Sharia Law comes to Dearborn!

[slyboots]

All people do good and bad acts. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs etc do good and bad acts.
Christians especially know the experience of knowing what is righteous and doing what is not. It is why confession is so helpful on our paths as Catholics.
These “Arab” security guards did wrongly. Whether they did so as Muslims protecting their faith or because they were simply pugnacious I cannot say.
This is the USA and here as in very few other places in the world we have free speech and right to assemble.
The people of Acts 17 appear on camera not to be breaking any law. They are harrassed and accosted. I will say that they did go in with an agenda to “prove” that Muslims will deny them their American freedoms. And they did prove that their freedoms were abridged in this video. However, it is not clear whether the individuals involved are Muslims. And frankly what they did does not define itself as Islamic teaching.
So, here it what I see. Those people who harrassed and accosted the Acts 17 group were wrong, no matter what faith. I heard no “Allahu Akbar!” and “Death to America!” in this video. Yes someone yelled “no way”. It was again not clear that person was a follower of Islam or not.
Behavior such as this in the USA should be stopped. people who commit these offences (assault) should be prosecuted. But not for their faith, for their illegal transgressions.
We must fight these things with the weapons at hand, the law of the land and prayer.

 

[qui_est_ce]

All people do good and bad acts. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs etc do good and bad acts.
Christians especially know the experience of knowing what is righteous and doing what is not. It is why confession is so helpful on our paths as Catholics.
These “Arab” security guards did wrongly. Whether they did so as Muslims protecting their faith or because they were simply pugnacious I cannot say.
This is the USA and here as in very few other places in the world we have free speech and right to assemble
{snip}
Behavior such as this in the USA should be stopped. people who commit these offences (assault) should be prosecuted. But not for their faith, for their illegal transgressions.
We must fight these things with the weapons at hand, the law of the land and prayer.

 

[josie_L]

If you want peace, work for justice. Justice cannot exist outside of Truth. Truth is not relative.

Neville Chamberlain is a prime example of someone who did not seek Truth before seeking peace. It didn’t last and the consquences were 9 million civilians dead within 5 years, a country and a people destroyed. Millions of lives that could have been spared. The Germans were perfectly nice neighbors to their Jewish neighbors. Heck, my uncle married a Jewesse and they had a son. Then they had to go underground on Kristalnacht. My nice German grandfather hid them on his farm. They were lucky. They made it.

Then Hitler’s army moved to France. All the French people on the wrong side of the Maginot Line had to flee to the south of France. My mother was one of them. When they went back to their town, their house was take over by the Germans as a command post and barracks. My mom said they were nice guys, not the monsters they had fled. My mom’s family cooked for them. They always said thank you.

When the Americans came, her town was liberated from the nice Germans and they got to be French again.

Oh, and those nice Germans put her brother, the priest, in a concentration camp for several years.

This is a great example to us all of why we shouldn’t be sticking our head in the sand. Peace is great but not at the expense of truth and reality.

 

[Eucharisted]

If you want peace, work for justice. Justice cannot exist outside of Truth. Truth is not relative.

Neville Chamberlain is a prime example of someone who did not seek Truth before seeking peace. It didn’t last and the consquences were 9 million civilians dead within 5 years, a country and a people destroyed. Millions of lives that could have been spared. The Germans were perfectly nice neighbors to their Jewish neighbors. Heck, my uncle married a Jewesse and they had a son. Then they had to go underground on Kristalnacht. My nice German grandfather hid them on his farm. They were lucky. They made it.

Then Hitler’s army moved to France. All the French people on the wrong side of the Maginot Line had to flee to the south of France. My mother was one of them. When they went back to their town, their house was take over by the Germans as a command post and barracks. My mom said they were nice guys, not the monsters they had fled. My mom’s family cooked for them. They always said thank you.

When the Americans came, her town was liberated from the nice Germans and they got to be French again.

Oh, and those nice Germans put her brother, the priest, in a concentration camp for several years.

