FOREIGN POLICY AUGUST 24, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The fervent mosque-haters have this much right: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Sufi leader of the Cordoba Initiative that plans to build an Islamic center on Park Place near the site of the World Trade Center, is subversive. But what he wants to subvert is not the United States of America. What he wants to subvert are dictatorships in Islamic nations.
Imam Rauf’s third book, published in 2005 but unavailable to me last week when I wrote about him and his earlier work, is called What’s Right with Islam is What’s Right with America. In these pages, Rauf proves just as Islamic as his detractors say. He is downright idealistic about Islam and hearty about its prospects. He has been scouting out America for a long time. And what is it that he finds here to gladden his Islamic soul? It’s right there on p. 176:
“…the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution.”
The imam goes on to say that these documents “express the Islamic ideal, which is itself but an expression of the Abrahamic ethic.” Yes, “the American Constitution and system of governance uphold the core principles of Islamic law.” And here’s a way of putting it that never tempted Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich: “The overarching American religion that all Americans live under is ‘Islamic’ in the sense that it is fully compliant with and expresses the Islamic Shariah.” In Rauf’s understanding, Sharia is predicated on religious pluralism, which is “a fundamental human right under Islamic law.”
In fact—don’t tell Sean Hannity—it’s too late to resist. Satan is well ensconced here. “America is substantively an ‘Islamic’ country, by which I mean a country whose systems remarkably embody the principles that Islamic law requires of a government.”
No wonder the Imam is at this moment lecturing in the Gulf States on the State Department’s dime, to discuss “Muslim life in America and religious tolerance,” according to the AP—a trip that Governor Tim Pawlenty, guzzling a lot of tea in a hurry, calls “disgusting.”
No wonder the Bush State Department made similar use of him to win hearts and minds. He’s promoting the American social and political system. He believes that “democracy and liberty, in a peculiarly American way, provide a manifestation of the Abrahamic ethic.” If Muslims outside America “recognize in the American form of governance a genuine substantive workable expression and model of their centuries-old longing for the kingdom of heaven on earth,” he continues, “they can formulate their understanding of an Islamic state along these lines.” In other words, he wants to Americanize the Muslim world in the way that counts—by promoting our political institutions. You can see what Republicans object to, though: He says nothing about promoting the filibuster or repealing the Fourteenth Amendment.
Imam Rauf’s revisionism extends so far as to trash most putatively Islamic states—since 656 C.E., that is, when “the Muslims succumbed to dynastic rule, a paradigm of governance that did not display Islamic religious values.” No wonder it’s been a rough 13+ centuries for Islam ever since. But the moment, he argues, is ripe for American Muslims, for “no contradiction exists between Islam’s theology and the longing of many Muslims for democratic values and equality of opportunity. … Islam’s theology and jurisprudence demand it.” That is, the American system is the answer to an Islamic prayer.
The book closes with an appendix containing a fatwa issued by five Muslim clerics on September 27, 2001, at the request of the most senior Muslim chaplain in the American armed forces. Ending his book with a fatwa! Yes! Cunningly, it’s a “Fatwa Permitting U. S. Muslim Military Personnel to Participate in Afghanistan War Effort.”
What’s Right with Islam, by the way, was published by HarperSanFrancisco, which last I looked is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Does he know what kind of poison bears his imprimatur?
Todd Gitlin is a professor of journalism and sociology and chair of the Ph. D. program in Communications at Columbia. His next book, The Chosen Peoples: America, Israel, and the Ordeals of Divine Election (written with Liel Leibovitz), will be out in September.
48 comments
“America is substantively an ‘Islamic’ country, by which I mean a country whose systems remarkably embody the principles that Islamic law requires of a government.” Gollu gee, so whay is there no equality in any Muslim country? Why are non Muslims no allowed to have the same rights as Muslims? Oh, I forgot according to this Muslim "“the Muslims succumbed to dynastic rule, a paradigm of governance that did not display Islamic religious values.”" So there has never been a Muslims State in the whole history of Islam till the founding of the US. First you claim that Jefferson was a Muslim, next you reinterpret his words to coincide with the Koran and finally you decide that the Koran is the real declaration of independence. This, btw, is what they did to the Hebrew Bible. Much of it was incorporated into the Koran and their version became the real Bible. Today they speak of the "so called Hebrew bible." Next year they will speak of the so called American declaration of Independence.
- jdyer
August 24, 2010 at 12:17am
To see the religion become the recognizable institution; politics aside; I'd like to see their first sex scandal and reaction on US soil. Could the religion evolve, modernize, and civilize to meet today's society? Christianity has evolved, abandoning some practices. If not, a stoning in Central Park could call for legislation saying the practice of; disrupts peace. Let'em have it. As a half hearted Muslim barista said when I asked about the current situation, "It's lame."
- eemeesung
August 24, 2010 at 12:23am
Thanks for that breath of refreshing air Mr. Gitlin! Hope everyone has a chance to read this article
- candela
August 24, 2010 at 3:03am
Christopher Hitchens is not impressed with Imam: http://www.slate.com/id/2264770/ "I do not find myself reassured by the fact that Imam Rauf publicly endorses the most extreme and repressive version of Muslim theocracy. The letterhead of the statement, incidentally, describes him as the Cordoba Initiative's "Founder and Visionary." Why does that not delight me, either? Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything "offensive" to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter … As for the gorgeous mosaic of religious pluralism, it's easy enough to find mosque Web sites and DVDs that peddle the most disgusting attacks on Jews, Hindus, Christians, unbelievers, and other Muslims—to say nothing of insane diatribes about women and homosexuals. This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be "phobic." A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational. From my window, I can see the beautiful minaret of the Washington, D.C., mosque on Massachusetts Avenue. It is situated at the heart of the capital city's diplomatic quarter, and it is where President Bush went immediately after 9/11 to make his gesture toward the "religion of peace." A short while ago, the wife of a new ambassador told me that she had been taking her dog for a walk when a bearded man accosted her and brusquely warned her not to take the animal so close to the sacred precincts. Muslim cabdrivers in other American cities have already refused to take passengers with "unclean" canines. Another feature of my local mosque that I don't entirely like is the display of flags outside, purportedly showing all those nations that are already Muslim. Some of these flags are of countries like Malaysia, where Islam barely has a majority, or of Turkey, which still has a secular constitution. At the United Nations, the voting bloc of the Organization of the Islamic Conference nations is already proposing a resolution that would circumscribe any criticism of religion in general and of Islam in particular. So, before he is used by our State Department on any more goodwill missions overseas, I would like to see Imam Rauf asked a few searching questions about his support for clerical dictatorship in, just for now, Iran. Let us by all means make the "Ground Zero" debate a test of tolerance. But this will be a one-way street unless it is to be a test of Muslim tolerance as well." _____________ I'm a little surprised that Gitlin feels the need to provide an apologetics for Rauf's words which to me sound like a less sophisticated version of Tariq Ramadan. He sounds like a teacher who tells one of his more fractious and less productive students that he is badly misunderstood and should make an effort to do a better job explaining why he is so fractious and unproductive. As if this kind of behaviour is on par with the disciplined and studious standard of the class, only differently constructed and that's what causes a great deal of turbulence. There is hope in this approach that the recalcitrant student will somehow appreciate being understood better by the teacher and change his ways. It usually doesn't work like that.
