SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The New York Times Laments "A Sadly Wary Misunderstanding of...

THE SPINE SEPTEMBER 4, 2010

The New York Times Laments "A Sadly Wary Misunderstanding of Muslim-Americans." But Really Is It "Sadly Wary" Or A "Misunderstanding" At All?

BY MARTIN PERETZ

UPDATE: I have written an apology for one sentence written below. 

Of course, this first sentence presumes that the Times in its olympian wisdom has a more accurate view--one it could describe as both "shrewdly knowing" and "sensitively knowing"--of this group and its beliefs than ordinary metropolitan mortals. The newspaper has done a poll of New York City residents which found that 33% of them thought Muslim-American "more sympathetic to terrorists" than other citizens. Frankly, I don't trust opinion surveys on matters like this. But I'd guess that if respondents were truly honest with the pollsters and with themselves the percentage would be considerably higher. Which, of course, means that the Times could go into even higher dudgeon than it actually has.

Where does the Times get reliable data on the feelings of American Muslims (or, for that matter, Arab Americans) about terrorists and terrorism? Forgive me: I don't think such data even exists...and just maybe that's a consequence of the pollsters' fear that gauging these sentiments would be very desolating, indeed.

And, to tell you the truth, I d not think there's much reliable data on how Americans see American Muslims either.

But the Times survey does infer some knowledge about this matter. Remember, though, that these responses are from New Yorkers and New Yorkers alone. If you believe, as I do, that citizens of the five boroughs are not only more "diverse and cosmopolitan" but also more tolerant and condoning than most other Americans than you might come to the conclusion that our non-New Yorker fellow citizens are far more deeply biased and warped than the Gotham locals.

Actually, no one has shown that a single serious demonstration against Muslims and Arabs, against their beliefs and behavior can be raised in this country. And, if you think Glenn Beck's rally at the Lincoln Memorial was its equivalent please quote to me sounds of hatred directed from the platform against these intertwined orbits of the populace. In fact, there has not been a single rally or demonstration in America aimed at Muslim or Arab interests or their commitments to foreign governments and, more likely, to foreign insurgencies and, yes, quite alien philosophies. I suggest that this is largely the case because Americans are so fearful of being accused of bias, however the injustice of the charge might be.

This is certainly not the situation in Britain and France, Germany and Denmark, Holland and Spain where a demo against the Arabs or the Pakis or the Algerians or the Moroccans or the Turks and Muslims more generally is a regular feature of the political landscape and where parties win parliamentary seats precisely because they campaign with Islamists and islam as the targets.

Of course, Muslims and Arabs do not not act in America as they do in the increasingly Islamicized but non-practicing Christian and democratic sovereignties of Europe. Still, I wouldn't close my eyes or our eyes to the increasing number of both naturalized and native-born citizens who enlist in the Islamic terror networks of our time, here and abroad.

Liberal political theory has virtually ignored the philosophical, legal and ethical questions posed by the threatening demographics of Europe. Is not western society, imperfect as it may be but immensely more liberal than the domains of Islam, obliged to defend its own...and their future. Immigration is key to this discussion, and it's the one issue that no one wants to discuss. Imagine what the Times would say if the matter became a subject of real public discourse. Does President Obama really want an immigration debate now?

I want to believe that Muslims are traumatized by the unrelieved murders in Islamic lands. Frankly, the only demonstration against a mass killing (after all, they happen nearly every day) I've read about was last week in Pakistan when some 30-odd people, not designated and not guilty of doing anything except going to a Shia shrine were blown right then and there. A day or two after two bombs went off taking the lives of what turned out--you can read it about in the recent Tehran Times--to be just under one hundred Shi'ites in two town different towns.

This intense epidemic of slaughter has been going on for nearly a decade and a half...without protest, without anything. And it has been going for decades and centuries before that.

Why do not Muslims raise their voices against these at once planned and random killings all over the Islamic world? This world went into hysteria some months ago when the Mossad took out the Hamas head of its own Murder Inc.

But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 85 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

85 comments

“five bureaus” You meant five boroughs didn’t you? I agree with much of what you said about the New York Times, but please get an EDITOR to look over your posts before you press the POST button?

- jdyer

September 4, 2010 at 10:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

good catch jackson. The New York Times treats the four boroughs beyond Manhattan as if they are alien foreign news bureaus, so maybe Peretz picked the mistake up from the fading Gray Lady. The demographics of the NYT poll are skewed (more Protestant and African-American than the NYC population) to favor support for the GZM, which might explain the deep disappointment of the editors. The comments most recommended by readers show a fine range of the various positions in the five boroughs, and across the world. I hope the NYT Editorial Board reads these comments to learn how out of touch they are, as reflected in their news coverage by reporters being spoon-fed politically correct storylines by public relations firms. A weird time when it is the tabloid New York Post that has journalists at work exposing the various tax schemes and thuggery of the trio behind whatever is intended for what they now call Park51. El-Gamal insists it his vision, and Rauf has but a minor role. They all went silent this past week after Daisy's one-bedroom apartment on West 85 was revealed to be an IRS approved mosque serving 500 people in prayer five times a day, followed by the local CBS affiliate report that the El-Gamal's main investor is expert at creating shell companies who bill unnecessary medical procedures to auto insurers. The reader's recommended comments are at (yes, I am #19 in 19th place. People are still reading and recommending the comments as I type): http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03fri1.html?sort=recommended

- K2K

September 4, 2010 at 11:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

9/11 falls on a Saturday - what will Saturday Night Live do? Will Geert Wilders speak at the 9/11 GZM protest? What will Muslims be doing? "...Eid al-Fitr, a joyous holiday marking the end of Ramadan, will fall around Sept. 11 this year. Muslim leaders fear festivities could be misinterpreted as celebrating the 2001 terror strikes. ..." from "For US Muslims, a 9/11 anniversary like no other" By RACHEL ZOLL (AP) – 2:00 p.m. 09 04 2010 NEW YORK — American Muslims are boosting security at mosques, seeking help from leaders of other faiths and airing ads underscoring their loyalty to the United States — all ahead of a 9/11 anniversary they fear could bring more trouble for their communities. ..." www google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYMr4MEm1Vu6my2WD-agJeNrLTOAD9I1876G0

- K2K

September 5, 2010 at 12:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Of course, Muslims and Arabs do not not act in America as they do in the increasingly Islamicized but non-practicing Christian and democratic sovereignties of Europe." A minor detail, to be sure.