This is why the Pope keeps telling the Muslims, “We’ll dialogue on human rights, but no on beliefs.” If Muslims can seek justice, there’s a chance of peace between Christianity and Islam. If not, well…

 

[dzheremi]

The fact is there are a lot of different views about what is in the Qur’an among Muslims, just as there is a lot of different views about how to properly interpret the Bible. There is also no shortage of violent or offensive (by modern standards at least) stuff in the Qur’an (beat your wife when she disobeys, etc). I don’t see what is served by hostile non-Muslims cherry-picking those verses, & ignoring any that might have a different or more ambivalent message in order to posit an essential Islam that is violent and threatening. They think they’re telling it like it is, I think they’re simplifying something complicated (a religion, after all) in order to justify their aggressive stance.

Fair enough. I do not see the harm in pointing out the explanations of Islamic sources about offending verses, though. Of course these are the ones that Christians are concerned with, as when there is Islamically-inspired violence against Christians and other non-Muslims (and I’m not saying that this video is an example of that, mind you), which does happen, it is verses such as these that are used as justification of that violence, with the agreement and permission of Islamic scholars. If you want to call that “cherry-picking” then that’s fine with me. It doesn’t change the fact that the verses are there and that any verses that may be contrary to them (encouraging good treatment of non-Muslims) are not exactly a stumbling block to the persecution of Christians and other non-Muslim minorities, as we have seen over and over again throughout world history.

No, but we have a stake (I hope) in telling the truth and being fair. That’s my only concern here. I’m sad that you think that makes me an apologist for something.

I am not without my own history of defending what others here have condemned with regard to Islam, as I’m sure you must have seen at different points in my posting history. It is something that I do not shy away from, even though I too have been accused of being an apologist for Islam. However, this matter is not one that I think is defensible, different interpretations of verses nonwithstanding. Especially in the light of the explanation posted by Jakasaki…would you also say that the Muslims who wrote that are “hostile” and “cherry-picking”? I just think you are giving Islam too much rope here, that’s all.

Actually, I think some Muslim scholars did release just such a document last year.

That’s excellent. Do you know its title and authorship? I would like to read it, if possible.

Precisely. Does it foster respect and goodwill to disrupt some other religion’s meeting by going into it with a camera in hand and using Michael Moore-like tactics to embarrass them? Do you really think Acts17 had some other intention than that? Look at his website.

No, you’re right, it doesn’t, but I’m not sure if that is a correct interpretation of the video. Granted, I don’t presume to know Acts17’s intentions, and since they are now posting here I’ll let them address that if they feel so inclined. However, I will say that even if they did intend to embarrass Muslims in that video, that absolutely does not excuse the treatment they received. Like it or not, what they did does seem to have been completely legal, and the response from the “security” at the festival perhaps less so.

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t think that’s necessarily true.

OK. I do. That does not mean that every Muslim has a superiority complex or interprets the Qur’an in such a way so as to create hatred or subjugation of all non-Muslims or anything like that. I have plenty of Muslim friends who have never given me the slightest indication that they believe anything like that. At the same time, there are Muslims out there who do interpret their Qur’an in that way, using verses about non-Muslims as “proof” of the correctness of their interpretation. For the life of me, I do not see where they would get their ideas or how they would sustain them outside of the Qur’an and, to a lesser extent, the Hadith. Especially when they say that they believe this because it is in the Qur’an! I believe them, and I believe those with less problematic interpretations. There are, after all, different types of Muslims out there.

Ironically, I think that’s precisely what the people who set up polemical anti-Islamic websites want to do to Muslims, either here or abroad. That’s why I think it’s important to oppose them. I think they have more in common with the Third Reich (the m.o. being taking a fairly helpless minority, negatively stereotyping them and then scaring everyone about them in order to attain political goals) than the other way around. Not to split hairs, they’re demagogues.

