A Response to Yossi Klein Halevi: Can one Really Dialogue with Imam Rauf?
Ron Radosh responds:
Dear Yossi,
As I expected, your answer to my critique is serious and respectful, and demands an equally serious answer.
In contrast to your original article, you now argue that Imam Rauf is perhaps engaged in a “complicated balancing act.” But if this is what he is doing, why does he have to put what you call “communal loyalty” first? Loyalty to whom: radical Islamists with whom he purportedly opposes?
The reason I doubt he is doing this stems first from his refusal to condemn Hamas and acts of terrorism by Islamists, as any true moderate Muslim would not hesitate to do. If he does this because of religion, I would have to ask: What is the difference between his view of religion, and his view of political ideology? Perhaps to him, religion and ideology are one and the same. If he cannot criticize or condemn Hamas because he sees them as co-religionists whom he does not wish to offend, then he is indeed guilty of sympathy to terrorists and to enemies of true democracy.
Unlike you, I cannot talk about the works and arguments of Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef. I take your description of what he believes as accurate. But can one extrapolate from this Rabbi, whom you know well, to Imam Rauf? They are members of two very different religious orders. As Ami Taheri points out today in The New York Post, and M. Zuhdi Jasser argues in today’s Wall Street Journal, the Imam’s words and actions make quite clear what he really is about.
Jasser writes:
Imam Rauf and his supporters are clearly more interested in making a political statement in relation to Islam than in the mosque’s potential for causing community division and pain to those who lost loved ones on 9/11. That division is already bitterly obvious…I must ask Imam Rauf: For what do you stand—what’s best for Americans overall, or for what you think is best for Islam? What have you said and argued to Muslim-majority nations to address their need for reform? You have said that Islam does not need reform, despite the stoning of women in Muslim countries, death sentences for apostates, and oppression of reformist Muslims and non-Muslims.
Rauf, he continues, argues against politically motivated American protests. Yet he says nothing about the global impact of dangerous groups like The Muslim Brotherhood, and indeed, praises the radical Islamist Imam Yusuf Qaradawi as a “moderate.” Indeed, Jasser notes that Rauf is making Ground Zero an Islamic rather than an American issue, thereby “showing his true allegiance.”
And for his part, Taheri points out that there is no such thing as an “Islamic culture;” hence the concept that he wants to build an Islamic cultural center rings false. What he wants to build, Taheri argues, is a rabat, “a point of contact at the heart of infidel territory,” to prepare the way for the expansion of an Islamic society.
As for the original plan to call it Cordoba House, after the period in Southern Spain in which the followers of the three Abrahamic religions supposedly lived in peace, Taheri says this is a false picture. He writes:
In fact, Cordoba’s history is full of stories of oppression and massacre, prompted by religious fanaticism. It is true that the Muslim rulers of Cordoba didn’t force their Christian and Jewish subjects to accept Islam. However, non-Muslims could keep their faith and enjoy state protection only as dhimmis (bonded ones) by paying a poll tax in a system of religious apartheid. If whatever peace and harmony that is supposed to have existed in Cordoba were the fruit of “Muslim rule,” the subtext is that the United States would enjoy similar peace and harmony under Islamic rule.
Cordoba, contrary to the popular impression, was the opposite of what President Obama said it was: a facility that would be used to propagate “moderate” Islam. Taheri writes: “A rabat in the heart of Manhattan would be of great symbolic value to those who want a high-profile, ‘in your face’ projection of Islam in the infidel West.”
I think you would agree that Rabbi Yosef’s conception of Judaism as a religion bares no comparison to the concept of Islam as enunciated by Taheri and Jasser. So the question becomes, if the issue is carrying out an “interfaith argument,” how indeed does one carry his out with Islamists? You yourself say this is impossible, since Islamists blur the difference. So if Imam Rauf too is an Islamist, it is from both our points of view impossible in fact to carry out such a dialogue.
So, I ask you. Why do you “need him desperately?” Are there no other truly moderate Muslim leaders you could carry out such a dialogue with? In fact there are, and a number of them have organizations they work with in the United States. Why cannot you approach them, rather than Imam Rauf, whom you met accidentally, and were charmed by?
The give-away is, as you acknowledge, that Imam Rauf advocates a one-state solution, or in other words, an Arab state in place of Israel in which Jews would be dhimmis. So what if he is willing to publicly engage with you and other Jews? What this does is give him and his call for a unitary Arab state new legitimacy rather that would not be taken as seriously if people like you did not answer to his outreach. All that does is make a radical appear moderate, which is precisely what Imam Rauf really desires. I do not see anything he says as a real basis for “engagement and debate.”
If you persist in viewing him as a person to treat with respect, what you will get is not dialogue- he does not indicate now, for example, any willingness to compromise- but only provide cover for him to advance his own spurious agenda. You might be carrying out a true religious conversation; the Imam Rauf will take advantage of your own seriousness and kindness to walk all over you.
It is most interesting that you say he is no Tariq Ramadan, with whom you would not reciprocate or engage in a dialogue with. Are you not aware that so many of your American counterparts, men like Alan Wolfe, a fellow contributing editor of yours at TNR, consider Ramadan just such a real moderate with whom one can dialogue- and use the same reasons you advance for talking with Rauf? Do you not know of the vicious attacks on Paul Berman for his own exposure of Ramadan, from well- known liberals like Ian Buruma, Timothy Garton Ash and Melise Ruthven, who also aim their fire at heretics from Islam like Aayan Ali Hirsi and in contrast respond with respect and admiration to people like Ramadan? It certainly looks like one man’s moderate is another man’s Islamist.
Finally, if it turns out your estimate of Imam Rauf is correct, it will be all to the good. Somehow, especially given the evidence in this country this past week, that unfortunately does not appear to be the case.
Sincerely, and best wishes for the New Year,
Ron
“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.