- miceelf

September 5, 2010 at 7:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why do not Muslims raise their voices against these at once planned and random killings all over the Islamic world? This world went into hysteria some months ago when the Mossad took out the Hamas head of its own Murder Inc." Andre Gluckmann calls it 'The Jerusalem Syndrome": "“…On the scales of world opinion, some Muslim corpses are light as a feather, and others weigh tonnes. Two measures, two weights…. why do the 200,000 slaughtered Muslims of Darfur not arouse even half a quarter of the fury caused by 200-times fewer dead in Lebanon? Must we deduce that Muslims killed by other Muslims don’t count? This conclusion has its weak spots, because if the Russian Army - Christian, and blessed by their popes - razes the capital of Chechnian Muslims… killing tens of thousands of children in the process, this doesn’t count either. The Security Council does not hold meeting after meeting, and the Organization of Islamic States piously averts its eyes. From that we may conclude that the world is appalled only when Israelis kill a Muslim. Should we thus presume that the public at large implicitly endorses the ideas that Ahmadinedjad shouts at the top of his lungs? And yet so many of those sceptics who display consternation over bombings in Lebanon seem shocked if you suspect them of anti-Semitism. I want to trust them. We don’t want to imagine that the entire planet is mired in anti-Jewish paranoia! But then the matter becomes even more puzzling. What is the source of this hemiplegia? Why is the world frightened by Israeli bombs alone?” (Sign and Sight) ___________________ "But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. " "In an August 6, 2008 column in the UAE daily Al-Ittihad, Dr. 'Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, former dean of Islamic law at the University of Qatar and prominent liberal intellectual, attacked the Arab lawyers' unions for defending oppressors like Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir and Iraqi president Saddam Hussein while ignoring their victims in Darfur and Halabja. [-] "We will not be hearing the voice of the Lawyers' Union, which mobilized to defend accused presidents, [speaking out] for the weak and the marginalized. ... It is the victims of Darfur and the millions of the crushed and pulverized who are most in need of the legal support of masses of lawyers." "... 300,000 people were killed in Darfur, and ... two million fled their homes after their villages were destroyed by the Sudan-backed Arab Janjaweed militias. Who is for them? Who is for the widows? Who is for the orphans? Who is for the displaced? "These victims are all Muslims, and their only offense is that they are not Arab, the ethnicity of their rulers! If they find no support among those who are supposed to defend rights and help the weak, then to whom can they turn for shelter and protection? Is the international community to be accused if it intervenes to extend a helping hand? "For five bloody years, the people of Darfur have been ruined and expelled, and the satellite television channels have broadcast horrific scenes that tormented the hearts of the world and make their consciences bleed - except for the Arab conscience, which was on vacation, and except for their [Arab] League, which remained comatose, and except for their media, which neglected to cover and broadcast the facts. " (MEMRI)

- noga1

September 5, 2010 at 9:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...the question of whether America is "Islamophobic" - now bandied about so casually, as though opposition to the mosque has revealed a nasty strain in the American psyche, akin to the terrible racism or anti-Semitism that once ran wild - is so deeply offensive. This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics. Muslims are everywhere in this country, doing practically everything. ... how did the narrative of "oppression" and so called "Islamophobia" take root so strongly among American Muslims? ... This sense of victimization has now reached a point - especially given the consistent rhetoric of groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations - that many rank-and-file Muslims now genuinely believe that they are a persecuted and oppressed group. ... But is there any consistent pattern of systemic discrimination akin to what other groups have seen at other periods in American history? Absolutely not. Black Muslim leadership has foisted an ideology of victimization on immigrant Muslims, and it has stuck. Now we see these same leaders, fearing they have outlived their usefulness to the immigrant Muslim establishment, announcing the formation of a "Coalition of African American Muslims" that supports the mosque. It includes anti-Semitic race-baiter Louis Farrakhan and Siraj Wahhaj, who has defended the 1993 WTC bomb plotters and called the FBI and CIA the "real terrorists." Critics of the Park51 project should see this for what it is: an attempt to conflate all opposition to this particular mosque with blanket hatred of the Muslim religion. That's a devious tactic, and it must not succeed." Abdur-Rahman Muhammad is a Washington, D.C.-based writer who was once the Imam of a mosque. Though still a Muslim, he now works to combat Islamic extremism in the American Muslim community. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/09/05/2010-09-05_whether_or_not_ground_zero_mosque_is_built_us_muslims_have_access_to_the_america.html? Today's NYT "World Trade Center Complex Is Rising Rapidly" on Ground Zero: "...So many conflicting demands were imposed on the site — it was to be a solemn memorial, a soaring commercial complex, a vital transportation hub, a vibrant retail destination and the keystone in Lower Manhattan’s revival — that none could advance. And the many competing players seemed unable to break the logjam for long. ... The progress since then [2008] has been visible, tangible and audible. ..." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/nyregion/05zero.html?hp [includes link to 20-slide show showing what is finally being built on Ground Zero, where the National 9/11 Memorial will be open by 9/11/2011 Some of the opposition to Park51 is because so many people think Park51 will be built before the actual 9/11 Memorial park, where eventually 400 white swamp oaks will provide an 80 foot canopy surrounding the two waterfall pools that are being built on the footprints of the Twin Towers. The compromise of making a graveyard both respectful of the dead while acknowledging that commercial life returns, on the edges of the Memorial, while the Museum is deep underground]

- K2K

September 5, 2010 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Pew Poll of American Muslims in 2007 found that 17% thought that suicide bombings and other attacks on civilians were sometimes justified and another 5% said justified but only "rarely". To be sure, these are not high percentages; but they still amount to a startling 22% of those polled. New York Times: Do you really think these are the same percentages one would find among non-Muslim Americans? Or are the American people you obviously think of as Islamophobic rabble actually correct in their perception that there is more support for terrorism against civilians in the American Muslim population than in the general population? The same poll that only 40% of American Muslims believed that 9/11 was carried out by Arabs. 32% had no opinion as to who carried out the slaughter. And 28% were certain that 9/11 was a plot by non-Arabs (i.e., Jews? the U.S. Government?). New York Times: Do you really think these Muslim percentages--I note that in a classic example of double-think, these percentages contradict the simultaneous significant support for terror attacks on civilians--are those one would find among non-Muslim Americans? Source (but you have to read between the lines): http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1445/little-support-for-terrorism-among-muslim-americans (In the actual article this becomes "small pockets of support" for terrorism, but then if one reads carefully it turns out to be almost a quarter of those polled.)

- ProfEthan

September 5, 2010 at 1:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'd wouldn't be so disturbed by the significance of the "9-11 was a govt conspiracy etc" results as there is a noticeable slice of non-Muslim Americans who believe the same in the face of obvious questions that a ten-year old would ask. Certainly, however, there seem to be some obvious and ominous peculiarities about the results in which the aggregate numbers form a larger fraction than perhaps immediately obvious. Without dismissing the implications, I wonder, however, to what degree these questions are answered as abstract, philosophical questions rather than queries as to current conflicts and struggles. For example, "I am against armed attacks on civilians" as an absolute statement of principle could have as a logical consequence the position that the Allied bombing of German cities in WW2 was illegitimate as a wartime policy (a position held by a number of people neither Muslim nor Arab, incidentally), so I might respond to such a question by picking an option that said "in certain well-defined circumstances" or something like that. My answer, stripped of historical context, would then flow into an aggregate of "not completely against attacks on civilians" and I couldn't do anything about it. Likewise any survey that uses the term "terrorism" in a casual way can often obtain distressingly nuanced responses from people who either come from, or know a lot about, parts of the world where e.g. national independence wars have been prosecuted by forces that the ruling colonial power described as "terrorists" -- such people are justifiably cautious about applying the label without thinking. I don't know enough about the surveys in question, but having seen some odd results over time I remain skeptical about apparently clear aggregate responses to what might well be poll questions that an intelligent individual might have difficulty with. For example, a survey of Irish-Americans in the 1970s and 1980s could have generated, without much difficulty, a substantial slice of open support for not only the goals but also the tactics of the IRA. But it wasn't the case that Irish-Americans simply embraced terrorism, it was that the IRA had some historical legitimacy going back 70 years and a lot of people weren't interested in the complications of the the Irish-British relationship, or the fact that the IRA was illegal in the Republic of Ireland, or the question of Northern Irish Protestant loyalties -- they just responded in a kind of cultural-tribal way. Polls of, say, Somali-American immigrants might be showing a similar characteristic.

