Suhail
I want to thank the
Harbour League, especially Eli Gold and Mark Hyman, for hosting
this event. I thought the debate went very well, and I hope
the attendees learned that the vast majority of our country’s
over six million Americans of the Muslim faith, and the world’s
over one billion Muslims, are indeed people who dream to live
their lives in peace. Americans of the Muslim faith, like
their fellow Americans, continue to seek “life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness” and have been doing so since before
our country achieved our independence.
The debate did much to expose the real agenda of those who,
as they did so in the past regarding Catholics, Jews, blacks,
Asians, and sadly so many others, seek to divide our nation
through fear and hatred. Yesterday, the racists went after
Catholic schools and Jewish-owned businesses. Today, some
are attempting to scare us into thinking that Muslims are
trying to impose shariah, or jurisprudence based on Islamic
scripture and tradition, on society as a whole. This is a
red herring. Those promulgating such fear know this is a fallacy.
And anyone attempting to impose their religious beliefs on
anyone else is protected by our Constitution. They know this,
but attempt to scare and divide Americans. We’ve overcome
such hateful tactics so many times before, and I’m confident
we’ll do so again
Suhail
Khan's Prepared Remarks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh
This is an important topic of dicussion, even if the premise
might be a little off-putting to more sober-minded individuals.
To be sure, we have been victimized by a brutal enemy that
cloaks itself in the language and justification of religion.
But as Suhail pointed out, not only is our demonization of
the religion they invoke wrong and wrongheaded, it is also
counter-productive. Anti-Muslim propaganda and wars against
Islamo-facism, spearheaded by Gaffney and others who tend
to use language and faux-reasoning eerily reminiscent of the
true fascists, feeds right into the strategy of the true enemy,
Al-Qaida. When the West responds by seeing Al-Qaida's pseudo-religious
invective and raising it twenty, everyday Muslims, already
offended by perceived Western arrogance by invading and promoting
war in Muslim nations such as Iraq with no apparent justification,
are more likely not only to by Al-Qaida's diagnosis, but it's
brutal and inhuman prescription for a cure. Thank God for
voices of reason like Suhail, who's wisdom and cool-headedness
shows him to be the true patriot in this discussion.
Moreover, may his voice be carried much more widely. Any cursory
understanding of history demonstrates that all people of faith
have been demonized because of their faith, usually for untoward
objectives. The particular brand of Muslim-bogeyman bashing
that we see today strikes a familiar, and chilling chord.
Long before World War II Jews were identified as a fifth column--as
enemies of nationalism and the nation state for supposedly
maintaining allegianes to each other and their own political
objectives than to their respective nation states. A similar
specious, and frankly evil, rhetoric has evolved around Muslims
in the West. This is wrong and as Suhail pointed out, it only
fuels our true enemy, an evil political ideology that is the
bane of most Muslims, even those who take deep exception to
our foreign policy vis-a-vis Islamic interests.
The bottom line is that Gaffney et al make us less safe, not
more so. He is not exposing some truth that really a whole
population is evil and hell bent on our destruction. He instead
appeals to our deepest fears and does what all master inciters--whether
it be against Muslims, Christians, Blacks, Arabs, or Jews--do:
Cast another people as "other" and come up with far-fetched
arguments to support these claims.
We should follow Suhail's lead instead and promote an inclusive
discourse, not a divisive one. The long and short of it is
that Muslims came to this country for the same reason that
the first pilgrims did--to freely practice their religion.
And Islam adopted humanitarian principles hundreds of years
before Magna Carta and implemented them over a thousand years
before the West. If we bothered to give Islam a fair shake,
we might be surprised to find that there is no such thing
as a Judeo-Christian ethic. Rather, there is a Judeo-Christian-Islamic
ethic: A common world view joining all believers in the great
three Abrahamic faiths. And a common ethic shapic American
constitutionalism and culture. If we recognized such a simple
and beautiful truth, it would be very hard indeed for Osama
Bin Laden and his droogs to continually point to our exclusion
and "persecution" of Muslims as evidence that we are "The
Great Satan." If only we had more voices like Suhail Khan's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt
I greatly enjoyed this debate. I think Mr. Khan is an excellent
spokesman for his faith. He rightly admonished us not to fall
into the trap of zenophobia and intolerance when looking at
Islam in this country. As the decendent of Italian immigrants,
I was struck by how Mr. Gaffney's tone echoed
the nativist voices of the 19th and early 20th century who
warned of the corrupting influence of Italian and Eastern
Eurpoean Jewish immigration into this country. The intolent
and zenophobic people of that time were proven dead wrong.
