Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Buchanan Says Gingrich Went Too Far

Pat Buchanan told off Newt Gingrich for comparing the planned Muslim community center in southern Manhattan to putting up a swastika near the Holocaust museum. Though, it being Buchanan, one can't be precisely sure if he was speaking up in defense of the Muslims, or the Nazis.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes, Buchanan is an example of a white person who doesn't strive for social status above all else by denigrating other whites, especially middle and lower class whites. The game for those desiring upper class white status for the last few decades has been to distance themselves from the interests of the majority of whites, particularly the working class. However, there may be greater rewards in the world than being patted on the head by an effete, clownish and ultimately doomed upper class in the white community.

N. Friedman said...

Having Buchanan against something is a good reason to be for that something. Which is to say, his is a vote for Gingrich's view.

Rebecca said...

NF - I don't see why Pat Buchanan should determine my political views, whether he supports or opposes something. He's an open anti-semite and is still sad that the U.S. decided to fight on the Allied side during WWII.

(Nor, for that matter, do I consider Gingrich any kind of leader to follow - why do you?)

N. Friedman said...

Rebecca,

I was making a joke, not a serious comment.

But, to note, were I to have to choose - which, quite fortunately, I do not - between the two of them, I would choose Gingrich. And, so would you, no doubt.

Anonymous said...

Buchanan is not an "open anti-semite". Words have meanings. Being critical of the state of Israel does not make one "anti-semitic" anymore than being critical of Germany makes one "anti-Germanic".

Rebecca said...

NF - While I think that Buchanan is more vile than Gingrich (who for all his flaws is not antisemitic), I don't feel the need to choose between them.

As for Anonymous - Buchanan goes much further than criticizing the state of Israel. I criticize the state of Israel.

Buchanan thinks that Elena Kagan shouldn't have been confirmed as a Supreme Court justice because she's Jewish.

Buchanan is an apologist for Hitler - see http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068.

And by the way, he makes some pretty intemperate remarks about the planned Park51 project too, at his website - http://buchanan.org/blog/our-clueless-professor-4287

N. Friedman said...

Rebecca,

I do not recall saying that you should have to choose. I chose the subjunctive mood to express my point.

I agree with most of what you claim vis a vis Buchanan.

However, the fact that he opposes the Cordoba House has little to do with his view of Jews. So, I do not see how that figures into your argument. I note that a lot of people, including a number of prominent Muslims, including, for example, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, director of Al-Arabiya TV, have made what you would call impertinent remarks in opposition to the Cordoba House project, including:

I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a monument or a place of worship that tomorrow may become a source of pride for the terrorists and their Muslim followers, nor do they want a mosque that will become a shrine for the haters of Islam.

N. Friedman said...

CORRECTION:

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat is the name of a paper, which I inadvertently included as party of Mr. Al-Rashid's name. That is the paper where he made his remark.

Rebecca said...

NF - why are these remarks impertinent? (Or are you joking again?) They seem reasonable to me.

N. Friedman said...

Rebecca,

This time, I was not kidding. I note that Mr. Al-Rashid's position is nearly identical to US critics of the Cordoba House project, at least those who feared an Islamist connection and/or triumphalism. I believe you refer to that viewpoint as racist, at such is what you indicated when I noted that such objection was a reasonable point to be investigated.

joe said...

Airquotes, ahoy.

Time and David's wishes prclude me from going twelve rounds with you about this, N., but I want to say something about this "should be investigated" meme, because it's being thrown out there all over the place as a "common-sense" stance on the "mosque" debate.

That beacon of moderation Glenn Beck says construction should be halted while this investigation takes place. Well, halted by who? Government fiat? Islam is grounds enough to make a prima facie case for an injunction here? Or even if that's a moral rather than a legal "should," or we take the position of "investigate while construction continues", we've gotta ask who will be conducting this investigation? The government again? Yeah, "reasonable suspicion" based entirely on religion, won't have a chilling effect or violate equal protection at all. Or do we just take the word of some private "concerned citizens" with no accountability or requirement of due process when they claim to find some incriminating evidence?

