Are you disassociating yourself from McCarthy/Geller/JEM/Jerome and their fears of a Shariah society, conquest of America, all Muslims presumed to be sleeper agents for worldwide violent Jihadism and burkas for the grandkids until proven otherwise?
I would not formulate things the way some or all of them would, and there might be specific claims I would reject from each or all of them--I would not disassociate myself from them in the sense of either placing them beyond some boundary of civil discourse or of (figuratively) walking around with a sign saying "I'm not with them." I don't think McCarthy, at least, sees things the way you represent him here, but I certainly welcome the voices of those who have a critical view of Islam and are skeptical of its possibilities for change, because they notice and are willing to speak about a lot of things others prefer to ignore. (And Geller is willing to fight for people others would sacrifice to "multiculturalism").
My way into the discussion is not some general claim about Islam, though--it is a response to the claim of the CI to want dialogue, to really want dialogue, because they are clearly going out of their way to get a lot of attention. I have conditions for dialogue; in those conditions I may share a lot with other Americans. I don't want to speak with Tariq Ramadan style dissimulators--there are many of them out there, and there are also some fairly easy ways to show that you aren't such, and from what I've seen they haven't availed themselves of any of them. So, I say we should give them dialogue, but it may not be exactly what they want, and sometimes dialogue leads to more conflict, not less, and I wouldn't make any promises. And if dialogue doesn't work, there are still rights and I don't want to take those away from any law abiding citizen or resident, but you are just left with saying who you think people are.
@ CK MacLeod:
It seems to me that a lot of people are "left over," but that's beside the point. I think that each situation should be examined on its own terms, so I don't think my arguments fit into the ones you identify here. And I certainly haven't evoked immediate security concerns--this immediate issue operates in the realm of politics and symbols. The only question for me, since I started looking at it, is "what do they [i.e., the Cordoba Initiative] want"? If they want what you (any "you") want, then support them; if not, then not. And it doesn't look to me like they want quite what they say they want. More broadly, I think we are already extremely tolerant, including towards Muslims--it is only the proximity to GZ, not some emerging or intensifying animus towards Muslims, that is involved here. I'm not so sure that, to many Americans, there is anything more to "America" than a vague notion of "tolerance." So I am far more concerned about losing the distinction I just made, between the exclusion of violence in politics, and the sense that violence is just part of a continuum starting with "anger."
@ CK MacLeod:
There is no threat of violence here--if we don't understand the difference, how can we expect anyone else to? If anyone were to commot a violent act against the Cordoba House or anyone who uses it, I want them arrested and prosecuted vigorously. If anyone class for such violence, I want them ostracized or, if they cross over the boundary from free speech to threat, arrested. We can't even allow for arguments on this point--I think very few conservatives would offer such arguments (I am certain that Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom and Andrew McCarthy would agree--I even assume Pam Geller would). We can't expect less from anyone else.
That’s just in the nature of the situation–we need to know whether Islamic representatives believe that suicide bombing is a justified means of war; whether they are ready to speak in defense of the rights of those who publicly renounce or “insult” Islam; whether they think democratic decision making can override Islamic law, etc
.
Who’s “we” and with a view to “what”? We as in the decision-makers charged with allowing a building to be sited are one thing. We as in private citizens are something else. “Entry fee” is an odd concept. You mean the fee before you let them enter your mind, or the jizya they pay before they’re allowed to function as less-equal-than-other free citizens in our not-so-free society?
Good questions. For me, the "we" is the private citizens (who ultimately elect the decision makers, of course--but I'm not thinking in terms of a legal or political decision in this case). But I can't be sure of who comprises the "we"--I don't know who agrees with me, and to what extent.
With "entry fee" I suppose I had in mind Heinrich Heine's reference to his baptism as the "entry ticket" to Western Civilization. It's my way of saying that there is always a price paid by both newcomers and the society they enter; a price which is always negotiated, which might be more fair to one partner than another, and where the benefits might be disproportionate to the price. And where no one can know all these things in advance.
With a view towards what? Very simple: not being held hostage to violence; to our fear of violence, or even to our use of our own force (I think that's what scares many in the West the most). If someone tells me that I'd better watch what I say because I'm going to make someone angry (maybe not him, but someone else out there) and then: you'd better look out!--I will not speak further with that person, and I would warn others against it as well. When someone is actually saying that is the question.
Ask questions, fine – but your statement went further than “we can and should ask questions,” it went to “levy a higher entry fee” to those groups (into civil society) because the trade-offs were better. I am saying absolutely not
The questions and the levying are two sides of the same process. I would ask more probing questions, be more insistent in my follow ups, less willing to take claims at face value, with representatives of Islam than with other groups--that's what I meant by a "higher entry fee." That's just in the nature of the situation--we need to know whether Islamic representatives believe that suicide bombing is a justified means of war; whether they are ready to speak in defense of the rights of those who publicly renounce or "insult" Islam; whether they think democratic decision making can override Islamic law, etc. The questions I would want to ask of the representatives of a group of, say, Ukrainian or Caribbean Americans would be less demanding.
With regard to the other victimary groups, I agree we may confront difficulties. Many in those groups, especially their better known representatives, have thrown in with the Left, which has in turn thrown in with the Islamists. I see the opposition as a Global Intifada--in the end, we can only hope that a steadfast defense of freedom and equality will convince those groups their interests lie in giving no ground to Islamism. And maybe, ultimately, in surrendering victimary status. There is, now, the occasional Bruce Bawer and Phyllis Chesler--hopefully we'll have many more like them. Maybe there is political gain in not insulting people's intelligence or flattering their self-image. It will have to be long term, though.
You wrote that they’re not allowed to have representatives, but must only present themselves individually, because you’ve seen numerous news items about certain duplicitous figures connected to political issues that you happen to care about.
