4 Attacks Against Park51 and Muslims and My Response

A friend wrote a blog entry in support of the Park51 project. Someone (henceforth referred to as “the author”) responded to him at another account writing:

What people don't understand about muslims is that they traditionally build a mosque at the site they attacked to symbolize ... the "victory." What happened at Ground Zero should not be considered a victory in the United States. I don't like to use absolutes, so I'm not going to lump all Muslims together, but in general, the Muslim "religion" makes it okay to kill anyone opposed to their beliefs, and they don't have to keep their word with "infidels" (aka, those who are not muslim). This mosque, while disapproved of by approximately 70% of Americans, is a sad, sad thing - should it come to fruition.

The author makes many claims in this passage. I’ve numbered them and resequenced them to facilitate my responses.


1. Muslims lie to non-Muslims - “they don't have to keep their word with "infidels" (aka, those who are not muslim)”


2. Islam permits Muslims to kill non-Muslims indiscriminately – “the Muslim "religion" makes it okay to kill anyone opposed to their beliefs”


3. Islam is perhaps not a religion and hence Muslims do not qualify for 1^st Amendment protections – The author does not explicitly say this, but the author placed the word religion in quotes, indicating that he/she questions Islam’s classification as a religion. The only reason why a non-academic would raise this question would be to exclude Muslims from protection of the 1^st Amendment of the US Constitution.


4.  The Park51 center, for Muslims, is a monument in support of the September 11, 2001 attack there. “What people don't understand about muslims is that they traditionally build a mosque at the site they attacked to symbolize... the ‘victory.’”


Here are my responses:


1. Muslims lie to non-Muslims

This is the most important thing with which to start because, if a person believes you’re lying to gain an advantage, there’s no point in having the discussion.


Read The Taqiyya Libel Against Muslims - updated 5/30/2010 by Sheila Musaji. Also, Straight Talk on the Taqiyyah Myth by Svend White, October 10, 2010.


Many other articles at The American Muslim are worth reading.


I had edited the Wikipedia entry on this topic Taqiyya. Of course, my edits did not entirely stick. This is the current version.


The most relevant part for this discussion was my extensive translation of quotations from a medieval theologian and jurist who had tremendous influence on Muslim belief and practice, al-Ghazali:


Although Taqiyya is generally thought of as a Shi'a term according to principles defined by Shafi'i theologian al-Ghazali, lying, including protection of oneself or others, is permissible under certain circumstances:

The full text of al-Ghazali's book Ihya ulum al-din, is available from alwaraq.net. A copy of the relevant chapter, Ma yurakhkhas min al-kadhib-The extent to which lying is permitted, is also available. My loose translation of some of the passages follows:

Speech is a means to ends. If a praiseworthy end can be achieved by both truth and falsehood, then lying is forbidden. If a praiseworthy end can be achieved only by lying, then it is permissible provided that the achievement of the intended goal is permissible. Lying is mandatory if the intended goal is mandatory, for example, if lying would protect the life of a Muslim. So if telling the truth entails revealing the location of a Muslim hiding from a tyrant, then lying is mandatory, although lying should be avoided if possible. [One should try to avoid lying] because one should not open the door of lying to the soul, as it may be tempted to lie in unnecessary situations, and lying is a priori impermissible except in extreme circumstances.

The evidence for the exception in the case of extreme circumstances is the narration of Um Kulthuum who said, "I've never heard the Messenger of God permit any degree of lying except in three circumstances: reconciliation, war and one spouse to another."

So these three circumstances have explicit textual support. Similarly, other praiseworthy goals fall into the same category. For example, if a tyrant asks a person about his property to take it away unjustly, it is permissible to lie about it. If a ruler asks about a sin a man has committed between himself and Alimighty God, then he has the right to deny it. So he may say, "I did not fornicate" and "I did not steal."

As for the reputation of others, he should also deny [that they did shameful actions].

The bottom line is that lying is impermissible, yet in these aforementioned cases, telling the truth results in situations that are also impermissible. So one must compare one with the other and judge accurately. If a person knows that the damage from telling the truth is worse from the point of view of God's commandments, he is permitted to lie. If the goal of lying is less important than the goal achieved from telling the truth, a person must tell the truth. And a person may not be able to determine which side of the situation has more validity. In this case he should lean towards telling the truth because the rule is that lying is impermissible except for extreme duress, and if one is not able to be certain of the duress, lying remains impermissible. Furthermore, since knowing degrees of value is difficult, a person should be careful to avoid lying if at all possible. And if the harm would befall him personally [as opposed to befalling others], then it is better to abandon one's own goals and needs and refrain from lying. If the harm would befall others, it is essential not to take that harm lightly and cause it to befall them. Most of people's lies are for their own selfish ends such as property and position, the loss of which [does not justify lying].

2. Islam permits Muslims to kill non-Muslims indiscriminately – “the Muslim "religion" makes it okay to kill anyone opposed to their beliefs”

Review my blog entry of November 22, 2009 entitled Dr. Maher Hathout Presentation of Quranic Passages Related to Peace and War. Dr. Maher discusses each passage of the Qur’an which Islamophobes distort to promote the idea that Muslims are at constant war with non-Muslims.

I also recommend reading Louay Safi’s book Peace and the Limits of War: Transcending Classical Conception of Jihad. It’s incorrect to take medieval Muslim writings on war as the last word on Muslim beliefs. These writings may have permitted or encouraged warfare against non-Muslim polities because, before the advent of religious freedom, rulers often forbade people from converting to Islam or hearing about Islam. Warfare was then seen as necessary to allow people the freedom to convert. Even then, warfare was supposed to be limited to that purpose and was not a license to kill anybody and take anything. Obviously, historical reality is not so neat, but there was no concept that there is an obligation for Muslims to fight every non-Muslim political entity.

Also, with the advent of today’s military technologies, many Muslims (also here) and non-Muslims are discussing the need to abolish warfare altogether, since whatever positive outcomes warfare may have delivered in the past are today far surpassed by the “collateral damage.”

Finally, why are there non-Muslim minorities in places where Muslims have held political power for centuries if the duty of Muslims is to coerce non-Muslims to accept Islam?

3. Islam is perhaps not a religion and hence Muslims do not qualify for 1^st Amendment protections
I don’t understand this. Would people who believe this please provide a list of religions which do qualify for 1^st Amendment protections and the criteria for inclusion in this list?

4. The Park51 center, for Muslims, is a monument in support of the September 11, 2001 attack there.
 
Got Medieval smokes Newt Gingrich's claim that Cordoba is a symbol of Muslim triumphalism.

Let’s assume some Muslims somewhere actually believe this. Why should it impact U.S. policy or other Muslims’ civil rights?

Muslims build mosques where they live. Whether conquest brought them there, like Constantinople/Istanbul, or immigration and trade, like China, Europe and the Americas and most other places in the world, they build mosques.

Muslims already worship at Park51. There are already two other mosques in Lower Manhattan.

This statement also reflects ignorance of Lower Manhattan geography (and here).

Finally, Park51 is not even a mosque.

P.S. It is important to note that the author's first three points would apply to any masjid Muslims would build anywhere in the U.S., and only the fourth has anything to do with location. So don't tell me this Park51 debate is of no consequence and a distraction.