Absolutely outrageous. The Anti-Defamation League has released a statement approving of efforts to bar the construction of a Muslim mosque in southern Manhattan, several blocks from the WTC site. While attempting to disassociate themselves from the conceded "bigotry" which they acknowledge animates some of the mosque's opponents, the ADL claims that the site "will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right." "[U]ltimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right."
I submit that it is a question of both, and the precedent that the ADL is adhering to is one that is exceedingly detrimental to the safety and equality of religious minorities worldwide, including Jews.
The ADL's attempt to distinguish folks whose opposition to the mosque is based on "bigotry", and those for whom it isn't, is unavailing. It's all bigotry -- some of it is simply better dressed than others. Restricting the civil rights of a given population because some members of that population committed horrible acts is bigotry per se. There's no getting around it. We might sympathize with folks who -- having been brutally victimized by members of religious group -- are fearful or otherwise antagonistic towards that group as a whole. But such sentiments simply can't be given force of law. To force members of a religious group to bear additional burdens based on the actions of their brethren in faith -- actions which they themselves oppose stridently -- is bigotry in its purest form.
I am literally shaking with rage over this, because I trust the ADL to be there when the rights of religious minorities are threatened. I can no longer do that. That the ADL apparently views Egypt's treatment of its Jews as a model example of religious liberty is disqualifying for them to be taken seriously as a civil rights organization concerned with the fair and egalitarian treatment of all people. Their position on this issue is absolutely unconscionable, and is an embarassment to anyone who truly cares about the rights of religious minorities in the United States and worldwide.
Other commenters:
Greg Sargent: "On this one, you're either with the bigots or you're against them. And ADL has in effect sided with them."
Adam Serwer: "I learned a very important lesson in Hebrew School that I have retained my entire life. If they can deny freedom to a single individual because of who they are, they can do it to anyone."
Tablet Magazine: "Founded in 1913, the ADL, in its words, 'fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.' Except when it does the precise opposite."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
65 comments:
Agreed, this is disgusting. Not the first time the ADL has obviously taken the wrong stance - remember their aversion to acknowledging that the Armenian genocide was actually a genocide, in an effort to curry favor with the Turkish government? I wonder whose favor they're trying to curry now - some right-wing anti-Muslim Jewish donors?
I'm not sure the national leadership deserves much benefit of the doubt, but ADL still does good work locally. Reading charitably, the ADL is merely requesting self-censorship from the builders of community center. Which is a far cry from state suppression of religious minorities.
But still unacceptable. If the concern was really the "pain" surrounding this issue, we'd see consideration for the stigmatization of Muslims in this country. This is all about enabling bigotry.
It would be interesting to know the real reason for the position taken by the ADL. It is not in the group's statement, which is in any event somewhat incoherent.
The ADL may be influenced by people who have dug up some facts which concern the specific people involved in the proposed Cordoba Center, some of whom, it has been claimed, have troubling connections and views.
Absent some compelling state interest, I oppose the government interfering with religious groups. The ADL has not made its case so, at this point, I tend to agree more with David than not.
Then again: it is important to remember that we do not live in ordinary times and assuming that there might not be a real reason, one that has not yet come out (or which the ADL is simply unwilling to express publicly) but which might be compelling, for opposing the Cordoba Center - just as the US government has decided, probably for strategic reasons (which may or may not be correct), to elide mention of words such as "Jihad" from government pronouncements.
So that Joe does not put words and thoughts in my mouth, my position is that, absent a good reason to oppose the Cordoba Center - and none has yet to be expressed -, the ADL is out of line. However, if there is a good reason, I would be interested in learning it but, as of yet, I have not. The closest thing I have heard is that there are some immoderate people involved in the project - or, at least, people with connections who are not moderate.
Correction:
Strike: "Then again: it is important to remember that we do not live in ordinary times and assuming that there might not be a real reason, one that has not yet come out (or which the ADL is simply unwilling to express publicly) but which might be compelling, for opposing the Cordoba Center - just as the US government has decided, probably for strategic reasons (which may or may not be correct), to elide mention of words such as "Jihad" from government pronouncements."
Substitute:
Then again: it is important to remember that we do not live in ordinary times and it is unreasonable to assume that there might not be a real reason, one that has not yet come out (or which the ADL is simply unwilling to express publicly) but which might be compelling, for opposing the Cordoba Center - just as the US government has decided, probably for strategic reasons (which may or may not be correct), to elide mention of words such as "Jihad" from government pronouncements.
That's a pretty conspiratorial post, N., but I'm not out to get you. I do wonder what do these hypothetical connections and views have to do with the center itself. Is it a Secret Jihad Training Facility out of "Liberality for All"? If not, what compelling interest could there be?
Joe,
I merely noted that such has been asserted. See this and see this.
I do not vouch for what Andrew McCarthy claims. However, you can normally bank on the accuracy of mostly everything said by Professor Andrew Bostom. His books are meticulously researched, most particularly his book The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History, which is worth your time to read.
Again: at present, I do not see a compelling reason to preclude the building of a religious facility and what has been discovered sounds mostly like smoke - not fire. I merely note that a compelling reason could exist, depending on facts that may come to light.
N. Friedman, your post might be slightly more convincing if "no fourth-hand terrorist connections" were normally on the checklist of things necessary for a building permit. But they're not. How do we know? The U.S. is full of churches with terrorist connections. And until such time as "no fourth-hand terrorist connections" is standard procedure for anyone wanting to build anything larger than a private house, it's still discrimination, no matter how you dress it up.
Rebecca,
You clearly did not read what I wrote. I was not arguing for banning the the Islamic Center. I was saying that no compelling reason has been shown for banning the center. That is a different thing.
Were there a compelling reason to refuse allowing the center to be built, that would be a different story. In such a circumstance, then the issue would reasonably be raised. However, we have nothing of the sort thus far shown.
There is the background point, which your analysis basically ignores, that issues between Islamists and the rest of humanity are very hostile, with the Islamists advocating, among other things, genocide against, among others, Jews and having committed genocide, at this point, against other groups (e.g. Christians and animists in Southern Sudan). Hence, I can surely imagine circumstances where self-preservation might raise a compelling state interest to ban Islamists from acting.
However, I would not ban someone from preaching that mankind ought return to the Middle Ages, which, thus far, is all the evidence suggests will be going on at the planned Cordoba Center.
N. Friedman, you're assuming that there's a good reason for banning it that we just don't know about. You: it is important to remember that we do not live in ordinary times and assuming that there might not be a real reason, one that has not yet come out (or which the ADL is simply unwilling to express publicly) but which might be compelling, for opposing the Cordoba Center. Because if someone opposes the religious freedom of another group, they must have a good reason. No one's ever restricted anyone's religious freedom because of bigotry!
As for the rest of your post, please take your Islamophobia elsewhere. You are doing a terrible job of convincing me that there is any other reason for opposing this building.
Rebecca,
Your accusation of Islamophobia is dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself, throwing out scare words for my merely mentioning a fact. In fact, there are many famed writers who seem to agree with me about the extremely troubling nature of the Islamist movement. Feel free to note the Islamophobes among them: Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Paul Berman and Robert Wistrich, to name only a four. Here is what Paul Berman wrote recently - which fits your "eyes wide shut" mentality perfectly:
In our present Age of the Zipped Lip, you are supposed to avoid making any of the following inconvenient observations about the history and doctrines of the Islamist movement:
You are not supposed to observe that Islamism is a modern, instead of an ancient, political tendency, which arose in a spirit of fraternal harmony with the fascists of Europe in the 1930s and '40s.
You are not supposed to point out that Nazi inspirations have visibly taken root among present-day Islamists, notably in regard to the demonic nature of Jewish conspiracies and the virtues of genocide.
And you are not supposed to mention that, by inducing a variety of journalists and intellectuals to maintain a discreet and respectful silence on these awkward matters, the Islamist preachers and ideologues have succeeded in imposing on the rest of us their own categories of analysis.
Here is what Professor Wistrich writes:
Islamist anti-Semitism is thoroughly soaked in many of the most inflammatory themes that initially made possible the atrocities of Crystal Night and its horrific aftermath during the Holocaust.
And:
The scale and extremism of the literature and commentary available in Arab or Muslim newspapers, journals, magazines, caricatures, on Islamist websites, on the Middle Eastern radio and TV news, in documentaries, films, and educational materials, is comparable only to that of Nazi Germany at its worst.
