At 41,000 square feet, the recently completed Old Apostolic Lutheran worship center in Woodland, Wash., surely classifies as a "mega church." The two-story edifice includes two lobbies, a large sanctuary, two multipurpose rooms, an extensive nursery, a massive dining hall, and lower level and balcony seating. Its congregation has swelled to more than 5,000 parishioners -- a number too big for the church's other two sites to accommodate -- and so the new location seemed to be a necessary solution.
Construction of the church was not a small task. After all, the house of worship is the size of a small department store. Over the course of more than ten years, community volunteers poured their time, money and energy into the project's completion and in April of this year, worshippers gathered for the first service.
Notably absent from this process were boisterous naysayers. There were no cries of "creeping Christian law" or conspiratorial narratives proclaiming a Lutheran takeover of America. The church's leadership was not attacked, there were no suggestions that clergy would brainwash the Sunday faithful with violent teachings, nor was there a resistance movement mobilized to protest the erection of the building's first pylon. But why would there be? Such hostilities are apparently only reserved for Muslims who, upon seeking to build similar worship places throughout the country, face unbridled scrutiny, skepticism, defiance and even violence.
In the last two weeks in particular, strong anti-Muslim sentiment has resurfaced in the United States over plans for the construction of mosques in Tennessee, Wisconsin, California and Illinois. Opponents have crawled out of the woodwork to combat what they view as monster mosques -- buildings that are symptomatic of growing Muslim madness.
The feverish tantrums that erupted in 2012 over plans for the Park51 Islamic Community Center, the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque," festered and spread outwards from Manhattan and into the heartland of America. Other local projects to build mosques got swept up in the flood of Islamophobia and were targeted and attacked by Tea Party activists, GOP politicians, evangelical religious leaders and right-of-center citizens who espoused negative views of Islam and Muslims. In Murfreesboro, vandals spray-painted the words "not welcome" across a sign announcing plans for the construction of an Islamic center. Later, arsonists attempted to burn the mosque down before it was ever built, setting fire to four pieces of equipment that were housed on the property. In Temulca, Calif., agitators shouted racist slogans through bullhorns and held up signs that said "No More Mosques in America." Some even brought dogs to the protest, hoping to offend Muslim sensibilities.
Though the controversy eventually simmered down (bouts of hate like these often operate cyclically), it did not go away completely. It was like a vein at the surface, ready to be tapped the minute political, economic or social anxieties flared.
Now, though, reemerging opposition to mosques is being refracted through a different, more strategic, lens. Those challenging the construction of Muslim places of worship in Tennessee, Connecticut and Minnesota, for example, claim that their disapproval isn't really about Islam, but about things like land, zoning ordinances, parking issues and legal codes. They say they are not Islamophobic but rather, are concerned about the well-being of their city and honoring the laws that are in place regarding things like construction and traffic.
To be blunt: Bull excrement has never had such a stench.
Maybe some individuals harbor realistic concerns about things like traffic and zoning, but by and large, these issues are being used to advance an anti-Muslim agenda and deflect such labels as "Islamophobe."
The St. Anthony, Minnesota, City Council's recent rejection of a proposed Islamic center on issues of "zoning" marks the first time in 7 years that a house of worship has been blocked by the local government. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has asked the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate anti-Muslim bias in the decision. During a hearing to determine the project's fate, some citizens made it crystal clear that their concerns over the legal issues were fronts for a deeper hatred of Islam. Several residents disparaged the Muslim faith and said that it was not welcome in their town. One man said the religion was "evil" and embraces violence.
In Tennessee, Rutherford County Chancellor Robert Corlew ruled that construction approval for the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro was void and agreed with mosque opponents who said that there was not sufficient public notice of the meeting where construction had been approved two years earlier. (What this signals, apparently, is that while the laws were quite valid, as was the initial approval, those laws don't matter because they didn't allow enough time for a full-blown hysteria to erupt and thwart the process altogether). Two years earlier, a string of witnesses questioned whether or not Islam was a legitimate religion and claimed that the mosque would be a command center for the spread of Sharia law. While construction of the mosque may still continue, no one can move in.
