It’s gotta be said. I am so sick of the Islamophobia in America right now, particularly fueled currently by the “Ground Zero” mosque and championed by key leaders in the Republican party. And by that I mean Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Fox News. It’s a dirty, divisive campaign tactic to garner votes in November and anyone with brain cells can see how transparent this is. My twitter feed can’t go ten minutes without getting a retweet from some dimwit on the issue or anti-Muslim sentiment.
But Congressional Candidate Ami Berra? Come ON.
Dr. Ami Bera, the Democrat challenger to Congressional incumbent Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), was blasted by the California Republican Party for accepting a $250 donation from the Sacramento chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. [cbs13]
First of all, it’s only a $250 donation. Second of all, it’s CAIR, one of the tamest, not-so-progressive, largest national Muslim advocacy group around. I’m not the biggest fan of CAIR’s work (mainly because it’s not left or inclusive enough) but the Republican candidate’s anti-Muslim targeting of Ami Berra’s campaign contribution is absurd. Third (and most importantly) CAIR is a 501c3 organization so they can’t make donations to candidates. The money came from Basim Elkarra, the current Executive Director of Sacramento-CAIR and who also happens to be elected to the Executive Board of the California Democratic Party. Which basically means it’s the individual citizen that made the donation, not an organization that said citizen works for.
Does the Doctor stand by his Muslim donor?
Dr. Bera gave the donation back. His spokesperson issued a statement, saying, “We returned the contribution after questions about the organization’s affiliations arose. This is a diversionary tactic designed by Rep. Lungren and his proxies to deflect from jobs, the economy and health care — the issues that this campaign is about.” [cbs13]
If it’s a diversionary tactic, why’d you give the money back? For the record Dr. Berra, Muslim-Americans donate AND Muslim Americans vote. You have them in your district. Some of them were probably even planning on voting for you. The fact that you folded to the anti-Muslim rhetoric on the right so easily will not bode well for you on November 2nd. How easily will you fold to them if you are in Congress? Pretty easily, I would guess.
” championed by key leaders in the Republican party. And by that I mean Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Fox News”
Senator Harry Reid, the democratic leader of the senate is also against the mosque; so are nearly 70% of americans and 63% of new yorkers. As an agnostic Muslim, I am against wasting monies on houses of worship, but if you allow one, you have to allow all. Something the Imam behind the Mosque does not exactly espouse – he, along with other Muslim leaders, once urged American elite to substitute the declaration, “…….America is founded on judeo-christian values” with ” america is founded on abrahamic values”; the latter declaration would implicitly include islam. He could care less about hindus, buddhists and other non abrahamic faiths. so much for him being “moderate”
Hey guys, as per my last post, I found the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJUrtxf2xOY
Starscream eliminates Ratchet and Ironhide at about 7:40 using Megatron in his gun mode…Check it out…
I think this film in general holds a lot of resonance for South Asians in America…we identify instinctually with the Autobots and their desire for peaceful forms of protest. Optimus Prime is a lot like Ghandiji in how he yearns to be free from the ugly realities of the world surrounding him, but, like Jyoti Basu, former communist supremo of West Bengal, he is prevented from coming to terms with his dual identity as a political icon…much like we as desis struggle to address our desire to straddle two worlds, one modern and western, the other traditional and eastern. Oftentimes we are reduced to using reductivism to define our collective identity, using historically outdated but culturally relevant touchstones like vegetarianism to mask our socio-economic realities in our geo-political times.
As time moves forward from here, I hope we never become like the Decepticons…Megatron’s thirst for influence in his world is against our culture…and I hope we as desis in America are always doing the things that are about our culture and not the things that are against our culture…I will organize a Raasta Roko soon to protest Megatron’s actions in the film…All respect to Tazji who started this thread!!
“and I find that non-Muslims in the West think that the Muslim community is a lumped identity of other instead of individuals. “
You could have fooled me. While growing up in a Muslim family in New York, the only time Ｉ heard my family members complain was when Muslims were being affected. And this was the case with my entire extended family and any Muslim friends we had. ALL of them. When was the last time we have expressed outrage [real outrage, warranting a blog post] on the horrendous plight of minorities in Pakistan. Or, Kashmiri Hindus in Indian controlled Kashmir…etc, etc. p.s. Why is the entire Muslim community falling behind this Mosque idea?
Leave poor Berra alone, he is a politician, mere appearance of impropiety will damage his chances of getting elected (if he was ever going to get elected). He just gave back some some money.
As for the proposed center – it should be built right where it has been proposed. It is a private property and Imam Faoud and his team have right to build their center and a place for worship. One can hope that after this the supporters of the center will become fierce defenders of first amendment, that they will support the rights of Kurt Westergaard. Maybe Imam will issue a fatwa FOR the defense of first amendment.
I’m curious as to which construction company will be willing to sign on to build the mosque. Many construction groups worked on the WTC cleanup. With the Imam announcing that funding from Iran and Saudi Arabia was a possibility, will any company want to touch this project with a 100 foot crane ? They might land up losing future contracts from all the ill will being generated.