- noga1
August 24, 2010 at 8:02am
noga: Gitlin is a leftwing ideologue from the 1960's re-incarnated as a professor of journalism. "Imam Faisal 'Abd Al-Rauf's book What's Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West was published in Indonesian in 2007 with a different title – Seruan Azan Dari Puing WTC: Dakwah Islam di Jantung Amerika Pasca 9/11 ("The Call of Azan from the Rubble of the World Trade Center: Islamic Da'wa in the Heart of America Post-9/11"). The azan is the muezzin's call to prayer. It consists of a number of sentences repeated several times: "Allahu Akbar," the Shahada (la ilaha illa Allah wa-Muhammad rasoul Allah – "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger") and the phrase "Gather for prayer." It is noteworthy that, in the period of Muslim conquests in the first centuries of Islam, this call was made from newly conquered sites. Source: MEMRI, Aug. 23, 2010 http://www mememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/29598.htm http://www hudson-ny.org/1505/feisal-abdul-rauf "More Facts About Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Ground Zero Mosque"" "...[Rauf's father] Imam Muhammad Abdul Rauf soon left the Massachusetts Avenue mosque, with no suspicion that he knew of the Tabatabai murder plot, and went back to Malaysia, where he had previously lived. There Muhammad Abdul Rauf was presented by Mahathir with the rectorship of the International Islamic University of Malaysia. ... Feisal Abdul Rauf has projected himself as a bridge-builder between Muslims and non-Muslims but his background and persona fit more with that of one bent on accumulating friends on all sides, and accommodating all aspects of Islam today, without a necessary distinction being drawn between real moderates and radicals. Yet he has more critics than friends among Muslims. ..." Imam Rauf on Israel: "...We now have post-Zionism movements in Israel. We have a very broad spectrum of people in Israel who regard Israel as a nation state, as a secular state, as a multicultural state. The very fabric and demographic, and I would say even identity, of Israel has shifted enormously in the last 60 years since its founding. . . . The differences, perhaps, may lie on whether the solution lies in the two-state solution or in a one-state solution. I believe that you had someone here recently who spoke about having a “one land and two peoples” solution to Israel. And I personally — my own personal analysis tells me that a one-state solution is a more coherent one than a two-state solution. ..." Andy McCarthy's citation from a transcript, copied from: http://www nationalreview.com/corner/244528/imam-rauf-and-one-state-solution-israeli-palestinian-conflict-andy-mccarthy
- K2K
August 24, 2010 at 10:34am
Christopher Hitchens doesn't like a religious leader? Stop the presses!
- Crock1701
August 24, 2010 at 10:38am
Todd, you had me throughout the piece until you used a tactic so common in the halls of the Turd Blossom propaganda machine: you knowingly and deliberately misstated the aims of the opposition. It's as though you just couldn't restrain yourself and had to take a shot. I understand that, but aren't there enough real targets provided us by the Right? Is it really necessary to distort their position and take a shot at IT? It's called a Straw Man argument -- with which I am sure you are familiar! Yet you sink to their level when you use it. More to the point, you give away your blind partisanship (which you decry when practiced by "them") when it comes to illegal immigration. As a naturalized citizen of many decades, I abhor illegal immigration and do not see as heroes those who are able to successfully evade the Border Patrol. But you gave yourself away when you said that the Right Wing wants to repeal the 14th Amendment. You must know that that is not the case, right? What they want - and what Lefties like me want - is to stop giving birthright citizenship to children born to parents who are here illegally. You say it is not an attraction? I say you are grossly ignorant. I've been to Tucson, talked to a friend who is a pulmonologist at St. Joseph's Hospital who told me how young, pregnant women cross the border to come to the hospital to give birth in America. They know that there is a dollar value to being the parent of an American citizen. Are you actually going to argue that there is not? Of course you can't. That would be absurd on its face. To hold your position on immigration, however, one has to posit that the United States (unlike all the other nations on this planet) does not have the right to establish and enforce it's own immigration policy. Moreover, your position would be that such a policy should be determined by foreign nationals who have illegally crossed the border. You hold a position which is illogical and untenable, but probably not one you are willing to analyze; nevertheless, please try to hide it better. It does not reflect well on you.
- alexyaron
August 24, 2010 at 11:25am
This reporter is drinking his kool-aid. America an Islamic-like country? Gimme a break. If only the Thomas Jefferson of Immams would go to Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, et al, and teach them a bit about good 'ole American constitutionalism. This is really scary reporting. Btw, have a listen to this Imam's response to 9/11 (the very tragedy that building this mosque gets our goad). TNR keeps publishing these half-baked editorials, makes me wonder...
