Once upon a time, the “war on terror” was supposed to bring American values to Saudi Arabia. Now Newt Gingrich says we shouldn’t build a mosque in Lower Manhattan until the Saudis build churches and synagogues in Mecca—which is to say, we’re bringing Saudi values to the United States.
Also don’t miss Michael Kinsley’s dead-on rebuttal of Charles Krauthammer:
Even if this mosque has no connection with terrorism today, Charles writes, “Who is to say that the mosque won’t one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi–spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber”? Right, and who is to say that the Fifth Avenue Synagogue won’t hire Bernie Madoff as its next cantor? Or that the Pope won’t appoint some child molester as Archbishop of Boston? Obviously, freedom of religion can’t be contingent on such what-ifs.
Not incidentally, there is a horrific story of death by stoning out of Afghanistan today. “Taliban stone Afghan couple to death for adultery,” reports the Guardian. Here is how we should rewrite that headline in light of the Cordoba debate: “Taliban stone Muslim couple to death for adultery.”
You get the picture. These doomed young lovers were Muslims. Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin are essentially spitting on their graves.
Let us also recall the Muslim victims of recent Taliban attacks on Sufi sites, as helpfully catalogued by William Dalrymple in this brilliant NYT op-ed: the July 2 bombing of the Data Darbar in Lahore (42 dead, 175 injured); the May bombing of Peeru’s Cafe, a cultural center (sound familiar?) in Lahore; the rocketing and destruction of the mausoleum of Bahadar Baba and the shrine of Abu Saeed Baba near Peshawar; the March 2009 dynamiting of the Rahman Baba shrine near the Khyber Pass (thankfully killing no one). All carried out by Islamist terrorists, against Muslims and their holy places.
We must also add the heinous May 28 massacre carried out against Ahmadi Muslims in Lahore (98 dead, 110 wounded). And the ongoing attacks against Shia Muslims, like this one at a funeral, or this completely diabolical example:
In the first blast, a motorbike laden with explosives hit a bus carrying Shia Muslims to a religious procession and exploded, killing 12 people.
An hour later, another bomb exploded outside the entrance to the emergency ward of the hospital where the victims of the first attack were being treated.
As Dalrymple notes, Al Qaeda and the Taliban view Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the Cordoba Initiative as “an infidel-loving, grave-worshiping apostate; they no doubt regard him as a legitimate target for assassination.” If Rauf lived in Pakistan, he would have every reason to fear for his life. How disgraceful that he should be subjected to smears by self-seeking U.S. politicians.
Again, according to Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and the other ringleaders of this phony Cordoba controversy, there is no distinction to be drawn between Islamist terrorists and the victims of the bombings I’ve mentioned above. They’re all the same.
And this from people who talk piously of not slapping the victims of terrorism in the face.
[Update: Please see this NYT editorial on the flood disaster in Pakistan. Help UNICEF help the victims.]
I’m proud that the president of my country, and the mayor of my city, have spoken out forcefully against the bigoted campaign to block the construction of a Muslim community center on Park Place in lower Manhattan. This is a phony issue ginned up by the right, in fact part of a wider outburst of xenophobia that actually has little to do with the hallowed 9/11 site itself. And the fact that a demagogue like Newt Gingrich can now accuse President Obama of “pandering to radical Islam” gives you a good idea of what the game plan was from the beginning.
Ironically, Gingrich’s smear coincides with this extensive report, on Obama’s significantly stepped-up war against radical Islam. The facts are in front of us.
I’m saddened to know that a majority of my fellow New Yorkers disagree with Mayor Bloomberg, and my advice to them would be to look beyond New York’s borders — I know, it’s so difficult — and learn something about the internal divisions in the Muslim world. Jeffrey Goldberg put it most effectively: ”If he could, Bin Laden would bomb the Cordoba Initiative.” Or as President Obama noted, “Al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion.”
This is something I’ve said a thousand times before on this blog — and it’s something equally ignored by the Rush Limbaugh right and the Code Pink left: The chief victims of jihadi violence are Muslims. It’s time for Americans to get over their narcissism and understand what this means.
The Cordoba Initiative must go forward. It is an eloquent rejection of jihadi ideology, a powerful alliance of pluralist Islam and the Western democratic ideal.
