"Why is it that the very name, the Cordoba institute, HAS to take on the meaning of those vilifying him - that of the supercessionist element of Muslim history? Why can it not be the stated meaning of the organization which holds that Cordoba celebrates the "Golden Age " in Spain - a time when Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together in relative peace - a time of great thinkers and great accomplishments? These are the kinds of counter arguments that no one is making effectively or sharing with the public."
“According to Imam Rauf; terrorism is usually defined by the acting party’s intent to harm innocent people. If a suicide bomber intentionally takes the lives of innocent people, he is obviously guilty of terrorism. By contrast, if the United States and its coalition forces drop bombs on the wrong buildings in Baghdad (or any other city) and the bombs kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people, including many women and children, we define this as collateral damage, not terrorism. We draw this distinction because we had no intent to kill civilians."
------------------------------------------
There has been much said and written about the political stances or statements of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. He has been accused of blaming the US for 9/11, for not speaking out against Hamas, for having "ties" and connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and for preaching an extreme version of Islam. I have been asking friends and colleagues on the right to provide more than just accusations, intimations, and tenuous connections. To this date, I have yet to see hard evidence. In this spirit I am posting portions of an excellent piece from the New York Times that sifts through some of the accusations and some of the facts.
I write this not to defend every thing the Imam has said. My first gaol is to set the record straight and end the demagoguery. My second goal is to paint a picture of someone who may be controversial, but who is by no means outside the pale of what mainstream Muslims and Americans are allowed to say about America, Israel, and the Middle East. Of course, the extension of this argument is to ask whether the statements he actually has made rise to such a level as to deny his organization the right to build their Islamic Center in lower Manhattan.
I believe some of his statements do contradict themselves and are wrong. For example, he wants to say, when speaking about Israel, that Palestinian terrorism targeted against civilians is morally equivalent to Israeli attacks where civilians are killed regrettably. However, he has also stated that when Americans bomb terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, civilian deaths are NOT the same because there was no intention to kill. I find that disingenuous because Americans do the same cost/benefit analysis as Israelis and that is something no one wants to talk about. Clearly there is an anti-Israel bias in some of his statements. But even with that, I do not think it makes him an extremist. I would disagree with him and argue against him, but not deny him the right to build his center.
While that may be one element of his philosophy that some may find problematic, I think there is much more that can be clarified that would counter what many are saying about him and his organization. Speaking of which, why is it that the very name, the Cordoba institute, HAS to take on the meaning of those vilifying him - that of the supersecionist element of Muslim history which holds that Mosques are built on top of or in place of churches and synagogues to make a bold statement about the supremacy of Islam? Why can it not be the stated meaning of the organization which holds that Cordoba celebrates the "Golden Age " - a time when Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together in relative peace - a time of great thinkers and great accomplishments? These are the kinds of counter arguments that no one is making effectively or sharing with the public.
So please, read on and share some or all of this with your friends - or anyone really who you think may need to see the other side of this debate.
--------------------------------------------
The Internet is crowded with claims and counterclaims about Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the proposed Muslim community center and mosque two blocks from ground zero. The following is a sampling of some of the most often quoted complaints, combined with writings and statements from Mr. Abdul Rauf and his Cordoba Initiative, which has posted a frequently asked questions page on its Web site about the proposed project and the planners’ views. In his book “What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America,” Mr. Abdul Rauf writes:
“The truth is that killing innocent people is always wrong — and no argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people, no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and sisters on this earth. ... Islamic law is clearly against terrorism, against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar ‘collateral damage.’ ”
The book also includes a copy of the fatwa, a religious ruling, issued by senior Middle Eastern Muslim clerics that called the 9/11 attacks un-Islamic. The ruling, requested by the United States military’s top Muslim chaplain, gave permission to Muslims in the United States armed forces to fight in the war in Afghanistan. In the book, the imam also elaborates on an argument that may make some Americans uncomfortable but has been put forward by many mainstream American analysts: that terrorism is viewed differently by different populations and that understanding those various views, whether or not one agrees with them, is central to resolving disputes. In “In the West,” he writes:
“Terrorism is usually defined by the acting party’s intent to harm innocent people. If a suicide bomber intentionally takes the lives of innocent people, he is obviously guilty of terrorism. By contrast, if the United States and its coalition forces drop bombs on the wrong buildings in Baghdad (or any other city) and the bombs kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people, including many women and children, we define this as collateral damage, not terrorism. We draw this distinction because we had no intent to kill civilians. ..."
