When I posted about the proposed $100 million mosque and Islamic “cultural” center to be built near Ground Zero in New York, I expressed my concerns about the tastefulness (or lack thereof) of the project, as well as about the political outlook of the Muslims lobbying for it.
Since then, I have done some more thinking, reading, and watching on the subject. Here are some things I’ve found out.
Who is behind the funding of the center, and whose teachings will be disseminated there? The following video features Brigitte Gabriel, president of American Congress for Truth, and a Lebanese Christian who fled the massacres of Christians by Muslims in her homeland and learned that the hatred of and lies about Israel she had been taught as a child in Lebanon were untrue. She masterfully dominates the “discussion,” effectively overpowering a Saruman-like spokesman for the Arab side (“Do not let him speak; he will put a spell on us”) and repeating her message of the dangers of allowing extremist Muslims to build a monument to Islam next to Ground Zero. (She may come across as rude in the interview, but when the few words that come out of the pro-mosque Arab’s mouth are clearly buzzwords chosen to shame Americans into extending “freedom” and “tolerance” to those who would destroy that same freedom and tolerance for others, I think it’s justified.)
Why that site in particular for a mosque? What is the bigger picture? These questions are addressed by a speaker for Acts 17, a Christian group which seeks to expose and confront anti-American Islam. He discusses the responses he observed of “normative” Muslims to the atrocities of 9/11 and the wider view they have of New York. A mere coincidence, the property to be converted to the Islamic center? The big picture may not be so benign.
Is America making a mistake by extending freedom and tolerance in this context? Pat Condell seems to think so. (He thinks a whole lot of other things on the subject too.)
And where in all this insanity are the true Muslim moderates? An interesting piece of uncertain authorship (but readable on this blog), comparing moderates to extremists in political movements throughout the 20th century, claims that while political correctness and tolerance requires us to write off acts of violence and hatred as the work of “extremists,” the truth is that when all the activities of a particular group are undertaken by the venom-spewing, club-wielding extremists, then the “moderates” who choose to sit quietly at home become irrelevant. It was the Communists in Russia and China who were the Angels of Death in their societies, not the average peace-loving Russian or Chinese. Same with the Japanese and the Germans in World War II. And so it is now in the Islamic world where acts of terror and butchery are carried out by some, and those who oppose them are silent. Where Jews are laughed at (and laugh at themselves) for having three opinions for every two Jews, there is merit to that. If some Jews are settlers, other Jews are out protesting the settlements. If some Jews advocate for unilateral withdrawal from land, other Jews are out there protesting and getting arrested. If one Jew shoots dozens of innocent people at a historic shrine, thousands of Jews condemn the act.
So where are the Muslims with moderate, democratic sensibilities? What are their views on the proposed mosque near Ground Zero? What are their views on Gilad Schalit, and the fact that he was kidnapped in a cross-border raid (against international law) and has spent four years in an undisclosed location with no access to visits from the Red Cross (also against international law)? What do they think about the preaching in mosques and teaching in schools that label Jews as descendants of pigs and monkeys, and the world as divided between the House of Islam and the House of War? What do they think of West-bashing in the Arab world? Of Iran’s race for nuclear weapons and its promise to wipe Israel off the map with them? Of the oppression of Christians in the Palestinian Authority and elsewhere? Of the increasing climate of hatred that is poisoning and further isolating the Arab/Muslim world? A few Arab critics have abandoned Islam altogether, including Nonie Darwish and Walid Shoebat, and others who continue to point fingers at the violence and collective insanity in Islam have sizable retinues for their personal security (or run the risk of a sticky end like that of Theo Van Gogh).
There are plenty of things in this world that I’ve never seen (the Congo, Salman Rushdie, blancmange) which I’m still prepared to believe exist. And so with moderate Muslims. But if they want to stand up and be counted, then they should do so. If not, they don’t count at all.
Shimshonit 
One element of this may be a difficulty for moderate muslims in gettting their message out. I’ve talked about this in the past. It isn’t enough to explain the issue all on its own though.
After work I will try to listen to the videos and comment. I predict that I will hear a lot of of talk about how ‘Islam this’ and ‘Muslims that’ and very little about the particular people involved in the Cordova center.
I am glad you are posting on this difficult topic. Keep asking those questions.
