I've been waiting for the return of Imam Rauf (from what Foxnews calls “his taxpayer supported trip to the middle east”) and now he is back. I wanted to hear his calm serene view of the controversy that I had sided with him on in the 8-18 post. I was very disappointed. In an interview with CNN he said about the Park 51 project:
...
RAUF: I am extremely concerned about sensitivity. But I also have a responsibility. If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack. And I'm less concerned about the radicals in America than I'm concerned about the radicals in the Muslim world.
O'BRIEN: But isn't that also saying you're less concerned about the voices of opposition here?
RAUF: And if we do -- no, no, no, no. I'm sorry, I don't mean it that way. I meant it, the danger from the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security, to the national security of our troops.
I have a niece who works in the Army and served in Iraq. The concern for American citizens who live and work and travel overseas will increasingly be compromised if the radicals are strengthened. And if we do move, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit, and their increasing aggression and violence against our country.
He equates the “radicals in America” and the “radicals in the Muslim world”. It seems clear that by the first he means those who oppose his project by the second he means Muslim terrorists. It seems to be quite clearly an attempt to win an argument by intimidation. “If I can't build Park 51 then Muslims will kill Americans.”
I think that at best he has exhibited some very bad judgment. When I come to this kind of conclusion that (some would say) leans to one side I always want to check what the other side is saying. The quotes above are from Media Matters which tells me that “if Rauf is threatening us, then so was Petraeus”. Which means MM can't tell the difference between a) burning the Quran and b) saying no to something that a Muslim wants to do. That is pretty sad.
I will be interested to see Rauf's future remarks.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, I think a lot of people are having trouble with his remarks. Here is my take.
ReplyDeleteI do NOT think Rauf’s remarks was intended to be a threat, simply an acknowledgement of reality that does not fit neatly in the mosaic of Muslim tolerance that he is desperate to foster. If you burn Qurans heads will be cut off. If you do not build the Mosque at Park 51 heads will be cut off. Rauf said it, I believe it.
Perhaps the definition of “tolerance” is not that intuitive.
a friend sends this from the times:
ReplyDeleteSeptember 15, 2010
The Lede: English Soccer Hooligans at Ground Zero http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/english-soccer-hooligans-at-ground-zero/?emc=eta1
By ROBERT MACKEY
What were English flags doing at the protest on Sept. 11 in New York against an Islamic community center?
The EDL’s stated goal is to protest the spread of Sharia law and Islamic extremism. While their position would certainly be considered far right it MAY (and I stress may) be unfair to label them anti Muslim. What I can say with certainty is that the article referenced above clearly labels the protest by the EDL as anti-Muslim while all of the banners carried by the group are clearly anti-Mosque.
ReplyDeleteAs for British flags at a 911 event in NY, I have to admit that it does raise a red flag as to motive. Beyond that I have no problem with it.