Just a quick follow-up to last week’s mega-post series on the “Ground Zero Mosque” and Imam Faisal Rouf:
Catholic NYTimes.com blogger Ross Douthat recently wrote a couple of measured, sensible posts (post 1, post 2) about Imam Rouf and moderate Islam—at least, I find them measured and sensible, since they coverge nicely with my own take on the subject.
On the tricky business of building bridges and the tendency of such pioneers to seem shifty and two-faced, Douthat writes that some Western critics insist that “moderate Muslims” must prove their “bona fides” by “making a frontal assault on Islamic culture as it currently exists.” Would-be “bridge builders” like Rouf are seen as “suspect, and possibly beyond the pale” because of their tendency to “use different language and strike different notes” depending on the audience. Douthat writes:
This school of thought strikes me as misguided. … If such bridges are going to be built, much of the work will necessarily be done by figures who sometimes seem ambiguous and even two-faced, who have illiberal conversation partners and influences, and whose ideas are tailored to audiences in Cairo or Beirut or Baghdad as well as audiences in Europe and America. That’s how change—religious, ideological, whatever—nearly always works.
Douthat also notes, though, that there is a difference between not automatically consigning ambiguous figure like Rouf to secret-jihadist status and not critiquing them at all:
…would Rauf really “destroy his credibility” with the world’s Muslims if, say, he didn’t bend over backward to avoid saying a negative word about Iran’s regime when it was in the midst of a brutal crackdown on dissent? Or if he hadn’t offered an inflammatory analogy—using the kind of rhetoric that fuels the poisonous “America’s at war with Muslims” narrative—between al Qaeda’s campaign of terror and the sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s regime? Or if he’d found a way to say something critical about Hamas when an interviewer put him on the spot—not about the Palestinian cause in general, but just about Hamas?
Reasonable people can disagree on these questions. Maybe, as Larison claims, Rauf’s remarks on Iran should be read as a bland do-gooder call for dialogue, rather than a contortionist’s attempt to avoid reckoning with the realities of the clerical regime. Maybe his non-comments about Hamas were just an attempt to a duck a “gotcha” question. Certainly I don’t see the imam as a deeply sinister figure, or a brilliant machiavel with vast and dark designs. But he does seem like the kind of person who makes excuses for sinister figures, and curries favor with them, and bobs and weaves where their crimes are concerned, all in the name of dialogue and evenhandedness. And that seems like sufficient grounds for criticism and mistrust.
I think that’s just about right. Your thoughts?
Further reading: My take on Cordoba House (the “Ground Zero Mosque”)
Comments
Post a Comment
There has to be a position somewhere between Westernized atheists who have completely rejected Islam (and every other religion for that matter)and the likes of Iman Rauf and Ramadan.
Douthat refers to building a bridge that Muslims can cross with their faith intact. But how do you define “intact” for these purposes? Does that include the Islamic supremacist beliefs that appear to be a part of mainstream Islam?
Lots of positions. I think Douthat’s point (or at least my takeaway from Douthat’s point) is that Rauf himself is somewhere on a spectrum between “Westernized atheist ex-Muslim” and “secret jihadist fundamentalist terrorist supporter”—a place on the spectrum that can be meaningfully distinguished from both extremes.
More fully stated, Rauf seems to vacillate along a range of the spectrum, depending on whom he’s talking to. Sometimes he sounds very much like the sort of moderate Muslim I would like to hear more from. Other times, not so much. Certainly there are lots of other points on the spectrum, many preferable to Rauf, others not so much.
What exactly do you mean by “Islamic supremacist”? Muslims who believe that Islam is superior to other religions? This doesn’t strike me as the sort of inherently radical belief that ought to be excluded from the table. A dialogue that includes, say, Catholics and Muslims who each believe their religion is true and are willing to work toward peaceful coexistence strikes me as much more potentially productive than a dialogue in which convinced Catholics talk only to Muslim relativists.
At any rate, you might be interested in a story Douthat links to, in which Rauf—speaking at a memorial service for murdered journalist Daniel Pearl—affirms what he calls “the moral equivalency” of the “Abrahamic faiths” of Judaism, Christianity and Islam:
That seems to me a surprisingly accomodationist note for someone like Rauf to strike—more than what I would expect from such a discussion partner. Other times, of course, he falls short of what I would expect.
It’s hard to find much to disagree with in any statement (or excerpt of a statement) which includes four hypotheticals, three “seems likes”, two “maybes”, and at least one sweeping generalization: change “nearly always” occurs as a result of ambiguity and duplicity? That’d be news to JPII, Reagan, and Thatcher.
Victor: Actually, I’d say Gorbachev was very much the sort of ambiguous, seemingly two-faced bridge builder that Douthat was talking about. Also, Douthat’s comments are much more cogent than you, um, seem to credit them with being.
“What exactly do you mean by “Islamic supremacist”? Muslims who believe that Islam is superior to other religions? This doesn’t strike me as the sort of inherently radical belief that ought to be excluded from the table. A dialogue that includes, say, Catholics and Muslims who each believe their religion is true and are willing to work toward peaceful coexistence strikes me as much more potentially productive than a dialogue in which convinced Catholics talk only to Muslim relativists.”
No. I have no problem with Muslims who simply believe their religion is true. Devout Muslims are natural allies for Catholics on a host of social issues and in the battle against secular nihilism. By Islamic supremacists, I mean those who believe there should be laws in Muslim majority countries that: (1) prohibit Muslims from converting; (2) prohibit non-Muslims from attempting to convert Muslims; (3) prohibit, or highly restrict, the ability of non-Muslims to build or repair houses of worship; (4) prohibit statements critical of Islam. I would also place is this category, Muslims who believe: (1) Bibles and crosses should be barred from Saudi Arabia; (2) non-Muslim places of worship should not be built in Saudi Arabia; (3) non-Muslims should not be allowed to enter Mecca or Medina.
