More on Newt and the NYC mosque
Overview
This post will continue examination (and shredding) of an "essay" Newt posted about the proposed Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero. Specifically, I will show that Newt's assertions about religious tolerance are meaningless, ignorant, and that what he wants has pretty much already been happening.
Newt's fourth set of bullshit statements
Among other things, these statements once again show that Newt is trying to tie religious freedom in America with religious freedom in Saudi Arabia.
I first need to discuss the name of the project. The name for the overall project was initially "Cordoba House." This is something else Newt rails about, and I will discuss that in another post. The name of the overall project has been changed to "Park 51." When I first checked out the Park 51 website, I had the impression that the mosque would be operated as a separate entity and would be called "Cordoba House." As of today (August 23) the website says that the mosque has "yet to be named." However, there are other portions of the website that expressly refer to "Cordoba House," which causes some confusion (which will be briefly addressed in a subsequent section). In any event, the website does make it clear that the mosque will be a separately run non-profit.
With that in mind, here's what Newt said right after his third bullshit statement:
As I discussed in the previous post, any efforts to get Saudi Arabia to permit any religion other than Islam are pointless. You know, Newt has undergraduate, master's, and PhD degrees in history, so one would think that he could have availed himself of the history of Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabis, meaning that he would have had sense enough not to make these ridiculous statements about Saudi Arabia allowing non-Muslim houses of worship. Apparently, he was too lazy to do even a little bit of research.
Anyway, here is another example of Newt trying to make American religious freedom in some way dependent on religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. That is truly stupid since we already have religious freedom under our American constitution.
Newt is so damn clueless.
I considered titling this section after a famous running bit from Dan Ackroyd on SNL back in the day...Anyhoo...
Newt's statements are utterly ignorant. The statements utterly fail to take into account the fact that there are different sects within Islam. Most people now are aware of the two main sects, Sunni and Shia. What they might not know is that there are sects within those sects. For purposes of this post, I will repeat something I said earlier, namely that one of the Sunni sects is Wahhabism, which is an extremely fundamentalist and rigid form of Sunni Islam. Another rigid and fundamentalist Sunni sect is Salafism. There is a similarity and relation between Salafism and Wahhabism, but I feel I do not know enough to elaborate on that. However, I think it is safe to say that these two sects dominate in Saudi Arabia, meaning that Saudi Arabia is not inclined to do anything that anyone or any group suggests that varies from them in any way. Which brings me to a third major sect within Islam, the Sufis.
Rudimentary (at best) description of Sufism
Here is a synopsis of Sufis based on my own study over the years. The Sufis are the poets and mystics of Islam. Sufis are moderates. Sufis are non-violent. Sufis are not dogmatic. Sufis are tolerant of other religions. Indeed, Sufis are open to seeking knowledge and understanding from other religions. Because of these characteristics, Sufis are disliked and criticized by some other Muslims (notably hardliners like Salafis, Wahhabis, and the Taliban). Sufis have been and still are persecuted by some other Muslims.
Now here's some descriptions of Sufis for the wingers out there. These descriptions were written by Stephen Schwartz and appeared in The Weekly Standard, one of the mainstays of the right wing media. The first description comes from "Getting to Know the Sufis," published in February 2005:
Newt's ignorant, broad statements fail to reflect any of these facts. His statements at the least imply that all Muslims (and all Muslim sects) come within the purview of "These Islamists" that he contends are trying to make America submit. Forcing people to submit is definitely not the Sufi way, and if Newt would bother to do even a little bit of study about Sufism, he would know that.
Sufi efforts to promote religious tolerance in the Middle East
Newt and his apologists surely would argue that everything I described indicates that Sufis are indeed the group that should lead a campaign for religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. Well, Sufis are taking some steps to counter rigid religious fundamentalism in the Middle East. To be honest, this is a subject of which I knew nothing before doing research for this post, and based on what I have found, I cannot at this time adequately address the topic. Nonetheless, I will point out a portion of Sufi efforts in this regard.
Sufis in the Middle East are establishing satellite television channels to reach Sufi audiences and teach others about Sufism. As stated in this January 27, 2010, article,
As shown above, Sufis already practice religious tolerance and respect for other faiths AND they are engaging in activities to counter the efforts of extreme fundamentalism--even in Saudi Arabia. In other words, Sufis are already doing the things that Newt thinks they are not and must do before Americans should show them any tolerance.