- streaming
August 24, 2010 at 11:40am
Against his wishes, and beyond the ironic tone, Gitlin paints the portrait of a crackpot and bullshitter: a multiculturalist who thinks that the "Córdoba" name brand in Cordoba is a portable commodity at home in the secular domain. This postmodern iman might be in the majority accross the great Muslim cosmos, but I seriously doubt it. Osama B.L. is closer to the truth of what we should know we tolerate in supporting the Cordoba (sic.) House project -- as I do. Among the things we support and tolerate is the territorial mark in claiming back the old capital of the Umayad caliphate of Al Andaluz and transporting it near Ground Zero. There is where the deeper multiculturalist truth lies. Yet, it takes little preaching among the believers to alert them to Alah's great want to take back that whole mosque in Al-Andaluz Córdoba with all that comes with it (but, of course, in the echoes of his believers, Alah very often sounds stir-crazy
- eduardo155
August 24, 2010 at 1:24pm
If the Imam is serious about streamlining Islam with Jeffersonian democracy, a first step could be to do to the Quran what Jefferson did to the Bible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible#Content But I suspect that the venerable Rauf, maybe not fully consciously, aims at the opposite direction. America's democracy is good, almost perfect. What's missing from it, to make it absolutely perfect, is sharia. What of it? Can be done. How? By saying that it can be done.
- noga1
August 24, 2010 at 1:27pm
Hitch did not have nice things to say about the main public justification for opposition to the community center, which is that it's somehow "offensive" at this location: "Where to start with this part-pathetic and part-sinister appeal to demagogy? To begin with, it borrows straight from the playbook of Muslim cultural blackmail. Claim that something is 'offensive,' and it is as if the assertion itself has automatically become an argument. You are even allowed to admit, as does (Anti-Defamation League head Abraham) Foxman, that the ground for taking offense is 'irrational and bigoted.' But, hey—why think when you can just feel?"
- JakeH
August 24, 2010 at 4:38pm
jdyer -- It doesn't matter whether this guy's version of Islam fits your ideas or my ideas of what Islam really is. Islam is whatever its practioners say it is. It's all bullshit, like all religion. Everyone makes it up. Given that fact, it's better that the bullshitters preach nice, productive bullshit instead of hateful, destructive bullshit. Rauf is in the former category. People like you and me are always saying that Islam should modernize, by which I mean become less fanatical -- basically, less religious. That's what this is about. This is how it's done. You take the framework you've got -- one that the target audience trusts -- and you play with it until it says what you want. In this case, Rauf wants it to say that there's no conflict between Islam and Western political values. That may be bullshit, but it's good bullshit -- the kind of bullshit that George W. Bush promoted when he was in office by sending this guy around to repeat it with an American stamp of approval. noga -- This guy doesn't have anything to do with "Islamism." He's the opposite of Islamism. You proceed to associate various Islamic crimes with Islam, and, by extension, this guy. But this guy hasn't advocated any of the bad viewpoints and positions you mention -- not to my knowledge, anyway. So what's the problem, unless you simply regard anything Muslim as suspicious because of crimes and other bad ideas put forward in the name of the religion? As for your demand that he prove that he's one of the good ones, I disagree. We don't routinely demand a "two-way street" when it comes to religious tolerance or other forms of tolerance. Rather, people get the benefit of the doubt. A white family wouldn't demand that the black family who wants to move in next door demonstrate that they're the good kind of blacks and not the bad kind. This suspicion, this special demand that one prove that one's intentions are not malign, is itself a recipe for persecution. The Jeffersonian Bible is a fine thing, but it's not very Christian. It's too much to expect religious leaders to abandon their religion. That's fine with me, but it's not going to happen. The second best option is to make the religion fit with modern values, so that it ceases to be a potentially destructive force in society. That's what this guy is doing.
- JakeH
August 24, 2010 at 5:09pm
K2K, if Rauf advocates a one-state solution, then I very strongly disagree. But I don't view that quote in itself as reason to take offense at the location of this Islamic community center or otherwise oppose it. It's a reason to voice your strong disagreement with that view.
- JakeH
August 24, 2010 at 5:12pm
Fox News just announced the President is a Christian. Emphasizing he is not a Muslim. Quickly turning to degrade his performance. Then going into theology; criticizing and defending the percentage that believes he is a Muslim. Saying his approach to Christianity is confusing. What's the problem here? It's manipulative. Now he just quoted the pope in how it's demonic to use religion for political gain. OMG!
- eemeesung
August 24, 2010 at 5:18pm
K2K: "Gitlin is a leftwing ideologue from the 1960's re-incarnated as a professor of journalism." Dude, nothing like a purely, and I mean purely, ad hominem lunge to really make a solid argument. 1. What do you mean by "leftwing"? It has a range of possible meanings, especially in relation to the 1960s. 2. Is it a negative term for you, and if so, why? 3. What do you mean by "ideologue," and is there any proof that Gitlin was one? 3. What do you mean by "reincarnated"? It's presumably a metaphor, and in general a positive one (reincarnation of the dead in another life), but your general style indicates that you are using it negatively. 4. Assuming it's an innocent term as you use it, do you have any evidence that Gitlin's academic position was achieved by fraudulent, corrupt, or otherwise unacceptable methods? 5. Having responded to the above (however you do), is there any reason that Gitlin's political loyalties, past or current, and/or his academic post would disqualify him from (a) writing a piece on this issue and publishing it here, or (b) having his argument addressed as in terms of content and not via a casual side-thrust at his personal biography? Just wondered.
- ironyroad
August 24, 2010 at 10:12pm
Make it 3a and 3b above.
- ironyroad
August 24, 2010 at 10:13pm
JaekH: Now that I know the history of the building at 45-51 Park Place, my opposition is primarily that of the hisoric preservationist - I believe the memory of the men who built it, Paul Spofford and Thomas Tileston, deserves strong commemoration. As to the team behind Park51? The NYC cynic in me calls their project the "Scam-and-Spin-Swimming-Pool-with-prayer space so no one notices we do not know what we are doing and we do not care". Whatever vision this team had of healing and interfaith dialog has already failed. Rauf+Khan put their personal ambition above all other considerations - a very NYC story. Why Gitlin expends so much effort trying to understand Imam Rauf seems purely ideological. I am still waiting for a real journalist to treat this project like any other NYC real estate development instead of all this noise that that passes for journalism these days. The controversy has now travelled to Australia, where Rauf gave that speech on July 12, 2005 at The Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Centre/UniSA International and The Migrant Resource Centre. Here is the URL to their page, which warns "The copying and reproduction of any transcripts within the Hawke Centre public program is strictly forbidden without prior arrangements." http://www unisa.edu.au/hawkecentre/events/2005events/Imam.asp Individuals can either listen to the radio transcript, or read the text transcript, linked from this page. Seems to me the millions of Muslims in America, not to mention the 1.5 billion across the world, deserve a better spokesman for what is intended to be a trophy building in the most multi-cultural city in the world: New York City. By 'trophy building', I mean a signature building that a Donald Trump would build, to suit ego and ambition. Nothing wrong with that, but at least the Donald knows how to get stuff built, and does it without tearing the city and country apart. No wonder rumour has it that El-Gamal, the actual owner of half the site, is trying to ditch Rauf+Khan.