First off, why the eff are SM moderators so biased in their moderation of personal attacks in the comments? If Zachary had called Ikram an idiot with idiotic views, I am sure Zachary would be blocked.
My powers of articulation are not great, so I’ll just let go with my version of a stream of consciousness approach.
I really get what Zachary and Zainab have said and its beyond me why so many ‘progressive’ Muslims don’t get it. The whole concept of civilized behavior relies on mutual reciprocity. If Muslim nations won’t give a rat’s ass about other religions and if muslims living in the west don’t raise a stink about it, why is there surprise when other cultures/religions get defensive and express anti Islamic center at ground zero type sentiments? Zainab, I really wish I had more exposure to your likes.
Taz: of course there is a ‘back home’ for you which is not the US. That back home is simply a metaphysical one – and without which this blog and a so called ‘south asian’ identity won’t exist.
thanks Zainab for echoing my thoughts more eloquently thank I could; Joe Jake great points. I think the idiot comment was uncalled for.
Ikram I didn’t know we descend into name-calling; just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I’m an idiot. Please stop with the victimisation and “slick marketing” mate; answer Zainab’s point. Muslims are very communal and get very aggrieved when Muslims are affected; and yes there is a double standard. Irish & Jewish extremists at least had the good sense not to attack America itself.
“ZLatif — Civil Liberties for all? What American groups are Muslims opposed to? What American religious or ethnic group are they blocking?”
As I said I believe that American Muslims have been accepted by “Constitutional America” to be accepted by “Cultural America” they are going to collectively adapt; this is true for Western Muslims generally.
It’s pretty self-evident what I mean; we need daily deafening vocal condemnations of any sort of religious-motivated violence. Also we need to respect free speech; already self-censorship is high “nobody wants to get a fatwa”.
Yes these things need to be examined and reflected and acted upon; these are the key issues, mosque building isn’t one of them. Once American & Western Muslims begin to venerate free thought, diversity and yes Western values by condemning extremists with a fervour more than mainstream Westerners you’ll see an open-armed acceptance by “cultural America”.
Focus on cultural and economic prosperity rather than political and violent advancement which is what the Muslim world seems obsessed by.
If these idiotic views then so be it.
we’ve got israel-firsters, cuba-firsters, and now we’ll have ummah-firsters because it’s only fair! great. (the “india-firsters” who’ve shown up on this blog tend to be DBD or people who live in south asia, so that seems a somewhat different category, but i don’t know).
i’m with you a lot zach, but i don’t get the whole program of western muslims criticizing illiberalism in the muslim world. what’s it going to change? seems like the best thing is to show that muslims can succeed in the west and be an object of emulation. using the jewish example, and ikram has called himself a muslim version of a ‘secular european jew’ on my blog before, jews don’t criticize the racism and religionism at the heart of the jewish state in the way they would the same sort of illiberalism in the USA (the jews who do, and there are many, are less attached to israel in the first place and have other issues which they direct their energies).* and ethno-state for me, but not for thee. people on this blog talk about brownz emulating jews, and we’ve seen where that goes….
(i’ve gone on the record that the emulation should be of italians, a cultural identity, but not politically mobilized as a lobby)
“but saudi arabia also has mecca & medina. “
Do Christians in Israel/Palestine therefore represent all of Christianity?
a lot. optics is one but that is not the most important one. the more you voice support for human rights everywhere (not just for yourself because you happen to live in the US) the more you get vested in it. the change happens individually at first, then the family, then the community. so you children grow up believing that is the only way to live.
Do Christians in Israel/Palestine therefore represent all of Christianity?
since christians in israel palestine are ~1% of the population now, well, not really. if you are being serious that analogy is so weak and as to be laughable. but i don’t think you were being serious. if you were you would point to the obvious analogy: do jews in israel/palestine therefore represent all of judaism? no, that would be ‘tarded (in fact, i don’t think anyone would say that saudi represents all of islam, but it does have a lot of pull because of oil and the holy sites). but the actions of israel jews do reflect on the world jewry because 1) they say they’re a jewish state, and have a special role (to some extent self-anointed, but now somewhat accepted) within the jewish community. 2) the geographical location on which the state of israel sits has a special meaning for the jewish religion. saudi arabia is similar for muslims because of mecca & medina. but i honestly i don’t think you’re interested in having a real discussion on the details, you have your mind made up as to how ‘bigoted’ anyone who uses saudi arabia as any sort of exemplar is i guess, when there is some validity in the point even if not as much as your interlocutors seem to think (i.e., arabia has had a marginal role in the development of islamic law, theology, and civilization more generally after the first few decades). i don’t know you at all, but from stuff i’ve seen before i would have expected a bit better. but it’s the internet, so wuteva.
a lot. optics is one but that is not the most important one. the more you voice support for human rights everywhere (not just for yourself because you happen to live in the US) the more you get vested in it. the change happens individually at first, then the family, then the community. so you children grow up believing that is the only way to live.
is there academic literature on this? i.e., could you give me some citations? obviously there’s variation in parochialism by group and i’d be curious to know how it happens.
