Ibn Warraq on Imam Rauf

[Serafim Svensson]

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."

He's not clear about who the audience is

"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.

A majority of Iran 's population is Shiite Muslims. Since its founding in the 7th century, Shiites have based their political theory on the cardinal concept of the legitimacy of the ruler.

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was in part to depose the shah, who had come to power in 1953 after a CIA-sponsored coup overthrew democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossaddeq. And in part it was an opportunity to craft an Islamic state with a legitimate ruler according to Shia political theory.

After the revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took the Shiite concept of the Rightly Guided Imam and created the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, which means the rule of the jurisprudent. This institutionalizes the Islamic rule of law. The Council of Guardians serves to ensure these principles.

Before the election, the Iranian government allowed an unprecedented degree of political discourse so that the election would establish a legitimate ruler.

Now, on the streets of Teheran and undoubtedly in high political circles behind the scenes, Iranians are asking themselves, has this election confirmed the legitimacy of the ruler?"

It seems to me that the Iranians Obama is supposed show his understanding of the Islamic Republic to are all Iranians, including the streets of Teheran. But then, as you point out, he talks about sending a resounding message to the presidential candidates. But then again, also to their supporters. So it is not clear to me.

Anyway, such a statement would send a resounding message to the Iranians who struggle, risk ther lives and even die for democracy. The message is: You're alone. I'm with the ayatollahs.

 

[A'isha]

I don't know. Ibn Warraq has a good reputation for his criticism of Islamic theology

The only person cited there who approves of Warraq's scholarship (at least specifically regarding his books on Islamic theology - his book about Said seems to have been well received) is Daniel Pipes, who is hardly the most even-handed judge of such things.

Your wiki cite says that his other writings, such as his essay on the historical Muhammad, are less well received, being called "polemical", "inconsistent", and "heavy-handed".

And in any case, that's mostly irrelevant, since the Warraq essay you linked to has nothing to do with criticism of Islamic theology, even Rauf's Islamic theology. I say "mostly", because if his twisting and quote-mining of Rauf's words are representative of his usual level of scholarship, then perhaps his critics are right in their assessment of him.

-- 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.

This, though, I really have no argument with.

 

[marksman]

Ibn Warraq has a good reputation for his criticism of Islamic theology

The Wikipedia article says nothing about his "good reputation". He is praised by three people -- Daniel Pipes, Ehraim Karsh, and Fouad Ajami -- who are generally considered to be on the conservative side of the political spectrum. He is criticized by Herbert Berg and Fred Donner, who are more traditional Islamic scholars (and as far as I can tell apolitical), who criticize his scholarship abilities.

So, it seems that Ibn Warraq is a conservative taking the conservative position. Having read his article, I agree with others in this thread. he is not accurately describing Rauf's position. And while Rauf is certainly not perfect, Ibn Warraq's criticism of him is simply unfair and inaccurate.

Skeptic, I know you are critical of the Islamic Center. It does appear this is a case of confirmation bias on your part.

 

[A'isha]

Anyway, such a statement would send a resounding message to the Iranians who struggle, risk ther lives and even die for democracy. The message is: You're alone. I'm with the ayatollahs.

Iran can be dealt with like Saddam's Iraq and Omar's Afghanistan were, or it can be dealt with like Saudi Arabia is (and like the old Soviet Union was). Rauf, in this essay, is recommending the latter approach.

Is he wrong to do so? I don't know. It's certainly possible he's wrong in advocating that. Geopolitics is never a sure thing. But one thing he's definitely not in advocating that is an extremist.

 

[A'isha]

Look, Skeptic. Rauf's book is cheap, available everywhere, and comes in a variety of formats. I'll buy you a copy of "What's Right With Islam", in any format you choose (I have the Kindle version, since you don't need a Kindle device, but can download apps for PC, iPhone/iPod, and Droid to read it on any one of them - or even on all three at once, like I do). If you prefer, I'll send you an electronic Amazon gift card to whatever email address you want, that covers the cost of the book and shipping to an address of your choice, without ever having to give those personal details to me.

Read the book, so you can understand what Rauf is saying in his own words, rather than relying on anyone, even me, telling you what he said. Then, if you like, we can talk directly about it, here at JREF.

 

[Serafim Svensson]

Iran can be dealt with like Saddam's Iraq and Omar's Afghanistan were, or it can be dealt with like Saudi Arabia is (and like the old Soviet Union was). Rauf, in this essay, is recommending the latter approach.

I don't think the Soviet Union was ever dealt with by giving the message that the president of the United States respects many of the guiding principles of Soviet Communism, specifically the revolutional dictartorship of the proletariat or something along those lines. But I'm far too ignorant about the history of US-Soviet relations to say for sure.

Geopolitics is never a sure thing.

True

But one thing he's definitely not in advocating that is an extremist.

I agree that he hasn't said or done anything that clearly makes him an extremist. On the other hand he has said enough to make me seriously doubt that he is a moderate in any real sense of the word. (Which doesn't mean I don't think he should be allowed to build the much debated mosque and community center in NY.)

 

[GreNME]

I agree that he hasn't said or done anything that clearly makes him an extremist. On the other hand he has said enough to make me seriously doubt that he is a moderate in any real sense of the word. (Which doesn't mean I don't think he should be allowed to build the much debated mosque and community center in NY.)