- K2K
August 24, 2010 at 10:18pm
K2K, I note that you have now decided that your primary objection to Park51 is based in a preservationist concern. If there is a strong case to be made on this basis, why do you spend so much of your argument on personal attacks against Mr Rauf? If it is truly the primary cause of your objection, perhaps it deserves a larger share of your rhetoric? In your last sentence you accuse Rauf of "tearing the city and country apart." Honestly, I don't see any basis for such a charge. By all accounts, Rauf's plans for a community center have gone through all necessary legal processes, and he has engaged in dialogue with community groups in the planning of this project. He has said or done nothing that would provoke or antagonize anyone. The harsh rhetoric and inflammatory demagoguery of some on the political right, on the other hand, seems very much to fit the charge you have made against Rauf -- that of "tearing the city and country apart." Folks like yourself, in fact, though with greater access to the media. I too am committed to preservation. What I would like most to preserve is our American way of life, with its commitment to equality, tolerance, and free religious practice for all. Such preservation is increasingly a challenging task - so many are willing to tear down our ideals and traditions for cheap political gains, or to enjoy the dark satisfactions of expressed resentments and xenophobia. My take on Mr Rauf is that he gets it - he sees the value of those ideals and traditions I seek to preserve, and he has written a book extolling the example of America to the Muslim world - an example to be appreciated and followed. What a shame it would be if Rauf succeeded in opening the eyes of 1.5 billion Muslims to the promise of our ideals and traditions, and thereby to have so many witnesses to our abandonment of that promise. Neil
- purcellneil
August 25, 2010 at 8:52am
"I note that you have now decided that your primary objection to Park51 is based in a preservationist concern. If there is a strong case to be made on this basis, why do you spend so much of your argument on personal attacks against Mr Rauf? If it is truly the primary cause of your objection, perhaps it deserves a larger share of your rhetoric?" I need to go downtown to meet a friend and to buy a certain item from a pharmacy that only sells it on that location. Either of these reasons would suffice for me to go to the trouble of traveling downtown but the fact is that I'm going today with these two explicit aims in my mind. However, buying something from the pharmacy is not as interesting as the meeting with my friend so what I think about most as I sit on the metro is the latter rather than the former. But the fact that I dwell longer and with more interest on my meeting with my friend does not in any way detract from the importance of my other objective in going downtown.
- noga1
August 25, 2010 at 9:20am
noga1 I am going downtown too. My primary objective for today is uptown, but my friend is downtown, so - after announcing my primary objective - I will spend most of the day going downtown. I think that is a better analogy to the situation I was commenting on, and it makes clear that our stated reasons for what we do are often unpersuasive smokescreens for our apparent motives. Neil
- purcellneil
August 25, 2010 at 11:39am
08/25/2010 - 8:52am EDT | purcellneil "...Rauf's plans for a community center have gone through all necessary legal processes, and he has engaged in dialogue with community groups in the planning of this project...." NO. There never were ANY legal issues, the zoning is as of right. 45 Park Place was first proposed for landmark status in 1989 (covered in great detail in thread of comments at Gitlin's first post). There is NO final plan, according to Park51.org website. You might try reading the Wiki entry for Park51 to understand how very little "dialogue with community groups in the planning of this project" there has been. My opinion of Rauf+Khan is that they are social-climbers who put their personal ambition ahead of every other concern. El-Gamal owns 45 Park Place, and now has to buy the other half from Con Edison. All three are Amateurs in NYC real estate development. The three of them have created a controversy that did not have to happen. Maybe Imam Rauf will decide to take up fulltime residency at his home in Malaysia. Or Rauf can move to his wife Daisy Khan's former home in Kashmir, and establish a center for Sufi mysticism dedicated to healing the rift between Pakistan and India. They do not have a chance at healing any wounds in Manhattan or America.
- K2K
August 25, 2010 at 11:58am
"I am going downtown too. My primary objective for today is uptown, but my friend is downtown, so - after announcing my primary objective - I will spend most of the day going downtown. I think that is a better analogy to the situation I was commenting on" How is this a better analogy? K2K objects to the mosque both on the preservationist concern and the dubious credibility of the Cordova Initiator. K spent considerable time here providing ample grist for the mill, utilizing both doors leading to the same mill. In your analogy, you presume to know that while K2K objects to the mosque on anti-Islamic grounds (going uptown) s/he pretends that it is the other reason that concerns her most (going downtown). In other words you accuse him/her of duplicity and irrationality (going downtown while in fact aiming to go uptown).
- noga1
August 25, 2010 at 12:09pm
Still wondering.
- ironyroad
August 25, 2010 at 1:31pm
noga1 To review, K2K states "...my opposition is primarily that of the hisoric preservationist - I believe the memory of the men who built it, Paul Spofford and Thomas Tileston, deserves strong commemoration." Then that argument is dropped and the balance of the comment, five hefty sentences, amounts to an attack on Mr Rauf, continuing a theme K2K struck in earlier comments. The preservation argument may actually matter to K2K but there is simply nothing to suggest it is really his primary concern, other than his stating that it is. As to the analogy, there is a significant difference between a reasonable argument about preservationist concerns and a wildly hyperbolic ad hominem attack on the Imam. This is really uptown and downtown in a big way. From all apearances, the Imam is no villain. Perhaps K2K recognizes the weakness of this part of his case - that might be why he offers up the preservationist claim and then frames it as his primary concern. K2K's preservationist angle is not the focus of his comment and seems to have been thrown out as a feint -- look over here while I do something else over there. Uptown and downtown, at the very least. Hope that helps. Neil
- purcellneil
August 25, 2010 at 2:26pm
"Hope that helps." No, but never mind. It's clear we inhabit very different parts of the city. "From all apearances, the Imam is no villain. " He doesn't have to be a villain to arouse concern and doubts about his innermost intentions. If he were known to be a villain there would be no problem, would there? For me it is enough to know that he was incapable of condemning Hamas, that he considers a one state solution the only rational solution to the I/P conflict, that he thinks America bears at least part of the responsibility for being attacked on 9/11, that he decided to name his initiative "Cordova". These are all opinions and do not amount to a hill of beans in a court. But we are not in a court of law and we are trying to understand where this man stands in Islam and what he means by declaring that Islam and the American constitution are compatible. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) "provides an overview on the Islamic perspective on human rights, and affirms Islamic Shari'ah as its sole source." (wiki) When you read that declaration you may be persuaded that it is compatible with the UN Universal declaration of Human Rights but you would be wrong because the "law" referred to in this declaration is Islamic Law and that gives the entire Human rights issue a very different basis than the one we accept. Islamic law instructs that non-Muslims are inferior citizens who must be protected by the state. This is a very different proposition from what we understand about citizenship and human rights. So when Imam Rauf claims that what is right with the US is what is right with Islam I get all twitchy. If he really embraced the US constitution (democracy) he would not have a problem denouncing terrorists in absolute terms. There is every reason to regard the imam with all the respect and suspicion his published opinions deserve.