I am confident that their heirs who today rail against Muslims
will be
proven equally wrong.
I was disturbed by Mr. Gaffney's attacks against Mr. Kahn's
deceased father. Did Mr. Gaffney know him or has he ever attended
the mosque where Mr. Khan worshipped. I strongly suspect that
the answer to both questions is no. I feel it was entirely
inappropriate for Mr. Gaffney to engage in such scurrilous
personal attacks against Mr. Kahn. They did not further his
point and, in fact, greatly detracted from his credibility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc
Comments - Having read the speakers comments, I felt
the remarks by Mr. Khan were on point and well done. As a
life long Christian I believe that we have an obligation to
teach our fellow man that religion is evolving, and just Christianity,
Islam has evolved as well and is still evolving and changing.
To say that the entire Muslim relgion is against peace because
of terrorist acts is as absurd as saying that Christianity
is against peace because of the Crusades, or Judiasm because
of the persecution of Christians in ancient times. We must
understand religion in the context of history.
Religion is evolving and every
religion has extremist elemnts within it. It is the duty of
every relgion to ensure that it achieves the goal of relgion:
to come closer to, and improve a relationship with, the Almighty,
thereby improving our lives both here and in the afterlife
for the advancement of all mankind. Why risk alienating the
thousands of Muslims who are non-violent and good, just because
a few criminals have shrouded their crimes in a false claok
of religion? We must teach and lead by example. As a Christian
I look forward to doing just that. MJL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey
Comments - This was an excellent event which I listened to
online. For those of us who are quite familiar with the work
of Frank Gaffney, we know that concise, blunt, edgy commentary
is part of marketing his "brand." When he speaks,
I always learn something. But, having said that, compared
to Suhail Khan, there was a style imbalance, whose debate
temperament is less aggressive.
I believe Suhail's substantive case was diminished somewhat
by this style imbalance. Possibly as a result, my predisposition
to Frank's position is unchanged but, yes, better informed.
Thanks!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill
This was a very significant debate. My opinion after hearing
it was the Shariah Law has NO PLACE in our legal system. Our
Nation was never set up to embrace this very legalistic totalitarian
system. It it interesting to note that Shariah law is not
welcome in many Moslem Countries such as Bande Aceh Indonesia
and Turkey. Our Founding Fathers insisted that no denomination
be endorsed within our political system but the roots of our
legal system were rooted in the Judeo Christian moral code
which does not and Constitutionally cannot embrace a legal
system contrary to this code.
Shariah law is contrary to this code because it would inject
a parallel legal system devoid of equity and contrary to our
Constitutional principles. Although I am somewhat famialiar
with Shariah Law, both debaters did not adequately explain
what it is. Terms are critical to discourse. My suggestion
for future debates is that the terms be clearly explained
prior to debate or form an integral part of said debate. Again,
many thanks for putting this on and I look forward to future
topics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen
This event sounded very promising, but turned out to be a
bit disappointing. I think it would have worked with the right
speakers. In order to have a real debate about Islam, you
need to include experts on Islam. Neither speaker qualified,
in my opinion, and having a masters degree in middle eastern
studies from Oxford, I can tell the difference between people
who know the subject and people who do not. I had a question,
and raised my hand to asked it, but then realized that neither
speaker was capable of speaking on the subject.
I think this is a terrific topic idea, but can only work if
the appropriate speakers are invited. The organization's reputation
depends on such proper planning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Sass
Pipes on "Counting Islamists" in the Jerusalem Post
Excellent reference data link below]. I am sorry I did not
have it prior to last weeks meeting put on by The Harbour
League, where Mark Hyman of Fox Tv moderated a debate between
Suhail Khan and Frank Gaffney on the subject --Is Shariah
consistent with a Religion of Peace and the U.S. Constitution.