“By contrast, however, many Muslims in the Middle East look primarily at the result of our actions. ... The result is a common view in the Middle East that the U.S. is perfectly willing to kill innocent civilians when it suits America’s goals.”
The imam applies the same analysis to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
“Israel points to the intentional repeated killing of innocent civilians as obvious proof that the Palestinians are guilty of terrorism — and the horrible images of bomb victims cannot be denied. Palestinians, however, counter that the overall number of civilians killed is higher on their side, and they rage with equal passion against Israeli terrorism.’ ”
On United States Policies
Perhaps the most often quoted statement used to portray Mr. Abdul Rauf as a “terrorist sympathizer,” as the New York gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio calls him in a campaign advertisement, is this, from “60 Minutes” on Sept. 30, 2001:
“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”
Mr. Abdul Rauf’s supporters say he was expressing a view common among American policy advisers: that dissatisfaction with American policies is one, if not the only, driver of anti-American sentiment and attacks.
The Following are portions of a transcript dealing with this issue:
ED BRADLEY: How — how do you feel as a Muslim knowing that people of your faith committed this act that resulted in the loss of probably 6,000 lives?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: It’s painful. But when this thing first happened, everybody in the community said, “Oh, God, let this not be a person from our faith, tradition or from our background.”
MR. BRADLEY: What would you say to — to people in this country, who, looking at what happens in the Middle East, would associate Islam with fanaticism, with terrorism?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam. That’s — that’s just as absurd as associating Hitler with Christianity or — or David Koresh with Christianity. There are always people who will — who will do peculiar things and think that they are doing things in the name of their religion. But — but the Koran — you know, God says in the Koran that they think that they’re doing right, but they’re doing wrong. ...
MR. BRADLEY (voiceover): And throughout the Muslim world, there is also strong opposition to America’s foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, because of its support of Israel and economic sanctions against Iraq.
MR. ABDUL RAUF: It is a reaction against the policies of the U.S. government, politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights and where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.
MR. BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.MR. BRADLEY: O.K. You say that we’re an accessory?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: Yes.
MR. BRADLEY: How?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A. ...
The Cordoba Initiative elaborates: “The ‘60 Minutes’ piece was completely incorrect, as the statement was edited out of context. In the full interview, Imam Feisal describes the mistake the C.I.A. made in the 1980s by financing Osama bin Laden and strengthening the Taliban. This view is widely shared within the U.S. and the U.S. government today, and Imam Feisal underlines the importance of not supporting ‘friends of convenience’ who may in the future become our enemies.
“Imam Feisal is an American who takes his role as a citizen-ambassador very seriously. He is frequently requested by the U.S. State Department to tour Muslim majority and Western countries to speak about the merits of American ideals and Muslim integration into Western society. At the request of the F.B.I. after 9/11, he provided cultural training to hundreds of F.B.I. agents.”
On Hamas
Mr. Abdul Rauf is often described as having refused to call Hamas — the Palestinian group that pioneered suicide bombings in Israel, prevailed in Palestinian elections in 2006 and now controls the Gaza Strip — a terrorist organization. On 77 WABC radio on June 18, the talk radio host Aaron Klein asked him, “Do you believe that the State Department is correct in designating Hamas as a terrorist organization?”There ensued a long conversation with many interruptions, in which Mr. Abdul Rauf said:
“Well, I’m not a politician. ... The issue of terrorism is a very complex question. ... I am a bridge builder. My work is ... I do not want to be placed nor will I accept a position where I am the target of one side or another. My attempt is to see a peace in Israel. ... Targeting of civilians is wrong. It’s a sin in our religion, whoever does it. ... I am a supporter of the State of Israel."