Sufi efforts to promote religious tolerance via Park 51
Now I want to focus on what we might expect from Park 51 and Cordoba House.
The Park 51 website describes the project's Vision as follows:
It also seems clear that the rest of Park 51 will be open to all people. Park 51's Mission statement includes the following:
Moreover, in accordance with what I said above about Sufis being open to other religions, "Cordoba House, under the direction of Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf, will represent a multifaith programming cluster within Park51." What the website does not make clear is whether "Cordoba House" will be an actual entity or facility within Park 51. Specifically, it is still not clear to me whether the mosque is going to be called "Cordoba House." In any event, it appears that multifaith activities are going to be part of Park 51.
In short, Park 51 has declared that it will be open to all people, regardless of religion, and will have programs and activities that allow ideas and beliefs of other religions to be expressed therein.
Maybe that's not good enough for Newt, but it if Park 51 carries through on its declarations, the facility will certainly exemplify religious tolerance.
Sufi efforts to promote religious tolerance via the Imam of Park 51
The Imam (spiritual leader and teacher) of Park 51 will be Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. There is currently plenty of info about him on the internet, but I will provide links to three bios: Wikipedia; the Cordoba Initiative; and the American Society for Muslim Advancement. The Wikipedia page presents some of the criticisms of Rauf. He has addressed some of those criticisms (and others specifically related to Park 51) in a FAQ page on the Cordoba Initiative website. I am not going to discuss those criticisms here, but will do so in a subsequent post.
What I want to focus on in this post is Rauf's past efforts regarding religious tolerance. This post at TPM Muckraker provides a nice summary of Rauf's work with the Bush administration (that's right, Bush) to promote religious tolerance in the Middle East and at home. What I find most interesting is that when Bush was President, there were no complaints about Rauf being some sort of radical or Islamic extremist, yet now that is exactly what opponents of Park 51 are calling him.
NOTE: Stephen Schwartz wrote an August 4, 2010, article examing Rauf's possible ties to people who might be considered radicals. In my opinion, the article does little to show that Rauf is a radical in contravention to what his work described herein shows. However, in the interest of fairness, I felt I should mention and link to Schwartz's article.
Rauf has also promoted religious tolerance in this country, and part of his efforts have occurred through his position of Imam of Masjid Al-Farah, the mosque which is about 12 blocks from Ground Zero. I will share two accounts from people who have participated in activities with Rauf while he has been the Imam of Masjid Al-Farah. The first account comes from an August 19, 2010, column by Brad Gooch, a contributor to The Daily Beast:
Conclusion
Newt's statements continue his position that "until Saudi Arabia has religious freedom, America is going to restrict its religious freedom." And thus he continues to be a douchebag.
His statements display an abject ignorance of history and the doctrinal differences within Islam. He is also ignorant of the fact that the Muslims seeking to build Park 51 are Sufis, and he shows that he knows nothing about Sufis.
The declarations of Park 51 and the actions of Sufis in general and Imam Rauf in particular show that they are indeed already working for religious tolerance.
In short, Newt's fourth set of statements is complete bullshit.
This post will continue examination (and shredding) of an "essay" Newt posted about the proposed Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero. Specifically, I will show that Newt's assertions about religious tolerance are meaningless, ignorant, and that what he wants has pretty much already been happening.
Newt's fourth set of bullshit statements
Among other things, these statements once again show that Newt is trying to tie religious freedom in America with religious freedom in Saudi Arabia.
I first need to discuss the name of the project. The name for the overall project was initially "Cordoba House." This is something else Newt rails about, and I will discuss that in another post. The name of the overall project has been changed to "Park 51." When I first checked out the Park 51 website, I had the impression that the mosque would be operated as a separate entity and would be called "Cordoba House." As of today (August 23) the website says that the mosque has "yet to be named." However, there are other portions of the website that expressly refer to "Cordoba House," which causes some confusion (which will be briefly addressed in a subsequent section). In any event, the website does make it clear that the mosque will be a separately run non-profit.
