Thursday, August 19, 2010
[The following, by Oleg A. Vyadro, is crossposted from Jewish Russian Telegraph.]
While America rightly debates the propriety of a mosque at the proximity to Ground Zero, the truly significant opportunity to support the democratic principals of religious tolerance and free speech lies with Islam, and more specifically with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. With the American Left and Right in agreement that the building of the mosque is in fact legal and clearly symbolic, one way or the other, the question that Islam must unequivocally answer is what is that symbolism? With the world's attention once again fully concentrated at Ground Zero, Islam has a global audience with a once in a generation opportunity to define itself as a peace-loving religion and to clearly distance itself from its destructive fringe.
The question that has not been asked enough is why here? Why at Ground Zero? And that answer can only be answered by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who could have chosen, and has been offered other locations, in New York City. Clearly, the sacred ground of 9/11 has a meaning and it is his and Islam's burden to answer that question, not America's.
Here at last is the definitive opportunity for Moderate Islam to define itself in away that its predominantly peaceful majority is. Here at last is the opportunity to speak loudly to the world and denounce violence and hatred, moral ambiguity, and terror. Speak clearly Imam and you will have seized both the support of most Americans. Speak clearly and you will have seized Islam's most important self-defining opportunity since 9/11, a day when Islamic radicalism made its blaring claim over your religion.
The truth is that this is Islam's moment much more so than America's.
The world is listening.
Well, I wouldn't say it's Islam's or America's moment as much as it is Rauf's. Islam is composed of many sects that all claim their own as the "true Islam". Rauf is reported to be a Sufi Muslim - supposedly a Muslim version of a pacifist hippie as some progressives would tell us. Even if he took this opportunity to show the world his "moderate" Islam and even if Sufis were moderate pacifists (they are not), why would anyone think thisd would apply to other Muslims such as those in Hizb'allah, al Queda or Hamas? And why didn't he take that opportunity earlier to show his "moderate" colors when it would have done some good?
From his own statements I think the answer is obvious. It's because he believes the political religion of Islam is superior to the decadent system of democracy we live under. Telling Americans too eagerly how peaceful his intentions are would be seen as a weakness by other Muslims - and so I doubt will will see any PR campaign on his part to convince us. Besides, the American left, the MSNM and the American president are doing that for him.
Sufis are known both for their mysticism and for their total dedication to Sharia of which they are considered experts. Among other things Sharia calls for the submission of all world governments and peoples to Islamic law. I'll bet that's what he intends his mosque to symbolize. Too much pandering to American sensibilities would ruin the effect.
One thing that stands out is the superficial quality of the commentary, from Bloomberg, to Obama, to so many others, largely from presumptives on the left, though elsewhere as well. Benedict's Regensburg address, emphases of which are nicely addressed here, remains highly relevant - excerpt, emphases in the text:
The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: "For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.