Tuesday, August 24, 2010
....FORMER ROOMATE!
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's book What's Right with Islam is What's Right with America, was published in America by a press owned by none other than Fox News' Rupert Murdoch. Which, under the Spaceballs criterion of guilt that the Cordoba Initiative is being forced to play under, makes Fox News a terrorist affiliate (and the Cordoba Initiative a conservative hack outfit, I guess).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Interestingly, the book was re-published, with a different title, by two front groups for the Brotherhood.
Also, interestingly, the imam seems to oppose the existence of Israel, advocating for a one-state solution.
Interestingly, he also sees fit to be an apologist, of sorts, for suicide bombers.
These things are all legal things to advocate, of course. And, they are not reasons to ban the Cordoba Center. But, his are not the opinions of a man who is looking to heal wounds - which is supposedly his mission.
Again, this is his choice, legally speaking and that is the end of it for me, unless evidence of direct Islamist support comes out. However and quite frankly and obviously, it is an appalling choice which suggests little interest in healing wounds.
First of all, you need links for those claims (try to avoid Pam Geller).
Second, so Rupert Murdoch published a book republished by a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood. What does that tell us about Fox? Are they Islamist sympathizers? Do we need to stop watching? Is it appalling that they have offices in New York (of course, they have the right, but given their funding of known extremists....)? How far does this chain extend?
David,
The comments about Israel and the apologia for suicide bombers is found on Steve Emerson's webite - for which he has the imam on tape. Here is the link. Emerson does not make stuff up, as you surely know. The imam's quote about Israel reads:
The differences, perhaps, may lie on whether the solution lies in the two-state solution or in a one-state solution. I believe that you had someone here recently who spoke about having a one land and two people's solution to Israel. And I personally - my own personal analysis tells me that a one-state solution is a more coherent one than a two-state solution. So if we address the underlying issue, if we figure out a way to create condominiums, to condominiamise Israel and Palestine so you have two peoples co-existing on one state, then we have a different paradigm which will allow us to move forward
The information about the re-publication of the book by a Brotherhood front group was written by well-known former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who does not make stuff up, as you surely know. Here is the link.
I am glad that you are supporting a man who opposes Israel's existence, David. And, I am glad you think he will heal wounds. I rather doubt it.
At the same time, absent a real connection with Islamists, I do not favor banning his project. But, I still think it is appalling and has nothing to do with healing wounds - just as his opinions about suicide bombers are not the sort of opinions that help heal wounds. They exasperate them.
Did you decide not to post my links to the articles?
I'll try again:
Steve Emerson does not make stuff up. He has taps of the imam saying rather immoderate things. Here is the link. On Israel, the imam says:
The differences, perhaps, may lie on whether the solution lies in the two-state solution or in a one-state solution. I believe that you had someone here recently who spoke about having a one land and two people's solution to Israel. And I personally - my own personal analysis tells me that a one-state solution is a more coherent one than a two-state solution. So if we address the underlying issue, if we figure out a way to create condominiums, to condominiamise Israel and Palestine so you have two peoples co-existing on one state, then we have a different paradigm which will allow us to move forward.
Here is the link to former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy about the imam's book being re-published by a Brotherhood front group.
As I noted: the imam is free to build whatever he wants, legally that is. However, he is probably not a moderate, based on the available information. And, given his opinions, he is not likely to heal many wounds. More likely, he is bound to exacerbate them.
It is interesting, however, that you are supporting a man who opposes Israel's existence.
No -- they didn't post on their own -- I'm not sure what happened. Frankly, I had assumed you'd deleted the post after realizing how embarrassing it would have been to claim Andy McCarthy as your ace in hole (quasi-birther conspiracy nuts who think Bill Ayers may have ghost-written Obama's book -- totes credible!). I guess not.
Meanwhile, it took me all of 20 seconds on the Google to find Imam Rauf saying "I am a supporter of the state of Israel" -- again, not language one would ever hear from a closet Islamist (even the flirtation with one-staterism -- and I know very little about the IPT -- while extremely distressing, is not proof of Islamism. There are lots of secular folks who believe in that deeply misguided solution. Few of them would ever come out and say "I am a supporter of the state of Israel."). Admittedly, this language came after some equivocation about whether Hamas is a terrorist group. But as the article makes clear, Imam Rauf has since been quite unequivocal in denouncing Hamas' terrorists acts.
