A Rock-Solid Case Against the Ground Zero Mosque
I've written here that I believe it important to distinguish the good arguments for opposing the Park 51 project--or whatever they're calling it now--from the bad. Some of the arguments against it seem weak to me: I'm not persuaded that the name "Cordoba," for example, must necessarily be interpreted as a deliberate provocation; I'm not persuaded that there's no such thing as moderate Islam; I'm not persuaded that the mosque's construction will be seen as a victory by Osama bin Laden.
But Imam Rauf's status as a "Role Player and Contributor" to the so-called Perdana Peace Organization is a very serious reason to be implacably opposed to the construction of that facility. It's not merely a reason to find the project distasteful. It's reason to worry, legitimately, that the mosque will be used to fundraise and propagandize for terrorist groups, and it's reason to think that Rauf is already involved in the financing of terrorist groups. He is certainly already involved in propagandizing for them.
Perdana is a key sponsor of the Free Gaza Freedom Flotilla movement. According to some reports, it's the movement's largest financial backer. It's entirely plausible--likely, I'd say--that money from the Perdana Peace Organization has been making its way to the IHH. The State Department and the Treasury are now attempting to determine whether the IHH should be placed on the list of officially-designated terrorist organizations.
I'm sure you all know by now where I stand on the IHH. The German wing of the IHH (which has ostensibly split from the Turkish wing) has already been banned in Germany on the grounds that it denies Israel's right to exist and serves as a fundraising front for Hamas.
Follow the money. Rauf is a "contributor" to Perdana. Does that mean "a financial contributor?" Is that money his own, or does it come from the Cordoba Initiative? If the funding for the proposed mosque is coming from, or going to, the Perdana Peace Initiative, then this project is way, way too close to the IHH for any reasonable person to feel comfortable with it. Should the IHH be formally declared a terrorist organization, there may well be grounds for freezing assets connected to the Cordoba Initiative, depending how it's all linked up.
In any event, Rauf's ties to Perdana clearly undermine his assertion that he has no truck with terrorism.
That's my idea of a strong argument. Forget the others; that's enough.
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: A Rock-Solid Case Against the Ground Zero Mosque
FWIW, he also would not call Hamas a terrorist organization.
Jul '10
Re: A Rock-Solid Case Against the Ground Zero Mosque
When one considers the sources of the money used by the Al Qaida operatives on 9/11 and every other terror attack throughout the world, one can only assume that there are no neutral Muslims. There may be those who are not directly involved, those who are essentially non-violent, but I do not accept that any Muslim would not cheer the downfall of the West. That being the case, we are at war with Islam, as we have been since its near inception. I don't believe that you make concessions to your enemies unless you are losing a war. This mosque would be a major concession, whether it was seen that way by Bin Laden or not. During WW2 Roosevelt authorized the bombing of Tokyo to show that they were not safe at home while their operatives attacked us. Our real enemies sit in wealth and splendor in the major cities of the Arabian peninsula with no fear of reprisal. They are the ones who would and will profit most from the building of this mosque. Personally, I would give them something else.
Jul '10
Re: A Rock-Solid Case Against the Ground Zero Mosque
As I did when this topic first arose on Ricochet, I offer once again the invaluable Andy McCarthy.
May '10
Re: A Rock-Solid Case Against the Ground Zero Mosque
McCarthy's points seem very well supported. How can this be ignored?
Jul '10
Re: A Rock-Solid Case Against the Ground Zero Mosque
Let's face it, you don't find what you refuse to look for.
"None so blind as those who will not see", I guess.
Aug '10
Re: A Rock-Solid Case Against the Ground Zero Mosque
Claire Berlinski: I's reason to think that Rauf is already involved in the financing of terrorist groups.
Now, Imam Rauf is a leader, so he bears more responsibility than the average Joe does for which charity he supports.
But I'll posit this: in certain environments, it might be difficult to be charitable without indirectly supporting terrorism.
For example, I estimate that I indirectly gave money to terrorist groups for several years -- through the church collection plate. (I love the Anglican liturgy and tradition -- CS Lewis was Anglican, after all -- and figured I could just live with the Church's mushy politics.) When I found out where my money was going, what supporting those "Christian peace organizations" might mean, I was horrified.
These days, I'm much more circumspect with my charitable giving.
I read Perdana Peace's mission statement. It's the sort of stuff my left-leaning, pacifistic friends would lap up with relish, thinking that they weren't supporting terrorism, but rather its extinction. Then again, I'm fairly certain these friends of mine see the Gaza Flotilla itself as merely "peace gone awry".
Still, Imam Rauf, as a leader, should know better than this.
Jul '10
Re: A Rock-Solid Case Against the Ground Zero Mosque
As I've maintained from the beginning, the ties to terror in this organization, and specifically its leadership, are difficult to ignore at best. Andy McCarthy will shortly be accused as being "one of those" intolerant First Amendment deniers by Conor shortly. Then we'll all enjoy a lovely stew of reasoning and seasonings of why Imam Rauf is not a terror supporter (but he wants unity and acceptance!!!), ignoring the specific instances of where he does support terror organizations. Then the focus of the debate will turn to the folks opposing the project, instead of the points that they are raising.
And, again, before I am slighted as accusing all Muslims of some nefarious evil imbroglio, I am specifically pointing my doubts at the leadership of this project. Their tactic is obfuscation, and creeping acceptance of Jihad as merely a tenant of a religion: "Oh, is that my thumb in your eye?"
Once is forgivable. Repeated offensives are a strategy.
Re: A Rock-Solid Case Against the Ground Zero Mosque
Peter: McCarthy's case against the GZM is speculative--very plausible, but still speculative. It's not a crime to support Hamas in one's heart or one's speech. It is, however, a crime to fund a terrorist group. If his project is tied financially to a terrorist group, case closed.