Here is what Daniel Jonah Goldhagen wrote in The New Republic (5/6/2006):
In the last 100 years, there has been no equal to this cult of death in major political movements, except Nazism and perhaps imperial Japan. At least regarding Jews, this should also come as no surprise, for whatever political Islam's religious and other differences with Nazism, it embraces Nazism's hallucinatory anti-Semitism and its murderous logic toward Jews, which it has merged with a violent, totalitarian, and messianic reading of Islam. And, like Nazism, political Islam acts irrationally upon its death cult's violent maxims, no matter their frequent self-destructiveness. (Such strategic errors include Saddam Hussein fighting the United States in Kuwait, Al Qaeda taking on the United States, and the Palestinians' self-injurious second intifada.)
CONTINUED:
Here is Lévy, responding to the noted questions, on the topic:
Despite the defeat of their thought, you are sympathetic to their anti-totalitarianism. Like some of them you speak of Islamism as a new totalitarianism, even as an "Islamo-fascism."
I think I was one of the very first - but you'd have to check it - to use the term "Islamofacism". It's not a neo-con term, it's just a reality.
Can we interpret this phenomenon, which is rooted in 1,400 years of religious tradition, in terms of something like fascism? Fascism was something completely different, with its mass formations and it's central power, il duce.
You talk as if Islamism only had one source. The Islamists also draw on fascism, real fascism, the fascism of Mussolini and Hitler. That's very clear when you look at Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, for example, the "mufti of Jerusalem" and one of the founders of Arab anti-Semitism. He was a member of the SS and he mobilised the Arabs for the Waffen SS in the last years of the war. And it's also clear when you take a look at the political origins of the Muslim Brotherhood. These movements and these men were and are inspired by real fascism, not just a metaphoric one.
So, forgive me, Rebecca, if I am a bit more concerned by Islamism than you and could not care less that pointing out the nature of the movement - i.e. an eliminationist Antisemitic movement - results in ignorant people calling me names - undeserved. It is you, Professor, who needs to wake up and stop holding your hands over your eyes for fear that pointing out the view of nasty movements will upset people. Stop being a coward.
Er, if you can't see why your conflation of Muslims and Islamists and your assertion that Muslims want to preach a return to the Middle Ages is Islamophobic, there's nothing I can do for you.
In fact, there are many famed writers who seem to agree with me about the extremely troubling nature of the Islamist movement.
There are also many "famed writers" who think Jews are vermin. Is this a path you really want to go down?
Argue on the facts. There's a reason why appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Rebecca,
The issue is the belief of the particular Muslims at the proposed Cordoba Center. This is what Dr. Bostom reports (already linked above):
In August 2007, the NYPD released "Radicalization in the West -- The Homegrown Threat." This landmark 90-page report looked at the threat that had become apparent since 9/11, analyzing the roots of recent terror plots in the United States, from Lackawanna, NY, to Portland, Ore., to Fort Dix, NJ.
The report noted that Saudi "Wahhabi" scholars feed the jihadist ideology, legitimizing an "extreme intolerance" toward non-Muslims, especially Jews, Christians and Hindus. In particular, the analysts noted that the "journey" of radicalization that produces homegrown jihadis often begins in a Wahhabi mosque.
Now note - AND READ THIS CAREFULLY, REBECCA, BEFORE YOU BLATHER ON: I wrote, immediately after quoting this troubling material, material suggesting that the center's leadership may have troubling connections and/or views, that (a) I still did not favor forbidding the center and (b) that such was, thus far, only smoke, not fire.
Get it? I guess not.
I suggest that you put your head back in the sand, so that you will see no evil.
The only "evidence" I can find behind the center's supposed Wahhabiism comes from people who are opposed to it, and indeed representatives of the project have stated that one of its goals is reversing extremism. Got a source?
And yes, I realize you're saying you're not opposed to it (but you're sure that people who oppose it aren't bigots or anything). However, you've made plenty of bigoted statements of your own.
Rebecca,
I think that your tone here is one of PC bigotry, attempting to silence any opposition to your point of view. I have said nothing that any rational person would call hateful towards Muslims, except for those who espouse eliminationist and Antisemitic views. To such people, I say: DROP DEAD.
I shall continue to say that Islamism is an Antisemitic, eliminationist movement that needs to be countered, not excused by ignorant professors who are afraid to speak up - people like you!!! And, if that makes me an Islamophobe in your, PC, mind, so be it. However, it is not so.
No, in fact you've repeatedly conflated all Muslims with extremists. That's what it means to oppose a Muslim community center because of Islamic extremism, when the community center is not evidently linked to extremism and in fact opposes extremism.
As I said in my first comment - there would be a lot fewer churches in this country if "no links to extremism" were necessary. But you don't seem to care about the people hurt by Christianism.
Rebecca,
In my astonishment about your attempt to defame me, I forgot to answer your comments:
You write: "The only "evidence" I can find behind the center's supposed Wahhabiism comes from people who are opposed to it"
Normally, people who oppose things are the ones who find evidence. Those who do not care or who favor something, tend not to look too deep.
In other words, your point is a nonsense point.
You write: "indeed representatives of the project have stated that one of its goals is reversing extremism. Got a source?"
The issue is the real objective of such people. It may well be perfectly innocent. Again, that such people self-describe themselves as something is meaningless.
Consider: I do not consider myself the least bit prejudiced against Muslims as human being. You, however, reading my words - directed at a noxious ideology which you, for reasons of either ignorance or PC foolishness - call me an Islamophobe. That ought to tell you that self-descriptions are rather meaningless.
Rebecca,
You write: "No, in fact you've repeatedly conflated all Muslims with extremists."
That is a lie!
Rebecca
You write: "but you're sure that people who oppose it aren't bigots or anything."
No. I am not sure that all opponents are without bigotry.
I am, however, sure that all Islamists are bigots, since Islamism is a hateful bigoted doctrine. I am also sure that Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Paul Berman and Robert Wistrich - none of whom have, so far as I know, even expressed a view on the Cordoba Center - are not bigots.
However, I do think that those who call people names like "Islamophobe" to silence disagreement are intellectual cowards, unwilling to debate other than by means of the smear.
Normally, people who oppose things are the ones who find evidence. Those who do not care or who favor something, tend not to look too deep.
So every reputable news organization in the country is being paid off by the eeeeevil Islamists? (I hope you know better than to suggest that the Post and the National Review are reputable.)
I'm sure you'd also agree that people who think Jews drink Christian blood might have a point. After all, why would Jews say anything about it? You know that Jews always lie about their motives.
That is a lie!
Not at all. I've already explained how you're taking characteristics of a particular movement and smearing 1.57 billion people, with no evidence other than "Well, some non-Muslims think Muslims are evil."
Rebecca,
The Post, in this instance, printed an article by Prof./Dr. Andrew Bostom, who has written The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History, a stellar book that has received excellent reviews. Hence, you are saying that a first rate scholar - albeit a medical doctor - who has written a book which is basically definitive on the noted subject (as written in reviews by other scholars) makes things up, because his article appears in the Post.
Are you for real? How about reading Benny Morris' review of the book. He thinks highly of Dr. Bostom.
You write: "So every reputable news organization in the country is being paid off by the eeeeevil Islamists?"
Did I say that? No. I did not. I said something which is the norm of my profession, law: opponents tend to dig deeper than others.
Dr. Bostom dug up information that is undeniably true. So, smear the Post, if you will. It does not alter the fact that he has found information that bears on the views of at least some involved in the Cordoba Center.
You write: "'m sure you'd also agree that people who think Jews drink Christian blood might have a point."
A dishonest comparison, unless, of course, you are saying that Dr. Bostom makes things up. Is that your view, Rebecca?
You write: Not at all. I've already explained how you're taking characteristics of a particular movement and smearing 1.57 billion people, with no evidence other than "Well, some non-Muslims think Muslims are evil."
THAT IS A BALD FACED LIE!!!
I've already explained that I'm not disputing that there are anti-Semitic Muslim political movements, so your "OMG he wrote a book! It got a review! How could anyone who wrote a book that got a review be wrong?" is a bit pointless, I'm afraid.
As for the Post article:
I haven't read Rauf's book, so I have no way of knowing what it actually says - and I'm not exactly inclined to take Bostom's word for it when he provides exactly zero quotes to support his "analysis."
So when Bostom says that Rauf's book supports the institution of sharia in America? No source, no reason to believe.
When Bostom says that Rauf praises this and that Muslim thinker who also had these views, obviously intending to make the reader think that those were the views he praised? No source, no reason to believe. And about the same level of importance as someone who praises Mohandas Gandhi, who shared his bed with naked teenage girls.
A dishonest comparison, unless, of course, you are saying that Dr. Bostom makes things up. Is that your view, Rebecca?
