The ongoing debate over the “Ground Zero Mosque” has generated lots of commentary. But I fear that much of it conflates three separate issues: whether the government should use its power to block the construction of the mosque, whether the construction of any Islamic facility near Ground Zero is objectionable, and whether this particular organization is problematic because of the views of its leader. As I see it, the government should not suppress the mosque, and I see nothing wrong with building an Islamic facility near Ground Zero. But objections based on the dubious record of Cordoba Project leader Feisal Abdul Rauf are not so easily dismissed. There are many weak, foolish, and even bigoted anti-mosque arguments out there. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t any good ones.
I. The Role of Government.
Some mosque opponents, such as New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino, have argued that the government should use zoning or eminent domain to block the construction of the mosque. As Eugene Volokh and I have explained in earlier posts, such proposals violate constitutional rights to speech, religious freedom and property. The are also deeply immoral and unjust. A free society must not suppress the freedom of its members merely because their views are objectionable. If Nazis, racists, and communists are entitled to freedom of speech and property rights, so too are the owners of the proposed mosque.
But the fact that the owners have a right to build the mosque that the government must respect does not mean that their exercise of that right is unobjectionable. There are many situations where it may be wrong to exercise a right that should be protected by law. I have a legal right to join the KKK or the Communist Party. But doing so would be deeply wrong nonetheless.
II. Objections to the Presence of any Islamic Center.
Some mosque critics argue that it is wrong to build any Islamic facility near Ground Zero. The most sweeping form of that argument claims that Islam is a generally oppressive, illiberal religion. There are many flaws in Islam as currently practiced in much of the world. But I don’t find such categorical condemnations persuasive.
Islam is a religion with some one billion adherents, with many differing interpretations of its dictates. One can certainly find illiberal and oppressive passages in the Koran and point to them as proof of Islam’s inherent evil. But one can easily perform the same exercise with the Torah and New Testament, which include passages justifying gender inequality, defending the mass murder of the Canaanites, mandating that adulterers be stoned to death, and urging slaves to obey their masters. It would be a mistake to use these passages to “prove” that Judaism and Christianity are inherently oppressive. Most modern Jews and Christians either ignore them or try to interpret them away. Liberal Muslims seek to do the same with comparable passages in the Koran. It is perhaps true that most modern Islamic societies are illiberal and oppressive. But the same could be said of most majority-Christian societies as recently as a century ago. In both cases, political institutions and levels of economic development probably play a larger role than religion as such.
A more moderate objection to the presence of an Islamic site near Ground Zero admits that Islam is not inherently evil, but contends that a Muslim site in that location would be insensitive. Consider this argument by Charles Krauthammer:
Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history – perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.
Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi – yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of good will would even think of proposing a German cultural center at Treblinka.
I lost half a dozen relatives in the Holocaust. But I don’t see any inherent problem with having a German cultural center near the site of a former Nazi death camp. So long as the center does not interfere with the operations of the memorial established at the camp, does not promote anti-Semitism, and doesn’t advocate the sort of virulent nationalism that helped cause the Holocaust, it should be unobjectionable. As Krauthammer notes, Germans as a group are not to blame for the Holocaust. And German culture is not reducible to Nazism and anti-Semitism. A center promoting elements of German culture that are not implicated in those phenomena does not somehow offend against the memory of Holocaust victims. A German cultural center that actually condemns Nazism and extreme nationalism while celebrating positive elements of German culture could actually make a useful contribution to reducing prejudice and honoring the victims.
I recognize, of course, that some Jews might still be offended, and avoiding such offense might be a pragmatic justification for not building the center. But the issue is whether the offense-taking would be justified. No one has a moral obligation to change their plans merely because others take unjustified offense.
The same points apply to the proposed Islamic Cultural Center near Ground Zero. Islam is not reducible to terrorism and oppression. A Muslim center near Ground Zero that promotes positive aspects of the Muslim tradition is unobjectionable. One that also denounces terrorism and radical Islamism would be a positive good.
III. Objections to this Particular Center.
Even if there is no good reason to oppose an Islamic facility as such, there are serious objections to Feisal Abdul Rauf, leader of this particular project. For details, see recent articles by Cathy Young, Christopher Hitchens, and Michael Weiss. Hitchens, Weiss, and Young all agree that Rauf’s group has a legal right to build the mosque and do not object to the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero as such. But they also have serious qualms about Rauf’s views, questioning whether he really is an advocate of “moderation,” tolerance, and peace as his defenders claim. To briefly summarize the case against Rauf, the most important points are that he seems to praise much of the ideology of Iran’s repressive theocratic regime, refuses to admit that Hamas is a terrorist group (which should be a no-brainer even if you think that Israel’s policies in Gaza are unjustified), claims that the US was “an accessory” to the 9/11 attacks, and sometimes draws a kind of moral equivalency between US foreign policy and Al Qaeda. Weiss also points out that Rauf took part in a bogus “peace organization” organized by a prominent Malaysian anti-Semite.
As Young notes, there are also more positive attributes to Rauf’s record. For example, he has denounced the 9/11 attacks, criticized some radical Islamist groups, praised the US Constitution, and urged Muslims to respect women’s rights. I don’t think the man is a radical Islamist or a defender of terrorism. Nonetheless, Rauf’s statements are sufficiently troubling that there is good reason to to be skeptical about his mosque initiative unless and until he retracts the above comments or proves that he was somehow misquoted. To borrow from Krauthammer’s Treblinka analogy, it is as if the hypothetical German cultural center there had a leader who claimed that US and British efforts in World War II were morally comparable to the crimes of the Nazis, asserted that Jewish leaders were “accessories” to the rise of Nazi anti-Semitism, refused to describe the SS as mass murderers, and praised the ideology of a fascist dictatorship. Even if he also denounced the Holocaust, claimed to oppose anti-Semitism, and urged fascists to drop some of their most objectionable policies, we could legitimately harbor serious doubts about his organization. The same goes for Rauf and his Islamic Cultural Center.
UPDATE: Various commenters have defended Rauf’s remark posiing a moral equivalence between US foreign policy and Al Qaeda, by claiming that its full context somehow excuses it. I don’t agree. This is what Rauf said:
The complexity [in hostility of many Muslims towards the US and the West] arises, sir, from the fact that — from political problems and the history of the politics between the West and the Muslim world. We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims You may remember that the US lead sanction against Iraq lead to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations…..
What complicates the discussion, intra-Islamically, is the fact that the West has not been cognisant and has not addressed the issues of its own contribution to much injustice in the Arab and Muslim world. It is a difficult subject to discuss with Western audiences but it is one that must be pointed out and must be raised.
First, to deal with a side issue, Rauf’s claim that US led sanctions on Iraq killed a half million children is simply false, and is certainly not the kind of idea that is peddled by responsible “moderates.”
Second, Rauf clearly does intend to draw a moral parallel between “Muslim blood” on US “hands” and the innocents killed by Al Qaeda, suggesting that the former is a defensible reason for Muslim hostility to the US (though not, he points out, for terrorism; I noted that Rauf isn’t a proponent of terrorism in the original post).
Rauf’s claim also ignores the fact that nearly all of this “blood” is either that of combatants or that of civilians killed accidentally in military operations. It also ignores the many innocent Muslim lives saved by US interventions in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Kuwait, among others. In the former three cases, there wasn’t even a significant US strategic or economic interest at stake.
If this were Rauf’s only indefensible statement, I might be inclined to overlook it. But in combination with the other ones noted above, I’m not.
JK says:
1. Feisal said that “United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” That’s hyperbolic for sure, but your post leaves unnecessary ambiguity regarding whether he was claiming the US government participated in the planning of the attacks. That is clearly not the case given the full quotation.
2. Re: Hamas. I know the condemnation game is fun when you’re looking for dirt,
August 31, 2010, 2:13 amJK says:
1. Rauf said that “United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” That’s hyperbolic for sure, but your post leaves unnecessary ambiguity regarding whether he was claiming the US government participated in the planning of the attacks. That is clearly not the case given the full quotation.
2. Re: Hamas. I know the condemnation game is fun when you’re looking for dirt, but I just don’t think it means much that someone hasn’t said something. Israel/Palestine is a complicated issue, and maybe he just doesn’t want to answer sound-bite questions without giving the issue the nuance it deserves. Or maybe he really does love Hamas, I have no idea, I just don’t think the fact he didn’t say something means a whole lot.
3. US-Al Qaeda equivalence. What exactly are you talking about? I read the Young, Hitchens and Weiss articles, and I didn’t see any statement attributed to Rauf claiming that the US government and Al Qaeda are morally equivalent.
I remain open to the possibility that Rauf really is a radical, but you seem to be filling in all the gaps with the worst possible assumptions. With even a modest amount of benefit of the doubt all this stuff seems vague and generally benign.
[edit] crap, sorry about the double post. I have no idea how that happened, I didn’t go back and forth at all.
August 31, 2010, 2:27 amIlya Somin says:
1. Rauf said that “United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” That’s hyperbolic for sure, but your post leaves unnecessary ambiguity regarding whether he was claiming the US government participated in the planning of the attacks. That is clearly not the case given the full quotation.
I think my meaning was pretty obvious from the post. In any event, the same “ambiguity” is present in Rauf’s original quotation, which does not define the “Policies” in question (perhaps the “policy” was helping to plan the attack.
2. Re: Hamas. I know the condemnation game is fun when you’re looking for dirt, but I just don’t think it means much that someone hasn’t said something. Israel/Palestine is a complicated issue, and maybe he just doesn’t want to answer sound-bite questions without giving the issue the nuance it deserves.
Israel-Palestine may be complicated. Hamas’ nature as a terrorist organization is not. You can admit the latter while still opposing numerous Israeli policies. Rauf could have said something like the following: “Hamas is a terrorist organization. But Israel is still wrong to blockade Gaza.” He didn’t do so, despite being asked about it several times.
3. US-Al Qaeda equivalence. What exactly are you talking about? I read the Young, Hitchens and Weiss articles, and I didn’t see any statement attributed to Rauf claiming that the US government and Al Qaeda are morally equivalent.
He said that the US has far more innocent Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda does innocent non-Muslims. That is a fairly flagrant (and objectionable) claim of moral equivalence between “US foreign policy and Al Qaeda.”
August 31, 2010, 2:39 amThomas Jackson says:
As we have all seen there are many groups that object to religious symbols in many arenas but they don’t object to Muslim ones. I would be interested in hearing one argument for a mosque at ground zero.
As far as weighing the group’s leaderships views (as opposed to the views expressed in the Muslim press) doesn’t stand the laugh test. That State Dept. utilizes this individual’s services only serves to demonstrate how extreme Foggy Bottom’s views are.
The FBI views 80% of all mosques in the US as radical. Is there any evidence to support the view that this one would be any different.
August 31, 2010, 2:42 amDilan Esper says:
Thomas:
In a free country, the people who want to build a place of religious worship don’t have to justify it.
Now, if you’d rather live in a Christian theocracy, you should move to one.
August 31, 2010, 3:03 amKen Arromdee says:
I personally think the question “where is the $100 million funding coming from?” is a legitimate objection. The Saudis and other Arab elites like to fund ostensibly moderate Islamic cultural institutions that end up spreading radical Islam (even though they hate Al Qaeda in the same way that a gang member hates a rival gang). And there aren’t that many ways to fund $100 million cultural centers other than through donations from Arab elites.
I suppose this would fall under objection III.
August 31, 2010, 3:08 amElemenope says:
He said that the US has far more innocent Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda does innocent non-Muslims. That is a fairly flagrant (and objectionable) claim of moral equivalence between “US foreign policy and Al Qaeda.”
It’s a blunt factual claim, and as a numbers game, it is literally correct. The US has killed far more non-combatant Muslims than al-Qaeda has killed non-combatant Americans, and honestly under other definitions of “innocent” the number disparity doesn’t get any better. As someone saucily put it, we build ground zeroes near mosques all the bloody time.
August 31, 2010, 4:49 amElemenope says:
The FBI views 80% of all mosques in the US as radical.
The FBI also thought that Martin Luther King was a threat to capitalism, and that infiltrating student groups and fighting pornography were good uses of time and effort. What the FBI thinks is generally more a function of intra- and interagency politics and less that of a working relationship with reality.
August 31, 2010, 4:55 amJosh Bornstein says:
Ilya. Is it? I am not a student of military history, so I’ve never tallied up the figures. But we have killed a lot of innocent Muslims over the years, and over the course of several conflicts. I have no idea of the number of Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of AQ. The 9-11 attacks and the Cole come to my mind as the worst. Add the Beruit barracks bombings as well. That totals about 5,000. I’d be very surprised if all the smaller bombings doubled that. So, I am assuming that the AQ animals took the lives of 10,000 innocent Americans over the years with their cowardly attacks.
How many innocent Muslims have been killed by us? I suspect the total is a LOT more than 10,000, and I am pretty sure that you would agree with that. I think the cleric was making a factually accurate statement (even if it’s something that’s really difficult for me to hear and to accept). I don’t think there is a claim of moral equivalent (if he was attempting to make one, he was indeed wildly off-base), since I see a huge moral difference between deliberately targeting innocent civilians (aS terrorists often do) and conducting permissible war-time maneuvers that inevitably result in collateral (ie, innocent) deaths.
Personally, I am much more concerned by the connection between the biggest Fox News owner and the Two-Blocks-From-Ground-Zero Mosque. (If I may refer to another thread . . . FRAUD!!)
August 31, 2010, 5:20 amJosh Bornstein says:
TJ. Since no one wants to build a mosque at Ground Zero, there’s no need for me to put forth an argument for it.
Can you give a cite for your first claim? I know many groups that object to religious symbols in many areas, as you point out. But I’ve NEVER seen any of those groups go on to say, “Yes, we oppose that Christian cross being on public land. But if you take it away, and put a Muslim symbol in its place, then we have no further objection.” That would indeed be bizarre, and–of course–just does not happen in real life.
August 31, 2010, 5:35 amGuy says:
I always thought it was strange that some people who get upset by Establishment Clause litigation honestly don’t seem to comprehend the difference between government endorsement of specific religions and the mere existence of religion. I can understand if someone thinks an expansive interpretation of the Clause is wrong, but I can’t understand how people really think that someone who wants to maintain separation of church and state must necessarily harbor a secret desire to destroy all religion.
August 31, 2010, 7:22 amOwen H. says:
Why is sensativity to the feelings of others a reasonable objection to building a community center in NY, but not to objecting to the burning of a holy book in FL?
August 31, 2010, 7:29 amTHESMOPHORON says:
That interpretation does not fall within the ambit of the word “policy” – a “policy” is a “policy” instead of an action because it is a consistently applicable approach to certain kinds of problems. If there were a pattern, say, of domestic terrorist attacks being used to justify the invasion of foreign countries, then it might be reasonable to infer a policy. But it’s disingenuous to say that the word “policy” is ambiguous in the way you suggest.
Hamas provides food and medicine and schooling to a population subject to intensely immoral relegation to the ghetto. Gaza has no economy, no trade, no access to jobs or anything meaningful to quality of life. I agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization, but it’s plainly erroneous to claim that its nature as such is not complicated.
That statement is objectively true. It does not follow from that statement that the U.S. and al Qaeda are morally equivalent, unless you subscribe to a particularly fundamentalist view of utilitarianism where intent means absolutely nothing. And yet you are the one claiming that such a statement “is a fairly flagrant claim of moral equivalence.” The logical leap you have to get from the stated proposition to your inferred proposition is unsupported by evidence or reason. I strongly suggest you reevaluate.
August 31, 2010, 7:43 amJust Dropping By says:
I agree with the overall analysis of your post, but I feel the need to point out that the Beruit barracks bombings were carried out by Hezbollah, years before Al Qaeda was even formed.
August 31, 2010, 7:44 amJustin says:
Ilya, it would be nice if you didn’t play Volokh Conspiracy’s role of Andrew Breitbart.
As to the Al-Queda “moral equivalence” quote,” Feisel Rauf made a true statement in the broader context of responding to a question of why some Muslims fail to interpret Islam as a religion of peace. The full quote:
hank you. That’s a very important and excellent question. The answer is it is being done. The broader community is in fact criticising and condemning actions of terrorism that are being done in the name of Islam. I just came from a conference in Jordan, Amman where there were over 170 leading Muslim scholars from almost every part of the Muslim world, including some of the most important names like Sheikh Tantawi of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, who is the Chief Mufti of Egypt, the Chief Mufti of Jordan, the Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, who is a very very well known Islamic jurist, highly regarded all over the Muslim world. They included fatwas obtained from people like ….. Istani who could not attend but also issued a fatwa condemning acts of terrorism and stating that the attribution of infidel to others is not something that should be done and is outside of the ethics of Islam.
Islamic law, the text of Islam, the Koran is quite explicit on describing Christians and Jews as people of the book, and throughout Islamic history even Islamic scholars in India have actually included Hindus as being people of the book because Hindus were not yet involved – were not part of the society, of Arabic society, at the time of the prophet.
The complexity arises, sir, from the fact that – from political problems and the history of the politics between the West and the Muslim world. We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US lead sanction against Iraq lead to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.
What complicates the discussion, intra-Islamically, is the fact that the West has not been cognisant and has not addressed the issues of its own contribution to much injustice in the Arab and Muslim world. It is a difficult subject to discuss with Western audiences but it is one that must be pointed out and must be raised.
How many of you have seen the documentary: Fahrenheit 911? The vast majority – at least half here. Do you remember the scene of the Iraqi woman whose house was bombed and she was just screaming, “What have they done.” Now, I don’t know, you don’t know Arabic but in Arabic it was extremely powerful. Her house was gone. Her husband, I think, was killed. What wrong did he do? I found myself weeping when I watched that scene and I imagined myself if I were a 15-year old nephew of this deceased man, what would I have felt?
Collateral damage is a nice thing to put on a paper but when the collateral damage is your own uncle or cousin, what passions do these arouse? How do you negotiate? How do you tell people whose homes have been destroyed, whose lives have been destroyed, that this does not justify your actions of terrorism. It’s hard. Yes, it is true that it does not justify the acts of bombing innocent civilians, that does not solve the problem, but after 50 years of, in many cases, oppression, of US support of authoritarian regimes that have violated human rights in the most heinous of ways, how else do people get attention?
So I’m not – I’m just providing you with the arguments that are happening intra Islamically by those who feel the emotion of pain. Half a million Iraqi – there’s a sense in the Arab and Muslim world that the European world and Western world is just – does not care about our lives or human lives. There’s a perception in much of the Arab world and the Muslim world that the issue is about race. That the Palestinian Israeli issue is less about religion than it is about race because about 25 per cent or more of the Palestinians or the Arabs are Christian. Many people in the West are unaware that Palestinians are not uniformally Muslim.
There is a large number of Arab Christians but they are not regarded as being equal. These issues have to be looked at, have to be recognised, have to be addressed and have to be solved. And this is why in our initiative we have urged a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict as being number one on the list of things that need to be done because you address this problem and a whole host of problems will be addressed automatically.
How many of you have read the book: The Tipping Point? Are you familiar with that book? It is a fascinating book. I strongly recommend it. It talks about, and a very lovely example, there are many examples that I don’t remember, about crime in New York City and how just the removal of graffiti on the subways, New York City subways, reduced crime in New York City. Now, how would you argue the link between graffiti on the walls of the subway and crime? It’s hard to determine but in fact it was proven to be so.
