The Israeli writer Yossi Klein Halevi, a contributing editor of The New Republic, has issued a challenge to Imam Rauf. Halevi, whom I met a few years ago in Israel, has believed for a long time that the only road to peace in the Middle East is through a coming together of the three Abrahamic faiths. Indeed, this is the theme of his well-received book, At the Entrance to The Garden of Eden: A Jew’s Search for God with Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land.
At first glance, Halevi seems to hold many illusions about Rauf’ s beliefs. He writes his open letter to the imam, he says, as “a well-wisher and friend.” His approach is the opposite of someone like Andy McCarthy, whose many articles on NRO.com are devoted to exposing the hidden agenda of the imam (a view which I have come to believe is correct). Halevi, in contrast, begins by noting what he believes is Rauf’s willingness to endorse Halevi’s call “for the Muslim world to come to terms with the Jewish return home.” Halevi recalls with pride how Rauf beamed when Halevi talked of “joining the Muslim prayer line and the reverence-the love-I felt for its choreography of surrender to God.” As for himself, he and a friend he quotes both believe that the imam is “a spiritual ally, not an enemy.”
At this point, I had the reaction many of you readers undoubtedly will have: How much is it possible for someone so smart, as Halevi is, to be taken in by the evidently personally charming Rauf? So what lies behind this rather fawning opening of Halevi’s article? Does he really believe all this about Rauf, or is Halevi using a technique he has adopted so that the challenge he lays out will be hard for Rauf to ignore?
I suspect the latter is the case, although it is possible he does have these positive feelings about Rauf, and reminding the imam of what he said to Halevi back in 2001 will make him listen to the points he next raises. He says the imam favors an “outreach to the American Jewish community,” that he favors creating an Islam for America modeled on Orthodox Judaism.
But in the second part of his article, Halevi tells Rauf that he is now “troubled by some of your statements on the Middle East.” After all, Halevi above all knows that one cannot be a supporter of Israel, as Rauf said he was, and advocate a one-state solution for Israel which, as Halevi says, “is code for destruction of the Jewish state.” And, Halevi tells Rauf, “you’ve refused to condemn Hamas.”
Somehow, I think that Halevi is writing with his tongue in his cheek. The kind of contradictions he accosts Rauf with are hardly accidental slips; they reveal what he obviously really thinks. So Halevi next tells the great imam that “sometimes it seems that you want to be all things to all people.” Really, how could Halevi get such an idea, since he is talking about a person he told us earlier is an ally of Israel? Well, perhaps Halevi is really confused. He writes:
“Some of your statements about America and the Muslim world — partly blaming U.S. foreign policy for September 11, or saying that America has killed more Muslims than Al Qaeda has killed innocent non-Muslims, as if the terrorists and their targets were morally equivalent — pander to the most simplistic sentiments within your community. But where some see hypocrisy, or even a hidden agenda, I prefer to see the struggles of a good man who wants to help his community enter the American mainstream, while reassuring the faithful of his loyalty.”
But wait a minute; isn’t that last sentence also a major contradiction? Does one reassure the faithful by accepting their most radical views as the way to enter the mainstream? Shouldn’t an imam who really seeks that goal be opposing these views, rather than pandering to them? And how then can Halevi tell Rauf that “I believe that you intend to create a center of Islamic moderation near Ground Zero”? If he did, would he recently have made all these objectionable statements that Halevi throws in Rauf’s face? Could it be that Rauf believes what he says? And these statements were made not to Islamic audiences abroad, but to Americans at home. It was to a question from a reporter about whether he would condemn Hamas that Rauf sought to evade an answer.
Yossi Klein Halevi is naively sentimental to say the least. I long ago concluded that peace in the Middle East can only be achieved by the killing or jailing of Arab militants. That’s the beginning and the end of it. It’s unfortunately that many people perceive my views as those of somebody who might be a bit nutty and unbalanced. In this cruel world, sometimes violence is the appropriate response.
Your views are not at all nutty or unbalanced. What is nutty and unbalanced is for otherwise intelligent people to believe that the Islam of Mohammed, as practiced for 1400 years, is going to reform itself into a “moderate” Islam for the benefit of non-Muslims who don’t have the fortitude to stand up for their own way of life. Those who are dreaming of a moderate Islam must accept this one fact and they might be able to look at the situation regarding Islam differently: ISLAM IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT IT TO!!
Furthermore, Islam is not one of the ‘three Abrahamic religions”. Christianity is an extension of Judiasim (Jesus was a Jew), Islam rejects them both and calls for the death of Christians and Jews.
sadly, there will be no peace until there is no Islam.
This was a very excellent piece.