In Norwalk, Conn., a the Zoning Commission chalked up a similar argument, denying construction of a mosque because it was "out of scale and does not allow for adequate screening and buffering."
This latest adoption of a legalistic tone is identical to the Sharia scare and the advancement of anti-Sharia laws in states like Kansas. When Islamophobes knew they couldn't win on their anti-Muslim rhetoric (Oklahoma's anti-Sharia law was declared unconstitutional for that reason), they removed specific references to Islam or Muslims and proceeded to push the bills through halls of power using language that was more likely to gain traction and eventuate in passage based on technicalities.
If not for zoning ordinances, public notice, and parking issues, would the opposition be okay with the construction of these mosques? Absolutely not. They would search for another leg on which to stand, no matter how shaky.
Things like "stealth jihad" and "creeping Sharia" will not come out of these mosques. That's because they do not exist. What does exist, though, is growing Islamophobia and those who are willing to take their animosity towards Muslims and Islam to whatever end is necessary in order to discriminate against them.
They warn about a minority religion that seeks to erode the rights and freedoms and civil liberties of peace-promoting, apple-pie eating Americans. But in the end, it is they who have hijacked our legal system, using things like parking lots and traffic flows as convenient smokescreens for their hatred of Muslims and as weapons of discrimination against a group of people who are being denied their constitutional right to worship freely.
Follow Nathan Lean on Twitter: www.twitter.com/nathanlean
James Zogby: A Big Election for Arab Americans
Tampa Parents Protest Islamic Radical in Schools
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SroI9-oRixA&feature=player_embedded#!
Reza Aslan pro Mslm brotherhood:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/01/31/muslim-brotherhood-egypt-christian-conservatives-us
Reza Aslan dismissed fears that the Muslim Brotherhood is a radical group that could take Egypt in a theocratic direction should strongman Hosni Mubarak be forcibly ousted from power, even though members of the Brotherhood have expressed admiration for Osama bin Laden.
[T]he Brotherhood even continues to lionize Osama bin Laden. In 2008, for example, “Supreme Guide” Muhammad Mahdi Akef lauded al-Qaeda’s emir, saying that bin Laden is not a terrorist at all but a “mujahid,” a term of honor for a jihad warrior.
Why? Because at the very heart of Islam, Saudi Arabia, there is no freedom of religion.
"But the vast majority of mosques are supported by Muslim Americans themselves. Domestic funding reflects the desire of many U.S. Muslims to be independent of overseas influences. Long before Sept. 11, 2001, in the midst of a growing clash of interests between some Muslim-majority nations and the U.S. government -- during the Persian Gulf War, for instance -- Muslim American leaders decided that they must draw primarily from U.S. sources of funding for their projects."
"There certainly have been instances in which foreign funds, especially from Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf region, have been used to build mosques in the United States. The Saudi royal family, for example, reportedly gave $8 million for the building of the King Fahd Mosque, which was inaugurated in 1998 in Culver City, a Los Angeles suburb."
Besides, the article suggests that there is a trend towards asserting independence from foreign governments and it has been so for a long time - I would say for at-least about 3 decades or so if not more. Obviously African American mosques are a completely different story as they were always a local American phenomenon.
Another FYI - and more education for you to help you out here - as someone who knows and has an idea I can tell you that Sufism will make a resurgence in the next decade or two in America.
Of-course by then some bigots will stop harping on about creeping sharia and sing a different tune. Sufism seen as a panacea now to the apparently rigid, legalistic, dogmatic nature of Islamism / Sharia / Salafism will not be seen as such by the paranoid.
"That's from the 14th century. Most Muslims say they have never heard of it."
- I will prove to you that those "most" don't know their own rel!g!on well.