It is much more evident to many people what the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict will do, and as Tony Blair is urging, urging, the resolution of this crisis and the lethargy with which the Bush administration has been actually engaged in trying to resolve this crisis amplifies the perception, in the Arab and Muslim world, that our pain is not heard. Our anguish is not heard. And simple things like when President Bush went to Iraq on Thanksgiving to address the United States troops based in Iraq, he did not speak at all to the Iraqi people.
He could have left a taped message addressing the Iraqi street congratulating them on removing a tyrant that they all wanted to have removed, and saying, you know: I have asked Congress to allot 70 billion dollars of which I’m hoping to have so much for education. Speak to the people. He does this every year in the United States. Imagine if he came to this country and there were US troops stationed here, spoke to them, didn’t speak to the Australian people. How would you feel?
How many of you have seen the documentary: The Fog of War? It is an important documentary in which Robert McNamara was interviewed and it’s a documentary which is supported by 11 or 12 – I think 11 lessons, if I’m not mistaken – and the first lesson he points out is empathise with the other side. The number one thing that we need on the part of the West is to empathise. To see yourselves from the eyes of the other.
If it’s a man who wants to have a wonderful relationship with a woman, you have to see how you look from the eyes of a woman. If you are a white man seeking to deal in Australia with the Aborigines, you have to learn to look at yourself from the eyes of the Aborigines, and you will see things that you cannot see otherwise. The West needs to begin to see themselves through the eyes of the Arab and Muslim world, and when you do you will see the predicament that exists within the Muslim community.
I’m not saying this to condone. Acts like the London bombing are completely against Islamic law. Suicide bombing, completely against Islamic law, completely, 100 per cent. But the facts of the matter is that people, I have discovered, are more motivated by emotion than by logic. If their emotions are in one place and their logic is behind, their emotions will drive their decisions more often than not, and therefore we need to address the emotional state of people and the extent to which those emotions are shaped by things that we can control and we can shape, this is how we will shape a better future. Is that hand still up there?
August 31, 2010, 7:54 amshmontext says:
silly justin. bringing context into a post that comes to bury imam rauf, not to praise him.
also, he said empathise. you know who else said empathise? obama. since obama is basically the same as hitler, this is further proof that rauf hates jews.
August 31, 2010, 8:23 amOwen H. says:
No, what he said is more comparable to saying that US and British and French policies after WWI helped create the situation that led to WWII. Which is also true.
August 31, 2010, 8:25 amB.D. says:
It says something that denouncing 9/11 is even worthy of mention when listing his positive attributes. Are our expectations of Islam so low?
August 31, 2010, 8:39 amFloridan says:
Feisel Rauf’s speech (quoted by Justin, above), can be seen as objectionable only by those who insist that every issue must have a force for unmitigated good and a force of total evil.
Certainly Rauf’s thoughtful approach compares well with the public comments of other religious leaders such as Robertson, Warren, Wright, Haggard, Terry Jones, Fred Phelps, etc.
August 31, 2010, 8:51 amAriel says:
What’s the complication? If a terrorist group does some happy touchy feely activities, it somehow complicates their status as a terrorist organization? How much gold for an indulgence, er, how much providing food, medicine, and schooling “complicates” its status?
Also, as a factual matter, you are wrong. You can see pictures of the goods available at the Gaza Mall, which shows quite a taste for luxury for an area with no economy. And while your invocation of a ghetto is cute – perhaps you mean to place Israel in the role of Nazis? – it’s also inaccurate. I’m quite sure that the Warsaw Ghetto (or others, for that matter) did not have a fancy mall with luxury shopping, did not have fully stocked shelves in its supermarkets – in short, was not even comparable. Hateful comparisons like this don’t advance your argument. Moreover, you’d be hard-pressed to find comparable examples of Jewish actions that led to the “immoral relegation to the ghetto,” such as suicide bombing targeting civilians, and in particular women of child-bearing age, or rockets sent at kindergartens timed for when children are going or leaving school. It’s not that the Palestinians in Gaza were relegated to the ghetto, it’s that they made a choice for war and they’ve gotten a relatively mild response by historical standards. You may recall, e.g., what happened to those who chose to take the path of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
August 31, 2010, 8:56 amJoe says:
Krauthammer. “a German cultural center at Treblinka”
It is not planned to be “at” Ground Zero. OTOH, a Islamic place of worship is nearby and one is “at” the Pentagon, the location of one of the most serious acts of terrorism and murder in our history.
I don’t know, but if German Jews were killed at Treblinka, would it be offensive if they had some sort of cultural center near where their family and co-religionists were murdered? The scope is not the same (comparing 9/11 to the Holocaust to me is a bit offensive) but Muslims died in the towers too.
Also, the center is meant to be a symbol of understanding. If some group somewhere near Treblinka wanted to build a center for the German community in the area (tossing yet another problem with the comparison, NYC has a large enough Muslim community for a need to have grown for believers in lower Manhattan, one not now adequately fulfilled according to some reports; I don’t know if Treblinka’s environs now has some large German population with an unmet need for a cultural center) with a similar thought in mind, would it be offensive?
I again find Krauthammer not a useful source.
August 31, 2010, 9:00 amJustin says:
PS – I read the 3 articles and every single claim against Faisal seems to be false or a distortion.
For example:
Young, who mostly praises Raulf , states that Rauf “assert[ed] that the West must apologize for its wrongs toward Muslims before terrorism can end.” Young complains that “a call for an end to terror should be unconditional.” But Rauf has called, unconditionally, for an end to terror – see above. As a descriptive matter, it may be that Rauf thinks such calls will be ineffective until US policy changes. But that point is only, as a descriptive matter, wrong in the sense that this may not be a sufficient catalyst for change. But certainly it is a *necessary* catalyst for an end to terror. What kind of doublespeak are we in if we are going to bury Rauf for saying descriptive statements that are not factually wrong?
Weiss claims that Rauf supports the, in the words of Somin “repressive Iranian regime.” But the support for this is an editorial that simply supports Iran’s right to self-determination. Rauf calls on Obama to allow the Iranian legal system to determine the winner of the election rather than try to undermine Iranian democracy. This may be wrong *as a matter of strategy*, but it is hardly support for the “repressive” portions of the regime.
Finally, Hitchens criticizes (in passing) Rauf’s 60 minutes comments re: “accessory.” I’ve yet to see a full transcript of the interview – all conservative accounts stop right at that line, not allowing Faisal to explain. But a transcript of the 60 minutes SHOW makes it seem that 60 minutes believed that Rauf was talking about how the US supplied and built up Osama bin Ladin in the war against the Soviets and then abandoned him, which in a sense “created” him. If anyone else in the world stated that hardly-novel position, it would be rather uncontroversial.
I think you need some perspective, Professor.
August 31, 2010, 9:00 amJodyDavis says:
The broader quote provided by Justin places the snippet quoted by Ilya in a much different light. Whether you agree with the rest of the statement or not, it clearly does not support Ilya’s contention of moral equivalence.
August 31, 2010, 9:04 amDebating 51Park | Crossroads Arabia says:
[...] being raised against the construction of 51Park, the erstwhile ‘Cordoba Center’. Three Issues in the Debate over the “Ground Zero Mosque” Ilya [...]
August 31, 2010, 9:29 amShelbyC says:
I’m still not sure what the fact that Rauf may hold views we may find objectionable has to do with anything.
August 31, 2010, 9:33 amB.D. says:
BTW, I find any discussion of America’s alleged crimes against Muslims incomplete without mention of Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and Kuwait. It’s funny how those interventions have won us almost zero goodwill. It’d be nice to hear every once in awhile that we did right by Muslims.
August 31, 2010, 9:33 amRandy says:
I guess we have to listen to Carl Paladino’s remarks because he is running for governor. Or do we? I really don’t see why anyone has to spend two minutes on his opinions.
August 31, 2010, 9:53 amSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
Ronald Coase would be spinning is his grave if he saw the arguments that his ostensible acolytes are making against the construction of this mosque.
And I still have not seen anything other than a snarky, evasive answer (I am looking in your direction, A.W.) to the question of how close is “too close”.
August 31, 2010, 10:06 amjukeboxgrad says:
Palin “refuses to admit that” Eric Rudolph is a terrorist. As far as I know, Rudolph, unlike Hamas, does not have any mitigating track record of building schools and hospitals. Rauf does not have his own show on Fox, and does not have a great deal of influence over American politics. Palin does. Nevertheless, you have mentioned one of these things and not the other (not just in this post, but in any post, as far as I can tell). Why is only one of these things worth noticing and mentioning?
I find a lot of irony in noticing that the group of people beating that drum (“refuses to admit that Hamas is a terrorist group”) seems to overlap greatly with the group of people who voted for Palin and never spoke up about Palin and Rudolph.
Then again, maybe you just didn’t know. I also don’t remember if you voted for Palin.
August 31, 2010, 10:07 amOhio Scrivener says:
Sorry, I’m not buying it. When the Carmelite nuns set up shop at Auschwitz, it caused significant objections, so much so that that the Pope intervened to ask the order to move. And those nuns had nothing to do with the Holocaust, and a MUCH better reason to be at Auschwitz than a German cultural center.
For the Polish people, who are heavily Catholic, Auschwitz-Birkenau is the place where not one, but two, of their Catholic saints died as martyrs. Both Father Maksymilian Kolbe, a Catholic priest, and a Carmelite nun named Edith Stein died at Auschwitz-Birkenau and have been canonized as Catholic saints.
So, yeah, go ahead and tell yourself that a German cultural center at Auschwitz would not offend even where the Carmelite nuns would. But I strongly disagree. Anyone who wants to celebrate German cultural pride in a respectful manner, ought to have little trouble finding a better place to do it — somewhere that’s not on top of the funeral pyre erected by the National Socialist party whose German cultural pride was second to none.
August 31, 2010, 10:17 amtdiinva says:
The Constitutional issues here is not what it seems to be. St Nicholas Orthodox Church was destoyed when the Towers fell. The congregation has been battling the Port Authority for permission to rebuild their church ever since. This has the appearance of the city and state favoring one religion (Islam) over another (Christianity). As we all know when it comes to creshes the SCOTUS has ruled that even the appearence of endorsement of religion is unconstitutional so it matters not a whit whether the Port Authority is denying St Nicholas’ building permit out of malice toward Christianity or their desire to pass a valuable property to politically connected third party. Either the state issues a building permit for both or bans both. No other solution meets the Constitutional test.
August 31, 2010, 10:19 amyankev says:
How many of those innocent Muslims were killed as a result of military screw-ups (or if you prefer, collatderal damage) in an attempt by the US to keep one group of Mus;lims from slaughtering another, as in Iraq/Kuwait? How many were killed in the course of military screw-ups while trying to keep Christians from slaughtering Muslims, as in Serbia and Bosnia? And how many were killed deliberately because the US has the same desire to stamp out Islam as Al Quaeda has to stamp out Western non-Muslim civilization? (Answer to the last question — zero).
Usually because the mosque was used as a missile launching pad, an ammunition dump, or a sniper nest. The US in fact shows greater respect for mosques than Muslim terrorist groups do.
And as to your disgusting attempt at moral equivalence, someone else saucily put it, even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.
August 31, 2010, 10:22 amtom952 says:
Concerning I. The Role of Government – How can the United States government defend the nation from attack by a religious organization without violating the establishment clause?
The Islamic Revolution consists of religious and propaganda-uttering political cover organizations, in concert with the militants who carry out voilent attacks to kill and intimidate opponents. The movement has stated goals of the destruction of Israel and her allies, which includes the United States, and the imposition of sharia law upon the world, which implies the subjugation of everyone worth subjugating. This is an alarming world conquest strategy that neatly exploits the guarantees of religious freedom that the United States government protects. It is not surprising that other religious leaders in the United States would be alarmed and incensed to see the constitutional guarantees of freedom to worship perverted to enable aggression and conquest of the nation by Islamics.
The situation with the Islamic Revolution differs from the freedom of expression afforded communists, and other organizations with views held by many to be objectionable, in that the Islamic Revolution exploits the specific protections the constitution grants to religious organizations. Should a religious organization that is engaged in war against the nation continue to receive protection as a religious organization, or is there a threshold of behavior that should disqualify a religious organization from continued constitutional protection as such?
August 31, 2010, 10:26 amGuy says:
What test? The endorsement test? The Lemon test? The machine-or-transformation test? It’s adorable that you think there’s any coherency left in Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Also I don’t think an Establishment Clause analysis is appropriate here, considering that this is not an issue of government speech, it should really be analyzed as a Free Exercise issue. I don’t think that’s the right application of the endorsement test anyway.
August 31, 2010, 10:33 amyankev says:
Your claim about ‘relegation to the ghetto’ overlooks the fact that Isreal intorduced free public education to the area, and that every measurable standard of quality of life increased during Israeli ‘occupation’, decreased during the two intifadas and decreased further after Israel’s withdrawal and Hamas’ takeover. And that the average Gazan has more to fear from Hamas’ actions than from Israel. Perhaps the economy in Gaza might be stronger if Hamas and Fatah had not destroyed the infrastructure, and had not forced Israel to build checkpoints to stop suicide bombers and gunmen out to shoot women and children. Perhaps more trade would flow through those checkpoints if Hamas did not periodicially attack the checkpoints in order to protect the profits of those who own and operate smuggling tunnels. Perhaps more trade would flow had Hamas not used building materials and foreign aid (of which Gaza receives more per capita than any place on earth, IIRC) to build missiles and fortifications and to buy weapons to slaughter Israelis. Life in Gaza may be misraeble, but it’s misreable largely due to Hamas, and life expectancy and infant mortality are still better there than in many places, including Turkey.
August 31, 2010, 10:36 amGordon Langston says:
If you were putting that German Cultural Center at Treblinka in the 1950′s I think you (and Krauthammer) would be making a fairer comparison and I’m nearly certain no one would have proposed it at that time. For the same reasons this Islamic site, at this time, is an insensitive proposal.
August 31, 2010, 10:39 amyankev says:
Your claim about ‘relegation to the ghetto’ overlooks the fact that Isreal intorduced free public education to the area, and that every measurable standard of quality of life increased during Israeli ‘occupation’, decreased during the two intifadas and decreased further after Israel’s withdrawal and Hamas’ takeover. And that the average Gazan has more to fear from Hamas’ actions than from Israel. Perhaps the economy in Gaza might be stronger if Hamas and Fatah had not destroyed the infrastructure, and had not forced Israel to build checkpoints to stop suicide bombers and gunmen out to shoot women and children. Perhaps more trade would flow through those checkpoints if Hamas did not periodicially attack the checkpoints in order to protect the profits of those who own and operate smuggling tunnels. Perhaps more trade would flow had Hamas not used building materials and foreign aid (of which Gaza receives more per capita than any place on earth, IIRC) to build missiles and fortifications and to buy weapons to slaughter Israelis. Life in Gaza may be misraeble, but it’s misreable largely due to Hamas, and life expectancy and infant mortality are still better there than in many places, including Turkey.
But Mr. Rauf does not agree. And as was pointed out, the situation may be complicated, but Hamas’ being a terrorist organization is not. All one has to do is read their charter. Or look at their deeds. The fact that they may alleviate a small part of the misery that they or the PA cause their own people makes them no less terrorist.
August 31, 2010, 10:39 amGuy says:
Actually it’s more of an Equal Protection issue, I suppose, you can call it an Establishment Clause analysis if you like, but the tools should be taken from the Equal Protection toolbox.
August 31, 2010, 10:44 amyankev says:
And of course none of those deaths were caused by the Iraqi regime diverting aid meant for children and diverting it to their own luxurious life style and to military purposes. And of course there was no way by which Iraq could have ended those sanctions.
August 31, 2010, 10:45 amB.D. says:
Jewish people moving into European societies, making money and creating insular communities, and involving themselves in the banking industry (which always takes a populist beating during times of economic turmoil): accessories to the Holocaust. Right?
August 31, 2010, 11:00 amRicardo says:
No.
The church has and has always had permission to rebuild their church on their own plot of land. They want to use the Port Authority’s land to rebuild the church, though. And that requires the permission of the Port Authority to do so. Rauf’s Islamic community center is not being built on any Port Authority land.
August 31, 2010, 11:15 amBenjamin Davis says:
Wasn’t part of the problem with the Carmelite Nuns at Auschwitz the role of the Pope during the Nazi era (as well as the role of many Poles in supporting the Nazi efforts to exterminate the Jews?). There was a Catholic specificity to that.
Comparing Ground Zero to Auschwitz or Treblinka I find a profoundly shocking comparison! Am I the only one? Systematic industrialized destruction of millions over years as a part of a state’s ideology is relativized with a one day coordinated strike by a radical element on two sites. I find that another painful example of the US overvaluing our trauma as compared to the trauma of persons overseas.
As to Rauf, we can try to paint him into an acolyte of Osama Bin Laden. Hell, demonizing is a very fine art.
Wherever someone has lost a loved one or a friend from violence is hallowed ground. I understand all south of Chambers street in New York is replete with places where buildings were built on top of where slaves were buried and Native-Americans were buried. Of course, that was not hallowed ground for those who wanted to use that land then.
I hope they build the mosque soon – it is a house of god. I hope there can be a little more responsibility by those who are the majority about the rights of minority religions in the US to have places of worship where they can afford to put them. Mayor Bloomberg has it right. The rest is just instrumentalizing for political purposes the hurts of some of the people who lost loved ones.
Best,
Ben
Best,
August 31, 2010, 11:53 amBen
Will McLean says:
I don’t think the Hamas question is a no-brainer. Australia and the UK draw a distinction between Hamas and its military wing, and Norway doesn’t recognize it as a terrorist organization.
Aside from the question of whether that distinction can be drawn, there’s the question of whether Hamas is currently deliberately targeting civilians, or whether it’s targeting military targets with inherently indiscriminate weapons, which would be a war crime, but not necessarily terrorism.
Muddying that matter further is question of how far Hamas is involved in the current attacks, since often other groups claim responsibility.
If those countries think the issue actually is complicated, why should Rauf be held to a higher standard?
August 31, 2010, 11:56 amRexx says:
(New York Post) Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show …
Is there any Constitutional objection to the city doing a tax sale on a proposed church/mosque site?
August 31, 2010, 12:00 pmSoronel Haetir says:
This comparison is also somewhat strained. My understanding is that St Nicholas Orthodox was in fact destroyed, where the Cordova folks want to take an existing building and convert it to a new use. Just because the two proposed uses are the same for purposes of government examination doesn’t do much if anything to negate the other differences.
August 31, 2010, 12:02 pmSueSimp says:
Ditto. Is this post trying to say “it’s okay for Muslims to build a mosque a couple blocks from Ground Zero so long as the project’s leaders don’t happen to hold political and/or religious beliefs that I find to be blatantly wrong”?
This is not a “serious objection”. The only other possible explanation I can come up with to make sense of this post is that Ilya thinks that Rauf’s real reasons for building Park51 are nefarious, that he intends for the project to be some kind of deliberate insult to the memory of 9/11 or a statement of support for islamic terrorism. And nothing he cites to supports that.
August 31, 2010, 12:07 pmScott says:
Without necessarily disagreeing with your point here, I think that the argument that the US has shed more innocent Muslim blood than Al Qaeda has shed innocent non-Muslim blood stands up strictly on the basis of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past nine years.
August 31, 2010, 12:13 pmByomtov says:
What Benjamin Davis said.
Also, I don’t recall seeing betting parlors and convenience stores near Treblinka.
If the 9/11 site is “hallowed ground,” where are the objections to those activities?
