Park 51 Replies
I've received this e-mail from Oz Sultan, Press and Social Media Liaison at Park 51. (Hard not to feel a sneaking sympathy for anyone holding that job title.)
“Imam Feisal is a member of the Perdana Global Peace Organization, which is a funder of the flotilla that attempted to deliver aid to residents of Gaza.”
Imam Feisal has never been a member of this group. Several years ago, Imam Feisal was invited to Malaysia, the most moderate Islamic country in the world, to participate in a Peace Conference sponsored by the Perdana Peace Group. He was one of the hundreds of speakers present. He has no political, advisory or business affiliation of any nature with the Perdana group. A photo of Imam Feisal was taken at the conference, and this has been used to “prove” his membership in the Perdana Global Peace Organization, but the allegation is false. Because of the controversy surrounding Perdana, we have requested the Perdana Group to remove the photo of him from their publicity.
Did Imam Feisal support the Flotillas against the Israeli Blockade?
Absolutely not. In the past, Imam Feisal has spoken about the need to be peace-makers and bridge builders with the Flotilla organizers, but, has no relationship with them, nor has he worked with them in any manner.
Here's the photo in question, and the site which describes Imam Feisal as a "role player and contributor." (I've been calling him Imam Rauf, as most of the media does, but it seems that's incorrect.)
Also according to this site, Imam Feisal is a signatory to this document, the Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War. It calls, among other things, for "all commercial, financial, industrial and scientific activities that aid and abet war" to be "criminalized." One wonders about the implications of this, which I suspect would be dim for the US military.
That said, the document strikes me as naive and meaningless, rather than malicious (although naivete can have sinister consequences, to be sure, as Neville Chamberlain learned). It's pretty much of a piece with the most common of Leftist bromides, and surely no evidence that Imam Feisal is advancing a crypto-Islamist agenda. This is without doubt constitutionally protected political speech, not a legal argument against the mosque. I'm noting it mostly because it makes me roll my eyes with impatience.
I'm edging toward the opinion that Imam Feisal is more a naive Leftist than a genuine Islamist; his views do not seem to be all that far off of those commonly expressed on American university campuses. I disagree with them, and find them dangerous in their naivete, but I couldn't argue that there's a legal case for objecting to the Park 51 project based on them. It's not illegal to have dumb opinions; if it were, we'd have to shut down a lot more than a few mosques.
I'd like to see a continued investigation, by the press and by appropriate government bodies, into the sources of Cordoba's funding. If Imam Feisal has no financial ties to Perdana, however, there is no legal or moral reason to object to the project on that basis.
I'm glad to know that Imam Feisal did not support the Gaza Flotilla. I wonder if he would now be willing to condemn the flotilla, and the Hamas Charter--which calls for the destruction of the state of Israel--as antithetical to the spirit invoked in the Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War? He is under no more legal obligation to do so than any other American citizen, but it would surely go quite some ways toward easing the concerns of the community he wishes to serve if he did.
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Park 51 Replies
Claire,
You're right that condemning the flotilla would ease the concerns of Americans worried about the mosque and community center he is trying to build. But it would also cost him credibility with Muslims who resent the Israeli blockade of Gaza -- including some Muslims who grudgingly acknowledge that flotilla organizers were in the wrong, but feel like there should be solidarity on their side (analogous to how some conservatives acknowledge that Rush Limbaugh says indefensible stuff, but nevertheless resent fellow conservatives pointing it out publicly).
Were my mission in life to oppose radical Islam in the United States, and to try to win Muslims on the fence over to the side of non-violence, the last thing I'd do is take Israel's side in an emotional debate about a bygone event. I'd hope, in fact, to avoid the Israel question.
Don't get me wrong. I very much want Israel to have its staunch defenders. But perhaps that project, and the work of gaining intra-Islam credibility to advocate for moderation, aren't best carried out by the same guy.
May '10
Re: Park 51 Replies
Well done Claire. It's a pleasure to watch you work.
Edited on Aug 13, 2010 at 8:24amJul '10
Re: Park 51 Replies
With due respect, it does not allay hardly anyone's discomfort to know the Imam is not an overt radical Muslim.
If he were for peace and unity, he wouldn't be building it at Ground Zero...with Saudi funds.
For most, the bloom is off the rose with this guy. There's already been weeks of coverage and controversy. Imam Feisel (Rauf) has changed the name of the site because of those contentions. But he has not withdrawn his plans, despite the protests, despite the opposition, despite all.
Imam Feisel has made war against the City of New York and the victims of 9/11 and he's won.
Some peacenik.
