Claire Berlinski · Aug 19, 2010 at 9:54pm

This item from Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic really caught my attention.

In 2003, Imam Rauf was invited to speak at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the journalist murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan. The service was held at B'nai Jeshurun, a prominent synagogue in Manhattan, and in the audience was Judea Pearl, Daniel Pearl's father. In his remarks, Rauf identified absolutely with Pearl, and identified himself absolutely with the ethical tradition of Judaism. "I am a Jew," he said.

There are those who would argue that these represent mere words, chosen carefully to appease a postentially suspicious audience. I would argue something different: That any Muslim imam who stands before a Jewish congregation and says, "I am a Jew," is placing his life in danger. Remember, Islamists hate the people they consider apostates even more than they hate Christians and Jews. In other words, the man many commentators on the right assert is a terrorist-sympathizer placed himself in mortal peril in order to identify himself with Christians and Jews, and specifically with the most famous Jewish victim of Islamism.

I agree that this is a reassuring sign about Imam Feisal's instincts. It does indeed have the significance Jeffrey assigns to it.

A quick point, perhaps obvious to most, but I sense it needs to be stressed. I have many outstanding questions about this project. But there's a world of difference between "tone deaf, naive, and foolish on foreign policy"--words that would describe 90 percent of the nation's university professors and more than half of its government--and "Islamist radical plotting to indoctrinate terrorists and undermine our free society." Me, I still don't know; many of the things he's said--about Shari'ah in particular--set off five-alarm fires in my mind; I'm sifting through all this information slowly, and no one has come close to answering my biggest question: Where exactly is the money coming from? And no matter how well-intentioned Imam Feisal may be, if he's committed as he says to building bridges, he must by now see that the idea of building this facility at that location isn't helping and is in fact grossly counter-productive. From a bridge-building perspective alone, this has been appallingly handled. But the most worrying charges don't seem to hold up, so far. And items like this are very reassuring.

My main point: If the charge that Imam Feisal is a crypto-Islamist doesn't hold up, we should rejoice. That's great news. I mean, who wants a crypto-Islamist Imam running an Islamist center in the heart of lower Manhattan? Who wants to think that such a plan was even in the works? I sense that some people now want to find the dirt on the Imam not so much because they're worried about the risk this project could pose as because they think it's ridiculously offensive to build a mosque there, period. That's a legitimate opinion--I don't think it makes the person who feels that way a bigot, that's for sure--but it is not the same as opposing the mosque out of a fear that it will be used to incubate terrorists and promote Islamic law.

I think we should be looking at Imam Feisal very closely. There are a lot of red flags. But it's just a point of intellectual hygiene to work from the evidence to the conclusion, not vice-versa. A lot of very bad policy gets made when this principle is neglected. When your opinion gets so hardened that no amount of evidence to the contrary will change it, you're in intellectual trouble.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Mollie Hemingway

One of the questions I have is how a center like this maintains its doctrine over time. And how does the funding of this center affect its doctrinal outlook? So, for instance, if Saudis fund part of the mosque, does that give them sway to control some of the teaching? Or is that a silly idea? Likewise, how are clergy chosen and how will that affect teaching? How open will this center be to the varieties of Muslim teaching? Let's just say that Imam Feisal is as peaceful as a Mennonite in Spring. What does that mean for the center in the future? Does that mean he will close the center to those who don't share his views? Etc. etc.

Trace Urdan
Joined
May '10
Trace Urdan

I'm going to trust you to run this one down Claire and thank you for doing it. But I've got to say that more and more it seems as though Imam Feisal is a perfectly well-meaning doofus. Though I've learned the hard way to avoid saying anything about a Catholic priest in this crowd, I will say that I've met several Episcopal ministers that fall into this same category. Trouble is, as a well-meaning doofus, could his actions be either misinterpreted and/or manipulated for greater mischief?

Humza Ahmad
Joined
Jul '10
Humza Ahmad

Mr. Rauf seems bent on mixing politics and religion, and he can't seem to make a statement without doing so. For example, regarding his comments about terrorism being a complex issue, the sociological and political roots of terrorism are complex, but from an Islamic moral and religious point of view there is absolutely no complexity in its prohibition. Further, the GZM is much more of a political statement than a mosque, and has been since its inception. Mr. Rauf, as the project's spokesperson, personifies this and it is his primary failing.

Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Joined
Aug '10
Midget Faded Rattlesnake

Trace Urdan: I will say that I've met several Episcopal ministers that fall into this same category.

No arguments there. And I'm Episcopalian -- or at least went to that church for a very long time...

Trouble is, as a well-meaning doofus, could his actions be either misinterpreted and/or manipulated for greater mischief?

This is exactly the problem with doofuses (doofi?). Plus, some doofi suffer from a sort of willful blindness, a certain refusal to see past the end of their nose that can't be wholly innocent in a full-grown adult, no matter how well-meaning it is. I've known Episcopal priests to fall into this category, and it wouldn't surprise me if Imam Faisal were this type of useful idiot. After all, like many Episcopalian useful idiots,

Humza Ahmad: Mr. Rauf seems bent on mixing politics and religion, and he can't seem to make a statement without doing so.