But I didn't write this at all. I wrote that while the rights of individuals are unquestioned and unqualified unless they break some law, representatives are there to present a collective identity and interest (and therefore responsibility as well) and should therefore be ready for comments, questions and criticisms, If an individual Muslim applies for a job, a loan, a law school, etc., I don't have any call to ask him about Bin Laden, Israel, polygamy, etc.; and I don't know the law here very well but I'm also glad to say we should accommodate his desire to observe Ramadan, etc. Once a group forms, though, calling itself, say, "Muslims for Inter-faith Dialogue," and they put out the obligatory statement of intent, set up their website, etc., I have every right to say things like "wait a minute--you say you're in favor of principle y and yet you support activity x..." And I have every right to stick to that line of questioning even if they try and fob me off with some empty phrases and I have every right to conclude that they're full of it, that there's something else going on here, and that we should look into who's funding the group, whom they fund, etc. And they are free to ignore my questioning, but, then, I am free to try and convince others not to be deceived. So, it seems to me that groups trying to represent Muslims as full participants in American society and culture will want to develop satisfactory answers to those kinds of questions, and that groups that don't develop such answers are interested in something other than such participation. And in either case, I'm going to say how things look to me--and, of course, the questions I'm going to ask come from the world I see. I'm not going to ask a spokesperson for "Buddhists for Inter-faith Dialogue" what he or she thinks about Sharia law, or violence against civilians.
@ CK MacLeod:
I hadn't noticed this before my previous comment.
I'm not claiming expertise in Islam. I have only observed how hard it is for representatives of Islam (those elevated as spokesmen by whatever mechanisms) to be explicit and consistent about their commitments to liberty and equality in anything resembling the way most of us understand these terms; not to mention regarding the morality of blowing up civilians who happen to be Jews (or, if you like, Israelis--I am sensitive to refusals to recognize the humanity of the Israelis). A leading "moderate" Muslim will say something soothing, and then it turns out he heads a Hamas supporting mosque or gives to a Hezbollah supporting "charity," etc. It happens over and over again.
What is an average Muslim supposed to glean from a statement like that? If I were a Muslim and became convinced that Americans thought they way, the Muslim Brotherhood would start looking a lot more welcoming, and a lot of other things – like blowing up buildings and getting rid of outsiders – might start looking a lot more appealing. I’d have a lot less interest in anything other than solidarity, and would forgive an awful lot on the part of my brothers, because the citizens of the richest, most powerful, most well-armed, and most self-ignorant and hypocritical nation in the history of the world hated people like me and would never accept us until we had submitted, as hopeless reviled atoms, to their mastery.
I imagine many Muslims would respond this way, and that may be because of Islam, or because of the legitimacy granted certain kinds of grievances today. There was once a time when newcomers to an extraordinary society in which they had access to unimagined opportunities would want to ensure their new neighbors that what seemed threatening really wasn't, that what needed to be modified to fit that new world would be, and even that the old principles (of both the newcomers and the society) can be revived and revised in surprising and pleasing ways (even while protesting against egregious violations of the principles of that society). It seems to me that was more or less the approach Catholics and Jews, who faced similar suspicions and hostilities when they came here en masse, took. Those days are gone, and I don't think they are coming back; my back-up plan would be to incorporate this recognition into our immigration policies; alas, the double bind here is that if we could do that, we wouldn't need to--we would already be communicating our expectations sufficiently clearly. So it may be, for now, that the only thing we have is the right of private citizens to say that Islam, as a public faith wishing to join the pantheon of American religions, hasn't, in their view, sealed the deal yet. And to insist that law enforcement do its job, if there are Muslims who "interpret" statements like mine along the lines you suggest.
@ CK MacLeod:
I think we're talking past each other at this point. Perhaps we'll come at these questions in other ways in the future. I'll just repeat what I said before (itself a sign of the exhaustion of the dialogue): you take the Cordoba House and Rauf at their word, on principle, seemingly, because to do otherwise would undermine liberal democratic principles. I don't take them at their word, but there are things they could say that would incline me to do so. One way to de-politicize religion is to sever religion from citizenship--to simply be an American in public life and a Muslim, Jew or Christian in private life. If you want to de-politicize religion as a Muslim (or the others, of course) the way to do that is to make a case for the compatibility of your faith with civil society, and, even more, for the way your faith can further enrich that civil society. At this point, though, gesturing back to the commonplaces of the "three great monotheistic religions" won't do it--maybe 15 years ago, but not now. I won't be convinced and it seems many others won't either. The field is wide open for Muslims to associate their faith unambiguously with freedom and equality. What's the problem?
@ CK MacLeod:
It strikes me that one way of summing up our disagreement is that you think that we should act as if Muslims have already entered the pact of civil society, and should not provide them with a cause for exiting the terms of that pact. I am completely willing to do so for individual Muslims, who make claims only as citizens; but not for Muslim groups or representatives, because the costs of allowing such groups to game the system outweigh the costs of levying too high an entry fee. In the end, demanding unequivocal demonstrations of allegiance to liberal democratic principles (more than, for historical reasons, we might demand from, say, Buddhists--much more, in fact) will be in the interests of Muslims themselves, as individuals at least, if not, perhaps, of all of their "representatives."
a politicization of religious belief is completely contraindicated in a liberal democracy. It is, immediately and inherently, in itself, the termination of liberal democracy.
In that case the fate of liberal democracy is in the hands of Islamists, whom we must count upon not to politicize their religious beliefs.
The Cordoba House presents itself as a gesture of de-politicization – equal and non-pre-judged entry into the social-political sphere – not Ground Zero, but, through disavowal and negation of the terrorists’ intentions and actions, a return to square zero.
You can say this, but based on what? The response makes it political; only if they could not have anticipated such a response would their gesture be a de-politicized one. Why not back off and engage their audience if they genuinely want to de-politicize? The whole formulation doesn't make sense--if you want to de-politicize religion, why make it the basis of a dialogue? Are you imagining a de-politicized dialogue? What are we talking about, in that case?
they refuse, and proceed to sketch out in word and deed their favored setting, one in which all claims against Islam go un-answered by those who authentically sympathize with Islam, because anyone speaking on behalf of Islam has already been marked by the prior exclusion as defective and deficient, and therefore disqualified.