August 31, 2010, 12:21 pmZack says:
Wow, I don’t know how anyone can read that speech and reach the conclusion that Rauf is a terrorist sympathizer unless they read it in bad faith. It’s clear from this quote (and others that I’ve seen from him), that Rauf condemns Islamic terrorism. But it’s possible to condemn something as wrong while at the same time seeking to understand what causes someone to act in that way. In fact, if your goal is to change behavior rather than simply score political points, I’d say that it’s essential to understand the root causes. I don’t see anything that would convince me he should not build the mosque here.
August 31, 2010, 12:28 pmyankee says:
This. I am also dubious that the government actually cares very much about the civilian deaths in what it refers to as “regrettable but unavoidable collateral damage.”
August 31, 2010, 12:33 pmA. Criminal says:
Keeping in mind that he didn’t really mean it, that’s as good as it gets.
I knew a couple of guys who were in the Chihuahuan/northern “Mexican mafia” and they seemed OK – they didn’t try to kill me or anything like that.
August 31, 2010, 12:34 pmConstantin says:
Shocking that Benjamin Davis found a way to work slavery into this somehow. Still batting 1.000.
August 31, 2010, 12:42 pmt1 says:
It is absolutely shameful that sites that are perceived as respectable, don’t simply denounce the campaign against the Center for the hateful bigotry that it is.
August 31, 2010, 12:42 pmConstantin says:
I hope non-violent, non-governmental pressure stops this mosque from being built–I believe it’s a brazen attempt at Islamist triumphalism–and yet I actually agree with this. I see the “build it” side’s citation of this guy as a moderate bridge-builder as most puzzling. What difference does it make? If this is solely a constitutional issue and one of American first principles, Barack, you should be behind it especially if he’s a shady anti-American zealot.
August 31, 2010, 12:49 pmScott says:
Follow-up: iCasualties.org reports 48694 Iraqi civilian casualties since Jan 05; they report only coalition casualties from Afghanistan. Death tolls in major Al Qaeda attacks: 300 in the East African embassy attacks (many of whom were locals, and probably Muslims); 17 in the USS Cole attack; 3000 on 9/11. Generously, we’ll include the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings and the 3/11/2004 attack in Madrid as well, with respective totals of 191 and 202 people, despite the fact that direct Al Qaeda participation has not been demonstrated. That’s a total of 3710 Al Qaeda-caused deaths of civilians (the Cole sailors were not obviously operating in a combat zone, so we’ll include their numbers) since 1998, against 48694 civilian deaths in Iraq in the last 5 years. The Iraq Body Count (iraqbodycount.org) reports 4644 civilian deaths by violence in Iraq in 2009 alone – the lowest level since the 2003 invasion. Even granting the obvious fact that many of these deaths were caused by sectarian and other political violence in Iraq, rather than directly by coalition forces, I’d say that Imam Rauf’s statement is accurate as a bare description of fact. (IBC’s analysis reports attempt to address casualty figures at a higher level of granularity, and are worth reading for those interested in the question.)
August 31, 2010, 1:07 pmElemenope says:
And as to your disgusting attempt at moral equivalence, someone else saucily put it, even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.
How on Earth you get “moral equivalence” from me pointing out a factual claim is beyond me. I do not believe that the US and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent in any sense. Stop reading your over keenly developed capacity for offense into my comments; it doesn’t belong there.
August 31, 2010, 1:08 pmMorat20 says:
So…how come this guy wasn’t so problematic back when he was working with the Bush White House on Islamic outreach?
Did Obama’s election radicalize him, or did Bush’s White House contract with a pro-terrorist imam for a few years without anyone noticing?
August 31, 2010, 1:08 pmTed says:
Yeah. I make no secret of my desire. The best possible result of the Christian’s war with Islam is that the reasonable people on both sides will realize that all religions have outlived its usefulness.
August 31, 2010, 1:12 pmyankee says:
The guy’s views are completely relevant to whether the center should be viewed as an “attempt at Islamist triumphalism” or a group of ordinary citizens who want to build a community center and house of worship on difficult-to-get lower Manhattan real estate. While not relevant to the legal question, the guy’s views do impact whether it’s appropriate for people to criticize the project and whether they should exert non-violent, non-government pressure to keep it from being built.
As an atheist, I am not quite “behind” building more monotheist cultural centers, but I think the criticism of this one as uniquely inappropriate is at best severely misguided.
August 31, 2010, 1:22 pmjukeboxgrad says:
The funding is coming, in part, from viewers of Fox News: “if we want to cut off funding to the terror mosque, we must, together as a nation, stop watching Fox” (link, link).
Good question. I also want to know how he managed to infiltrate a memorial service for Daniel Pearl: “Rauf gave a moving eulogy at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan, at the Manhattan synagogue B’nai Jeshurun. Pearl’s father was in attendance.”
August 31, 2010, 1:24 pmKen Arromdee says:
Suppose it is. What’s wrong about that? I hold that, for instance, it’s wrong for the KKK to hold a rally for racism while it’s fine for a civil rights organization to hold one against racism. Whether it’s right or wrong depends on their political beliefs, but you’d have a hard time disagreeing with it. You might argue that both cases should be legal, but legality and morality are two different things.
August 31, 2010, 1:26 pmKen Arromdee says:
I’m sure the US had shed more innocent Japanese blood in World War II than the Japanese had shed innocent American blood, even strictly on the basis of civilian casualties caused by attacks on military targets. The problem with this reasoning is that it makes a war less and less moral the better you are at protecting your own side (or the better your natural protections are, such as being an ocean away). It shows up a lot in condemnations of Israel over how they treat Hamas–if Israel is too good at preventing Hamas’s rockets from killing Israelis, Israel then gets accused of “disproportionality”.
August 31, 2010, 1:31 pmKen Arromdee says:
His main source of income is oil, not Fox. Your sources are just saying that because they don’t like it when people watch Fox, not because they genuinely think it’ll keep him from bankrolling the mosque.
If anything, the fact that Fox can oppose a mosque that one of its financial backers likes demonstrates that his ability to influence Fox is not all it’s cracked up to be.
August 31, 2010, 1:36 pmtdiinva says:
Guy:
I beg to differ. The Establishment Clause prohibits the endorsement of a particular faith/domination by the government. The City of New York by its actions on the Mosque versus St Nicholas Church clearly are sending the message that they are elevating Islam to a special position over Christianity. St Nicholas was destroyed by the actions of Islamic terrorists and cannot rebuild while at the same time governmental bodies in NYC have given their imprimatur to the construction of a religious building that can and has been construed as monument to an Islamic victory. If that isn’t establishing Islam as a superior faith I don’t know what would qualify. Certainly this is a violation of the modern interpretation of the Establishment clause.
August 31, 2010, 1:44 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Duh. No one is seriously suggesting that the Prince will go broke if Fox does. The purpose of the statement is to make a point about the stupidity and irony of Fox viewers being told that this Prince supports terrorism without also being told that he is Fox’s second-largest owner.
Only if you think that a divided, weakened and isolated US could not possibly enhance Saudi interests in any way. The hysteria from Fox et al is a recruiting bonanza for AQ. If the Prince is truly a funder of terrorism then he would be perfectly happy to see Fox fan this flame.
If Fox is truly uninhibited about insulting the Prince they would not have failed to mention his name.
August 31, 2010, 1:57 pmGuest14 says:
What are the actions of the City of New York with respect to the St. Nicholas Church that you find objectionable?
August 31, 2010, 2:08 pmjukeboxgrad says:
The problem with your “reasoning” is that Rauf didn’t say we’re “less moral.” He just made a factual observation which is relevant to the broader point he was making (“Collateral damage is a nice thing to put on a paper but when the collateral damage is your own uncle or cousin, what passions do these arouse?”).
There would indeed be nothing wrong with me making the statement you offered (“the US had shed more innocent Japanese blood in World War II than the Japanese had shed innocent American blood”) if I was trying to make a point about why certain Japanese might feel a certain way about the US. Making the statement is not the equivalent of saying the US is “less moral,” unless you are trying to feed a grievance and are therefore determined to see meaning that isn’t there.
August 31, 2010, 2:11 pmWill McLean says:
“Weiss also points out that Rauf took part in a bogus “peace organization” organized by a prominent Malaysian anti-Semite.”
As did that noted Islamist, Helen Caldicot
August 31, 2010, 2:15 pmDavid Sucher says:
Ilya.
Just to make sure I understand:
It’s fair and justified (in your view) to have “III. Objections to this Particular Center.”
But they are still free to build it. Period.
(If they are able to build it. By the same token then there is nothing immoral etc etc if construction people in NYC refuse to work on it because they have objections.)
August 31, 2010, 2:16 pmAriel says:
I have a question about the Prof. Somin’s first proposition: religious freedom. Imagine that Rauf’s mosque was not arguably moderate, but, in fact, he was Osama bin Laden’s spiritual mentor. Rauf, in this hypo, had never committed any terrorist actions himself or funded them, but he had advocated for them, both using ordinary political advocacy and religious fervor. In that case, would religious freedom still guarantee the right to build the mosque? From what I recall of the Lemon test, it seems to me that this extremist-Rauf could not be constitutionally stopped and likewise the “moderate”-Rauf could not be constitutionally stopped. What would be the distinction that would allow them to be differentiated under current constitutional jurisprudence? If there isn’t one, and there is no problem building extremist-Rauf’s mosque, doesn’t that suggest a problem with the jurisprudence?
I understand that generally the best answer to bad speech is more speech, but would this also be true for Tokyo Rose or Leni Reifenstahl? It seems to me that in WWII, if we could have, we would have taken them out. Should we allow OBL’s spiritual mentor (if he was that, which he’s admittedly not) to build this mosque because he garbs himself in the cloth of religion? Is it a free speech principle?
Ultimately, I think people are trying to have it both ways. If Rauf were really an extremist (as some of his rhetoric suggests), people would be quite upset. Thus, the refrain that he is a moderate. But if it is merely about his right to build there, whether he is moderate or extremist does not matter. Even if OBL studied under him, he would have the same right to build the mosque. (I should say that I don’t believe that Prof. Somin is doing this. Those arguing both that (1) Rauf is moderate; and (2) Rauf has the right to build there; are the ones are trying to have it both ways.)
August 31, 2010, 2:27 pmElemenope says:
The problem with your “reasoning” is that Rauf didn’t say we’re “less moral.” He just made a factual observation which is relevant to the broader point he was making (“Collateral damage is a nice thing to put on a paper but when the collateral damage is your own uncle or cousin, what passions do these arouse?”).
There would indeed be nothing wrong with me making the statement you offered (“the US had shed more innocent Japanese blood in World War II than the Japanese had shed innocent American blood”) if I was trying to make a point about why certain Japanese might feel a certain way about the US. Making the statement is not the equivalent of saying the US is “less moral,” unless you are trying to feed a grievance and are therefore determined to see meaning that isn’t there.
I’m having a hard time understanding why people can’t wrap their heads around this very simple point. Is it really so hard to separate factual observations from value judgments?
August 31, 2010, 2:42 pmSarcastro says:
If we Hitler were alive and came to the US, he would have rights. Therefore we really shouldn’t be so hasty in giving people rights.
And Ariel‘s hypo is very informative. Because everyone is only arguing about the right, not the wisdom of the decision to build in the Hallowed Coat Factory.
August 31, 2010, 2:45 pmAla JD says:
I’m sorry, but I have to ask: are people ignorant or being purposefully obtuse? No one here is arguing moral equivalency of the US and al Qaeda in so far as their death tolls are concerned (or in any other way, for that matter). Further, no one is arguing that the US’s foreign policy caused 9/11. Rather, both of these arguments go toward explaining why a person might become a terrorist. This is an attempt to understand what circumstances might influence someone to do a reprehensible act, despite their holy book’s admonition to the contrary. It is useful, as a matter of diplomacy and policy making, to understand what the possible ramifications of our acts are so as to mitigate negative results.
August 31, 2010, 2:48 pmFor example, after WWII we took a look at the policies the allies undertook after WWI and determined that some of them might have led to conditions in Germany that allowed Nazism to flourish. And, I would argue, did a better job of conducting the post-war era.
I don’t see anything wrong with analyzing US foreign policy of the last 30 year or so and seeing where we might have been accused (rightly or wrongly) of anti-Muslim actions and how those policies might be changed or mitigated to address those concerns. This is not nefarious. This is pragmatic.
DanL says:
Can’t we all just follow the law instead of engaging in all sort of philosophical and moralistic debate?
Lost amid the political demagoguery about the proposed Muslim “mosque” and cultural center blocks from Ground Zero is the fact that denying zoning approval would violate one of the Republicans’ (and some Democrats’) favorite pieces of federal law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
Sponsored by Senator Orin Hatch and passed unanimously by both houses of Congress in July 2000, this law clearly states
“No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination.”
With one exception — Chicago Sun-Times Washington Bureau Chief Lynn Sweet’s blog at:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/08/mosque_at_ground_zero_is_it_il.html — the media (and even the politicians who voted for RLUIPA) have ignored this key decisive point: RLUIPA renders illegal denial of zoning approval for the proposed Muslim cultural center. A church or synagogue would be okay according to the opponents of the center. Their opposition is openly based on the religion involved — and that is an obvious blatant violation of the law they support. Yet this law is at the very heart of whether or not this cultural center must be allowed.
I want to make it very clear that the decision to locate at this spot was incredibly callous, insensitive, and thoughtless despite the proposers claimed good intentions. But none of those factors is a legal basis for denying the zoning. And that’s the point. We’ve got to comply with the law, the law that the Republicans (and some Democrats) who now oppose this Muslim cultural center wrote and unanimously passed ten years ago.
As so many elected officials who describe themselves as supporters of “law and order” have pointed out so often, you don’t get to pick and choose which laws you obey.
RLUIPA was passed in large part to prevent public opinion from denying zoning approval to religious uses. Now Republicans like Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) tell CNN’s “State of the Union” that the zoning approval should be denied because public opinion is against it.
How hypocritical can these Republican — and Democratic — Senators and Congressmen who voted for or supported RLUIPA get? Obviously those who would prohibit this Muslim cultural center from locating at its chosen site because it’s a Muslim facility are ready to repeal RLUIPA because it’s pretty darned clear they want New York City to break the law that they once supported so vigorously.
And forget about giving this worthless site landmark status. RLUIPA applies to “landmarking” as well as zoning. The use of eminent domain will fail legally too.
Can’t we just follow the law?
Now is the time to take the politics out of this discussion and bring the facts to light that a federal law adopted by a Republican Congress makes the denial the Republicans seek blatantly illegal.
I am a zoning attorney and city planning consultant — with, dare I say, some actual expertise on these issues. But when was the last time anybody cared about whether somebody who opens her mouth on a controversial issue actually knows what she’s talking about?
August 31, 2010, 3:01 pmAriel says:
Really? You mean people are arguing both about the right and whether it is right? Shocking! Wow! I had no idea.
But seriously – for those who think that he categorically has the right to build there and that the discussion ends there, his supposed moderation is not a part of the analysis. That group includes Bloomberg and some others who have spoken on the issue. His supposed moderation might be relevant to whether it is right to build it there, but even that seems strained to me. Even if he was a milquetoast Muslim, it might still be offensive to build a milquetoast Muslim mosque there. Just as it was offensive to build a Carmelite house of worship next to Aushwitz, regardless of their relatively milquetoast nature. In short, his supposed moderation has no real place in either the discussion of whether he has the right or whether it is right to build there. But those who support his building are trying to have it both ways by saying that (1) he can build b/c this is a house of worship; (2) there’s nothing wrong with it b/c he’s a moderate.
August 31, 2010, 3:01 pmJakeD says:
DanL:
You sure do get around for a humble and lowly “zoning attorney and city planning consultant”.
August 31, 2010, 3:28 pmJustin says:
Ken writes:
Well, for starters, under Ken’s scenario, the purpose of the rally is to promote the very idea that the public would find noxious. Here, what Somin’s allegations are missing (assuming they are true/12(b)(6) standard) is that Cordoba House/Park54 was being developed in furtherance of Rauf’s allegedly noxious views.
August 31, 2010, 3:29 pmSarcastro says:
[This is the internet. The discussion never ends!
If anything, the people against building the center allow that they have a right, but argue it isn't wise. That is where I see the argument occurring everywhere that isn't Free Republic, at least.]
August 31, 2010, 3:30 pmJustin says:
Ariel says:
This is a line of reasoning that I’ve seen before, and I just have to point out that making two seperate and independant points is not “trying to have it both ways.” When someone writes a brief, and says “there is no negligence, and even if there was, there is no causation” – this is not having it both ways. It is simply two seperate and independant points, each sufficient to support the proponant’s overall position.
August 31, 2010, 3:31 pmjv says:
“Moral Equivalence”: I find it pretty ironic that in the same post that you complain about moral equivalence you compare a horrifying act that killed 3,000 people with a mass genocide that killed 12 million people and wiped out 1/3 of the world’s population of an ethnic minority. This is not to minimize 9/11 in any way. The overall effect of it has tremendous implications, but if I had to pick between another 9/11 and another Nazi Germany, it would be the former, in a heartbeat, no questions asked. I have no doubt that Al Qaeda would do what the Germans did to those in the west, but there are 10,000 of them, not half a nation.
August 31, 2010, 3:38 pmAriel says:
You’re right that the anti-mosque folks have allowed that they have a right, but have argued that it is not right. But the pro-mosque folks, such as Bloomberg, have said that they have a right, discussion over.
As a legal matter, arguing in the alternative is perfectly fine to do. As a logical matter, it’s not. It’s not that hard to grasp. You can’t logically believe his moderation doesn’t matter while believing it does matter. Of course, if I was writing a brief for Rauf, I would argue both, but I wasn’t arguing that legally you can’t argue both. I was arguing that you can’t logically argue both.
August 31, 2010, 3:56 pmComp Sci Phd says:
Ilya, the objections to “this particular center” would exist no matter where it is. I.e. I’d have an objection to a KKK center no matter where it is. So it should be clear, that those who try to shape their objections in the cloak of 9/11 are being disingenuous.
I don’t have a problem with those objections (I feel some of them myself), but I feel the majority of the people don’t really care about those objections and object to it on a much more visceral level.
August 31, 2010, 4:05 pmDavid Sucher says:
Why does it matter?
If building it is completely legal etc then who cares why anyone has objections? Everyone is free to have objections so long as they don’t do anything illegal.
August 31, 2010, 4:08 pmSarcastro says:
[Could be. I've only been following the debate on the internets.]
August 31, 2010, 4:09 pmComp Sci Phd says:
David, it’s possible to object to a building being built legally.
i.e. the KKK can build a center in the middle of crown heights, ny (tick off both the black and the jews). They have a legal right to do that. The jews and blacks also have a legal right to protest and basically make the lives miserable for those that want to use that building (as long as they don’t do anything illegal). i.e. both the blacks and the jews will find the KKK itself objectionable.
My point was, if Rauf is himself objectionable, than he is objectionable anywhere and it has nothing to do with “ground zero” and those who are against it and use the terminology of 9/11 are being disingenuous.
August 31, 2010, 4:44 pmKen Arromdee says:
Because a common tactic of radicals is to use the “I was only making a factual observation” gambit while saying things that are intended as value judgments. To give an example you might understand better, it’s like someone saying “I wasn’t claiming that Obama was born in Nigeria, I was just asking a question about his birth certificate”. It’s an excuse–phrasing a radical statement as a “question” or “observation” to maintain plausible deniability.