“Zachary Latif on August 19, 2010 2:15 PM · Direct link Rajesh I would never imply that. As per the article “2 Americas” rights and acceptance are two different things.
If Muslims want to be accepted as cultural Americans instead of constitutional Americans they will have to assimilate and actually believe in civil liberties for all.”
“Cultural Americans”? Who has the authority to define and to draw the boundary of “cultural Americans”? The rainbow flag wavers or the Koran burning patriots? Will this kind of demand be extended to Santorum who shared a lot of ideas considered “illiberal” by the left? Does he then have the onus to prove that he deserved to live in America? If he doesn’t, which land should we deport him then, pls enlightened me?
@Zachary Latif “Anyway my point is this that its a two-way street; I deal with alot of Muslims even though I am a non Muslim because of my ethnic background (Pakistani & Iranian). I find that Muslims in the West want the liberties and freedom of the West but are very apathetic about that back home.
Yes this is a generalisation (I qualify every post with this) but its a two way street; first of all I am tired of victimisation and second of all I want outright condemnations of violence and bigotry from Muslims about Muslim actions. Its so conditional.”
Pakistan and Iranian? Like Benazir Bhutto? I agreed that every ethnic group in America must first condemnded what their kinds are doing outside of America before wallowing in “self-pity” in America. Blacks and Hispanics should stop demanding more space in America as long Blacks are killing each other in Rwanda, in Sudan, in Nigeria and while Hispanics engaged in discriminations among themselves in Latin America.
I wrote a long post but then scrapped it. Its all rooted in goodness or God if not both. If my “God” commanded me to do an evil action I would refuse him. Defying one’s maker for a higher cause is perhaps one of the most noble acts of creation; they should teach that in Catholic School or the Madrassas.
Theists need to realise that if organised religion is to survive it has to move absolutely entirely beyond literalism and parochialism. Sacrificing rationalism skepiticism for belief is unacceptable in this day and age. That’s what I like about religious non-Orthodox Jewry and possibly liberal Protestants; they’re able to take things in their stride without worrying too much about them (imho).
Also Razib I like the “Italian model”; I dislike ethnic lobbies manipulating a host nation. It will invariably create a backlash and also trades on the goodwill of the host population (which does not last forever). I like the idea however of Diasporas as “Goodwill Ambassadors between Civilisations” (to paraphrase Khatami).
Anon re “Cultural America” vs. “Constitutional America”; I believe that there is a cultural America, which has defined the world. I would define it perhaps as lite-Wasp? I’m putting it out there since I am not American (but incidentally my whole extended family is).
Like Benazir Bhutto. Funny story, Benazir was once asked by her friend how much Persian she knew. She replied, “enough to understand the family gossip”.
“Pakistan and Iranian? Like Benazir Bhutto? I agreed that every ethnic group in America must first condemnded what their kinds are doing outside of America before wallowing in “self-pity” in America. Blacks and Hispanics should stop demanding more space in America as long Blacks are killing each other in Rwanda, in Sudan, in Nigeria and while Hispanics engaged in discriminations among themselves in Latin America.”
I agree entirely; ethnics need to “grow up”. Kudos to the East Asians who seem to have really pulled it together from what I’ve seen.
Razib,
I just don’t think it’s fair to pick one country amongst many to “represent” the ‘real’ form of any religion that is so widely spread. Sure, Mecca and Medina are in Saudi Arabia, but Wahhabism, which is a modern extremist group, seems to have little to do with the world population. Using geography as a reason to define why Saudi Islam is representative of all makes little sense to me, just as saying the 1% of population that are Christians in Israel/Palestine represent Christianity. They have historical and geographical significance, but I think there is a big distinction between that and representation. Both Christianity and Islam are spread all over the world (I’ll just focus on these two for now). Many people of different cultures and backgrounds have made them part of their own. Both religions have their own extremists– (as does pretty much every religion I can think of) — but these extremists do not represent the whole.
I have many Muslim friends, from different countries, such as Egypt, Afghanistan, and India. I sponsor 3 Muslim girls educations. Yet, amongst all of these, I have never heard an utterance of support for violence, terrorism, etc. Everyone seems to like to forget the normal Muslim people and focus on the crazy extremists. We have our own crazy extremist Christians in America– a few weeks back they stood in the downtown with signs with hate-filled language, screaming at crowds. If I were to judge all Christians based on them I would decide Christianity is a patriarchal, anti-human rights religion. Yet, I know they do not represent the all, and other Christians don’t support them.
linzi,
thanks for the response. i pretty much disagree, but with that kind of comment i have something to respond to (you didn’t stuff words into my mouth like ikram did a bit hysterically above).
first, i don’t think there’s a ‘real’ for of a religion. i’m on the record as saying that above. i think all religion is a human construct, and i judge it by the actions of believers. what they believe is of little consequence to me unless it impinges on my domain. so some people do make the identity of saudi arabia with islam qua islam, but they’re dumb, and there’s no point with arguing about that.
