A Representation of "Moderate" Islam

It would appear that Imam Feisal Rauf of "Ground Zero Mosque" fame has been replaced by another "moderate" Imam to spearhead the project. Andrew McCarthy explains:

Aaron Klein is the World Net Daily reporter and WABC radio host to whom Imam Feisal Rauf could not bring himself to admit that Hamas is a terrorist organization, an episode I wrote about in a column last week. Mr. Klein has just uncovered a recent recording in which the imam who has replaced Rauf as the face of the Ground Zero Mosque explains that Islam’s sharia law requires the imprisonment of former Muslims who publicly renounce Islam.

“If someone leaves the din, leaves the path privately, they cannot be touched. If someone preaches about apostasy, or preaches their views, they’re jailed,” stated Shaykh Abdallah Adhami, a 44-year-old American and scholar of sharia. His remarks were made in a lecture two months ago.

Here is the moderate part: As Adhami acknowledged, many sharia jurists say that apostates — Muslims who renounce Islam — must be killed. But Adhami maintains that sharia distinguishes between “public” apostates and “private” apostates. Only the former, he says, must be punished and — to be even more moderate about it — they don’t have to be killed . . . just “jailed so they are contained.”

Feel better now? Not surprisingly, this enlightened position on apostasy places Shaykh Adhami close to another well known moderate, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi — the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual adviser who is, as previously noted, is much touted by Imam Rauf.

So, according to this guy, leaving Islam and bad-mouthing it is only punishable by imprisonment instead of execution?  Wow, this guy's really mellowing out.

I'm afraid that Shaykh Abdallah Adhami needs to understand, as an American (which he is) that no such imprisonment for "apostasy" will be taking place in this country.  For him to pose as a "moderate" is futile; the Oscar nominations have already been issued.

In perusing the intertoobs, I came across a "scholarly" article at some site called "Common Ground News Service" which would appear to be some sort of kumbaya site that seeks "common ground" between ritual murderers (Muslims) and victims (non-Muslims).  The article in question is entitled "The Right to Change One's Religion".

In order to make his role as a moderate convincing, he begins by quoting a a Roman Emperor regarding laws against apostasy:

In the renowned code of the Roman emperor Justinian (483-565 CE), corpus juris civilis — the basis of all Roman canon law and of modern civil law — apostasy was "to be punished by death" and there was "no toleration of dissent".

He progresses by referencing the Torah:

The Biblical codes stipulate that the "one who doubts or ridicules one word of the Torah — or of the rabbinical authors — is a 'heretic' in the fullest sense, an infidel ... and there is no hope for him." The laws concerning such an unbeliever are very strict: "he may be killed directly". Or as Maimonides, the 13th century Andalucian rabbi and philosopher, advised regarding the abeyance of apostasy law in his era, "his death may be caused indirectly."

Having laid his foundation, he proceeds to soft pedal sharia law on the same subject:

Islamic law, (shari'a), likewise stipulated killing in cases of established public apostasy. Though there is little literature on the emergence and application of apostasy law in the early periods of Muslim history, its actual application usually depended upon whether its declaration was public or private. Within the Islamic state, what minorities — religious and otherwise — did in their private lives was left to their own discretion, even if it may have been technically termed "deviant" or against Islamic teaching.

Shari'a, like all religious law, governs rites of worship and codes of individual and communal conduct and ethics. Contrary to stereotypical notions of religion, the earthly realm within shari'a is in fact pragmatically understood to be essentially secular.

His point in this charade is to present some moral equivalence between Islam's brutal religious laws and those of Judaism.  He begins with "code of the Roman emperor Justinian " for no reason pertinent to the article.  To my knowledge, there are no people on Earth, at the present time, living according to The Code of Justinian.

The piece continues with Biblical quotes concerning the mortal punishments for heresy and/or ridicule of the Torah.  Again, while the Torah is primary to the Jewish faith, the Jewish people have had the good sense to disregard portions dealing with the killing of one's enemies and the execution of heretics.  Jews have, sensibly, set aside those texts as ones written for an earlier day and no longer applicable to their contemporary relationship with G-d.  The only Jews doing any killing are doing so in self-defense from bloodthirsty Muslims.

On the other hand, the violent texts of the Qur'an are still being followed as they were when they were originally penned. Imam Adhami seems to want to make peace with the modern world, but only within the context of Islam, which still abjectly refuses to forgo murder and violence.  If you would like proof of that, simply look at the current news for the "Middle East" on any given day.

In his article, Imam Adahmi paints a portrait of modern Islam that is so out of touch with reality that it's unrecognizable.  For him to begin his piece with an exercise in Islam's moral equivalence with Roman law and ancient Judaic law is laughable in that Roman law simply no longer exists, and the passages from Judaic law are no longer practiced.

In contrast, even the most violent of the Qur'anic laws are practiced on a daily basis.

Imam Adahmi has chosen to whitewash the very same Qur'an that is used as justification for worldwide bloodshed on a daily basis. The Torah and the Christian Bible both have violent passages, but both Jews and Christians gave up those practices centuries ago. As for Muslims, the blood lust is as acute as it was a millennium ago.

As has been done on a number of previous occasions, Imam Adahmi attempts to give us some sort of sanitized primer of sharia and Qur'anic law that simply does not square with the daily, barbaric, practices that are dictated by that very same law.  Our "Western understanding" of Islam is not the problem, we understand it all to well, and we certainly do not need Imam Adahmi's condescending "explanation" masquerading as scholarly text.