As for the sensitivities of the 9/11 families: There are other 9/11 families who passionately disagree with the effort to demonize Cordoba. Why do their opinions not count? Muslims, too, were among the 9/11 victims. And in case you think that the ADL speaks for the entire Jewish community on this issue, please read this.
I tweeted on this the other day but let me recap here: This NYT piece reported that the ships in the Free Gaza Movement flotilla were funded by something called the Perdana Global Peace Organization. Greta Berlin, a founder of the Free Gaza Movement, herself acknowledged this link to Perdana. Look around Perdana’s website and you’ll find the organization is chaired by Mahathir Mohamed, former prime minister of Malaysia and one of the world’s most notoriously outspoken antisemites — a man who said this at a January conference:
The Jews had always been a problem in European countries. They had to be confined to ghettoes and periodically massacred. But still they remained, they thrived and they held whole Governments to ransom. Even after their massacre by the Nazis of Germany, they survived to continue to be a source of even greater problems for the world. The Holocaust failed as a final solution.
And people accuse Jews of fabricating the issue of antisemitism as a smokescreen.
There’s been very little reporting on Mahathir’s ties to the Free Gaza Movement as far as I’ve seen. Lots and lots of discussion about “what Israel has become” and such. Very little discussion of what the Palestine solidarity movement has become.
As for IHH, the Turkish organization involved in the melee on the flotilla’s biggest ship, my friend Yigal Schleifer, in his must-read posts on the Turkey-Israel diplomatic crisis, describes IHH as an organization of the Islamist far right. Yigal’s coverage is some of the fairest, most non-ideological and rigorous you’ll come across anywhere.
~
In last week’s New Yorker, Pankaj Mishra reviewed Paul Berman’s new book The Flight of the Intellectuals, about the widespread liberal-left acceptance of Swiss Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan, and what this phenomenon says about intellectual culture in our time. Mishra, in short, offers a fine example of what Berman was trying to diagnose. He subjects Berman to a relentless drubbing over his liberal-hawk support of the Iraq war, thus shooting the messenger, while giving Ramadan a pass on his uncritical support of the extremist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
First of all, Qaradawi doesn’t simply justify suicide attacks against Israel, as Mishra notes, although this would be bad enough. Qaradawi says things like this:
Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place.
Mishra further tries to undermine Berman’s case:
[Berman] says that Ramadan not just “admires” but “worships” Qaradawi, although the citations of Ramadan that he produces to illustrate this claim reveal nothing more fervent than the standard lexicon of scholarly attribution: “Yusuf al-Qaradawi aptly notes that…”; “For details, see Yusuf al-Qaradawi….”
I very much doubt that Mishra would agree it’s benign for Ramadan to cite, whether calmly or fervently, the work of a man who believes Hitler put the Jews in their place.
And yet wait. Here is Paul Berman himself, responding to another negative review, in which he notes that
…Ramadan, who has contributed prefaces to two of Sheikh Qaradawi’s collections of fatwas[my emphasis - DA], has revered and applauded Qaradawi in every one of his major books, beginning with the book about [Hassan] al-Banna. Anyone who takes the trouble to read through Ramadan’s work will discover that Qaradawi has been the most important of his mentors—a distinguished and learned sheikh with his own history of ties to the Ramadan family, by the way (which I mention … because Ramadan himself, in his book on al-Banna, chooses to boast of it).
Mishra, it seems, is misrepresenting facts in order to burnish his conclusion: that Ramadan “may not be ideal, but the impulse to engage with him seems to exemplify the best kind of liberalism….”
By all means, engage Ramadan, but do it in the way that George Packer did in this exchange, in which he pressed Ramadan repeatedly on the issue of antisemitism. “[H]e couldn’t give me a direct answer,” writes Packer. “He hedged, he spoke about context, he suggested that the quotes were mistranslated, that they didn’t actually exist. But he refused to acknowledge that his grandfather and the Muslim Brotherhood in its origins were characterized by anti-Semitic or totalitarian views. It seemed clear that there was a limit to what he would allow himself to say or think, and that I had found it.”
~
Last but not least, the fact that racists such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are blasting veteran White House reporter turned pundit Helen Thomas does not mean that Thomas’s remarks were anything less than disgusting. And racist.