The more knowledgeable and authentically representative of Islam, the more clearly disqualified, under this formula. Every proof that the speaker is qualified will be written into the great book of anti-Islamic judgment as a suspect and disqualifying connection. Only people who know nothing or know only the wrong things about Islam, who have been cast out or have cast themselves out of the community, or who have shown sufficient “dhimmitude” within the counter-Sharia of anti-Islam, will be allowed to speak.
I don't understand much of this. Someone says he wants to speak with me, presumably as a representative of the West, or liberalism, in the name of Islam--he has a right, if I take him up on it, to ask me about slavery, American policy in Iraq, poverty levels under capitalism, etc.--all this may be very illuminating regarding the strengths, weaknesses, hypocrises, etc., of Western liberal societies. In turn, I must be able to ask him about apostates, women, Jews, etc. I think any informed Westerner will have reasonably satisfying responses to the inquiries I just mentioned, even if those responses involve one's own critique of Western liberalism. If the individual representing Islam (who has chosen, in this hypothetical dialogue, to represent Islam), doesn't have responses that he square with both those within and those outside of his community, what are the implications? Someone who could forthrightly say, here is the reading of Islam I am ready to fight for, one which embraces Jews, etc, and situates me thusly in relation to other trends within Islam, I'm certainly not going to disqualify him--I would be ready to support him. But if he ends up speaking only for himself, again, what can we do about that?
when a popular rightwing blogger and self-appointed leader of the “anti-mosque” forces (the appropriateness of that appellation should already tell you, though apparently it doesn’t, how odious this whole line of discussion is) calls for to her-offensive passages in the Koran to be “expunged” for implicitly all use in the United States.
Malkin?
Never mind, you must mean Pam Geller.
(That’s whose side you’re on.)
I must be on so many people's side in so many ways and against the same people in other ways that there's no point trying to keep track. You are participating in the construction of an "anti-Muslim" or (not your word but a very common one, at least in the academy) "Islamophobic" position that can be placed beyond some boundary of civil discourse. Who will then decide what counts as "anti-Muslim"? According to the rules existing now, the most enterprising victimologists. Islam is not sacred--it can be questioned and criticized in whatever terms those critics like. If there are then compelling examples of Islams that counter the representations of those critics, by all means let them be put forward. To return to my theme, that would be what one might think the Cordobans would do in establishing their 9/11 mosque. They seem to show little interest in such an approach. Perhaps the opposition will lead them to consider something along those lines. Such a discussion has been strongly and effectively discouraged thus far--hopefully in vain, as we will need to have it sooner or later.
Because I don’t, in fact, think the CH on its own terms should be judged a threat or even as more than potentially significant – and more likely a positive than a negative if so – I focus on the things that I feel more certain are significant, especially the embrace of a xenophobic, ignorant, un-American, counterproductive, and inestimably dangerous politicization of religion across the conservative right, including from people I would have expected to be immune or at least healthily resistant to such pathologies.
Because I am focused on whether there is an Islam that can unambiguously affirm basic human and civil rights I am concerned with a different set of pathologies, that seem to me more of a hindrance to reasonable discussion than the "politicization of religion." More precisely: victimary thinking, and it's complement, White Guilt.
when a popular rightwing blogger and self-appointed leader of the “anti-mosque” forces (the appropriateness of that appellation should already tell you, though apparently it doesn’t, how odious this whole line of discussion is) calls for to her-offensive passages in the Koran to be “expunged” for implicitly all use in the United States.
Malkin?
we always and inevitably enter into such discussion deeply self-interested and generally incapable of being fair to the “other.”
In this case, being fair to the other will mean taking what they say seriously and being clear about our own expectations. To take one example, I have no interest in dialogue with those who can't unambiguously acknowledge the rights of Jews, or "apostates" (first of all to be free of violence). I understand we need to deal with states that fall below these norms, but when it comes to cultural dialogue, I have not patience for obfuscation on these issues. And the less patience we have collectively, the better dialogue will proceed--even if it proceeds to a recognition of irreconciliable differences.
Fine, but in the end, the suspicions about the Cordoba project are completely justified, even if they could have been expressed more “liberally” (in the broader, non-partisan sense of “liberal”).
Assumes facts way not in evidence, and depends on the general term “suspicions”: I’ve seen everything from suspicions that they really don’t like non-Muslims very much to suspicions that they’re planning on indoctrinating and sending out suicide bombers. So, what suspicions are you talking about?
I suspect they want to trumpet to Muslims throughout the world the conquest of Muslim space on the site of the 9/11 attacks. That's enough for me to support keeping a very close eye on this, dissecting the propaganda they produce, and monitoring what they say to Muslims throughout the world.
I’m not responsible or, for purposes of this discussion, greatly interested in the “Cordobans”‘ “good faith interest in dialogue,” though it might give the opponents something to talk about that wasn’t based on prejudice and collective guilt, or built on character assassination and guilt by association (the prosecutorial version of collective guilt, of course). As a matter of fact, I don’t think an abstract judgment like the one you’ve offered – based on an item on their web site that quotes someone else’s statement! – should bear at all on their right to build a building in NYC, so long as it doesn’t violate community standards, which we have two decisions by the community board, as well as OKs from higher officials, expressing.
