| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| The "Ground Zero mosque" debate is about tolerating intolerance |
| 2010-08-24 |
| By Christopher Hitchens From the beginning, though, I pointed out that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was no great bargain and that his Cordoba Initiative was full of euphemisms about Islamic jihad and Islamic theocracy. I mentioned his sinister belief that the United States was partially responsible for the assault on the World Trade Center and his refusal to take a position on the racist Hamas dictatorship in Gaza. The more one reads through his statements, the more alarming it gets. For example, here is Rauf's editorial on the upheaval that followed the brutal hijacking of the Iranian elections in 2009. Regarding President Obama, he advised that: He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution--to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faquih, that establishes the rule of law. Coyly untranslated here (perhaps for "outreach" purposes), Vilayet-i-faquih is the special term promulgated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to describe the idea that all of Iranian society is under the permanent stewardship (sometimes rendered as guardianship) of the mullahs. Under this dispensation, "the will of the people" is a meaningless expression, because "the people" are the wards and children of the clergy. It is the justification for a clerical supreme leader, whose rule is impervious to elections and who can pick and choose the candidates and, if it comes to that, the results. It is extremely controversial within Shiite Islam. (Grand Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq, for example, does not endorse it.) As for those numerous Iranians who are not Shiites, it reminds them yet again that they are not considered to be real citizens of the Islamic Republic. I do not find myself reassured by the fact that Imam Rauf publicly endorses the most extreme and repressive version of Muslim theocracy. The letterhead of the statement, incidentally, describes him as the Cordoba Initiative's "Founder and Visionary." Why does that not delight me, either? |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #11 I don't believe myself that Islam is a Religion - it is a CULT - We don't owe them Jack $%%# |
| Posted by: Chief 2010-08-24 21:47 |
| #10 I wonder if there is anything non-violent that the islamic community in the US could do that would generate as much anti-islamic feeling among the population of the US as the building of this mosque. This is a real eye-opener for many people. They are beginning to understand that the penetration of islam into our society didn't end with the attacks on 9/11. Hopefully the force of the opposition to this disgrace will be powerful enough to stop it. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2010-08-24 17:27 |
| #9 For every new mosque built outside of the middle east, one church should be built in Saudi. What on earth could be wrong with that? |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2010-08-24 13:46 |
| #8 I think the dedication date - Exactly 10 years - to the day - after 9/11/2001 tells us all we need to know about the 'message' the Murder Mosque is intended to send. The celebration of the murder of 3,000 people by Islam. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-08-24 11:46 |
| #7 The Cordoba initiative is nothing more that a victory Mosque at ground zero. There is NO muslim community there, there is no need to build one unless your making a statement to the world that you won this war. A sort of raising the flag of victory at the battlefield. Now our F()ked up political parties and their respective media outlets have reduced this to partisan hacking. MSNBC has countered every arguement as hate and FOX is not much better calling zero the anointed one. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2010-08-24 11:31 |
| #6 This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be "phobic." A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational. Spot on Hitch! As Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was overseas on his State Dept. sponsored “Bridge Building” tour his wife hit the Sunday news show circuit back in the US. Daisy Khan proclaimed that opposition to the GZM was not simply phobic but an organized “hatred” of Islam. One wonders if our intrepid Imam shares his wifes’ views and if so is this part of his “moderate” dialogue? In light of such a strong opinion, perhaps it’s quite rational to question why this mosque, at this location, and at this time. Just as no one in the US is denied their right to worship as they see fit is it rational to question the motives of a group of Imams doing the Holy head bounce just prior to boarding a plane in Minneapolis? |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2010-08-24 11:25 |
| #5 "The Cordoba Initiative" I wonder if this name would be retained if the project were located someplace other than Ground Zero? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-08-24 11:09 |
| #4 what if 19 Christians (you pick the denomination) ran a 747 into a soccer stadium full of Saudi fans, killing abt 3,000 of them and then 10yrs laters wanted to build a church or even a grand Cathedral across the street from the ruined stadium...let's see how tolerant & receptive these self proclaimed muslim bridge-builders would be... |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2010-08-24 11:01 |
| #3 Mod note: in attempting to keep a topic to one posted article — adding this posted by Lord Garth TNR Publisher on the GZM - He's Against It From the end of the editorial The Cordoba Initiative, so-called, would also not be challenged if it were trying to establish itself anywhere else on Manhattan Island. I have an inkling that Mr. Rauf, however tolerant he may or may not be (there is mixed evidence on the question), and his comrades knew this. I also have an inkling that they chose Ground Zero precisely to invite the protest against it. This is a skirmish in a very long contest with historic resonance. If the elite's [note that TNR does not consider itself in the 'elite' group, but it evidently includes the NYC mayor] indifferent to the reasonable emotions of a society win this one they will ultimately have lost much more than chalking up a sterile and merely circumstantial reading of the First Amendment. |
| Posted by: Lord Garth 2010-08-24 10:38 |
| #2 I do not find myself reassured by the fact that Imam Rauf publicly endorses the most extreme and repressive version of Muslim theocracy. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, The Bridge Builder, endorses Iran's theocracy where the elections and results are rigged until the desired result is obtained. Where violence is used as a tool to suppress opposition. Since he is an imam, I suppose he would endorse Vilayet-i-faquih. Don't most of these people aspiring to "bridge-building" want to be in charge? Religion is the tool. The thing our Founders were trying to get rid of was a State run church/religion. Am I correct to assume that Vilayet-i-faquih is Iran's version of Sharia law, the law of islamic states? Freedom of religion is not a suicide pact. There is a lot of double speak going on with this mosque. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-08-24 09:54 |
| #1 The question is: Would one of those alleged moderate Muslims followers the Religion of Peace (TM) who allegedly were horrified by 9/11 have chosen to build a mosque precisely at Ground Zero? What kind of Muslims would pick this particular place in all the state of New York? |
| Posted by: JFM 2010-08-24 04:33 |