I want to know who's leading the inquiry we spparently so desperately need. In fact, I propose an investigation into the likely would-be "mosque" investigators, so we can be assured of a full and fair "mosque" investigation that is free of ties to any radical extremists.

N. Friedman said...

Joe,

For purposes of not taking over comment posting, I shall attempt to be both complete and concise.

1. I do not oppose the project, noting that religious freedom, absent some compelling state interest, ought govern the situation.

2. There would, in my mind, be a compelling reason to preclude the project if, in fact, it were funded by Islamists. At present, there is some smoke suggesting that such may be the case. That is enough reason for an investigation, by the government or an enterprising reporter, etc.

3. Of course, it is rather likely - perhaps, a certainty -, that to Islamists (whether or not they are behind the project), building the center near the former WTC has great symbolic value, something that can be seen as a triumph. I can live with what I see as the above noted objectionable symbolism - meaning that such is not a compelling state interest to interfere. However, I can understand someone opposing the project on the ground of its near certain symbolic value on the ground that there is a war with Islamists. Which is to say, I think someone could view that symbolism, given that we are in a war with Islamism, as a compelling reason to oppose the project. That, however, is not my view.

4. Given that we are at war with Islamists, prudence suggests investigating the project, most especially because there is some smoke so suggesting such possibility. If it turns out that Islamists are behind it, then it should be halted or, if such is later uncovered, the project should be torn down. If it upsets you that we should worry about some things Islamic, I can live with that as well. However, it is only things Islamists which, I think, need to be banned on the ground of a compelling state interest.

5. I do not know or care what Glen Beck says.

6. If you want my personal view of the project, I think it appalling, but that belief is not, to me, enough to ban the project. I think it appalling because it is akin to an Orthodox church being built immediately near where the massacres occurred in Srebrenica.

Rebecca said...

NF - well, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Al Rashid. I think this is an open and shut case of religious freedom, which should be extended to Muslims as to any other religious group in America.

I disagree with him also on the grounds that the people initiating this project have nothing to do with Al Qaeda - Imam Rauf is a Sufi, and both the Bush and Obama administrations have trusted him enough to send him on trips to Muslim countries to persuade them that the U.S. is an open and tolerant nation for Muslims. Rauf is currently on such a trip to Saudi Arabia.

Another person who has just come out in favor of the right to build the Muslim community center is Ted Olson, whose wife died on the hijacked plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

Rebecca said...

NF - on your argument, that it is "appalling" to build a house of worship near a location where that religion's adherents slaughtered another group of people, does that mean that there should be no synagogue built near the location of the former village of Deir Yassin?

N. Friedman said...

Rebecca,

Deir Yassin was the location of a massacre of - and this is subject to disagreement - between 100 and 200 or so people. The more likely number is nearer to 100 people. The attack was not in the name of a religion and the number of people killed was not in the thousands. It was roundly condemned most of that regions' Jews and it led to a massacre of more than 70 Jews (i.e. the doctor's massacre).

Srebrenica was the location of confirmed acts of genocide, with thousands of people killed and religion being the issue. The attack on the WTC was an act of genocidal rage, if not genocide, in which thousands of people were killed.

I would not, for what it is worth, place a synagogue in a location likely to offend.

You claim that the initiator of the project is a Sufi, as if that means he might not also be an Islamist. Perhaps, that possibility has not occurred to you. And, perhaps, it has not occurred to you that, for example, the nuns at Auschwitz were not Nazis and had good intentions. It was still appalling, just as the Cordoba Project is.

David Schraub said...

I continue to think the better analogy is to having a Jewish shrine near the Cave of the Patriarchs, given Baruch Goldstein. In any event, 9/11 was roundly condemned by most American Muslims too, so if that's insulation, the Park 51 Mosque is on perfectly solid turf.