August 31, 2010, 4:46 pmChris Travers says:
Completely disagree here. Rauf has a good track record in material actions, and this shows where his loyalties lie. Worrying about whether he’s politically correct enough is missing the point. To me the fact that he has the moral courage to be honest about his views is a positive thing.
I’d rather have someone tell me challenging things that offend and provoke me than someone who tells me what I want to hear because they think it will benefit them. When we look across cultural and religious divides, misunderstandings will happen, and we will get occasionally offended.
August 31, 2010, 4:48 pmKen Arromdee says:
The fact that it’s near ground zero can’t turn a non-objectionable situation into an objectionable one. However, it can raise the objectionability of a situation that already is objectionable, making it higher priority to complain about than a random mosque in Podunk.
August 31, 2010, 4:50 pmKen Arromdee says:
Comparing two comparisons, each involving an event, isn’t the same as comparing the two events.
August 31, 2010, 4:53 pmyankee says:
tdiinva: I beg to differ. The Establishment Clause prohibits the endorsement of a particular faith/domination by the government. The City of New York by its actions on the Mosque versus St Nicholas Church clearly are sending the message that they are elevating Islam to a special position over Christianity. St Nicholas was destroyed by the actions of Islamic terrorists and cannot rebuild while at the same time governmental bodies in NYC have given their imprimatur to the construction of a religious building that can and has been construed as monument to an Islamic victory. If that isn’t establishing Islam as a superior faith I don’t know what would qualify.
New York hasn’t taken any actions with respect to the Park51 project. Park51 is an “of right” project that does not require any special approvals because the plan complies with the existing zoning restrictions. All the city has done is decline to make a pretextual finding that the building is historic.
I have no idea what’s going on with the church.
As for this “monument to Islamic victory” stuff, assumes facts not in evidence. Or in reality.
August 31, 2010, 5:11 pmDrFunke says:
The bottom line is they have a right to build there no matter WHAT the right-wingers cry about
The fact that so many Republicans think it is “ok” to tell them that they can’t build there is laughable
Let’s reject a Catholic’s request to build a church in New York and see how bat-shit crazy they go
August 31, 2010, 5:12 pmJustin says:
It apparently is hard to grasp, Ariel. Let me try and break it down for you. Nobody who is arguing in the alternative is stating that they “believ[e] it does matter.” They say it doesn’t matter, AND EVEN IF IT DID, then Y. One is not – in logic or the law – forced to cede a point because the point’s relevance (rather than correctness) is dependant on you being wrong about a different point. I can’t even begin to comprehend how on earth you’d think otherwise.
August 31, 2010, 5:21 pmSF Alpha Geek says:
And I’m not even convinced by the first argument, that government has no role in determining the outcome. I don’t think that our cultural understanding of what constitutes a religion, and the reality of Islam are sufficiently congruent that we should automatically throw up our hands and say “It’s a religion, what can we do?”
Western civilization experienced a long and painful cultural evolution that led to the decoupling of spiritual and temporal power. The western concept,implicit in the first amendment, of what an “establishment of religion” is does not include an organization that exercises temporal power. (In fact, when the establishment clause prohibits the state from exercising temporal power on behalf of one religion, the implicit assumption is that the State is the sole repository of that power, and that, conversely, the Church has no temporal power of its own.)
One of the largest problems we’ve had in confronting the threat from Islam is that we persist in defining it as purely a religion, even though our traditional understanding of religion does not include a movement that raises armies and exercises police power, both of which are stated goals of Al Qaeda, and are inherent in Islamic theology.
It’s not that there’s a question as to whether Islam is a religion with overtones of political imperialism, or whether Islam is a political and military movement with religious underpinnings. It’s that the distinction, which has become an inextricable part of western thought, is inconceivable to Islam. Mohamed founded Islam to justify his political power and his wars of conquest, and Islam is based on the absolute fusion of temporal and spiritual power. Islam requires its adherents to act to bring about the temporal rule by Islamic spiritual leadership.
In this country, we make a distinction between belief and expression, and actions. We expect peoples’ activities, whether based on religious beliefs or not, to conform to cultural norms (more accurately, we expect people to carry out their democratically imposed duties that are based on those cultural norms, regardless of their religious beliefs.) In the 19th century, we fought a de facto war with the Mormon church to end polygamy. In the 1980s, several white supremacy groups (eg, the Covenant, Sword and Arm of the Lord) began terror campaigns cloaked in religious justification. We jailed their leaders and many of their adherents. As recently as 1990, the Supreme Court re-affirmed that drug use, even as part of traditional religious ceremony, was in no way protected by the first amendment.
Now, it can be argued that those situations are different than the current controversy, because they involve actions, not expressions. However, in this case, the action of building a mosque in the ashes of Ground Zero (and, while that’s not a factual description of what’s happening, its certainly how the propaganda machine will mill it out) will provide our enemies with a powerful narrative of triumphant Islam in the heart of the West.
Krauthammer was wrong. The right analogy isn’t a monument at Treblinka, which would merely be repugnant and distasteful. If that were the only objection to the mosque, then I think we would have to let Rauf open the damn thing – after all, as disgusting as it is, we let Fred Phelps spew his bile all over the families of dead soldiers. Why should the families of 9/11 be any different?
However, the right analogy to the mosque would be a group trying to erect a Shinto shrine dedicated to the emperor of Japan across the street from the main gate at Pearl Harbor Naval Base in 1943. We don’t typically let people with whom we’re currently at war erect monuments while the issue is still in doubt.
We might decide, for policy reasons, that it makes sense to let them build the mosque. We might decide, for example, that letting the mosque go forward would be perceived in the Muslim world as a sign of the strength of an open society rather than as a sign of the weakness of a craven one (we would be wrong, at least as far as Middle Eastern and Central Asian Muslims are concerned.) We might decide that it makes sense to encourage moderate Muslims over the more radical ones (if we do, in fact, decide that Rauf is whatever passes for “moderate” in the Islamic world.) We might decide that, despite the appalling ambiguity of the “Muslim community” about 9/11 and Al-Qaeda, that it’s politic to use the mosque to draw a distinction between Islam and “radical” Islam.
But that decision should be a policy matter, informed by debate. The decision should not be short circuited by a definition of religion that just begs people to form the Church of the Seditious Conspiracy. Opening this mosque, at this time and in this place, is a provocative act, far more akin to burning a cross in the Deep South than it is to chartering a place of worship. If we can prohibit cross-burning that is “intended to intimidate” because of its “long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence,” surely we can prohibit the placement of a mosque that is intended, or even just likely, to give “aid and comfort” to our enemies with a “long and pernicious history” of violence against the west, and who are currently engaged in a war against the United States.
August 31, 2010, 5:24 pmOwen H. says:
And again, St, Nicholas CAN rebuild, they are free to do so, ON THE ORIGINAL SITE. They want the Port Authority to give them more, including a whole lot of money to build on a larger site. Public money, I might add.
August 31, 2010, 5:27 pmOwen H. says:
You and I may find it morally wrong that the KKK hold a rally, but that matters not one bit to the fact that they have a legal right to do so.
August 31, 2010, 5:29 pmJustin says:
“I have no idea what’s going on with the church.”
The church is bogged down in a dispute over how much funding and financing it should receive from the Port Authority. Park51/Cordoba House, OTOH, has no funding or financing from the Port Authority.
August 31, 2010, 5:29 pmOwen H. says:
We are not at war with Islam.
August 31, 2010, 5:30 pmJustin says:
Holy crap. We’re at war with Rauf?
FAIL.
August 31, 2010, 5:31 pmloki13 says:
I honestly have no idea what you are saying here. First, there are not one, but two, arguments, being advanced by opponents of the cultural center (or mosque).
1. It can be prevented through legal means.
2. It shouldn’t be built even if it isn’t legal.
Any argument that refutes 1 can be (and in this case is) independent of 2. This is not a hard concept to grasp. This isn’t even (technically) arguing in the alternative- because that assumes you are making two counters to one argument.
But more importantly, you should consider that there are appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos. Argument 2 is not an appeal to logos; while there are many factual-looking arguments for two, it is, in essence, an emotional appeal. That doesn’t make it good or bad, but it is that. Those who argue for two are arguing, in essence, that someone who has the legal right to do something should not do so for a number of factors that appeal to the emotions (9/11, offense, “establishing the Caliphate” etc.). In a perfect world, people would be able to view these claims with the rational skepticism they deserve. Since we don’t live in such a world, assurances have to be made that there is no nefarious purpose behind the construction of the cultural center.
August 31, 2010, 5:38 pmSarcastro says:
And any Muslims that say nay are just bad Muslims, eh?
August 31, 2010, 5:52 pmZack says:
True. But that doesn’t make it reasonable to read value judgments into every factual observation. That gets you into a nice bit of circular logic: He’s a radical because he makes these factual observations, and we know that he’s using these factual observations as a proxy for objectionable value judgments because he’s a radical.
Given the context of this particular statement (which Justin has posted in its entirety up thread), I don’t think that it’s reasonable to ascribe that intent to Rauf. Instead, he’s making the point that “Collateral damage is a nice thing to put on a paper but when the collateral damage is your own uncle or cousin, what passions do these arouse?” (as eloquently paraphrased by jukeboxgrad). This is an utterly noncontroversial question to ask, as far as I’m concerned. It’s a completely different context than someone picking and choosing facts to support a “chickens coming home to roost” position (which is how the statements by Rauf are portrayed out of context).
August 31, 2010, 5:54 pmChris Travers says:
To which Sarcastro responds:
I’d like both of your views on this paper, esp. the section that discusses the value or lack thereof of non-Muslim leaders trying to discuss whether Islam is a religion of peace.
August 31, 2010, 6:00 pmZack says:
What if I want to make two separate points? (1) I believe Rauf is legally entitled to build Park51 in the proposed location and (2) I believe that Rauf is morally right (or at least morally entitled) to build Park51 in the proposed location (i.e. it is not immoral or otherwise objectionable).
I haven’t heard anyone arguing that Rauf is legally entitled to build the Park51 at the proposed location because he’s a moderate (although admittedly, I haven’t seen everything Bloomberg has to say on the subject). Instead, most people seem to be in agreement with the first proposition (the legal right to build) but split about the second idea (the politeness/morality of building). Therefore, the discussion of whether Rauf is moderate or not is absolutely relevant to the discussion, and I don’t see where you’re getting the idea that supporters are “trying to have it both ways.”
August 31, 2010, 6:07 pmChrisTS says:
Thanks to Owen H., Justin, and yankee for insisting on facts.
Beyond that, I am astonished that anyone is comparing the building of a cultural center by American Muslims with either the building of a shinto shrine by the Japanese emperor or the building of a KKK center.
We are not at war with our fellow citizens. We are not at war with Muslims. A cultural center built by religious persons is not comparable to anything built by self-avowed racists.
I do not know what is going on with sensible people who provide cover for bigots and nutjobs.
August 31, 2010, 6:07 pmSF Alpha Geek says:
Really? That’s funny, because while in the uniform of the United States, I’ve been shot at in two countries by people who fought for, and under the banner of, Islam.
In other words, the issue isn’t whether we’re at war with Islam, it’s whether Islam is at war with us.
The problem is that “Islam” isn’t a Westphalian nation-state, in which the populace is considered to be collectively responsible for the decisions of its leadership, regardless of how much input they have. However, to borrow a religious saying “by their fruits you shall know them.” Taken as a whole, the ummah seems to be ambivalent, at best, about whether they support the radicals. In the specific case we’re talking about, as clear a propaganda victory as the “Ground Zero mosque” will give those who are clearly at war with us, its hard to interpret Rauf’s act as anything other than support for the goals of radical Islam.
My point is that, if he is, in fact, supporting, even inadvertantly, the goals of our enemies, then, he moves his action from the “religious Islam” column to the “militant Islam” column, and at that point, I don’t think we’re obliged to still treat him like a bona fide religious figure.
August 31, 2010, 6:12 pmZack says:
Well said.
August 31, 2010, 6:12 pmSF Alpha Geek says:
The fact that some Japanese opposed WWII doesn’t change the fact that we were at war with Japan.
August 31, 2010, 6:13 pmJustin says:
“I’ve been shot at in two countries by people who fought for, and under the banner of, Islam.”
Are you back in the United States? And are you currently shooting at, and being shot at, by either Rauf or any other muslim? If you are shooting at muslims here in the US as enemies we are currently at war with, I hope you have some money saved up for a really, really good defense lawyer.
August 31, 2010, 6:18 pmZack says:
The Catholic Church not only aspires to raise armies and exercise police power, it actually has a standing army and currently governs its own state. In addition to its long history of involvement in wars between nations, statements by its religious leaders (e.g. on abortion) have been used by radicals to justify attacks on civilians in the United States. So, by your logic, Catholicism is not a religion protected by the Constitution. Right?
August 31, 2010, 6:25 pmJustin says:
FWIW:
“Taken as a whole, the ummah seems to be ambivalent, at best, about whether they support the radicals. ”
Not true. Not even *close* to true.
August 31, 2010, 6:28 pmGuest14 says:
Can you perhaps provide a picture of this banner under which they fought?
August 31, 2010, 6:34 pmSoronel Haetir says:
I’m glad you brought that up. It’s generally recognized that the WW2 internment of US citizens of Japanese (and on the east coast German and Italian) decent was a mistake, unjustified even by the knowledge of the time. You seem to be making a very similar conflation here. Do you have actual evidence that all islam (or even muslims in the US, or even the folks trying to push this particular project) can be lumped together so neatly?
August 31, 2010, 6:36 pmChris Travers says:
I disagree with this from the update:
It’s not a defensible reason for Muslim hostility? You note he’s not defending terrorism. You oppose his role because he defends hard feelings?
If that’s the substance of the objection, then there really isn’t much to it. I’d appreciate being told where I was wrong though.
August 31, 2010, 6:41 pmSarcastro says:
Check all that apply:
Islam is exactly like a country with a central government!
Also holds true for black folks. I heard there was a Beat Whitey night in Iowa. That and the NBPP, mean we must be in a race war at last!
August 31, 2010, 6:42 pmGuest14 says:
While admittedly people have struggled to move on, it’s actually been nine, count them, years since the destruction of the WTC, not two. And the Burlington Coat Factory isn’t even in line of sight with the WTC site, let alone across the street.
Context does matter, but lower Manhattan is a busy, bustling area full of people going about their daily business — which, for the most part, has nothing to do with the WTC. It is not a graveyard, or a desolate place of lamentation. It is full of people, many of them Muslims, living, working, worshipping, and doing everything else that people do. There is no reason that there shouldn’t be a mosque, community center, or anything else down here.
August 31, 2010, 6:45 pmMike P Wagner says:
I am pretty sure that not many people care, but here is an interesting article that puts some of the more infamous Rauf quotes in the context in which there were uttered.
In general,I think that whether you agree with him or not, the quotes don’t appear quite so wild-eyed in context. For example, if his comment about 9/11 was that the US armed, trained, and supported Osama bin Ladin and the Taliban, then whether or not those actions made the US an “accessory” to his later actions seems like a reasonable question.
Parsing the Record of Feisal Addul Rauf
And here is the transcript of the Hawk Centre interview:
A public lecture with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
At any rate, they make an interesting read.
Mike
August 31, 2010, 7:02 pmyankev says:
That would be the same Norway that collaborated with Germany during WWII, barred Jews from Kristalnacht commemorations, tolerates anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist attacks on Jews, and enforces a ban on slaughtering meat for consumption by practicing Jews? It’s not so much a case of Hamas’s being a terrorist organization is not a no brainer, as it is a case of Norway having no brains.
August 31, 2010, 7:19 pmJoe says:
First, to deal with a side issue, Rauf’s claim that US led sanctions on Iraq killed a half million children is simply false, and is certainly not the kind of idea that is peddled by responsible “moderates.”
The cited article disputes the magnitude, not the general point:
“It seems awfully hard not to conclude that the embargo on Iraq has been ineffective (especially since 1998) and that it has, at the least, contributed to more than 100,000 deaths since 1990. With Bush set to go to war over Saddam’s noncompliance with the military goals of the sanctions, there has never been a more urgent time to confront the issue with clarity.”
Second, Rauf clearly does intend to draw a moral parallel between “Muslim blood” on US “hands” and the innocents killed by Al Qaeda, suggesting that the former is a defensible reason for Muslim hostility to the US (though not, he points out, for terrorism; I noted that Rauf isn’t a proponent of terrorism in the original post).
Drawing some “parallel” (not “equivalence”) to justify “hostility” is not to me a problem.
Rauf’s claim also ignores the fact that nearly all of this “blood” is either that of combatants or that of civilians killed accidentally in military operations. It also ignores the many innocent Muslim lives saved by US interventions in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Kuwait, among others. In the former three cases, there wasn’t even a significant US strategic or economic interest at stake.
Not according to the Reason article. It also is a result in part of our policies, including in Iran and Iraq.
If this were Rauf’s only indefensible statement, I might be inclined to overlook it. But in combination with the other ones noted above, I’m not.
It is defensible.
August 31, 2010, 7:20 pmyankev says:
How many Muslim lives have been saved by the US? How many Americans have died trying to save Muslims? How many Al Quaeda have died trying to save non-Muslims?
August 31, 2010, 7:24 pmyankev says:
Peral’s father also said that he was disappointed with Rauf’s words at the service. I forget the details but I’m sure a bit of googling will find them for you.
August 31, 2010, 7:27 pmyankev says:
Has anyon on this thread said otherwise? If so I must have missed it but I would certainly disagree with him.
August 31, 2010, 7:32 pmChris Travers says:
Very interesting. I’d hope these would put a lot of the concerns to rest. Hopefully Illya takes the time to read them.
August 31, 2010, 7:33 pmChris Travers says:
Would you please donate to my dream to build a polytheistic cultural center? ;-)
August 31, 2010, 7:35 pmChris Travers says:
I think you are wrong here. The problem is that folks have forgotten how to properly use the religious tools we, as humans, innately have. Religion (comprising, roughly, an interconnected complex of ritual practice and mythology) is an immensely valuable thing, as nearly any anthropologist will tell you. It makes us human. In fact, we can’t be human without it—when we try to deny it within ourselves we will find ourselves worshipping other myths and performing other rituals.
Just because you may hit your thumb with a hammer frequently doesn’t mean a hammer is a bad tool.
What is a problem though is the idea that there is a single religious truth out there that everyone should just believe in, accept, etc and then everything will be better. Pluralism needs to be respected by all, embraced by all, and indeed furthered by all.
August 31, 2010, 7:40 pmChris Travers says:
When I was going through customer service training at Microsoft they drilled one lesson into our heads over and over. If someone has a good experience, they are likely to tell a couple other people, but if someone has a bad experience, they will tell many more. Avoid bad experiences like the plague, we were told.
We remember and communicate the bad much more readily than the good. This has a function, I suppose, in that it helps cultural groups avoid dangerous things.
So this isn’t a matter where we get let off the hook by people because we save X number of lives, and that this will be balanced against the Y that were unluckily killed. Nobody does that sort of calculus before deciding who to be unhappy with. They care about the people who are killed much more than the people who were saved. But the same thing goes the other way too. How many 9/11′s were averted due to cooperation by Muslims? Do we get to hold these against the lives that were lost? Of course nobody here thinks that either.
Human nature weighs the bad against the bad and the good against the good. Rarely is the good weighed against the bad.