The Cordoba Initiative’s Web site elaborates: “Imam Feisal has always condemned terrorism (see his ... hundreds of speeches). Hamas is both a political movement and a terrorist organization. Hamas commits atrocious acts of terror. Imam Feisal has forcefully and consistently condemned all forms of terrorism, including those committed by Hamas, as un-Islamic.”
On The Muslim Brotherhood
Opponents have claimed that Mr. Abdul Rauf or his father, Muhammad Abdul Rauf, had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group that pioneered religious militancy in Egypt starting in the 1930s, attacking government officials and influencing the founders of Hamas. In recent decades, the group has renounced violence. Some have claimed that the son’s book was published in Arabic by a publisher with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Cordoba Initiative’s list of frequently asked questions says, “The Arabic translation rights to his book were arranged by the Arabic book program at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, United States of America.”
In "Balancing Act for Imam in Muslim Center Furor" (August 22, 2010) - Alyssa Lappen posts on the Web site Pajamas Media, declares, “Feisal Rauf’s Muslim Brotherhood provenance, radical by definition, is as authentic as it gets.”
But the only evidence she offers is this:“Rauf’s father, Dr. Muhammad Abdul Rauf (1917-2004) — an Egyptian contemporary of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna — conveyed to Feisal his family’s long tradition of radicalism, which he acquired at Islam’s closest equivalent to the Vatican, Al-Azhar University.”
In other words, he was the same age as the Brotherhood’s founder and attended Al-Azhar University, a leading educational institution of mainstream Islam. Mr. Abdul Rauf’s father worked at the behest of the Egyptian government during decades in which the Muslim Brotherhood was a greater threat to Egyptian security than it is now, and Egypt’s secular government was working hard to root them out.
At Al-Azhar last week, Abdel Moety Bayoumi, the former dean of a department studying Islamic law, said of Muhammad Abdul Rauf: “He is well known in Azhar and he is known for his moderation. During his time, there wasn’t this battle between moderation and terrorism. ... The general picture of Islam and its scholars was one of moderation. The extremists at that time were a minority and they were in isolated pockets in the Muslim world. Extremism had not entered the mainstream.”
More on Terrorism and US Culpability
Some claim these statements incriminate Rauf about his support of terrorism. The question is whether he is merely explaining Muslim/Arab sentiment or appologizing for it. I think he may actually be blurring the line - and that is a problem. Hes is right to say the West does not think enough about the damage it does in the Muslim World, but to equivocate on terrorism and moral equivalency is not going to endear him to Americans who are paying attetion. But again, does this make him an extremist, or a terrorist. Fox News would say YES. I would say NO.
"The complexity arises, sir, from the fact that - from political problems and the history of the politics between the West and the Muslim world. We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US lead sanction against Iraq lead to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.
What complicates the discussion, intra-Islamically, is the fact that the West has not been cognisant and has not addressed the issues of its own contribution to much injustice in the Arab and Muslim world. It is a difficult subject to discuss with Western audiences but it is one that must be pointed out and must be raised.
How many of you have seen the documentary: Fahrenheit 911? The vast majority - at least half here. Do you remember the scene of the Iraqi woman whose house was bombed and she was just screaming, "What have they done." Now, I don't know, you don't know Arabic but in Arabic it was extremely powerful. Her house was gone. Her husband, I think, was killed. What wrong did he do? I found myself weeping when I watched that scene and I imagined myself if I were a 15-year old nephew of this deceased man, what would I have felt?
Collateral damage is a nice thing to put on a paper but when the collateral damage is your own uncle or cousin, what passions do these arouse? How do you negotiate? How do you tell people whose homes have been destroyed, whose lives have been destroyed, that this does not justify your actions of terrorism. It's hard. Yes, it is true that it does not justify the acts of bombing innocent civilians, that does not solve the problem, but after 50 years of, in many cases, oppression, of US support of authoritarian regimes that have violated human rights in the most heinous of ways, how else do people get attention?
So ... there's a sense in the Arab and Muslim world that the European world and Western world is just - does not care about our lives or human lives. There's a perception in much of the Arab world and the Muslim world that the issue is about race. That the Palestinian Israeli issue is less about religion than it is about race because about 25 per cent or more of the Palestinians or the Arabs are Christian. Many people in the West are unaware that Palestinians are not uniformally Muslim. "