"Islamist" is such a vague term these days that it could mean anybody, but it is true that a Sufi Muslim would have a tough time aligning with, say, al-Qaeda, given that al-Qaeda considers Sufis to be apostates. Moreover, there is simply not compelling evidence that the folks behind the Park 51 site are anything but good-hearted, patriotic Americans, with perfectly mainstream views. Aside from the fact that I should assume that about all people (Muslim or not) absent evidence otherwise, people I trust on these issues confirm it, and the only people alleging otherwise are people I do not trust. And I don't believe in subjecting folks to a polygraph test before I decide whether to deign their religious expression with my blessing. I'm not that full of myself.

I'm sorry that building a religious community center in southern Manhattan appalls you. It is appalling to me that Muslims should be asked to even voluntarily withdraw from a zone of indeterminate radius in southern Manhattan because other Muslims committed evil acts in the vicinity. Looks like one of us is going to be a sad little critter in a few months.

Rebecca said...

NF - how much do you know about Islam? A Sufi shrine in Pakistan was recently attacked by suicide bombers who were part of the Pakistani Taliban, killing dozens of people. The Wahhabi rulers of Saudi Arabia consider Sufis (and Shiites for that matter) to be idolaters because of their reverence of the tombs of holy men and women. The onus is upon you to present evidence in favor of the proposition that there are Sufi Islamists. And it is doubly upon you to prove that Imam Rauf is such a person.

N. Friedman said...

David and Rebecca,

Why is it that I am attacked for merely imagine the questioning of the bona fides of the project? I am not advocating its being banned, although I am appalled by it.

I find it difficult to believe that a college educated person, a graduate of a first rate institution and a professor of religion, could, for even a second, doubt the possibility that the Cordoba Center is an act of triumphalism funded by Islamist fanatics.

To me, your opinion amounts to a declaration that you have chosen to wear intellectual blinders.

David's comment that most American Muslims condemned the 9/11 attack is contrary to fact. Most American Muslims said nothing at all. And, many American Muslims were shown on TV cheering. I cannot imagine any person of beyond a fourth grade level telling a pollster that he or she favored 9/11, so I discount polling on this topic. That, especially given that a Muslim person of normal intelligence would be concerned that the pollster might, in fact, be an FBI agent.

I am not sure why you object to the term Islamist. I think it has a general accepted meaning.

Islamists believe that Islam has stagnated. They seek to return to the understanding of the religion, including the traditional understanding Jihad, the House of Islam and of War, sharia, etc., that existed before the religion became corrupted - i.e., a return to the time of their prophet and his companions.

They, nearly as a rule, emphasize the political aspects of the religion, interpreting Jihad more or less as Kharijites interpreted it - as a personal matter. In Patricia Crone's excellent book, God's Rule - Government and Islam: Six Centuries of Medieval Islamic Political Thought, she chronicles the difficulties that rulers had preventing private Jihads - this over the course of many centuries. Religious fanatics would move to the edge of Islamic ruled territory and commit acts of terrorism in non-Islamic territory. This went on, often against the will of a ruler, over the course of 6 centuries.

Islamists follow, unlike the traditional view, a personal view of Jihad, which, I think, finds solace in the important Hadith that indicates that the asceticism of Islam is Jihad (i.e. Jihad as Jihad war). In any event, this personal version of Jihad breaks with the classical interpretation of Jihad fi sabil Allah, which held that Jihad was a communal responsibility and operated, in practice, as a government function - i.e. under the rule of the commander (i.e. imam or sometimes Caliph) of the faithful -, not as an individual obligation (unless the House of Islam is under attack, in which case Jihad becomes a personal obligation).

Islamists, moreover, focus on the hadiths which cast Jews in a bad light. Jews are charged with trying to kill Mohammad, with killing or trying to kill all prior prophets and with falsifying the Torah. They tend to hold that Jews must be eliminated from the face of the Earth, as noted in the Hamas covenant. It is also the view of Shi'a Islamists.