August 31, 2010, 7:46 pmpublic_defender says:
Or it just means its investors, like its commentators, are laughing their way to the bank. “You want to make stuff up about me? I’ll take mockery AND a check.”
Also, you can turn this around. If the prince really is as bad as he the bigots make him out to be, that proves Rauf’s independence of the prince as much as it shows Fox News’ independence.
So now we know that Hannity, O’Reilly, Palin and others are all on the Saudi Wahhabi terrorist payroll. Fun.
August 31, 2010, 7:47 pmKen Arromdee says:
So then, how would you figure if someone is saying “I was just asking a question about Obama’s birth certificate” because he’s a Birther or because he really is just asking a question?
I think the answer is something like “95% of the time we hear people say it, they’re Birthers. Saying it with innocent intent is so rare that there is a (rebuttable) presumption that the intent is not innocent.”
August 31, 2010, 8:15 pmpublic_defender says:
Bush and Cheney did about as much as the could to strengthen the nutcases in charge of Iran. Bush/Cheney eliminated the biggest foreign threat to the Iranian regime (Saddam), and turned Iraq from a Sunni stronghold to a Shiite free-for-all. Bush/Cheney managed to pretty much unite the world in support of the Iranian nutcases, which allows Iran to develop its nuclear weapons program much more quickly than Iran could have without the international help.
Since Bush/Cheney (and pretty much everyone at Fox News) “support[ed], even inadvert[e]ntly, the goals of our enemies” in Iran, does that mean that Bush and Cheney moved into the “‘Militant Islam’ column”?
This “inadvertently” helping our enemy argument can have some unpleasant consequences.
August 31, 2010, 8:28 pmJustin says:
I know the fallacy of “People who disagree with me are arguing in bad faith,” but the Update is sort of difficult to believe came from an established law professor who read the whole comments.
I’ll reply to the 3 “points” you make, but I think you sort of missed the giant point. He wasn’t making “claims” regarding the United States at all. Instead, he was explaining – descriptively – the reasons for hostility to the US in the muslim world. Strangely, it seems like the only answer you’ll take regarding “why the US is unpopular in the muslim world” is that “it’s all their fault.” This is puerile, petty stuff from you. It’s Bernstein/Kopel/Lindgren.
You then say that you’d be inclined to “excuse” it if it weren’t for the other things he said – but myself and others have quite convincingly (if I do say so myself, and certainly without any particular rebuttal from any other commenter) explained why your characterizations of the other things he said is wild-ass off the mark. This “update” seems to fall into the “it’s true that the poll is flawed and therefore cannot establish what it claims, but it is nonetheless troubling…” camp.
And remember, we’re not discussing this in the broader point of whether Rauf is right, whether Rauf is a guy you’d like to have a (non-alcoholic) beer with, or even if Rauf is a guy you have anything in common to agree with. Instead, your (rather trivial) disagreements with him establishes, in your mind, that it is morally (but not legally) wrong for him to build a mosque. You can see how I am struggling to avoid the assumption you are arguing in good faith.
Now, getting back to your three rebuttals in your update.
1) Reasonable people can disagree about the numbers, and indeed the article, while arguing the number was less than 500,000, certainly cedes that point. 500,000 certainly is a common number to throw about, as it was in 2005. Faisal wasn’t making a “claim” – he had a persumably good faith belief that the number was correct, hadn’t read that particular article of Reason, and referenced the point in larger context. His broader point would still be correct if it was only 375,000, or even only 100,000.
2) Rauf’s answering why the US has a bad reputation. Moral equivalency has nothing to do with his point. This goes back to the broader point – he’s not saying what he’s saying in an attempt to normatively indict US policy, but to descriptively explain something.
3) This is another one where I struggle to believe you wrote your update in good faith. You say: He also ignores the fact that nearly all of this “blood” is either that of combatants or that of civilians killed accidentally in military operations.
Rauf says: Collateral damage is a nice thing to put on a paper but when the collateral damage is your own uncle or cousin, what passions do these arouse? How do you negotiate? How do you tell people whose homes have been destroyed, whose lives have been destroyed, that this does not justify your actions of terrorism.
Okay?
I’ll conclude with Rauf’s own words, which you may or may not have read:
“I’m just providing you with the arguments that are happening intra Islamically by those who feel the emotion of pain. Half a million Iraqi — there’s a sense in the Arab and Muslim world that the European world and Western world is just — does not care about our lives or human lives.
….
I’m not saying this to condone. Acts like the London bombing are completely against Islamic law. Suicide bombing, completely against Islamic law, completely, 100 per cent. But the facts of the matter is that people, I have discovered, are more motivated by emotion than by logic. If their emotions are in one place and their logic is behind, their emotions will drive their decisions more often than not, and therefore we need to address the emotional state of people and the extent to which those emotions are shaped by things that we can control and we can shape, this is how we will shape a better future.”
And this is why guys like Gingrich are wrong on the law but right on (this particular) mosque?
August 31, 2010, 8:41 pmJustin says:
“So then, how would you figure if someone is saying “I was just asking a question about Obama’s birth certificate” because he’s a Birther or because he really is just asking a question?”
Someone making a factual statement in the broader context of a point that has a comprehensible conclusion is not the equivalent of asking a question that almost everyone believes is not really up for debate and NOT doing so in the broader context of a point that has a comprehensible conclusion.
August 31, 2010, 8:44 pmOwen H. says:
If that means we are at war with Islam as a whole, then what about all those you were over there liberating from the Taliban and Saddam? What banner were they under?
August 31, 2010, 8:51 pmChris Travers says:
I’d look at context. In Rauf’s case, the larger context, such as the questions he is being asked, clarifies this greatly. He is explaining hard feelings, not justifying anything.
There’s a big difference between someone saying “in order to add Mr Obama to my collection of natal horoscopes, I’d like to see his birth certificate” and someone saying “We want to see his birth certificate” at a Tea Party rally.
August 31, 2010, 8:52 pmSarcastro says:
[I'll just leave this wankery here.]
August 31, 2010, 9:37 pmChris Travers says:
And yet in the context of the rest of the article, she’s absolutely right from the viewpoint of structural anthropology.
August 31, 2010, 9:47 pmAriel says:
To all those who replied to me: I posed the question above, but notice that none of you chose to engage it. Would it be OK, in your view, if Rauf was not a “moderate,” but instead was an out-and-out extremist, perhaps even as far as the man who tutored OBL? If not, you’re not arguing from a position of high Constitutional principle – you’re conceding that a “moderate” is OK but an extremist would not be. If, on the other hand, an out-and-out extremist would not be problematic and a moderate would not be either, then a plausible constitutional argument can be made – but I think that you would find that few people would support the mosque being built by an extremist. That’s why many pro-mosque folks emphasize his moderation and try to minimize evidence of radicalism, even if they have to define radicalism down.
In the law, it’s perfectly normal to argue in the alternative, I’ll readily grant that. I also think the willingness to argue in the alternative is why ordinary people find lawyers particularly maddening. In logic, either A is A, or A is not A. Either moderation matters, or it doesn’t. Many pro-mosque people are arguing that his moderation matters. But it shouldn’t matter if you’re only interested in the constitutional question – and if that’s the case, then you should be perfectly fine with an extremist running the mosque – and if that’s the case, you should have your head checked. There’s no good reason to believe that an extremist running a mosque in that area would not be problematic.
As an aside, I also find the mosque/cultural center thing fascinating. At first, it was a mosque, because there’s a constitutional principle of freedom of religion. Then it was a cultural center, because that would see less triumphal, especially in the context of the Hagia Sophia and Temple Mount.
I haven’t heard people making argument #1. Everyone I know of on my side of the issue, comprising about 70% of Americans, concedes that current constitutional law leaves little doubt that it can be built. The only real argument is #2. I disagree as to your statement about whether all of the arguments on #2 are appeals to emotion. There is a long history of Islamic monuments being built on temples of those who Islam has conquered. There is at least some logical basis in arguing against such a building for that reason. X has been done in the past, there is plausible case X is being done here, we are concerned about X. If they were not interested in building the triumphal monument, a mosque that is a couple of blocks further would be no problem. There’s another logos argument for you.
Again, though, I have to say: if there is no logos argument for #2, you are saying that his moderation doesn’t logically matter to whether it should be built there. Would an extremist be OK?
Bloomberg didn’t say, so far as I know, anything about his moderation. He just said that we have to be tolerant of other religions, and it’s no problem to build there. I agree with you that most people agree that Rauf has the legal right to build, and that the question is around the second issue.
I do believe that supporters are trying to have it both ways. They are arguing (1) from a Constitutional perspective, moderation and extremism don’t matter; (2) from an ought-to perspective, moderation matters. If you only confine yourself to the argument about ought-to, it’s clear that moderation matters. However, many pro-mosque folks have not focused on the second question much or at all, and instead have really focused on the question of whether he can build the mosque – in which case his supposed moderation wouldn’t matter.
August 31, 2010, 10:14 pmOwen H. says:
I am surprised I need to remind people of this, particularly here, but you all have to remember; you do not have a right to not be offended.
Very few are “pro mosque”. Most are “pro rights”.
August 31, 2010, 10:19 pmJustin says:
“Would it be OK, in your view, if Rauf was not a “moderate,” but instead was an out-and-out extremist, perhaps even as far as the man who tutored OBL?”
If that were the case, he should be legally allowed to build a mosque. If the mosque was used to further extremist Islamic teaching, then such a mosque wouldn’t be a moral good in the world. Protesting such a mosque would be understandable, if not legally correct. If the mosque were to be used to further violence, those members who so do so should be appropriately investigated and arrested.
Nobody (at least I) thought you were seriously posing a question. But ok, there’s your answer. I’m not sure what other answer you may have been expecting.
As to logic 101, you’re wrong and I’m not bothering to re-recite why.
August 31, 2010, 10:25 pmAriel says:
Justin,
You’re taking the position that his moderation is irrelevant. You think an extremist mosque is legally fine, and while protests against it would be OK and criminal acts by it would be punishable, if I’m not mistaken, you have no other problem with it. I don’t think that’s the position taken by the majority of pro-mosque (or pro-rights) folks out there, which is why I wasn’t arguing against it. Honestly, I think it’s a little idiosyncratic, and if you truly believe that there’s nothing wrong with that, I can’t argue against you. I think it would be wrong to put Carmelite nuns on top of Auschwitz and extremists mosques on top of GZ, but you don’t. Well, it’s not a logic thing, it’s about what you believe is right and what I do.
August 31, 2010, 10:39 pmSF Alpha Geek says:
Actually, given some time to set up the appropriate flickr account, I could – I have two of them: one captured from the Jaysh al-Mahdi in Iraq, and one captured from the Taliban in Paktika province, Afghanistan. The JAM one is black with a koranic verse in gold, and the Taliban one is green with gold fringe and a (different) koranic verse in gold. The one from Iraq came off the top of the Mahdi mosque, which, in addition to being used as a weapons cache, was used to torture, rape and execute several Iraqis (males) who were suspected of being pro-American.
So in other words, your puerile attempt to misunderstand a metaphor allows me to expand it – our enemies literally, not just figuratively, fought under the banner of Islam.
August 31, 2010, 10:41 pmSF Alpha Geek says:
They were mostly under the banner of being left the hell alone by the Islamic nutcases – almost all the devout ones I met were on, or at least supportive of, the other side.
August 31, 2010, 10:50 pmJustin says:
Ariel,
I am going to assume “you are arguing in good faith.” But that only means you are beyond stupid. This conversation is over. Goodbye.
August 31, 2010, 10:58 pmAriel says:
Is there a rule of argumentation about the first to resort to insults? And the one who does so repeatedly?
August 31, 2010, 11:13 pmSF Alpha Geek says:
Both of you seem to have misunderstood the point I raised – if the population affected by the mosque consisted solely of American Muslims who wanted a community center, and American non-Muslims who were offended by its proximity to ground zero, I’d say, it’s as tasteless and offensive, but within the rights of the people who own the property.
However, the audience affected by this mosque is worldwide. Guest14 notes that you can’t see Ground Zero from the mosque, but that’s not the way the story will spin in the Muslim world. The “Ground Zero mosque” hands radical Islam a huge propaganda victory, and allows them to spin the theme of Islamic triumphalism – and they will run with it, and it will help sell the merits of jihad, the weakness of the decadent west, and the rising might of Islam. It matters not that you believe that allowing the mosque demonstrates the strengths of the “American way.” The fundamentalists in the Middle East and Central Asia will not see it that way.
Rauf has to know that this hands radical Islam a huge propaganda coup – which is why I doubt his bona fides. As in 1943 with Japan, in 2010, we are at war with Islam, and we need to acknowledge that – which doesn’t mean the same thing as we are at war with every Muslim. We were once at war with Japan – but we didn’t have to kill every Japanese citizen to end it. What we did have to do is change the way that the leadership of Japan acted – in that case, by changing the leaders. The current struggle may require a different approach, but we do ourselves no favors by handing our enemies an incredibly powerful symbolic victory.
Sarcastro is welcome to live up to his monicker with his snide littls aside about
but that entirely ignores the point I made about the difference between a Westphalian nation-state and Islam. The Nazi party hijacks the German state, and every German – even those who have profound misgivings about Nazism – becomes our enemy. Because, over a 400 or so year period where we only dealt with Westphalian actors, we don’t have a good mechanism for dealing with a system that conflates religion with what we think of nationality, we give Islam a pass – even though the data I’ve seen indicates that a majority of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Muslims at least passively support AQ. Perhaps someone can explain the moral distinction?
August 31, 2010, 11:27 pmSF Alpha Geek says:
Replies, in order of snarkiness:
1) Sorry, I get all my information from Fox News – they must not have covered the part where the Catholic Church declared war on the US.
2) When Stalin asked “How many divisions has the Pope?” I thought he was speaking out of disdain, but according to Zack, it was a legitimate question.
August 31, 2010, 11:30 pmSF Alpha Geek says:
Personally, I tried to answer any poster who made a legitimate attempt to engage my position instead of being a total tool. Justin is the only person I deliberately ignored.
August 31, 2010, 11:33 pmChris Travers says:
(Or at least right enough to be published in three peer reviewed publications.)
August 31, 2010, 11:48 pmbartman says:
They were mostly under the banner of being left the hell alone by the Islamic nutcases — almost all the devout ones I met were on, or at least supportive of, the other side.
Are you seriously claiming that the majority of the population in Iraq and Afghanistan are non-religious?
August 31, 2010, 11:56 pmjukeboxgrad says:
The convent was not just at Auschwitz. It took over a building that had been used “to store the poison gas used in the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria.” Which is a little bit different than desecrating the Burlington Coat Factory.
As a couple of people have pointed out to you, context matters.
I appreciate that you agree with my comment, but I have to point out that the eloquence is Rauf’s, not mine. It’s an exact quote, not a paraphrase.
What a little googling finds me is something quite different:
If Judea Pearl was “disappointed with Rauf’s words at the service,” why is Jerusalem Post reporting that Pearl “confirmed” that Rauf delivered “a moving, empathetic speech,” and that he had been “touched” by it?
By the way, the eulogy delivered by Rauf can be found via here.
You seem to have an ongoing problem getting your facts straight (example). Presumably you will either substantiate your claim or withdraw it.
Someone who said “I am a Jew, I have always been one” builds a mosque and that “hands radical Islam a huge propaganda victory?” Really? Only among people who are so deluded that their opinions shouldn’t effect our decisions. Here’s what “hands radical Islam a huge propaganda victory:” the anti-Muslim hysteria your ilk is fomenting.
September 1, 2010, 12:05 ambartman says:
If you declare yourself to be at war with a set of religious beliefs, and you appear to have claimed as such, then you are at war with everybody who holds those beliefs dear. You see, you can’t really declare war on something as abstract and intangible as a set of beliefs, you have to declare war on individuals who act upon those beliefs.
If you declare yourself at war with Islam, then you have declared yourself to be at war with the 20% of the world’s population who put their Islamic beliefs into action every day.
September 1, 2010, 12:15 amGuy says:
Which is why we interned all of them.
September 1, 2010, 12:26 amMike P Wagner says:
I am very grateful that you fought that battle – and I mean that sincerely. I lived for 4 years in Yemen and Somalia, and I really don’t want my daughter to have acid thrown in her face because someone thinks that her jeans are too tight or she turned down a marriage proposal from the wrong guy.
Those things have happened in areas controlled by Islamic extremists.
So I really do sincerely thank you for your service.
I also think it’s fair to say that the men who were shooting at you in were fighting to imposed a very specific vision of Islam (actually probably two different visions of Islam. I assume that Shiites were doing the shooting in Iraq, and Sunnis were doing the shooting in Afghanistan).
I am sure that the men who shot at you would claim that they were fighting “for Islam”, but in fact, they were fighting for a pretty extreme vision of an Islamic state – many Muslims would and do reject that vision.
It would be quite a stretch to say that they are “fighting for Islam” as though Islam as a homogeneous or monolithic entity that endorsed their actions. They were almost certainly not fighting for all Islam.
Tim McVeigh claimed that he was “fighting for America”, but I think we can agree that he was fighting for his vision of America, which is not my vision of America, or yours.
I am not claiming that the situations are parallel, but I am arguing that someone’s claim to be fighting for a idea or a vision does not imply that everyone else who supports a vision with the same name endorses that specific vision of the claimant.
The issue is complex partly because America has a long policy of support of (or at least acquiescence to) one of the most extreme visions of Islam – the Wahhabism of the House of Saud. We also help fund, arm, and train Osama bin Ladin and the Taliban in their struggle to impose Wahhabism on Afghanistan (when for some reason we believed that he would only attack the Russians and would leave the West alone). In truth, we supported (and continue to support) an extreme authoritarian Wahhabi kingdom to “protect” our supply of oil.
Nonetheless, the Wahhabi vision of Islam is not the only vision of Islam. “Fighting for Wahhabi Islam” is not equivalent to “fighting for Islam?.
Thank you again for your service.
Mike
September 1, 2010, 12:26 amyankee says:
Absolutely not. The U.S. military is not a group of incompetents who kept discharging their weapons against the wrong people by accident. It would be a severe indictment of the U.S. military if they were.
Rather, the government knew it would be killing innocent civilians, but deemed their deaths of less significance than the military objectives to be obtained. Knowingly killing innocent civilians to achieve some greater objective is not remotely the same as killing innocent civilians on purpose, but neither does it buy the government immunity from criticism. People are entitled to argue that the U.S. government gave the innocent civilians’ lives insufficient weight in its decisionmaking process. If the government gave insufficient weight to innocent civilian lives, it would constitute a deep moral failure and merit severe criticism.
September 1, 2010, 12:37 amGuy says:
If Rauf is handing Al Qaeda a propaganda coup, it’s because he elicited irrational populist rage against Islam. Not that I think this question should be analyzed with respect to what a bunch of militant nutjobs might think. You’re equivocating here between Japanese nationality and Japanese descent. American Muslims have American nationality, Al Qaeda is not a central government of Islam, and has no authority to govern Muslims, they’re just crazy people who use religion as an excuse to kill. The analogue to nationality is membership in Al Qaeda, not just being Muslim.
September 1, 2010, 12:52 amyankee says:
Hey, if we can have a war on inanimate objects, a war on a distribution of wealth, and a war on an existential condition, I don’t see why we can’t have a war on a belief system too ;-)
September 1, 2010, 1:22 amwhit says:
PLENTY are “pro mosque” not merely pro the right to have a mosque there, setting aside the fact that it is not really a mosque, but a community center with an area within set aside for prayer…
September 1, 2010, 1:32 amrpt says:
What funding? The developer doesn’t have but $10,000 for this project. No plans, no organization, etc.