As you said - opponents dig deeper. Perhaps they've found some Jews who really do drink Christian blood, and the Jewish establishment doesn't want you to know about them.
THAT IS A BALD FACED LIE!!!
Calm down, kid. If you weren't intending to do that, then you could have stopped repeating "Islamists! No mosque!" the first time it was pointed out to you that that was what you were doing.
Rebecca,
Why, if you are not engaged in an intellectually dishonest method, smear Dr. Bostom, about whom you know nothing?
My reason for noting that he wrote a stellar book that was well reviewed is that it testifies towards his reputation in response to your decision to smear him. That was pretty low for a scholar and it deserved being called what it is.
You write: "So when Bostom says that Rauf's book supports the institution of sharia in America? No source, no reason to believe."
Here are some of Rauf's words on the topic:
At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.
He does, of course, sound moderate here. However, his words follow the line set by Islamists of filling modern sounding words with Islamic content. So, he has nothing against secular laws unless they differ from Sharia. In other words, he wants secular law to be the same as Sharia.
That makes him a Medievalist in the way that an Orthodox rabbi who would accept secular law, only if it is the same as Halakha, would be.
In any event, I think you are in dreamland. A special edition of his book bears the imprint on the copyright page of the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought, both unindicted co-conspirator in the well known Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development case. That tells me a great deal. For you, it is meaningless. I suggest you look at some of the documents made public in that trial. It will make you shake your head, assuming you take off the rose colored glasses you tend to wear.
Now, I have not in any way tarred all Muslims, not now or in the past. I have, however, tarred the Islamist movement as an eliminationist and Antisemitic movement. It is one and it is an important movement in the Muslim communities all over the world - that is a fact.
That movement is what I oppose. You, however, think it a smear of all Muslims to oppose that group. To conclude that is to to reject logic. In that you think that I have tarred all Muslims, perhaps it is your view that all Muslims are Islamists.
I would appreciate if you would stop telling lies. It is unbecoming.
Rebecca,
Why, if you are not engaged in an intellectually dishonest method, smear Dr. Bostom, about whom you know nothing?
My reason for noting that he wrote a stellar book that was well reviewed is that it testifies towards his reputation in response to your decision to smear him. That was pretty low for a scholar and it deserved being called what it is.
You write: "So when Bostom says that Rauf's book supports the institution of sharia in America? No source, no reason to believe."
Here are some of Rauf's words on the topic:
At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.
He does, of course, sound moderate here. However, his words follow the line set by Islamists of filling modern sounding words with Islamic content. So, he has nothing against secular laws unless they differ from Sharia. In other words, he wants secular law to be the same as Sharia.
That makes him a Medievalist in the way that an Orthodox rabbi who would accept secular law, only if it is the same as Halakha, would be.
In any event, I think you are in dreamland. A special edition of his book bears the imprint on the copyright page of the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought, both unindicted co-conspirator in the well known Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development case. That tells me a great deal. For you, it is meaningless. I suggest you look at some of the documents made public in that trial. It will make you shake your head, assuming you take off the rose colored glasses you tend to wear.
Now, I have not in any way tarred all Muslims, not now or in the past. I have, however, tarred the Islamist movement as an eliminationist and Antisemitic movement. It is one and it is an important movement in the Muslim communities all over the world - that is a fact.
That movement is what I oppose. You, however, think it a smear of all Muslims to oppose that group. To conclude that is to to reject logic. In that you think that I have tarred all Muslims, perhaps it is your view that all Muslims are Islamists.
I would appreciate if you would stop telling lies. It is unbecoming.
CORRECTED:
Rebecca,
Why, if you are not engaged in an intellectually dishonest method, smear Dr. Bostom, about whom you know nothing?
My reason for noting that he wrote a stellar book that was well reviewed is that it testifies towards his reputation in response to your decision to smear him. That was pretty low for a scholar and it deserved being called what it is.
You write: "So when Bostom says that Rauf's book supports the institution of sharia in America? No source, no reason to believe."
Here are some of Rauf's words on the topic:
At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.
He does, of course, sound moderate here. However, his words follow the line set by Islamists of filling modern sounding words with Islamic content. So, he has nothing against secular laws unless they differ from Sharia. In other words, he wants secular law to be the same as Sharia.
That makes him a Medievalist in the way that an Orthodox rabbi who would accept secular law, only if it is the same as Halakha, would be.
In any event, I think you are in dreamland. A special edition of his book bears the imprint on the copyright page of the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought, both unindicted co-conspirator in the well known Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development case. That tells me a great deal. For you, it is meaningless. I suggest you look at some of the documents made public in that trial. It will make you shake your head, assuming you take off the rose colored glasses you tend to wear.
Now, I have not in any way tarred all Muslims, not now or in the past. I have, however, tarred the Islamist movement as an eliminationist and Antisemitic movement. It is one and it is an important movement in the Muslim communities all over the world - that is a fact.
That movement is what I oppose. You, however, think it a smear of all Muslims to oppose that group. To conclude that is to to reject logic. In that you think that I have tarred all Muslims, perhaps it is your view that all Muslims are Islamists.
I would appreciate if you would stop telling lies. It is unbecoming.
Oh, so it's not a smear to pretend that "moderate" = "anti-Semitic fascist" as long as it's Muslims you're talking about (seriously, you say "He sounds moderate, but he's Muslim" and you expect to be taken seriously?), but it's a smear to point out that Bostom makes a bunch of statements that he has no evidence to support?
In any case, as I've already said, there's a case to be made that people who will use a space to promote certain views don't have a right to that space. But currently that principle is not applied equally, and it's not looking like it will be any time soon. Come back to me when churches that preach hate against women, gay people, trans people, and non-Christians, and support laws banning same-sex marriage and abortion, get massive public outcry, then we'll talk.
Rebecca,
You write that I say: "He sounds moderate, but he's Muslim")
THAT IS A BALD FACED LIE. I SAID NOTHING OF THE SORT NOR DID I MEAN ANYTHING OF THE SORT.
What I stated is that Rauf's words show that he is a Medievalist, since his views are the equivalent of advocating Sharia. I also noted that an Orthodox Jew who wanted to make secular law compatible with Halacha would be a Medievalist. That, at this point, is what the evidence shows about him, other than having some possible connections with Islamists - which is a troubling issue that needs to be investigated because the Islamist movement is very dangerous.
You write: "In any case, as I've already said, there's a case to be made that people who will use a space to promote certain views don't have a right to that space."
But, Rebecca, my view is the exact opposite. In fact, I do not think it appropriate to prevent his group from having their Cordoba Center because the center will advocate this or that. I said such is not enough to prevent the center from opening.
I do not oppose efforts to convince the public that we should have Sharia law but, of course, I hope that such effort fails. I would also say the same about efforts to make the US Halakah compliant.
You, however, are a person who likes to put words into people's mouth. In this case, you have made a big mistake. You have no idea what you are talking about and you have, frankly, lied repeatedly, probably because you think you know what I think - when, in fact, you have no idea.
Shouting wasn't convincing the first time, and shouting repeatedly isn't any better.
I'm done here. Educate yourself, and then maybe you'll be worth talking to - either because you'll have some idea of what you're talking about, or because you'll be able to articulate it coherently.
Dear Rebecca,
I do not appreciate being insulted and being called names by you.
1. You called me an Islamophobe based on nothing at all. None of my comments were directed at anything other than Islamists and Islamism, a despicable viewpoint held only by bigots and Antisemites and which, in its pure form, advocate genocide. In your warped mind, that makes me Islamophobic. No, it makes Islamists bad news.
2. You misrepresented my views, seemingly intentionally. You accused me of implicating all Muslims in my objections to the hateful Islamists, when, in fact, I did nothing of the sort. It never occurred to me to do anything of the sort and I did not do so. And, no reasonable person could so conclude from what I wrote.
3. What I have argued is in line with what other, including Paul Berman, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Bernard-Henri Lévy and Robert Wistrich have written and you have behaved as Berman suggests today's academia behaves, by negating reality, lying and defaming those who disagree with you.
I have found this very dispiriting. I have friends in academia who have warned me that there are a lot of closed minded people who, rather than argue, shout Islamophobia,rather than address arguments.
I am also sure that Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Paul Berman and Robert Wistrich - none of whom have, so far as I know, even expressed a view on the Cordoba Center - are not bigots.
Actually, there's a longstanding debate on whether Goldhagen is a bigot (or at least an essentialist, which I gather N. sees as another beast entirely). But more importantly, he's definitely a shoddy historian.