On the planet where rightists and tea-partiers live, “Muslims” are engaged in an undifferentiated jihad against the West; all are guilty until proven innocent. On the planet where some lefties and liberals live, “Muslims” in the West are terribly offended by the U.S. and NATO making war against “Muslims,” which leads to tragedies like the massacre at Fort Hood.
On Earth, the planet where we all actually live, Muslims are voluntarily fighting Muslims every day. And in Afghanistan, some who would very much prefer to be free of Taliban thuggery and violence are taking up arms against it. So in the case of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, it all comes down to which Muslims one chooses to support.
David Frum, one of America’s last sane conservatives, links to famous photographs that remind us of the sacrifice of Muslims who died as members of the U.S. military. And yet just yesterday, the very day of the Fort Hood massacre, GOP House members gave their imprimatur to a fanatical far-right rally, at which people held up posters of President Obama in a headwrap, with his name rendered in mock-Arabic script. Republican elected officials have picked a bad time to enable and encourage hate. But at this point there’s almost no daylight between them and the crackpot fringe.
Early reports have it that Nidal Malik Hasan was morally opposed to deploying to Afghanistan to fight fellow Muslims. Anyone inclined to view that sentiment with sympathy ought to consider that the militants arrayed against the U.S. in AfPak do not share Hasan’s view. They murder Muslims with calculated cruelty on a regular basis.
Soon after watching “A Thousand and One Voices,” Mahmoud Ben Mahmoud’s absorbing if somewhat somber documentary on Sufi music, I came upon this Foreign Policy piece by Ali Eteraz, on Pakistan’s effort to promote Sufism as a counterweight to Talibanism. (Hat tip Adam LeBor.) Eteraz hates the idea:
It signals an increase in the politicization of Islam in Pakistan — if a higher level is even possible. Now, even the pietist and welfare-oriented groups that have traditionally abstained from overindulging in government affairs will be tempted to become mouthpieces for corrupt political actors.
[...]
Minimizing the role of all religion in government would be a better idea. Only then could people begin to speak about rights and liberty.
I like the sound of that.
One of the delights of Mahmoud’s film was an all-too-brief segment on pot-smoking qawwali dervishes in Rajasthan who aren’t even allowed into the main shrine. Have to admit, they do look a little insane. What’s their deal? Mahmoud doesn’t tell us enough. But his treatment of the Mevlevi convent in Istanbul — just a few yards down Istiklal from where I stayed in 2006 — was far more complete. And his footage, though far more professional of course, was somewhat similar to my own:
That’s what Youssou N’Dour said near the start of his BAM show on June 6, following a screening of Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi’s moving N’Dour documentary, I Bring What I Love. Billed as a one-hour set, it went on longer thanks to the unstoppable energy in the house. There was a brief window of time where one could hear N’Dour but not really see him, because Brooklyn was on stage — Africans doing eye-popping mbalax dance moves, white women (I swear) doing the same, one pre-teen white boy in an Obama t-shirt doing the same, a young disabled black man with a crutch doing the same and for even longer. There were middle-aged women in stately African headwraps, slinking up to the stage in rhythm and casually tossing money. A wash of irrepressible humanity, in celebration of N’Dour, the Obama speech in Cairo, the Muslim Voices Festival. N’Dour was an ocean away from Dakar but he was home, surrounded by friends like Angelique Kidjo, who leapt onstage for a furious version of “Set,” dancing her butt off and trading verses with the man of the hour.
Ah, New York. I thought of the scene in I Bring What I Love where Youssou is walking briskly through the street the day of his Carnegie Hall gig, and can’t avoid greeting random African men as he goes on his way — including one cab driver who yells out his window, “Youssou! Youssou! My son’s going tonight!”
I can see validity in Anastasia’s constructive critique of the film, which addresses how Senegalese religious conservatives objected to N’Dour’s spiritually themed album Egypt, leading to something of a local public backlash that stung all the more in light of the album’s international acclaim. Anastasia found the film’s treatment incomplete:
While not exactly glossing over the controversy, we never hear directly from his opponents; indeed, it’s full of hazy hagiography (and I say that as even as a devoted Youssou fan.) And when N’Dour finally gets his Grammy, and the whole capital of Dakar seems to turn out in the streets to greet his triumph, we never learn why the tide of Senegalese public opinon has turned. (Does American approbation really count for so much?) Apparently, when the highly respected Senegalese religious griot singer Mustapha M’baye recorded a duet with N’Dour in praise of the prophet Muhammad, public opinion began to shift more decisively. We see the duo recording together, but the whole arc is never made fully explicit in the film.