I in no way agree with the idea that Muslims are a “fairly helpless” minority, though they are often stereotyped and demonized to an extent that is appalling. Just so we’re clear, I was in no way talking about the owners of any given website. Sadly, the people most often oppressed by Islam, Christians and Muslims alike, are generally without sufficient access to media resources or other means to secure their rights. Evangelical Christian websites generally have little in common, ideologically, with the approach towards Islam that Christian minorities within Muslim-majority or Islamic countries take. I wouldn’t even begin to think I’m doing any Christian in Palestine, Sudan, Kuwait or anywhere else outside of the West any favors by setting up a flagrantly Muslim-baiting website. That’s not really my point here.

 

[tomarin]

That’s excellent. Do you know its title and authorship? I would like to read it, if possible.

This website claims to be the “official” website of the document; I haven’t spent any time examining the content of the website, but it does have a link to the pdf of the text of “A common word between you and me”.

 

[sedonaman]

This website claims to be the “official” website of the document; I haven’t spent any time examining the content of the website, but it does have a link to the pdf of the text of “A common word between you and me”.

This website has a number of links to various groups’ responses, evaluations, questions, and comments on the Muslim letter. Particularly interesting is the story of the Hartford Seminary’s attempt at evangelizing Muslims.

I’d be interested in knowing what you both think.

 

[slyboots]

This is the USA. If the Muslims were to come to a St Patrick’s Day gathering or Jewish Festival or my parish’s St John the Baptist day picnic, they are within their rights. They can ask questions. They can debate as long as they do not come to fight.
In other words, reversing that, Acts 17 has the right to go to an Arab festival, ask questions and debate as long as they are not fighting. I never saw the Acts 17 people lay one blow on anyone. I did see the security for the Arab festival hit at the people from Acts 17. they attempted to damage the camera as well.
I do not know from the information we have been given thus far by whose authority the Arab festival security acted. If it was the planners and participants in the boots, then all of them are culpable for denying Americans rights we have as free citizens. If it was just the security guards then the fault is theirs.
We are still a free nation. We can gather in any public place and talk. We CAN proselitize anywhere without legal interference. Sometimes it is best not to do so in certain places as that only provokes and defeats the purpose.
But Acts 17 did nothing legally wrong. And the security guards clearly did.

 

[sedonaman]

…
If the Muslims were to come to a St Patrick’s Day gathering or Jewish Festival or my parish’s St John the Baptist day picnic, they are within their rights.

I disagree. The word “right” has been grossly overworked. It has been used even to mean “authority”, as in “The government has the ‘right’ to do X.”

Muslims might have the privileged to attend your events, but what gives them the right to go onto private property? Big difference.

We can gather in any public place and talk. We CAN proselitize [sic] anywhere without legal interference. …

Sorry to disagree again, but neither of these statements is true [see my post # 34 here

…].

 

[dzheremi]

This website claims to be the “official” website of the document; I haven’t spent any time examining the content of the website, but it does have a link to the pdf of the text of “A common word between you and me”.

Ahhh, yes…I know this particular document well, and the response posted by Sedonaman, too. I thought perhaps there was some new document.

I personally am not moved by the document, and share many of the same concerns voiced in pieces by the folks at the “Answering Islam” site. Despite any intention of any individual signatory, it seems like it is asking a lot of Christians, and in a way that is not forthright and so does not inspire trust from me. I have advised other people against viewing too hopefully on those grounds, and a careful reading of it lends itself to a cautious response, and not necessarily cautiously optimistic at that.

 

[cthulhubryan]

OK, do you have a source for Khomeini saying this?

Sure. It is from his book Tahrirolvasyleh. He goes on to say that after you schtumpf the livestock you should kill it if you orgasm into it but not to sell the meat to your village but to the next village over.

 

[Hadi]

Sure. It is from his book Tahrirolvasyleh. He goes on to say that after you schtumpf the livestock you should kill it if you orgasm into it but not to sell the meat to your village but to the next village over.