The modern tendency to view Jews as sinister has substantial historic precedent but, in fact, has taken on a special life, likely due to the efforts of Hassan al-Banna and, most especially Hajj Amin al-Husseini. The latter helped craft this interpretation on behalf of the Nazi government and broadcast this interpretation to the Arab regions. Al-Banna evidently accepted and fostered this view as well.

Turning now to the imam, the imam in the center has not exactly condemned 9/11, indicating that the US was somehow complicit. That is not the view of a moderate, who wants to heal rifts. 9/11, by any rational understanding, was the act of religious fanatics, claiming to act in the name of their faith. The act was widely cheered throughout the Muslim regions, by Sunni, Shi'a and others.

N. Friedman said...

Rebecca,

I think I know more than most lay people about Islam, including Sufism, but I do not claim expertise. However, I have studied original Islamic texts and have done so over the course of 30 years. And, I am rather familiar with Islamic law, theology and texts - again, as a lay person. And, I have read a great many historical studies of Islam, its history and culture - from all points of view that I am aware of.

Your view appears to be that Sunni terrorists would not work with Shia or Sufi and vice versa. Yet, we have substantial evidence that such occurs, most particularly Shi'a nuts who fund Sunni nuts - as in Iran's Hezbollah funding Hamas. We have evidence that the Brotherhood published a book by the founder of the proposed Cordoba Center.

My last comment on this - and I am relying here on what atheism advocate Sam Harris, author of the very interesting book The End of Faith. He argues that Islam, at present, simply cannot be considered like any other faith. Which is to say, there is reason to be suspect of the Cordoba Center, which is built exactly where an Islamist would build such a center, thus suggesting the likelihood that there is some connection with Islamists. To me, that is enough, given that we are in a war with religious fanatics. I am not interested in taking any chances with fanatics - except as I have noted.

David Schraub said...

I saw zero, and I mean zero, instances of American Muslims celebrating 9/11. Certainly none that could be characterized as representing some sort of institutional or broadly-held view. Here's a roundup of American Muslim organizations which immediately condemned the attacks. That the American Muslim community was indifferent or even supportive of 9/11 is a vicious slander, and you're skating on another ban.

Imam Rauf was quite unequivocal in condemning the terrorist acts of 9/11. That being said, there are plenty of people, including plenty of well-regarded academic scholars, who think that 9/11 was "blowback" for American foreign policy actions. That's an opinion one can hold without at all justifying the attacks. Trying to condemn someone for locating the 9/11 attacks within geopolitics is pure demogoguery.

And finally, I wouldn't even dignify the "evidence" you're proffering that the Cordoba Initiative or the community center is objectionable with the term "circumstantial". If Islamists can't stand Jews, than it would be quite odd if an Islamist community center would include Jews on its Board of Advisers (and if you try and compare Rabbi Hirschfield to the Neturei Karta, your post will be deleted, and you will be banned). There's no evidence of significant Sufi participation in modern radical Islam (and indeed, Sufis and Jews have historically had strong relations). That you can't conceptualize this community center as anything but Islamist triumphalism is simply proof of Joseph Alsop's adage that "A man who has bought a theory will fight a furious rear guard action against the facts."

N. Friedman said...

David,

The cheering was shown on TV, whether or not you saw it. The fact is that I saw it. I was in the Boston area that day and it was on that city's local TV.

Again, I reiterate that, absent proof of Islamist connections, I do not oppose the Cordoba Center. However, if there are any real substantive Islamist connections, then I would ban the project or have it torn down.

What I said regarding the views of Muslims with respect to 9/11 is that we do not, for the reasons I have already said, have much useful polling data on the topic but that, in fact, most Muslims were silent. That is a fact. It is not an indication that most Muslims supported 9/11 and that is not my view. It merely notes that your statement is not based on evidence.

