Rabat redux: The Ground Zero Mosque, What it’s really about
Writing today in The New York Post, Amir Taheri — the distinguished Iranian-born journalist — manages to move the debate over the so-called “Ground Zero mosque” forward several notches. Anyone who wants to understand what is at stake in the project — anyone at home Mayor Forever Bloomberg? — should read it.
I’ll come back to Mr. Taheri in a moment. First, a word or two about how this act of effrontery ought to be opposed.
Regular readers know that I oppose the project. They also know that I regard the effort by President Obama and others to frame the debate in terms of a First-Amendment right to religious freedom as profoundly misguided. The issue is not whether Muslims have the right to build mosques in America. There are thousands of the things from coast to coast. The issue is rather the appropriateness of building a mosque directly adjacent to Ground Zero, a spot rendered forever sacred by the heedless slaughter of 3000 innocent people by Muslim fanatics.
I know that “appropriateness” may seem like a weak word for what is, after all, a visceral, hot-button issue. But in fact, the controversy over whether Imam Rauf should be allowed to build the mosque is a controversy whose settlement belongs not to the realm of positive law but rather to that more variegated realm that Lord John Fletcher Moulton, a British judge, forcefully described almost 100 years ago in “Law and Manners.” “There is,” Lord Moulton observed, “a widespread tendency to regard the fact that [one] can do a thing as meaning [one] may do it. There can be no more fatal error than this. Between ‘can do’ and ‘may do’ ought to exist the whole realm which recognizes the sway of duty, fairness, sympathy, taste, and all the other things that make life beautiful and society possible.” One of the most destructive aspects of our culture has been the evisceration of that middle ground of “duty, fairness, sympathy, taste,” etc. — everything that Lord Moulton congregated under the memorable category of “obedience to the unenforceable.”
The same sort of consideration, by the way, applies to Terry Jones, the Florida “pastor” who is about 13 minutes into his fifteen minutes of fame for announcing he plans to burn a couple hundred copies of the Koran tomorrow. As Andy McCarthy reminded us, the technical term for the Rev. Jones (“Rev.” as in “Rev. Al Sharpton”) is “nincompoop.” He shouldn’t burn the books. But not because he doesn’t have the emright/em to do so. Rather, he shouldn’t do it because it would be grossly inappropriate, outrageous, and generally would be in very bad taste. It would be a pity if the force of such interdictions were lost in our litigious age, when more and more people, as Moulton warned, deliberately elide the propositions “it can be done” with “it may be done.”
But what of the prior question, the meaning, the intention of the Cordoba House project — what is it? Here is where Amir Taheri sheds some important light.
Imam Rauf, when he talks to you or me or Mayor Forever Bloomberg, tells us he is all about dialogue, tolerance, mutual understanding, etc. I believe Andy McCarthy and other have put that subterfuge to rest. Amir Taheri adds some clarifying historical context. “The proposed structure,” Taheri observes, “is known in Islamic history as a rabat — literally a connector. The first rabat appeared at the time of the Prophet.”
The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word “raid”). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders.
After each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat — or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiders to eat and rest and facilities to train and prepare for future razzias. Later Muslim rulers used the tactic of ghazva to conquer territory in the Persian and Byzantine empires. After each raid, they built a rabat to prepare for the next razzia.
Leftists have successfully turned the world on its head. What was once up, is now down. What was once real is now unreal. What was once in is now out.
Let me be blunt. Rampant leftism is destroying America. There is no greater enemy in our time. There is a patent dishonesty in leftism, which has adopted, adapted and embraced Taqqiya and kitman as the foundational bedrock of its existence. Deception, concealment of malevolent intentions, Holy Hypocrisy.
Rabid, frothing radical Islamists are mirror images of rabid, frothing radical leftists. Both with the same end game. Destroy Western civilization, most specifically America and Israel.
In point of actual fact, those opposing these diabolical and dastardly plots, are a grass roots, loosely joined mass of salt of the earth folks who believe that right is right, fair is fair, wrong is wrong. Tea Partiers they are called, but in reality…they…are the New Liberals. They are the only true “liberals” left.
What are commonly called “liberals” today, in a blind adherence to a long since passed fantasy, are the extremists who make up modern leftism. A “classic” liberal is not kneejerk intolerant, but you cannot point at any prominent leftist today that fits the description of “tolerant”. Not one.
A “classic” liberal would never attack one religion, in order to denigrate it in favor of another religion. You can’t point to a prominent leftist who does not denigrate Evangelical Christians.
A “classic” liberal would not engage in anti-Israel propaganda, creating “scenes” that make Israel look like a monster and their enemies look like victims.
A “classic” liberal would not photoshop pictures, forge documents, stage fake scenes, in order to advance political leftism.
The JournoLista crowd does this…and more. It falsely accuses people of racism, dreams of throwing them through plate glass windows, dreams of assassinating politicians, pundits and regular people who don’t hold leftist worldviews. That isn’t “liberal”. It’s fascist, rabid, extreme and insane.