We get a prime example in the text N. quotes do us during the daily name-drop. Goldhagen calls Saddam Hussein "Islamist" when even the blowhards at Fox News long ago figured out that the Ba'ath Party was a secular opponent of the Islamists. (It does work fine for their narrative because the Ba'athists were socialists, don'tcha'know.)
In fact, this ignorance gets us straight to bigotry and racism in the strictest sense (do not pass go, do not collect a trillion dollars because we spent it to keep mustard gas away from "Islamists"). Just by virtue of the membership being Arabs, a political party is Islamist to Goldhagen, with Islam having nothing to do with it!
I don't know much about the other names N. keeps dropping here, but he's not doing anything to vouch for their credibility by assigning them to Team Daniel "My nuanced view of Arab politics is cribbed from te plot of Team America: World Police" Goldhagen. Anyone willing to read the books he keeps pushing in these comments should definitely look at the criticisms those works have accumulated. At least run the titles through Wikipedia.
Joe,
If Goldhagen meant the paragraph as you read it, then you are absolutely correct that he has made a very serious error. I am not quite sure, though, that you are correct.
I also do not think it quite correct to say that Saddam was wholly a secularist or that his Ba'ath party was wholly secular in its outlook. In any event, Ba'athism, even more than the Islamism, is influenced by the fascism and Nazism. Such influence is overt and publicly recognized by Ba'athists.
I think that, strictly speaking, Ba'athist Iraq identified itself as part of what is broadly called political Islam. That term embraces, of course, the Islamists but it also embraces anyone who would, as Saddam did, embrace an imperialist agenda for Arabs and Muslims. And, Ba'athism is clearly imperial at the doctrinal level, advocating conquest over at least the Arab regions and, evidently, Iran.
Further, like the Islamists, the Ba'athist were heavily influenced by the fascists and Nazis. Ba'athists, unlike most Islamists, state that connection publicly and have not been shy about noting the connection.
So, it seems to me that Goldhagen was probably not saying what you think he was saying - although, if he was, then he is mistaken.
As for the level of his scholarship, his point of view is controversial as it relates to the study of the Nazi Germany. He has been severely criticized. Friends of mine who are tenured professors and professional historians question his methodology and some of his facts. However, part of that, as they will acknowledge when pressed, is due to the fact that his books are widely read and influential. My take is that his analysis of German support for the Nazi genocide project is largely correct although there may be, as with many other historians, mistakes made both in analysis and in facts.
In the case of Mr. Bernard-Henri Lévy, he is one of the co-founders of SOS Racism. Professor Robert Wistrich is considered among the world's foremost authorities, if not the foremost authority, on Antisemitism. Paul Berman is a prominent liberal writer and university professor, who was part of the new left.
It is shocking how limited your knowledge of well known authors is.
Unfortunately, life so short that there's no way around the fact that there's more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in my philosophy. But from what I do know of these other writers, they're supporters of the Iraq war, so at the risk of sounding glib I don't think they have a whole lot to teach us about relations with the Arab world.
As for Mr. Goldhagen, I'd say when the world's leading Holocaust scholar comes out swinging at a book in his field of expertise, the writer of said book should pack it in.
And this "political Islam" business just sounds like an excuse to make these blanket generalizations of Arabs. It's about as convincing to me as the "Nazis were really socialists" meme.
It's a busy week and I'm tired, so I I'll leave that tangent at that. Though in a general note I want to sound my agreement with Rebecca's observation that this whole controversy is a massive double standard. It would be more than a stretch to Isamophobia is the last acceptable prejudice in the US, but it's the only one that I see rearing its head so blatantly. Sure, we deny marriage rights to gays and lesbians, but I can't imagine a national campaign (complete with major presidential hopefuls swooping in) to urge the government halt a pride parade. This issue goes directly to freedom of speech and worship, in other words to the very core of our constitutional rights.
Joe,
In fact, Bernard-Henri Lévy was and remains an open and vocal opponent of the Iraq War. Such even appears in his book, Who Killed Daniel Pearl?, and he has repeated that view interviews he has given. Moreover, since, in France, he is a celebrity, his opposition to the war is well known. So, for starts, your information is not correct.
I do not know Goldhagen's view on the Iraq War. If you have some information on that, let me know.
The same for Wistrich. He has, so far as I know, written about the Antisemitic views of certain of the war's opponents. But, I am not aware of his support for that war.
Another point here: I have not been a supporter of the Iraq war. However, one could support that war, foolish as that support may be, without being a bigot. So, your point is a nonsense one.
You write: "Though in a general note I want to sound my agreement with Rebecca's observation that this whole controversy is a massive double standard. It would be more than a stretch to Isamophobia is the last acceptable prejudice in the US, but it's the only one that I see rearing its head so blatantly."
Turning now to your main point ...
The problem here is that you brand "islamophobe" any disagreement with your point of view. How about a definition which permits one to discuss Islamism - a racist, homophobic, Antisemitic movement which espouses genocide - without being branded a bigot. Is that possible in your viewpoint?
Or, are you also in denial about the viewpoint of the Islamists?
I should have specified who I meant a little more there. Berman and Lévy are both listed as supporters of the invasion on their respective Wikipedia articles. Obviously Wikipedia is not infallible but at least in Berman's case there's a detailed section on his support, calling Iraq "a logical place to begin," etc.
Does such support make someone a bigot? No (thought that's cold comfort to the dead). But it does reflect on their judgment with regard to Muslims and the Arab world, so it's worth mentioning when you keep quoting them as authorities.
In answer to your question, it's certainly possible to discuss those problems in a fair way. It's just that lately that hasn't been the trend. Take, for example, the intellectual ancestor of Birtherism, the accusations that Barack Obama is a "secret Muslim." Most people didn't believe it, but of course a vocal minority did, but the thing that really struck me was how almost all of the focus was on showing it to be false, that Barack Obama is a Christian and active church attendee. It wasn't until Colin Powell got up on Meet the Press a few days before the election that I heard a public figure say what I'd been thinking. That he's obviously not Muslim, but hey, "so what if he was?"
Well, the implication, even if not every rumor-monger spoke it aloud, was that you can't trust him if he's Muslim, no matter what his politics and records show. He'll naturally have it in for godfearing Christians/"the war on terror"/Israel/unveiled women/take your pick.
And, in particular, I was struck by how the Obama campaign didn't really push that it was bigotry against Muslims. That would be a big soapbox to climb, after all. It's not like many people who were particularly concerned about Islamophobia were voting McCain/Palin, so why gamble that they wouldn't turn off voters with some animosity to Muslims but were still potential supporters? It was much, much safer to keep to just part of the whole picture, that the rumor was the product of kooks reacting to the color of Obama's skin. (Obviously the US has hangups when it comes to discussing race, too, but since we put so much effort into the idea of colorblindness, racism that is overt or only thinly veiled can often provoke a backlash.)
Or, are you also in denial about the viewpoint of the Islamists?
I'm able to hold separate concepts in my mind at once, so the answer is no. Just because the Soviet Union was a terrible regime didn't mean McCarthy's red-baiting was the cure. Essentially, I consider that question Muslim-baiting. It's not bigotry per se, but it is a cheap tactic that I hope is beneath you.
Joe,
You have now written something for which one can respond rationally.
Berman is, so far as I know, the only person among those I quoted who has remotely supported the war in Iraq. His reasoning was, strange as it may sound to you, entirely on traditional liberal/progressive grounds. He thought, quite correctly, that Saddam's Iraq was among the worst regimes on Earth and, quite correctly, that his regime's ideology and technique of governing was (and remains) part of the reason that the Arab regions are so dysfunctional, churning out holy roller lunatics who advocate genocide and commit genocide (as in the case of Saddam) against their own peoples.
One can agree with all of the above and still think it a mistake to overthrow Saddam. Lévy is a prime example.
In the case of Lévy, whoever posted information at Wikipedia did not do his or her homework. Lévy's view is pretty similar to mine - or, perhaps, it is the other way around. He accepted the view that Saddam was really bad. Lévy, however, saw no good coming out of starting a war to get rid of Saddam.
Wistrich, so far as I know, has not written about the topic. However, an Israeli would certainly have really good, legitimate reasons to want Saddam gone. Remembering Saddam's substantial payments to the families of kamikaze suicide bombers who blew up Israelis, his support for Abu Nidal living in Iraq, Saddam's funding of Anti-Israel terrorists and his throwing missiles into Israel as a means to create Arab opposition to the first Gulf War would be good reason for any Israeli to favor Saddam's overthrow. But, I am not aware of Wistrich taking any position on the war.