Given Halevi’s sincere and caring approach to Rauf, including the contradictions, and your comments.
It’s a piece that could give pause to those who are currently in favor of the Mosque at Ground Zero.
I wouldn’t count my chickens. Most GZM supporters aren’t basing their support on rational thought but on the emotionality of political correctness. A piece like this will sail right over their heads.
“How much is it possible for someone so smart, as Halevi is, to be taken in by the evidently personally charming Rauf?”
Simple answer. He wants to be taken in. Smart has nothing to do with it.
Intellectuals are masters at not seeing what is right in front of them. They’re infatuated with rhetoric & utopian ideas. And, they’re big-time suckers for the unscrupulous. I think Orwell said it best, that no idea was too stupid for an intellectual to believe.
timely quote as the intellectuals destroy America
One can easily get lost in admiring the abstraction as one of the most wonderful accomplishments of the human mind. But one can also ask whether the power of denial is just another manifestation of that very same “wonderful” capacity? Being intellectual can cut both ways: Who is truly entitled to claim that our vistas can reveal more than our blind spots can hide?
That, combined with an American liberal upbringing in his case; yet he’s pretty harmless compared to some of the Professors and Talking Heads in our historic homeland.
I would remind Yossi Klein HaLevi that in 2000 a similar incident took place in the largely Arab Moslm city of Nazareth, Israel where there stands the Church of the Annunciation a site of pilgrimage for believing Christians. To make a long story short, the Moslems of Nazareth, who are the vast majority of the city since they have driven out all but a few Christian Arabs brave enough to put up with Moslem persecution, demanded that they be allowed by the Israeli government to build a mosque right next to the Church of the Annunciation.
But not just any mosque, this would be a mosque that would be far bigger and stand far taller than the Church and was intended to overshadow and thus indicate the victory of Islam over Christianity. Well, the Israeli government refused to issue the building permits and of course the Israeli Arab Moslems held demonstrations, riots, went to court, and complained right and left about how their religious rights were being violated. Eventually the Catholic Church and the other Christian Churches weighed in to defend their rights and after almost a year of controversy, demonstrations by Moslems, and counter demonstrations by Christians, arrests and other legal activities, the Moslems finally gave up when the Israeli government issued a permanent and final injunction against the building of any Moslem religious site anywhere near the Church of the Annunciation.
Those Americans who oppose the Ground Zero mosque have an uphill battle on their hands, and unlike here in Israel, the outcome could go either way. Here in Israel, Christians still have rights, but only because the Jewish Israeli government guarantees those rights, in the rest of the Middle East under the Arab Moslem governments, the only rights Christians have is to leave or die.
Sadly, America seems to be heading in the same direction.
An acid test for “moderate” Islam: apostasy is a right and not a crime. Get Rauf to admit that it is an individual’s right to reject a faith – no retribution. It is certainly a constitutional right and no “religion” should be given tax-free status which does not accept the right of an individual to leave a faith.
if there is moderate islam it is when people confront it and prevent it’s spread.
I think the article is razor sharp and a challenge to the ‘ confused ‘ imam
It is silly to reflect on the possibility of a moderate islam. Hundreds of millions of muslims have no argument with the aggressive and violent tone of the jihadists. What is really required is a reformist islam. But this initiative would be impossible without drastically altering islamic tenets and goals that include the subjugation of all non-muslims and their relegation to dhimmitude and institutionalized humiliation. Until or unless reform occurs, those of us who insist on being infidels will have to oppose liars such as rauf.
Agent Mulder in the old TV series X-Files had a sign above his desk: “I want to believe.” So too do good-hearted liberal like Halevi. They WANT to believe in a moderate Islam ready to embrace human rights and the dignity of all, evidence to the contrary be damned. Look what’s happened in the Islamic world where such rethinking of Islamic principles is rejected as heresy – the Ahmadis, for example, or the Bahais who had the temerity to claim a new prophet after Mohammed.
I still recall an interview with a leading “scholar” at Al Azhar. Asked whether it wasn’t time for a reformed Islam, one that respected (and not merely tolerated) non-believers, that abandoned polygamy, that supported equality for women, etc. He replied insistently, “But then it wouldn’t be Islam!” Other such conversations with other “scholars” have provided the same answer.
Silly kuffars, the Victory Mosque is proposed to show the submission of America to Islam.
…“a 15-story Islamic center near Ground Zero “would be understood by large parts of the Muslim world as a victory over the West,”….
On the other hand, to pressure the cancellation of the Islamic center would be understood by large parts of the Muslim world – and not only the Muslim world – as a demonstration that, when put to the test, our much vaunted principles are nothing but empty rhetoric.
