A Response to Yossi Klein Halevi: Can one Really Dialogue with Imam Rauf?
Last week, I wrote a critique of a column that appeared on the New Republic’s Website by the distinguished Israeli journalist, Yossi Klein Halevi. As he promised, Halevi responded with a thoughtful and serious retort, which you will read below. One commentator wrote in the comments section that Halevi, who grew up in the USA, understandably has such a confused position because of his “liberal upbringing.” I laughed at that one. Halevi came from the hard Jewish right-wing. He was, as he wrote in a book about his experience, Memoirs of a Jewish Extremist, a protege of the late Meir Kahane and a member of the Jewish Defense League. This proves that all is not so obvious, and one should be sure about a comment before using it in an argument.
So here is Halevi’s response:
Dear Ron,
Thank you for the invitation to respond to your comments about my open letter to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
You called my letter “confused” because I showed respect to the Imam and treated him as a man of goodwill even as I acknowledged that he’s made statements that offend me.
For every problematic quote of his, one can find a counter-quote that shows sensitivity to Jewish concerns and occasional courage (like identifying himself as a supporter of Israel – words that can get a Muslim cleric killed).
So who is Imam Feisal?
One conclusion – yours – is that he’s a fraud, that his seemingly moderate statements are intended to conceal a jihadist agenda.
I don’t believe that he is an American Tariq Ramadan. (Ramadan would never call himself a supporter of Israel, even to deceive.) If I thought he was, I would not have addressed him with the respect that I did. I would not have bothered writing him at all.
How then to make sense of his contradictions?
One possibility is the opposite conclusion of yours – that Imam Feisal is cautiously advancing a moderate agenda by making occasional radical statements intended to reassure his community that he hasn’t sold out. You assume that he’s only telling the truth when he sounds like a radical; but it is surely no less logical to assume that he is telling the truth when he takes risks by making moderate statements and that his problematic statements are attempts to protect himself.
Having lived in Israel through the years of Yasser Arafat’s double-speak, advocating peace in English and jihad in Arabic, I’m wary of linguistic deceptions. But Imam Feisal seems to me to be engaged instead in a complicated balancing act = in part because even Arafat’s most extravagant “peace” rhetoric didn’t approach the powerful statements of reconciliation that Imam Feisal has made.
Is he engaged in a complicated balancing act? I don’t know. But having grown up in the Orthodox Jewish community, I’ve seen my share of good men who feel compelled to make the occasional moral compromise in the name of communal loyalty and discipline.
There is another possible explanation for Imam Feisal’s conflicted statements and that is that he is genuinely conflicted.
Religion is not political ideology. When dealing with a person’s soul, contradictions are almost inevitable.
Consider Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, one of the most important religious figures in Israel. Yosef heads Israel’s largest ultra-Orthodox party, Shas. Yet he is also one of the most lenient rabbis among this generation of leading halakhic authorities. He recently called for the death of “the Palestinians” – all of them – one outrageous statement among many over the years. Yet he also issued a ruling permitting Israel to withdraw from holy land for the sake of peace, an halakhic position that could one day offer vital Judaic legitimacy for an agreement with the Palestinians.
So which is the real Rabbi Ovadiah? Many in Israel, especially secularists, dismiss him as nothing more than a genocialist, while his followers insist he is loving man who intends no harm to any human being and that his words were as usual taken out of context. A more nuanced approach would denounce his incendiary words while acknowledging that he may also play some positive role in Israeli life.
I use this example not to compare Imam Feisal and Rabbi Ovadiah, but to show the sometimes unbearable contradictions that occur within a believer’s soul.
Perhaps the main disagreement between us, Ron, is over how to conduct an interfaith argument, including one as bitter and traumatic as the one over Imam Feisal’s Islamic center and mosque. I believe that religious arguments need to be conducted differently than political arguments — though Islamism has blurred those distinctions, and this rule doesn’t apply to Islamists.
So that brings us back to the question of who is Imam Feisal.
Perhaps if there were large numbers of unequivocal moderates, I wouldn’t need Imam Feisal as a dialogue partner. But there aren’t. And as an Israeli and a Jew, I need him desperately. I need him because large parts of the Muslim world are going the way that large parts of the Christian world went in the 1930s.
Yes, Imam Feisal has advocated a one-state solution, and I’ve spent much time over the last years countering the demonization of Israel generally and the pernicious notion of the“one state” destruction of Israel in particular. Yet he is also a Muslim who is willing to publicly engage with Jews, to unequivocally condemn suicide bombing attacks against Israelis and is open to discussing the religious meaning for Jews of our return home to the land of Israel. That is a basis for engagement and debate.
Rather than seek the telltale quote that will supposedly resolve whether he is a genuine moderate or a closest jihadist, I prefer to treat him with respect and
– not as a tactic, as you suggest, but because that is the prerequisite for genuine dialogue.We need an approach that doesn’t resort to the blinders of the left or the sledgehammers of the right. If the result sounds “confusing,” I’m willing to live with a certain amount of disonance, at least in my religious conversations.
And on the next page, my response.