second, i believe that you unduly dismiss the outsized role that saudis, and to some extent arabs, have in islam. there’s a tacit racial hierarchy within islam i’ve perceived when it comes to religious authority, arab > persian > turk > south asian > southeast asian & africa. you could probably quibble on the details, but i think it’s there. south asians & africans make up arab, persian and turk ancestry, the inverse does not happen. it is a stereotype that chinese, indian, african, etc. muslims go on the hajj to saudi arabia, and come back with new practices which they deem the “real islam.” this isn’t even salafi/wahhabism. even the islam of the hejaz (which was not traditionally that of wahabbism). many pious muslims around the world respect saudi arabia because 1) it’s historical role in islam 2) the oil wealth which it yields for islamic causes 3) a consequence of which is saudi inflected religious beliefs spreading across the world. re: #3, it’s a little simple to just say “it started with the saudis.” the deobandis in india and fulani fundamentalists in nigeria are independent instantiations of islamic revivalism of a purist sort, but, the saudi “money bomb” supercharged these movements vis-a-vis homegrown islamic traditions. of course the flip side of the respect that saudis and arabs get is racism from turks and persians (in part conventional racism because arabs are darker and are reputed to have african ancestry, and in part because of the long cultural and political slumber between 1000 and 1900 AD), and also a perception that they’re kind of uppity because of their oil $$$. the same people who will revere the piety of saudi arabians will admit that they’re an arrogant and lazy folk. my relatives who worked in the arab world often have a two-fold shift, first in their islamic practices or perception of what islam is, as well as a more concrete contempt for gulf arabs because of the racism and exploitation which they went through.
I have many Muslim friends, from different countries, such as Egypt, Afghanistan, and India. I sponsor 3 Muslim girls educations. Yet, amongst all of these, I have never heard an utterance of support for violence, terrorism, etc. Everyone seems to like to forget the normal Muslim people and focus on the crazy extremists. We have our own crazy extremist Christians in America– a few weeks back they stood in the downtown with signs with hate-filled language, screaming at crowds. If I were to judge all Christians based on them I would decide Christianity is a patriarchal, anti-human rights religion. Yet, I know they do not represent the all, and other Christians don’t support them.
go here: http://religions.pewforum.org
click ‘comparisons’, and you will see that american muslims are about as socially conservative as evangelical protestant christians. american muslims are ‘moderates.’ but i would argue that the social center of islam is basically where conservative christianity is. as for support for violence and terrorism, well, what is ‘terrorism’? muslims and americans have very different geopolitical perspectives influenced by different histories. i pretty much reject your equivalence of right-wing american christians with islamists though. i think the really extreme crazies (reconstructionists, dominionists, etc.) have less support that islamists do in muslim countries. it is well known that islamic parties generally don’t win in muslim countries, but they gain 5 or 10% of the vote. that’s not trivial.
If I were to judge all Christians based on them I would decide Christianity is a patriarchal, anti-human rights religion. Yet, I know they do not represent the all, and other Christians don’t support them.
also, when secular liberals worry about the influence of religion on politics in the USA this is what they’re talking about. doesn’t matter that conservative christians are only 1/3 of american christians, what matters is that these the christians who are politically organized and active, and they organize around their faith. so it doesn’t matter necessarily what a majority of a religion or group believers, motivated minorities can change everything. this is what wahhabism was in saudi arabia, or what deobandism in pakistan is. and yet they set the tone.
What fabulous commentary! Intelligent with only subtle anti-Muslim/anti-Hindu sentiments!
These are my thoughts:
I think this is the most intelligent thing written on this post – “if the core muslim world didn’t have oil, and israel didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be many issues with muslims and their politics, just as there aren’t issues with african immigrants and their politics. we don’t live in that world.”
As a Muslim, it breaks my heart that Mecca and Medina are in the oppressive country of Saudi Arabia, where a woman isn’t even allowed to drive. And as an American, it breaks my heart that my country has economic ties to them. It pissed me off beyond belief when I saw the picture of George W. holding hands with King Abdullah.
Also, I think it is absolutely true that Muslims in America should be vocal opponents of genocide, racism, discrimination. The Qu’ran demands that of Muslims (it does!). But unfortunately, that doesn’t happen.
I think the sentiment that moderate Muslims, specifically those in the Middle East/Central Asia, should be able to root out militants is a bit naive. When the extremists are the ones with the money (see above GW Bush + King Abdullah) and the guns, and you have neither, you’re not going to speak out against their politics and their distortion of your religion. I feel sorry for the common Saudi, Pakistani, Sudani, etc (any other country in the Muslim world). They are an oppressed people. They can’t even practice their religion according to how they interpret it. They have to practice it according to how their rulers interpret it.
I love being an American. I’m all for celebrating both Eids, Diwali, Holi, Christmas, Easter, Passover, Rosh Hashanah… It enriches my life, makes me a better human, and a better Muslim. Plus, I love a party!
53: @Zainab: p.s. Why is the entire Muslim community falling behind this Mosque idea?
Aap ke munh mein ghee shakkar.
I confess I’m puzzled too to see many of my (very un-fanatic) Muslim friends unable to see beyond “Gotta oppose Newt and Palin” – as though every opinion must be calibrated against what they say. Many Americans – none of whom are named Newt or Palin – are unhappy with locating a mosque in that exact location but will grin (or grimace) and bear it because America is a law-abiding nation above all else.
