Ibn Warraq on Imam Rauf

[Achán hiNidráne]

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

"Ib-en." It means "son of."

 

[Praktik]

You guys are a dime a dozen.

Yep - I imagine that's true when the dozen you're talking about are each colour-by-number constructs of straw invested with your imaginings of their beliefs. What other outcome would there be if the dozen are all iterations of your inner mind?

 

[Praktik]

So the other question here Pardalis.

Let's be crazy for a minute and assume you're correct and that your caricature of Rauf's views on 9/11 is correct.

Why should we care that he's wrong?

 

[Pardalis]

It's OK to criticize America in any way shape or form, even attack it, because America is Evil and any criticism of America is by default acceptable, and warranted, even if it's done by a murderous lunatic.

People who criticize one imam for having a double language and apologizing for a murderous lunatic's actions, now that's uncalled for and islamophobic.

Right.

During the last eight years and even today, if I wore a T-shirt saying "OBL is a nutcase", I would get beaten up.

 

[marksman]

The only thing Rauf said he agreed with bin Laden on was that "we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes."

Which is true. Lots of people -- not just lunatics like bin Laden -- complaint that America allies itself with oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia and Musharraf's Pakistan. Or that we allied with the Shah of Iran. Or with Saddam Hussein.

Rauf did not say he agrees with bin Laden on all of bin Laden's rantings. I don't even know where you could imagine he said that. He said that America's policies helped make bin Laden as successful as he was. Which is undoubtedly true.

All his words mean is that America should be more careful when it allies with oppressive regimes. And while that may be ignoring the realpolitik of the region, it's certainly not a statement of sympathy with bin Laden.

 

[Praktik]

It's OK to criticize America in any way shape or form, even attack it, because America is Evil and any criticism of America is by default acceptable, and warranted, even if it's done by a murderous lunatic.

People who criticize one imam for having a double language and apologizing for a murderous lunatic's actions, now that's uncalled for and islamophobic.

Right.

Ah - yet another imagining of my position.

Very interesting.

Tell me Pardalis, what else do I believe?

 

[marksman]

It's OK to criticize America in any way shape or form, even attack it, because America is Evil and any criticism of America is by default acceptable, and warranted, even if it's done by a murderous lunatic.

Rauf never said that America is evil. Only that some unwise actions on its part exacerbates (which is different from "causes" or "is responsible for") the hostility that helps bin Laden and Al Qaeda recuit.

Pardalis, you're the one who is being irrational here. Your accusations have no relationship to Rauf's actual statements -- quoted in this very page.

 

[Pardalis]

It's always the old: "OBL was wrong for killing 3,000 people, but..."

The "but..." part negates the first part, and makes him look like an OBL apologist.

Kind of like this funny observation about the term "having said that":

 

[Praktik]

Pardalis, you're the one who is being irrational here. Your accusations have no relationship to Rauf's actual statements -- quoted in this very page.

Indeed. And he has yet to answer why we should care even if we accepted Pardalis' words at face-value.

Really, what does it matter that Rauf is WRONG - in Pardalis' point of view - on 9/11?

 

[Praktik]

Kind of like this funny observation about the term "having said that":

I can't see the link at work - are you trying to seduce me with a Curb Your Enthusiasm reference?

Maybe you can read my mind! How'd you know I was such a big fan, and that this would melt my antagonism??

 

[Pardalis]

I can't see the link at work - are you trying to seduce me with a Curb Your Enthusiasm reference?

It' when you say "having said that" you can say pretty much all you want to say without being reprimanded for it, because you can state two completely different and contradictory things at once, so therefore you're covered.

Actually, it's a bit the opposite of what Larry David said in that clip.

Saying "terrorism is wrong" is the usual PC thing to say, and then once you've said that (having said that), you can go straight to what you really feel and what you want to say about the attacks (that they are justified politically).