“Perhaps if there were large numbers of unequivocal moderates, I wouldn’t need Imam Feisal as a dialogue partner. But there aren’t.”
This assertion doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense. There is simply no reason whatsoever to justify a dialogue of anyone deemed untrustworthy. One should learn to control their desperate feelings in such circumstance. They will almost always get in you into trouble. Moreover, the odds are that somebody of doubtful motives will take advantage of the opportunity to encourage you to drop your guard. History is filled with examples of gullible fools played for suckers by scoundrels—especially those embracing totalitarian ideologies who believe they have a moral right to deceive their targeted victims.
Great answer Ron.
If you’re looking for moderate Islam, you’re wasting your time.
You might as well look for unicorns.
If Imam Rauf follows normative mainstream Islam, he cannot be a ”moderate” …..
If he believes in the Qur’an, if he believes Mohammed was the ”perfect man” & an example for all Muslims, then he is an extremist.
A moderate Muslim is a Muslim who does not follow Islam.
Indeed. Allah (i,e., Mohammed) even called the moderate Muslims as hypocrites because they do not engage in Jihad.
Agreed. Personally I think even the terms “moderate” and “fundamentalist” are misnomers in this debate. What we usually mean by “moderate” in any religion is someone who doesn’t actually take it seriously, or doesn’t live out the professed ideology to the full – and we talk about it as if it’s a good thing, contrasting it with over-the-top fundamentalism which is, of course, always to be avoided wherever it’s found.
As one lecturer of mine astutely observed though, it all depends what the “fundamental” is – as he later jested, “have you ever seen an Amish terrorist?”. If your fundamentals are forgiveness, peace, charity and moral uprightness, then turning from that and becoming “moderate” surely cannot be preferred.
The problem isn’t fundamentalism, it’s the actual tenets and commands of the ideology itself; whether people lapse into a lukewarm moderation regarding them is really academic. The more important question to ask is: is Islam (or any other religion/philosophy) objectively true?
In the case of Islam, historically, evidentially and morally, I’d say it isn’t.
ron would you pass these two names to yossi – irshad manji and m. zuhdi jasser – two “moderate” muslims that i am sure would like to engage in dialogue with him – that is unless his only concern is being politically and islamically correct
they don’t find it necessary to appease and apologize for the islamist ..in fact they will tell you it is the WORST thing you can do
True dialogue “cuts” both ways. We often use the verb “cut” in this manner indicating that true exchange usually leaves both sides altered in some fashion after genuine exchange. In the case of Muslims, we increasingly understand that the dialogue cuts only in one direction, and that is always against the “infidels” and in favor of the Muslims. “Infidel” is a good example of this. This is the predominant word the Muslims use to label us, and few argue when Muslims use this derogatory term to our faces. In fact, many of us use the term to describe ourselves when discussing the topic of Islam. Let’s examine that word “infidel” for a moment. It means one who holds to no true belief, or one who betrays belief. The term only cuts one way. So in the commonly accepted parlance of today, we all seem to start from the Islamic premise Muslim = Good/believer, ergo must Infidel = Bad. So much for dialogue.
Another splendid example of the asymmetry in Islamic “dialogue” can be seen today on the front page of the Drudge report. In response to the prospect of a Florida pastor burning a koran, Muslims burn an American flag, just a foretaste of the Islamic murder and mayhem the world knows to expect if the pastor follows through.
So one guy in the West plans to burn a koran, and the Muslim world unleashes a firestorm of violence and murder, but the guy burning the book is the one blamed…
Dialogue with Muslims only cuts one way.
Part of Yossi Klein Halevi’s response:
For every problematic quote of his, one can find a counter-quote that shows sensitivity to Jewish concerns and occasional courage (like identifying himself as a supporter of Israel – words that can get a Muslim cleric killed).
He won’t get killed because he has already discussed this with his clan before expressing himself in English and is excused under the rule of taquiya in the Qur’an.
Here is Andrew Bostom
“http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/new_koranic_dissimulation_taqi.html”>New Koranic Dissimulation (Taqiyya) From Imam Feisal Rauf
He cites Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef He recently called for the death of “the Palestinians”.
But what was printed in the Israeli papers is a call to G0d to strike down the Palestinians and not a call to jihad.
This from Haaretz:
In 2001, the spiritual leader of the ultra-Orthodox faction gave a speech in which he also called for Arabs’ annihilation. “It is forbidden to be merciful to them,” he was quoted as saying. “You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable.”
It is an exercise in futility to dialog with muslims. Google taqqiya and you’ll see why.
Ronnie: no islamic culture ??? Check out Oleg Grabar’s ” The Origins of Islamic Art” in which he grapples with that question and comes down to the affirmative. Morover.
I would argue ( I don’t think I’m alone in this) that wandering Sufis became the glue, transporting their ideas, moreys and artistic forms throughout Islamdom.
Moreover, the dhimmi status in Cordoba enabled many Jews to act as ministers and other members of the government. Hardly the situation of apartheid.
Hank
““Perhaps if there were large numbers of unequivocal moderates, I wouldn’t need Imam Feisal as a dialogue partner. But there aren’t.””