- ironyroad

September 5, 2010 at 4:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ironyroad, the parallel with the IRA may or may not work because as I understand it, and without romanticizing the IRA Provos and the Real IRA, they rarely struck at civilian targets without sending a warning first so that civilians were not killed. This is as opposed to the Islamist terrorists whose goal is, precisely, to kill as many civilians as possible. The clearest examples of IRA warnings are Bloody Friday in 1972, the Manchester Shopping Center bombing in 1996 and the Omagh bombing in 1998. Of course, sometimes they didn't send warnings. That's a fact. But my point is that if one asked the Pew Poll question of Irish-Americans in the 1990s, you would be talking to them about groups that at least had the *reputation* for sending warnings and not wanting to kill civilians. It's simply not the same question, then, if one asks Muslim-Americans about suicide bombers. In any case, the Times' point is that Muslim Americans are like ordinary Americans in the level of their condemnation of terrorism, and to believe anything else--as most ordinary Americans do--is Islamophobic. The Pew Poll of 2007 shows, however, that it is The Times editorial board who are ignorant (as well as insufferably arrogant and de haut en bas), and not the American public.

- ProfEthan

September 5, 2010 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm catching up -- couldn't miss the beautiful day we had today in NY. What I get from all the polls and surveys and babbling blowhards across the political spectrum is simple and depressing: counting the fringes and whackos of both the left and the right, easily half the country is blissfully, willfully ignorant of anything approaching factual accuracy on pretty much every issue from health reform to the mosque/cultural center/whatever it is today. And these folks have zero interest in rectifying their ignorance. The nut jobs are taking over. Time to duck for cover. Sigh.

- LISAH

September 5, 2010 at 7:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Insistence that the only valid criteria for debate, and for ending the debate, is Constitutional legality, makes the New York Times like one of the blind men trying to describe an elephant, a story from the Jain, which should be the religion building their temple at 45 Park Place: "ELEPHANT AND THE BLIND MEN" Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today." They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant. "Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg. "Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail. "Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant. "It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant. "It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant. "It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant. They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the elephant is like." Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said." "Oh!" everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right. The moral of the story is that there may be some truth to what someone says. Sometimes we can see that truth and sometimes not because they may have different perspective which we may not agree too. So, rather than arguing like the blind men, we should say, "Maybe you have your reasons." This way we don’t get in arguments. In Jainism, it is explained that truth can be stated in seven different ways. So, you can see how broad our religion is. It teaches us to be tolerant towards others for their viewpoints. This allows us to live in harmony with the people of different thinking. This is known as the Syadvada, Anekantvad, or the theory of Manifold Predictions. " http://www.jainworld.com/literature/story25.htm Instead, the NYT now shows how little they understand (or tolerate) Evangelical Christians. On Sunday, evangelist Bill Keller preached his inaugural sermon at his "9/11 Christian Center at Ground Zero". The NYT titled the article "From the Other Side of Ground Zero, Anti-Muslim Venom" and did everything possible to characterize Keller as an extremist ex-con, quite a contrast with the NYT ongoing refusal to note any of the sordid activities and double-speak of Rauf and Khan and El-Gamal, all of whom remain silent since last week's revelations of tax-dodging, and further evidence of a general contempt for civic decency. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/nyregion/06mosque.html TNR.com discarded the Captcha!

- K2K

September 6, 2010 at 10:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To add to the "get an editor" department: ...But the Times survey does infer some knowledge about this matter.... Mixing up imply and infer: that's embarrassing irregardless of your musings--I use "musings" loosely--and which musings I refudiate irregardless of any incorrect use of irregardles.

- basman

September 6, 2010 at 12:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat: where ya' been? If you have a minute I'll tell you of my experiening Cindy Lauper doing Crossroads Blues with the great Johnny Lang

- basman

September 6, 2010 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ProfEthan, You'll find this clip relevant to your IRA vs AQ comparison. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYzQtSxoKE

- IggyPop

September 6, 2010 at 6:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth blind man, named basman, who touched the ear of the elephant.

- K2K

September 6, 2010 at 6:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

..."It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth blind man, named basman, who touched the ear of the elephant... Say what?

- basman

September 6, 2010 at 7:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Off topic: A while ago we heard about the case of "rape by deception" in Israel which came with the charge of institutionalized racism. It seems the story has come apart now, with new revelations. http://lisagoldman.net/2010/09/06/a-rapist-who-dodged-jail-or-a-man-unjustly-accused-because-he-was-palestinian/ http://lisagoldman.net/2010/09/06/a-rapist-who-dodged-jail-or-a-man-unjustly-accused-because-he-was-palestinian/

- noga1

September 6, 2010 at 8:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/believe-in-each-other-1.312429

- noga1

September 6, 2010 at 8:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To be a tad anti climactic about it: I saw them perform together on the Tonight Show about a week or so ago. Lauper has a new record out, Memphis Blues that she's promoting. I don’t know if Lang plays on it but he was with her on the show nonetheless. And so was Charlie Musselwhite. What I noted was the almost complete focus on Lauper by Leno after she performed with the barest nod to Lang. (In fairness to Lauper, herself, she gave Lang generous playing and singing time.) To me, albeit the 4th blind man, there was an unmistakable contrast between the tricked out, glittery looking Lauper, with her faux, Patti Labelle-lite, histrionic intensity—a Bonnie Raitt , or a Susan Tedeschi, she is not—and the dour dressed down, laconic looking Johnny Lang, jeans, untucked, unbuttoned flannel shirt over a T shirt, playing the blues great and singing the blues like he meant it and felt it, with genuine emotion conveying pain. Then they finish and out comes Leno to do his thank yous, and he’s all over Lauper, as I noted, with only the slightest nod to Lang. So it goes with celebrity, even of the attenuated Lauper variety, such that superior talent gets relatively overlooked. And worse: the phenomenal Charlie Musselwhite, a legend, really, played brilliant harp and didn’t even rate a mention, at least not that I heard. Makes the point even stronger, I think. That's all.

- basman

September 6, 2010 at 8:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

photos of "the scene at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, the birthplace of Islam, yesterday as Muslims around the world celebrated Ramadan" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1309385/Hundreds-thousands-Muslims-gather-Mecca-Ramadan.html?ito=feeds-newsxml one assumes all the construction cranes in some of photos are for lodging for the pilgrims.