- noga1
August 25, 2010 at 3:06pm
jakeh: You're hired. You're an island of common sense in these swirling, turbulent waters; a lighthouse of reason, if you will, beaming the light of reason across the dark, an ocean liner of... Ah the hell with it: you know what I mean!
- basman
August 25, 2010 at 4:47pm
08/25/2010 - 2:26pm EDT | purcellneil dissecting K2K "five hefty sentences, amounts to an attack on Mr Rauf ...a wildly hyperbolic ad hominem attack on the Imam" 08/24/2010 - 10:18pm EDT | K2K's "five hefty sentences": "The NYC cynic in me calls their project the "Scam-and-Spin-Swimming-Pool-with-prayer space so no one notices we do not know what we are doing and we do not care". Whatever vision this team had of healing and interfaith dialog has already failed. Rauf+Khan put their personal ambition above all other considerations - a very NYC story. Why Gitlin expends so much effort trying to understand Imam Rauf seems purely ideological. I am still waiting for a real journalist to treat this project like any other NYC real estate development instead of all this noise that that passes for journalism these days. " purcellneil seems unable to permit one person to express a secondary objection to Park51, where two of the "five hefty sentences" criticize Gitlin, the author of this post. My advice is to ignore such confusion :) new voice on Rauf since Jeffrey Goldberg and Frank Rich made Rauf's eulogy at Daniel Pearl's funeral a character reference: "...[Judea] Pearl told JTA that while he was “touched” by Rauf’s appearance and speech at his son’s memorial, “many Muslim leaders offered their condolences at the time.” More to the point, Pearl said he is discouraged that the Muslim leadership has not followed through on what he hoped would come from his son's death. “At the time, I truly believed Danny’s murder would be a turning point in the reaction of the civilized world toward terrorism,” said Pearl, who engages in public conversations with Akbar Ahmed, an Islamic studies professor at American University, on behalf of the Daniel Pearl Dialogue for Muslim-Jewish Understanding. The established Muslim leadership in the United States, Pearl said, “has had nine years to build up trust by pro-actively resisting anti-American ideologies of victimhood, anger and entitlement. Reactions to the mosque project indicate that they were not too successful in this endeavor." He views the controversy to be a vote of no confidence in the organized Muslim leadership, not specifically against Rauf. “If I were [New York] Mayor Bloomberg I would reassert their right to build the mosque, but I would expend the same energy trying to convince them to put it somewhere else,” he said. “Public reaction tells us that it is not the right time, and that it will create further animosity and division in this country.” ..." copied from "Will the real Imam Rauf please stand up?" By Sue Fishkoff and Ami Eden · August 24, 2010 http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/08/24/2740598/will-the-real-imam-rauf-please-stand-up "Supporters and detractors are debating whether Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf is a dedicated interfaith activist, a stealth apologist for Islamist terrorism or something else. SAN FRANCISCO (JTA) -- Who is Feisel Abdul Rauf? Initially the controversy over building a $100-million Muslim community center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero was about location, location, location. Increasingly, however, attention has turned to the 61-year-old Sufi imam behind the project. ..." [K2K had also noticed the main storyline had changed from the location to Imam Rauf. My primary objection IS the location, but Gitlin's post, and the blog-o-herd, moved on to Rauf by August 23. So did I.] K2K to ironyroad: due to lack of both time and interest, I am not entering a debate with you on your points at 08/24/2010 - 10:12pm EDT | ironyroad. decide for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Gitlin which quotes Gitlin: “ My generation of the New Left — a generation that grew as the [Vietnam] war went on — relinquished any title to patriotism without much sense of loss. All that was left to the Left was to unearth righteous traditions and cultivate them in universities. The much-mocked political correctness of the next academic generations was a consolation prize. We lost — we squandered the politics — but won the textbooks. ” ~ from Varieties of Patriotic Experience Or you can read Ron Radosh's withering critique of this Gitlin post (including a direct link here), or just the conclusion so you do not have to visit PJM: "...Gitlin sees no need to further explore anything that might point to contrary evidence, such as that offered by Michael Ledeen and Christopher Hitchens. ..." : http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2010/08/23/rauf-and-the-state-department/2/
- K2K
August 25, 2010 at 7:37pm
my last comment in support of historic presrvation of 45 Park Place, posted at Gitlin's first post, after purcellneil had moved on: http://www tnr.com/blog/foreign-policy/76990/american-values-ground-zero-mosque-constitution-law?page=1 08/19/2010 - 2:16am EDT | K2K The two men who built 45 Park Place in 1858 were Paul Spofford and Thomas Tileston. They pioneered the steam-powered shipping that was the great economic driver of New York City before the Civil War, a contribution that is the heart of the landmark petition started in 1989. copied from Googlebooks: “Portrait gallery of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New-York” ... By George Wilson, New York Chamber of Commerce 1890, pp 192-195: PAUL SPOFFORD. Paul Spofford was born in New Rowley, (now Georgetown,) Massachusetts, February 18th, 1792. He was sixth in descent from John Spofford, who, with others, came with the Rev. Ezektel Rogers from England to this country in 1638. After spending a few years in a country store, he embarked in business in Haverhill, Mass. There he made the acquaintance of Thomas Tileston, then editor of the Merrimack Intelligencer. Much of the business there was what may be termed a barter trade. At times the articles taken, such as shoes, hats, &c, suitable for the South, would accumulate, and it was very desirable to find a ready outlet. Mr. Spofford and his friend, Mr. Tileston, decided to establish a commission house for that purpose, and in the spring of 1818 came to New-York and formed a partnership under the firm name of Spofford & Tileston. They soon became large shippers of domestic manufactures to various ports in the Gulf States, the West Indies and to South America. This profitable trade induced the firm to establish and maintain for many years regular lines of sailing vessels to the ports with which they had business relations. Meanwhile Spain had laid a heavy duty on our manufactures, so that the goods formerly shipped to Cuba could no longer be sent thither, but the firm had become well established as importers of coffee and sugar. In 1838 England began to construct and run ocean steamships. American packet ships at that period had attained a world-wide celebrity for beauty of construction, speed and safety. Her success led our citizens to emulate in part her example; but as United States steamers were of light build, while the English vessels were constructed expressly for the service and were