Let Them Build It

FJL: I thought this was a reasonable compromise. They get their Islamic Center and Mosque where they want it, and the families and others who object, a clear majority according to polls, get their point made. Anyway, if you read the text of my suggested memorial, you'll notice only Islamic EXTREMISTS should be offended and according to their Imam, Faisal Abdul Rauf, none of them are that.

Been around the block a few times, my friend, I dare say more times than you.

Excellent post as usual, Al. I fully agree with your idea. After all, tolerance and sensitivity should work both ways, shouldn't it? One would think Imam Rauf and his followers would embrace such a project. This would really show the world that Rauf and fellow Muslims want to really reach out to Americans and heal the wounds of 9/11 - and make a major statement against terrorism.

wait a sec.... so, you are suggesting that they put a memorial to the 9/11 victims "in full view of the new Islamic Center "? Wouldnt such a memorial be better served if it was located closer to the former World Trade Center? Isnt such a memorial already being (planned for / implemented) closer to the former World Trade Center?

MGarber: NYC is already building an elaborate memorial on the site, or at least trying to. No-one is going to do what I suggested, but the point is the irony of it. If indeed the Muslims wanting to build this thing are "moderate", then a memorial plaque or sign or whatever as I suggested should not be offensive. I have no doubt they would be outraged, which makes my point.

FJL: Can't you lefties comment without personal attacks? You and LCP are peas in a pod, and that is not a good place to be. I encourage rational and thoughtful commentary and you guys just pollute the atmosphere. Rats!

"I have no doubt they would be outraged.."

Thats part of the problem. Why on earth are you assuming that? You DO realize that this is to be a Sufi center/mosque. Most fundamentalist Moslems would rather drive over a Sufi, than give him the time of day.

MGarber: Well, if they wouldn't be outraged, then what's the problem? Just going on past history like the Danish cartoons, Salmon Rushdie and Theo van Gogh. Rauf claims to be a Sufi, but that doesn't mean those partonizing the place will also be Sufis. It is true, however, that Wahhabis and their ilk do not like the Sufis whom they consider apostate. You may have a point.

FJL: Res ipsa loquitur.

Rauf makes perfect sense to me...

Hamas as a terrorist organization. Responding to the question, Rauf said, "Look, I'm not a politician. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."
( you can't expect much cooperation from people you villify)
He also said that there could be little progress in Western-Islamic relations until the U.S. acknowledged backing Middle East dictators, and the U.S. President gave an "American Culpa" speech to the Muslim world, because there are "an endless supply of angry young Muslim rebels prepared to die for their cause and there [is] no sign of the attacks ending unless there [is] a fundamental change in the world"

if the U.S. deserved the attacks, Rauf answered, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened
( unless your head is in the sand you have to admit our Middle east policies past and present are excellent recruiting tools)
In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA
( had we kept our promises to the Afghans after they kept the Soviets at bay things would have been much different of this I have no doubts)

But then again rational debates aren't part of the American way anymore, it's all based on emotions now....

Carl: I agree we may meddle in the Middle East too much, but for a second disregard the political and focus on the theological. You do realize there is a portion of Islam whose idea of peace is a lack of resistance?

RT: I'd enjoy it if you expanded upon that idea...a lack of resistance to whom?
I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of Islaam is quite limited, but until it can be proven to me that we need to worry about all of them I'll continue to only worry about the extremists...

Carl: The basis of Islam, the Koran, consists largely of the Old Testament Pentateuch (1st 5 Books of Moses), a bit of the New Testament and some Arab legends. Like the OT, it describes religious expansion by brutality and violence. The Christian NT moderates the OT with its message of benevolent persuasion. The Hebrew Torah, essentially the OT Pentateuch, is softened via scholarly and somewhat selective Rabbinical interpretation. Unfortunately, the Koran is expanded upon by the Books of Hadith, which are even more draconian and advocative of aggressive and forceful expansion of Islam than the Koran itself. The "religion of peace" is based on selective reading of the Koran. Unfortunately, present day fundmentalist Islam draws heavily on Hadith writings, especially the Bukhari Hadith. Unbelievers (infidels) are either to be converted or killed, especially if they are a hindrance to Jihad. Much of Sharia Law is in the Bukhari.

Therefore, while the three great religions are all based on the same scripture, Christianity and Judaism went soft and Islam went hard. Expansion by violent Jihad is endemic to Islam. The concept of martyrdom, while not exclusive to Islam, is expanded and embellished to include everyone who dies in Jihad which is always in process (we are presently in the third Great Jihad). This encourages and rewards suicide bombing and other suicidal acts, like flying airliners into tall buildings.

Thus, Islam alone of the big three is relentlessly expansionistic by violent and sacrificial means "if necessary" which almost always seems to be the case. Certainly there are moderate elements of Islam as there is "watered down" Christianity and Judaism, but the fact is Islam at its core is relentlessly expansionistic, condoning violence and incorporating theocracy. That is the difference and the danger.

Correction: I should have said the Koran "draws heavily" from the Old Testament, mostly the Pentateuch but also other parts, not "consists" of. The OT books are rewritten, added to, modified and finally translated into poetic Arabic. (NOTE: Mohammad didn't write anything. Contemporaries wrote down what he said. Books of Hadith were written 100 years later.)