- K2K

September 6, 2010 at 9:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

[apologies to those clutching and waving the First Amendment as the sole reason to shut down debate over the Ground Zero Mosque, a debate which is now morphing into a debate about whether Islam can be separate from Islamism] "Lion's Den: Americans wake up to Islamism: "What began as a local zoning issue has morphed into a national debate with potential foreign-policy repercussions. " By DANIEL PIPES 09/06/2010 23:19 "The furor over the Islamic center variously called the Ground Zero mosque, Cordoba House and Park 51 has large implications for the future of Islam in the US and perhaps beyond. The debate is as unexpected as it is extraordinary. One would have thought that the event that made Islam a national issue would be an act of terrorism. Or the discovery that Islamists had penetrated the US security services. Or the dismaying results of survey research. Or an apologetic presidential speech. But no, something symbolic roiled the body politic – the prospect of a mosque in close proximity to the World Trade Center’s former location. What began as a local zoning issue has morphed into a national debate with potential foreign-policy repercussions. Its symbolic quality fit a pattern established in other Western countries: Islamic coverings on females spurred repeated national debates in France from 1989 onward. The Swiss banned the building of minarets. The murder of Theo van Gogh profoundly affected the Netherlands, as did the publication of anti- Muhammad cartoons in Denmark. Oddly, only after the Islamic center’s location had generated weeks of controversy did the issue of individuals, organizations and funding behind the project finally come to the fore. Personally, I do not object to a truly moderate Muslim institution near Ground Zero; conversely, I object to an Islamist institution being constructed anywhere. Indeed, building the center in such close proximity to Ground Zero, given the intense emotions aroused, will likely redound against the longterm interests of Muslims in the US. THIS NEW emotionalism marks the start of a difficult stage for Islamists in the US. Although their origins as an organized force go back to the founding of the Muslim Student Association in 1963, they came of age politically in the mid-1990s when they emerged as a force in US public life. I was fighting Islamists back then, and things went badly. It was, in practical terms, just Steven Emerson and me versus hundreds of thousands of Islamists. He and I could not find adequate intellectual support, money, media interest or political backing. Our cause felt hopeless. My lowest point came in 1999, when a retired US foreign service officer named Richard Curtiss spoke on Capitol Hill about “the potential of the American Muslim community” and compared its advances to Muhammad’s battles in seventh-century Arabia. He flat-out predicted that, just as Muhammad had prevailed, so too would American Muslims. While Curtiss spoke only about changing policy toward Israel, his themes implied a broader Islamist takeover of the US. Disconsolate, I could not fight his prediction. But 9/11 provided a wake-up call, ending Emerson’s and my sense of hopelessness. Americans reacted not just to that day’s horrifying violence, but also to the Islamists’ outrageous insistence on blaming the attacks on US foreign policy, their blatant denial that the perpetrators were Muslims, and the intense popularity of the attacks among Muslims. Scholars, columnists, bloggers, media personalities and activists became more knowledgeable about Islam, developing into a community focused on the Islamist threat, a community that now feels like a movement. The Islamic Center controversy represents the movement’s emergence as a political force, offering an angry, potent reaction inconceivable just a decade ago. The energetic push-back of recent months finds me partially elated: Those who reject Islamism and all its works now constitute a majority and are on the march. For the first time in 15 years, I feel I may be on the winning team. But I have one concern: the team’s increasing anti-Islamic tone. Misled by the Islamists’ insistence that there is no such thing as “moderate Islam,” my allies often fail to distinguish between Islam (a faith) and Islamism (a radical utopian ideology aiming to implement Islamic law in its totality). This amounts not just to an intellectual error but a policy dead-end. Targeting all Muslims conflicts with basic Western notions, lumps friends together with foes, and ignores the inescapable fact that Muslims alone can offer an antidote to Islamism. As I often note, radical Islam is the problem, and moderate Islam is the solution. This lesson learned, the defeat of Islamism can come into sight." The writer (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=187326

- K2K

September 6, 2010 at 9:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks malahat, and for the link too.

- basman

September 6, 2010 at 11:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are nearly 600,000-800,000 Muslims in New York City's five boroughs, according to the local demographers. There are approximately 100 mosques. The great mass of Muslims appear hard working and family oriented. There quotidian lives have changed the City's five boroughs, somewhat. New York has always been viewed as exotic to the rest of the country. Some Americans have great fear of coming to New York, even for a short visit. The presence of 600,000 to 800,000 Muslims, in the five boroughs, underscores their fear, anxiety and loathing, of the five boroughs. I think the up-scale Wall Street-Lower Manhattan Muslim crowd is just a little too ambitious, too cool, and too much like their Abrahamic cousins. The US population continues to grieve over 9/11; the Culture Center is insanely too large; and it is too close for comfort. Not that Park Place is sacred ground with its Mac Donald's, gentleman's strip club, and the rest of the profane and common place commercialism of a typical marginal block in Lower Manhattan. I'm not a fan of the political coloration of the anti-culture center extremists. I am concerned that the current proposal is splashy, driven more by ego than faith and premature.

- LawrenceGulotta

September 6, 2010 at 11:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

(I'm with LISAH). What a characteristically illiterate, ignorant post from a bigoted little man. You really need to cool it on the booze drinking and writing Marty, its getting worse every day. My Muslim friends here in the city (part of a tight-knit set of friends here on the Upper West side that included many devout Jewish friends) are the finest people I know. Very few New Yorkers are paying attention to this vulgar media chum. This is a childish, manufactured melodrama and it says everything about Marty that he jumps right in. Hey Marty, you might still be able to get a cheap ticket to Florida to burn Qurans with the hate filled wackos you belong with. Maybe you can get FOX to to interview you on live TV!

- WandreyCer

September 7, 2010 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Peretz writes about how the NYT reacted to the NYT poll conducted 8/27-31/10 of 892 adults who live in the five boroughs of New York City. 19% live in Manhattan. Question #5. How much have you heard or read about the planned building of a mosque and Islamic community center two blocks from Ground Zero -- a lot, some. not much, or nothing at all? A lot: 66% Some:20% Not much: 8% Nothing at all:5% DK/NA:1% One can extrapolate from WandreyCer's "Very few New Yorkers" comment that most Manhattanites are in the 14% of respondents who have not heard or read much or nothing or do not know about this very real controversy. Must be all of us ignorant residents of Queens, Bronx, Brooklyn, and Staten Island who have nothing better to do than oppose the tax dodging slumlords behind the alleged Mosque at Ground Zero. The self-indulgence of the Upper West Side latte-drinkers reminds me of why I moved away from the most liberal zip code in America in 1991.

- K2K

September 7, 2010 at 1:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I love most everything that comes from TNR - except Mr. Peretz. And this is case in point. He strains to climb up on the cross and hammer in his own nails, graciously granting constitutional rights to Muslim citizens, even though they're so terribly unworthy because in his opinion they haven't protested against other members of their religion sufficiently. He has gauged the sentiments of American Muslims towards violence by... wait a second. What's this? "Where does the Times get reliable data on the feelings of American Muslims (or, for that matter, Arab Americans) about terrorists and terrorism? Forgive me: I don't think such data even exists." Oh. Well, we'll take his word for it that they aren't repulsed by the violence, and take action to "defend western society" against Islam. Attention American Muslims: you are no longer a part of our society, we've drawn up the battle lines. Report to your terror mosques for duty.

- agbdavis

September 7, 2010 at 1:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse." Jeez Louise, Peretz. No one is asking you to honor anyone. Worse, the First Amendment is a privilege? A privilege granted to those that won't abuse it? Krikey, Peretz. Were you home schooled by a donkey? The First Amendment gurantees rights granted to everone to say anything they want. It protects you, the shouter standing on the box in front of city hall, the blogger who thinks little green men have climbed into his cranium, and me, just to name four. Of course, under your reading, if you keep abusing your privilege, we'll have to pretend you are not worthy. Dan

- dbuck1

September 7, 2010 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K - it frankly isn't any of your business - mine either. The people of the neighborhood who approved the project are the only people whose business it is. It's not "ignorant" to pay attention to this nonsense, but I will say you're making different choices as to what to spend your energy on than me or anyone I know in New York City (many of whom live in the boroughs, as I did for many years). We're all disgusted at the bigotry being unleashed in the most diverse, successful, immigrant-driven city in the country - by outsiders who have no idea what New York stands for or that this is simply a place where people are working and raising their kids like anyone else. It is not OWNED by the media industrial complex and the fools triggered by it. So yes, anyone NOT actively fighting that is adding to it and that disgusts me. My co-workers newly married 24 year old son was accosted on the subway the other day. He's in law school and hopes to join the FBI. Fight it or add to it, there is no inbetween K2K. To me, ANYone taking the bait on this transparent media event is being played for a fool by demogouges, stupid polticians with nothing better to say or offer this country and the media industrial complex. You want to spend your time being manipulated and having your lowest instincts triggered so someone else can make a buck or gain power off the misery it causes - be my guest. Don't expect me to support or respect that. I will fight it with everything I have and you should too.