heavily subsidized, navigation of the ocean by steam, from these and other causes, made no progress in this country. Spofford & Tileston, who had contributed to the building up of our mercantile marine, saw that the era of the sailing vessel was passing away, and that steam power would in the near future control the navigation of the ocean. After thoroughly convincing themselves that staunch, well-equipped and adequate steamships could be built in this country, they contracted with William H. Brown and Stillman, Allen & Co. for the construction of the steamship "Southerner," which made her first trip in 1846, and proved a success, weathering with perfect ease and safety some of the most terrific gales. A few months later the firm built the "Northerner," an equally fine vessel. This enterprise stimulated others to establish ocean steamship lines, and Collins, Livingston, VanDerbilt, Law and others soon placed fine steamships on the ocean. Spofford & Tileston also became the owners of a line of Liverpool packets, and their ships, the "Sheridan," "Roscius," "Garrick" and the "Siddons," are still remembered by some of our older merchants for their grace and beauty of proportion. But larger vessels were required, and the firm, therefore, substituted for those named, the "Webster," "Orient," "Calhoun," "Henry Clay" and others, which were then the largest of any engaged in the Liverpool trade. The firm also were among the first to fit up and despatch ships to California during the excitement there consequent upon the discovery of gold. At the outbreak of the Civil war the firm of Spofford & Tileston were among the largest sufferers by the blockade of the Southern ports, and by the interruption of our commerce with the West Indies. Their heavy losses, however, did not cause them to waver in their duty to their country. At once they arrayed themselves on the side of the Union, and to the end of the conflict their faith remained unshaken as to the result. They spurned all temptation to put any of their vessels under a foreign flag, but, on the contrary, armed their Havana steamships, and obtained commissions in the United States Navy for their captains, and trusted to the skill and prudence of the commanders of their other vessels. Fortunately, with the exception of the steamship "Nashville," all escaped capture. Although neither Mr. Spofford nor his partner: ever held political office, yet both often came into contact with and were greatly esteemed by the most prominent statesmen of the day. In 1864 Mr. Tilestok died, and though this loss of a partner and life-long friend was a severe blow to Mr. Spofford, he nevertheless bore the strain well, and continued actively in the business until his own death took place, through paralysis, on October 28th, 1869. Mr. Spofford was connected with various enterprises. For years he was Treasurer and one of the Council of the New-York University, and a director in the Erie, Harlem and other railroads, and in several banks, fire and marine insurance companies. He and his partner, Mr. Tileston, a sketch of whom immediately follows, were elected members of the Chamber of Commerce on October 1st, 1833, and their membership continued until death. Through a long business career the relations between these partners were the most cordial and happy, and the firm of Spofford & Tileston will always be associated with the development of the commerce of the nation. THOMAS TILESTON. Thomas Tileston, the business partner of the above named Paul Spofford. was born in Boston, Mass., August 13th, 1793. At the age of thirteen he obtained a situation in the printing establishment of Greenough & Stebbins, of that City, the salary being thirty dollars a year and board. As an apprentice he was diligent, studious and observing, and he soon became not only a competent type-setter, but a proof reader, employing his spare time in literary work, which brought him, pecuniarily at least, some success. Too close application, however, weakened his eyesight, and for some months he was unable to pursue his labors. About this period the junior partner in the publishing house of Greenougii & Stebbins was changed, and Greenough & Burrill, the new firm, removed their business to Haverhill. Soon afterwards Mr. Tileston bought out the interest of Mr. Greenough, and the business was continued by Burrill & Tileston, the latter assuming the editorship of the Merrimack Intelligencer, of which the firm were the proprietors. At the age of twenty-one he was selected by his old employers to superintend the printing of an American edition of King James' Translation of the Bible, and this edition displays evidence of painstaking care and great ability. In 1815 he took entire charge of the publishing and printing business of the firm named. But the most important part of Mr. Tileston's career was yet to come. Prior to the war of 1812 Massachusetts was a commercial but not a manufacturing State. She bought liberally of English goods, and readily found a market for her surplus breadstuffs and fish. The State was opposed to a protective tariff, while South Carolina earnestly contended for it. The war of 1812 caused great changes, by which Massachusetts lost her market, her surplus capital was driven out of employment, and she became a manufacturing State. Haverhill became a manufacturing centre, and the merchants there having decided to establish a permanent agency iu New-York, proposed to Mr. Tileston, in conjunction with Mr. SpofForu, who resided in the same town, to proceed to NewYork to receive consignments. This proposal was accepted, and thus the firm of Spofford & Tileston was formed in this City, in the year 1818, and its career is detailed at some length in the previous sketch of Mr. Spofford. In 1840 Mr. Tileston was elected President of the Phenix Bank, and continuedin that office until his death. Hismind was evenly balanced, his industry knew no tiring, and his sagacity, skill and promptness gave him many advantages in mercantile transactions. Mr. Tileston died suddenly, in this City, on February 29th, 1864, in the seventy-first year of his age. His forty-six years of active business life called for and deserved the following tribute which the Chamber of Commerce paid to his memory at a meeting held March 3d, a few days after his death: During the last twenty years his influence in this Chamber and elsewhere has been constantly extended to those charitable and public movements and measures which have made our City justly celebrated. Resolved, That in his decease the mercantile community has lost an estimable member, the young merchant a valued friend, and the City of New-York one of the active supporters of its commercial greatness. Resolved, That in our varied forms of intercourse with the lamented deceased, we can all bear testimony to his industry, energy, sagacity and ability; to the skill and courage with which he foresaw or adopted and entered into wellconsidered and productive plans of enterprise and improvement ; to the promptitude, punctuality and fidelity with which he pursued such plans and performed his engagements, and to his liberal public spirit. Resolved, That after a long intimacy with him, we express with gratitude our appreciation of his virtues as a citizen and friend, his probity of character and his genial, social qualities."