We clearly disagree about the purposes of this discussion which is, for me, to get a clear sense of whether there are good grounds to oppose the CI. The purpose for you seem to be to condemn a particular type of rhetoric, but part of what I'm saying is that the ways of criticizing Islam and Muslims you are opposing result from the lack of any sustained, honest discussion about these issues--and that lack derives from the fear of being tarred a racist, Islamophobe, etc. The question isn't the narrow one of whether they have a legal right to build--clearly they do, and the people against them also have a right to say whatever they want about it. So far, not very interesting--what's interesting is what we think should be said about it. I'm willing to agree that "Islime" isn't one of those things, but your notion of avoiding "collective judgment" obviously wants to exclude a lot more than the obvious slurs. I want to give the opponents something else to talk about--you certainly don't.
And my judgment isn't based on an "item" on their website, but on a reading of the website as a whole. This group has very deliberately thrust itself into our collective consciousness, and yet they have nothing to say--they want to build bridges, but don't say why we are at odds in the first place; they claim to want dialogue but don't say what they want to talk about--they have no diagnosis, no prescription. And yet they want to place themselves at the center--why? I'm interested in the possibility of genuine reciprocity here--of Muslims, Christians, Jews, secularists (and everyone else) addressing each other without presumptions of superiority or grievance. In the long run that's more important than the endless simulated civil war game in which some Americans show themselves to be more enlightened and tolerant than other Americans, with the "other" serving as a mere background.
As for agreement, I’m referring to the “rights from God” discussion and the presumptions of a civil discourse.
Thanks for the clarification (I don't know how I could have guessed that was the reference). My own suggestion that we inquire into their views on the rights of Jews in Muslim countries, in the interest of testing them as dialogue partners, made that very same assumption.
For some reason it sticks in your craw that someone somehow associated with the CI said something about someone’s Nazi-like tactics. Since I don’t know who, what, where, when, or why, it makes little impression on me.
I took this from the website--it was actually a quote from Scott Springer, a NYC official. What impressed me was their willingness to use this remark from a (presumably liberal or leftist) supporter to demonize their opponents, rather than trying to engage those opponents. For me, that's a marker of the sincerity regarding their claim to seek dialogue. I've been called plenty of things as well and it doesn't bother me--that's also part of dialogue.
I have seen – and could catalog if I must – the most crass imaginable statements about Islam and Muslims as a class made on a regular basis on threads relating to this and other issues at HotAir, Pajamas, Daily Caller, etc., and the whole point of the first “Fight them all together” piece was to demonstrate how people from Barber to the Conservative blogger of the year 2007 to a leading “polite” conservative were basing their rhetoric on emotionalist and otherwise forced and one-sided indictments of Islam as a whole.
Fine, but in the end, the suspicions about the Cordoba project are completely justified, even if they could have been expressed more "liberally" (in the broader, non-partisan sense of "liberal"). To me, it looks like you are using the bigoted, etc. expressions to smear the opposition to the mosque, rather than trying to refine that opposition so it might stimulate the dialogue the Cordobans say they want.
"Setting the rules" is actually a bad way of getting at what I mean here--a sense of rules, of how to speak about these matters, is probably exactly what we need (even if we could only arrive at such rules gradually and collaboratively). It seems to me that you are focusing on the how as a way to discredit the what (the argument against the mosque--or, more precisely, the attempt to expose the CI as deceptive and very likely far more Islamist than it lets on; or, even more precisely, the attempt to get the CI to show that it isn't, if it can.)
@ CK MacLeod:
Obviously I'm questioning whether one side is resorting to bigotry, demagoguery, etc.
I thought we were just having this discussion and reaching agreement
.
I'm not sure what you mean here--did I come in and upset some emergent consensus?
Anyway, it seems hard to call for good faith when making these kinds of charges yourself. By all means let the discussion play itself out--we don't even have to presume good faith--I, and I'm sure others, would be glad to respond to anything the Cordobans come up with, even though their slick and evasive website makes me virtually certain that it won't be much. The problem here seems to me to be that you'd like to set the rules for that dialogue, but why should anyone follow them?
By the way, regarding Barber--I would strongly encourage him (and encourage others to encourage him) to clarify who, exactly, he takes to be the enemy. He can certainly be read as suggesting that the enemy is all Muslims, all the time. I doubt very much he wishes to say that, but he should leave no doubt here. I think the question is pretty simple, and that Bush had it right from the beginning--you're with us or you're with the terrorists. If we had stuck with that we'd have a pretty well developed sense of how to apply the maxim by now--as it is, we have no shared way of speaking about who is "with" anyone else. If Barber and others want to restart that process of thinking, that's fine with me, and the whole question of collective judgment is a red herring--there are plenty of Muslim institutions and organizations through which Muslims associate themselves collectively, and we can see pretty easily who each of these organizations and institutions is "with," drawing the appropriate conclusions.
@ CK MacLeod:
Glad to see your sarcasm intact. If our struggle involves a significant ideological/ propaganda component, so does theirs--if we're really fighting we should give no ground on any front--always using the proper weapon of course (i.e., propaganda against propaganda, etc.)
@ CK MacLeod:
I think your argument fizzles out as you proceed here. The mosque didn't just ask for a building permit--they want to make a point. They have said what their point is, but no one is obliged to take their claims at face value. They wanted their dialogue--now they have it. If the opposition forces them to either offer a credible account of what they mean by "dialogue" or demonstrate that they have no idea, and that something else is involved here altogether, I would consider that a significant victory, one that goes some way to restoring what is best in us.
@ CK MacLeod:
Please don't avoid sarcasm on my account. We treat people who claim to wish to establish dialogue in terms of the bona fides they put forth as potential partners in dialogue. What they think about the Muslim world, in the name of which they proffer themselves as dialogue partners, is extremely relevant in this connection.
@ CK MacLeod:
For those who wish to alert others to and protest this building, the question of their intentions is paramount. Their website, in my view, offers no reassurances in that regard. Legally, they have a right to build (I'm guessing)--I'm not in favor of changing or ignoring the law. Politically, I think those who see this as a hostile act have very good grounds for doing so.