- WandreyCer

September 7, 2010 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

>So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse. How is that not either racism or religious bigotry? The anti-Arab tone in this magazine is becoming ever more alarming. What would TNR say if the comment above were made about Jewish Americans?

- floydsm8

September 7, 2010 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good for you Jill. Well put in strong posts.

- basman

September 7, 2010 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Iggy Pop--a very funny video (a British audience laughing and clapping for the IRA--who were English gentlemen compared to what we face now, says the comic). WandreyCer--the mosque/Islamic community center was never purely a local issue because it was intended to be 600 feet from Ground Zero, and 9/11 was a national trauma, not merely a New York one. And if it wasn't *much* of a national issue before, it sure is now, in good part because the President has now made it into a national issue with his comments. His position seems to be: Imam Rauf has a perfect legal and Constitutional right to build the "Ground Zero" mosque/Islamic community center, but the wisdom of doing so is another matter. Sounds reasonable to me.

- ProfEthan

September 7, 2010 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An ignorant nonsensical article founded purely in hatred and racism, written by a shallow laughingstock of a writer. And I say laughingstock not just because I've disagreed with Peretz's articles, but because they are genuine embarrassments: the musings of a fifteen year old blogger with a thesaurus and a grudge. If he wasn't so transparently idiotic I'd accuse him of spreading the same intolerance and cheapness that he is irrationally wailing against. If you're looking for abuse of the first amendment look no further than this article. It shouts fire in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire to speak of.

- tahirjon

September 7, 2010 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

floyd - its just Marty. He's an infamous bigot and represents no one else's views at TNR than his. I understand he's universally loathed by the writers there. Here's a pretty good article by Eric Alterman calling out Marty for his racism, its fairly old and there are others. At least he's burying himself, his credibility is evaporating daily. Good riddance to a true blight on this fine magazine. I do think he seems drunk alot too - his writing has been erratic at best lately, although he can be lucid at times, maybe when sober. Perhaps if he joined AA he'd become a more self-reflective human being. One can hope. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=my_marty_peretz_problem_and_ours

- WandreyCer

September 7, 2010 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...anyone NOT actively fighting that is adding to it and that disgusts me. " What disgusts me is this propagandistic attempt to turn the rich and well-connected and tone-deaf initiators of this Cordova Project into victims whose "misery" deserves to be addressed in no less than Niemoller's famous homily about the wages of indifference. It is like someone here was trying to suggest that the protests against this mosque are of the same moral import as the opposition to desegregation in the South was.

- noga1

September 7, 2010 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"9/11 was a national trauma, not merely a New York one" In some ways that's very true, of course, but it should be noted too that a significant number of Americans tend to discover their affection for New York and their sensitivity to its recent history only when someone wants to build a mosque there. Otherwise they detest the place with a venom that used to be (?) reserved for any community filled with Jews, Irish, and blacks.

- ironyroad

September 7, 2010 at 5:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rich and connected noga? What does that even mean and why does it matter? Does someone have fewer rights because they do or do not have money? Perfect analogy to the South actually. The bigotry spewing towards this project is exactly same. I see no concrete argument on your part otherwise except some an attempt to bring up irrelevant class issues. Thanks for the analogy though, perfect.

- WandreyCer

September 7, 2010 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't remember any national outpouring of affection for NY when more than a 100 mosques were being built in it in the past. “New York City has more than 100 mosques, compared with 10 in 1970, and more than 800,000 of its 8.21 million residents are Muslims, said Philip Banks III,” chief of the NYPD Community Affairs Bureau." http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2010/08/09/growing-number-of-mosques-in-new-york-city/ There must be something about this particular mosque that grates on people's sensibilities.

- noga1

September 7, 2010 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"rich and well-connected" reminds me of nothing so much as "money and the ethnic vote" courtesy of good old jacques parizeau, who I am sure Noga holds in high regard.

- miceelf

September 7, 2010 at 5:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

WandreyCer; It wasn't my analogy. We have beaten that horse already. Someone else, of your ilk, brought it up and tried to make the case that it was a "perfect analogy" without much success. As for "Does someone have fewer rights because they do or do not have money?" No one is arguing for depriving these entrepreneurs of their rights. You have come late into this conversation which has been taking place in many, miles-long threads. Everyone agrees that constitutionally they are untouchable. But you tried to present them as victims of a persecutive society which they are not. They want to build a hubridic project which does not meet with popular acceptance for reasons having to do with sensibilities, recent suffering and sheer bafflement at the irrationality of the choice of location. They can go on to build their center, ignoring the people and nothing will happen to them as far as the law is concerned. But you are not happy that they can do whatever they like, are you? You wish to force people to accept this project even if it sticks in their craw and when they refuse, you accuse them of being party to crimes against humanity. For that is the gist of what you said "...anyone NOT actively fighting that is adding to it and that disgusts me." isn't it? Arendt once wrote that people do not understand that justice is for those who live in palaces as well as those living under bridges. She said it in the context of Robespierre who created the justice for the oppressed. Thus any aristocrat or anyone opposing or protesting against the justice of the guillotine was summarily beheaded. She also applied it to rich Jews for whom no pity was spared when they were sent into the gas chambers. Can you provide the proper justification for applying this principle to the case of the Cordova Initiators? Are they persecuted? Are they in danger of being brought to court for building an Islamic center? Are they in danger of being exterminated for being Muslims? If you can't make that case then please try to restrain your enthusiasm. You are not defending a vulnerable minority denied its rights. You are defending a pretty smug, arcane, well-heeled Islamic initiative which has been given full institutional support. In fact one wonders what exactly you are defending here.

- noga1

September 7, 2010 at 6:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, miceelf, if you read my comment immediately above you will see that it's the mosque initiators that are comparable to Parizeau in this case. He tried to portray the poor defeated Quebecois as victims of rich Jews. Yet he was the one with the power, heading the cessationist movement, and in control of the provincial machinery, the money, the people, the establishment and the law. That's why his statement was so outrageous. That's why I find the attempt to portray Rauf, Inc as a persecuted minority such a chutzpa.

- noga1

September 7, 2010 at 6:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga - I just took my little out for ice cream on Broadway and thought about what you said about moneyed interests. I'm afraid the moneyed interests here are what have created such a hate storm. Who has made more money off of this than the elite right wing media and their politicians? No one. They've made chumps of all of you.

- WandreyCer

September 7, 2010 at 6:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not victims of rich Jewish folk, chumps of Robert Murdoch and his brethren. When will people learn that these people laugh all thway to the bank with these diversions? I really did enjoy your posts on this though, you are so learned and interesting.

- WandreyCer

September 7, 2010 at 6:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Who has made more money off of this than the elite right wing media and their politicians?" How about the elite Left wing media and their politicians??

- noga1

September 7, 2010 at 6:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I really don't think "follow the money" is the crucial thing in this. It's not always the case that exposing the "seeding" of particular protests or ideological epiphenomena does away with them, because the feeling surrounding an issue may transcend the attempt to instrumentalize it, if you see what I mean. To put it bluntly, even if the whole thing is a covert GOP and Fox News scam, that still doesn't resolve the issue entirely. Obviously some deeper unease about this project has been tapped into, and I think it's a lot to do with . . . miscommunication, but I don't mean that in the normal sense of a misunderstanding about the meaning of a term or something one can clear up. It's more that two different sets of assumptions are at work here, but there is a level of debate that assumes it's only one set. I don't want to leave it there -- it's not deliberately vague -- but I have to head out.