David,
You might investigate Steven Emerson. He is well known and does not make stuff up. He has given testimony to Congress and had at least one special on PBS. In this case, he has 13 hours of the imam on tape. He is, as I understand it, only beginning to release quotes from it (although the tape is available to listen to).
Andrew McCarthy, whatever he says about something else, has posted the copyright page from the imam's book. It is here. So, whatever you may think of McCarthy's views, the copyright page is not something made up. And, it does not quite help your view, does it?
The imam's views about Israel are appalling, whether or not he has said things that oppose Hamas's version of committing massacres. Opposing Israel's existence simply is not a moderate's view. Right, David? Or, are you so sure that the man is a real moderate that his support of the one state solution and his willingness to speak apologia for those who commit suicide massacres - which he is also now on the record doing - can be ignored?
That copyright page is pretty damning, alright. Through a "joint effort" of the ISNA and IIIT, Imam Rauf's book was made available "to promote a proper understanding of Islam and common ground between Islam and the west." Damn, son, I recant.
All the claims that the ISNA is a "Muslim Brotherhood" front group stems from its status as an "unindicted coconspirator" in the 2007 Holy Land foundation case. The problem with being unindicted, of course, is that one is never charged, and thus never convicted, and really is never able to provide a defense. Other than that, the claims of a connection between the ISNA and Islamists are very thin, and is essentially recycled charges by folks like, well, Andy McCarthy, who quite frankly is a conspiracy theorist, but whom you told me "didn't make things up". Well, yes, he does, frequently, and so I have to take with a grain of salt your assertions about who else "doesn't make things up".
But really, all of this is besides the point. I don't need to like all of Imam Rauf's views, because one doesn't build bridges with people already on your side of the river. The question is whether I can have a conversation with someone who has unequivocably condemned terrorism worldwide (including by Hamas against Israel), who characterizes himself as a supporter of the state of Israel, who gave a stirring eulogy for Daniel Pearl where he called himself a Jew, who has a demonstrated track record of successful interfaith dialogue with the mainstream Jewish and Christian community, and whose book is an attempt to harmonize Western and Islamic values (and whose content is unaffected by its publisher -- the ISNA imprint doesn't make him a radical Islamist anymore than the Murdoch-owned HarperCollins one makes him a reactionary conservative). The answer to that question is an unabashed yes.
Here is what PBS has on Emerson:
Steven Emerson
Investigative Project on Terrorism, Executive Director
Emerson is an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security, a correspondent, and an author.
He now serves as the Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism the nation's largest archival data and intelligence on Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorist groups.
Emerson started The Investigative Project on Terrorism in late 1995, following the broadcast of his documentary film, JIHAD IN AMERICA, on PBS. The film exposed video of clandestine operations of militant Islamic terrorist groups on American soil. For the film, Emerson received numerous awards.
Over the past several years, Emerson has testified more than two dozen times before Congress, and he has briefed the National Security Council, the Justice Department, and other federal agencies. He appears frequently on MSNBC, Fox News and CNN. Emerson has authored or co-authored six books on topics related to terrorism.
As I said, Emerson is a reliable source of information, as is his Investigative Project.
Here is what Emerson has on ISNA. It is or was a front group.
I think you are reading more into McCarthy's views, based on the information you provide, than is there. I read what he has now stated in an interview, plus the information you have provided. All told, he noted some things for which, in hindsight, sounds pretty wrong. That, however, is different from making things up.
David,
You quote the Imam saying, "I am a supporter of the state of Israel." The issue here is what sort of state he supports. His 2005 speech says that he supports the one state solution for Israel.
I strikes me that you do not seem to imagine that the Imam parses his language, to make statements which provide insufficient information about his true beliefs. Again - in his 2005 speech, his love for Israel means that he supports the one state solution, not the Israel you support.
Beyond any reasonable basis, you still think he is really a moderate. Read what Christopher Hitchens writes about the Imam. Hitchens basically agrees with my view that the Imam is not the moderate you seem to think he is. As he says, "The more one reads through his statements, the more alarming it gets." And, "I do not find myself reassured by the fact that Imam Rauf publicly endorses the most extreme and repressive version of Muslim theocracy."
David, it is time to awaken. He is not a moderate. While his project is legal, that does not make him what the Times, in its insufficient investigation, mistakenly believed. We now have a lot of evidence that he is not a moderate.
Post a Comment