May '10
Re: Park 51 Replies
Exactly, Michael. It's a pretty low bar if it's necessary to prove he's an islamist in order to prove he's a bad guy. Even if he somehow didn't understand previously, by now he surely understands that his plans are crushingly offensive to the the families of those who were incinerated on that day, and yet still he pushes ahead. If that isn't the definition of a bad guy, I don't know what is. This endless background research is tedious and provides false vindication if he comes up "clean." His actions of the last month are sufficient for judgment of his character and intentions.
So...either he's superhumanly obtuse, or he's a bad guy. Which is it, Conor?
Re: Park 51 Replies
Conor Friedersdorf: Claire,
Don't get me wrong. I very much want Israel to have its staunch defenders. But perhaps that project, and the work of gaining intra-Islam credibility to advocate for moderation, aren't best carried out by the same guy. · Aug 13 at 12:42am
You know, Conor, I've heard too many people in Turkey use this logic to have much patience with it anymore. "No, I can't say that about Hamas and Israel, I'll lose my credibility with the street and my ability to preach moderation." Not sure what good that ability to preach moderation does if you don't preach it.
Aug '10
Re: Park 51 Replies
Claire Berlinski: I'm edging toward the opinion that Imam Feisal is more a naive Leftist than a genuine Islamist; his views do not seem to be all that far off of those commonly expressed on American university campuses. I disagree with them, and find them dangerous in their naivete, but I couldn't argue that there's a legal case for objecting to the Park 51 project based on them. It's not illegal to have dumb opinions; if it were, we'd have to shut down a lot more than a few mosques.
And a lot more than a few universities.
Re: Park 51 Replies
He's obtuse. But there's a very big difference between "obtuse" and "criminal." "Obtuse" is constitutionally protected. The background research may seem tedious to you, but given--from initial appearances--the connection between Feisal and known financiers of declared terrorist groups, it's a tedium that must be endured. (By me, at least, it's kind of a Fourth Estate responsibility to look into these things, would you not agree?) If there are no links, that doesn't make him a hero. If there are links, it makes him a lot more than just obtuse. I assume you actually do want to know whether he's a clumsy schlub or a terrorist financier. These distinctions are not subtle.
Aug '10
Re: Park 51 Replies
Michael Tee: If he were for peace and unity, he wouldn't be building it at Ground Zero...with Saudi funds.
Michael, you're obviously an extremely intelligent and hardworking normal guy who, having worked you way into the intellectual elite, gets to see with unclouded eye the silliness that goes on there.
Can't you imagine some of the leftist intellectuals you know thinking, "Funds, schmunds. We need this project because it will be a bridge for peace, a tender green shoot of hope for both sides springing out of the wreckage!"?
I can see it. Completely. They're just like that. So I tend to agree with Claire:
Claire Berlinski: I'm edging toward the opinion that Imam Feisal is more a naive Leftist than a genuine Islamist; his views do not seem to be all that far off of those commonly expressed on American university campuses.
That doesn't keep Imam Faisal from being dangerous, as Claire also points out.
But just because ordinary folk can see through his delusions to their likely consequences doesn't men Imam Faisal can, nor that the dreaming crowd he attracts can.
They need no ill-will to participate in disaster.
Jul '10
Re: Park 51 Replies
The guy considers the US an accessory to 9/11, refuses to say whether Hamas is a terrorist organization and, above all, gives us the finger by wanting to build his 14 story mosque at Ground Zero and we are debating whether it is he who is obtuse?
Re: Park 51 Replies
Is anyone debating this? I think we're all in perfect agreement about that.
Aug '10
Re: Park 51 Replies
Ragnarok: The guy considers the US an accessory to 9/11, refuses to say whether Hamas is a terrorist organization and, above all, gives us the finger by wanting to build his 14 story mosque at Ground Zero and we are debating whether it is he who is obtuse? · Aug 13 at 7:22am
Yes.
There are leftist professors whose whole way of life would be wrecked by an Islamist regime who nonetheless more-or-less believe the things you mentioned. They're firmly convinced that all they're for is peace and love and puppies and holding hands across the world. And they don't want to see beyond their good intentions.
But I'll grant you. This obtuseness isn't just incomprehension, it's also a moral tone-deafness and a cowardice about human nature -- a willful blindness to human experience. It's not innocent obtuseness.
Aug '10
Re: Park 51 Replies
Gosh, I'm sorry Ragnarok. I misread "whether it is he who is obtuse" as "whether he is obtuse". Obviously, you were asking whether we're obtuse for not holding him in greater suspicion. (Yes.)
Please excuse my stupid mistake.
Re: Park 51 Replies
Scott, Michael, Midget, et al., are making a solid case here. While I agree with Claire that there is absolutely a need to research the issue thoroughly, I would also point out that Andrew McCarthy has researched this topic 16 ways to Sunday, linking Rauf with The Muslim Brotherhood and uncovering various unsavory facets of this offensive project.