If he is as devious as you contend, perhaps “this might actually have been Imam Rauf’s aim in the first place.”
“Halevi too will have to be added to the ranks of the very gullible.”
I have a different term for the people who have, under the cloak of multiculturalism and “kind-heartedness” and scholarship and whatnot, ushered in the nightmare of Islamic insurrection we see unfolding before us in the West. Is it really the time to be “reaching out” and calling for “interfaith dialogue”? Do we even have the time to continue to engage in these terrifying follies.
I’ve seen all I need to see from the Muslim community. I’ve seen all I need to see from the infidel fools and infidel traitors who continue to drone on about “moderate Islam”. I am done waiting for them, the camp of fools, the camp of traitors, or the Muslim insurrectionists themselves, to show the slightest sign that Islam in the West will not take the exact same hideous forms it does everywhere else in the world.
With 25,000,000 Muslims already installed in Europe and fomenting Jihad, and with perhaps another 4,000,000 in North America (including Canada) – can we waste another minute listening to these sirens calling us to our doom? Those among the camp of fools didn’t do their homework. They subscribed to lies and then promulgated lies. Explain why we must spend another minute dissecting their appeals or giving them any credence whatsoever? The calamity they have helped to create threatens everything we cherish.
Ronnie: Although it was awkwardly expressed. Immam Rauf statement is
literarily true ( althogh offensive in current context). when Rauf
states that the United States is partially responsible for the
WTC attacks, he is simply stating that during the attempt to
defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, we supported al Quaeda and other
mujahadeen. The problem (which Rauf does not go on to point out) is
that when one supports “the enemey of my enemy…” it can come
back to bite.
The idea of an Abrahamic center for the three religions at
that site, is an intriguing one, don’t you think?
Imam Rauf is a master at taqiyya. Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks in this country that wouldn’t know taqiyya from tequila.
Taqiyya? Isn’t that one of the shofar soundings?
I can’t see any reason to block the construction project in a country that believes in freedom of religion.
As for Rauf’s political ideas, he’s an immigrant and most immigrants don’t have a typical American point of view. They emigrate for economic reasons and maintain ideas typical of their homelands.
I suspect, for instance, that most immigrants from non-democratic countries never really develop a strong feeling for democracy.
That doesn’t mean that they is an active and radical anti-Americans.
So, Rauf’s ideas – while distasteful to us and wrong – can’t be held against him any more than they can be held against most immigrants.
“I can’t see”……was the only accurate statement in your comment.
Rauf is perfectly aware of most American views and immigrated here solely to wage stealth Jihad.
Most non Muslim immigrants do develop strong feelings for the American way of life even if they don’t understand that freedom and opportunity are part and parcel of democracy.
While most immigrants are not radicals, I have less and less confidence as to the good intentions of the Moslem community. Any immigrant community that refuses to assimilate is a potential fifth column. Multiculturalism will be the death of this country and should be recognized as the “Balkanizing” cancer that it is.
As for Rauf’s ideas they are not merely distasteful and we most certainly can and should hold them against him.
Yossi, 9/11/2001 was “an interfaith encounter”.
Halevi recalls with pride how Rauf beamed when Halevi talked of “joining the Muslim prayer line and the reverence-the love-I felt for its choreography of surrender to God.”
Not really something to get all warm and fuzzy about since it is doubtful that Rauf would reciprocate by joing Christians or Jews in prayer. Surrender to God? No, in Rauf’s arrogant view that is just another small step to get infidels to submit to Islam. Halevi should be careful about joining that prayer line. He might just get to like it a little too much which is what Rauf may be counting on.
Yossi Klein Halevi is another “useful idiot” who refuses to understand what modern Islam is all about:
Jihad, a war to annihilate Israel, America and Western Civilization — for starters. Instead of pumping up front man behind the center, Halevi should be asking for transparency. Who is behind it, and what is its purpose. Halevi’s suggestions are not only nonesense — Muslims are not into pluralism and inter-faith sites –they display a lack of understanding of Islam today.
Har. If a “one state solution” is code for the destruction of Israel, then why is it advocated by the settler right? Of course, their “one state” is an ethnically-cleansed state. But a single state nonetheless.
In fact there is one state now. There is one government that ultimately controls and enforces its writ in mandatory Palestine, and that is the government of the State of Israel, the bantustans of the West Bank and Gaza notwithstanding. This situation has obtained for 43 years now, more than two-thirds of the modern history of the State of Israel. And the Israeli right will never agree to change this situation, other than in the direction of intensified control over the West Bank. That much, at least, should be obvious to all. So, the only question is: a democratic single state, an explicitly-apartheid state, or the deniability-apartheid state of the “occupation”?
There are no other choices on the table.