Do not many people see the placing of the mosque near ground zero as analogous to insisting on one’s “constitutional right” to plant a confederate flag near some symbol of African American pride – say MLK’s grave ?
yes. it is exactly the same because the center piece of islam is terrorism just like the center piece of confederacy was retaining slavery. what’s next? the swastika next to a synagogue analogy?
Do not many people see the placing of the mosque near ground zero as analogous to insisting on one’s “constitutional right” to plant a confederate flag near some symbol of African American pride – say MLK’s grave ?
well, i admit to being anti-islam and to some extent ant-muslim, but even i find that analogy without qualification kind of offensive 😉
but that being said, it’s fine to people to accuse those who have issues with the mosque being where it is bigots, but that’s the good majority of americans, and many democrats, and even liberals like howard dean: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/08/maybe_better_not_to_speak_at_all.php
the issue here is that i don’t think most americans have thought about ‘the mosque on ground zero’ in detail. i really haven’t, i’m on record saying there’s serious policy issues to debate and this is a distraction. but assuming that everyone who thinks that the cultural center being at that location is probably not for the best is a raving bigot, basically an attitude i’ve seen on some liberal weblogs, especially by liberal new yorkers with blogs, is probably not helpful.
Is it that much of a stretch to imagine there are people brought up in the American South who may associate other values with the Confederate flag as a symbol of Southern culture (other than racist attitudes towards African Americans, that is) ?
Honestly I think this is really just an artifact of people who aren’t familiar with the scale of New York failing to understand what’s going on. The mosque is “near” Ground Zero in the sense that you can walk there. But 2 blocks in Manhattan has hundreds of miles of Middle America worth of stuff in it. It’s a dense city. It’s not really a “Ground Zero mosque.” In fact, were it not for a couple of PR blunders on the part of whoever was running that project (the first one loudly trumpetting that they’re building a mosque on Ground Zero and the second one essentially implying the the building being hit by plane debris was analogous to God pointing at it and saying “build here”) I doubt anyone would have noticed or even made the connection.
WHOA there buddy. Who do you think you are trying to bring open-mindedness and rationality into this discussion? The internet is a place for demonizing everyone who disagrees with you and chiming in with snide one-liners. Don’t you know anything?
Our dominionist Christian party routinely wins 50% of the vote. :-p
The loud people get to frame the conversation. Once their voices get to be the dominant perspective then the debate turns into “Are you for or against them?” Once the money and schools and social networks come into the mix then it starts turning into “Are you for or against this guy who is super pious and is teaching your kids to read?” Even if people are put off by the extremism, the fact that folks are willing to accept their company will naturally pull the center of gravity within the polity towards the kooks and crazies.
Of course it also risks backlash, but this being geopolitics your only option by voicing a backlash would be to side with “the enemy.” So that’s understandably a difficult situation to create.
well, yes.
77: The internet is a place for demonizing everyone who disagrees with you and chiming in with snide one-liners.
🙂 True. The funny thing is that each one thinks he/she is being oh-so-witty.
It’s not as hard as you think Muslim societies (like most societies) are class-defined.
The extremists and hardlines are lower-middle class however the elite (unless its heavily distorted by commodity riches) is very often extremely syncretic and surprisingly tolerant. For instance in Pakistan while the elite may espouse silly politics (rant and rave about how they were victimised and abandoned by the US) most of them are self-proclaimed Sufis.
The key issue in the Muslim world is the lack of inspirational leadership; where are our Ataturks, Iqbals & Quaids to guide us to the next step. It reminds me of the book written by Richard Nixon that leadership ultimately is the true determinant of a nation’s course.
Every Pakistani (or most) complain about the calibre of their political leadership but in fact if you look at it most are surprisingly capable Bhuttos (Oxbridge), Sharifs (merchant princes), Imran Khan (Oxbridge/cricket), Musharraf (Corp commander extremely talented in the army), Awami Party (long lineage since Nehru-Gandhi days), MQM (urban middle class movement) and the Jamaat e Islami (liberal by extremist standards and surprisingly pragmatic). What has failed Pakistan is not our politicians but one rank below, our civil society and civic organising.
Also when I mention “Pakistan” take it as a shorthand for most of the Muslim world; very few problems are solely “Iranian” or “Pakistan” its universal to the Ummah. We need inspirational, vocal and diverse leadership from all quarters to shift the tone of the global community from hostile to conciliatory and reform. I hate this whole “infidel” divide; hopefully over time it goes away or at least softens to the Jewish term “Goy”. Islamic world can and must “deweaponise”; the Diaspora needs to plays it part in shouting this out rather than constantly heckling the host countries about non issue.
My point on Mosque building is this; I believe in a society for all where everyone should practise their belief. But why don’t Muslims buy up abandoned churches and renovate them. That way the skyline and architecture remains the same and it isn’t jarring; England can still have its dreaming spires even if the congregants inside are different to what was before.
Oil kingdoms are “Islam on steroids”; these countries could not have sustained such ideologies (would have turned into Afghanistan) but for their massive oil wealth.