Larry: I’m pleased to tell you you’ll be wrong. Brigitte Gabriel knows exactly who is behind the Cordoba initiative, and where he hails from. And the Acts 17 guy, while his evidence is from his Muslim roommate at the time of 9/11, and the roommate’s friends, is still talking about “normative” Muslims, not extremists. You’re a very tolerant, accepting person, and I appreciate that. But I think it’s foolish to write off every generalization you hear about Islam because there may be exceptions. Islam has currents and attitudes that accurately describe it, and to claim that it defines a culture with no identifiable characteristics is wrong.
Leora: Thanks. I plan to.
Shimshonit, the latest about funding is that Dutch taxpayers are footing part of the bill for the Ground Zero mosque, which I find very strange (but it seems some Europeans are not surprised):
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/07/is-netherlands-subsidizing-ground-zero.html
Shimshonit
First of all, thanks for the measured tone with which you disagree with me. I literally have been asked ‘Why do you hate American’ and been called a ‘willfully ignorant dupe’ on other conversations on this topic. I’ve been been *oh woe (not) * unfriended on facebook for daring to disagree.
Part of the problem may be I have only one Muslim friend, who is a real mentch. If I get the chance (and the courage – it is an awkward topic) , I will ask him where the outspoken Muslim moderates are, and why I don’t hear about them much,
Note I do hear about Islamic reformers, especially with regards to women’s rights. These people are labeled by the media I listen to as not representative, ‘not really Islamic’ – not unlike how people might think about JOFA if all they read was Hamodia and Yated.
To make my point again – I believe America’s freedoms are America’s strengths not its weakness. If the Cordova mosque/Community center gets involved in actual crimes I fully support going after them. But by preemptively suppressing them I believe we are being false to our values. I don’t support Saudia Arabia’s laws forbidding any open non-Islamic religious establishment in the country – why should import those laws here, with the only difference being who is suppressed?
Leora: Thanks for the link. I had heard that the Dutch were also behind funding this project. I don’t really understand it, unless there’s a backroom deal to keep this mosque/cultural center out of Amsterdam.
Larry: I want very much to agree with you about preserving freedom. But what if the imam who will be preaching there already has ties to Al-Qaeda? Would you consider allowing an organization with terrorist ties to set up shop somewhere in America? I realize this is a very gray area, which is why I think it is so hotly contested. And I’m still doing a lot of thinking about how to preserve individual freedoms in the brave new world we’ve entered, where those freedoms can be used to kill others en masse. I haven’t got it figured out yet, but I’m working on it.
[…] Shimshonit asks questions about the mosque at Ground Zero. Filed Under: photography,week in review by Leora on July 22, 2010 Comments (0) […]
But what if the imam who will be preaching there already has ties to Al-Qaeda?
I guess it depends on what those ‘ties’ consist of. We’ve already seen that the US government thinks it is illegal to assist terrorist groups by teaching non-violent negotiating skills. Ties to terrorist groups can quickly become McCarthyism.
In general I’m coming to question whether decreasing civil liberties actually does increase security. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in pursuing temporary safety we gave up essential liberties and got nothing in return?
Larry: I’ve been amused by the law against teaching non-violence to terrorists, not least because that’s like teaching a lion to eat Caesar salad.
I would counter and say, it depends on which civil liberties were being sacrificed in the name of security. When I shop for groceries, I have to open my bag for every security guard, and pass through a metal detector to get into a shopping mall. Would I rather sail in unaccosted and get blown up? Nope. And despite the serious clamping down on civil liberties of the PA Arabs as a result of the security fence (see my previous post), thousands of Israeli lives have been saved (perhaps including mine). And don’t get me started on the difference between my blond, fair-skinned, heavily English-accented experience at Ben Gurion Airport and that of someone with a headscarf and an Arab name. But you never hear of Underpants Bombers flying El Al, do you?
I would like to see as many freedoms preserved as possible, for everyone. And I don’t think America has been very selective or savvy in deciding how to combat possible terrorism on its shores. It is not easy to stay two steps ahead of terrorists; they like to change the rules of engagement frequently, and often successfully. But when carefully considered and applied, I don’t think greater vigilance, surveillance (NOT London-style) or curbing of certain liberties is a huge imposition if you get your life in return.