Over at The Corner today, McCarthy writes of the State Department dispatching Rauf on an outreach mission, and exposing a trend of naievete dating back at least as far as the Clinton Administration. A trend that keeps leading inexorably to more mischief, more attacks, more misery, more death. In addition to being a monumental offense against decency, Park 51 will be a testament to the seemingly infinite capacity for Western self delusion.
May '10
Re: Park 51 Replies
Excellent piece by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post today: Sacrilege at Ground Zero. In it, he raises a valid point: "Bloomberg's implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by "insensitive" Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction......as a practical matter, there's no guarantee that this couldn't happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?
An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in -- violating the same First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents -- and exercise a veto over the mosque's clergy?"
Re: Park 51 Replies
Claire Berlinski
Conor Friedersdorf: Claire,
Don't get me wrong. I very much want Israel to have its staunch defenders. But perhaps that project, and the work of gaining intra-Islam credibility to advocate for moderation, aren't best carried out by the same guy. · Aug 13 at 12:42am
You know, Conor, I've heard too many people in Turkey use this logic to have much patience with it anymore. "No, I can't say that about Hamas and Israel, I'll lose my credibility with the street and my ability to preach moderation." Not sure what good that ability to preach moderation does if you don't preach it. · Aug 13 at 6:40am
It's a concept that works well enough on an individual basis, Conor, but in the aggregate -- yikes. A moral, cultural, and political tragedy of the commons, so to speak. If no Muslim leader condemns the Hamas Charter, or Hezbollah, etc., then how will moderate Islam ever prevail?
Aug '10
Re: Park 51 Replies
James Poulos, Ed. A moral, cultural, and political tragedy of the commons, so to speak. Aug 13 at 8:44am
That so accurately describes so many problems!
I'd love to have tragedy-of-the-commons-type moral dilemmas, framed as such, be the subject of more Ricochet posts.
May '10
Re: Park 51 Replies
Claire Berlinski
The background research may seem tedious to you, but given--from initial appearances--the connection between Feisal and known financiers of declared terrorist groups, it's a tedium that must be endured. at 6:55am
Quite right, of course, and carry on, please. Here's what I mean (and should have made more clear): Discovering Islamist connections would be a sufficient condition to discrediting him, and therefore your hard work is very important--vital, in fact; however, some (Conor? maybe?) regard Islamist connections as a necessary condition, and therefore regard your coming back empty-handed as "Aha, see!" vindication. It isn't. The simple fact that he persists in spite of the obvious anguish he's causing to 9/11 families is sufficient to conclude that he's a creep (or obtuse, as you say, though I find that very hard to believe).
And yes, being obtuse or a creep (or an obtuse creep!) doesn't make one criminal. But criminality shouldn't be the only criterion we use in deciding whether to use all legal means to oppose this project.
May '10
Re: Park 51 Replies
James Poulos, Ed.
It's a concept that works well enough on an individual basis, Conor, but in the aggregate -- yikes. A moral, cultural, and political tragedy of the commons, so to speak. If no Muslim leader condemns the Hamas Charter, or Hezbollah, etc., then how will moderate Islam ever prevail? · Aug 13 at 8:44am
Well, if a Muslim leader persuasively condemns all terrorism, successfully enough that it happens a lot less frequently, then condemning the Hamas Charter -- a document that certainly deserves condemnation -- seems a lot less important. IMHO, an Imam working for moderation MUST denounce a suicide bombing, or a rocket attack aimed at Israeli civilians.
But MUST he condemn the flotilla in order to have a positive effect? I don't think so.
Re: Park 51 Replies
Conor Friedersdorf
But MUST he condemn the flotilla in order to have a positive effect? I don't think so. · Aug 13 at 4:36pm
Depends how significant you believe that flotilla to be. I argue here that it marks the emergence of a regional tactical development on the order of the PLO’s pioneering use of terrorism. It can't be ignored: They're trying to start a regional war, and they may succeed. It's too dangerous for everyone collectively to pretend that it's not what it is--an unbelievably dangerous game the goal of which is to start a war.
Re: Park 51 Replies
Scott Reusser
The simple fact that he persists in spite of the obvious anguish he's causing to 9/11 families is sufficient to conclude that he's a creep (or obtuse, as you say, though I find that very hard to believe).
I completely agree. But the most important question, the one that needs to be dealt with first, is whether he's more than an obtuse creep. And I'm not seeing that dealt with. Maybe it's being investigated by law-enforcement officials even as I type, but they're being quiet about it. (As they should be, until they have something firm to report.)