- ironyroad

September 7, 2010 at 6:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga is too kind with "What disgusts me is this propagandistic attempt to turn the rich and well-connected and tone-deaf initiators of this Cordova Project into victims" Based on their own words in various interviews, and the publc record, I came to the opposition because the "tone-deaf initiators of this Cordova Project" are tax cheats, abusive landlords, and social-climbing whiners who get all the see-no-evil politically correct faux-journalists into telling these people they are victims when these con artists should be under investigation by Federal and NYS tax authorities. Maybe I should get IRS "church status" for my one-bedroom apartment by claiming I have 500 people praying in it five times a day so that I do not have to even file a tax return. That will give me free time to get Mike Bloomberg to steamroll my project for a privately owned non-profit, financed by tax-exempt municipal bonds, 15-story Druid-themed community center on another bit of Bronx parkland that Bloomberg wants to use his power of eminent domain as a favor to someone else he takes a fancy to...just as soon as I find a Bronx medical clinic owner as my primary investor, one raking in the fees from Medicaid and auto insurance fraud who has not yet been caught. Actually, I would rather stop anyone from destroying the sole architectural legacy in Manhattan of two men who led New York City to it's first era of economic greatness by pioneering steam powered shipping, Paul Spofford and Thomas Tileston, who built 45 Park Place in 1858. It disrespects everything great about New York City for Spofford & Tileston to be forgotten: As Walter Barrett wrote on page 221 in 1864 "The old merchants of New York City, Volume 5" "...The house of Spofford, Tileston & Co. has been one that brought wealth and honor to New York. The partners have been very successful. They have never failed in business. They have performed together the same untiring round of commercial duties,and have never wearied until death set them free. ... I trust the old house and even the old and honored name of Spofford, Tileston & Co. will be continued or unchanged by their clerks, as partners, and successors for a hundred years more." I wonder if the historian for JPMorganChase knows that Thomas Tileston was president of Phenix National Bank, first founded in 1812, and thanks to Tileston's leadership, and men like him, Phenix National Bank survived until 1921 when it started merging, finally becoming part of JPMorganChase.

- K2K

September 7, 2010 at 7:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm canceling my subscription right now.

- ingster

September 7, 2010 at 7:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: "...significant number of Americans tend to discover their affection for New York and their sensitivity to its recent history only when someone wants to build a mosque there. Otherwise they detest the place with a venom..." irony is usually so careful about facts. The venomous detesters surely exclude the more than 47 million tourists who visit New York City every year, with 2010 on track to set a new record. The 9/11 NATIONAL Memorial and Museum currently under construction, is scheduled to open on 9/11/2011, with estimates of SEVEN million visitors per year, mostly from outside NYC. No one ever watches Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade on tv, or wants to see the Statue of Liberty, or a Broadway play, or the Metropolitan Museum of Art, or the Bronx Zoo, or see the Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center (the holiday gridlock is surely a myth), or Ellis Island, where "over 100 million Americans - one third of the population - can trace their ancestry to the immigrants who first arrived in America at Ellis Island before dispersing to points all over the country." wiki

- K2K

September 7, 2010 at 8:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

from the new (mosque-free?) website for Park51: http://blog.park51.org/?page_id=23 Park51 will grow into a world-class community center, planned to include the following facilities: •outstanding recreation spaces and fitness facilities (swimming pool, gym, basketball court) •a 500-seat auditorium •a restaurant and culinary school •cultural amenities including exhibitions •education programs •a library, reading room and art studios •childcare services •a prayer space, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community •a September 11th memorial and quiet contemplation space, open to all [CNN will have Imam Rauf's first interview, with Larry King at 9:00 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, September 8, 2010, coincidentally the first night of Rosh Hashonah]

- K2K

September 7, 2010 at 8:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

not exactly mosque-free, according to the About Park51 page: http://blog.park51.org/?page_id=46 I wonder how they will build a bridge between the Sufi Masjid Al-Farah and the Sunni Masjid Manhattan. The prayer liturgies are so different. duly noted: "..We are also pleased to have the support of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, J Street and, most recently, President Obama. ..."

- K2K

September 7, 2010 at 9:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, Re. the rape victim--wow. It's a shame none of this is going to be reported more widely. When was all this new information made public? The thing is, it doesn't matter. It requires some subtle explaining, and nobody seems curious or patient enough to wait for that. So the headline is man convicted of rape by deception. But let's say there are some very influential blogs like Andrew Sullivan. Why isn't someone from Israel, from the embassy or whatever, alerting him. He'd read the information and likely publish it. He might not agree, but I do think he'd be willing to publish this--likely with his own thoughts. I'm sure you have a much better understanding, I'm just musing.

- MOLLYSIMON

September 7, 2010 at 9:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr Peretz is standing alongside the Koran burners and other ignorant and illiberal haters whose words and actions of late have been an offense against the idea of America as a place where men and women of all faiths have equal rights to practice their religions with dignity and freedom, and not be subjected to persecution or harassment - a place where the rights of minorities are not to be trampled under the fears and resentments of mean-spirited punks and their intellectual champions. That's you, Marty. You have joined the mean-spirited punks. It is unclear whether you, or Glenn Beck, can claim to be their intellectual champion. Close call that one. I hope you are proud. Neil

- purcellneil

September 8, 2010 at 12:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K and Noga - great posts, intellectually stimulating and interesting as always, although you're still wrong. Rhub for once too. If you guys can't come up with something more substantial than "people" having a vague sense of unease or a discomfort based in nothing more than the religion of the people involved, you're protests simply become unjustifiable in my eyes. You don't want this built because its a mosque and that's it. That's wrong. Tourists might not like it? Please! To effing bad, go somewhere else then. This is the capital of religious freedom and tolerance, if you have a problem with that - stay home or go somewhere you like, its a free country. You may have affection for my town, but you certainly don't own it or have any say in how we live in it anymore than I can tell someone in Akron their statues offend me and shouldn't be built - after all, what happened in the Crusades and how women are treated by Christianity and Catholicism offends the hell out of me. NO ONE owns New York. This all sounds just ike the people against gay marriage - its not GAYNESS you see, its just...just...we don't like it OK? I also have to love the sudden prissy squeamishness about the people building the place. Wealthy crooks, half crooks and moneyed sleazeballs building something in Manhattan? NO WAY. Ya'll don't know much about that trade here, please find me a major project that does not involve any of these types of characters and financial backing, then you'll have a point. (I worked on a long term project building a social work agency from the ground up in Queens. In addition to the many legitimate professional types we enountered, it was literally like dealing with the Sopranos only ten different ethnicities. It was both enraging and hilarious - every bit of it was quintessentially New York). This sudden expertese on building permits and financing in Manhattan by opponents of this projects seem like more opportunism, grasping to justify a position that just isn't justifiable. In a way, I respect Marty's position more, at least he's honest about what he means - he hates all Muslims and wants them to suffer, not have any right to the Constitution, all the grotesque stuff that lurks in Marty's sick bigoted psyche. At least he's not suddenly an expert in Manhattan construction.

- WandreyCer

September 8, 2010 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly: If I remember, you were the one who introduced the story of the rapist as evidence that racism in Israel had infiltrated into the judicial system. And you did not have any doubts about the veracity of the story at all. Nor did you try to place the law of "rape by deception" in relation to other democracies having similar laws. You immediately took what you read as truth. Now it turns out that the whole story was skewed from the very beginning and for some reason, the rapist goes about bragging about all the sympathy he gets from people in and out of Israel. He actually believes now that HE is the victim in this affair! Despite the fact the he has been exposed as a bona fide rapist. So what does this tell you about the chances of a mea culpa from the likes of Andrew Sullivan? http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/high-court-frees-arab-in-case-of-rape-by-impersonating-jew-1.305845

- noga1

September 8, 2010 at 10:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW - Basman - thank you, compliments from you are especially appreciated. You are a tough audience and a great mind.