This is the most damning statement on who and what the Muslins are that I have ever read. It is very strange that the person who made that statement doesn’t seem to see the statement that way.
In any case, as can’t be said too often, Rauf wants to build his victory trophy, cultural center, whatever, against the will of those with whom he says he wants to reconcile. He MUST know by now that the majority of Americans will hate him for it and be more opposed to reconciliation if he goes ahead. Rauf, by all means go ahead; it will help us understand exactly what you really want, and not what you say you want. As for your attempt to threaten and extort from us on CNN, we have heard it all before…”Mother of All Battles”, the “uprising of the Arab street”, blah blah blah. LMFAO.
Great answer.
What you smell on Yossi is fear. That is what drives his ‘desperation’ (to use his word).
Someone who holds the upper hand does not need the approval of his enemies (not the outright ones, not the subtle and duplicitous ones). They are not driven by fear.
Fortunately, Americans are not driven by fear. Stupidity, yes, fear – no. Once they get a clue, Americans are quite fearless.
Thank God for Feisal Rauf. He has helped many otherwise clueless Americans to wake up and smell the danger.
Just in case one argues that this is not true, look at the sheer numbers of Americans who oppose Rauf’s plans.
There is hope. Feisal Rauf has become our vaccine against Islamism. When next it rears its head, we won’t be totally clueless.
.
You win, Mr. Radosh. It was I who assumed that Yossi had a standard, live-and-let-live liberal upbringing. My bad.
I find it a little strange that you ‘stuck’ on that comment, though, as if Klein’s actual upbringing really matters in the debate between you (in which you are right, by the way, in my view).
BTW, Ron, I wish you a mistake-free future.
Islam is an international criminal conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States by force.
They have so stated many times, beginning with the Koran and their other satanic “holy books”.Drag out the long list of their terrorist attacks against us and look at their centuries long record of war, robbery, murder, torture, etc. As moslems they are commanded to engage in criminal behavior, denials by the caliphic megalomaniac in the White House notwithstanding.All participating in that conspiracy should be tried and executed.There is nothing to say to them. But we must stamp out this criminal cartel masquerading as a religion before it kills us.
Islam has fascinatingly showed it’s true colors in the last few days, beginning with Imam Rauf’s threat of violence if he doesn’t get his mosque. Rauf is so tone deaf to America, he didn’t realize he was letting the cat out of the bag, and showing everyone what Islam was really about.
He did the “moderate muslim” community (whoever they are, pretty darn there folks, you’re pretty darn quiet there) no favors by coming across like the neolithic caveman that he so obviously is. And yet, the liberals keep sucking up to this guy. God forbid we piss off a muslim, they are so sensivitive don’t you know. The liberals don’t realize that they are losing most Americans, because the rest of us aren’t afraid to get a little down and dirty for the sake of democracy, the rest of us aren’t afraid to be called racist or intolerant, because we know we’re being played.
The fact that the muslim world has a cow because some two bit preacher threatens to burn the Koran is very telling. So the muslims are going to EXPLODE with outrage. When are they NOT going to EXPLODE with outrage. The world is annoying and many folks are offensive and disrespectful. Deal with it muslims. Effing deal with it. It’s called the modern age. If you can’t handle it go back to your desert and the 7th century where you belong and leave the complicated and sophisticated societies, i.e. the West, because you don’t have the chops to deal with it. Now maybe Europe rolled over and let you have your screaming way, and so now you have ruined Europe. But us Yanks ain’t Europe. There would be NO Europe without us low class Yanks, and we know it and they know it. And we GUARANTEE if you continue with trying to instill this Sharia crap you might not like what happens. We don’t a rat’s ass what you think of us. Most of us aren’t afraid of you, except the wimpy liberals and our appeaser islamic President, but really, he won’t be in office much longer because look at what a crap job he’s doing! We’ve survived worse than him.
So either assmiliate to American culture, stop chopping up the vaginas of your females, stop with your polygamy and your constant outrage of everything American and become part of the American mainstream that you are always talking about hating. Stop demanding prayer rooms in the workplace, other religions don’t get prayer rooms at work. Stop demanding that you won’t handle pork products if your JOB IS IN A GROCERY STORE!!! See, we don’t do religion at work in America. That’s for when we’re on our own time. Get with the effing program kids. We running out of patience.
Ooooh – you go girl!!
There may be Muslims who would not kill an infidel neighbor, but there is no Muslim who will openly criticize a “co-religionist” jihadist because to do so will condemn him to hellfire on the Great Day of Judgment. Ergo, there are no moderates in the sense we see it (say as “jack” Mormons or Unitarians) and there is no, zero, movement to reform, or for a “New Revised Version” of the Koran. They are still killing each other over a minor difference that occurred over a thousand years ago.
The Imam Rauf is a skilled taqivyan, and so recognized by his co-religionists.
The truth is that the Ground Zero Grand Victory Memorial to Martyrs Mosque will never be built. As Mark Styen has written, It is now America Alone, and we must gird ourselves for the coming onslaught.