I don’t think I’m being unfair to Douhat’s comments, as quoted above. The two strongest statements he makes, the final two, he prefaces with “seems like”. If I were Clippy, I’d have popped up on him while he was typing that in MS Word and said something like “Wow, you’re being awful passive-agressive today, Mr. Douhat. Would you care to change those statements to something in the active voice for clarity? Or if, say, your objective was to maybe come up with a statement with nearly no real assertions, then it seems like you’ve succeeded.”
But I don’t read much Douhat. Does he always write so kinda creampuff Casper milktoast (the combox has been drinking, not me)?
Brian: Gotcha. I agree that bridge building discussions with Muslims should mount challenges that set of precepts, although I would want to bracket the last as of a different character. The others are fundamental human rights violations; the last is not.
I would also want to be open to moderate Muslim reinterpretation of some of these precepts, e.g., non-Muslims are prohibited from converting under penalty of what? Like, takfir and beheading are two totally different responses.
Victor: Read the whole posts and decide for yourself. I would say that Douthat is careful (as the NYTimes’s token conservative Catholic he’s got a great big bullseye on his head, as you can see from his combox) and he interacts thoughtfully with lots of critical voices. As for his “seems likes,” you can fairly criticize the second, but I think you should give him the first.
Coolio beanies! I’ll read more of his stuff before I make sweeping judgments about his style. If he’s truly deep in enemy territory, he can be forgiven for going native to maintain his cover.
“I would also want to be open to moderate Muslim reinterpretation of some of these precepts, e.g., non-Muslims are prohibited from converting under penalty of what? Like, takfir and beheading are two totally different responses.”
Well, if a family wants to ostracize a member who converts, that is their business. The government should not be involved in imposing any penalty for conversion.
You mean ... the Inquisition (which worked hand in glove with the civil authority and the penalties meted out thereby) was a mistake?? :-)
What about religious society as a whole? Can religious society ostracize an apostate? If the Amish can “shun” an apostate, can Muslims likewise declare an apostate a sort of social untouchable? If Amish community leaders can make this decision for the community, can Muslim community leaders do the same? Can a state that is Islamic by charter, as many nations were once Catholic by charter, have civil rules about this?
“What about religious society as a whole? Can religious society ostracize an apostate? If the Amish can “shun” an apostate, can Muslims likewise declare an apostate a sort of social untouchable? If Amish community leaders can make this decision for the community, can Muslim community leaders do the same?”
Yes, but no house burnings or threats of violence to drive people out. Cold shoulders, nasty looks and comments are all that can be done.
“Can a state that is Islamic by charter, as many nations were once Catholic by charter, have civil rules about this?”
No. The key to religious freedom is that the government cannot coerce you with regard to belief, nor can it stand idly by while others engage in self help in the form of honor killings to achieve that coercion in the “private sector.”
What if violence (state-sponsored or private sector) is off limits, but socializing with apostates (say, having them over to dinner) is disallowed, and you can get fined or arrested for doing so? Yes, it’s something short of religious freedom. But here’s the real question: Would a “moderate” Muslim voice proposing such an interpretation of the no-conversion precept be someone worth engaging? His position is too intolerant for us, and too tolerant for illiberal Muslim-majority society. In a word, he might be the very man to help liberalize Muslim-majority society.
Steven, kudos for both this well-thought out piece and the previous one. Your careful analysis both comes to a reasonable and informed conclusion, and, perhaps more importantly, avoids being unnecessarily dogmatic and thus leaves room for reasonable people to disagree.
Keep up the good work. J
“What if violence (state-sponsored or private sector) is off limits, but socializing with apostates (say, having them over to dinner) is disallowed, and you can get fined or arrested for doing so? ... Would a “moderate” Muslim voice proposing such an interpretation of the no-conversion precept be someone worth engaging?”
My initial thought was to agree that this would be someone worth engaging. However, after giving it more thought, I believe I would have to disagree. The state can have no role in this situation.
I think sometimes people make the mistake of assuming Islam is going to have to go through the same types of steps that Christianity went through in developing the concept of religious tolerance. However, that overlooks the fact that the West was developing the concept. It did not exist anyplace else, and was arrived at in stages. The concept now exists and is recognized internationally as a basic human right. Unfortunately, virtually all Muslim-majority countries have rejected it at least to some degree. That has to change.
Brian, it’s an interesting disanalogy you highlight, but I’m not sure it obviates the likelihood that Muslim culture will change gradually and in stages, or the pragmatic value of working with individuals committed to some degree of incremental change. Again, Gorbachev was a figure worth working with, even though he didn’t immediately call for complete Western-style freedom.
Now this sounds like a guy we could wotk with:
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4549.htm
This, among many other Douthat missives, gives away the game: “having him set up shop as an arbiter of Muslim-Western dialogue in what used to be the shadow of the World Trade Center.”
When Douthat says “set up shop” he shows his unfamiliarity of the Imam and Muslims in Manhattan. He set up shop a long time ago. The paper he writes for had an article about the other sites in lower Manhattan, one of which is the Imam Rauf’s.
One reason for the Cordoba project is overcrowding in his current mosque. Douthat strives so hard to toe his ideological line, he strays too often into illogic. His column about assimilation in America is a prime example. He said:
“Nativist concerns about Catholicism’s illiberal tendencies inspired American Catholics to prod their church toward a recognition of the virtues of democracy, making it possible for generations of immigrants to feel unambiguously Catholic and American.”
That’s right, Douthat thinks that blatant anti-catholic action in pre-civil war America is what made Catholics assimilate.
Really? You think Douthat has something to say? You have very low standards for yourself.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.