Saudi, Iran, Qatar would have be to be like Bahrain & Dubai had there not be sitting on so much oil.
Um. The current rulers of Saudi Arabia were supported by the British; Iran made an attempt at parliamentary democracy as early as 1906 before the Russians shot the place up, and of course there was the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953. Am I saying these countries would be an amazing civil rights wonderland if these things hadn’t happened? No. But it does strike me as absurd and in really poor taste to hold the American Muslim community accountable for these outcomes, when Western/European “Christian” countries have done far more to actively screw things up in the Middle East.
and they’ve done the same thing to China, Japan, Asia, Africa and Latam; that’s no longer a plausible excuse.
Yes the past is the past let’s move on from it and be collectively constructive.
Don’t forget Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck. They are easy targets and deserve to be bashed. But I don’t think this is a political thing. Many repubs (Ted Olson, Bush, etc) have no quarrels about the mosque while a majority of dems do.
Let’s face it, this won’t go away any time soon. 9/11 was a turning point. Instead of brushing it off as unfounded mass hysteria, we need to first of all understand the validity of it after stripping away the conspiracy theories and other idiotic stuff. Fareed Zakaria has written extensively about failed states and the political/economic structure even in oil-rich gulf countries that contribute to the rise of wahhabism. And while there are different interpretations of the koranic command to “kill infidels”, non-muslims generally don’t have a positive view of the book or the prophet. When we hear about the Bombay massacre, the bombings in Bali, London, Madrid, in fact all over the world, and come a cross quotes like “I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad”, and hear about beheadings, honor killings, subjugation (and mutilation) of women, it does take a lot of effort to believe Islam is a religion of peace. Most muslims are peaceful by nature and want to get on with their lives and take care of their families but their religion is being hijacked by the fringe elements and unless more moderate muslims step up to the plate and speak out, their tarnished image won’t improve.
i want to clarify one point related to the origin of this thread – i support the building of the mosque at ground zero.
razib,
you are asking me back up an idea i expressed which seemed instinctively right – that we should voice support for human rights everywhere and criticism of states which do not provide them. fair enough. i can point to kwame anthony appiah’s Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers.
I am paraphrasing and extracting from the book:
In today’s world of modern communication we can affect lives everywhere and can learn about life anywhere. It is possible now to take minds and hearts formed over millennia of living in local troops and equip them with ideas and institutions that will allow us to live together as the global tribe that we have become while at the same time respecting and valueing others beliefs. We don’t have to agree with their beliefs, but we can understand why they believe them.
We can establish conversation on the premise that some basic human traits – kindness, say – are universal. We can build on that and establish that all people have certain basic human needs – food, shelter, health, education – that should be met for them to lead decent lives. They should have options and also the freedom to opt out of these – to have children, to move about, express ideas and creativity, seek sexual satisfaction with consenting partners, help manage their societies etc. They should not be subjected to unwarranted contempt or mutilation of their bodies. If we accept these as basic human needs that ought to be met, then do we have an obligation? Each person you can know know and affect is someone to whom you have responsibilities. This is the very idea of morality. This is also cosmopolitanism.
The primary mechanism for ensuring that all people, everywhere, are assured of these basic needs is the nation-state. Do we all have a responsibility then to ensure the state respects and meets the needs of its citizens? If it does not do we share a collective responsibility to change them? And if the reason they fail is due to lack of resources do we have a collective obligation to provide them? This is the cosmopolitan commitment.
so yes, even if the south asian state “back home” may not be home anymore we identify ourselves as southasians and at the least we do have a responsibility to call it out when it violates basic human rights. what happens in one corner of the world affect all of us ultimately.
well, that’s the way i see it anyway.
zachary – all great points in # 80. one quibble, though – “Saudi, Iran, Qatar would have be to be like Bahrain & Dubai had there not be sitting on so much oil.” – there would be no bahrain and/or dubai were it not for oil, no?
good point Zainab 😛
There are dozens of Mosques that peacefully co-exist with other places of worship in communities across the country. Yet another mosque proposed near ground-zero seems to have polarized America.
“I confess I’m puzzled too to see many of my (very un-fanatic) Muslim friends unable to see beyond “Gotta oppose Newt and Palin” – as though every opinion must be calibrated against what they say. Many Americans – none of whom are named Newt or Palin – are unhappy with locating a mosque in that exact location but will grin (or grimace) and bear it because America is a law-abiding nation above all else.
Do not many people see the placing of the mosque near ground zero as analogous to insisting on one’s “constitutional right” to plant a confederate flag near some symbol of African American pride – say MLK’s grave ?”
I disagree entirely. As a “regular” American, I can say I see absolutely NO problem with the Muslim community center (It’s not a mosque, btw, and if it was, I still wouldn’t care) being located near to ground zero.
1.) It’s not AT ground zero, it just so happens to be in the vicinity. 2.) It’s a community center that will have vocational classes. 3.) Muslim Americans are Americans and have a right to build a community center. 4.) I don’t think something Islamic is rubbing dirt in people’s faces– because the terrorist attacks were perpetrated BY terrorists. The people wanting to build the community center are not the same people. 5.) I doubt anyone would complain if they built a Catholic community center near were the Oklahoma City Bombing took place.