@ CK MacLeod:
I've reviewed the relevant materials. To get started: in your post, the only player to evade withering critical scrutiny are the Cordobans themselves, whose amazingly empty blather about "tolerance" and "dialogue" is accepted at face value--while they nevertheless seem remarkably unconcerned about the concerns of others, being quite willing to jump on board with the demonization of their opponents as "like Nazis." I'll withhold judgment until I have some clue as to whether they believe Jews have a right to live as free men and women in the "Muslim World."
@ CK MacLeod:
Well, we'll see about the Liebskind project. Is Ground Zero still a hole in the ground? I haven't been there for a few years.
I googled Rick Barber, since I didn't know which of your earlier posts you referred to. Am I to understand that being against the Cordoba House mosque qualifies as "anti-Islamic" for you? If so, my bar is a bit higher--like suggesting taking away rights, or claiming that being a Muslim somehow disqualifies one as a citizen--or even calling for greater suspicion of individual Muslims.
Petraus's maps are for the war zones abroad. I'm referring to our expectations for Americans, and foreigners living here. How many American Muslim clerics, or Muslims more generally, think that Israel should be destroyed? That violence against apostates, or those who "insult" Islam, is acceptable (in general; under certain conditions)? Of course, they have a right to believe any of this, but we have an equal right to openly discuss what it means--or first of all, to even try and find out. If the President and other public figures are going to meet with imams or speak before Muslim audiences, whom, exactly, are they legitimating as exemplary Muslim American citizens and institutions? What kind of public discussion has been directed toward these questions--how much could be directed before the charges of "Islamophobia" start?
@ CK MacLeod:
There is no right to feel comfortable, and, more important, I believe Muslims are, in fact, perfectly comfortable here. This is a meme the Left set in motion long ago, right after 9/11--that there was or would imminently be a backlash against Muslims. It never happened. I can't think of a single politician, not from the reddest region of the reddest state, that has campaigned, much less won, on an anti-Muslim platform. Can you? I know the Cordoba mosque is a more local issue, and I haven't paid much attention to it--I lost interest in Ground Zero a while ago, once it became clear we weren't going to do anything with it. But you are obviously trying to address a much larger issue here, about conservatives and "collective judgment" on Muslims. Whatever dangers lie here, they are much smaller, in my view, than our unwillingness to discuss, much less implement, international and domestic policies based on a sober assessment of the various circles radiating outward from the terrorists themselves, to their overt supporters, to tacit supporters, to those who lay low until support may be possible, to those who are afraid to openly dissociate themselves from Islamism, etc. We don't even have a map of all this.
@ CK MacLeod:
I would not formulate things the way some or all of them would, and there might be specific claims I would reject from each or all of them--I would not disassociate myself from them in the sense of either placing them beyond some boundary of civil discourse or of (figuratively) walking around with a sign saying "I'm not with them." I don't think McCarthy, at least, sees things the way you represent him here, but I certainly welcome the voices of those who have a critical view of Islam and are skeptical of its possibilities for change, because they notice and are willing to speak about a lot of things others prefer to ignore. (And Geller is willing to fight for people others would sacrifice to "multiculturalism").
My way into the discussion is not some general claim about Islam, though--it is a response to the claim of the CI to want dialogue, to really want dialogue, because they are clearly going out of their way to get a lot of attention. I have conditions for dialogue; in those conditions I may share a lot with other Americans. I don't want to speak with Tariq Ramadan style dissimulators--there are many of them out there, and there are also some fairly easy ways to show that you aren't such, and from what I've seen they haven't availed themselves of any of them. So, I say we should give them dialogue, but it may not be exactly what they want, and sometimes dialogue leads to more conflict, not less, and I wouldn't make any promises. And if dialogue doesn't work, there are still rights and I don't want to take those away from any law abiding citizen or resident, but you are just left with saying who you think people are.
@ CK MacLeod:
It seems to me that a lot of people are "left over," but that's beside the point. I think that each situation should be examined on its own terms, so I don't think my arguments fit into the ones you identify here. And I certainly haven't evoked immediate security concerns--this immediate issue operates in the realm of politics and symbols. The only question for me, since I started looking at it, is "what do they [i.e., the Cordoba Initiative] want"? If they want what you (any "you") want, then support them; if not, then not. And it doesn't look to me like they want quite what they say they want. More broadly, I think we are already extremely tolerant, including towards Muslims--it is only the proximity to GZ, not some emerging or intensifying animus towards Muslims, that is involved here. I'm not so sure that, to many Americans, there is anything more to "America" than a vague notion of "tolerance." So I am far more concerned about losing the distinction I just made, between the exclusion of violence in politics, and the sense that violence is just part of a continuum starting with "anger."
@ CK MacLeod:
There is no threat of violence here--if we don't understand the difference, how can we expect anyone else to? If anyone were to commot a violent act against the Cordoba House or anyone who uses it, I want them arrested and prosecuted vigorously. If anyone class for such violence, I want them ostracized or, if they cross over the boundary from free speech to threat, arrested. We can't even allow for arguments on this point--I think very few conservatives would offer such arguments (I am certain that Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom and Andrew McCarthy would agree--I even assume Pam Geller would). We can't expect less from anyone else.
@ CK MacLeod:
Good questions. For me, the "we" is the private citizens (who ultimately elect the decision makers, of course--but I'm not thinking in terms of a legal or political decision in this case). But I can't be sure of who comprises the "we"--I don't know who agrees with me, and to what extent.
With "entry fee" I suppose I had in mind Heinrich Heine's reference to his baptism as the "entry ticket" to Western Civilization. It's my way of saying that there is always a price paid by both newcomers and the society they enter; a price which is always negotiated, which might be more fair to one partner than another, and where the benefits might be disproportionate to the price. And where no one can know all these things in advance.
With a view towards what? Very simple: not being held hostage to violence; to our fear of violence, or even to our use of our own force (I think that's what scares many in the West the most). If someone tells me that I'd better watch what I say because I'm going to make someone angry (maybe not him, but someone else out there) and then: you'd better look out!--I will not speak further with that person, and I would warn others against it as well. When someone is actually saying that is the question.