As for Goldhagen, I rather doubt that he supported the Iraq War. If he did, it would be based on the view that eliminationist regimes that commit genocide need to be rooted out.
You write: "But it does reflect on their judgment with regard to Muslims and the Arab world, so it's worth mentioning when you keep quoting them as authorities."
Aside from the fact that, of those I cite, the only one I know of who publicly favored or favors the war is Berman, I think one can have a trenchant analysis yet have a mistaken idea about what to do in view of that analysis. In this regard, I like occasionally to bring up Churchill and Chamberlain before WWII.
Both, as facts have shown, knew fairly well that the Nazi regime was really dangerous and warlike. Yet, they had very different notions about how to address that shared assessment. Maybe Chamberlain was right to try to appease Hitler. Maybe, Chamberlain was wrong.
In the case of Iraq, try as I might to think that no rational person could support the war, I know for a fact that such is not so. And, I know that one could have a trenchant analysis about Iraq yet, unlike me, think the war a good idea. And, one could oppose the Iraq war and know nothing at all about the Arab regions or Iraq. In fact, my bet is that most supporters and opponents fit that bill.
So, I think your point is not well taken.
CONTINUED:
On the other topic you mentioned, I am not one who ever thought Obama was or is a secret Muslim. He was quite clearly either not all that religious or a devout Christian. Presumably, a Muslim would not join a church and have his kids preached to by the church's pastor.
I understand your view that Americans are, post 9/11, hypersensitive about anything that might somehow be connected with Islam. That, however, does not mean that we should reject normal discussion due to the prejudices of others. My comments were quite clearly directed at Islamism. And, Rebecca's efforts to say I was tarring all Muslims was despicable - McCarthyism in its pure form.
Now, if you want me to discuss my views about Islamism or about Islam the religion or about Islamic civilizations - to the limit of my knowledge -, that is OK with me. However, if you want that, you will have to read what I write, which cannot be found by examining common prejudices held by people who do not read. That is entirely unfair of you. It is a prejudice.
Again, the public may disdain Obama for being a secret Muslim and hate all Muslims but that does not reflect my approach or understanding or beliefs.
You're getting the wires crossed a little bit. My riff on the "double secret reverse Muslim" stuff goes to my general point about American attitudes towards Muslims, not your opinions in particular.
While I do take issue with a lot of your stated views, I'm not able to really get into it right now. I did want to make a note about some of the writers you tend to cite here, and why we should take them with a grain of salt. Primarily I meant it as a criticism of Goldhagen, because like I said, he's really the one I'm familiar with.
Joe,
Well, Goldhagen is controversial. His approach is from a political science point of view. He is highly critical of Islamism and, more generally, the political currents running around the Islamic regions including most particularly the Arab regions. What, in particular, has he said that irritates you? What, from his viewpoint, do you disagree with?
I haven't read his new stuff beyond what's been quoted here and elsewhere, but I've read enough European history to have read Hitler's Willing Executioners and the the surrounding controversy. I believe the critics are right and it's an exercise in reductionism, utterly dismissive of the huge contributions of other historians--actually, that largely seems to have been the point, to make a big splash by telling us everything we heard from Browning is wrong. Conflict sells books.
To judge by the quotes about the Arab world, I doubt his approach has changed.
Joe,
You have pointed me to an article which relies on Norman Finkelstein. Finkelstein does not like Goldhagen's conclusions because they clash with his theory that the Holocaust is an ideology woven around the Shoah.
Here is what the New York Times' review, by Brown University historian, Omer Bartov, states about Finkelstein's thesis as stated in his best known book:
This book is, in a word, an ideological fanatic's view of other people's opportunism, by a writer so reckless and ruthless in his attacks that he is prepared to defend his own enemies, the bastions of Western capitalism, and to warn that ''The Holocaust'' will stir up an anti-Semitism whose significance he otherwise discounts. Like any conspiracy theory, it contains several grains of truth; and like any such theory, it is both irrational and insidious. Finkelstein can now be said to have founded a Holocaust industry of his own.
CONTINUED BELOW
Here is another article about, among others, Finkelstein's scholarship. It is not very kind, showing him to be less than knowledgeable on basic facts:
Norman Finkelstein’s work, The Holocaust Industry, begins on a false note. It concludes on a bizarre one. His opening page quotes Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolfe: “It seems to me that the Holocaust is being sold — it is not being taught.” While such a statement may have been half true in 1980 when it was first said, it is disingenuous today, unless Finkelstein believes that the hundreds of university professors and thousands of high school teachers who teach the Holocaust throughout the world are out selling the Holocaust and not teaching it. The statement is offered for its shock value even though it is manifestly false.
As for his bizarre conclusion: convinced leftist that he is, Finkelstein is at once offering us a significant class and political analysis of the “Holocaust industry” and rising to the defense of German industry, Swiss banks, and international insurance countries who are being victimized by the “Holocaust industry.” He conspicuously avoids grappling with the most serious issue, and perhaps the place where true scandal may arise, the distribution of these funds among the various claimants. His claim that there were 100,000 survivors of the Holocaust is without substance.
His research is derivative. He relies upon Peter Novick, and he repeats Novick’s discoveries and builds upon them for his conclusion. Thus, we learn that there was little interest in the Holocaust until 1967. Because Novick did not follow theological controversies, there is no mention of Richard Rubenstein, whose highly controversial work, After Auschwitz: Radical Theology and the Future of Judaism, received significant attention before the Six-Day War and forced Jewish theology to consider the twin revolution of contemporary Jewish life — the Holocaust and the rise of Israel — well before the events of June 1967.
We learn derivatively from Finkelstein, relying on Novick, that Elie Wiesel achieved prominence only after the Six-Day War. Yet Steven Schwarzschild, one of Israel’s most severe critics, had described Wiesel a year earlier as “the de facto high priest of our generation,” the “one man who speaks most tellingly of our time, of our hopes and fears, our tragedy and our protest.”8 On June 4, 1967, the day before the Six-Day-War broke out, a 38-year-old Wiesel was receiving an honorary doctorate from the Jewish Theological Seminary and giving its commencement address. Obviously, Wiesel had emerged long before June 1967, at least among his peers of academics, scholars, and rabbis, ranging from Steven Schwarzschild to David Hartman and from Richard Rubenstein to Louis Finkelstein and Saul Lieberman. But I suspect that Norman Finkelstein may not have heard these names or know of their standing in the Jewish community.
Finkelstein doesn’t share Novick’s caution as a serious historian. Novick maintains that, before the 1982 Lebanon war, “there is little reason to believe that even without the Holocaust framework, American Jews would have seen Israel’s situation in other than black and white terms.” And since then, while remaining on the whole supportive of Israel, increasing numbers of American Jews no longer see Israel’s situation as good versus evil, the few against the many, the weak against the powerful. Novick asks: “How plausible is it to believe that American policy toward Israel has been shaped by the memory of the Holocaust, not very. It was when the Holocaust was freshest in the minds of American leaders ... that the United States was least supportive of Israel.”9
QUOTED CONTINUED BELOW
Novick correctly traces the shift of the Holocaust from the margins to the center of American Jewish consciousness from the late 1960s onward. It reflected, and in turn promoted, far-reaching changes in the way American Jews came to understand themselves and their circumstances. Finkelstein writes with little such subtlety.
Finkelstein takes liberty with facts. The Washington Post is described as Jewish-owned in 1961, when Philip Graham was its editor.10 Only a cursory reading of Katherine Graham’s impressive biography would lead one to say that The Washington Post — unlike The New York Times — was a Jewish-owned newspaper. If it was, it would only be in the Nuremberg definition of Jewish, that is, if we consider the religious identity of grandparents. In another example, he presumes in a footnote to document his point that the Rosenberg trial and the Arendt controversy were contemporaneous when they were almost a decade apart.
I forgot to give you the source for the last, rather long, quote. Here it is.
Of course Finkelstein himself is very controversial, and (though I haven't read his books) it's obvious from youtube that he's no stranger to seeking attention by picking an academic slapfight.
But if you didn't read the whole Slate piece, you really should, because despite the intro it doesn't actually rely on Finkelstein, at least not in the way you imply. In fact, it takes him to task along with Goldhagen. (You might still object to the suggestion there is some moral equivalence between the two, but my purpose bringing this up isn't to relitigate the issues there, just to point out to third parties they exist.) The writer gives us what amounts to a laundry list of criticisms of Goldhagen, from multiple sources. I think it's a handy overview to consider when you quote the guy, essentially calling him as an blog comment section expert witness. If we conclude that he was something less than rigorous in analyzing past events, I'd put even less stock in his ability to accurately depict the ever-changing world of the present.
