Ibn Warraq on Imam Rauf

[Skeptic]

He is a well known author of criticism of Islamic theology, publishing, e.g., in Free Inquiry. Here is his take.

 

[SnakeTongue]

He is a well known author of criticism of Islamic theology, publishing, e.g., in Free Inquiry. Here is his take.

Thank you.

I will add tihis article to my list of psychological operations.

Look like people in USA are still being brainswash... Amazing!

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

So if you criticize American policy, you hate America and are no longer are entitled to your constitutional rights.

Of course, that only counts when you criticize American policy at times when Republicans are in power. When Democrats are in power and you criticize American policy, you're a patriot. (for the record, I belong to neither party and encourage the criticism of both)


Disgusting, disgusting article. I couldn't even finish reading it.

I find it amusing, though, that the same types of people who have a rabid paranoia about communism seem so often to emulate communist dictatorships. CRITICIZE MY AUTHORITY AND THE MOTHER LAND AND YOU ARE AN ENEMY OF THE STATE WHO IS NO LONGER ENTITLED TO THEIR RIGHTS!!!

 

[GreNME]

He is a well known author of criticism of Islamic theology, publishing, e.g., in Free Inquiry. Here is his take.

Right, Warraq is an "author of criticism of Islamic theology" in the same way Ann Coulter is an author on criticism of progressive ideas and ideals.

 

[Serafim Svensson]

Feisal Abdul Rauf:
"a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih"


Interesting idea. A just government based on vilayet-i-faqih.

 

[Praktik]

He is a well known author of criticism of Islamic theology, publishing, e.g., in Free Inquiry. Here is his take.

unconvincing.

 

[GreNME]

Feisal Abdul Rauf:
"a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih"


Interesting idea. A just government based on vilayet-i-faqih.

Ahh, the wonders of quote-mining.

 

[Serafim Svensson]

Ahh, the wonders of quote-mining.

So how does the meaning change when you put the quote in context?

 

[A'isha]

He is a well known author of criticism of Islamic theology, publishing, e.g., in Free Inquiry. Here is his take.

You still haven't read Rauf's actual writings, have you, Skeptic, and still prefer to rely on articles that edit and take his words out of context to try to twist what he says to paint him as some sort of extremist or extremist-supporter.

For instance, Warraq quotes Rauf as saying the following “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. . . . 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 actual exchange (which wasn't just a piece interviewing Rauf, but a segment featuring a number of American Muslim preachers and congregants who all condemned the 9/11 attacks) was as follows:

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.

This is, of course, virtually identical to what other America-blamers sympathetic to the Muslim extremists who carried out these attacks such as Glenn Beck and the co-chairs of the Congressionally-appointed 9/11 Commission have said.

Note also that Warraq conveniently leaves out the bits where Rauf says that everyone in his community said "don't let this be someone from our community" and how he flat-out stated that fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam, despite the claims that the terrorists make about doing things in the name of their religion. He leaves that out because it makes his claim that Rauf wants to avoid blaming "Islamists" for 9/11 impossible to support.

Warraq also says that "According to Rauf on page one of What’s Right with Islam, because many Muslims around the world support Osama bin Laden, the United States is doing something wrong."

Here's what Rauf actually says:

After two wars, the first to end the authoritarian Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the second to end the authoritarian secular Baathist regime in Iraq, the United States finds itself more estranged than ever from the Muslim world.

Under a June 2003 headline, "Muslims Reveal Fear and Loathing of America," the Financial Times reported a new survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, "Views of a Changing World 2003: War with Iraq Further Divides Global Publics." The report concluded, "The bottom has fallen out of support for America in most of the Muslim world." It cited as an example that only 1 percent of the citizens of Jordan hold a "favorable impression" of the United States. Meanwhile, the twentieth-century "arc of crisis," stretching across the Muslim world from South America to the Mediterranean, continues to seethe, and the polarization between the United States and the Muslim world now is as bad as it has ever been. Even though we don't know if he's still alive, Osama bin Laden still receives significant backing from Muslims for being the leader most capable of "doing the right thing regarding world affairs," according to the Pew study. Clearly, something is deeply wrong in America's relationship with the Muslim world.

Yet, how can this be? Core Islamic values overlap with core American values. The Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - share the two greatest commandments: 1. To love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. 2. To love our neighbors - that is, our fellow human beings - regardless of race, religion, or cultural background as we love ourselves.

Rauf then goes into a discussion about those two commandments in each religious community.

Tell me: do you really think that what Warraq said is an accurate paraphrase of Rauf's words above?

Warraq also attempts to paint Rauf's essay in the Huffington Post as supporting the Iranian regime. Go on, read it for yourself.

Contrary to Warraq's assertions, it's not an essay in support of Iran, but advice to the President on how he can use the opportunity presented by the election struggle last year to make diplomatic overtures. "This provides a chance for Obama to show Iranians that he understands their Islamic Republic and how it developed -- and to lay the groundwork for negotiations once the election dispute is resolved."

Firste simply describes what its origin and goals were, in very unadorned historical terms. Then he advises President Obama to tell Iran he understands the origins and goals that were just described.

That would send a resounding message to the Iranian presidential candidates and their supporters that President Obama understands the ideals of the Islamic Republic and that he seeks a peaceful and harmonious Iran that has the unquestioned support of a majority of its population.

As a result, President Obama may well find that no matter who is elected president of Iran, the chances of a negotiated rapprochement between the two countries would be far greater than it has been in the past 30 years.