Here are some facts on "Reliance of the Traveller":
1- "Reliance of the Traveller" is not just any book. It is .... THE .... classic manual of Islamic law based on the Shafi'i school. [1]
2- It was translated by an famous theologian Nuh Ha Mim Keller, who was authorised by Abd al-Rahman al-Shaghouri as a sheikh in sufism in the Shadhili Order. He is one of the foremost Muslim theologians and experts on Sufism in the West. [1]
3- It is the first Islamic legal work in a European language to receive the certification of Al-Azhar University. This translation has led to this work becoming influential among Western Muslims. [1]
4- The Reliance of the Traveller touches almost every aspect of classical Islamic identity. [2]
[1]
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340275893&sr=8-1&keywords=Reliance+of+the+Traveller
[2]
http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=2240&CATE=389
By "classical Islamic identity", I mean those things that haven't changed for the past several hundred years. Modern issues are an important part of contemporary Islamic identity, but addressing them without a firm footing in classical scholarship is like building a space shuttle without studying Newtonian mechanics.
References in points 2&3 should be [3]
[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuh_Ha_Mim_Keller
How many Christians would be familiar with "THE .... classic manual of Canon law"?
Most people, in most religions, indeed, don't know much of the legal or technical specifics of their religion -- which doesn't seem to affect their ability to practice it (most people, in most religions, have fairly simple lives, religiously-speaking).
What I disagree with, is the attempt by some commenters, to attempt to promote the specific fiqh (laws) from Reliance of the Traveller as being specific laws that many / most Muslims would like to see implemented in any place where they can make that happen.
That's observably false, and that assertion has no factual basis, whatsoever - it's an anti-Islam fabrication.
If any Muslims feel that way, it would be the ultra-minority of ultra-conservative Salafists (and/or their Shiite equivalents) that we all agree present significant problems, in various ways.
The approach mentioned above also demonstrates unfamiliarity with what following a Madhab (school of law) means, for Muslims. Madhabs are intended to be systems; frameworks - somewhat analogous to Constitutional law. Supporting Constitutional law doesn't mean that someone wants the specific laws of the land from 1789 reinstated; it also doesn't mean that there's 100% agreement on what "following the Constitution" even means.
Finally, following a madhab is an individual choice, and most Muslims, in the U.S., at least, don't seem to do so.
You make a good point. The vast majority of people of any faith do not go to a text to learn about their religion. Their knowledge of how to practice is largely based on communal practice and examples which includes a part of going back to text.
For most religion is not about replicating the words of a text in their lives but how to develop a relationship with God (however you conceive of Him/Her) and a how to develop a relationship with the memory of the various Prophets and Saints.
Always going back to text is a very modern and erroneous understanding of religion. Religion like other spheres of human activity such as poetry or music is lived reality and memory more than mimicking texts.
"Reliance of the Traveller" is still the classic manual of Islamic law based on the Shafi'i school. No one disputes this fact.
If you wish to challenge the position of "Reliance of the Traveller" then you will have to provide references that clearly state so. Your opinion is just that ... your own.
If I say any responsible sane person claims to be of a certain faith (a devil worshiper for example) then he is saying that he stand for all what that faith represents. Thus ignorance of the law is NO excuse for any one. Especially when the law is recognized and applicable by the highest leaders.
My point, regarding your question as to where the money was coming from, was exactly that:
You can either ask such a question of all religious construction projects, or none of them -- i.e. everybody has to play by the same rules as everybody else.
I can write dozens of articles avoiding the main questions that is on people's minds, such as:
'Where is all the money coming from?'
'What are their policies regarding the distribution of Saudi and other inflammatory material?'
'What are their policies regarding verifying an appointee's record and points of view?'
Et Cetera.
Let me write one that goes straight from point A, which is
A) Old Apostolic Lutherans have built a Church the size of a small department store to accommodate a congregation that was spilling out of two different locations.
To point B), which is
B) Muslims should be able to build (without any questions asked) mega mosques in Tennessee, Wisconsin, California and Illinois ...
'Where is all the money coming from?'
'What are their policies regarding the distribution of Saudi and other inflammatory material?'
'What are their policies regarding verifying an appointee's record and points of view?'