The response against it is one of ignorance and bigotry. End of story.
I’m more annoyed by the unconstitutionality of the opposition to the mosque, than the islamohobia driving it. The right is being hypocritical in its favoring of certain amendments over others. (I think the right just dislikes amendments that are perfect squares.)
Which isn’t to say that Islamophobia doesn’t bother me, it does. I’m an islamophobe myself to the extent that I’m also any-other-religion-phobic. And I also believe the mosque should absolutely be built, simply because there is no legal basis for opposing it.
While the Islamophobia in this situation is real and undeniable, it makes me uncomfortable that the unconstitutionality of the process is being swept under the rug, and islamophobia is becoming the main talking point. It polarizes the debate by injecting large doses of emotion on either side of the debate. Emotionally charged politics usually only lead to disaster.
In the end, it’s really not relevant who this guy is who is building it, what his funding sources are, or how this situation is comparable to oh, nazi symbols in holocaust memorials or confederate flags near MLK’s grave. It has limitless potential for drama and controversy. The legality or constitutionality of such a mosque is very boring, in contrast. It’s also very clear.
Lacking any real basis for protest, the right had to inject fear into the debate. And it’s working because everybody is responding to it.
daisy khan, imam rauf’s [kashmiri/indian – american ] wife, is all over media promoting the downtown mosque. an alleged moderate, she also happnes to be the founder of “asma” – american society for muslim advancement. now, imagine for a moment, instead of daisy, there was this person named, daisy kumar, who was passionately involved with the building of a controversial hindu tremple, and she, too, had founded a non-profit – asha – american society for hindu advancement. under the circumstances, how many desi progressives here would consider ms.daisy kumar moderate or side with her? i know for sure that, most of my hindu friends wouldn’t be caught dead in the same room with “ms.kumar” let alone siding with her on the “temple” issue.
14 is a perfect square?
The Constitution isn’t meant to act as thought police. You can be opposed to the mosque in a “This is a bad idea” sense without wanting Congress to forbid its construction.
A major part of this discussion would be moot if all the vocal opposers of the mosque – politicians and others – would speak their mind truly. Yes, let me say it, they oppose it because they DO consider Islam promotes terrorism and jihad and fatwas and oppression of women. They DO believe the Koran preaches these. That’s they they believe the mosque is an insult.
Until the “supreme” authorities on Islam – from the Ayatollah to the Imam – come out and say: “No, the Koran does mention killing but does not mean what the radicals think it means, and that under NO circumstance or excuse shall any man kill another, and that any Muslim who carries out violent Jihad will be excommunicated from Islam” – until this happens, clear, unequivocal, unqualified, this impression of violence in Islam will not go away.
Until the “supreme” authorities on Islam – from the Ayatollah to the Imam – come out and say: “No, the Koran does mention killing but does not mean what the radicals think it means, and that under NO circumstance or excuse shall any man kill another, and that any Muslim who carries out violent Jihad will be excommunicated from Islam” – until this happens, clear, unequivocal, unqualified, this impression of violence in Islam will not go away.
Great point GP the Muslim leadership (secular, religious, dictators whoever whatever) needs to be unequivocally and unanimously clear. At the moment and times like this silence is complicit.
Razib wrote:
assuming that everyone who thinks that the cultural center being at that location is probably not for the best is a raving bigot … is probably not helpful.
Same point Douthat makes. Scocca’s response is about right — for most of American history, at least 60%, if not more, of all Americans were bigots by modern standards. Labelling them as bigots was one helpful strategy in overcoming that.
But I agree it’s not bigots all the way down. We’re looking at a mix of bigots, idiots, and cowards. (Gingrich, Pelosi, and Obama.) It’s the last category that’s the worst. There a lot of folks, like Sen. Chuck Schumer, or conservative pundits like Jonah Goldberg, or folks in this comment thread, who rather than condemning the opposition to the project, call the issue a ‘distraction’, or ‘unecessary’, and then change the topic.
I apologize for mischaracterizing your views. I am glad that you moved from kind of implicitly repudiat[ing] to explicitly repudiating.
Zlatif wrote:
Ikram I didn’t know we descend into name-calling; just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I’m an idiot.
True. But I’ve been reading your blog/blog comments since 2002/03. My views on your abilities have developed over almost a decade, stretching back to when you were a bizarro Pakistani-nationalist. I stand by my description. But I promise to reconsider before 2018.
ZLatif also wrote: My point on Mosque building is this; I believe in a society for all where everyone should practise their belief. But why don’t Muslims buy up abandoned churches and renovate them
So if Park51 took over an old Catholic church instead of an old Burlington Coat Factory, you think it would be more acceptable? Really, I think my description is accurate.