September 1, 2010, 10:43 amrpt says:
The Orthodox Church issue is a dispute over how much public funding the Church gets to rebuild, no whether they can do so at all.
September 1, 2010, 10:50 amSF Alpha Geek says:
I suppose I can appreciate the fiat justitia ruat caelum point of view – even if the sky will probably fall on someone elses head, and not your own – but I don’t appreciate the stunning lack of knowledge of Muslim culture implicit in that statement – specifically, the Muslim cultures of Central Asia and the Middle East (hereinafter, Islam, although I recognize that tars with too broad a brush, places like Indonesia, for example, which doesn’t have the same mixture of Islamic theology and tribal culture that makes the Middle East so volatile.)
Your observation about equivocating between descent and nationality is an interesting one, although you’re wrong in how you apply it. For one thing, unlike nationality, religion requires at least some level of volition and acceptance of a philosophical system. For a true believer, Islam supercedes nationality. Nationality is a western idea, and it resonates much less strongly in other parts of the world than tribe or religion. Yes, western concepts of nationality are gradually supplanting other loyalties throughout the world, but we’re not there yet (in fact, the gradual erosion of local cultures and beliefs by a western global culture is one of AQ’s biggest issues. They’re in favor of a single global belief system too, of course – they just think it should be Islam.) There are a lot of Muslims out there who aren’t “members” of Al Qaeda who nonetheless support its goals – and they provide money, or support, or just passive acceptance that furthers the work of AQ. The Taliban aren’t and weren’t AQ – they didn’t care about a global caliphate, they just wanted an Islamic state in Afghanistan. But, the Taliban provided sanctuary to AQ, and would again if given the chance, which makes them a danger to us, even if they never wanted to confront us directly.
The West is at a disadvantage because we have no protocols for dealing with a threat that isn’t embodied by a nation-state. We’ve built an entire system up around the idea that only sovereign states can prosecute a war, because only sovereign states can legitimately wield martial power. Anything else is illegitimate and criminal, and when confronted with a culture that holds that the legitimate exercise of power is not confined to the state, we view their actions through the lens of our own culture.
Unfortunately, that leads us to do really stupid things. Since the exercise of power by non-state actors is “criminal”, we try to apply the social and political reasoning we’ve built up for dealing with criminals, which in turn leads us to say things like “The analogue to nationality is membership in Al Qaeda, not just being Muslim.” That would be true if AQ were a criminal organization like the Mafia. But it’s not. It is the militant wing of a religion that, at its core, is based on conquest and subjugation.
In WWII, we didn’t distinguish between Nazism and Germany. Because Germany was a nation-state, our culture didn’t require the distinction. The Nazis were in charge of Germany, and because of their actions, we went to war with Germany, not with the National Socialist party. The German people, taken as a whole, were deemed responsible for the actions of their country. That’s not the same thing as saying that every German was a Nazi, or every German supported what the Nazis did. But the German people did bear the responsibility for the actions of Nazism, because they gave control of their country to the Nazis.
We, as a culture, need to understand Islam in the same way, and we need to do so for several reasons. First, of course, is because, if we’re ever going to be rid of Al Qaeda, Islam has to be fixed – in short, it’s going to have to undergo the same retreat from temporal power that the Christian church did. I’m not sure that its possible for Islam to do so – Christianity’s assumption of temporal power was an abberation, while temporal power is at the core of Islam’s theology – but by acting as if Islam doesn’t bear responsibility for its own belief system, we enable Islam’s unwillingness to confront the connection of its core beliefs to Al Qaeda’s actions.
Second, if the overwhelming majority of the worldwide ummah were passionately opposed to the ideology of Al Qaeda, it couldn’t exist. Even if some few Muslims were passionately opposed to AQ, and the vast majority of the ummah were passively opposed to AQ, it couldn’t exist. The ummah is the sea in which the fish of AQ swim, and it is their passive acceptance of the goals and tactics of AQ that make AQ possible.
To help you understand that, I’ll illustrate with an analogy to a Christian church. On Sunday, people dress up, go to church, listen to a lecture on morality, and possibly resolve to apply it to their own lives. Many members of the congregation will donate money to the less fortunate, or do good works, as part of their fairly comfortable daily lives. They may be good Christians, but they’re not supremely committed Christians. Like most of us, they’re Christians in the small.
Every so often, the church will host a missionary, who will describe the physical deprivations and spiritual satisfaction of his work in the jungles of South America, or among AIDS victims in India, or whatever. The congregation usually donates a good bit of money, and congratulates him on his good works, and agrees to keep him in their prayers. Many members of the congregation also feel vaguely ashamed and diminished. Here is a man who has truly “taken up his cross and followed Jesus.” Here is a man who lives Christianity in the large. He embodies the core of the Christian faith, and does what the members of the congregation are unwilling to do. They would never do what he does, but they admire and appreciate and support him.
My sense, from having lived and worked among them, is that much of the Islamic community is the same. They wouldn’t strap on a suicide vest themselves, but there are a lot out there who approve of those who do, and they will at least offer passive support to them. There’s a lot of lip service among some of the Muslime leadership about “religion of peace”, “true Islam doesn’t condone terrorism” and so on, but once you dig into it, its pretty much all in the “yes, but” form. “We don’t condone terrorism, as such, but . . .” When Islam, in the sense of the worldwide Islamic community, wants to fix the problems with AQ and the Salafi theology that supports it, it will. Until then, we should not legitimize its ambivalent, “yes, but” approach to terrorism.
Also, since you seem to have missed the point, I base my opposition to the mosque on the effect it will have on Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia, not on American Muslims. As I said before, if the only parties to the issue were American Muslims who want a community center and American non-Muslims who think that its tasteless to put it so close to ground zero, then I would agree that we should allow the center to open, while noting that it is, in fact, tasteless to locate it there. But that’s not what’s going on. What we’re doing is allowing Islam to erect a mosque at the site of their greatest victory over the West in centuries. That’s how it will be presented, and that’s how it will be seen, and it will increase the influence our enemies have in the region.
I’ve seen a lot of mirror thinking in this thread, but you can’t understand how the Islamic populace is going to react by thinking about how you, or even how most people you know, would react given a similar situation. I know that this is an unpleasant, “culturally imperialist” truth, but not all cultures hold the same values.
Bin Laden once said “When the people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they naturally favor the strong horse” and that’s very true for his culture. Islamic theology and the tribal scarcity based culture of the region reinforce each other so that people see strength as a value in and of itself. Tribal culture demands that the ruler be strong, so that he can enforce the mores of the band. Scarcity culture means that a strong leader gives security to the led, since strong leaders improve the chances of having and keeping goods to distribute. Islam overlays that with the notion that Muslims are supposed to be in charge, and are supposed to be rewarded, by Allah, not just spiritually, but in this life, for contributing to the dominance of Islam.
Allowing a “mosque to rise up out of the ashes of the decadent west” is not going to demonstrate our tolerance to the Islamic community – it’s going to demonstrate our weakness, and the ascendance of Islam over the West. While symbolic, that action will have real consequences. Rauf understands his culture better than you do, and he is quite aware of what he’s doing.
September 1, 2010, 11:45 amjukeboxgrad says:
Indeed:
September 1, 2010, 12:04 pmSF Alpha Geek says:
That’s a distinction without a difference.
We didn’t go to war with the National Socialist Party, we went to war with Germany. However, when Germany stopped behaving in accordance with the philosophy of the National Socialist Party, the war with Germany was over.
We fough a Cold (sometimes flaring to somewhat warm) War with the Soviet Union, not the Communist Party. When the communist regime collapsed, the war with Russia was over.
Its true to say that we’re not at war with Islam. Its also true to say that, while the modern West doesn’t recognize it, thanks to a long period (lasting 318 years to the day) where Islam was unable to project power against the western core, Islam has been at war with us for 1376 years, more or less. The status quo will continue until Islam either conforms its belief systems sufficiently to peacefully co-exist with western society (it is not there right now, and it may not be possible for it to ever get there), or until one or the other cultures is destroyed. There are no other alternatives beyond those four.
We might decide that we can live with the status quo until Islam gets its act together – an “acceptable level of violence”, but it will not go away on its own.
Sorry to let the cold realism of history intrude on all the idealism flying around here, but to borrow a phrase, the ummah is not composed of a bunch of Jeffersonian democrats waiting for their opportunity to shine. We think in terms of negotiation and compromise, finding common ground on which to agree, precisely because “live and let live” is such a deeply held value for us. But there is no compromise that will satisfy Islam unless Islam changes. And for Islam, to change is to fail.
“Between two types of men who seek to create inconsistent kinds of worlds, I see no alternative but force. It seems that all societies rest on the death of men.”
Francis Bacon
“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”
September 1, 2010, 12:29 pmWinston Churchill
SF Alpha Geek says:
What’s ironic about this is that I actually cut a paragraph that started
“To forestall the silly, yet inevitable, moral equivalence argument that will be made concerning Christianity . . .”
and went on to use Eric Rudolph as an example, because it interfered with the flow of hte rest of what I was saying. I wish I had saved it off to notepad or something.
September 1, 2010, 12:35 pmjukeboxgrad says:
“Pre-WW2 Churchill article says Jews partly to blame for anti-Semitism.” Link.
Churchill had something nice to say about everyone.
September 1, 2010, 12:40 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Yes, me too, because I’d love to hear you explain how Palin’s statement is not a counterpart to this:
September 1, 2010, 12:46 pmChris Travers says:
One of the very real concerns during WWII is that Japanese Americans as a group were raising war funds for the Empire of Japan. Many were documented as celebrating a rumor that the US had lost the war and the US was about to surrender to Japan. As a cohesively defined group, it was reasonable, given this, to question to which country their loyalty lay. We have a tendency to look at it as a manifestation of racism and hysteria today, but I think that’s extremely simplistic.
I am not saying that internment was right. I’m not saying it was even Constitutional. I am saying that simply assuming that it was an unfounded response to an imaginary threat is wrong and dangerously so. I personally think that due process of law requires individualized guilt and in this area internment policies were unconstitutional and damaging to our rule of law.
But this is also why the internment camps are important to the current debate over Islam and terrorism. They show that, whatever the guilt of others, we should not stoop to punishing everyone in the group.
September 1, 2010, 12:53 pmChris Travers says:
I think there are two things to keep in mind here.
1) We aren’t the Middle East. While the issue of Islamic culture in the Middle East is a real one, it’s an argument for throttling immigration to ensure that folks have every chance to acculturate and has very little bearing on the current debate over the Islamic community center.
2) Islam even in the Middle East has significant diversity. There is a tremendous difference for example between the Sufi interpretations of Islam (those that Rauf follows) and the Salafi interpretations (that bin Ladin, Zawahiri, and friends follow). I would call the Salafists “Islamist Anarchists.”
And this is what I keep telling people is wrong with Christianity.
What I think you are getting at though is this: the debate about whether Islam is a religion of peace entirely misses the point. There is not a focus on peace in Islam which means that peace and war are largely orthogonal to the religion. Instead, Islam, like Judaism, is a religion of law, and largely defined by its legal tradition, but unlike Judaism is internationalist instead of nationalist (i.e. Jews believe that Jewish law should apply only to Jews, but Muslims believe everyone should at least ideally adopt Islamic law). Frameworks such as irredentism and criminal apostasy are designed to ensure that once Islam takes ahold of something it isn’t supposed to revert back to the hands of others.
However, such a view doesn’t necessarily mean we are at war with Islam or even Salafism (and Rauf has shown no signs of being a Salafi anyway). It does have profound impacts on how we need to address foreign policy, immigration, and the like but I am not sure what it has to do with this debate.
September 1, 2010, 1:13 pmSF Alpha Geek says:
Mike,
I don’t think that the analogy between McVeigh and AQ holds up. We’d like it to, of course, because its much more comfortable to think that most Muslims are really nice fellows, and really just like us, except they go to a mosque on Friday instead of church on Sunday, but aside from that, there’s no difference. For a Muslim who has assimilated into western culture, or adopted some of its values, that’s almost certainly true – my sense is, though, that only a minority of Muslims worldwide, a very small minority of Muslims from Central Asia and the Middle East, and probably only a small majority of US Muslims fit into that category.
Of course, Islam is not a monolithic entity, with every Muslim operating in absolute lockstep. That’s never true of any movement that consists of more than one person. But, in differentiating between Islam and McVeigh/Rudolph, etc. you have to look at two things:
First, how does the society around them react to their actions. Are they celebrated? Are they condemned or justified? Are they excused or rationalized? We executed McVeigh, and locked Rudolph in a small cage for the rest of his life (actually, for 5 times the rest of his life.) Neither Billy Graham nor the Pope nor the Southern Baptist Convention spoke out in support of Eric Rudolph, or claimed that his actions were less heinous because abortion was evil. I would argue that the mainstream Muslim reaction was, at least, much more ambivalent.
Second, and more important, are the beliefs that justify the actions core or fringe? Again, we would like to believe that AQ is a fringe element within Islam, but I don’t see the evidence of that. AQ is right in line with mainstream Islamic theology. And, radical Islam is not one or two, or ten or twenty, people running around blowing things up. AQ’s success depends on substantial support, directly and indirectly, active and passive, from within the larger Muslim community.
Let’s look at the numbers just in the United States:
One in four American Muslims between the ages of 18 and 29 believe that suicide bombings are justifiable, if it is “to defend Islam.” 20% of all American Muslims believe that suicide bombings are justified in some cases.
5% of American Muslims hold a favorable view of AQ, and 27% more refused to disclose their views, for 32% who did not indicate an unfavorable view of AQ.
The best international numbers I’ve found are here although the results are probably very skewed against a realistic view of support for radical Islam by the choice of countries – Morocco, Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan – and I don’t think the Pakistan part extended to the FATAs. Results in Yemen, Somalia, the Sudan, would likely have been very different (and would probably have gotten a good number of survey takers killed.)Even so, the results don’t support the idea that AQ is out on the fringes of Islam.
Radical Islam is Islam’s problem to solve. Until it takes credible steps towards that solution, I think the west is justified in treating it with deep suspicion – and that would include allowing the establishment of an organization that will be seen as a monument to Islamic strength and Western weakness.
(And actually, in Afghanistan it was Sunni Pashtuns along with a mix of Sunni Arabs and Chechens. In Iraq, I was in an area with a Sunni majority on one side and a Shia majority on the other; attacks ran about 30-70 between the Shia Jaysh al-Mahdi, and the various Sunni organizations, usually under the umbrella of the Jaysh al-Islami. However, the JAM attacks were much more dangerous because they had Iranian supplied EFPs.)
September 1, 2010, 1:53 pmrobert says:
I took comparative religion in college and I enjoyed reading the ‘peaceful’ sections of the koran. I have since learned of the concept of abrogation present in islam, and specifically this concept dictates that ALL mohammed says later in his life that contradicts an earlier statement takes precedence — period.
September 1, 2010, 1:54 pmChris Travers says:
Can you define radical Islam for me?
Sometimes I get a distinct sense that a large part of the problem is that Western views of what is radical in Islam are somewhat orthogonal to Islamic views of what is radical.
September 1, 2010, 2:16 pmOhio Scrivener says:
Is it? Did you ever stop to wonder what the building at Auschwitz was used for before becoming a storage site for poison gas? Here’s a hint – “In 1984 Cardinal Macharski, archbishop of Cracow, announced the establishment of a Carmelite convent in Auschwitz in a building on the camp periphery which had originally been a theater but was utilized during World War II to store the poison gas used in the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria.” Obviously, the current significance of the building is defined — not by its original use as a theater — but by subsequent events.
On 9-11, part of the landing gear from the first plane to hit the Twin Towers, rammed through the roof of the Burlington Coat factory. Building a mosque there today looks rather different afer 9-11.
September 1, 2010, 2:25 pmSF Alpha Geek says:
Chris,
Except my concern is very different than what seems to be the mainstream reason for opposing the “community center.” Most mosque opponents rightly point out the extreme tastelessness of establishing a mosque at ground zero. That’s not my issue. Yes, its tasteless and hurtful, but if modern America has established anything as mainstream, its the right to be tasteless and hurtful. (Although, as an aside, I’d be interested in seeing what happened if the Aryan Brotherhood bought a lot across the street from the Murrah building site, and announced their plans for the Timothy McVeigh reading room.)
My issue is an internationally facing, foreign policy one. To what extent will establishing a community center in the Burlington coat factory be seen by the Muslim population abroad as “a mosque triumphantly rising out of the ashes of America’s defeat?” To what extent will that be useful in energizing radical Islam abroad?
I think that there’s a strong argument to be made, based on Middle Eastern Islamic culture both that the Muslim population of the Middle East will see it just that way, and it will energize radical Islam abroad. To that extent, establishing a Muslim center there is a provocative act that will give “aid and comfort” to our enemies, which I think does and should justify government action. Further, Rauf, knows or should know, the impact that the center will have on public opinion on the Middle East, and, in my mind, his desire to locate the mosque there is providing at least passive support to AQ, and is indicative of bad faith on his part.
Guy, Justin, et al, persisted in trying to conflate that point with the “its bad because its tasteless” line of argument. But the parallels I draw to Germany and Japan aren’t fuzzy metaphorical arguments – my point is that we are situated, in regards to the institution of Islam, exactly as we were situated towards Japan and Germany in World War II. We wouldn’t give the Germans or Japanese a propaganda victory like that then, and we shouldn’t hand Islam one now.
So yes, Middle Eastern culture is very important to whether or not the mosque goes forward, because the reaction in the Middle East is one of the second order effects that will stem from it. I think that the symbolic act will have very real consequences.
I would agree with your analysis concerning Islam and peace, but I think that you downplay the relationship between Islam’s “internationalist” view of law and how we should deal with Islam. It is, according to Islamic theology, incumbent on every Muslim male to struggle to impose Islamic law upon the whole world. Islam, as an institution, is at war with the west, and has been for nearly 1400 years.
How we react to that is up to us, but we need to be clear-eyed enough to see what’s going on.
September 1, 2010, 2:26 pmChris Travers says:
To what extent does that matter, aside from our dependence on foreign oil? Or are you worried about a repeat of Leyte Gulf but with America being the one cut off?
I disagree with these statements. The best way to energize radical Islam abroad (at least by my definition, as a virulant, violent, anti-Western movement) is to keep invading countries in the Middle East. George W Bush has given our enemies far more aid and comfort in this way than Imam Rauf could ever hope to by invading Iraq. I’ve seen first hand the political impacts in countries like Indonesia. If we do this again somewhere else we will be providing a training ground for terrorists as well as plenty of propaganda material. Does that mean that invading Iran at this point would be per se treasonous? I don’t think so.
The second problem is that if we say that Manhattan shall be a “Mosque Free Zone” then we are undercutting the basic rule of law that makes our nation great. If you don’t think this erosion will damage other groups then I think you aren’t thinking about how the rule established by such a precedent would likely be abused.
Of course symbolic acts (such as flag burning) have very real consequences. But that’s exactly why they are generally protected under the First Amendment. We live in a country where a man has a right to stand up at a KKK rally and call for the extermination of all African-Americans (if you don’t believe me, read Brandenburg v. Ohio and pay attention to the footnotes). The mere fact that this may encourage people at some point to engage in racially motivated violence does not render that speech any less protected.
That’s why I keep directing people to this paper which seems to be the only relatively neutral paper to address this sort of question head-on.