You call it “temporary safety.” What’s temporary about it? That you get blown up next week instead of tomorrow? Or they only apply measures to increase public security for a short time? The former I consider unfortunate, and ineffective. The latter? A sign that someone thinks that Islamic terrorism is a flash in the pan. I don’t think it is. I think it is the new reality, for the foreseeable future. Their combined goal of bringing the Twelfth Imam, of Muslim Interstellar Domination, and of vanquishing the evil of the Infidels of this world is not a fashion; it’s a faith. And it’s not ebbing; it’s spreading. I am not predicting World War III; it’s already here. But war doesn’t look like it used to, with two opposing sets of uniformed troops meeting on open fields and utilizing tactics they learned at West Point. There are no ration cards, no troop transports (unless you’re talking about Iraq or Afghanistan), no Rosie the Riveters. The battlefield is now our airports, train stations, public places, our cities, streets, our kids’ schools, the mall–anywhere you find civilians is fair game. It is hard to imagine life going on as it always has when the enemy considers infants, old people, and schoolchildren combatants. But that’s exactly what they do.
Yitzhak Rabin called the Israelis and foreigners blown up on buses in the mid-1990s “victims of peace.” He was so desperate to see the peace process go forward, and to leave a legacy of peace with Arafat to his country (a noble goal), he was willing to see his constituents blown to bits. Most Israelis were horrified at his murder, but after having to bury the buses along with the victims (to preserve Jewish tradition of burying a person’s blood and every bit of flesh with him), I think Israelis were pretty dissatisfied with the way peace was being made.
I don’t think you should stay up nights worrying about the world as it is. The best thing is to go about your life and make the most of every day that you have on this Earth. It’s the Jewish thing, and it’s the thing terrorists don’t want you to do. But to minimize the nature of the current threat to gentle, peaceful civilization is naive and dangerous. It sounds hokey to say that Israel is on the front lines of the war against terror. It sees more action than most countries, but the truth is that everyone is on the front lines these days, everywhere. (Even Bali, for heaven’s sake.) And innocent people, the target of these merciless, barbaric killings, must be protected. If you can think of a way to do it without giving up a single freedom, please share. I’d really like to know.
I’ve been amused by the law against teaching non-violence to terrorists, not least because that’s like teaching a lion to eat Caesar salad.
Would you have said the same thing about the IRA prior to the Good Friday accords? Being a terrorist is not a fixed biological condition – you can stop being one. Ask l’havdil, Menachem Begin.
I fully agree that the basic idea of the security wall is necessary and good. (It might have been better to run it along the green line, but that’s an Israeli decision I’m not equipped or entitled to second guess). I’m not saying there is no tradeoff for liberty that increases safety, but that they are rarer than you would expect. I agree that Israel makes smarter tradeoffs than the US does. The US is prone to ‘security theater’ rather than actual security.
As far as profiling goes, Bruce Schneier recently pointed to this article.
I’m unwilling to trade the promise of my life for the certainty of a East Germany style government surveillance of my life, especially since I believe my life can be better protected less intrusively. I’m sure you feel the same way – we just have different opinions on what measures are effective, and where the trade offs are. This is probably logical given the threat profiles to me in the US and you in Israel are very different.
Matt Yglesias also talks about how the plan to ban the Cordoba Mosquedoes not make pragmatic sense.
Another view of the mosque
@leora, shimshonit:
I followed the link you gave, leora. From the gatesofvienna blogspot another link lead to the website of the Ministry of foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.
It says:
[quote]Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA)
Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equity (WISE) Compact Program.
WISE Compact will work with local and national women leaders and the organizations they work in. The programme aims to provide: a) a global infrastructure for shared work among Muslim women’s groups, organisations, institutions, and networks, b) religious context for Muslim women’s dialogue about, and advocacy for, their rights, c) an institutional voice for gender equality, and d) accessible knowledge about effective ways to promote the equitable ethic of Islam. The activities planned for each of the results include development of WISE Compact design, develop partnerships with Muslim women’s organisations to develop learning and training resources, implement training with marginalised women and girls and create a comprehensive WISE Compact sustainability plan. The programme will focus on Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestinian Administrative Areas, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Turkey.
Amount granted
€ 1.000.000[end quote]
Nothing about the mosque at ground zero, apparently the Dutch have decided to support an American muslim organization that works in muslim countries. The controversy was sparked by Dutch politician Geert Wilders(PVV-Party of Freedom-a relatively newly formed conservative party that has as its main proposed policy limiting the influence of Islam in the Netherlands and immigration from muslim countries) asking questions in parliament to the minister of development coöperation about this issue. The minister denied the funding of the mosque was part of the grant application by ASMA, it was directed(‘focussed’ is however a vague term) at the activities of said organisation in named countries.
A red herring, as far as I can judge it.