With that in mind, here's what Newt said right after his third bullshit statement:
If the people behind the Cordoba House were serious about religious toleration, they would be imploring the Saudis, as fellow Muslims, to immediately open up Mecca to all and immediately announce their intention to allow non-Muslim houses of worship in the Kingdom. They should be asked by the news media if they would be willing to lead such a campaign.Newt's statements about toleration are as worthless as his other statements.
As I discussed in the previous post, any efforts to get Saudi Arabia to permit any religion other than Islam are pointless. You know, Newt has undergraduate, master's, and PhD degrees in history, so one would think that he could have availed himself of the history of Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabis, meaning that he would have had sense enough not to make these ridiculous statements about Saudi Arabia allowing non-Muslim houses of worship. Apparently, he was too lazy to do even a little bit of research.
Anyway, here is another example of Newt trying to make American religious freedom in some way dependent on religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. That is truly stupid since we already have religious freedom under our American constitution.
Newt is so damn clueless.
I considered titling this section after a famous running bit from Dan Ackroyd on SNL back in the day...Anyhoo...
Newt's statements are utterly ignorant. The statements utterly fail to take into account the fact that there are different sects within Islam. Most people now are aware of the two main sects, Sunni and Shia. What they might not know is that there are sects within those sects. For purposes of this post, I will repeat something I said earlier, namely that one of the Sunni sects is Wahhabism, which is an extremely fundamentalist and rigid form of Sunni Islam. Another rigid and fundamentalist Sunni sect is Salafism. There is a similarity and relation between Salafism and Wahhabism, but I feel I do not know enough to elaborate on that. However, I think it is safe to say that these two sects dominate in Saudi Arabia, meaning that Saudi Arabia is not inclined to do anything that anyone or any group suggests that varies from them in any way. Which brings me to a third major sect within Islam, the Sufis.
Rudimentary (at best) description of Sufism
Here is a synopsis of Sufis based on my own study over the years. The Sufis are the poets and mystics of Islam. Sufis are moderates. Sufis are non-violent. Sufis are not dogmatic. Sufis are tolerant of other religions. Indeed, Sufis are open to seeking knowledge and understanding from other religions. Because of these characteristics, Sufis are disliked and criticized by some other Muslims (notably hardliners like Salafis, Wahhabis, and the Taliban). Sufis have been and still are persecuted by some other Muslims.
Now here's some descriptions of Sufis for the wingers out there. These descriptions were written by Stephen Schwartz and appeared in The Weekly Standard, one of the mainstays of the right wing media. The first description comes from "Getting to Know the Sufis," published in February 2005:
Where the Wahhabis insist that there is only one, monolithic, authentic Islam (theirs), the Sufis express their faith through hundreds of different orders and communities around the globe, none pretending to an exclusive hold on truth. Sufis may be either Sunni or Shia; some would claim to have transcended the difference. Throughout its 1,200-year history, Sufism has rested on a spiritual foundation of love for the creator and creation, which implies the cultivation of mercy and compassion toward all human beings. These principles are expressed in esoteric teachings imparted through formal instruction.In an August 9, 2010, blog post, Schwartz and Irfan al-Alawi described the the persecution suffered by Sufis. The post began by describing the July 1, 2010, terrorist attack on a Sufi shrine in Pakistan which killed 45 and injured 175 and went on to describe other violent attacks on Sufis the last few years. Regarding the July bombing, the writers stated*******The history of Sufism is filled with examples of interfaith fusion, in contrast with the rigid separatism of the Islamic fundamentalists. Balkan and Turkish Sufis share holy sites with Christians. Central Asian Sufis preserve traditions inherited from shamans and Buddhists. Sufis in French-speaking West Africa adapt local customs, and those in Eastern Turkestan borrow from Chinese traditions such as Confucianism and Taoism, as well as martial arts. In the Balkans, Turkey, and Central Asia, Sufis have accepted secularism as a bulwark against religious intolerance and the monopolization of religious opinion by clerics.
The slayings have been blamed on al Qaeda and its Taliban allies.And why am I discussing Sufis? Two reasons: 1) Sufis are not radical extremists. The radical Islamic extremists basically despise the Sufis. 2) The Muslims seeking to build and use Park 51 and Cordoba House are Sufis.
As adherents to Saudi-financed Wahhabism and the similar South Asian Deobandi form of Muslim fundamentalism, the terrorists have long proclaimed their hatred of the Sufis[.]