I would like nothing better than to get rid of internationalist religion (Islam, Christianity, Baha’i, etc) and foster nationalist religions instead (Hinduism, Judaism, various reconstructionist Neopaganisms, etc). That however is unlikely to happen in the near future. What those who believe that this internationalism is bad CAN do is try to convert Christians and Muslims to our own, smaller, nationalistic religions instead.
September 1, 2010, 2:48 pmSF Alpha Geek says:
I don’t know, really – I was using it as a shorthand way of acknowledging that not every Muslim in the entire world is trying to impose sharia law on the entire world, mostly in an attempt to blunt jukeboxgrad’s drive by “Oh yeah, well I knew this Muslim once at band camp, and he wasn’t like that, so . . .”
Here’s the problem: Islam has, as its core theology, the imperative to continue armed conflict until every person in the world submits to Islamic law. There is no “render unto Caesar” belief or tradition in Islam. Islam was founded solely to aggrandize Mohamed and his followers.
Right now, adherents of Islam are caught between the requirements of their religion, and the requirements of living in a global, western society. Many of them (including some in the Middle East)are quietly redefining their theology to resolve the conflict. We call them “mainstream Muslims” because we want to believe that most Muslims are resolving their dilemna this way.
Others of them, particularly in the gap states, caught up by the tenets of their religion, and the zero sum nature of their culture, are refusing to do so, and are holding to their traditional theology and culture. We call those “radical Muslims” because we don’t want to have to call them traditional Muslims, or, even worse, mainstream Muslims.
Of course, it’s not a simple as a monolithic “Islam.” Tribal culture is a huge influence even on the modern Middle East. Middle Eastern tribal values evolved out of scarcity. Middle Eastern culture evolved from the tribal leader who organized his tribe to gain a bigger proportion of a static amount of goods, and who distributed those goods to sustain his tribe and reward his followers. Islam was overlaid on that culture and reinforced it. Islam promises rewards to its followers not only in the next life, but here and now. That makes sense, since Islamic theology was promulgated to inspire followers to acts of conquest.
But it also fuels the anger and resentment in the Islamic world. Their religion promises them that they’ll be on the top of the world if they struggle hard enough, and they see that they’re not there. Their religion also reinforces and justifies the kleptocracies that run most countries in the ME and Central Asia, and makes it really, really hard for democracy and the rule of law to take hold.
It also makes the Islamic theology around jihad attractive, in the same way that Communism was attractive in the third world a few years ago. It’s an easy shortcut to success, it offers a simple explanation for why the downtrodden are on bottom, and provides a scapegoat for current problems, and, in the case of Islam, is approved of by God.
So, take traditional Islamic theology, 1400 years of history of armed conflict with the west, tribal scarcity culture, mix in incredibly poor governance, lack of education and economic opportunity, and you get the witches brew we call “radical Islam.” Unfortunately, it is orthogonal (are you a CS guy?) to traditional Islamic institutions.
September 1, 2010, 3:11 pmjukeboxgrad says:
SF:
The people of Murphy NC hid Rudolph from the FBI for years. Local pastors condoned this behavior. Palin refused to call him a terrorist. Please explain how this is something other than “rationalized.”
According to Krauthammer citing Gallup, “radical Islam … commands the allegiance of 7 percent of Muslims.” Please reconcile this with your claim that AQ is something other than a “fringe element.” And also let us know if you can think of any reason to conclude that the number of Christians who support Rudolph is significantly less than 7%.
And since we’re discussing terrorism and religion, maybe you would like to explain how a terrorist (Begin) became Prime Minister of Israel, and why many Jews honor Baruch Goldstein as a hero (example).
And I notice that in all your words you seem to have no interest in addressing what I asked you here.
Debris, including body parts, also landed on other buildings. Are they all holy now? If the Burlington Coat Factory has symbolic significance on account of what fell on it, how come no one ever expressed an interest in preserving it, or recognizing that significance?
September 1, 2010, 3:23 pmChris Travers says:
What percentage of Muslims would you suggest are “radical” under your definition?
That part is not true. There is no requirement to conflict (with exceptions perhaps related to irredentism) and no requirement that any conflict be armed. It could just mean trying to get folks into elected offices so that such changes could be legislated. It could mean trying to convince people to convert and thus bring them into the Ummah that way. It could mean lots of things. Indeed, as the paper I linked to notes, while most Muslims believe that Islam should be the basis of public policy, there are deep divisions into the idea of how this should be accomplished. The ICG thus suggests that the key element that Western leaders need to think about is how to further that dialog and perhaps nudge it in directions we can live with.
The problem is, though, that the perception of “mainstream Muslims” is not really accurate. Often the resolution involves questions of means rather than ends. I.e. forsaking terrorism in favor of proselytizing with the idea of eventually developing a critical mass sufficient to make legislative changes, or engaging in the political process.
Is a moderate Muslim the one who dreams of the day when a Constitutional Amendment establishing Sharia is passed in the US through the democratic process? Or is that a radical Muslim?
My CS training is all self-taught.
But my point is in defining “radical Islam.”
I’d limit it to “Islam positing a global and violent Jihad against the West outside of questions of Israel and southern Spain.” I wouldn’t include those who see the struggle as primarily a missionary one, or those who believe the appropriate means is through the political process.
For example, in recent years, the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt has renounced violence and committed itself wholely to the political process. Is this a sign that they are less radical? I would say so but it doesn’t necessarily change their political goals, just the means they are willing to use to attain those goals.
September 1, 2010, 3:43 pmSF Alpha Geek says:
To the extent that we are currently engaged in at least one de facto war in the Middle East and Central Asia, ostensibly to end or at least diminish the threat of future 9/11 type attacks. If we as a country agree that’s no longer a valid goal and decide to disengage from that area of the world, then we can stop worrying about the effect that a symbolic gesture here has over there.
The situations aren’t parallel. We make all kinds of exceptions to the First Amendment, particularly in the area of national security during wartime. For example, post Brandenburg (and Hess, and NAACP v Clairborne Hardware) there have been at least two convictions purely for incitement to terrorism (Rahman and al-Timimi.) In al-Timimi’s case, the incitement is at least as indirect as the mosque will be.
And, even in purely domestic matters, symbolic speech can be limited based on its intent: cross-burning can be outlawed if it is “intended to intimidate.” Based on what his understanding if Muslim culture must be, Rauf is, or should be, aware of the effect the mosque will have.
Stopping the mosque because of its effect on an ongoing war does not undermine the rule of law at all. It acknowledges that, at the margins, when the act rather than the idea conveyed causes harm, we do limit speech.
You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater because of the immediate harm that it does. You can stand up in front of a crowd and argue for the extermination of black people, but pointing out a particular black person standing nearby and saying “and start with him” crosses the line. As does this mosque.
September 1, 2010, 4:21 pmSF Alpha Geek says:
I have absolutely no interest in addressing anything you’ve said. If you ever contribute anything of substance to the discussion, rather than an extended series of facile tu quoque arguments, that might change.
September 1, 2010, 4:32 pmN. Friedman says:
Lawyers properly divide questions into their components. Normally, that makes sense. Here, I am not so sure.
The underlying issue that is raised by the location is the reason, not for any mosque, but for a major community center (that will include a mosque within), one that rises as many as 13 stories and is located very near the former WTC site but on land impacted directly by the attack. These facts draw three factors together: (1) the reason for selecting the location, (2) the ideology of its backers and, (3) the impact of the building in the semi-war going on with Islamists.
Missing from your article is the fact that the US is involved in a semi-state of war – war being the operative word – with the Islamists and that the Islamist movement is not some minor movement but a major movement, if not the most important contemporary movement, among Muslims throughout the world.
We have a man whom, it turns out, not only will not quite condemn Hamas but also whom, while he says, for example, he supports Israel, believes in the one state solution (i.e. the solution that, in short order, removes Jews from Israel or, perhaps, leads to a true civil war in that country). Moderates do not generally support the one state solution.
He is also the same man, supposedly a Sufi, who embraces, as you note, the dominance of Iran by the Mullahs.
One has to doubt that he is a moderate.
The very fact of the extent of the proposed project and its location also speak to intentions. While we obviously cannot be certain, it seems a sign that the project is intended as being more triumphant than to heal wounds. And, surely, that is how Islamists at war with the US will take the location of the center.
So, in fact, location does matter. That, of course, is something different from banning the project. I would only go that far if it turns out that the funding comes from hard-core Islamists. Otherwise, my suggestion is to live with what is, in fact, a pretty offensive proposed project.
September 1, 2010, 4:37 pmChris Travers says:
al-Timimi stepped out of the area of First Amendment protections when he told his followers not merely to go believe something (i.e. that the Muslims would be victorious, etc) but rather to do something immediate (go to Afghanistan and fight). It’s hard to read al-Timimi as incompatible with Yates and Brandenburg. The same thing goes with Abdel-Rahman.
Yet what’s important to realize is that despite the fact that we were in a de facto war with the USSR, the court ruled in Yates v. United States that appeals to believe something were Constitutionally protected, even if that was the desirability in the abstract of violent overthrow of the US government. The court thus hamstrung the Smith Act. Where is Raufi intentionally telling people to engage in terrorism? If he isn’t doing this, the project cannot be compared to al-Timimi’s case.
I don’t understand this. It seems to me that building a Mosque would be no different than hosting a Communist Party USA meeting and passing out copies of A Communist Manifesto (activities the Yates court held were clearly protected). It’s not like telling one’s followers to rise up in arms against the US government where here (differentiated in Yates) or abroad (al-Timimi).
I really think you are stretching things here a great deal, and yes, if nothing else, it would deeply undermine the very important precedent of Yates v. United States which we should remember as the beginning of the end of the support for restrictions on free speech because they might help the USSR during our cold war.
Maybe you think Yates was wrongly decided. Maybe you think the Communist Party USA members should have been hunted down and thrown in jail. But the basic organs of democracy require free-flowing perspectives. This is why one can say that it might be a great day when the Communists overthrow out government by force (Yates) or that black folk should be exterminated and that “we intend to do our part” (Brandenburg). These protections are key to our system of laws. Undermining them in this way is many times more dangerous than the mosque is.
September 1, 2010, 5:09 pmOwen H. says:
Telling Americans that you think they are our enemy because of their religion and that you wish to treat them as such can be nothing but a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you keep telling someone you hate them they will eventually hate you. Good job.
September 1, 2010, 5:26 pmBleh says:
Then why is it okay to ostracize them? It’s not an extremist Wahhabist group out of Saudi Arabia seeking to build this cultural center, it’s US citizens.
September 1, 2010, 5:36 pmjukeboxgrad says:
It’s obvious that you’re not short on words or time, so the plain meaning of your non-response is that you have no response.
It is not “tu quoque” to point out that other religions have problems similar to the problems which you suggest are unique to Islam. This is a leak in your argument, so of course you would prefer to look the other way.
I wonder if you would put Fox’s second-largest shareholder in that category.
September 1, 2010, 5:39 pmBleh says:
I think this would probably be your answer to my (semi-rhetorical) question above. I would respectfully disagree with the idea that what a bunch of useless terrorists think is more important than how we treat US citizens.
September 1, 2010, 5:51 pmChrisTS says:
JBG:
Yes, especially the strip clubs and gay bars.
September 1, 2010, 6:39 pmleo marvin says:
OK, let’s assume we should be guided by strategic concerns, such as how our actions will be perceived overseas, and not, if it conflicts with those concerns, by adherence to our own core principles, or as you somewhat derisively called it, “fiat justitia ruat caelum.” I think that’s a false choice, but let’s accept it for the sake of argument.
I assume you believe this. What I have trouble believing you don’t also see, though you fail to mention it is, as Chris and others have pointed out, how it fuels our enemies’ absolutist narrative when we cast a Muslim (Rauf) they dismiss as an American apologist onto their side of the battle, cheapening our commitment to our own principles in the process, in order to deny him a symbolic platform. I see that as the likelier outcome and the greater danger, as apparently do certain Bush administration officials, who by the way having worked with Rauf presumably know him better than we do.
So please explain why you believe the perceived victory to our enemies of seeing America give a symbolic platform to someone they dismiss as an American toady hurts us more than the victory we hand them by compromising our principles to deny a symbolic platform to seemingly any Muslim, even one widely perceived as more on our side than theirs.
September 1, 2010, 6:41 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Chris, nicely done. I wish I had thought of that.
September 1, 2010, 6:44 pmTed says:
Are there any Muslims reading this that think the GZM is a symbol of victory placed on the site of a major battle? Or are the only people who think this American non-Muslims who would like to think that Muslims think of it this way so they can justify their opposition to it?
I guess I will also ask if you think that the GZM is a symbol of victory. If so, then you must agree that 9-11 was a victory. If you don’t think 9-11 was a victory, then why do you see the GZM as a symbol of victory? If I thought the town of Dearborn was a site of victory due to the large, immigrant Muslim population — you know, “Hey, we’ve occupied a town in the middle of America!” — would you oppose my wanting to build a mosque there?
Personally, I oppose the GZM as much as I oppose any other church being built anywhere…truly eye-rolling. But think it’s silly to think of it as being a symbol of victory. After all, I don’t think 9-11 was a victory.
September 1, 2010, 6:57 pmOwen H. says:
And the mosque that is already there.
September 1, 2010, 8:40 pmOhio Scrivener says:
No more so than the converted theater at Auschwitz. Yet, you appear to have no problem placing that theater off limits to the Carmelite nuns. At the same time, you have a rather different standard for the mosque. Why is that? Applying your logic above, is the converted theater “holy” in a way that excludes Catholics? Because if it isn’t, your positions seem rather hypocritical.
Of course, this is the type of fallacy that occurs when you create a strawman argument (i.e., “Are they all holy now,” as if no other objection could exist).
September 2, 2010, 12:30 amjukeboxgrad says:
Not in a way “that excludes Catholics.” Just in a way that excludes a branch of the Catholic church. Why? Because the relationship between the Catholic church and the Holocaust is highly problematic. You cannot make an analogy between this and Islam, because Catholicism is highly centralized and Islam is not.
I notice you made no attempt at answering this question: If the Burlington Coat Factory has symbolic significance on account of what fell on it, how come no one ever expressed an interest in preserving it, or recognizing that significance?
September 2, 2010, 6:53 amyankev says:
I stand corrected. Note though, that Pearl still thinks the mosque should be built elsewhere.
September 2, 2010, 10:06 amjukeboxgrad says:
I know. I never claimed otherwise. He’s entitled to his opinion.
Judea Pearl is relevant because the fact that Rauf eulogized Daniel Pearl in the presence of Pearl’s father, with “a moving, empathetic speech,” is somewhat at odds with the claims we hear that Rauf is some kind of radical Islamist. Other Muslims could have been picked to deliver that speech. The fact that Rauf is the one who did it tells us something about him, and about the way he is viewed by people who know him better than we do: the Jewish community in New York.
September 2, 2010, 11:40 amyankee says:
Who cares what those coastal liberal elites think?
September 2, 2010, 12:14 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Good point. They should be ignored, especially when they’re inconveniently right.
September 2, 2010, 12:19 pmChris Travers says:
Auschwitz isn’t in the United States. Whether it should or should not be off-limits is a decision that others will have to come to terms with.
If Auschwitz was in the US, I would say that the nuns should, if they want to, be able to purchase that building and use it for whatever they want to. I would also say minimizing or denying the holocaust shouldn’t be a crime. However these things come out of my sense of the American system and are of limited applicability across the seas.
For example I don’t think holocaust denial or denial of eugenics policies by the US should be criminalized here. I don’t think there is a problem if the Aryan Nations wants to construct a monument to what they might see as great policies of the internment of the Japanese. They are welcome to do these things.
Whether European countries should follow us is a decision they have to make however. The only element here is to describe hidden costs of hate speech laws, etc. and understand they have a right to make mistakes just like we do.
September 2, 2010, 1:00 pmOhio Scrivener says:
Why should opinions on what is morally right change by crossing the Atlantic? I have yet to see any credible argument that US law should forbid the mosque from being built. The argument, instead, is whether building the mosque is a wise thing to do.
To take on that argument, you would either need to have a uniform standard or explain why one religion should be treated worse than another.
In his comments, Jukeboxgrad goes with the later approach. He takes a cudgel to Catholicism and succeeds only in reminding people that so many of those preaching tolerance for the mosque often do so selectively. In responding to the question, “is the converted theater “holy” in a way that excludes Catholics?” Jukeboxgrad writes, “Not in a way “that excludes Catholics.” Just in a way that excludes a branch of the Catholic church. Why? Because the relationship between the Catholic church and the Holocaust is highly problematic. You cannot make an analogy between this and Islam, because Catholicism is highly centralized and Islam is not.”
To paraphrase George Orwell, “all religions are equal, but some religions are more equal than others.”
September 2, 2010, 2:17 pmjukeboxgrad says:
This is exactly what comes to mind when I notice that the group which is quick to condemn Muslims as supporters of terrorism also refuses to condemn Palin for refusing to say Eric Rudolph is a terrorist.
Repeating my words is not a response. If you ever think of an actual response I hope you’ll share it with us.
And you have also never addressed what I asked you twice, including here.
September 2, 2010, 3:31 pmjukeboxgrad says:
And to say a little bit more about that.
The analogy is problematic. I pointed out one problem. Here’s another problem: WTC is a not a place where a million (or more) people were killed. As someone has said, Auschwitz is “the largest Jewish cemetery in the world.”
Also, a building damaged by falling airplane parts is not the equivalent of a place where “the SS stored the Zyklon B gas pellets used in the gas chambers” that were used to kill a million people.
Also, Auschwitz is not an urban neighborhood already packed with such things as strip clubs and betting parlors. The area around WTC is exactly that.
These two things are sufficiently different to make glib comparisons unhelpful.
September 2, 2010, 4:17 pmSF Alpha Geek says:
I think the mosque is more akin to the al-Timimi case, and much less like the Yates case – it’s not like the US Communist Party was going to inspire to Soviet Union to make, for example, foreign policy moves they might not otherwise have made. Building the mosque provides additional impetus to Salafi Muslims to rise up in arms against the West, because it indicates the West was too weak to prevent Islam from rising up from the ashes of a western defeat. Placing the mosque where it is acts as a de facto incitement.
At the risk of repeating myself reiteratively, there’s a lot of mirror thinking going on in this discussion. There are substantial differences in the values and reasoning processes that members of different cultures bring to bear on an issue. Most of the responses to my points, assume that because a westerner, particularly an American, thinks that x implies y, the same is true of a Middle Eastern Muslim:
I would argue, and argue from a position of having had extensive, daily contact over a long period of time with the people of whom we speak, that you are dead wrong on this. You’re projecting how a liberal westerner would react.
In the culture we’re discussing, strength is all important, and giving without getting is a sign of weakness. Allowing the mosque is going to help establish for people with that mindset, who Bin Laden’s “strong horse” is.
Now, there’s certainly acceptable to argue that, under an absolutist view of the first amendment, we can’t take the reaction of the Muslim “street” into account. I think that’s oversimplifying our approach to free speech, and not terribly different than the events that led to Lincoln’s (not previously considered a mortal enemy of civil rights) point about “all the laws but one” but it’s an arguable point.
But the assertions “I think x, so I know how everyone else will react” simply don’t stand up. How you feel about how a non-westernized Middle Eastern Muslim will feel about the mosque has nothing to do with reality.