You should have stated that he is Shia …which is a minority in the Islamic world…and even many Shia disagree with him.

therefore the quote means nothing to the 85% of the Muslims

 

[cthulhubryan]

This is the USA. If the Muslims were to come to a St Patrick’s Day gathering or Jewish Festival or my parish’s St John the Baptist day picnic, they are within their rights. They can ask questions. They can debate as long as they do not come to fight.
In other words, reversing that, Acts 17 has the right to go to an Arab festival, ask questions and debate as long as they are not fighting. I never saw the Acts 17 people lay one blow on anyone. I did see the security for the Arab festival hit at the people from Acts 17. they attempted to damage the camera as well.
I do not know from the information we have been given thus far by whose authority the Arab festival security acted. If it was the planners and participants in the boots, then all of them are culpable for denying Americans rights we have as free citizens. If it was just the security guards then the fault is theirs.
We are still a free nation. We can gather in any public place and talk. We CAN proselitize anywhere without legal interference. Sometimes it is best not to do so in certain places as that only provokes and defeats the purpose.
But Acts 17 did nothing legally wrong. And the security guards clearly did.

We must be sure in how we use terms in any discussion.
Let’s start with the term ‘right’ and ‘rights’ as a legal term (not in direction)

If the Muslim festival was held on any sort of public grounds, areas funded by the tax payer without paying a sizable fee to the city then the general public has a ‘right’ to attend.

As this is a public event then anyone is free to discuss any legal items assuming they do not fall into the ‘incite to riot’ or ‘endangering the public safety’ provisions. It is, after all, perfectly legal to go to the theater and it is perfectly legal to discuss fire, but yelling fire in a crowded theater is ‘endangering the public safety’.

Therefore any discussion or material that is free from any profane or threatening language is legal to be distributed in such a public event. It is perfectly legal to distribute a pamphlet saying “top 10 reasons Muslims should convert to Christianity” where as pamphlets saying “top 10 reasons %$^&*% Muslims should convert” or “Death to Muslims” would not be legal.

Therefore if the city of Dearborn acted to suppress such free actions, the city is in gross violation of the civil rights of all involved. The rights of Christians to raise such discussion items and the rights of the Muslims to hear such things. It is equally legal for any Muslim to ignore such proselytization.

If the organizers of the Muslim festival did not pay the required fees to make this a non public event then they are themselves guilty of assault since their employees (whether paid or not) did commit crimes against the public. They also find themselves in a very actionable position regarding civil liabilities due to their acts. If they did not pay the fees to make this a non-public event then the city of Dearborn and/or the state of Michigan is required to take action against these criminals.

The next term is privilege. If the organizers paid the requisite fees to make this a non public event then they have the privilege of setting certain ground rules which the city should have posted up front. If this is the case then the Acts 17 people were not within their ‘rights’ to proselytize and were in fact violating the privilege of being there.
However, privilege does not apply to acts of physical aggression beyond the absolute minimum amount of force required to eject someone who is in violation of the set privilege from the grounds. In no case is the attempted destruction of private property allowed by those enforcing the privilege allowed unless such private property is used in an illegal manner (such as attempting to use a knife or gun in an area where such weapons are not allowed), or the violator is using what would normally be protected property in an unlawful manner (attempting to strike someone with a cane or umbrella, for example)

Since the neither the OP nor the article makes it clear what type of arrangements the organizers of the event had with the city, it is not possible to draw any conclusions other than the fact that the ‘guards’ striking people and attempting to destroy a camera are clear violations of the law which both the guards and the organizers are liable (the organizers merely civilly but the guards both civilly and criminally)

 

[Ghoti]

Sure. It is from his book Tahrirolvasyleh. He goes on to say that after you schtumpf the livestock you should kill it if you orgasm into it but not to sell the meat to your village but to the next village over.

So is this still halal, then?