Joe,
I read the piece before I made my earlier comments. Thank you. I have long been well aware of the criticism made of Goldhagen's most famous book - the controversy having spilled onto the pages of The New York Review of Books (where, in the above linked exchange, Goldhagen explains his position rather clearly) and The New York Times. Some of the criticisms of his approach are well taken, in my view. Some are not, missing the point entirely by demanding that he write history when, in fact, Goldhagen was not writing a history. His approach is derived from political science, as his letter to The New York Review of Books, above linked, shows.
Now, having written a well received book, I am not sure I understand your objection to his theory about the Islamists. Are you saying that because his writing has been criticized, nothing he says is worth considering? If so, has it occurred to you that most all scholars who write best sellers with stellar reviews receive serial praise and serial criticism, some of which contains valid points and some of which is sour grapes.
You, as you have stated on more than one occasion, recognize that the Islamists are rather dangerous. Yet, you worry more that criticizing a movement which has adherents who have already committed genocide (under the banner of that ideology) and threaten to do so again will implicate all Muslims than that the movement will act on its threats. To me, that is remarkable and pretty bizarre.
Note: what has been said in the paragraph immediately above has resulted in Rebecca calling me an Islamophobe. It has resulted in her saying that I am implicating all Muslims. It has resulted in you, in softer tones, agreeing with at least part of what she asserts.
I repeat: I have not seen sufficient evidence to even consider a ban on the proposed Cordoba Center. I, however, note that there are very serious questions raised about the ideology of the imam involved (which, of itself, is not a reason to ban the project) and about his connections (which may be, depending on what is uncovered). Professor Bostom and Attorney McCarthy have noted some important issues - smoke, thus far, but that does not mean there is a fire. Nonetheless, Islamism is a sufficiently dangerous movement that the allegations should be explored very carefully and without calling those who think so Islamophobes and without saying that such people are implicating an entire religion.
By the way, Foxman has now better explained the basis for his concern. See this article in The Jerusalem Post. The central point made in the article is this:
“It goes back to the 1980s, where we as a community asked the world to help us prevent the building of a convent at Auschwitz, or on its periphery,” Foxman elaborated. “We were then accused of being bigots – anti-Catholic, anti-Christian.
“We said, look, if you want to heal or reconcile, do it elsewhere,” he recalled. “That location was painful for us. It wasn’t till eight years after all the ‘sturm und drang’ that Pope John Paul understood, and ordered the Carmelite nuns to move about a mile away and set up their convent.”
Foxman said the situation regarding the proposed Islamic Community Center was “similar” in terms of issues of sensitivity to the families of September 11 victims.
“The families have been saying to the Muslim proponents of the center, if you want to heal, this is not the place to heal,” Foxman said, speaking of the two-block proximity of the location to Ground Zero. “If you want to reconcile, this is not the proper place.”
I am not sure I agree with him but I do not think he deserves the outrage thrown his way by the PC crowd.
I would like to offer my personal thanks to Rebecca, Joe and N. Friedman for hijacking what could have been a truly interesting comments thread for their petty self interests.
Shaun Mullen,
I suggest you read the discussion more carefully. I think it shows something different, which is that any slight disagreement with the PC shibboleths results in being falsely and dishonestly called a racist who is trying to indict an entire religion.
Shaun, if you're a regular reader, ever consider providing the kind of comments you'd like to see. I mean, I can understand your annoyance to an extent, but American attitudes to Muslims are pretty central to the issue, so while I don't want to make it about whether one guy on the internetis wrong, N. and Rebecca's exchange was topical (but too rancorous).
I do plead guilty to a derail on Goldhagen, but N. seems to bring up these same authors again and again, so I don't see a cursory critique of them as exactly terrible. I don't want to have a big argument about the guy though. N., so I'll leave it at that.
To bring us back on track, I will comment on the quote from Foxman, though. I can't help but think if anyone but the man himself analogized a single terrorist attack to the Holocaust like that, he'd issuing an indignant statement. I also think the test to see if the ADL is being fair here is a pretty simple hypo: If this were about a mainstream synagogue (actually, a community center that includes a synagogue) being built near some act of violence by a Jewish terrorist organization (yes, N., we know such organizations are a lot smaller than Al Qaeda, just go with the hypo), whose side do you think the ADL would take in the ensuing protests?
There's also the small matter of there already being a mosque in that vicinity. It's just being moved, but in the technical sense that counts as "building" a mosque, so we have one of the most blatant displays of intolerance in recent US history to show for it.
Nate Silver at 538 has some interesting thoughts on just how proximate the location is, considering the denseness of Manhatten.
Joe,
Thank you for your comment. I cannot read Mr. Foxman's mind so I shan't try. He explained his position this morning on NPR's Morning Edition. It was rather similar to the material I quoted. He also said that he has worked with the imam and has high regard for him.
You will note that I said, in quoting Foxman, that I was not sure I agreed with his analogy. I have given the matter some thought. I think the analogy is a good one but I probably do not agree entirely with the conclusion.
First, the building is not a mosque (although it may house, in the complex, a mosque), it is supposed to be a community center and, further, one with the stated mission to heal rifts - a worthy goal.
That mission has some significance to Foxman's point. It raises the issue of whether such location really is a good one for accomplishing the stated goals. Foxman indicates that he doubts it. It is that point - not that the building houses a mosque - that Foxman is criticizing.
Second, as I have noted, the connections alleged to exist by certain of the mosques critics bear on the issue of the stated goals. If a supremacist group is the real party in interest, then the center may cause further pain.
Third, the analogy to Jewish terrorists is, if we go by what Jews - even religiously motivated Jews - have done, a rather bad one. There are terrorists who have been Jews and who have acted to advance Jewish interests. But, rarely have there been Jews (in our life time) who have attacked the US and, so far as I know, never have Jews attacked the US claiming to do God's work. Islamist terrorists universally claim to be on a mission from God.
Now, I am certainly not saying that a movement within Islam speaks for all Muslims and I am certainly not implicating all Muslims in these acts. But, the message sent by Islamists and the frequency of the outrages they commit - and think of the number of such events in the last year, in the US alone - sends an unwelcoming message to Americans.
Fourth, the attack on the WTC was not an isolated terrorist attack. It is one of many and it is part of a world-wide campaign of massacres. While the scale of horrors committed specifically at the WTC surely does not match the Shoah, it was part of a campaign of terror which, since 1980, has claimed many millions of lives.
In that campaign, the WTC attack was of considerable symbolic importance to the terrorist campaign, but also to Americans. So, in that regard, Foxman is quite right.
Fifth, where I disagree here with Foxman is that I tend to think it will be helpful, if not to non-Muslim Americans, to Muslims in their effort to heal the rift which exists within their community, sending a message to average Muslims against the Islamists. However, that assumes that the center is not, in fact, a cover story for an Islamist project where intolerance and hate will be taught.
We can see the problem with that analogy by extending it. To a large extent World War II was a "world-wide campaign of massacres," but we still note hefty distinctions between the whole bloody affair and the Holocaust. More to the point, a new convent is a lot different from a community center with a slightly relocated mosque. (Is the whole center part of a larger building? It's unclear to me.) And in terms of power and privilege, Muslims in the U.S. aren't analogous to Catholics in Europe by any stretch. Finally, I'm pretty sure Auschwitz isn't one of the densest population centers in the world. What's "close" in a crowded city isn't the same as what's close in the wide open spaces.
In this respect, it's like Alan Keyes comparing the income tax to slavery. His feelings on the historical thing itself deserve our respect, but that doesn't give license to just go out into the world an make shit up about current events.
But, rarely have there been Jews (in our life time) who have attacked the US and, so far as I know, never have Jews attacked the US claiming to do God's work. Islamist terrorists universally claim to be on a mission from God.
It's a hypo. We're not meant to get hung up on everything that would need to be true for it to actually come to pass. It's there to show how a given legal or interpretive framework would handle it. But if you really object so strenously, David's new post links to a Beinart containing more "real world" analogies.
If a supremacist group is the real party in interest, then the center may cause further pain.
Broadly speaking, there are many supremacist groups that no doubt are up in arms about Muslims having the freedom to do something like this. How closely correlated do you think a belief like, say, "This is a Christian nation" is to a belief that the government should act to block Cordoba House. The ADL even acknowledges this right before "nuancedly" lending its dwindling credibility to that mission.
And for all the talk about wanting to prevent pain, Foxman is glossing over the pain of Muslims who find their religion singled out in this, to say nothing of the opinions of New Yorkers who think Cordoba House should be right where it is (and no doubt some 9/11 victims' families, as they're not a monolithic group).