Midget: Rauf bears a lot more responsibility for thinking about where his money's going than the average citizen. He is, after all, proposing to build a mosque near Ground Zero. If he doesn't realize that Perdana's money is going to terrorists, I'm sure it's not because he's a mushy thinker. It's because he doesn't think the IHH are terrorists. He's entitled to think that, legally. But if Congress declares the IHH a terrorist group, he's not entitled to fund them. That's illegal.
This should not be framed as a question about what Rauf believes, feels, or intends. It's not a question about the nature of Islam or the Constitution. Does the project have financial ties to declared terrorist groups? Yes? End of story. Seize the assets.
Aug '10
Re: A Rock-Solid Case Against the Ground Zero Mosque
Claire Berlinski:
Midget: Rauf bears a lot more responsibility for thinking about where his money's going than the average citizen... If Congress declares the IHH a terrorist group, he's not entitled to fund them. That's illegal... This should not be framed as a question about what Rauf believes, feels, or intends.
I agree. And agree. And agree.
I was merely trying to see his situation as the "other side" might see it -- playing devil's advocate, extending every benefit of the doubt, even what is obviously (to us) undeserved. And I imagine that to the other side, feelings and intentions count much more than they would to us.
Isn't that one of the things we worry about, what role people for whom intentions are more real than results play in shaping the world? (How do we understand them? Sometimes I try imitating them.)
The problem shouldn't be framed in terms of intentions, but I suspect that for many, it will be anyhow.
Jul '10
Re: A Rock-Solid Case Against the Ground Zero Mosque
McCarthy's case is "plausible, but speculative"? Forgive me, but I'm getting a case of whiplash here. Everything in his article seems to support exactly the kind of "Role Player and Contributor" case you make above. He states explicitly that "Funding sources for this project [GZM]…remain unknown." But he makes a compelling argument that, far too often, Imams at these "Islamic centers" are radicalizing certain of their followers and sending them out to commit violent jihad. It sounds to me like you and he are largely in agreement, but perhaps I'm missing something…?
Re: A Rock-Solid Case Against the Ground Zero Mosque
We are largely in agreement, yes. But in a country where you have rule of law and Constitutional protections on religious expression, you can't go around shutting down mosques because other mosques have been shown to have ties to terrorists. What I'm offering here is a strong reason to believe this particular project has ties to terrorist groups, or groups that are soon apt to be so designated. This should be easy to establish, and it's the job of law-enforcement officials to look into this. If it's established, there's no need to discuss Rauf's character or intentions, no need to ask whether "moderate Islam" is an oxymoron; no need to ask whether freedom of religion is being trampled upon; no need to tie ourselves into knots about how the mosque will be viewed by radicals abroad. It's a simple question: If the Cordoba Initiative is taking or giving money to entities that are considered under US law to be terrorist groups, shut it down.
Aug '10
Re: A Rock-Solid Case Against the Ground Zero Mosque
I had said, "The problem [terrorism sponsorship] shouldn't be framed in terms of intentions."
I spotted a hole in my own reasoning. Terrorism is increasingly handled by civilian, rather than military, courts (I'm not saying this is the way it should be, only that it's happening).
And in civilian court, intent matters in prosecuting a crime.
If funding of terrorism is prosecuted in civilian courts and the defense lawyer can make a convincing argument (whether true or not) that the defendant had not intended to sponsor terrorist activity by giving to Charity X, then wouldn't it be possible for the defendant to receive a lighter sentence -- or no sentence at all -- simply on the basis of perceived intent? If so, hasn't intention become part of the legal framing of terrorism sponsorship?
Furthermore, in civilian trials, the benefit of every reasonable doubt goes to the defendant, so if it's uncertain whether the defendant knew he was funding terrorism, wouldn't he have to get the benefit of the doubt on this?
This is perhaps another reason not to prosecute terrorism in civilian court... I'm no law expert, though, so I may be misunderstanding something.
May '10
Re: A Rock-Solid Case Against the Ground Zero Mosque
Wait, why is the name "Cordoba Initiative" not enough of a reason to oppose it? Why is that not necessarily a provocation? You just mean it's not enough of a reason to legally shut it down, right?
Re: A Rock-Solid Case Against the Ground Zero Mosque
Yes, exactly. Also, I assume we're all scrutinizing our reasons for feeling uneasy about this with especial care, given that a) we all treasure the constitution and the principles that undergird it; b) no one would wish to oppose something like this out of bigotry or irrational malice; and c) the issue is extremely divisive--and the last thing we need in America is more pointless division. So I'm not interested in "maybe" or "it smells fishy" arguments here; I'm interested in arguments that are based on evidence and the law--arguments that are compelling no matter what you think about Islam or other peoples' feelings about Islam. This seems to be such an argument.
Jul '10
Re: A Rock-Solid Case Against the Ground Zero Mosque
Right, that's exactly why I find McCarthy's writings on this subject so compelling. They are based on careful sifting of evidence: who is consorting with whom, what are they saying to each other when they think nobody's paying attention, and most importantly, where has the money come from and where has it gone? It's not about saying, "Gee, these people sure believe funny things and come from strange places. Don't think I trust 'em." I hope I'm no more interested in promoting bigotry or irrational malice than you are.
Sometimes things smell fishy because there really is a dead fish in there somewhere. You don't find the fish unless you follow the smell.
Re: A Rock-Solid Case Against the Ground Zero Mosque
Someone should run on the platform that they will spend as much money and resources as Eric Holder is spending on fighting Arizona to fight the GZM on a theory like Claire's and let the Constitutional chips fall where they may.
When I say someone, I mean someone running for something that would have the authority to make it happen, not like when I ran for the president of the Monocle Society