- WandreyCer

September 8, 2010 at 10:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"This all sounds just ike the people against gay marriage - its not GAYNESS you see, its just...just...we don't like it OK? " Hitchens got it right the first time he wrote about gay marriage. It's as conservative as it can get. It's gay people wanting to join the traditional way of living. They are fed up being "free and promiscuous". When you advocate for gay marriage, wandery, you are actually buying into universal conformity. Personally I don't think marriage is such a great institution but it's the best one around for most people if only as an antidote to the modern angst of terminal loneliness. Anyway, this is neither here nor there. As for Imam Rauf's initiatives, he is welcome to them but he will get no help from me. He is no victim by any stretch of the imagination and there is no constitutional compulsion in building this whatever it is at this location and time. Anyone who confuses this with the right of freedom of religion doesn't really understand what democracy means. In this particular case there is no universal imperative to help or support him in his initiative. I'm pretty sure, by the way, that Imam Rauf and his partners will forget everything they know about freedom of religion if the "Zion Temple Faithful Initiative" were to insist that they have a right to build a temple right next to Al-Aqsa mosque. I'm pretty sure the UN will declare this initiative as a crime against humanity or something. I'm also sure that Soledad O'brien will ask him no such questions tonight, as she takes over Larry King's hour. I can still remember her bubbling excitement when she reported from the event that made Reverend Wright so famous. She was very sympathetic to the reverend, not realizing that her admiration for him was ill-judged. I anticipate similar sycophancy from her tonight.

- noga1

September 8, 2010 at 10:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...some religious leaders have taken quite a different stance, arguing against placing the center close to ground zero. Dalil Boubakeur, head of the Grande Mosquée of Paris and one of the most senior Islamic clerics in France, told France-Soir: “There are symbolic places that awaken memories whether you mean to or not. And it isn’t good to awaken memories.” A senior cleric at Egypt’s Al Azhar, the closest equivalent in the Sunni Islamic world to the Vatican, said that building at the proposed location sounded like bad judgment on the part of American Muslims. “It will create a permanent link between Islam and 9/11,” said Abdel Moety Bayoumi, a member of the Islamic Research Institute at Al Azhar. “Why should we put ourselves and Islam in a position of blame?” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/world/26islamic.html?_r=3&ref=todayspaper09/08/2010 - 10:22am EDT | WandreyCer "Tourists might not like it? Please! To effing bad, go somewhere else then. ..." No one here wrote "Tourists might not like it?" WandreyCer is incapable of understanding what she reads here. Her opinions are meaningless attacks on those of us who can still read, and think for ourselves.

- K2K

September 8, 2010 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Feisal Abdul Rauf on being "sensitive to the feelings" (I guess even he realizes he has no claim to official Imam status within Islam): http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/opinion/08mosque.html?_r=1&hp "Building on Faith" By FEISAL ABDUL RAUF Published: September 7, 2010 "...Above all, the project will amplify the multifaith approach that the Cordoba Initiative has deployed in concrete ways for years. Our name, Cordoba, was inspired by the city in Spain where Muslims, Christians and Jews co-existed in the Middle Ages during a period of great cultural enrichment created by Muslims. Our initiative is intended to cultivate understanding among all religions and cultures. ... I am very sensitive to the feelings of the families of victims of 9/11, as are my fellow leaders of many faiths. We will accordingly seek the support of those families, and the support of our vibrant neighborhood, as we consider the ultimate plans for the community center. Our objective has always been to make this a center for unification and healing. ..."

- K2K

September 8, 2010 at 11:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That was a great piece K2K. I'm just glad they aren't letting fear, hatred and ignorance detour them from moving forward so far, they simply cannot. This is New York City, not Kabul. We stand for religious tolerance here, no matter how hard the path may be. In fact, because we're New Yorkers - the harder the better.

- WandreyCer

September 8, 2010 at 2:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Who in this world is what they seem to be? Who?" from "The Spanish Prisoner" "the oldest confidence game on the books", written by David Mamet, 1997

- K2K

September 8, 2010 at 4:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I loved that movie. Mamet's "The Winslow boy", too.

- noga1

September 8, 2010 at 4:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article reads as though it were written by a deranged bigot. I continue to believe this magazine needs an editor before it is brought down by its own self-indulgence.

- mlottman

September 8, 2010 at 9:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is the New York Times paying for the 24/7 NYC police officer stationed in front of 45-51 Park Place? mlottman: The Spine is a blog. Some of us think Chait is the deranged blogger in TNR.com and he IS the editor.

- K2K

September 9, 2010 at 12:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I must eat craw for my prognostications over Soledad O'brien's stamina in interrogating the Imam. I think she did an excellent job and asked him tough questions, several times. SHE wasn't amused or taken by his mellifluous words and tried to get from him precise answers which he never did. And she managed to dodge his attempts to divert from her questions again, several times. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/08/lkl.01.html "RAUF: There is no doubt that this has become such a situation. And I'm deeply sensitive to that and very concerned about that. And, you know, had I known this would happen, we certainly would never have done this. O'BRIEN: You would never have picked that spot? RAUF: We would not have done something that would create more divisiveness. O'BRIEN: Then why is it hard to back up and say, and now that we've done it, let's undo it, let's just say we won't. Let's pick another spot that's been offered? RAUF: As I just mentioned, our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it, and what we do. It is important for us now to raise the bar on our conversation-- O'BRIEN: What's the risk? When you say "national security," what's the risk? RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides -- you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa. We have to turn this around. "

- noga1

September 9, 2010 at 10:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One thing I found particularly irritating was the Imam's vaunted assertion that he wants to help Christians be more perfect Christians and Jews to be more perfect Jews. What the hell does that mean? How is that for justifying the Cordova Initiative? I also noticed that he said there would be "prayer spaces" for Jews and Christians in his mosque but there was no mention of Hindus, or Buddhists or any other religion. Inter-faith but only for the faiths whose existence Islam can somehow tolerate.

- noga1

September 9, 2010 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Indeed. The monotheism conspiracy -- the chief monotheistic religions may have problems with each other but they have no difficulty ganging up on everyone else. One of my hobby-horses that I will no doubt get a reputation for in the old folks' home one day.

- ironyroad

September 9, 2010 at 10:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... they have no difficulty ganging up on everyone else. " At some point in the distant future I can see a coalition between Islam and Christianity, the Islamo-Christian or the Christo-Islamic tradition will replace the Judeo-Christian tradition. (Imam Rauf made a point of speaking very lovingly of Jesus). But I don't have any memory of an example that illustrates the three religions ganging up as you say, on "everyone else". So I wonder if this is not an advance notice of the kind of delights you anticipate of your sojourn in the old folks' home.

- noga1

September 9, 2010 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You could be right about the Christo-Islamic thing, but I was responding directly to your comment above "I also noticed that he said there would be 'prayer spaces' for Jews and Christians in his mosque but there was no mention of Hindus, or Buddhists or any other religion."

- ironyroad

September 9, 2010 at 1:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Peretz: If you genuinely believe that Muslims -- or for that matter, any individual or group -- need to prove that "they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment," then perhaps you need a refresher course in American values. The First Amendment does not dole out privileges; it establishes rights. If Americans indeed had to "earn" the "privileges" of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom to petition the government, it is more than likely that you would never have been allowed to publish this hate-filled screed. Fortunately for you, the Constitution still stands with Voltaire: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I value your magazine's other columnists and contributors too highly to cancel my subscription, but I will never again bother to read your worthless opinions. You, sir, should be ashamed of yourself.

