No, the title is not a typo. In the meantime, opponents of the Park 51 community center don't know exactly where "Ground Zero" ends and Muslims should be allowed to build things. 10 blocks away? 100 blocks away? The entire island of Manhattan? Who knows! We ought to just throw up our hands like the American Family Association, and just ban Mosques nationwide!
This sudden escalation of hate and prejudice is reflected by the nearly one-third of Americans think Muslims shouldn't be allowed to run for President. As Dan Filler accurately notes, "anti-Muslim sentiments are beginning to jump the levees, spreading out across Village Americana." We are teetering on the precipice of this becoming mainstream -- part of "normal politics", rather than banished to the fringes where it belongs. It's scary. It's very, very scary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
David,
In other words, David, the Cordoba Center, brought to you by a man who, as caught on tape, says that he believes in the one state solution and provides, on that tape, an apologia for suicide killers, has, in part due to mindless people who falsely call him and his project moderate, brought out a lot of hateful people.
How can you support a man, as a moderate, who believes in the one state solution? That is not the view of a moderate.
How can you support a man, as a moderate, who provides apologia for suicide bombers? This is not the view of a moderate. It just is not.
The second is just false, the former is, at best, uncorroborated (again, I recall the last person you told me "didn't make things up" was someone who is prone to believing deranged conspiracies). It is unfortunate, but your credibility as a recommender is severely damaged when you start citing Andrew McCarthy. What it comes down to is that I trust Jeffrey Goldberg more than I trust Andrew McCarthy. Or the IPT. Or Pam Geller. Or yourself. Judgment call.
And this whole comment has nothing to do with the topic of this post, which is that the folks who say they oppose "this Mosque in this spot" seem, in actuality, to oppose any Mosque, in any spot, and in fact any Muslim, in any public role in America. The desperate guilt-by-infinitely-long-chain-of-association (founder published a book republished by a consortium which includes a group that was linked to the Muslim Brotherhood which supports Hamas!) is simply ex post facto rationalization.
David,
He is on tape, which you can download, apologizing for suicide bombers. How is that fake? The tape was uncovered by well known investigative reporter Steven Emerson. He advises the government on terrorism and appears on major news outlets, had a documentary on PBS, etc., etc. Do you deny the tape's authenticity? On what basis?
Get real.
David,
Goldberg claims to have met the Imam. He, however, does not know him well - having only met him once or twice. The Imam has him saying nice things about Jews.
We also have the Imam on tape saying he believes in the One state solution. There is no imaginable basis to deny what he says and Steven Emerson simply does not make stuff up.
Your comments about Andrew McCarthy are bizarre. He was prosecutor in the first WTC bombing. He is not a nut. He raised a question about Obama's birth certificate. It was, at the time, a reasonable question. The question has been answered to the extent possible - i.e., the State of Hawaii has provided a document, the only one it is permitted to provide without permission from the person involved, that shows Obama's birth information. McCarthy notes that he does not understand why the President does not agree to permit the original document to be seen - thus bringing the Birther claims to an end. That is not nuts. While I think it is an unnecessary given what the State of Hawaii did release, his question is not nuts.
I do not know what Pam Geller has to do with this. Steven Emerson is a major league reporter with a stellar reputation. His investigations about terrorism are read.
In any event, this is not about comparing sources. We have actual speeches, one that sounds moderate and one that is immoderate. You, being unwilling to imagine that people you have not heard of or who may hold odd views could have useful information, ignore incontrovertible evidence. That is not being a good lawyer. That is how you lose a case.
This tape hasn't been vetted by anybody outside the IPT. My understanding is that it isn't available to download in total, but only in snippets (their site is down right now, so I can't check) -- and we all learned a valuable lesson from Andrew Breitbart about tape snippets, didn't we? When I was reading the IPT post, it's "fact check" interludes were hardly facts at all -- they were naked editorializing, and provided, shall we say, a rather distorted gloss on the actual transcript they were quoting. Between that, and the fact that you paired them with Andrey McCarthy in the "people worth trusting" category, well, the grains of salt are starting to pile up.
The claim that Rauf apologizes for suicide bombers on that tape, or anywhere else, is flatly inaccurate, and that you keep pressing the claim is really destructive of your credibility on the matter. The one-staterism is, as I said, distressing. But it also puts Imam Rauf in the same camp as Reuven Rivlin. Whom I also disagree with, strongly, but whom I wouldn't argue for expelling from "moderate" society.
In any event, again, one doesn't build bridges to people already on your side of the river. If we already agreed on everything, there wouldn't be need for these dialogues in the first place. What makes Rauf's position legitimate, in my opinion, is that it is clear from the excerpted passage where he expresses his preference for one-state (or at least, views it as more "coherent"), that he is not wedded to it. There are lots of Israelis and Palestinians who prefer one-state, and I'm not interested in challenging their preference. I only care if they'll accept two states, and it seems clear from that passage that Rauf will. That's all I need to open a conversation.