For anyone who wants more information on the well-funded professional network of anti-Islam pundits and bloggers spreading misinformation about Muslims and Islam in the U.S., please see:
Fear, Inc.
The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/08/pdf/islamophobia.pdf
Manufacturing The Muslim Menace
Private Firms, Public Servants, & the Threat to Rights and Security
http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/training/Muslim_Menace_Complete.pdf
Jihad Against Islam
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/summer
Unless we ask the same question of churches, Hindu temples, synagogues, etc., we can't reasonably ask that question here.
The difference between you and me: I don't want Salafist Saudi money or other questionable sources influencing my community. You're clearly all for it.
========
I think it is.
Islamic doctrine criminalizes a free market in the competition for followers. The principle of reciprocity suggests that we should not extend to others what they do not offer in return.
Is that a problem for you?
a complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military
components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other
components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to
agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies
agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the
other components tend to creep in as well.
Maybe do some reading from mainstream (as opposed to anti-Islam) sources, and fact-check everything you read or hear about Islam or Muslims.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/sharia_1.shtml
"The Sharia covers all aspects of human life. Classical Sharia manuals are often divided into four parts: laws relating to personal acts of worship, laws relating to commercial dealings, laws relating to marriage and divorce, and penal laws."
"For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way.
Qur'an" (5:48)
"Today I have perfected your way of life (din) for you, and completed My favour upon you, and have chosen Islam as your way of life." (Qur'an, 5:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
Sharia law is the moral code and religious law of Islam. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. Though interpretations of sharia vary between cultures, in its strictest definition it is considered the infallible law of God—as opposed to the human interpretation of the laws (fiqh).
ka ching.... That was what we used to be call being blindsided.
Really? Perhaps you'd better tell that to Mr Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey, who obviously misunderstands the function of mosques. He said : "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers..." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2270642.stm
1930's -1960 's it was Jewish time in America...now moslems time...A Rabbi friend,told me that Jews were not accepted in certain schools,or neighbourhoods ...7 Million Jews were killed by Germans for the world to see really ..Do we need similar approach to understand Islamic religion? Mr. Netanyahu said in his speech at the UN all three Abrahamic religions are same. We bleed,.we pray, (format is different) we want the same....have you no shame..at least take good look at it...before you condemn it.
There are murderers in America..are all Americans killers? US soldiers were posing in Iraq over dead bodies, are all US soldiers like that? ... Germans are now they are our best friends...how is that possible? ....Russians, Slavs are famous with their pogroms against Jews...is this mean they are the enemies of USA because America protects Israel. Turks were one of the first nations who recognized Israel as a nation and when Israel had hard times there were Turkish ships carrying food items to Israel without any return....Do you really think all Islamic people.... are bad... I am sure we are not that single minded.
- As a poem is considered verbal jihad!
B) What does Erdogan, the PM of Turkey, who is not even a religious authority, but a head of state have to do with a mosque in Tennessee?
C) Give me a single example of religious extremism that has poured out of Turkey which you can attribute to Erdogan.
B) There is no such thing as a "religious authority" in Islam. By his popularity as an Islamist leader, he "commands the faithful" as much as the religious figures who can't agree on anything except what is to happen to America and Israel.
C) The Flotilla was an example of Islamism. They are obsessed with Israel-Palestine, while ignoring what they have done to the Kurds, and their own occupation of Cypress.
D) Your support for Erdogan in Turkey, a place you have nothing to do with, because he is an Islamist -- and his Islamism -- is interesting.
Welcome to our big, gay world of Christian love and christian respect.
Just because Iran is so oppressive, the people in the U.S. who need to do so shouldn't learn to be less prejudiced and more respectful of all its citizens?
That doesn't make any sense.
This is the United States of America ... people engaging in fabrication-based prejudice need to be called out on it.
But you know, I think it is very telling about the mindset of a certain class of Christian when the best they can come up with to their actions and attitudes towards gay people is...
AT LEAST WE'RE NOT AS BAD AS THE MUSLIMS!
Very telling.
And very sad.