrictions on free expression are "disgusting"? Are you an Islamophobe, Randal?)
Randal writes:
"Instead, Spencer, who is now a practicing Psychologist, twists and turns his words into a ridiculous confession."
I didn't see it that way, but that's just my reading. It seems to me all Robert was doing was drawing on his background knowledge of various Islam apologists and apologetic techniques, and giving us some well-informed, cautious interpretations and considerations to keep in mind. That Shami's "clarification" is anything but clear ought to evoke a healthy, skeptical response in the reader, and this includes raising questions and considering possibilities, some of which are unpleasant and uncomfortable.
James Randal:
"Why aren't the rest of these questions asked to other candidates?"
If they are not Muslims or sort-of-Muslim/monothesists like Shami, the probability that such candidates would openly support sharia before an election is too low to justify such questions. But given that about 30-40% of Muslims in the West want sharia to be imposed in the west, and about 62-78% of Muslims in the West want tight sharia restrictions on expressions about Islam, it is fully warranted to ask such questions of all Muslim or semi-Muslim candidates. Yet, I do think that non-Muslim candidates should also be asked questions about their potential support for sharia, Islamic schools, since, as the U.K. and other jurisdictions have shown, many non-Muslim politicians do support sharia and are in favor of Islamic restrictions on freedom of expression.
Randal:
"Do you doubt Ayan Hirsi Ali or Ali Sina when they claim to be Infidels?"
Not so much, because everything they say and write indicates that they do not believe in Islam. They argue the arguments that infidels make; I judge them by what they argue and have consistently argued as long as they've expressed their critical views of religion and of Islam in particular. When Shami starts saying things like "I am not a Muslim" or "I left Islam," and stops arguing in favor of Islam and stops associating himself with it, I will begin to seriously entertain the idea that he is not a Muslim.
Randal says:
"He is a politician and isn't a raving mad JW'er who is going to state that Islam is the devil's religion and Mohammad was a mass murdering pirate."
He's not a politician yet.
It is indeed preposterous to say things like Islam is the devil's religion, since such a statement presumes the existence of the devil.
That the character Muhammad in the hadith, and referred to in the Quran, was a mass murder can be easily deduced by a non-Muslim who reads about the numerous surprise attacks, massacres, assassinations of poets, etc., in the sahih Hadith and Sira. That he was a pirate in the sense of raiding caravans and taking the loot is also described in the sahih Hadith and Sira, and a non-Muslim can read those texts. One does not need to be "raving mad" to see this; one has to be "raving mad" or ideologically brainwashed to fail to see this when one reads those Islamic texts. I recommend the ex-Muslim Abul Kasem's 'The Root of Terrorism al la Islamic Style' for accounts from those source Islamic texts.
It looks like the Foot Baller's Wake is a work in progress.
You want some evidence, James Randal?
How about a report from the Austin Statesman?
In this report, we see that Shami has changed his answer between November 2009 (Quaker), December (Muslim Quaker), and January 2010 (Muslim + Quaker + More or All religions).
There are reports from his family members that they were all "brought up Muslim" but are "not especially religious".
A candidate's truthfulness is an important issue, and Mr. Shami has had some problems with that.
From the article: "This is not the first time questions have been raised about Shami's truthfulness. He said he voted for Barack Obama for president, but Montgomery County records show he did not vote in 2008."
Plus his evasiveness and inconsistencies about his religion are troublesome.
Frankly, it is hard to imagine that the truth has been yet discovered for this man based on his own statements. I have little respect for someone who cannot or will not explain his beliefs with integrity and consistency.
Well good on you James Randal, first and foremost for removing any religous connotational nonsense like "devil" etc. from the discourse--Islam is an ideology not guided by God or devil-bravo...but methinks you have to go undercover as a Muslim and interact/witness them in their natural element...studying it in a detached, academic manner is of no use--not only that, Islam is so diverse that you are bound to run into Muslims who practice their beliefs in varying degrees and therefore exude an air of there being some kind of moderation or convergence with Western values but what one must realize, friend James, is that Muslims have a different meaning and concept of all the things we hold dear, like democracy, womens rights, and things of those nature. Sure they have all that and more, but it is a twisted, insincere, cracked mirror version of we taught them...or what they think they created, which is intellectual dishonesty on a monstrous scale.
James Randal wrote:
“I have read all of your comments and not one single shred of hard evidence that this man is a practicing Muslim who is practicing taqqiya and is hell bent on turning Texas into a caliphate.”
As should be clear from my posts, I agree that there is no clear evidence that he is a Muslim in the mainstream sense. However, there is no clear evidence to rule out that he is some kind of Muslim. You claimed that he said he was “not a Muslim.” You fail to provide evidence to support your claim. In the press blurb in question, Shami loosely associates himself with multiple religions, of which one of them is Islam. The most accurate description is that he is some kind of monotheist with loose associations with multiple religions, including Islam. This does seem to contradict your simplistic conclusion that he is “not a Muslim.”
Randal:
“All I see are weak personal attacks.”
Asking you to provide evidence for your conclusion that Shami is “not a Muslim” is a “weak personal attack”?
Randal:
“I stand by my posts. When he says I don't follow a specific tradition, I am not incited into psychoanalyzing his words and turning them into a quasi-confession.”
Actually, you added words that weren’t there. You say, and continue to maintain, that he’s not a Muslim, but Shami himself doesn’t say that.
Randal:
“Also, the slithering Hugh”
Glad to see you are taking the high ground by avoiding “personal attacks” and allusions to evil and the devil.
Randal:
“…has no demanded that this self made, proud American be boycotted. Extremely classy. Also, he has yet to provide us with any shred of evidence.”
You have yet to provide evidence for your simplistic conclusion that Shami is “not a Muslim.”
Randall:
“BTW, I am not an Islamic apologist. I have studied Islam and I am not a supporter of its political, social, and religious philosophy. However, I am not a raving right wing Jesus freak or a Hitlerian who wants all Muslims detained, deported, or placed under 24/7 surveillance and stripped of all rights. I do not believe in using words such as "evil" or "the devil" when describing historical figures.”
1. Do you think it would be inappropriate to refer to Hitler as “evil”? He is a historical figure precisely because of the massive program of evil that he orchestrated.
2. Calling Muhammad a “historical figure” is a bit of a stretch, unless you consider the part-hearsay, part-mythology of early pious, partisan Muslim reporters and storytellers to contain historical accounts. While there is independent evidence suggestive of the existence of a seventh century warlord who could have been Muhammad, the fact remains that we don’t have anything even remotely resembling a credible history of Muhammad.
Randal:
“I do not believe that all Muslims are secretly practicing Taqqiya and trying to take over America,”
Well, there are some posters who have, in other threads, claimed essentially that all Muslims should be treated as though they were trying to take over America, but such posters are in the small minority here, and can be found on many mainstream media websites' commenting sections.