So I take it you're not convinced by his having worked with the FBI for years in appealing to people in Muslim dominated nations and in Muslim communities in the US for information about US-hostile extremists? The fact that he just recently came back from a trip partly for the State Department in reaching out to international Muslim communities peacefully isn't at all convincing?

You folks are engaging in character assassination, pure and simple, and for no better reason than he's a Muslim. The guy has done things that in any other context would be lauded as patriotic, but because certain partisan pundits have dug in their heels on the Park51 project the usual suspects are scouring every last sentence that they can attribute to Rauf in the attempt to paint him as anti-American and sympathetic to terrorists. The sad part is how easy this is for them to do so based on the general ignorance of the Western population.

Rauf is and has been clearly in favor of America and has put himself out there openly with that message around the world. He's also a religious man who believes firmly that his religion is amenable to and is complimented by the very freedoms and rights of this country (which is also his country as much as it is mine). He's no different than Christian religious scholars who talk about the "god's plan" or holding a political opinion based on their religious beliefs, but since he's not a Christian doing these things folks are in an uproar that someone would dare make these ominous statements linking religion and governance.

 

[marksman]

he has said enough to make me seriously doubt that he is a moderate in any real sense of the word.

Like what?

 

[A'isha]

I can't wait until the partisan pundits find out that Rauf has a Master's in Plasma Physics, so they can start sounding the alarm about the risk of terrorist death rays being mounted atop Park51 to blast Manhattan.

 

[Praktik]

I can't wait until the partisan pundits find out that Rauf has a Master's in Plasma Physics, so they can start sounding the alarm about the risk of terrorist death rays being mounted atop Park51 to blast Manhattan.

paging Judy Wood..

 

[Serafim Svensson]

So I take it you're not convinced by his having worked with the FBI for years in appealing to people in Muslim dominated nations and in Muslim communities in the US for information about US-hostile extremists?

No. FBI has worked with some non-moderates before. But I don't think he's insincere about working for peace. I don't think he lies about wanting to build bridges. But I do doubt that his advice about what Obama should say to the Iranians was only a matter of tactics and diplomacy, and if you have any respect for "the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih" you are not a moderate.

The fact that he just recently came back from a trip partly for the State Department in reaching out to international Muslim communities peacefully isn't at all convincing?

How else would he have reached out? Violently?

 

[GreNME]

... and if you have any respect for "the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih" you are not a moderate.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Seriously, your argument is some kind of absolutist drivel that implies that it even knows what it's talking about with regard to the non-standard foreign word it's referencing as ominous. I mean, can you do us a favor and explain how having respect for the concept that Islamic law should be interpreted by religious scholars (linky) is somehow a non-moderate stance? Because Khomeini used it in speeches? Because it's the state of the Iranian government? Are we really against the Iranian government because of its religion?

 

[Pardalis]

Rauf says he basically agrees with OBL's grievances. It's like he said "I don't agree with the attacks, even though they were justified."

It's doublespeak.

 

[Pardalis]

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

You think OBL has genuine criticisms on American policy?

 

[Praktik]

Rauf says he basically agrees with OBL's grievances. It's like he said "I don't agree with the attacks, even though they were justified."

Pretty grievous twist to his words.

And even if we were to accept your mangling of his sentiment - even if we were - what's the point?

Wouldn't he just be "wrong" in your eyes? Why do we care about what his opinions on 9/11 are, especially when such comments are not all that unusual or rare out there? And especially when considered against the larger body of his work and thought?

 

[Cobalt]

The real question is, how do I pronounce "Ibn?"

 

[Pardalis]

Pretty grievous twist to his words.

He doesn't agree with the attacks but he agrees with his views on American policy.

OBL is insane, his grievances are not rational, they are fueled by religious fervor and fundamentalism. But I'm sure you agree with him too, so that doesn't surprise me.

I'm sure you still have the "Bush is the terrorist" T-shirt your drawer, right? You're one of those who thinks OBL is not the terrorist, that OBL was "created by America", he's the victim, and the attacks were just the rebel with a just cause fighting back against the evil Empire, right? Only he is just a bit too drastic about it, but at the core you think he's right to be mad at America.

So predictable.

 

[Pardalis]

The real question is, how do I pronounce "Ibn?"

You don't pronounce it, you just peruse the web to find things to attack his reputation with.

At least that's what the Leftist crowd has done in this thread.

 

[Praktik]

He doesn't agree with the attacks but he agrees with his views on American policy.

OBL is insane, his grievances are not rational, they are fueled by religious fervor and fundamentalism. But I'm sure you agree with him too, so that doesn't surprise me.

I'm sure you still have the "Bush is the terrorist" T-shirt your drawer, right? You're one of those who thinks OBL is not the terrorist, that OBL was "created by America", he's the victim, and the attacks were just the rebel fighting back against the evil Empire, right?

So predictable.

I imagine these things are predictable, when you shoehorn your pet peeves onto any poster that disagrees with you. SO PREDICTABLE! I mean, when you keep putting the same words into people's mouths they all end up saying the same thing!

Imagine that!

Tell me, what else do I believe?

 

[Pardalis]

You guys are a dime a dozen.