- zimnycalif

September 9, 2010 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Curiously, some of the present crisis echoes the reaction to Russian Jewish immigrant Mary Antin's 1912 book The Promised Land, which recounted her own journey from the Pale to Boston when she was about 14. One of the arguments that triggered a great deal of hostility in the anti-immigrant/nativist camp (which was not a minority, by any standards) was Antin's assertion that all immigrants, by virtue of their arrival in the U.S., inherited the political and philosophical traditions of the American nation. They did not have to "become" or "prove" anything; rather the system stood ready to receive them if they wished to claim their legacy. This was not a point of view likely to win the assent of those Americans who felt that only certain kinds of human being were "worthy" of the privileges of American rights and freedoms, and Eastern European Jews were not among those certain kinds. Antin herself was a very pro-assimilation figure in her earlier years -- she married a German Christian -- but she became less inclined to believe in the melting-pot as she got older. Her husband deserted her and indeed America because of his German loyalties during WWI.

- ironyroad

September 9, 2010 at 5:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...Antin's assertion that all immigrants, by virtue of their arrival in the U.S., inherited the political and philosophical traditions of the American nation. " I heard a similar argument made by African-Americans who believe members of their communities should get reparations for slavery. Some Americans then say their families only arrived after slavery so why should they have to be imposed upon in that regard? The standard answer is that in coming to America, the newer arrivals inherited all the debts and burdens of guilt incurred by America since its inception. Or something like that.

- noga1

September 9, 2010 at 6:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It could be seen as the same kind of argument, although Antin's perspective is positive rather than negative, imagining a kind of intellectual/spiritual citizenship as an opportunity rather than a material recompense for degradation and disadvantage. There are no black figures in The Promised Land (that I can recall), although there are other kinds of immigrants in Boston who feature in the story.

- ironyroad

September 9, 2010 at 7:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga, thanks for the link to the CNN transcript. I finally listened - can not look at his face for some reason. I do wish Soledad had asked Rauf what he was doing in Malaysia most of the summer. Rauf's life did not start with his State Dep't misson in late August. I highly recommend Terry McDermott's profile of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the 9/13/2010 print only edition of the New Yorker. Explains a bit of why Murfreesboro Tennessee is having their controversy (KSM's alma mater). I think noga will find the parallels between the early lives of bioth KSM and Rauf in Kuwait, even with the 16 year age difference, rather interetsing. I always believe that voting is a privilege, and I guess I also believe that American citizenship is also a privilege, because it can so easily be taken away by the government. It is not so much that one has to work hard to prove oneself worthy, but it is also not a gift bestowed without responsibility by the recipient.

- K2K

September 9, 2010 at 10:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: " Inter-faith but only for the faiths whose existence Islam can somehow tolerate." only People of the Book are mentioned in the Koran. Imagine what they think of idol-worshipping Hindus :) Or Animists, who may outnumber Christians and Muslims. I would not spend much time assessing what they want to build - it is still in Phase 1. They had to add the inter-faith center because the chairwoman of CB1, Julie Menin, suggested it in her NY Daily News op-ed. I think we all have to wait until after the 9/14 primary in New York. The outcome for the Democratic nominee for Attorney General will have an impact. NOT because Rauf says so - he was just re-quoting Bloomberg about the politicians. The Dem primary for AG is getting very interesting. Almost a proxy war between J Street and AIPAC :)

- K2K

September 9, 2010 at 11:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It isn't the same Murfreesboro. KSM was at a Baptist college in Murfreesboro, North Carolina, not Tennessee.

- ironyroad

September 9, 2010 at 11:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: correction noted. the perils of sleep deprivation for eleven months...

- K2K

September 10, 2010 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. K2K: To say this piece is a blog does not excuse its nauseatingly racist cast, especially the statements at the end. And while the piece may be called a blog, it is a New Republic blog loosed upon the world via the New Republic website largely to New Republic subscribers or readers. As far as that goes, a great deal of what appears elsewhere on the website and in the magazine itself is basically blog material, i.e., naked, minimally researched expressions of personal opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but given all the above references to the First Amendment, it should be remembered that the New Republic enterprise-- magazine, website, and all-- are private entitities subject to First Amendment restrictions. Submitted pieces can and should be edited so as to maintain, not ideological conformity, but minimal ethical and journalistic standards, includng the avoidance of outright racism. There is no legal or other obligation for the New Republic to publish untouched in its magazine, on its website, or anywhere else any article, blog, or review submitted by anyone. That is what I meant in saying the New Republic should have an editor: someone who actuallly edits what is published and ensures that ethical and journalistic standards are observed. It doesn't matter how personally radical the editor(s) are, or what they write, so long as they exercise some control over the quality of the enterprise. That obviously did not happen in the case of this article.

- mlottman

September 10, 2010 at 7:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The above comment is intended to say the New Republic is a private entity NOT subject to First Amendment restrictions. Sorry.

- mlottman

September 10, 2010 at 7:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" minimal ethical and journalistic standards, including the avoidance of outright [accusations of] racism should apply to ALL publishing ventures. Alas, even the New York Times fails this minimum standard. The NYT editorial that inspired this Peretz blogpost accuses almost 70% of New York City residents of being ignorant bigots because the Editors did not like the responses to their own poll. The NYT blog sections are remarkable for their bias - they just use more careful euphemisms. The state of journalism in America has not progressed since Thomas Jefferson's era. Best for the reader to maintain a healthy does of skepticism about anything in print, even more when it comes to tv "news" and "opinion".

- K2K

September 10, 2010 at 10:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nicholas Kristof is so upset by Peretz's closing paragraph! Blog-wars!

- K2K

September 11, 2010 at 7:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is poor Kristof going to do? Probably write an article castigating Israel.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

September 12, 2010 at 8:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

'a demo against the Arabs or the Pakis or the Algerians or the Moroccans or the Turks and Muslims more generally' Pakis? PAKIS?? You do realize that the term 'Paki' is the ethical equivalent of 'Yid,' don't you? Do you even care?

- magistra

September 12, 2010 at 9:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have a suggestion for Mr. Perez––retire. After reading the last paragraph of your post, I believe there's an empty seat waiting for you on Fox right next to New Republic alums Fred Barnes and Morton Kondracke.

- Kramer64

September 12, 2010 at 9:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My suggestion of retirement is directed to Mr. Peretz, not Mr. Perez. Borough of Corrections

- Kramer64

September 12, 2010 at 10:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover: "What is poor Kristof going to do? Probably write an article castigating Israel." one can only hope Kristof's next outlet for outrage is to take Glenn Greenwald, who may have started the blogwar over Peretz's closing paragraph here, on a road trip to Iran, to jointly protest the stoning of adulteresses. Then Ahmadinejad can blame all such protests on a 'Zionist conspriacy', like he did with Pastor Jones.

- K2K

September 12, 2010 at 1:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why is it illiberal to criticize Islam, a religion that treats women as chattel, that opposes religious tolerance and believes that Christians and Jews should be tolerated only if they pay a special tax and submit to Muslim rule, a religion that has a history of imposing itself by force and violence, a religion whose members hurl accusations of "racism" against the West while spewing anti-semitism that would make Hitler smile? Why is illiberal to criticize a horrible religion that has turned large areas of the planet into a cultural, moral and intellectual desert, and is responsible for the majority of the violence in the world today?

- bulbman1066

September 18, 2010 at 11:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close