There is nothing “mainstream” about these extreme, frothing at the mouth, rabid, and traitorous thoughts. The “alternative” media, is actually reflective of mainstream American thought. Yet we call the extremist, propagandist, anti-American media…”mainstream”. That is a cosmic joke, I just don’t think it’s very funny.
The “wrong” kind of patriotism…used to be called…well, patriotism. Today, if you love your country, that’s “jingoistic”. This is also insane.
Being for a 4th Century view of women, gays, Christians and Jews is “progressive” and being against reverting to 4th Century barbarism is “regressive”. How does that work, exactly?
Being in favor of tearing down capitalism, “redistributing” property through abusive legislation, strangling principled dissent and shutting out dialogue makes one “elite”. Asking for open dialogue, free and principled debate, free market freedoms…is Neanderthal behavior and closet racism. Really?
I’m a plain speakig man. This entire propaganda scene is a crock. I’m sick of it and I’m not going to use the words and phrases of Taqiyya and Kitman, no matter WHERE it stems from, and no matter how powerful the forces of inertia, laziness and ingrained subliminal “planting” may be.
We are the ones who are in the right. There is no shame in loving our country. There is no dishonor in protecting our countrymen. There is no reason to hide our devotion to our allies. Right is right, fair is fair, wrong is wrong. Let’s not ever lose sight of that. Let’s not ever apologize for that. And let’s not ever succumb to the Holy Hypocrisy of leftism, in their war against this land of ours. We are smart enough to use our words, not theirs. Today is the day we should start.
It’s also a war memorial to the 19 terrorists who murdered 3,000+ of our countrymen. Muslims worldwide understand this, even if our Ruling Class is too stupid or effete to figure it out or acknowledge it.
America has a long fuse, but is a terrible enemy once aroused. Ask the Germans and the Japanese.
Sometimes I wonder, jW. Seems like the sucker:patriot ratio in this country is tipping harder to the former every day.
Roger, many people already knew what Taheri writes. Anyone who studied Islam and its history can see what is happening. Only people like Bloomberg and Nancy Pelosi are oblivious to the obvious.
17 August 2010.
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today weighed in on the heated debate over the proposed Islamic community center [i.e., the mosque] in Manhattan, saying that New Yorkers should be left to decide on what she called a “zoning issue.” This is much like saying that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was an “issue” for Hawaii to decide. What a stupid woman Pelosi is.
A question: What will moderate Muslims do when radical Muslims rule the roost (or sty)?
Abu Rauf is just digging his hole deeper. They need to have some slick Saudi prince do all the talking, the imam is just stiffening the opposition. I have thought of the victory mosque as a Forward Operations Base for jihadis. Didn’t know how close I was to the rabat tradition. I don’t think this mosque will ever get built. They may not find construction workers. They may find the site anointed with various pork products on a daily basis. Too bad for the jihad crowd. I suspect there are plenty who want to be on film shouting “Allah Akbar” in the Rabat Victory Mosque by Ground Zero.
Taheri’s historical context is certainly helpful in discussing the Cordoba House, but most American’s (the 60-70% based on various polls) were able to discern Imam Rauf’s F-You without it. And yet… Bloomberg and other defenders seem bound and determined to ignore any information that threatens their precious sense of tolerance and superiority over the rest of us rubes.
The recent copycat threats to burn Koran (in addition to Pastor Jones) underlines how strongly many feel about receiving Rauf’s additional not-so-veiled threat of violence should we not graciously submit to his so-called bridge to interfaith understanding.
IF the Ground Zero Victory Mosque gets built, we Americans could organize a syndicate (is that the right word?) to buy a plot of land directly across the street, and put up a 150-foot tall statue of Jesus. Or else a crucifix. I would bet there would be AT LEAST a million Americans who would donate $5 or $10 apiece to do this.
Just think — all those Muslims visiting their shiny new “rabat”, and there would be Jesus Christ looking right at them. You claim you want “religious tolerance” and “diversity”? Welcome to America, Imam Rauf, it’ll be right across the street from your Triumphal Mosque.
The more this controversy proceeds, the more light it shines. Certainly, it is the right of the imam to build his mosque, and certainly Lord Moulton was correct in his analysis of “can” and “may.” But the real elephant in the room remains the religion of Islam itself. It is time to question this religion’s values, and to make judgments about them, heretical as this may seem in an Oprahfied generation.
Much has been said and written about the minuscule minority of radical (i.e., terrorist) Islamists, and in virtually every news story either in print or in other media, it is proclaimed that the “vast majority” of Muslims are “moderate.” I’m not a religious scholar and so can’t debate Muslim ideology; but as someone with a modicum of common sense, I can see and hear the loud sound of protest of “moderate” Muslims to the various stonings, terrorist attacks, and suicide bombings that this teeny-tiny minority performs. And the sound I hear is this: silence.