@ CK MacLeod:
The questions and the levying are two sides of the same process. I would ask more probing questions, be more insistent in my follow ups, less willing to take claims at face value, with representatives of Islam than with other groups--that's what I meant by a "higher entry fee." That's just in the nature of the situation--we need to know whether Islamic representatives believe that suicide bombing is a justified means of war; whether they are ready to speak in defense of the rights of those who publicly renounce or "insult" Islam; whether they think democratic decision making can override Islamic law, etc. The questions I would want to ask of the representatives of a group of, say, Ukrainian or Caribbean Americans would be less demanding.
With regard to the other victimary groups, I agree we may confront difficulties. Many in those groups, especially their better known representatives, have thrown in with the Left, which has in turn thrown in with the Islamists. I see the opposition as a Global Intifada--in the end, we can only hope that a steadfast defense of freedom and equality will convince those groups their interests lie in giving no ground to Islamism. And maybe, ultimately, in surrendering victimary status. There is, now, the occasional Bruce Bawer and Phyllis Chesler--hopefully we'll have many more like them. Maybe there is political gain in not insulting people's intelligence or flattering their self-image. It will have to be long term, though.
@ CK MacLeod:
But I didn't write this at all. I wrote that while the rights of individuals are unquestioned and unqualified unless they break some law, representatives are there to present a collective identity and interest (and therefore responsibility as well) and should therefore be ready for comments, questions and criticisms, If an individual Muslim applies for a job, a loan, a law school, etc., I don't have any call to ask him about Bin Laden, Israel, polygamy, etc.; and I don't know the law here very well but I'm also glad to say we should accommodate his desire to observe Ramadan, etc. Once a group forms, though, calling itself, say, "Muslims for Inter-faith Dialogue," and they put out the obligatory statement of intent, set up their website, etc., I have every right to say things like "wait a minute--you say you're in favor of principle y and yet you support activity x..." And I have every right to stick to that line of questioning even if they try and fob me off with some empty phrases and I have every right to conclude that they're full of it, that there's something else going on here, and that we should look into who's funding the group, whom they fund, etc. And they are free to ignore my questioning, but, then, I am free to try and convince others not to be deceived. So, it seems to me that groups trying to represent Muslims as full participants in American society and culture will want to develop satisfactory answers to those kinds of questions, and that groups that don't develop such answers are interested in something other than such participation. And in either case, I'm going to say how things look to me--and, of course, the questions I'm going to ask come from the world I see. I'm not going to ask a spokesperson for "Buddhists for Inter-faith Dialogue" what he or she thinks about Sharia law, or violence against civilians.
@ CK MacLeod:
I hadn't noticed this before my previous comment.
I'm not claiming expertise in Islam. I have only observed how hard it is for representatives of Islam (those elevated as spokesmen by whatever mechanisms) to be explicit and consistent about their commitments to liberty and equality in anything resembling the way most of us understand these terms; not to mention regarding the morality of blowing up civilians who happen to be Jews (or, if you like, Israelis--I am sensitive to refusals to recognize the humanity of the Israelis). A leading "moderate" Muslim will say something soothing, and then it turns out he heads a Hamas supporting mosque or gives to a Hezbollah supporting "charity," etc. It happens over and over again.
I imagine many Muslims would respond this way, and that may be because of Islam, or because of the legitimacy granted certain kinds of grievances today. There was once a time when newcomers to an extraordinary society in which they had access to unimagined opportunities would want to ensure their new neighbors that what seemed threatening really wasn't, that what needed to be modified to fit that new world would be, and even that the old principles (of both the newcomers and the society) can be revived and revised in surprising and pleasing ways (even while protesting against egregious violations of the principles of that society). It seems to me that was more or less the approach Catholics and Jews, who faced similar suspicions and hostilities when they came here en masse, took. Those days are gone, and I don't think they are coming back; my back-up plan would be to incorporate this recognition into our immigration policies; alas, the double bind here is that if we could do that, we wouldn't need to--we would already be communicating our expectations sufficiently clearly. So it may be, for now, that the only thing we have is the right of private citizens to say that Islam, as a public faith wishing to join the pantheon of American religions, hasn't, in their view, sealed the deal yet. And to insist that law enforcement do its job, if there are Muslims who "interpret" statements like mine along the lines you suggest.
@ CK MacLeod:
I think we're talking past each other at this point. Perhaps we'll come at these questions in other ways in the future. I'll just repeat what I said before (itself a sign of the exhaustion of the dialogue): you take the Cordoba House and Rauf at their word, on principle, seemingly, because to do otherwise would undermine liberal democratic principles. I don't take them at their word, but there are things they could say that would incline me to do so. One way to de-politicize religion is to sever religion from citizenship--to simply be an American in public life and a Muslim, Jew or Christian in private life. If you want to de-politicize religion as a Muslim (or the others, of course) the way to do that is to make a case for the compatibility of your faith with civil society, and, even more, for the way your faith can further enrich that civil society. At this point, though, gesturing back to the commonplaces of the "three great monotheistic religions" won't do it--maybe 15 years ago, but not now. I won't be convinced and it seems many others won't either. The field is wide open for Muslims to associate their faith unambiguously with freedom and equality. What's the problem?
@ CK MacLeod:
It strikes me that one way of summing up our disagreement is that you think that we should act as if Muslims have already entered the pact of civil society, and should not provide them with a cause for exiting the terms of that pact. I am completely willing to do so for individual Muslims, who make claims only as citizens; but not for Muslim groups or representatives, because the costs of allowing such groups to game the system outweigh the costs of levying too high an entry fee. In the end, demanding unequivocal demonstrations of allegiance to liberal democratic principles (more than, for historical reasons, we might demand from, say, Buddhists--much more, in fact) will be in the interests of Muslims themselves, as individuals at least, if not, perhaps, of all of their "representatives."