The more I look at the facts of this case: the denseness of the city, the fact it's a slight relocation, that it's a community center instead of some huge mega-mosque as implied by some, the more I conclude that this seems like a lot of people (often from nowhere near Manhatten) looking for a reason to take umbrage at Muslims and then causing a firestorm to exploit the genuine grief of the victims' families.
Joe,
1. It is a loose analogy, to be sure. But, it is not without some merit.
WWII could be considered a series of massacres. However, it was a war which included massacres as well as normal military battles - horrible ones, to be sure.
2. There probably is, as you say, considerable umbrage aimed at the Muslim community. The fact that the Muslim community has been the source of a great many terrorists who claim to act in the name of Islam is likely the primary source of that taking of umbrage, at least to most people.
Consider that most people, being non-specialists, do not make a distinction of any sort between Muslims and Islamists. They have no imaginable reason to do so, since the Islamists claim to speak for all Muslims and since they, not moderates, grab headlines.
Even specialists disagree on whether the distinction is a distinction of kind or one merely of degree, if they accept the existence of any real distinction, which some do not. So, why would average Americans make a strong distinction when, absent intellectual gymnastics, it appears to be a campaign by like-minded people under the banner of their religion and directed against the West? And, why should average Americans disbelieve Islamists who claim that their religion requires them to attack?
Sure, there are and have always been polemical opponents to Islam. But, I am willing to bet you that before 9/11, the number of Americans with any really all that strong views about Islam - other than believing in the truth of their own varied religions and the falsity of all other religions including Islam - was very limited.
Consider: Before WWII, most Americans had relatively few strong opinions against Germans - and there are no shortage of Americans of German heritage. However, it did not take all that many deaths before large numbers of Americans thought suspiciously of Germans including German Americans in particular. It is a normal human reaction to being attacked.
And, in the case of the Islamists, they are rather explicit that they are doing what their religion requires of them. And, people alleged by the press to be really, really moderate - as in the Imam from the Washington, DC area who seems to have inspired a soldier to massacre fellow US soldiers and a Nigerian national to try to blow up a plane over Detroit, etc., etc. - turn out to be Islamists. And, when elements of the press start BS'ing that, notwithstanding specific assertions by terrorists that they are acting because it is, in the words of the terrorists, required by their religion, such persons' statements and connections are to be ignored, most people think the press is being dishonest or stupid or both.
While I think there is an arguable distinction to be drawn between Islamism and Islam, I think it is one that average Americans can reject without being a bigot. I think, given that there is basically a warlike campaign here, not just isolated terror incidents by a few madmen (and women), it is as reasonable for Americans to be concerned about a center built around the WTC area as it is for Americans to have been concerned about what Germans were doing in the US during WWII.
CONTINUED BELOW
Joe,
1. It is a loose analogy, to be sure. But, it is not without some merit.
WWII could be considered a series of massacres. However, it was a war which included massacres as well as normal military battles - horrible ones, to be sure.
2. There probably is, as you say, considerable umbrage aimed at the Muslim community. The fact that the Muslim community has been the source of a great many terrorists who claim to act in the name of Islam is likely the primary source of that taking of umbrage, at least to most people.
Consider that most people, being non-specialists, do not make a distinction of any sort between Muslims and Islamists. They have no imaginable reason to do so, since the Islamists claim to speak for all Muslims and since they, not moderates, grab headlines.
Even specialists disagree on whether the distinction is a distinction of kind or one merely of degree, if they accept the existence of any real distinction, which some do not. So, why would average Americans make a strong distinction when, absent intellectual gymnastics, it appears to be a campaign by like-minded people under the banner of their religion and directed against the West? And, why should average Americans disbelieve Islamists who claim that their religion requires them to attack?
Sure, there are and have always been polemical opponents to Islam. But, I am willing to bet you that before 9/11, the number of Americans with any really all that strong views about Islam - other than believing in the truth of their own varied religions and the falsity of all other religions including Islam - was very limited.
Consider: Before WWII, most Americans had relatively few strong opinions against Germans - and there are no shortage of Americans of German heritage. However, it did not take all that many deaths before large numbers of Americans thought suspiciously of Germans including German Americans in particular. It is a normal human reaction to being attacked.
And, in the case of the Islamists, they are rather explicit that they are doing what their religion requires of them. And, people alleged by the press to be really, really moderate - as in the Imam from the Washington, DC area who seems to have inspired a soldier to massacre fellow US soldiers and a Nigerian national to try to blow up a plane over Detroit, etc., etc. - turn out to be Islamists. And, when elements of the press start BS'ing that, notwithstanding specific assertions by terrorists that they are acting because it is, in the words of the terrorists, required by their religion, such persons' statements and connections are to be ignored, most people think the press is being dishonest or stupid or both.
While I think there is an arguable distinction to be drawn between Islamism and Islam, I think it is one that average Americans can reject without being a bigot. I think, given that there is basically a warlike campaign here, not just isolated terror incidents by a few madmen (and women), it is as reasonable for Americans to be concerned about a center built around the WTC area as it is for Americans to have been concerned about what Germans were doing in the US during WWII.
CONTINUED BELOW
CONTINUED:
And note: the above is not a hypothetical concern. FDR was obsessed with the matter and, had the size of the German community been smaller, he would have had them rounded up, believing that among them was a fifth column.
My point here is that people, with good intentions, can come to very different conclusions here. It is entirely confused thinking - the view espoused by David, in my opinion - that dominates some of thinking that supports the building of the center. That opinion follows along with the gymnastics employed by some in the press that aims to disbelieve what Islamists say and refuses to accept an religio-ideological campaign of frightening breadth that, unless it is countered, will come to own the Muslim community. I do not think that the Muslim community is owned by the Islamists yet but such is a future possibility.
Note my last point, which is my reason for thinking the center a good idea, which is that it may, if the center is genuinely aimed at healing, help counter the Islamist message within the Muslim community.
The thing of it is, good intentions don't count for a whole hell of a lot in my book. Not when we can't even reach total agreement on what "good" is, and certainly not when they are cited to minimize concrete results.
And, why should average Americans disbelieve Islamists who claim that their religion requires them to attack?
Religion is a fairly big deal in the US. I don't think anyone who is really interested in being fair can dispute that most major religions are defined very broadly and contain sects with an incredible variety of beliefs. Someone who insists on being smallminded or only giving any attention to his or her One True Path? Sure, but not someone who's trying to be fair.
Joe,
I take your point about the variety of religious sects within a religion. I am not sure that I see your point. Islam, among all monotheistic religions, has the least variety of sectarian differences regarding core beliefs.
More importantly, it seems to me that you confuse the set of ideas we call Islam - which is pretty consistent among all important sects - with the views of those who profess to be Muslims, which do vary and, in Western countries, vary quite a bit.
Think of the ideas from Islam as tools in a toolbox. Jihad is a tool in the Islamic toolbox. So is Sharia. So is the Koran and its chapters and verses. So are the large number of Haditha and the derived sunna. So are the histories of Mohamad. Etc., etc. Individual Muslims may use the tools that interest them from the toolbox. They may ignore those that do not interest them.
In fact, these tools have, over the course of history, been put to many and, sometimes, productive uses. At other times and/or places, these tools have not played as important a role. Sometimes, these tools have been a source of war, disease and great suffering.
So, the first thing to be said, in being fair to believing Muslims, which we should be, is that it is simply wrong to condemn Muslims because the Islamic toolbox includes tools which, for non-Muslims, are true horrors.
[Note: That does not mean we should adopt, as the press essentially has, the traditional Islamic interpretation of the tools in Islam's toolbox - for example, the alleged "tolerance" of Islamic rule towards conquered infidels, the truth being somewhat and, at times, dramatically different.]
The second thing to be said is that the Islamists have used the above noted tools and the toolbox, within an ideological approach that combines a very traditional understanding of such tools with materials borrowed directly from the Nazis (as shown, e.g., by Jeffrey Herf and Matthias Küntzel).
The problem for non-Muslims and non-Islamist Muslims alike is that the Islamists have not altered what is in the toolbox. And, they have not distorted the meanings of the various tools in the toolbox. So, as noted by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in an interview she gave to The New York Times, truly tolerant Muslims, when they debate with Islamists, almost always get their rear ends kicked, since the Islamists know their tools and the toolbox very well and are not distorting the teachings, law or theology. The add-ons (e.g. Nazism) are used to show that the world, most especially the Jews, are engaged in a conspiracy, due to their inherent nature, to destroy Islam; hence, the need to destroy them.