From the Scocca post linked above (paid bloggers are better than unpaid commentors)
This is the other way that the bigots poison the whole discussion. Over and over, since the Sept. 11 attacks, Muslim leaders have been challenged to denounce radical Islamism, and then to denounce it again, and then to denounce it some more. Prove you aren’t responsible for this thing you didn’t do. Are you with us or against us? Well? Are you with us or against us? When “us” includes Newt Gingrich and Orly Taitz and Pam Geller, what’s a Muslim to do? Douthat, under the rules of his made-up history of discrimination and assimilation, would have these Muslims do the accommodating thing and bow to the abuse, abandon their project, and move to somewhere else—even if somewhere else is less welcoming than Manhattan. It’s the price of learning to be a proper American.
And here is Imam Rauf when he spoke at the Daniel Pearl memorial
We are here to assert the Islamic conviction of the moral equivalency of our Abrahamic faiths. If to be a Jew means to say with all one’s heart, mind and soul Shma` Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu Adonai Ahad; hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one, Mr. Pearl. ….
…We are here especially to seek your forgiveness and of your family for what has been done in the name of Islam.
Same point Douthat makes. Scocca’s response is about right — for most of American history, at least 60%, if not more, of all Americans were bigots by modern standards. Labelling them as bigots was one helpful strategy in overcoming that.
i read the link when you first posted it. i actually have taken a deep interest in 19th century american history over the past few years. there’s a lot in the quotations from academic historians who refute douthat’s assertions that i are either shading, or flatly wrong, in my opinion. but i’m not an academic historian, so who am i to say? at this point my instinct is to go reread the primary literature and see what’s going on here. by the time i’m satisfied we won’t be talking about this, and arguing about madame president palin 🙂 though seriously, i do know enough history to simply selectively make the case for almost any normative position i hold. most people are way too stupid to know any better. and i’m not a historian, so i assume a historian could do better (actually, i’ve seen scholars do just that plenty of times). so if there is an interpretative layer to a refutation i would be very cautious in assuming that it’s definitive. to give you a precise example, i took a look once in the development of the irish american dominated roman catholic church, to the point of reading several books on the topic, and the academic seems to be wrongly characterizing it and douthat closer to the mark from what i can tell. i could have sample biased the literature (they were from catholics or historians of catholicism), but a lot of the stuff i see on liberal blogs “debunking” douthat looks to me like the easy game of wading through the literature and such bringing back what you want to bring back. you can do the same with google. it’s really obvious when my interlocutors do that because i can usually reconstruct the google query they did and notice exactly the “citation” they’re bringing back.
90: I know for sure that, most of my hindu friends wouldn’t be caught dead in the same room with “ms.kumar” let alone siding with her on the “temple” issue.
I think this will be lost on the ‘secular’ crowd (remember the Sonal Shah episode and how excited the ‘Hindu left’ got over it ? compare it with this Berra business.)
Being progressive has come to mean following certain encapsulated prejudged behaviours. Orwell hit the nail on the head when he wrote “Four legs good, two legs bad”.
as an aside: the ‘bigot’ majority and (some) their ancestors helped create a country those of who aren’t bigots (well, assuming pope-ikram and his cardinals declare them so) seem to enjoy living in quite a bit (excluding ikram from this since he doesn’t live in a country where the major are bigots). i remember back in 2004 when liberals were obsessed with ‘framing.’ one rule of thumb might be to not write off the people in the middle who might disagree with you as moronic bigots.
Oh, snap. There goes my idea for my book titled ‘the right’s war on perfect squares’. You will note, however, that I didn’t say they only disliked amendments that are perfect squares. Just as I’m no mathematician, you’re no logician. 🙂
Yoga Fire, you’re absolutely right. And that’s a great point. There is, thankfully, no such thing as thought crime. And in the sense that I’m not generally in favor of religious buildings, I’m opposed to it too. But to use this freedom to put pressure on moderate muslims to bow down to alarmist sentiments is unfair, as it goes against the principles of freedom of speech (which is incomplete without the freedom to offend). In the same way, I believe it was unfair for large sections of the muslim world to generally be opposed enough to Salman Rushdie’s books to support the fatwa against him. One could argue that they perhaps belonged to countries that didn’t believe in the freedom of speech. This just reinforces how grateful I am to belong to a country that does believe in the concept, and live in another that believes in an even stronger form of it.
Remember when there was some scattered fundamentalist outcry against a hindu priest performing senate prayers (in itself quite insane!) on the grounds that hinduism was a heathen religion? Well, should the hindu community have tried to explain itself, and perhaps present a version of hinduism more in tune with abrahamic thought in an attempt to not seem so incompatible with judeo-christian values? Some white/black/your-color-of-choice people are racist, is that justification for presuming they’re all racist, and forcing them to explain they’re not? Bad reasoning. Commit an act of terrorism, or even any garden variety crime, and you kiss your rights goodbye. Until then, however, you are innocent, and don’t owe anyone any explanations for either just the ‘general weirdness’ of your religion, or for violence perpetrated by persons other than you in the name of your religion.
Ikram, how is Obama a coward? Because he said he wasn’t commenting on the wisdom of the building the mosque? Here’s the great thing about this country. I can be opposed to mosque building in general, and still not expect that my opposition will make the slightest difference to those who DO want to build it. Time for a resurgence of Voltairean thought.