Such a rapprochement will help resolve conflicts from Palestine and Israel through Iraq and Afghanistan to Pakistan[.]

In other words, it's advice on how to couch diplomatic overtures to Iran in a specific way (the best way to appeal to the Iranian mindset in the wake of the election struggle), so as to take advantage of Iran's current political situation in order to open up diplomatic relations, along with the necessary historical context for that advice, not a general "hey, the current Iranian regime is cool!" essay, no matter what Warraq seems to think.

And all that was just page one of Warraq's essay. Want me to continue, Skeptic?

 

[A'isha]

So how does the meaning change when you put the quote in context?

See above.

 

[Serafim Svensson]

Raufs advice to President Obama

“He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution — to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, that establishes the rule of law.”

Either he really believes that there can be a just government, "expressing the will of the people", that is based on vilayet-i-faqih, or he thinks it's a good idea for the president of the United States to say so.

In either case, it's an interesting idea. And not in a positive sense.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

did you realize that was talking about Iran?

quote mining!

 

[I Am The Scum]

I don't really see the point of this. I guess the author is trying to point out that Rauf holds some views that are wrong. Perhaps he's attempting to label Rauf as an extremist, but I don't really buy that. From what I can tell, the Imam is holding plenty of positions that are debatable by any level-headed individual. If anything, the author is holding the most extremist point of view in the article, that American foreign policy played no role in the 9/11 attacks. That is a bizarre stance to take.

Even if the author has proved his point, that Rauf holds extreme views, so what? If this is an attempt to show that he ought not build the community center, then I'm confused. Can someone please illustrate to me the logical syllogism that begins with the premise, "An individual holds views that I think are wrong," and ends with the conclusion, "Therefore, that individual ought not build stuff?"

 

[nchammer326]

Yeah, I stopped reading that after the first two paragraphs:

Journalist and author Fareed Zakaria has made some grave accusations against those who oppose the building of the Islamic center near Ground Zero, and has predicated his own approval of the project on the moderateness of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Zakaria wrote that Abdul Rauf “has said one or two things about American foreign policy that strike me as overly critical — but it’s stuff you could read on The Huffington Post any day.”

Yes, indeed — you are likely to read similar “stuff” on the Huffington Post, since Rauf has written there. But how can that possibly constitute a convincing defense of Rauf? Many Huffington Post writers are anti-American, and believe that the U.S. had 9/11 “coming to it.” They still have not learned that 9/11 had nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy.

Of course he doesn't back this up with a source or anything.

 

[Newtons Bit]

President Obama has rightly said that his administration will not interfere with the internal affairs of Iran, unlike what happened in 1953. Now he has an opportunity to have a greater positive impact on Iranian-American relations.

He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution -- to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, that establishes the rule of law.

His administration understands that what is going on now in Iran is an attempt by the Iranian people to live up to their own ideals. Just as American democracy developed over many years, the United States recognizes that this election is part of the process of an evolving democracy in Iran.

I have to disagree with Imam Rauf. We should always be opposed to things like Vilayet-i-faqih. Vilayet-i-faqih is the counter-reformation force in Iran. They ensure that laws are prejudiced (to the point of execution) against LGBT and keeps women as second-class citizens. We cannot, ever, respect that.

 

[Serafim Svensson]

did you realize that was talking about Iran?

quote mining!

I don't know if this was directed to me, but of course I realize it was about Iran.

He (Rauf) suggests that president Obama should say that his administration
"respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution", among them "to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih". And he's supposed to say this to "show Iranians that he understands their Islamic Republic".

If he would say such a thing, what he would show, especially to all the Iranians who really do want democracy, is that he understands nothing about the Islamic Republic of Iran.

 

[A'isha]

Disagreeing with what Rauf is saying is one thing. I disagree with some of the stuff he says too, such as his arguments in his book that religious life - whether Muslim, Christian, or Jewish, is vital and essential to American society (naturally, as I'm an atheist).

It's quite another to try and claim he's saying something that he's not, though.

 

[A'isha]

If he would say such a thing, what he would show, especially to all the Iranians who really do want democracy, is that he understands nothing about the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Except Rauf makes it clear that the audience for the words that he recommends Obama say are not targeted at them, but would instead be intended to "send a resounding message to the Iranian presidential candidates and their supporters."

Rauf wasn't telling Obama to use the opportunity of the Iranian election to overthrow the theocrats, but to try and start a diplomatic exchange with the Iranian government which would then (hopefully) have greater effects down the line.

 

[Praktik]

Even if the author has proved his point, that Rauf holds extreme views, so what? If this is an attempt to show that he ought not build the community center, then I'm confused. Can someone please illustrate to me the logical syllogism that begins with the premise, "An individual holds views that I think are wrong," and ends with the conclusion, "Therefore, that individual ought not build stuff?"

Logic has nothing to do with this. That's your first mistake..

It's all about smearing by quote-mine, and if someone is insufficiently devoted to the Right-Wing Script on terrorism than that should be enough for all of us to know that this person Can't Be Trusted and may really be deserving of the worst label possible in American discourse: the dreaded Anti-American epithet.

There are a lot of em out there you know! Just ask Malkin!

 

[Skeptic]

I don't know. Ibn Warraq has a good reputation for his criticism of Islamic theology -- and his desire that Islamic society should be secularized. This is something that should be done, although I am not at all sure his uncompromising anti-religious stance is correct in all events. He is hiding behind a pen name because of, naturally, threats to him by devout Muslims.