- K2K
August 25, 2010 at 7:49pm
K2K, it may come as a suprise, but your "interest" or lack of it isn't the deciding factor. If you make an assertion in open forum, and the grounds for such are queried, and you refuse to respond to that query, then it remains open for readers to draw their own conclusions. I would merely note that the quote you post from Gitlin is a criticism of the '60s New Left and their later history, and with more than a touch of wit and irony in there too. That you didn't even see that speaks volumes. A good day for hunting "ideologues" around these parts, I'd say.
- ironyroad
August 25, 2010 at 9:17pm
"I would merely note that the quote you post from Gitlin is a criticism of the '60s New Left and their later history, and with more than a touch of wit and irony in there too. That you didn't even see that speaks volumes." I'm not sure. Here is the quote again: : “ My generation of the New Left — a generation that grew as the [Vietnam] war went on — relinquished any title to patriotism without much sense of loss. All that was left to the Left was to unearth righteous traditions and cultivate them in universities. The much-mocked political correctness of the next academic generations was a consolation prize. We lost — we squandered the politics — but won the textbooks. " ____________ "Nothing is more deceitful,'' said Darcy, ``than the appearance of humility. It is often only carelessness of opinion, and sometimes an indirect boast.'' ``And which of the two do you call my little recent piece of modesty?'' ``The indirect boast; -- for you are really proud of your defects in writing, because you consider them as proceeding from a rapidity of thought and carelessness of execution, which if not estimable, you think at least highly interesting. The power of doing any thing with quickness is always much prized by the possessor, and often without any attention to the imperfection of the performance." ___________________ It's a false criticism there. What he actually criticizes is American society for choosing patriotism over New Left piety. And then, with a touch of smug contentment, he implies that eventually the intellectuals took their revenge, by taking over the textbooks, that is, they gained control over a direct line of feeding the minds of the next generations. And having lost the politics and won the textbooks they are actually the winners for it is these very students whose minds are shaped and fed by political correctness that will rule the politics tomorrow. So who's happy now?
- noga1
August 25, 2010 at 9:42pm
No, he's not saying that. He's saying -- as you would realize if you read, for example, The Twilight of Common Dreams -- that the Left in the post-60s went in for identity politics and navel-gazing academic radicalism that failed to connect with the wider American society, and thus made itself marginal and irrelevant to the broader political landscape while imagining it was deeply influential.
- ironyroad
August 25, 2010 at 11:32pm
irony: how would you ever know what I 'see' or not if I stay silent because you make 'dialog' as painful as a root canal. just because you want a debate does not mean my silence means all of your questions are proven, except to you. noga nails the meaning of that quote: "And having lost the politics and won the textbooks they are actually the winners for it is these very students whose minds are shaped and fed by political correctness that will rule the politics tomorrow." the proof is everywhere: powder-puff journalism, failing schools, and a president who does not know how to lead, inspire, or govern, and makes it very clear he would rather play golf than display one ounce of patriotism, or pride in being an American.
- K2K
August 26, 2010 at 12:49am
irony: 08/24/2010 - 10:34am EDT | K2K "noga: Gitlin is a leftwing ideologue from the 1960's re-incarnated as a professor of journalism." was shorthand response to noga's comment about Gitlin in her comment at 08/24/2010 - 8:02am EDT | noga1 anyone who was around in the 1960's would understand that shorthand - I give noga credit for far more insight for her age.
- K2K
August 26, 2010 at 12:56am
K2K, indeed your silence does not mean that all of my questions are proven. But it's indicative. That's why I said that readers can draw their own conclusions. Incidentally, your peculiar dig at Obama's patriotism (how did we get there suddenly?) reminds me to remind you that one of the themes that Gitlin has written about very powerfully -- Michael Berubé is another author on this -- is the relationship of the American left to patriotic feelings and loyalties, and how they have handed the entire landscape of patriotism (once quite a significant part of progressive thinking) over to the other side.
- ironyroad
August 26, 2010 at 1:36am
"No, he's not saying that. He's saying -- as you would realize if you read, for example, The Twilight of Common Dreams " You specifically referred to this quote, ironyroad and frankly I wouldn't have bothered to go back and read it if you didn't attribute "wit and irony" to it. So I did, and I read and I noticed the witty irony and interpreted the segment as ironical to the hilt. Unsatisfied with my interpretation you then go back to the oldest trick: oh you can't know what you are talking about you didn't read the book. (It's a nicer version of being instructed about the use of dictionaries). I reread it again, twice this morning. And I think that the irony is there and it is a zigzag, or a doubling sort of irony: “...the New Left...relinquished any title to patriotism without much sense of loss... to unearth righteous traditions and cultivate them in universities. The much-mocked political correctness of the next academic generations was a consolation prize. We lost — we squandered the politics — but won the textbooks. " The new Left may have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of American society, having removed patriotism from the roster of its cherished values. But it was a temporary loss since it became established in academia and now proliferates the hearts and minds of the younger generations. When he says political correctness is "much mocked" and a consolation prize, he is actually repeating the old adage "he who laughs last laughs best". The New Left according to this, succeeded, in academia, to remove patriotism and replace it with political correctness. Ideas that circulate in academia percolate into the wider swaths of society and eventually replace old orthodoxies. Surely you know that, and he knows that. Which is why he enjoys writing about it so much.