That leads us back to our discussion. You are expecting average Americans, non-expert in Islam, to distinguish Islamists who teach and act on the tools in the toolbox from those Muslims who pick and choose the tools in the toolbox. That, to me, is absurd.
Moreover, since the important tools here - i.e. the ones regarding infidels - do not really vary enough among the main sects - i.e. Shi'a and Sunni - to be of any real significance other than to adherents and experts, you are asking people to do the impossible.
I know what is coming. No. I do not condemn an entire religion. I condemn only those who espouse views which mean me harm. The Islamists clearly do. They make no secret of it. So, my condemnation is limited to them and their fellow travelers (of which there are quite a few including many non-Muslims). And, as I said, the availability of noxious tools does not mean that we condemn any Muslims who claims to be faithful. It does mean, given that the Islamists are a very large movement, with millions and millions of followers - probably many, many tens of millions of followers - and growing rapidly and controlling some governments already and causing the deaths of millions of people already, being alert to and concerned about what Islamists do and acting against them, where possible.
Joe,
I thought you might enjoy reading the interview given by Ayaan Hirsi Ali with The New York Times, back on February 7, 2007. In particular, I commend this passage:
Q. Have you seen any ideology coming from within Islam that gives young Muslims a sense of purpose without the overlay of militancy?
A. They have no alternative message. There is no active missionary work among the youth telling them, do not become jihadis. They do not use media means as much as the jihadis. They simply — they’re reactive and they don’t seem to be able to compete with the jihadis. And every time there is a debate between a real jihadi and, say, what we have decided to call moderate Muslims, the jihadis win. Because they come with the Koran and quotes from the Koran. The come with quotes from the Hadith and the Sunnah, and the traditions of the prophet. And every assertion they make, whether it is that women should be veiled, or Jews should be killed, or Americans are our enemies, or any of that, they win. Because what they have to say is so consistent with what is written in the Koran and the Hadith. And what the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, that’s all in there, but that wasn’t meant for this context. And we have moved on. We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. That’s what’s missing.
While, of course, she is speaking by partial exaggeration, I think she speaks factually.
I forgot to give you the link. Here it is.
Without taking the time to go in depth here, I'm pretty sure the Koran ain't the only religious text that contains commands to do terrible things (if taken literally(.
Joe,
I would agree with you that the Koran is not the only religion which includes commands for violence. However, that is irrelevant to my point.
On the other hand, it is a fact that the Koran includes a great many such commands which are not interpreted to be applicable only to the pertinent circumstance.
Here is what Ignaz Goldhizer, who is among the greatest, if not the greatest of the, experts on Islam of all time (and who was the first non-Muslim invited to study at al-Azhar and who was enamored of Islam), explains, with reference to the traditional interpretation of Islam's command to commit violence:
In addition to the religious duties imposed upon each individual professing Islam, the collective duty of the "jihad" (= "fighting against infidels") is imposed on the community, as represented by the commander of the faithful. Mohammed claimed for his religion that it was to be the common property of all mankind, just as he himself, who at first appeared as a prophet of the Arabs, ended by proclaiming himself the prophet of a universal religion, the messenger of God to all humanity, or, as tradition has it, "ila al-aḥmar wal-aswad" (to the red and the black). For this reason unbelief must be fought with the force of weapons, in order that "God's word may be raised to the highest place." Through the refusal to accept Islam, idolaters have forfeited their lives. Those "who possess Scriptures" ("ahl al-kitab"), in which category are included Jews, Christians, Magians, and Sabians, may be tolerated on their paying tribute ("jizyah") and recognizing the political supremacy of Islam (sura ix. 29). The state law of Islam has accordingly divided the world into two categories: the territory of Islam ("dar al-Islam") and the territory of war. ("dar al-ḥarb"), i.e., territory against which it is the duty of the commander of the faithful ("amir al-mu'minin") to lead the community in the jihad.
Continued below
CONTINUED:
Here is what Bernard Lewis writes, in his famous book, The Muslim Discovery of Europe:
In the Muslim world view the basic division of mankind is into the House of Islam (Dār al-Islām) and the House of War (Dar al-Harb). The one consists of all those countries where the law of Islam prevails, that is to say, broadly, the Muslim Empire; the latter is the rest of the world. Just as there is only one God in heaven, so there can be only one sovereign and one law on earth. Ideally, the House of Islam is conceived as a single community, governed by a single state, headed by a single sovereign. This state must tolerate and protect those unbelievers who are brought by conquest under its rule, provided, of course, that they are not polytheists but followers of one of the permitted religions. The logic of Islamic law, however, does not recognized the permanent existence of any other polity outside Islam. In time, in the Muslim view, all mankind will accept Islam or submit to Islamic rule. In the meantime, it is a religious duty of Muslims to struggle until this end is accomplished.
The name given by the Muslim jurists to this struggle is jihād, an Arabic word meaning effort or striving. One who performs this duty is called mujāhid. The word occurs several times in the Qur'ān in the sense of making war against the unbelievers. In the early centuries of Islamic expansion, this was its normal meaning. Between the House of Islam and the House of War there was, according to the sharī‘a, the Holy Law as formulated by the classical jurists, a state of war religiously and legally obligatory, which could end only with the conversion or subjugation of all mankind. A treaty of peace between the Muslim state and a non-Muslim state was thus in theory juridically impossible. The war, which would end only with the universal triumph of Islam, could not be terminated; it could only be interrupted for reasons of necessity or of expediency by a truce. Such a truce, according to the jurists, could only be provisional. It should not exceed ten years and could, at any time, be repudiated unilaterally by the Muslims who, however, were obliged by Muslim law to give the other side due notice before resuming hostilities.
The Jihad doctrine is, in fact, a rather unusual doctrine. And, its equivalent in Christianity is no longer followed.
Again: the issue is not this noxious idea - akin to spreading civilization in Western secular thinking - that is important - since it is a tool in the toolbox - but that it is one of interest to Islamists today.
Why the big deal about Islamists coming "with quotes from the Koran" if you're then going to bait and switch and say it's all about doctrine (which you admit is not followed, or not followed the same way, by all Muslims)?
Joe,
I am not doing a bait and switch. I was noting that, among other doctrines, that Islam the religion is a set of ideas (i.e. tools in a toolbox). Those ideas/tools are followed (or not) differently, at least to some extent, by individual believers and at different times.
You replied that all religions have textual material related to violence - something that is undeniable but irrelevant, since my argument was about the use of such ideas, something I went to great pains to explain.
CONSIDER: There may be, somewhere in the world, a few Christians who want to start a crusade of the type that occurred in the Middle Ages. Were the doctrine to revive, I would be saying about Christians what I say about Islamists. That, however, is not our world.
In our world, Jihad remains an active doctrine, one that is, to the vast majority of the world's Muslims, an important part of the faith. As M.J. Akbar, a Muslim of India background, states in his excellent introductory book, Shade of Swords:
Jihad is the signature tune of Islamic history. If today's Muslim rulers are reluctant to sound that note, it is often because they are concerned about the consequences of failure.
What he writes about Jihad being the signature tune of Islam is, I think, literally true. The historical record is replete with declared Jihads and Jihad has served an imperial agenda that produced a great civilization - one that is, by any account, worthy of admiration. And, that makes the doctrine, frankly, important, such that your effort to assert, more or less, that all religions are interchangeable, is confused nonsense that has no basis in fact.
In any event, when you have a rather substantial group of Muslims - the Islamists - declaring a Jihad and acting on it, I take notice. And, given the millions of people who have already met their demise in the last 30 years due to publicly declared Jihads, I worry a great deal when I learn, as has been uncovered, that there are, in fact, some possible connections between the proposed center and Islamists.
[Note: I am not saying that Islam is worse than other religions. That is a different argument, one that I do not make and, in fact, do not believe. I think, instead, that Islam's teachings regarding war are, as Bernard Lewis has argued, far more practical than that of other religions. Islam's position is that, if war advances Islam's program, then war is not only allowed but is a moral imperative. The Roman Empire had such a doctrine and, all things considered, the Roman Empire was likely, overall, a force that bettered the world.]
I really worry about people who do not take religious doctrines seriously. They are very seriously mistaken.
Let me make a slight correction:
Strike the sentence that reads: "Islam's position is that, if war advances Islam's program, then war is not only allowed but is a moral imperative."
Substitute:
Islam's position (i.e. the traditional Sunni and Shi'a position) is that, if other means are inadequate (which is typically the case) to successfully advance Islam's program of spreading Islamic rule under Islamic law, then war is not only allowed but is a moral imperative.
Post a Comment