He raised a question about Obama's birth certificate. It was, at the time, a reasonable question.
...And, we're done here.
David,
"And we're done here."
At that time, before the election, it was a reasonable question - until the answer came, at which point it became nonsense.
Another point:
My pairing of comments is irrelevant to whether the tape states what it states.
And, to claim that Emerson is like Breitbart is to be dishonest. And, the tape is available, not just snippets. It can be found here.
At this point, the conversation is over because you are playing games.
"He is on tape, which you can download, apologizing for suicide bombers. How is that fake? "
I heard him on tape on Fox News categorically saying suicide bombing and terrorism were absolutely forbidden by Islamic law. As for 'believing' in a one state solution....errr so what? How exactly do we go from Ground Zero being sacred ground to a litmas test on Israeli politics? Pat Buchannan is highly critical of Israel, should he be prohibited from speaking at any churches located within whatever the current magic circle is surrounding the 'sacred ground'? Should any church that wants to build something near ground zero be made to pinky promise never to have Pat Buchannan speak there least the graves of the victims be disturbed?
Boonton,
Belief in the one state solution means, as a practical matter, you believe in the dissolution of Israel, which would mean the end of the Jewish national home. That is simply not a moderate view. David's response to that is self-denial, claiming he does not trust the tape until they are vetted. At this point, however, the tape is being "vetted" and no one is doubting its authenticity.
The imam's statements about suicide acts and terror are not necessarily explicit in the way you believe them to be. One needs to parse his words closely, taking into account that he speaks as an imam and scholar - not like a man off the street -, to see what is included and excluded from his statements.
Consider: in Islamic law, suicide is forbidden but, if you read Islamist materials carefully, you will learn that jihadis killed in suicide bombings are not considered as committing suicide. They are rationalized, among other ways, to be in high risk operations (akin to the assassin sect of Islam, from the Medieval period) and, hence, those killed are martyrs (i.e. shahids). Similarly, Islamic law forbids killing children, women and clergy unless such persons are engaged in fighting Muslims, directly or indirectly. Islamists interpret the prohibition as applying but take the view that, in democracies, all citizens are part of the governance of the country and, hence, part of the supposed fight against Muslims/Islam and thus a proper target.
So, we have an imam who condemns suicide bombers and terror but is, most especially with respect groups like Hamas, circumspect. The question is what he means by his chosen words. Moreover, he is on tape providing an apologia for those who engage in terror tactics. As such, it is not particularly clear that he really opposes suicide bombers and terror, only the concept of suicide bombers and terror.
There is an old Thom Lehrer song routine from his That Was the Week That Was, in which he discusses Barry Goldwater's views. Lehrer says that Goldwater is for freedom in theory; just not in practice. He is opposed to nuclear war in theory; just not in practice. Etc., etc. So, when you listen to the imam, read or listen to his words carefully. When he is slow to condemn Hamas and when he says that he leaves it to the NYC police to say who was involved in 9/11, his words are not properly taken at face value.
The imam is also on record expressing his liking of the Iranian political system, including the portion of the system which is least democratic, namely, the vilayet-i-faquih, by which the clergy can override the government. He evidently thinks that we should accept the phony election last year.
Again, these are all views which people are free to express. They are not, however, moderate views. And, the view about Israel is beyond the pale of a person who wants to be seen as a moderate.
Y'know, it wasn't too long ago (before realism and demographic concerns caught up) that support for a Palestinian state was a controversial position to take in Israel. I somehow doubt that N. Friedman was in a rush back then to condemn Israel as immoderate for scorning the idea of a Palestinian national home.
Just putting that out there since it seems to be such a sticking point for N. I'll go back to holding my tongue though, because while it's definitely telling of the kind of double standards we see applied to Arabs and Muslims, it really speaks for itself.
N. Friedman
Belief in the one state solution means, as a practical matter, you believe in the dissolution of Israel,....
That's all very relevant if this fellow, say, ran for Congress or was nominated to be an Ambassador or Sec. of State. He hasn't. If he is opposed to suicide bombing and terrorism then he can certainly be wrong about what the best solution is for the Israel-Palestine issue. Pat Robertson believes America deserved 9/11 because we aren't mean enough to Wiccans and the ACLU. A Baptist Church that wants to open in an old Burlington Coat Factory a block away from ground zero need not stand before a tribunal and denounce all association with Pat Robertson. This is America, not Communist China or the USSR under Stalin.
Consider: in Islamic law, suicide is forbidden but, if you read Islamist materials carefully, you will learn that jihadis killed in suicide bombings are not considered as committing suicide.
Interestingly I was listening to a woman on the radio talk about marriage. She said she believes in 'death do us part' but read that to mean the death of the relationship...hence there was no issue with divorce. Needless to say Christians for hundreds of years have forgotten that for over a thousand years interest was considered clearly and absolutely forbidden by scripture. No matter what the actual text says, if you really want something you'll pull it out. So most imams will say suicide bombing is forbidden. Jihadists will say its acceptable. This is the downside to having a religion based on scripture. You'll produce a lot of lawyers and wannabe lawyers. What do you propose we do about it?