Even though I hope for the best concerning Imam Faisal, it's only common sense that his project receive skeptic scrutiny, especially the funding. After all, who pays you influences what you see -- or won't see. It's only human.


Joined
Jul '10
Ragnarok

Do the "I'm a Jew" remarks, made in '03 cancel this week's anti-semitic tweets from Park 51 organizers? Responding to the, incorrect, story in the Haaretz that the GZM may be moved, they tweeted: "If Haaretz likes publishing fables, perhaps they could go back to the Yiddish ones..." Or are the earlier lines abrogated and rendered void by the latter ones? Just asking.

Claire Berlinski

Ah yes, Ragnarok--that intern was "removed." I'll give that a pass. That's not anti-Semitic unless you're really determined to see it that way; pretty obvious it was an attempt at a joke that fell flat. If you follow the feed compulsively, as alas I do, you'll see that the (now-ex) Twitterer was trying his damnedest to be hip and au fait with Twitter culture and to show that Park 51 has a great sense of humor and is just a part of the big 'ole New York ethnic stew. More "We're so down with the Jews that we don't even wonder what they do with the rest of the Matzoh" than Protocols of the Elders of Zion.


Joined
Jul '10
Ragnarok

Claire, you are a much better man than I am (may not say much but I mean it sincerely) and I really hope you are right and that Imam Rauf is a swell multi-culti bridge builder.

cdor
Joined
Jun '10
cdor

Whether Feisal is a clueless doofus or manipulative, lying, rattlesnake is between him and his psychiatrist. Is the $100 million dollars his money? Why don't we know the source of funding. Developers do not go before zoning boards to discuss immense projects, without having their money "on the table" so to speak. Why would a zoning board approve this type of a project, even waste their time meeting and voting on it, without investigating the ability of Feisal to actually deliver the goods? This should be part of the public record. Of course, there still is the appropriateness of the scale. I heard someone say this Mosque was being built in the shadow of the former Trade Centers. Quite the contrary. It is so large. it will cast a shadow OVER the former Trade Centers. If there are any doofuses (doofi) being overlooked in this discussion, the names of those shining bulbs on the zoning board who voted unanimously for this project should be on the tip of everyone's tongue. I think an examination of their current finances could be very interesting.

Kenneth
Joined
Jul '10
Kenneth
Ragnarok: Claire, you are a much better man than I am (may not say much but I mean it sincerely) and I really hope you are right and that Imam Rauf is a swell multi-culti bridge builder. · Aug 20 at 5:58am

Yeah, Claire's moderation and even-handedness makes me feel like a fulminating crank sometimes.

Andrea Ryan
Joined
May '10
Andrea Ryan

Kenneth

Ragnarok: Claire, you are a much better man than I am (may not say much but I mean it sincerely) and I really hope you are right and that Imam Rauf is a swell multi-culti bridge builder. · Aug 20 at 5:58am

Yeah, Claire's moderation and even-handedness makes me feel like a fulminating crank sometimes. · Aug 20 at 6:55am

I agree. Claire and Peter are the only people I can think of that make me stop and rethink even my most passionate opinions.

James Poulos, Ed.
Mollie Hemingway: One of the questions I have is how a center like this maintains its doctrine over time. And how does the funding of this center affect its doctrinal outlook? So, for instance, if Saudis fund part of the mosque, does that give them sway to control some of the teaching? Or is that a silly idea? Likewise, how are clergy chosen and how will that affect teaching? How open will this center be to the varieties of Muslim teaching? Let's just say that Imam Feisal is as peaceful as a Mennonite in Spring. What does that mean for the center in the future? Does that mean he will close the center to those who don't share his views? Etc. etc.

This is a problem, Mollie, which has befallen at least one significant foundation that's conservatively inclined. It's now planning to close up shop rather than allow itself to slip into the hands of heirs who would substantially change the vision and purpose of the organization. This kind of generational transformation can happen to anyone; no reason to abandon our intellectual hygiene, but another reminder of the significance, and limits, of institutional safeguards.

Andrea Ryan
Joined
May '10
Andrea Ryan

I distinctly remember right after September 11th the French coming out and saying, "Je suis Americain" (I am American) to show their support and mutual horror of what happened to our country on that day. That didn't last long.

Charles Mark
Joined
Aug '10
Charles Mark

Mary Robinson said the same in Durban

Claire Berlinski

Andrea Ryan

Kenneth

Ragnarok: Claire, you are a much better man than I am (may not say much but I mean it sincerely) and I really hope you are right and that Imam Rauf is a swell multi-culti bridge builder. · Aug 20 at 5:58am

Yeah, Claire's moderation and even-handedness makes me feel like a fulminating crank sometimes. · Aug 20 at 6:55am

I agree. Claire and Peter are the only people I can think of that make me stop and rethink even my most passionate opinions. · Aug 20 at 8:37am

This is a very lovely compliment, thank you.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In