Like I said, valid. But as for the whole capital of Dakar flocking into the streets after the Grammy, I just took this as proof that the controversy was never bad enough to prevent N’Dour from drawing an adulatory crowd. We also see him give a pep-talk to a university class in Dakar, and it seems clear that kids like these were loyal to him throughout.
Mulling over the Egypt controversy, I am of course entirely with N’Dour, on the side of free expression, and not just because I think Egypt is a work of untrammeled genius. But I found myself thinking: If the fight only reached the level of some nasty editorials and a few pulled ads, then Senegal’s in pretty good shape. To be clear, I don’t want to gloss over the chilling effect, the self-censorship that happens when sellers become ashamed to stock a certain work of art — which is what befell Egypt in Senegal, at least initially.
In the film, one of N’Dour’s young Senegalese record reps is spilling indignation at the attacks on Egypt — you want to applaud her as she rails against senseless taboos and repressive attitudes. But thank goodness N’Dour is from a country where negative responses are mainly just words, not accompanied by bullets and bombs, acid and poison.
When multicultural Brooklyn poured onto the BAM stage to join Youssou in dancing, booty-shaking fun, and all in the name of a peaceful Islam, I couldn’t help thinking a dark thought: There are militia leaders in the Swat Valley and Waziristan who, given the chance, would murder everyone in the room.
“Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists,” said President Obama in Cairo the other day. “They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths — more than any other, they have killed Muslims.” An irrefutable fact, and yet one far too often ignored by the Rush Limbaugh right as well as the Code Pink left.
Didn’t mean to end on a downer after such an uplifting film.
In collaboration with Anastasia Tsioulcas and Hussein Rashid, I’ll be blogging as much as I’m able about the currently unfolding Muslim Voices Festival, co-organized by BAM and the Asia Society. Thank you, Anastasia, for your kind invitation and your kind words. Youssou N’Dour is at BAM tonight and tomorrow. I’ll be attending his film screening and show on Saturday and expect to be brought right back to Gorée Island and Dakar, where I heard him last February.
What a time for Muslim Voices, just after Obama in Cairo. Anastasia has her initial thoughts here and here. (And an intro, here.) I never thought I’d hear an American president articulate my own worldview pretty much to the letter.
Backdrop: My wife is nearing the high point of her pregnancy and there’s a great deal of work to be done on the home front. Plus, about a week ago I managed to open a wound on my head, requiring a rush to the ER and 12 staples in my scalp, while loading a cargo van in Philly. I’m fine, but ouch, and not exactly what I need as I try to meet my ongoing writing obligations. I will do my utmost to post reflections here and check in with the writing of my colleagues as well. But I won’t see nearly as many live shows as I should. My DVR box, however, will allow me a sustained look at the Muslim Voices documentaries airing on PBS. Schedule here.
From the NYT’s report on the potential appointment of Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen as NATO Secretary General:
NATO works by consensus, and the European-favored candidacy of Mr. Rasmussen was publicly opposed by Turkey, NATO’s only Muslim country. Turkish officials said that Mr. Rasmussen was too insensitive to Muslim concerns during the scandal over the Danish newspapers publication in 2005 of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, and that while NATO is fighting in Muslim Afghanistan, the symbolism would be all wrong.
By all means, let’s talk about the symbolism being all wrong. Here is Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey shaking hands with the indicted war criminal Omar al-Bashir, president of Sudan, in January 2008, well into the Darfur genocide:
Via my friend Yigal Schleifer, we read of Turkey’s ongoing diplomatic moves in support of the Khartoum regime, which has conducted a policy of genocide against African Muslims. (The Turkish leader, meanwhile, felt moved to denounce the Israeli president as a murderer in front of news cameras, favorably citing the work of a virulent antisemite to boot.)
The hypocrisy is vile and astounding: Turkey, turning a blind eye to an anti-Muslim genocide, is lecturing Western Europe on “insensitivity” toward Muslims in the form of some stupid newspaper cartoons. It’s sad but unsurprising to note how some liberal commentators are buying into the Turkish line.
Yigal has more on this — apparently the Turkey-Denmark dispute might have more to do with Kurdish exile politics than anything else.