 

[sedonaman]

We must be sure in how we use terms in any discussion.
Let’s start with the term ‘right’ and ‘rights’ as a legal term (not in direction)

If the Muslim festival was held on any sort of public grounds, areas funded by the tax payer without paying a sizable fee to the city then the general public has a ‘right’ to attend.

As this is a public event then anyone is free to discuss any legal items assuming they do not fall into the ‘incite to riot’ or ‘endangering the public safety’ provisions. It is, after all, perfectly legal to go to the theater and it is perfectly legal to discuss fire, but yelling fire in a crowded theater is ‘endangering the public safety’.

Therefore any discussion or material that is free from any profane or threatening language is legal to be distributed in such a public event. It is perfectly legal to distribute a pamphlet saying “top 10 reasons Muslims should convert to Christianity” where as pamphlets saying “top 10 reasons %$^&*% Muslims should convert” or “Death to Muslims” would not be legal.

Therefore if the city of Dearborn acted to suppress such free actions, the city is in gross violation of the civil rights of all involved. The rights of Christians to raise such discussion items and the rights of the Muslims to hear such things. It is equally legal for any Muslim to ignore such proselytization.

If the organizers of the Muslim festival did not pay the required fees to make this a non public event then they are themselves guilty of assault since their employees (whether paid or not) did commit crimes against the public. They also find themselves in a very actionable position regarding civil liabilities due to their acts. If they did not pay the fees to make this a non-public event then the city of Dearborn and/or the state of Michigan is required to take action against these criminals.

The next term is privilege. If the organizers paid the requisite fees to make this a non public event then they have the privilege of setting certain ground rules which the city should have posted up front. If this is the case then the Acts 17 people were not within their ‘rights’ to proselytize and were in fact violating the privilege of being there.
However, privilege does not apply to acts of physical aggression beyond the absolute minimum amount of force required to eject someone who is in violation of the set privilege from the grounds. In no case is the attempted destruction of private property allowed by those enforcing the privilege allowed unless such private property is used in an illegal manner (such as attempting to use a knife or gun in an area where such weapons are not allowed), or the violator is using what would normally be protected property in an unlawful manner (attempting to strike someone with a cane or umbrella, for example)

Since the neither the OP nor the article makes it clear what type of arrangements the organizers of the event had with the city, it is not possible to draw any conclusions other than the fact that the ‘guards’ striking people and attempting to destroy a camera are clear violations of the law which both the guards and the organizers are liable (the organizers merely civilly but the guards both civilly and criminally)

This put some meat on the bones of my point. Thx.

 

[abirdrrl]

It is clear from the video that the “persecution” that Mr. Acts 17 faced was a self fulfilled prophecy. He came in looking for a fight, and he got it. Videotaping and yelling at people with an angry face usually doesn’t result in people being happy. Yelling “this is* America*” in a condescending fasion as if Muslim Americans aren’t American probably didn’t help either. Especially when it’s a well-established precedent in this country that free speech can be restricted to certain zones at public events, which is what the security guards were telling him. The one security guard who continued to hit the camera was definately out of line, but kicking the crew of antagonists out of the event was not.

 

[tomarin]

This website has a number of links to various groups’ responses, evaluations, questions, and comments on the Muslim letter. Particularly interesting is the story of the Hartford Seminary’s attempt at evangelizing Muslims.

I’d be interested in knowing what you both think.

Looks interesting, Sedonaman. I haven’t had a chance to do more than skim, but the Hartford Seminary story was certainly ironic.

 

[sedonaman]

It is clear from the video that the “persecution” that Mr. Acts 17 faced was a self fulfilled prophecy. He came in looking for a fight, and he got it.

And the Muslims were stupid enough to give it to him. They put up a sign saying they would answer questions. It didn’t appear they even gave him a chance to ask one. Why do they find it difficult to engage in honest debate?

 

[cthulhubryan]

So is this still halal, then?

As Hadi pointed out Khomeini was a shia and so even most of the Muslim world disagreed with him.