That should work – I’m sure that many, many Pashtun tribesmem sitting in (the only) internet cafe in Gardez make volokh.com their very first website of the day.
September 2, 2010, 5:02 pmyankev says:
How do you feel about the fact that he favors a one state solution in Israel/Palestine, and advised using a peace treaty as a weapon against the unbelievers, so that “In a true peace it is impossible that a purely Jewish state of Palestine can endure. . . . In a true peace, Israel will, in our lifetimes, become one more Arab country, with a Jewish minority.”
Granted, he published these remarks in 1977 but when recently asked whether he disavowed them, he said:
To me, this says that he used the age of the letter as a distraction to suggest the contents were no longer relevant, and then reaffirmed what he said in the letter.
Compared to Al Quaeda, he may indeed be moderate. But not nearly moderate enough.
I was not sure whether you knew, but I never claimed that you claimed otherwise.
September 2, 2010, 5:25 pmOhio Scrivener says:
I thought my position was clear. You have argued for giving Islam preferential treatment over Catholicism (“the relationship between the Catholic church and the Holocaust is highly problematic.…Catholicism is highly centralized and Islam is not”). I disagreed, and compared your anti-Catholic bias to George Orwell’s famous criticism of socialism, because in your mind, some religions are more equal than others.
While I have no interest in debating the reason for your bias (“Catholicism is highly centralized”), I do have an interest in exposing that bias because like so many in favor of the mosque, your tolerance appears rather selective.
And while your desire to change the subject is understandable (“Eric Rudolph,” “Sara Palin,” demands I respond to your requests, etc.), my point in bringing up the Carmelite nuns was much more limited and has already been accomplished. I thank you for your candor.
September 2, 2010, 7:20 pmjukeboxgrad says:
It is dishonest for you to say “favors,” not ‘favored.’
And when you have to resort to mentioning things he said 33 years ago, that tends to indicate the opposite of what you’re trying to prove.
He reaffirmed “a desire for peaceful solutions in Israel.” He didn’t reaffirm “that he favors a one state solution.” Why are you claiming he did?
September 3, 2010, 11:06 amjukeboxgrad says:
Pointing out that Catholicism is centralized, especially in comparison with Islam, is not “bias.” It’s not even a criticism. It’s a simple factual observation, and the observation is relevant because it points out a problem with your analogy.
On the other hand, what I said about the Pope’s behavior during WWII is indeed a criticism, but that also is not “bias.”
This is what you accomplished by bringing up the Carmelite nuns: you demonstrated that you don’t mind using a bad analogy. You’ve also demonstrated that you have no logical defense for the problems I described with your analogy. If you did, you wouldn’t resort to making a personal accusation.
September 3, 2010, 11:12 amN. Friedman says:
jukeboxgrad,
You write:
Of course, 2005, when he said in a speech that he favors the one state solution, is not 33 years ago. It is five years ago. And, the fact that he refuses to out and out condemn Hamas kind of suggests that his refusal represents his true view. And, the fact that he favors the Iranian form of government, at least in Iran, suggests as much as well.
Get real.
September 3, 2010, 11:23 amjukeboxgrad says:
yankev didn’t cite that speech. It was dishonest, and remains dishonest, for yankev to claim that the text he cited is proof of the claim he made.
And what Rauf said in his speech is only what some Likud officials are now saying.
September 3, 2010, 11:34 amN. Friedman says:
jukeboxgrad,
Here is what the man said, according to MediaMatters:
In other words, the man supports the one-state solution.
September 3, 2010, 11:39 amjukeboxgrad says:
You’re making it really obvious that you don’t intend to address this: what Rauf said in his speech is only what some Likud officials are now saying.
September 3, 2010, 11:46 amN. Friedman says:
jukeboxgrad,
No. It is what Imam Rauf states. His words: “And I personally — my own personal analysis tells me that a one-state solution is a more coherent one than a two-state solution.”
September 3, 2010, 11:49 amjukeboxgrad says:
I’m not saying that Rauf didn’t say it. I wasn’t aware of that speech, but now I am.
What you need to do is explain why anyone should care.
You’re making it really obvious that you don’t intend to address this: what Rauf said in his speech is only what some Likud officials are now saying.
September 3, 2010, 11:53 amN. Friedman says:
jukeboxgrad,
I do not see your point. The question raised here concerns the bona fides of Imam Rauf as a moderate. Support for the one state solution is not a sign of moderation. That some Israelis hold similar opinions does not change that fact.
Further, support for Iran’s form of government is not the view of a moderate.
Further, refusing to condemn Hamas outright is not the sign of a moderate.
His positions strongly suggest that he is not really a moderate. More than likely, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth, depending on who is listening.
September 3, 2010, 11:58 amjukeboxgrad says:
Not just “some Isrealis.” Officials in Likud. Good luck convincing anyone that it’s reasonable to expect Rauf to be to the right of officials in Likud.
Your positions strongly suggest that you have an odd definition of “moderate.”
September 3, 2010, 12:03 pmN. Friedman says:
jukeboxgrad,
Do you think the Likud is moderate? Somehow, I doubt it.
In any event, we have a world-wide consensus that favors a two state solution. We have the Imam disagreeing with the world-wide consensus. A moderate? I do not think so.
Moreover, your assumption is that what the Imam and the Likud officials might mean by the one state solution amounts to the same thing. The Imam appears to take the view of Islam being the font of tolerance, ala Andalusia and Baghdad under Rashid al-Harun – but with Islam being the leading force in society. I think Likud people who adopt the one state solution see their way as the way of tolerance, with Israel being the font of tolerance – but with Jews being the leading force in society. Alternatively, such members of the Likud believe that ceding land would leave Israel vulnerable, as it was before it conquered the WB. So, such people might merely prefer Israel to dominant the conquered lands, with Arabs either accepting their fate or emigrating.
Neither view is particularly moderate. The Imam’s view would create a bloodbath, as existed in Lebanon. That, after all, is what the Hamas (and, likely, even Fatah) with a free hand within Israel means – the end of Jews in the region even if, ala Hamas, it means their extermination.
Which is to say, I think your point is a make weight argument which nonsensical.
September 3, 2010, 12:14 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Of course Likud is not moderate. Duh. That’s the whole point. Likud is right-wing. You’re condemning Rauf for taking a position that certain senior right-wingers in Israel are now taking. Good luck convincing anyone that Rauf is supposed to be more right-wing than Likud.
September 3, 2010, 12:21 pmN. Friedman says:
jukeboxgrad,
Some in Likud are not moderate. Some are. None, however, is part of a movement which seeks to remake the world order – i.e. a movement akin to the Islamist movement.
The issue involved here is the relationship of Rauf to Islamism. Islamism is a dangerous movement. Likud is a local political party that has aims related to an area of land the size of Rhode Island.
Which is to say, you are talking nonsense, making phony comparisons.
September 3, 2010, 12:27 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Israel’s land area is 8,367 sq. miles. Rhode Island’s land area is 1,045 sq. miles.
Likud has proposed that Israel reduce its size by 88%? I had no idea. This is big news. Why have you been keeping this to yourself?
Please keep talking. The more you do, the more we learn about your relationship with factual reality.
September 3, 2010, 12:40 pmN. Friedman says:
jukeboxgrad,
My apology, I should have said New Jersey. Islamists, however, aim for a much larger piece of real estate. So, my point stands.
September 3, 2010, 12:47 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Religious fanatics “aim” for all sorts of things. Like this one:
So what else is new? It’s in the nature of being a religious fanatic.
September 3, 2010, 12:57 pmN. Friedman says:
jukeboxgrad,
Yes, your point is correct when you mention an immoderate Rabbi. But, that does not make Rauf moderate, does it? And, that leads back to my original point: to wit, whether Rauf is, in fact, really a religious fanatic holding Islamist views. The evidence shows that he is not a moderate but may likely side with the religious fanatics.
I have asked you now a multiple number of times to address the Imam’s lack of moderation. His, not the lack of moderation of other people. Rather than answer, you point to other people who may be immoderate. Yours is not a logically coherent argument. It is akin to a tu quoque form of argument.
By the way, it is not clear whether the noted Rabbi was accurately quoted. He may merely have spoken of those who would kill Jews.
September 3, 2010, 1:13 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Then surely he has spoken up to point out that he was misquoted. Where can I find that statement of his?
I guess you didn’t notice that the article I cited said this:
Still think he was misqouted?
September 3, 2010, 1:18 pmN. Friedman says:
jukeboxgrad,
I do not care about a loony Rabbi here. We can assume, if it makes you happy, that he is Satan but that would not alter whether the Imam is a religious fanatic. Would it? In fact, your point is irrelevant and dishonest.
Again: will you address the Imam or not? If not, why are you even posting here? Is the goal merely to deflect the fact that the Imam does not always sound very moderate?
Come now, get real. And, as to the moderation of the Rabbi, the issue is what he said in Hebrew, not the translation by Haaretz. He may have no idea how Haaretz translated his or anyone else’s statements.
September 3, 2010, 1:20 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Naturally. Of course you don’t. You’re not a member of the group he was threatening. And it’s easy for you to pretend that he was speaking only for himself, but this requires ignoring his status as an influential leader with a lot of followers.
You seem to be claiming that certain Likud leaders are “immoderate,” in the sense of being not supportive enough of Israel, and that Rauf needs to be more supportive of Israel than they are. Good luck with that.
September 3, 2010, 1:26 pmjukeboxgrad says:
He and the people around him have no idea that his statement has caused an international uproar? And you think he was translated poorly but his office can’t be bothered to challenge that? Seriously?
September 3, 2010, 1:30 pmN. Friedman says:
jukeboxgrad,
The Rabbi is 90 years old. I have no idea about him and could care less whether he meant or did not mean what appears in Haaretz. I shall not address his comment any further because it is irrelevant.
One last time: how does a loony Rabbi impact on whether Rauf is a moderate? The obvious answer is nothing and that you are making a dishonest attempt to change the topic because there is strong evidence that the Imam is no moderate.
September 3, 2010, 1:36 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Context matters. Judging Rauf’s statements doesn’t (or shouldn’t) happen in a vacuum. The Rabbi’s statement matters, and the bizarre way you’re trying to minimize and dismiss his statement also matters. It tells us something about whether we should take your views seriously.
You’re entitled to your opinion. You’ll start convincing objective observers when you explain why you have to resort to citing a statement that was also made by Likud leaders.
September 3, 2010, 2:06 pmN. Friedman says:
jukeboxgrad,
Now you are saying nothing at all. Obviously, words should be judged in context. However, the words of the Rabbi post-date those of the Imam. So, they could not impact on the Imam.
In any event, those who favor the one state solution are not moderates, as you have already admitted. So your point is essentially nonsense. Do you remember your words?
That’s it. This discussion is not worth my time. You lack even the most basic logic skills that are necessary to have a coherent discussion.
September 3, 2010, 2:15 pmjukeboxgrad says:
“Admitted” has nothing to do with it. Yes, I’ve said they are “not moderates,” but they are “not moderates” in the wrong direction for your argument. They include senior members of Likud. You have pointedly failed to explain why senior members of Israel’s right-wing party have embraced what you claim is an “Islamist” position. If AQ has infiltrated Likud at that level, I guess Israel is in more trouble than I thought.
You are, once again, ignoring this:
September 3, 2010, 2:23 pmN. Friedman says:
jukeboxgrad,
1. It is irrelevant to understanding whether the Imam is moderate. Hence, it does not matter if you are correct.
2. In any event, I did explain the difference. You merely choose to ignore my words. To reiterate: The Imam has in mind Jews living under the wing of Islam. Those Likudniks who favor a one state solution mean Arabs living under Israeli dominance. Hence, we are speaking about two different things.
You claim:
1. You are correct. I have ignored statements that are vague and irrelevant. When were such statements made? By whom? What were the exact words used? In what context were the statements made? What are the political objectives of those who make such statement? You have no information on such statements at all and, in fact, you know full well that the agenda of these other people is limited to a very small country, not to a religious sect – the Islamists – which has more than a hundred million adherents, if not many times more, and which seeks to dominant world politics. Which is to say, what you write is basically dishonest.
2. Even if the noted Rabbi is spokesperson for a group of fanatical believers who would kill, that does not make the Imam any less moderate. Surely, you do not expect anyone over the age of ten to agree with your assertion.
September 3, 2010, 2:40 pmjukeboxgrad says:
When did he say that?
There’s no reason to treat Yosef’s track record of similar statements as irrelevant. They’re an important part of the context that needs to be understood when we’re evaluating statements made by Rauf and others. And you could be familiar with those prior statements by Yosef, if you wanted to be. But you’ve made it clear that there are certain things you would prefer to not know.
September 3, 2010, 6:59 pmN. Friedman says:
jukeboxgrad,
He said that by implication when he said he endorsed Iran’s form of governance, Vilayet-i-faquih, with Mullah’s dominating over the choices of politics and over non-Muslim affairs. In Iran, all non-Muslim groups are governed under the wing of Islam, as a matter of law.
What evidence do you have that the Imam (a) knows of the Rabbi, (b) knows his views and (c) was influenced by him. My bet is that the Imam has never heard of the Rabbi. My bet is that you are making stuff up. My bet is that the Imam is agent for his own, not any Israeli’s, agenda.
September 4, 2010, 12:10 pmjukeboxgrad says:
I see that you like to make unwarranted assumptions. There’s no reason to assume that he thinks that what makes sense for Iran also makes sense for Israel. I guess this is your way of admitting that he didn’t actually say what you claimed he said.
It’s not about what Rauf knows about Yosef, although it’s reasonable to assume that he knows plenty. Rauf hangs around with NYC Jews, and NYC Jews are quite familiar with Yosef. He was a Chief Rabbi of Israel, among other things.
The point is that many people share Yosef’s views, and those views are relevant context for interpreting statements by Rauf or anyone else.
September 4, 2010, 12:20 pmN. Friedman says:
jukeboxgrad,
Except, that I never said he said anything on that topic. I said that support of the theory that governs Iran means, by implication, that he thinks Muslims ought to have the leading role in society. I might also note: since Rauf also says that he supports the Sharia law, he, by implication, must support the view that Muslims must, as a matter of law, have the leading role in society. It is difficult to imagine what school of Sharia one could support that does not include that notion. In this regard: all four major Sunni schools support that view and all Shia schools support that view as well. And, so far as I know, Sufis also support that view.
Assuming that you are correct – which, being a NY Jew, I can say as a fact that you are incorrect -, in what way would this supposed knowledge about Yosef impact on Rauf’s thinking? If Yosef says to kill Palestinian Arabs, how would that lead Rauf to support the one state solution?
Here is another theory. The vast majority of the world’s Muslims oppose Israel’s existence and, among those who oppose Israel’s existence but live in Western countries, a polite way to oppose Israel’s existence in Western society is to say you support the one state solution. I shall go by Occam’s Razor. My interpretation of his words does not require the creation of supposed influences which are, frankly, unnecessary to his viewpoint about Israel. Hence, your viewpoint seems highly unlikely, as a matter of logic and, I might add, common sense. In fact, your viewpoint seems pretty illogical and unlikely
September 5, 2010, 1:10 amjukeboxgrad says:
You said this:
If you know what he “has in mind” even though he has never “said anything on that topic,” that means you’ve got one heck of a mind-reading machine at your disposal.
September 5, 2010, 1:18 amN. Friedman says:
jukeboxgrad
No. I explained the basis for my statement. You merely chose to ignore it, just as you chose to ignore explaining the basis for your own statement, that the Imam’s reason for supporting the one state solution has something to do with Rabbi Yosef.
I shall take your silence on my question to you as evidence that you are making things up and that, in fact, you know full well that Imam Rauf’s support for the one state solution comes from his viewpoint as a believing Muslim, not from exposure to the words of Rabbi Yosef. And, further, I shall take your silence as evidence that you know full well that Imam Rauf has said some rather non-moderate things.
September 5, 2010, 10:12 amMosheh for President: press release : ground zero mosque - The Liberty Lounge Political Forums says:
[...] like you associate a Mosque with negativity it suddenly becomes a problem. I think Ilya Somin said it best with his post on the Volokh Conspiracy, so I am going to post his post here so all can read it. I think his [...]
September 8, 2010, 7:58 pmGuest says:
The comparision of the two is not relevant. First it should be a comparision to Islamic terror, not just one group. Obama made the same mistake in talking of Al Queda and calling them “a small band of men” What the US has done in Iraq and Afganistan has, by traditional standards of war, gone to great lengths to prevent innocent death, to the point of many American lives lost due to these efforts. Also Hussain clearly had ambition and desire for more middle east war, including plans for the Northern Saudi oil fields, besides being a ruthless bastard. How manuy Muslim lives were saved with his removal.
September 19, 2010, 5:59 amGuest says:
N. Friedman, thank you for your patience with jukeboxgrad. I rarely see so much arm waving, yet patiently you try to keep pulling him back.
September 19, 2010, 6:31 amGuest says:
An earlier poster commented that there is no evidence this Mosque would be used as a “victory” symbol.
Feisal Abdul Rauf is the Islamic center’s Imam. He initially called this project the “Cordoba Initiative” and stated that he selected this site because of its proximity to ground zero. Consider that name and its historical and religious symbolism throughout the Islamic world. For centuries, the rallying cry of Islamists has been to reclaim their lost medieval Islamic Empire in Southern Spain, known in Islamic history as Andalusia (Al-Andalus). Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and virtually all proponents of jihadi Salafist Islam speak incessantly of restoring Al-Andalus. So to radical Islamists, a mosque rising near Ground Zero symbolizes Islamic supremacy, part of a long tradition of minarets built over the conquered religious sites of enemies.
In 630 AD, Muslims captured Islam’s holiest city, Mecca, and erected a mosque at the Ka’aba — the site of a building reputedly built by the Patriarch Abraham.
The great mosque at Cordoba was built over the Christian Church of St. Vincent.
The eighth century Al-Aqsa Mosque rests on the site of the destroyed Jewish Second Temple in Jerusalem.
The Ayasofya Mosque was built over the Byzantine Christian Hagia Sophia basilica in Istanbul.
And the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus was constructed over the remains of what was once the Church of St. John the Baptist.
As these mosques were built to symbolize Islamic conquest over the religion of conquered peoples throughout the ages. The Cordoba mosque near the 9/11 site will be seen in the Arab and Muslim world as symbolic of Islamic supremacy in the face of American weakness and appeasement. Given the long history of mosque-building following Muslim military victories, the building of the Cordoba House on Ground Zero will be seen in the same light as the Muslim conquests of Mecca, Jerusalem, and Constantinople.
Supporters of the project might argue that the actions of invading Muslim armies over a millennia ago are irrelevant to the issue at hand in lower Manhattan. However, it is impossible to separate the recent decline of such a trend with the parallel decline and territorial recession of Muslim lands in the second half of the second millennium. Moreover, recent territories that have returned to Muslim rule following decolonization have seen the return of the conversions of religious sites into mosques. Muammar Qaddafi, the ruler of Libya, converted 78 synagogues into mosques in the 1970s. In 1975, the Great Synagogue of Oran was confiscated by the Algerian government and similarly transformed.
September 19, 2010, 6:50 amHarlan Carpenter says:
Everybody’s missing the point. The issue isn’t civil rights, constitutional rights, Islamophobia, racism–or any other kind of
September 25, 2010, 11:50 am-ism. The issue is sensitivity. More than 2,000 Americans were killed there in a senseless act of war. To even call it terrorism is to add insult to injury…! Why should any thinking American NOT feel outraged by this monument to genocide…!