This relative silence reveals an enormous population of believers either willing to condone these extremist actions–or one terrified to speak out against them. The handy excuse from moderate Muslims is that if they protest, they and their families will be tortured and killed. In ironic lockstep with this cowardly stance, Rauf justified his inflexibility in building his mosque on The Larry King Show by implying that if he didn’t build it, the radicals would rise up and kill Americans. So we better build it for our own safety.
What is to be made of this? According to Professor Obama’s rationale, we Americans are expected to approve building a monument of tolerance to the world’s most intolerant religion, a religion the vast majority of whose members either agree with terrorist Islamists (as indicated by its relative silence) or is itself terrified by its extremist elements into submission and acquiescence (as indicated by its relative silence). How can any religion or philosophy with this miserable a public stance be considered admirable? I’ve no doubt there are many Muslims who deplore the usurpation of their religion by the wild-eyed; but why don’t they stand up? If there were any signs of a struggle within the religion, any serious attempt to throw the homicidal fanatics out of the religion, any believable protest from within aside from a few people objecting to being searched at the airport, the GZM might be given some serious consideration. But there is none (or not enough to make an impact). This is either a religion of complicitors or cowards, and until it resolves its own internal struggles should be granted no quarter whatever. We must face it: this religion has crossed the line into politics, and, not unlike the old Communism of the Soviet Union, its politics carry a genocidal foreign policy: destroy America and the West, kill Americans, build rabats.
The GZM mosque is almost as fiendishly clever as the 9/11 attack itself: on 9/11, our own planes were turned into fire bombs and used to attack us; the GZM uses our own principles to attack us. The radical Muslims have already scored a victory: either they have their monument as a beacon to their followers—or they are victimized by a racist nation of Islamophobes. Either way, they have their recruiting tool. We can either face this nasty fact and fight it or succumb to the same thoughtless and flabby naivete as our current president and a mayor whom I much admired (until now).
Although I applaud the efforts of anyone who is against the building of a “Ground-Zero Mosque”, I have to say that for a distinguished (and I assume Moslem) journalist, Amir Taheri’s essay is a disappointment.
Nearly every line and certainly every paragraph contains historical and linguistic errors that call into question,and certainly weaken, his argument, at least to those of us familiar with the subject.
Perhaps the piece was written in a hurry or with certain editorial considerations in mind, or perhaps he figured his audience would not be dismissive of his central point by factual inaccuracies of which not one in a million readers would notice, but inaccuracies they are.
As an example, let me analyze the following paragraph:
—> “The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word “raid”). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders.” <—–
1. The most glaring error here is the statement that the word RAZZIA (Arabic for “a plundering foray”) is the source for the English word RAID. In fact, the English word RAID can easily be traced to Old English RAD (a military expedition) by way of a Scottish dialect.
The linguistic jingoism of Islam is well known (to the point that some believe EVERY English word has its origins in an Arabic term), much to the merriment of those of us who are aware of this sort of thing. I would have expected Taheri to be above all this. But he wasn’t.
The statement is totally absurd.
2. GHAZVAS, RAZZIAS: First of all, there is no letter “V” in Arabic. The correct transcription should be GHAZWAS (but of course, Taheri is using the Persian term, not the Arabic, and Persian is full of “Vs”).
Secondly, Arabic does not form the plural by adding the letter “S” to the singular (neither does Persian).
So in the case of GHAZVAS, not only is there an error in the spelling, there’s another error in the morphology of the word. (The correct SINGULAR is GHAZWA, the correct PLURAL is GHAZWAAT). Ditto with RAZZIAS.
I mean, if you're going to be using Arabic terms in place of a
perfectly acceptable English word, at least be accurate about it.
I have noticed this practice (of using the Arabic word) in many
writings by Westerners. I guess they feel it lends more "gravitas"
to what they're saying (but they so often get it wrong, as here).
3. The important idea in the word GHAZWA (“battle”), at least as far as the traditional Islamic rendition relates, is that the Prophet himself participated in these battles. The term “RAZZIA” denotes the pre-Islamic forays roaming Bedouin tribes made against settled communities for supplies. The word is inappropriate in the context of (early) Islamic history.
Both terms are quite distinct in usage and meaning, but Taheri makes no mention of this and actually misuses them in his essay.
4. “…..and force them to submit to Islamic rule.”
In fact, durin g the Prophet’s lifetime, which is to say in very early Islamic history, all indications are that land and booty was the ultimate cause of the Moslem conquests.
During this early period, the invaders surrounded their residences and cities (Basra and Kufa, for instance) with high walls and kept themselves apart from the “rabble” they’d just conquered. “Conversion” was the last thing on their minds, at least in the very early part of Islamic history.
And so on.
One wonders…..if the facts are incorrect or at least misleading or give an erroneous or incomplete picture, how legitimate can a conclusion drawn from them really be?