 

[Cleon]

Saying "terrorism is wrong" is the usual PC thing to say,

Muslims just can't win, can they? If they don't condemn terrorism, they must condone it. And if they do condemn it, it's just "the usual PC thing to say."

 

[Praktik]

Saying "terrorism is wrong" is the usual PC thing to say, and then once you've said that (having said that), you can go straight to what you really feel and what you want to say about the attacks (that they are justified politically).

Thats just what they do isn't it! So many people do exactly that! Doesn't it just make your blood boil?

I imagine it must be even more infuriating to come across it so often. Though part of me thinks this frustration is self-generated, given that you incorrectly imagine it to be the position of so many people..

 

[Pardalis]

Muslims just can't win, can they?

And Americans either.

A vicious attack upon their citizens is always going to be "blowback", right?

If they don't condemn terrorism, they must condone it. And if they do condemn it, it's just "PC."

If he really condones it he shouldn't have to feel it necessary to add the "but..." part.

 

[Praktik]

Indeed. And he has yet to answer why we should care even if we accepted Pardalis' words at face-value.

Really, what does it matter that Rauf is WRONG - in Pardalis' point of view - on 9/11?

any response to this Pardalis?

 

[Pardalis]

Thats just what they do isn't it! So many people do exactly that! Doesn't it just make your blood boil?

Yes it does boil my blood. When it comes to America, people can't seem to just see 9/11 for what it is, a vicious attack by evil people. They always have to add "but America had it coming", which downplays the part where 3,000 innocent people got butchered by religious madmen.

 

[Cleon]

And Americans either.

A vicious attack upon their citizens is always going to be "blowback", right?

Again, you make crap up.

If he really condones it he shouldn't have to feel it necessary to add the "but..." part.

He didn't. You did.

"I condemn everyone and anyone who commits acts of terrorism, and Hamas has committed acts of terrorism."

No buts.

But of course, it's all academic. You're always going to add some new "if he really condemns it" caveat. Because Muslims are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

[Pardalis]

any response to this Pardalis?

He can build his community center, there's no law against it, but his double language and implied support for OBL's "cause" shows he's not that much of a moderate.

 

[A'isha]

Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, Chairman and Vice-Chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 Commission: "U.S. foreign policy has not stemmed the rising tide of extremism in the Muslim world. In July 2004, the 9/11 commission recommended putting foreign policy at the center of our counterterrorism efforts. Instead, we have lost ground.

...

We have not been persuasive in enlisting the energy and sympathy of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims against the extremist threat. That is not because of who we are: Polling data consistently show strong support in the Muslim world for American values, including our political system and respect for human rights, liberty and equality. Rather, U.S. policy choices have undermined support."

Bill O'Reilly:"The prevailing wisdom in the Muslim world among moderate Muslims and even Muslims who like America is that America foreign policy, the way it was handled for 30, 40 years was responsible for radicalizing some people because we have a presence in the Gulf. We take their oil. We support death spots in some countries. Saudi Arabia and others, that we do all of these things that we intrude on the Muslim world. That's not a radical position. You can debate it one way or the other, but it's not radical."

Glenn Beck: "When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems."

Feisal 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. I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. 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."

Please tell us, Pardalis (and be specific), how any of these statements differs from the others.

 

[I Ratant]

When I first heard the comments by Rauf on what would occur if the building of that mosque was prohibited, I could only think of the Mafia business men selling "protection" to shop owners.. "Protection" from the activities of the Mafia only if it were purchased, otherwise the Mafia would damage the property.
Or the school bully that demands lunch money.
The idea was as I see it, if any such proposal to do anything in the West by Islamics isn't granted, Islamic extremists -will- riot in the East in violent protest, so the West is best advised to knuckle under to any requests from Islam, lest something violent occurs.
That the initial proposal is insulting in the extreme falls by the wayside, in view of the submerged threat of violence if the proposal is refused.
No mosque (rabat) there, not now, not ever.