What the RG won't tell you

For years I have been writing to the RG in hopes of getting them to understand the importance of context in a story.  They do not seem to get it.  I keep submitting and thhey keep rejecting.  So, for your enjoyment I am going to post everything I write.  Fell free to distribute far and wide.

Here is the first of many articles on Islam.

Enjoy.



William Dalrymple and his Mystical Mosque



Todays editorial (8-19) titled “Who‘s behind the mosque” seeks to examine why we hate Muslims and what the true nature of imam Feisal Abdul Rauf appears to be. First, let’s be clear. If it is a community center which includes a mosque then it is also a mosque located in a community center. Framing it in only one context slants the readers opinion toward what the writer wants the story to explain. So now, let’s talk about the mosque at ground zero inside a community center/community center with a mosque inside at ground zero in the proper light.

William Dalrymple writes mainly Mugal Indian love stories as that is his area of interest. His knowledge of Islam and Muslims comes from his years living in Asia. Taking nothing away from his writing abilities in fiction his qualifications to write serious, critically thought out tomes on such a serious subject as the GZ mosque and the dynamics involved lack peer-reviewed gravitas.

His claim that Americans have an incomplete and inadequate understanding of Islam is correct, yet he presents no reason for this confusion. Saying that this failure of understanding hampers our efforts to fight extremism and to reconcile with the peaceful adherents implies that it is us, the American people who need to be responsible for seeing the light, even though we, it is claimed know not how to find this light. It is not the responsibility of America to blindly grasp at Islamic straws to see which is the right one, it is Islam and Muslims who must make us understand, by word and deed what peaceful Islam looks like.

Mr. Dalrymple calls imam Rauf “…one of America’s leading thinkers of Sufism, the mystical form of Islam, which in terms of goals and outlook couldn’t be farther from the violent Wahhabism of the jihadists.” Mr. Dalrymple provides no clue as to where he gets this idea, only that if he believes it, then it must be true. Sufism is not Wahhabism, true, but that does not make it any less dangerous. Implying that the Wahhabi form of Islam is the premier poster child for jihad is an insult to Sunni, Shia and the other minor sects of Islam.

Some Sufi leaders understand, and fight against those true jihadists. As far back as 1999, the Naqshbandi Sufi leader Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani said during a State Department Open Forum that Islamists controlled most mosques in America: "The most dangerous thing that is going on now in these mosques….is the extremist ideology. (…)they took over the mosques; and we can say that they took over more than 80% of the mosques…(..)And there are more than 3000 mosques in the US. So it means that the methodology or ideology of extremist has been spread to 80% of the Muslim population, but not all of them agree with it."(http://frontpagemag.com/2010/08/10/closed-for-business/). However, in the spirit of bridge-building and tolerance it should be noted that Sufism goes both ways, depending on who is leading. The above Sufi leader is but a small voice against Islamic hegemony, but it is almost meaningless in the face of Sufi history regarding jihad. Among the Sufis who aided Islam with the sword: the Naqshbandi sheikh Shamil al-Daghestani, who fought a prolonged war against the Russians in the Caucasus in the nineteenth century; Sayyid Muhammad ‘Abdullah al-Somali, a sheikh of the Salihiyya order who led Muslims against the British and Italians in Somalia from 1899 to 1920; the Qadiri sheikh ‘Uthman ibn Fodi, who led jihad in Northern Nigeria from 1804 to 1808 to establish Islamic rule(sharia); the Qadiri sheikh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaza’iri, who led the Algerians against the French from 1832 to 1847; the Darqawi faqir al-Hajj Muhammad al-Ahrash, who fought the French in Egypt in 1799; the Tijani sheikh al-Hajj ‘Umar Tal, who led Islamic Jihad in Guinea, Senegal, and Mali from 1852 to 1864; and the Qadiri sheikh Ma’ al-‘Aynayn al-Qalqami, who helped marshal Muslim resistance to the French in northern Mauritania and southern Morocco from 1905 to 1909.

Mr. Dalrymple’s assertion about the nature of Sufism being completely non-violent is incorrect, and thus imam Rauf should be scrutinized accordingly.

Today, many Sufis are non-literalists when it comes to the Qur’an and focus on the batini, or the "inner" or "esoteric" meaning of the Qur'anic verses rather than on the zahiri, the "outward" or "exoteric"-i.e., literal-meaning as Bin Ladin and his followers do. Another sect of Islam that is rather moderate in its approach to the Qur'an is the Barelwi (Barelvi) with one group in India and the other in the U.K. However these non-literalists are not a majority of Sufis, nor do they represent the current majority dogma within Sufi Islam. This is problematic when it is claimed Sufis “just want to get along”.

It seems that Mr. Dalrymples message is meant to show Sufi Islam as the peaceful sect, and thus we should all believe in Sufism, take the imam for what he says, and all will be well when we embrace the way of the Sufi. As a proclaimed historian he should be ashamed to present a picture of Islam without, it seems doing any historical research.

The rest of his claims border on the specious with more platitudes such as “moderate”, “pluralistic”, “Front line against violent Islam”, “tolerant beliefs”, “deeply rooted resistance movement”. All these may be true, yet the words of imam Rauf belie any credence in these words. Rauf lied about whether there would even be a mosque(http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/tonight-community-board-1-in.html). He lied about the source of funding(http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/foreign_mosque_money_OSkAG6ucmWz6yPAJU61cTO?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME). He lied about interfaith dialogue(http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/?singlepage=true). He refuses to denounce Hamas as a terrorist group. He advocates sharia in the US and the censorship of speech insulting to Muslims in his book “What’s Right with Islam is What’s Right for America”.

Mr. Dalrymple concludes with this last bit of stretch “Men like imam Feisal Abdul Rauf should be embraced as vital allies, and we should only have contempt for those who, through ignorance or political calculation, attempt to conflate them with the extremists” Men like the imam are not Wahhabis, to be sure. If it’s vital allies in the war against western values, democracy, freedom of religion, civil rights and all the rest of what makes us the greatest country on earth, then imam Rauf is the guy. If we want vital allies in the battle against creeping sharia and stealth jihad, the upholding of the constitution and bill of rights, William Dalrymple is not who I want on my team.

Too many so-called experts on the inner workings of this GZ debate miss the mark entirely. Driven by a need to explain away any Islamophobia, racism, bigotry and discrimination they cry to the rafters that Islam is misunderstood, we are xenophobic and not capable of understanding other cultures/religions/societies and unwilling to accept blame for our own future demise. We can ignore the words of hate and intolerance coming from a “moderate Muslim”, or we can ask difficult and critical questions, demand forthright answers and move on from there. Imam Rauf would prefer we remained silent, be the good dhimmi and feel subdued by our new masters. No surprise if we were to see Mr. Dalrymple at the front row, beaming warmly as he bows to Mecca and begins Friday prayer. Imam Rauf would insist upon that.

The mosque at ground zero is an insult to all Americans, not just those who died but also those who lost loved ones. If Islam really believes in interfaith dialogue, bridge-building and tolerance they would gladly move it. As of now they refuse. I pray that resolution comes quickly, but I fear a long period of pain and anxiety, due in large part to Islamic apologists like William Dalrymple.