The Islamic Elephant in the Room

Nicholas Kristof, in his latest article brings a new meaning to the word denial.  Here is my reply...



To Ignore the Islamic Elephant in the Room.




No matter what, the left can always be counted on to ignore reality and focus on the feel-goods: tolerance, dialogue, blame and victim hood. Nicholas Kristof, in his 8-24 article does just this, with a heaping helping of assigned maliciousness against those who are, in his words “republican”. Oh horror, that dreaded R-word again, denoting intolerance, racism, apartheid and anti-liberalism. Might as well throw that appellation around, tainting the dialogue but appearing to be fair by identifying his opponents.

Right out of the gate, Kristof makes this statement “He(Osama bin-laden) fears Muslim clerics who can cite the Qur’an to denounce terrorism”. How does he know this, has he spoken to bin-Laden and gotten his assurances that he is indeed afraid of a cleric citing Qur-anic surahs? No references to anything which would bolster this claim, merely that since it is spoken it must be true. The fact is, no accepted Islamic cleric, either Sunni or Shia have used the Qur’an to denounce terrorism, on the contrary. Scholars from all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Shia and Sunni uphold the legal view that there are no verses in the Qur’an which denounce terrorism. Individual Muslims may not follow the strict tenets of jihad, but that does not make it any less applicable among Muslims worldwide.

For Mr. Kristof to say the mosque is something like a YMCA is disingenuous. A YMCA has no church, or synagogue, or temple within its walls, it does however have as its foundation a Christian ethos. By equating the YMCA, with no religious house within it, to a community center with a large mosque for Muslims only makes no sense. One does not equal the other. If he doesn’t like strip bars, shops, bars and liquor stores, just say so. Don’t use them as an example of why the mosque needs to be built.

The fact that the imam and his wife are friends of Mr. Kristofs and have told him they are for womens rights within Islam must make it all right to ignore the Islamic elephant rambling around. Imam Rauf may be whispering sweetness in the ears of those in the west, to the east he tells a different tale. The imam lied about whether there would even be a mosque(http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/tonight-community-board-1-in.html), he advocates the imposition of sharia law and calls for restrictions on speech in his book “What’s Right With Islam is What’s Right for America”. He has lied about interfaith dialogue(http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/?singlepage=true) and he lies about where the funding will come from(http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/foreign_mosque_money_OSkAG6ucmWz6yPAJU61cTO?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME). Just a few days ago, during his “Islamic World Outreach White House tour 2010”, t-shirts available in the lobby imam Rauf spoke eloquently on the evils of America “"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.” (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/moderate-ground-zero-mega-mosque-imam-us-has-more-blood-on-its-hands-than-al-qaeda-print.html). Suspiciously absent is any mention of the approximately 270 million lives taken by Islam and jihad over the past 1400 years. Nothing about the taking of lands or of the cultural annihilation and enslavement endemic to Islamic doctrine. No mention at all of the ongoing slaughter by Muslims of Christians, Hindus, Jews, non-believers in Indonesia, Thailand, Ethiopia, Somalia, Philippines, Lebanon, Israel, Russia, China or the Maldives. Mr. Kristof, In his need to feel liberally warm and fuzzy will breach no candor and entertain no criticism of Islam. After all, his friends the imam and his wife tell him everything is OK, that they are just like him.

Is it a misconception, as Mr. Kristof claims to understand that Islam is a warlike religion which drives believers to terrorism? Evidentially he believes this is so yet presents no argument to support this assumption. By simply reading the Qur’an, and understanding the context and chronology with which it was written it becomes very easy to see how one would, as Mr. Kristof puts it “misunderstand Islam”. With verse after verse calling for jihad against unbelievers (9-111,9-29 to name but two) it becomes almost comical to claim Islam is a “religion of peace”. No school of Islamic jurisprudence, whether Sunni or Shia advocates anything less than the conversion, subjugation or murder of all non-Muslims and the institution of sharia law across the land.

His comparison between Islam and the crusades follows the same tired path of religious relativism so many fall into. Yes the crusades were brutal and yes the church massacred many thousands of non-catholics on the way to the holy land. No doubt the havoc wreaked by all involved was almost too ugly to contemplate. Yet it must be remembered that the crusades, all three of them were a direct reaction to the spread of Islam throughout the known world at the time. By the time the first crusade was launched by Pope Urban II in 1095AD Islam had taken Spain and was knocking at the gates of Vienna and the French enclave of Tours. There is large moral difference between a response to naked aggression, and the naked aggression itself. Self-defense versus self-fulfillment in the name of Allah.

The few examples of Christians as terrorists do not represent any type of orchestrated plan to conquer the world. There is no organized Christian doctrine demanding its followers to kill in the name of Jesus, nor any call to wage war against non-believers on a permanent basis. If Mr. Kristof can show that this is not so, please do. He cannot, as there exists no such dogma.

The old testament is violent, militaristic and on occasion vengeful. In each instance of calls to fight it was always determined that there was a specific enemy, at a specific location and the fighting was to be between only those identified. The timing of the battle was until one side relented, or was vanquished. Nowhere is there a call for open-ended warfare against all who oppose. To make the argument that they are equal in import is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Contrary to his claims of this issue being a matter of religious tolerance, I ask: has anyone called for the banning of mosques, or prohibiting Muslims from practicing their faith, or taking away any civil right guaranteed by the US constitution to Muslims? The answer is no, not in any way. So the claim that this is based in religious persecution is specious, and a diversion from the real issue which is, as the imam says, a matter of tolerance. The banning of Bibles in Saudi Arabia is based in the Qur’an, and the Islamic doctrine which upholds Islam as the one true religion, with all others relegated to the dustbin of Islamic history. There is no equivalence between being aware of someone’s feelings and acting accordingly and the doctrinal hatred of anything non-Muslim and the imposition thereof.

Mr. Kristofs last barb “Today’s crusaders against the Islamic community center are promoting a similar paranoid intolerance, and one day we will be ashamed of it” can be viewed through the lens of ignorance and an unwillingness to ask the critical questions. His attempt to paint opponents of the mosque as Islamophobes, racists (what race is Islam again?), bigots, republicans(horrors!) and hate-mongers casts a negative light not on the objects of his scorn, but on himself as he shows how, even in the face of obvious truths he denies, denies, denies.

When my so-called “moderate Muslim friend” tells me he supports sharia in the US, I shudder. When he tells me he is funding the mosque with possibly Saudi Wahhabi money, I cringe. When he says religious dialogue is useless, I spit. The end sympathy should read “Today’s protesters against the ground zero mosque and the community center are promoting open dialogue and free speech, and one day they will be thanked by all of us”.

As much as I admire Nicholas Kristof for his normally insightful writings, this piece of Islamic apologism and attacks against well-meaning opponents smacks of dissonant resonance. The problems can be solved overnight, and quite simply, too. Move the mosque a distance of at least a mile from ground zero. Simple, easy and with the dearth of empty property right now in lower Manhattan is should be a piece of falafel to find the perfect location.

Solve the problem, heal the rift and bring real tolerance to the debate: move the mosque. Sorry, Nick but that’s the way it should be.