@ CK MacLeod:
In that case the fate of liberal democracy is in the hands of Islamists, whom we must count upon not to politicize their religious beliefs.
You can say this, but based on what? The response makes it political; only if they could not have anticipated such a response would their gesture be a de-politicized one. Why not back off and engage their audience if they genuinely want to de-politicize? The whole formulation doesn't make sense--if you want to de-politicize religion, why make it the basis of a dialogue? Are you imagining a de-politicized dialogue? What are we talking about, in that case?
I don't understand much of this. Someone says he wants to speak with me, presumably as a representative of the West, or liberalism, in the name of Islam--he has a right, if I take him up on it, to ask me about slavery, American policy in Iraq, poverty levels under capitalism, etc.--all this may be very illuminating regarding the strengths, weaknesses, hypocrises, etc., of Western liberal societies. In turn, I must be able to ask him about apostates, women, Jews, etc. I think any informed Westerner will have reasonably satisfying responses to the inquiries I just mentioned, even if those responses involve one's own critique of Western liberalism. If the individual representing Islam (who has chosen, in this hypothetical dialogue, to represent Islam), doesn't have responses that he square with both those within and those outside of his community, what are the implications? Someone who could forthrightly say, here is the reading of Islam I am ready to fight for, one which embraces Jews, etc, and situates me thusly in relation to other trends within Islam, I'm certainly not going to disqualify him--I would be ready to support him. But if he ends up speaking only for himself, again, what can we do about that?
@ adam:
Never mind, you must mean Pam Geller.
I must be on so many people's side in so many ways and against the same people in other ways that there's no point trying to keep track. You are participating in the construction of an "anti-Muslim" or (not your word but a very common one, at least in the academy) "Islamophobic" position that can be placed beyond some boundary of civil discourse. Who will then decide what counts as "anti-Muslim"? According to the rules existing now, the most enterprising victimologists. Islam is not sacred--it can be questioned and criticized in whatever terms those critics like. If there are then compelling examples of Islams that counter the representations of those critics, by all means let them be put forward. To return to my theme, that would be what one might think the Cordobans would do in establishing their 9/11 mosque. They seem to show little interest in such an approach. Perhaps the opposition will lead them to consider something along those lines. Such a discussion has been strongly and effectively discouraged thus far--hopefully in vain, as we will need to have it sooner or later.
@ CK MacLeod:
Because I am focused on whether there is an Islam that can unambiguously affirm basic human and civil rights I am concerned with a different set of pathologies, that seem to me more of a hindrance to reasonable discussion than the "politicization of religion." More precisely: victimary thinking, and it's complement, White Guilt.
Malkin?
In this case, being fair to the other will mean taking what they say seriously and being clear about our own expectations. To take one example, I have no interest in dialogue with those who can't unambiguously acknowledge the rights of Jews, or "apostates" (first of all to be free of violence). I understand we need to deal with states that fall below these norms, but when it comes to cultural dialogue, I have not patience for obfuscation on these issues. And the less patience we have collectively, the better dialogue will proceed--even if it proceeds to a recognition of irreconciliable differences.
@ CK MacLeod:
I suspect they want to trumpet to Muslims throughout the world the conquest of Muslim space on the site of the 9/11 attacks. That's enough for me to support keeping a very close eye on this, dissecting the propaganda they produce, and monitoring what they say to Muslims throughout the world.
We clearly disagree about the purposes of this discussion which is, for me, to get a clear sense of whether there are good grounds to oppose the CI. The purpose for you seem to be to condemn a particular type of rhetoric, but part of what I'm saying is that the ways of criticizing Islam and Muslims you are opposing result from the lack of any sustained, honest discussion about these issues--and that lack derives from the fear of being tarred a racist, Islamophobe, etc. The question isn't the narrow one of whether they have a legal right to build--clearly they do, and the people against them also have a right to say whatever they want about it. So far, not very interesting--what's interesting is what we think should be said about it. I'm willing to agree that "Islime" isn't one of those things, but your notion of avoiding "collective judgment" obviously wants to exclude a lot more than the obvious slurs. I want to give the opponents something else to talk about--you certainly don't.
And my judgment isn't based on an "item" on their website, but on a reading of the website as a whole. This group has very deliberately thrust itself into our collective consciousness, and yet they have nothing to say--they want to build bridges, but don't say why we are at odds in the first place; they claim to want dialogue but don't say what they want to talk about--they have no diagnosis, no prescription. And yet they want to place themselves at the center--why? I'm interested in the possibility of genuine reciprocity here--of Muslims, Christians, Jews, secularists (and everyone else) addressing each other without presumptions of superiority or grievance. In the long run that's more important than the endless simulated civil war game in which some Americans show themselves to be more enlightened and tolerant than other Americans, with the "other" serving as a mere background.
@ CK MacLeod:
Thanks for the clarification (I don't know how I could have guessed that was the reference). My own suggestion that we inquire into their views on the rights of Jews in Muslim countries, in the interest of testing them as dialogue partners, made that very same assumption.
I took this from the website--it was actually a quote from Scott Springer, a NYC official. What impressed me was their willingness to use this remark from a (presumably liberal or leftist) supporter to demonize their opponents, rather than trying to engage those opponents. For me, that's a marker of the sincerity regarding their claim to seek dialogue. I've been called plenty of things as well and it doesn't bother me--that's also part of dialogue.
Fine, but in the end, the suspicions about the Cordoba project are completely justified, even if they could have been expressed more "liberally" (in the broader, non-partisan sense of "liberal"). To me, it looks like you are using the bigoted, etc. expressions to smear the opposition to the mosque, rather than trying to refine that opposition so it might stimulate the dialogue the Cordobans say they want.