Newt's ignorant, broad statements fail to reflect any of these facts. His statements at the least imply that all Muslims (and all Muslim sects) come within the purview of "These Islamists" that he contends are trying to make America submit. Forcing people to submit is definitely not the Sufi way, and if Newt would bother to do even a little bit of study about Sufism, he would know that.
Sufi efforts to promote religious tolerance in the Middle East
Newt and his apologists surely would argue that everything I described indicates that Sufis are indeed the group that should lead a campaign for religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. Well, Sufis are taking some steps to counter rigid religious fundamentalism in the Middle East. To be honest, this is a subject of which I knew nothing before doing research for this post, and based on what I have found, I cannot at this time adequately address the topic. Nonetheless, I will point out a portion of Sufi efforts in this regard.
Sufis in the Middle East are establishing satellite television channels to reach Sufi audiences and teach others about Sufism. As stated in this January 27, 2010, article,
A coalition of Sufi organisations is preparing to launch Egypt’s first Sufi-themed satellite television station before the end of the year.The article also points out that many of the Salafi satellite channels are Saudi-funded. And, according to this article, another Sufi satellite channel is being funded by Saudi businessmen. Notice that this second article is very dismissive and critical of Sufism, exemplified by the author's statement that " In fact I pity the forthcoming Sufi channel[.]"
The channel’s principal organisers, the Al Azmiyah tariqah, or “path”, said the station would be the fourth in the Middle East to identify specifically with Sufi Islamic thought.
Ala’ Abu al Azayim, the sheikh of the Al Azmiyah tariqah, said he hoped the station, which he plans to name Al Sufiya Wa Atasawaf (Sufis and Sufism), will help propagate Sufism’s moderate conception of Islam.
But he also envisions it as an ideological foil to the dozens of conservative Salafi satellite channels that compete for viewers across the region – stations that Mr al Azayim said routinely attack Sufi thought, pollute the practice of Islam with an ultra-conservative ideology and defame the religion’s reputation throughout the world.
As shown above, Sufis already practice religious tolerance and respect for other faiths AND they are engaging in activities to counter the efforts of extreme fundamentalism--even in Saudi Arabia. In other words, Sufis are already doing the things that Newt thinks they are not and must do before Americans should show them any tolerance.
Sufi efforts to promote religious tolerance via Park 51
Now I want to focus on what we might expect from Park 51 and Cordoba House.
The Park 51 website describes the project's Vision as follows:
Park51 will be dedicated to pluralism, service, arts and culture, education and empowerment, appreciation for our city and a deep respect for our planet. Park51 will join New York to the world, offering a welcoming community center with multiple points of entry.As for the mosque, Park 51 says that it will be "open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community." Another portion of the website says "Intended to operate as a separate 501(c)(3), the mosque will be a welcoming prayer space accessible to Park51 members as well as all New Yorkers." (emphasis added). Thus, it appears that the mosque will be open to non-Muslims. That certainly seems religiously tolerant to me.
With world-class facilities, a global scope and strong local roots, Park 51 will offer a friendly and accessible platform for conversations across our identities.
It also seems clear that the rest of Park 51 will be open to all people. Park 51's Mission statement includes the following:
- Uphold respect for the diversity of expression and ideas between all people
- Cultivate and embrace neighborly relations between all New Yorkers, fostering a spirit of civic participation and an awareness of common needs and opportunities
- Encourage open discussion and dialogue on issues of relevance to New Yorkers, Americans and the international reality of our interconnected planet
At a time of economic hardship, Park51 will constitute an investment of over $100 million of infrastructure in lower Manhattan, creating over 150 full-time jobs and over 500 part-time jobs, and providing much needed space, open to all, for community activities, health and wellness, arts and culture and personal and professional development.(emphasis added). Also, Park 51 will have a 23-member board of directors, and "The Board will not be limited by religion or region."
Moreover, in accordance with what I said above about Sufis being open to other religions, "Cordoba House, under the direction of Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf, will represent a multifaith programming cluster within Park51." What the website does not make clear is whether "Cordoba House" will be an actual entity or facility within Park 51. Specifically, it is still not clear to me whether the mosque is going to be called "Cordoba House." In any event, it appears that multifaith activities are going to be part of Park 51.
In short, Park 51 has declared that it will be open to all people, regardless of religion, and will have programs and activities that allow ideas and beliefs of other religions to be expressed therein.