- noga1
August 26, 2010 at 8:18am
This is getting silly. I wish that you'd read something of Gitlin's longer than half a paragraph before commenting further, Noga. He has been one of the most dogged and independent of writers on the whole issue of American left intellectuals and patriotism. And Intellectuals and the Flag and The Twilight of Common Dreams are prime texts on offer that address precisely the matters that K2K dismisses in his rush to smear. Since when has an appeal to read what someone actually wrote before judging him/her been an illegitimate part of debate? It's not the same as tmitch's dictionary move at all, which is a misreading of the problem under discussion. I'm suggesting that not even the brightest bulb can make error-free judgments if they are going on an absolutely miniscule and context-free example of a writer's work. The minimum that one can do, perhaps, before condemning someone (who, incidentally, is imo much closer to your Decent Left than you might think now) is to give them a reasonable hearing, no? Btw, that quote: take a look at the wiki entry on Gitlin. If you scroll down, you'll see the quote that K2K cut and pasted. Then glance at the other quote below it -- "...those who still cling to gauzy dreams about untainted militancy need to remember all the murders committed in the name of various radical ideologies that accomplished exactly nothing for the victims of racism." I wonder why K2K chose to pass over that second quote. No I don't.
- ironyroad
August 26, 2010 at 11:55am
"This is getting silly. " Maybe. I also read the blurb for his new book on Americans and Israelis regarding themselves as "chosen people" apparently the view responsible for the multitude of sins committed in the name of an irrational hubris. The tenor of this subject seems to jive in better with my interpretation. But really, what would I know about it?
- noga1
August 26, 2010 at 12:12pm
"apparently" Well, as much as you can glean from a blurb, I guess. Look, both of us rolled our eyes figuratively at tmitch on the other thread for being forced to admit he had misread a book that he had vehemently cited a little earlier. Quite justifiably, IMO. But that sort of -- in my case at least -- makes me feel uncomfortable issuing judgments on someone's work or even academic legitimacy on the basis of an almost absurdly small sample of their writing (and even that, as I noted above, not done quite fairly). I think Common Dreams is an excellent book that is honest about the failures of the left as much as anything. Again, this isn't about agreeing or disagreeing with TG's take on the mosque project or anything else. It's about not dismissing someone with a casual smear in order not to have to engage with their arguments.
- ironyroad
August 26, 2010 at 5:33pm
But ironyroad, that's just it, I have not issued "judgments on someone's work or even academic legitimacy on the basis of an almost absurdly small sample of their writing". I was referring to that very small sample that you yourself pointed to and provided what is a pretty credible exegesis. What judgments other than that reading of his own words, have I made? I had little interest in anything Gitlin except to wonder why he would take it upon himself to provide explanatics for imam Rauf. I have to say, having now been forced to know a little more about him, I'm still unawed by what he has to say. It's not as if he is interesting in the way, say, Tony Judt, would be. Sometimes you really miss a point, ironyroad. Like a dog with a bone...
- noga1
August 26, 2010 at 6:07pm
Noga, I asked K2K for some evidence that Gitlin was an "ideologue." The mini-para was provided by K2K along with what I thought was a very mistaken reading of it. I suggested an alternate reading of it, and you came in, in turn, to disagree. I pointed out that, at the very least, your reading of it might be somewhat skewed by the lack of context. I have read other things by Gitlin so I have some context already. I recommend gaining some before engaging in an act of interpretion that doesn't have enough to support it. Or to put it another way, I believe you are not reading but misreading his words.
- ironyroad
August 26, 2010 at 6:50pm
Footnote: I'd still say that there is little to no evidence that Gitlin can be justly called an "ideologue," if by that we mean someone who deliberately subordinates facts or twists phenomena to favor predetermined political categories or purposes.
- ironyroad
August 26, 2010 at 6:53pm
"I recommend gaining some before engaging in an act of interpretion that doesn't have enough to support it. Or to put it another way, I believe you are not reading but misreading his words." There is nothing I like more than these patronizing suggestions. As if you were addressing one of your sillier students. It makes me feel young again.
- noga1
August 26, 2010 at 7:08pm
I'm speechless.
- ironyroad
August 26, 2010 at 11:18pm
irony: what part of this did you not understand?: 08/26/2010 - 12:56am EDT | K2K irony: 08/24/2010 - 10:34am EDT | K2K "noga: Gitlin is a leftwing ideologue from the 1960's re-incarnated as a professor of journalism." was shorthand response to noga's comment about Gitlin in her comment at 08/24/2010 - 8:02am EDT | noga1 as to why I copied one quote and not the other? the one I chose related to "re-incarnated as a professor of journalism" noga: "Like a dog with a bone..." actually, dogs eventually bury bones. irony is so devoted to whatever, that he wears people down with nitpicking if they write anything he perceives as politically incorrect or criticize someone he admires.. It has taken four weeks for a few journalists to actually start doing their jobs. I expect a professor of journalism at Columbia U to set an example, not this tortorous defense of an Imam who, as of late July, was never going to be the Imam of the "Megamosque with Swimming Pool at Ground Zero", now being branded with the help of hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons. Reality television series is sure to follow.
- K2K
August 28, 2010 at 12:40am
I'm wondering if anyone you admire gets the "ideologue reincarnated as X" treatment? I venture to doubt it.
- ironyroad
August 28, 2010 at 2:07am
ironyroad: It is not possible that you do not realize that Gitlin here is speaking not from any genuine cognition and understanding of Islam, but from a political position. His very first sentence with the ironical beckoning to readers: "The fervent mosque-haters have this much right: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Sufi leader of the Cordoba Initiative that plans to build an Islamic center on Park Place near the site of the World Trade Center, is subversive." is a tired schtick and a sure sign of what is to follow. So, an absence of originality and a crooked haughty little smile of the know-better stunning the unwashed masses with his superior understanding of Imam Rauf, which suggests that Gitlin has trouble respecting his readers' intelligence or knowledge. He uses irony in a shabby sort way, as is plenty manifested in the short quote we have been wrestling about. "Fools rush in, where angels fear to thread" is the best way I can characterize his exertion on behalf of the Imam to divert from the very real concerns that this Imam's published opinions arouse.
- noga1
August 28, 2010 at 7:54am
Looks like we'll have to disagree on that. As I indeed disagree with Gitlin. I just have the apparently unusual ability to disagree with someone without having to degrade or dismiss their reputation and record in order to do it.
- ironyroad
August 28, 2010 at 1:15pm
These shameful comments were premeditated, made with malice aforethought and, given their source, deserving of greater condemnation than the minister's threat to burn the Koran. This Jewish American finds his apology to be insufficient. I am carefully considering CANCELING my recently-renewed two-year subscription to The New Republic.
- richard.nagel@comcast.net
September 13, 2010 at 2:31pm