Now, there is polling, beginning in 2007, which indicates that "61% say they are concerned about the possible rise of Islamic extremism in the U.S.". Perhaps, you should listen to that. 5% were willing to admit at least some sympathy for al-Qaeda - which is an extraordinary figure and, with all the notoriety that horrid group has earned, I would think that the percentage that would admit sympathy would be far lower - at least if the overblown issue theory were true. The poll also reveals that 13% of Muslims can imagine circumstances where suicide bombings are appropriate - an even more amazing figure - i.e. more than 1 in 10 people.

You have also provided a link to some meaningless pablum, by groups which allegedly condemned the 9/11 attack. In the Holy Land Foundation criminal litigation, a great many documents, internal to the Brotherhood, became public. They contradict the likelihood of the sincerity of at least some of the groups who issued statements regarding 9/11. I would suggest you read some of the documents including those that will turn your stomach. I would ask that you start with this internal document, which is now widely published, including here. You might find what appears on page 21 interesting, including what is stated below:

4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:
The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny for those who chose to slack. but, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.


By the way, similar documents have been uncovered in Europe, which include very detailed plans, strategy and tactics, for undermining European civilization, with a time line running for several decades. I obtained a translation for the French docuemtn and confirmed its authenticity with a well-known historian of Islam, who is an acquaintance of mine.

I do not think, by the way, that most American Muslims have any part in what is pushed by the Brotherhood except to note that belief that Islam will come to dominate the world, by means of Jihad and da'wa, is traditional Islamic belief - unless you think Bernard Lewis is a liar. I think, instead, that the civilizational destruction plan is the work of a group of well educated elites holding fanatical (or, for some, feigned fanatical) religious views. But, it is a group that is ascendant, due to clever politics and violence.

CONTINUED BELOW

N. Friedman said...

Your comment about a Sufi-Jewish love-fest is contradicted by the evidence shown in Andrew Bostom's book, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism. Benny Morris reviewed the book, giving it rather high praise, by the way. You might more correctly state that Sufis hold more diverse views - some positive, some Antisemitic - regarding Jews than do those of the Islamist stripe.

One needs to examine things other than at the surface. There are a great many Muslims - in some parts of the Islamic world, very large numbers - who have no use for Islamists and their agenda. However, the Islamists are an important, not a marginal, element throughout the Islamic world today. Theirs is not the only movement but, given the several million people whose lives have been lost due to Islamists, discounting the group's importance is, as I see things, naive or ignorant.


You also assert that the existence of a Jew on the Board of the Cordoba House means something important. To me, it says nothing at all. I suggest that you look at the names of who sit on the boards of major US corporations. They are filled with people of fame and, not infrequently, have no important corporate role or even knowledge. Unless such people play an active role in management, they are window dressing. Come on, David, you can do better than that.

Bostom, in an interview for Democratiya Magazine - found on the Dissent Magazine website - said:

So I began analysing writings about the condition of Hindus and Buddhists subjugated by Jihad on the Indian subcontinent. I looked at the relatively progressive period, under the Mughul ruler Akbar the Great. He began as a pious Jihadist and waged very bloody campaigns against the Hindus, but something changed in the course of his rule. He became much more tolerant of Hindus, abolished the Jizya (the Koranic poll-tax, pace Koran 9:29; jizya means, ‘the tax paid in lieu of being slain’) appointed Hindus to administrative positions, and seems to have become a Muslim-Hindu syncretist in his personal religious beliefs. This led to a brief flowering of Hindu society. His reforms were violently opposed by the Muslim ulema, and I was reading an anti-Hindu tract by an Indian Sufi Muslim theologian named Sirhindi who died in 1621. The tract contained a line that just jumped out at me. ‘Whenever a Jew is killed it is for the bene t of Islam.’ I tried to get whatever biographical materials I could on Sirhindi and I could fi nd no evidence that he had had any physical contact with Jews. This astonished me.