Maybe that's not good enough for Newt, but it if Park 51 carries through on its declarations, the facility will certainly exemplify religious tolerance.
Sufi efforts to promote religious tolerance via the Imam of Park 51
The Imam (spiritual leader and teacher) of Park 51 will be Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. There is currently plenty of info about him on the internet, but I will provide links to three bios: Wikipedia; the Cordoba Initiative; and the American Society for Muslim Advancement. The Wikipedia page presents some of the criticisms of Rauf. He has addressed some of those criticisms (and others specifically related to Park 51) in a FAQ page on the Cordoba Initiative website. I am not going to discuss those criticisms here, but will do so in a subsequent post.
What I want to focus on in this post is Rauf's past efforts regarding religious tolerance. This post at TPM Muckraker provides a nice summary of Rauf's work with the Bush administration (that's right, Bush) to promote religious tolerance in the Middle East and at home. What I find most interesting is that when Bush was President, there were no complaints about Rauf being some sort of radical or Islamic extremist, yet now that is exactly what opponents of Park 51 are calling him.
NOTE: Stephen Schwartz wrote an August 4, 2010, article examing Rauf's possible ties to people who might be considered radicals. In my opinion, the article does little to show that Rauf is a radical in contravention to what his work described herein shows. However, in the interest of fairness, I felt I should mention and link to Schwartz's article.
Rauf has also promoted religious tolerance in this country, and part of his efforts have occurred through his position of Imam of Masjid Al-Farah, the mosque which is about 12 blocks from Ground Zero. I will share two accounts from people who have participated in activities with Rauf while he has been the Imam of Masjid Al-Farah. The first account comes from an August 19, 2010, column by Brad Gooch, a contributor to The Daily Beast:
I first met Feisal Rauf in the spring of 2000, while working on my book Godtalk: Travels in Spiritual America. I wished to write a chapter on Islam in New York City, and a friend took me to a lecture Feisal was giving on his new book, Islam: A Sacred Law, subtitled What Every Muslim Should Know About Shariah. (I learned that night what many screaming heads have not yet—there are different schools of Islamic law, as there are denominations in Christianity, and Feisal is part of an extremely liberal one.) The event was in the basement of a (since vanished) Sufi bookstore on West Broadway. Next door was the Masjid Al-Farah, where I began to attend his Friday talks...I interviewed Feisal at a nearby café. Eventually, he invited me to attend a meditation group in Sufism—the mystical branch of Islam—he led Friday nights at the Upper West Side apartment he shared with his wife Daisy Khan. I frequented the group over four months.This shows that Rauf has opened his door to non-Muslims in this country. The second account is a comment to a post on the Huffington Post:*******His weekly prayer group was a Noah’s ark (the Koran has Noah, too), including the grandson of a Syrian president; a Jewish librarian; a Roman Catholic Latina; an African-American radio commentator.
I have been to the mosque many times. It is a supremely peaceful place attended by loving, introspective people only. There is no anti-Christian, anti-American, or hateful talk or activity of any kind going on there, only loving devotion and spirituality. Men and women of all nationalities pray there side by side. In addition, the mosque and associated buildings have often been host to spiritual teachers, artists, musicians, and other presenters from many traditions including Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and more.What more needs to be said?
Truth be told, the Masjid Al-Farah is the kind of mosque that radical Islamists and all zealots -- religious or otherwise -- hate, because it is a place that promotes love, pluralism and tolerance. So it is my opinion, based on first-hand experience of this Imam his previous position, that the building of Cordoba House--if it is to be anything like Masjid Al-Farah--is something that stands in direct opposition to terrorism and Islamist radicalism.
Conclusion
Newt's statements continue his position that "until Saudi Arabia has religious freedom, America is going to restrict its religious freedom." And thus he continues to be a douchebag.
His statements display an abject ignorance of history and the doctrinal differences within Islam. He is also ignorant of the fact that the Muslims seeking to build Park 51 are Sufis, and he shows that he knows nothing about Sufis.
The declarations of Park 51 and the actions of Sufis in general and Imam Rauf in particular show that they are indeed already working for religious tolerance.
In short, Newt's fourth set of statements is complete bullshit.
posted by WCharles @ 8/23/2010 11:17:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home