Suhail, a born American [conservative/pro private
enterprise now with the Dept of Transportation] whose Islamic
family came from India, argued that while there are clear
islamic extremists, they do not represent any significant
part of the religion. He had a printed 'Fatwa Against Violence'
which he said was issued by over 500 individuals in the U.S.
who have the authority to issue such, YET, the press briefing
at the National Press Club in Washington was hardly covered
by any press.
On questions that I raised about NO ISLAMIC leader speaking
out against world wide terror, he said this is a 'political
matter' and not religious. I then pointed out that Islam MERGES
politics and
religion, and he said not necessarily -- as in the islamic
countries that have elected women to significant positions.
Frank had pointed out how Malaysia is tipping and he expects
islam to have a very neagative effect on the country in the
near future -- Suhail on the other had used
Malasia as a place where religion is not taking over, as in
the number of women in major commercial positions -- this
may be a good area to keep an eye on. I am VERY warry, especially
with B.O. being the potial first islamic to be President.
[I see him as islamic, not black, because his race is mixed,
but
islamic law provides {I believe] that anyone born to an islamic
father is islamic unless he publically RENOUNCES the religion
Steve, Baltimore <http://www.danielpipes.org>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salman
Thank you for having this session - I was very impressed by
Suhail Khan and his comments. For too long has our fight against
terrorism, been misdirected and misguided by hateful and racist
zealots who claim to speak for various religions. His sound
reasoning and historical context provided clarity
on an often confused topic. We need to wins hearts and minds
around the world by introducing people to the great benefits
of american liberty and freedom. This can only be done through
fair dialogue and shared values - not by demonizing a whole
faith, whether that be Christianity, Judaism, Islam or others.
Thanks again and God Bless!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam
Comments - Thank you for hosting such an event. It's important
to discuss this topic and clear up the many misconceptions
people have about Islam. It is disappointing, however that
you would invite Frank Gaffney.
He is clearly polished in his bastardization of the teachings
of Islam. It was almost painful to hear. Suhail Khan did an
excellent job in explaining Islam and clearing up the misconceptions.
He is a good example of how Islam is compatible with being
a patriotic American. You should consider inviting him back
or Hamza Yusuf to speak at any related events.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gigi
I was pleased that you hosted the event on the 7th and glad
I could make it to my first Harbor League event - it is a
class act production and you all should be proud of the education
opportunities you are presenting to your membership. However,
I have to admit that I found Mr. Gaffney to be rather disturbing
as he was very myopic in his approach in "discussing"
his view. In fact, there were several times that I heard him
say to his debate partner, you don't know what you're talking
about or you don't know your own religion - which leads me
to believe he could not defend his own thesis by only responding
in that manner.
In addition, while it was refreshing to see so many people
engaged and interested in the discussion, it would have been
nice to have more of a dialogue. I had hoped to ask him to
quantify how he can defend his literal translation of the
Koran to his thesis. I also wanted to understand if he believes
that the Bible is a literal document. If that's the case,
he must believe as a Christian that "whoever sacrifices
to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed." (Exodus
22:21) - literally. Or that "Six days shall work be done,
but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day,
a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein
shall be put to death."(Exodus 35:2) I would also like
to understand how he can rectify the views of the Quaker and
Amish who will not support the constitution and defend our
country in a time of war. His argument was more of a blackhelicopter
conspiracy theory that ALL Muslim's are planning a "silent"
jihad against our government.
I was disappointed in Mr. Gaffney's tactics in his attempt
to defend his thesis and was most disappointed in his referencing
the deceased father of Mr. Khan and more importantly in how
he mentioned him. Very inappropriate.Harbor League, thank
you for hosting the event. And more importantly thank you
for opening my eyes to the small minded view of a portion
of the electorate. Unlike Mr. Gaffney, I do believe that one
can practice their religous beliefs and serve America with
no conflict of interest and I am proud that individuals like
Mr. Khan are willing to take a stand for this cause and stand
up to the myopic view of individuals like Mr. Gaffney. I am
trying to be respectful of Mr. Gaffney, but as most educated
people know you can find a meaning in anything to suit your
thesis. And in this case, it was obvious that his position
was not about defending his thesis, but about continuing his
disparaging remarks about his debate partner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
