This summer the Richmond Times-Dispatch has joined forces with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Richmond’s rightsidenews 01interfaith religious advocates to wring hands over The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’s (ISIS) brutality and promote the brotherly love of Islam with all peoples.

Read its Aug. 11 editorial “Islamic Relations” on CAIR’s reaction to ISIS and the Aug. 20 op-ed on “Mideast conflict: Would moderates please step forward!”

[Here are links to the 2 editorials]

  1. Editorial: Islamic Relations, Posted: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:30 pm
  2. Guest columnist | Mideast conflict: Would moderates please step forward! Posted: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 10:30 pm By William L. Sachs, Imad Damaj and Joshua Ralston

 

Sadly, these editorials omit a few salient facts that Americans might like to know before making assumptions about moderate Muslims.

On Aug. 11 the Times Dispatch likened CAIR to the American Civil Liberties Union. Omitted in this editorial was proof that CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood organization dedicated to the restoration of the Caliphate and imposition of Shari’a (Islamic law) in the United States, as well as in the rest of the world.

We know CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation 2008 trial for funding Hamas. We know it is a Muslim Brotherhood organization. For proof, look no further than footnote 13 from the 2007-7448 opinion on the Benkahla Case by the U.S. Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit in Virginia.

“Moreover, from its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.”

It is true that the editorial admits that CAIR “has participated in demonstrations to protest Israeli operations in Gaza.” Do you also know that it is a major organizer of such demonstrations?

CAIR Florida recently joined with the Syrian American Council Florida and others to hold a sizeable pro-Hamas, anti-Israel rally in Miami. Demonstrators yelled, “’We are Hamas. We are Jihad.’ and shouted in Arabic, ‘Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jew, Muhammad’s army will return.’ (a reference to a massacre of Jews under the auspices of Islam’s prophet in A.D. 629)” [here is the link for quote]

On Aug. 20 the Times Dispatch published an op-ed asking Muslim moderates to step forward to condemn religious extremism. This op-ed omitted crucial information about Islam that makes it very difficult for moderates to speak. The authors write that ISIS’s “actions contradict central teachings of the Quran and the example of Muhammad and the early caliphs.”

The problem is — they don’t!

The first example they give is that the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq violates the Quranic text: “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Q 2:256)

But it’s only half an example!

To understand it, one must realize that Allah revealed Q 2:256 to Muhammad on his arrival in Medina when he did not have the full support of all sons of the Arab elders. As Muhammad was consolidating his power, Allah gave a new revelation in Q 3:85 “And whoever desires other than Islam as religion — never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.”

And finally, after Muhammad’s power was secure, Allah revealed the duty in Q 9:29 to “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture — fight until they give the jizyah [poll tax] willingly while they are humbled.”

Another deceptive example in the Aug. 20 op-ed omits even more information that shows Muslim intolerance towards non-Muslims. The authors used selective quotes from the 7th century Pact of Caliph Umar to claim that forms of religious freedom and safety of places of worship were offered to Christians and Jews.

Nominally, yes. But actually, religious freedom was very limited. The Pact that non-Muslims were forced to sign includes these other demands:

·       “We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.”

  • “We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it.”

  •  “We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.”

  • “We shall clip the fronts of our heads.”

  •  “We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead.”

  •  “We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.”

  •  “If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.”

[See the Pact of Umar here]

The op-ed authors go even further in obfuscating moderate Islam when they say they “Join our voices with those from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.”

This organization promulgated the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam to the United Nations as a legal document in 1993 and declared that the “Shari’ah of Islam” be the only recognizable authority for human rights.

In other words, Islam is governed by Shari’a and practicing Muslims must always be conscious of its demands for their submission to Allah. That is to say, Muslims have different opinions in regards to the barbarianism of ISIS. On one hand are the jihadis. On the other are the moderate Muslims who seek imposition of Shari’a by peaceful means.

Here is the question to ask the leaders of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists in the Interfaith Council of Greater Richmond. Do your congregations seek to live in an American democracy where laws are manmade, or do they want to live in a new democracy where the muftis’ of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America review laws for Shari’a compliance?

Editorial provided by a concerned citizen in Virginia