I wanted to understand where the anti-Jewish animus came from, and that led me to the project on Islamic antisemitism. And as with the project on Jihad, I was led back to the sacred texts – the Koran, the Hadith and the Sira (the earliest pious Muslim biographies of the Prophet) – and to the juridical texts. I began to see clearly that alongside the general attitude to non-Muslims there was a speci c anti-Jewish animus, which comes from the foundational texts.

N. Friedman said...

Correction:

The material I quoted did not paste in perfectly. I have corrected it below:

So I began analysing writings about the condition of Hindus and Buddhists subjugated by Jihad on the Indian subcontinent. I looked at the relatively progressive period, under the Mughul ruler Akbar the Great. He began as a pious Jihadist and waged very bloody campaigns against the Hindus, but something changed in the course of his rule. He became much more tolerant of Hindus, abolished the Jizya (the Koranic poll-tax, pace Koran 9:29; jizya means, ‘the tax paid in lieu of being slain’) appointed Hindus to administrative positions, and seems to have become a Muslim-Hindu syncretist in his personal religious beliefs. This led to a brief flowering of Hindu society. His reforms were violently opposed by the Muslim ulema, and I was reading an anti-Hindu tract by an Indian Sufi Muslim theologian named Sirhindi who died in 1621. The tract contained a line that just jumped out at me. ‘Whenever a Jew is killed it is for the benefit of Islam.’ I tried to get whatever biographical materials I could on Sirhindi and I could find no evidence that he had had any physical contact with Jews. This astonished me.

I wanted to understand where the anti-Jewish animus came from, and that led me to the project on Islamic antisemitism. And as with the project on Jihad, I was led back to the sacred texts – the Koran, the Hadith and the Sira (the earliest pious Muslim biographies of the Prophet) – and to the juridical texts. I began to see clearly that alongside the general attitude to non-Muslims there was a specific anti-Jewish animus, which comes from the foundational texts.

David Schraub said...

"Muslims didn't condemn 9/11". "Yes they did." "I don't trust polls." "Here's statements by virtually all leading American Muslim organizations." "They could be lying -- you know how Muslims are. And a whopping 5% have "some sympathy" for al-Qaeda."

Likewise: "Islamists hate Jews and want to kill them." "Well then the Cordoba Initiative makes for sucky Islamists, since they have a Rabbi on their board and he still seems to be quite alive." "That doesn't prove anything -- maybe he's just a useful dupe!"

Your views are effectively unfalsifiable, and thus worthless to me and a waste of space on my blog. Do not reenter this thread.

joe said...

Surely, surely, if there were footage of a bunch of American Muslims celebrating 9/11 it would be referenced freely by various and sundry right-wingers in opinion columns and talk show appearances from 9/11 to eternity. Perhaps memory fails you, or the story was in error, or you are thinking footage of Muslims in other countries (though, I should add, there is some dispute as to whether celebrations on said footage were actually a response to the 9/11 attacks at all -- that's an argument I lost track of years ago).

And even if your claim is accurate, that doesn't establish a link to Cordoba... and even if the backers and builders of the community center did hold such reprehensible views, they would still have the constitutional right to worship freely (though moral condemnation by public figures would become understandable at that point--but that's all speculation, nothing justifying a preemptive witch hunt).

Second, cherry-picking polls is bad enough without spinning them beyond recognition. One in ten imagine a scenario in which suicide bombing is justified? I wonder how many Americans imagine scenarios in which deploying nuclear weapons against a city is justified. I can imagine space aliens landing in my backyard. Give me a break, or at least some polls grounded in concrete realities rather than the respondents' imaginations.

joe said...

(Sorry David, didn't see your last post in the interval of typing mine up. Not meaning to jump-start a conversation you ended.)

Rebecca said...

Speaking of Muslim reactions to the 9/11 attacks - one thing I clearly remember is that people in Iran, like people all over the world, held candlelit vigils mourning the victims of the attacks. It was one of the very moving things that happened in the wake of the attacks. There may have been some Muslims who rejoiced on 9/11, but I think they were vastly outnumbered by decent people who were appalled at what happened.