"Setting the rules" is actually a bad way of getting at what I mean here--a sense of rules, of how to speak about these matters, is probably exactly what we need (even if we could only arrive at such rules gradually and collaboratively). It seems to me that you are focusing on the how as a way to discredit the what (the argument against the mosque--or, more precisely, the attempt to expose the CI as deceptive and very likely far more Islamist than it lets on; or, even more precisely, the attempt to get the CI to show that it isn't, if it can.)
@ CK MacLeod:
Obviously I'm questioning whether one side is resorting to bigotry, demagoguery, etc.
.
I'm not sure what you mean here--did I come in and upset some emergent consensus?
Anyway, it seems hard to call for good faith when making these kinds of charges yourself. By all means let the discussion play itself out--we don't even have to presume good faith--I, and I'm sure others, would be glad to respond to anything the Cordobans come up with, even though their slick and evasive website makes me virtually certain that it won't be much. The problem here seems to me to be that you'd like to set the rules for that dialogue, but why should anyone follow them?
By the way, regarding Barber--I would strongly encourage him (and encourage others to encourage him) to clarify who, exactly, he takes to be the enemy. He can certainly be read as suggesting that the enemy is all Muslims, all the time. I doubt very much he wishes to say that, but he should leave no doubt here. I think the question is pretty simple, and that Bush had it right from the beginning--you're with us or you're with the terrorists. If we had stuck with that we'd have a pretty well developed sense of how to apply the maxim by now--as it is, we have no shared way of speaking about who is "with" anyone else. If Barber and others want to restart that process of thinking, that's fine with me, and the whole question of collective judgment is a red herring--there are plenty of Muslim institutions and organizations through which Muslims associate themselves collectively, and we can see pretty easily who each of these organizations and institutions is "with," drawing the appropriate conclusions.
@ CK MacLeod:
Glad to see your sarcasm intact. If our struggle involves a significant ideological/ propaganda component, so does theirs--if we're really fighting we should give no ground on any front--always using the proper weapon of course (i.e., propaganda against propaganda, etc.)
@ CK MacLeod:
I think your argument fizzles out as you proceed here. The mosque didn't just ask for a building permit--they want to make a point. They have said what their point is, but no one is obliged to take their claims at face value. They wanted their dialogue--now they have it. If the opposition forces them to either offer a credible account of what they mean by "dialogue" or demonstrate that they have no idea, and that something else is involved here altogether, I would consider that a significant victory, one that goes some way to restoring what is best in us.
@ CK MacLeod:
Please don't avoid sarcasm on my account. We treat people who claim to wish to establish dialogue in terms of the bona fides they put forth as potential partners in dialogue. What they think about the Muslim world, in the name of which they proffer themselves as dialogue partners, is extremely relevant in this connection.
@ CK MacLeod:
For those who wish to alert others to and protest this building, the question of their intentions is paramount. Their website, in my view, offers no reassurances in that regard. Legally, they have a right to build (I'm guessing)--I'm not in favor of changing or ignoring the law. Politically, I think those who see this as a hostile act have very good grounds for doing so.
@ Rex Caruthers:
Good point--should Muslim Americans interested in building bridges, etc., have something to say about that as well?
In principle, though, I believe that Muslims would say that Muslims in the Middle East have the right to live freely as Muslims.
@ CK MacLeod:
I've reviewed the relevant materials. To get started: in your post, the only player to evade withering critical scrutiny are the Cordobans themselves, whose amazingly empty blather about "tolerance" and "dialogue" is accepted at face value--while they nevertheless seem remarkably unconcerned about the concerns of others, being quite willing to jump on board with the demonization of their opponents as "like Nazis." I'll withhold judgment until I have some clue as to whether they believe Jews have a right to live as free men and women in the "Muslim World."
@ CK MacLeod:
Well, we'll see about the Liebskind project. Is Ground Zero still a hole in the ground? I haven't been there for a few years.
I googled Rick Barber, since I didn't know which of your earlier posts you referred to. Am I to understand that being against the Cordoba House mosque qualifies as "anti-Islamic" for you? If so, my bar is a bit higher--like suggesting taking away rights, or claiming that being a Muslim somehow disqualifies one as a citizen--or even calling for greater suspicion of individual Muslims.
Petraus's maps are for the war zones abroad. I'm referring to our expectations for Americans, and foreigners living here. How many American Muslim clerics, or Muslims more generally, think that Israel should be destroyed? That violence against apostates, or those who "insult" Islam, is acceptable (in general; under certain conditions)? Of course, they have a right to believe any of this, but we have an equal right to openly discuss what it means--or first of all, to even try and find out. If the President and other public figures are going to meet with imams or speak before Muslim audiences, whom, exactly, are they legitimating as exemplary Muslim American citizens and institutions? What kind of public discussion has been directed toward these questions--how much could be directed before the charges of "Islamophobia" start?
@ CK MacLeod:
There is no right to feel comfortable, and, more important, I believe Muslims are, in fact, perfectly comfortable here. This is a meme the Left set in motion long ago, right after 9/11--that there was or would imminently be a backlash against Muslims. It never happened. I can't think of a single politician, not from the reddest region of the reddest state, that has campaigned, much less won, on an anti-Muslim platform. Can you? I know the Cordoba mosque is a more local issue, and I haven't paid much attention to it--I lost interest in Ground Zero a while ago, once it became clear we weren't going to do anything with it. But you are obviously trying to address a much larger issue here, about conservatives and "collective judgment" on Muslims. Whatever dangers lie here, they are much smaller, in my view, than our unwillingness to discuss, much less implement, international and domestic policies based on a sober assessment of the various circles radiating outward from the terrorists themselves, to their overt supporters, to tacit supporters, to those who lay low until support may be possible, to those who are afraid to openly dissociate themselves from Islamism, etc. We don't even have a map of all this.
I'm far more afraid that we'll miss the next Nidal Malik Hasan, and the next and the next than that Muslims will feel uncomfortable living in the US.