So, we have an imam who condemns suicide bombers and terror but is, most especially with respect groups like Hamas, circumspect. The question is what he means by his chosen words. ...
Unfortunately there is little room in the public forum to really engage him because people like you have allowed the yahoos to take center stage. I think, for example, Christopher Hitchens's excellent pieces on the issue are apt here but how much time can we afford to spend on them when we have New Gingrich?
He is opposed to nuclear war in theory; just not in practice. Etc., etc. So, when you listen to the imam, read or listen to his words carefully. When he is slow to condemn Hamas and when he says that he leaves it to the NYC police to say who was involved in 9/11, his words are not properly taken at face value.
Which is what I'd do if he was nominated to be Sec. of State or if he ran for office. But even kooks get free speech and freedom of religion and private property. From what I've seen of him he seems like a reasonable guy. It would be interesting to see someone debate him and really challenge him to honestly evaluate Hamas as an organization and gov't. (BTW, I caught Bill Mahr's documentary on religion a few nights ago....he has an excellent scene where he confronts a kind of Muslim 'gansta rapper' and points out to him that he has a double standard on free speech as he will not tolerate critics of Islam or condem things like the death threats against Salmon Rushdie).
But you don't get to have this debate unless you first accept the ground rules which is free speech and freedom of religion. Unfortunately the Mosque critics approached this from the absolutely wrong side, the anti-American side of that question.
Boonton,
You write: "If he is opposed to suicide bombing and terrorism then he can certainly be wrong about what the best solution is for the Israel-Palestine issue."
We have not established that he is really opposed to suicide bombings or terrorism. He cannot quite find the courage, after all, to condemn Hamas and he plays the game of not being sure who was behind 9/11.
You write: "Pat Robertson believes America deserved 9/11 because we aren't mean enough to Wiccans and the ACLU."
Robertson is not a figure who would heal any wounds. That is my exact point about the imam. He is the wrong messenger.
You write: "A Baptist Church that wants to open in an old Burlington Coat Factory a block away from ground zero need not stand before a tribunal and denounce all association with Pat Robertson."
That's true. The issue for Muslims, however, is that a substantial sect of the religion purports to act in the name of the religion and killed large numbers of Americans. When people who believe in coat factorism kill thousands of Americans in the name of that faith, then reasonable people can question those at Burlington coat factory.
You write: "So most imams will say suicide bombing is forbidden. Jihadists will say its acceptable."
No, Jihadists do not say that. Jihadists claim that they are not engaged in an act of suicide.
I happen to agree, more or less, with Hitchens on this dispute. I have not opposed the project. I have said that the project is appalling, an opinion which is quite different from opposition. Where my tolerance ends, however, is if there is real Islamist money involved, in which case the project should be banned.
Why? Because Islamism is a racist, Antisemitic, totalitarian movement that has already committed genocide, that openly professes to commit further genocides, most particularly against Jews and that, from its inception, was closely linked, both financially and ideologically, with the Nazi movement. That is one reason why parts of the Hamas covenant were taken from Nazi WWII propaganda broadcast to the Arab regions by that period's version of Islamists and embraced by the founder of that movement, Hassan al-Banna.
Boonton,
I might also mention our kind host's views about the so-called "one-state solution." According to David:
"In any event, I oppose anyone who tries to legitimize a one-state solution, regardless of who they imagine will rule over it."
Evidently, for David, support for the Cordoba House and its imam trumps opposition to an imam who is on the record trying to legitimize the one state solution. Here is a longer version of the imam's comments about Israel, courtesy of media matters (which offers an argument for this monstrous view that is somewhat similar to your view):
We now have post-Zionism movements in Israel. We have a very broad spectrum of people in Israel who regard Israel as a nation state, as a secular state, as a multicultural state. The very fabric and demographic, and I would say even identity, of Israel has shifted enormously in the last 60 years since its founding. There's always a danger. It only takes one individual to kill someone like Rabin. Rabin was assassinated by a fundamentalist, and there's no doubt that there are those who are against Sharon. But my sense, again from what I've learned, is that those who are supporting the withdrawal from the territories are in the minority - I am sorry, those who support the withdrawal are in the majority. If not, I don't think Sharon would have had the broadbase to do that.
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. But anyway it goes, there is no doubt in my mind that once there is peace, and there will have to be a peace in the region, the fallout of that will be enormously positive.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a mosque in the building ALREADY????????
If so, then what the hell is everybody arguing about?
Sonic frog, you're quite right - they've already started holding prayers there. And the sky has not yet fallen.
And by the way, NF, you totally hijacked this discussion for your personal obsession about Imam Rauf, rather than discussing the topic David raised, about the rise of anti-Muslim feeling in this country which is hurting real people.
Rebecca,
You have made a fair point. However, I note that I see the point being raised by David and others being an attempt to change the terms of the debate so that this appalling project led by a man who is no moderate.
Post a Comment