August 23, 2010
So, What Has All This 'Muslim Outreach' Crap Gotten Us?Topics: Political News and commentaries, Understanding Islam
As Jennifer Rubin helps make crystal clear, that "Muslim Outreach" liberals keep trying to push on Americans is not only misplaced, it hasn't accomplished a damned thing:
[...] the left has become so infuriated at critics of the Ground Zero mosque and so exasperated with Obama's performance that it's verging on the unintelligible. But while the left and the objects of its affection -- the mosque builders -- rage at those who want the mosque to simply be moved, they have given additional ammunition to the critics who have decried the Ground Zero mosque as more of a provocation and stunt than a symbol of healing.Cutting to the quick of it all, Cantor's more dead-on target than he may think. Indeed, if the imam was really interested in healing or bringing people together, the last place he'd want to build his mosque was just 2 blocks from Ground Zero on a site that was damaged by the 9/11 Islamic terrorists, and hisr only real reason for wanting to do so is to impose his views on the rest of us. Rubin's putting the argument in the context of just where all this "Muslim Outreach" crap has taken us, only further emphasizes the point - the shoe has been put on the wrong foot all along. It's not the obligation of non-Muslims and GZ mosque protesters to be the instrument of reconciliation with Muslims - that's the job of Muslims and their jihadist-supporting friends. Put another way, liberals have put the cart on the wrong horse, the burden of responsibility for reconciliation and proof of intent rests solely on Muslims.
Eric Cantor makes this point skillfully today:Everyone accepts the fact that radical jihadists were the ones that perpetrated this crime -- leave out the state sponsorship -- everyone knows the reasons those individuals boarded those planes that morning was because they felt their religion -- Islam allowed them to do it, or their version of Islam," Cantor said.And look at the results. The pro-mosque side has resorted to name-calling and offensive analogies. The cause of "reconciliation" has been set back and the entire country is now discussing why so many people are confused about Obama's religion.
If they wanted to build a mosque somewhere else, Cantor said he'd be in favor of it.
"But think about it," he said. "Why would you want, as an imam, why would you want to put a cultural center right there if it's meant to heal people when right away it's caused such a national uproar? That is in and of itself evident of the fact that they're not interested in healing or bringing people together. They're interested in posing their view. That's what so insensitive about it."
[...] Peace, reconciliation, tolerance -- these all are cooperative activities. Perhaps the entire notion of "Muslim outreach" is flawed, based on the mistaken idea that one side -- that would be the non-Muslim World -- must atone, seek forgiveness, and boost the other's ego. That, we are seeing, both here and in the Middle East is a recipe for disaster, for it enfeebles one side and alleviates them of the responsibility to examine their own actions, modify their behavior, and understand that their opponents' concerns are grounded in history and experience. Like the "peace process," it turns out that "Muslim outreach" creates more problems than it solves. (emphasis added)
As for just where the liberal's "moderate, pro-American, and sensible" imam stands on Islam and terrorism, one need only to listen to his own words: "The United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims."
Whilst the NY Times front page spins interfaith yarns into PR gold faster than Rumpelstiltskin and accords godlike status to Imam Faisal Rauf, new audio surfaces. Here are a couple of soundbites of tolerance: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf: "We tend to forget, in the West, that it has blood on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US lead sanction against Iraq lead to the death of over half a million Iraqi children."As Jim Geraghty aptly notes, everyone who lectured us about how moderate and sensible Imam Rauf is is invited to eat their words with the sauce of their choice.
No mention of the 270 million victims of over a millennium of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilation and enslavement. No mention of the recent slaughter by Muslims of Christians, Hindus, Jews, non-believers in Indonesia, Thailand, Ethiopia, Somalia, Philippines, Lebanon, Israel, Russia, China................ no candor, no criticism of Islam. Imam Feisal: "The West needs to begin to see themselves through the eyes of the Arab and Muslim world, and when you do you will see the predicament that exists within the Muslim community."
On the question of reforming Islam and expunging the texts of the threat doctrine and mandated violence and conquest: Imam Feisal: On the issue of the reformation, in terms of what is again intended by it, Islam does not need a reformation. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf: "So men will say: women, you know, they're emotional, ..... whatever, whatever, and women will say: men, they're brutes, insensitive, etcetera, and you have the beginning of a gender conflict. If gender is not what distinguishes us we'll look at skin colouring and say: n***** or whities, or whatever"
Reverend Al Sharpton was unavailable for comment. Too busy endorsing the Islamic supremacist mosque. Imam Faisal: And when we observe terrorism, whether it was done by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka or by al Qaida or whoever is behind the bombings in London or those in Madrid,
Note, when he says about the London and Madrid bombings,that was five days after the London attacks and over a year after Madrid. It was common knowledge who the perps were at that time.
In July 2005, Ground Zero Imam Rauf gave a public lecture, presented by The Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Centre/UniSA International and The Migrant Resource Centre, entitled, What does it take to change the relationship between the West and the Muslim world? His remarks were devastating.
If someone wants to argue that the sanctions regime on Iraq was counterproductive, because Saddam's regime simply seized the resources they needed and let the Iraqi people suffer and starve, that's a fair point. Madeline Albright's comment that containing Saddam was "worth it" -- i.e., the death of Iraqi children -- was idiotic. But to suggest that the indirect effects of a U.S. sanctions regime is remotely morally comparable to al-Qaeda's deliberate mass murder -- much less to suggest that they are morally worse -- is to eviscerate one's claim to be moderate, pro-American, or sensible. He says it is a "difficult subject to discuss with Western audiences." Does he ever wonder why?Related:
The New York Times on Imam Rauf: The Journalism That Failed
Imam Rauf's Muslim Brotherhood Roads to Malaysia
Under New American Management, Al-Qaida Now Poses Inner Threat
Posted by Richard at August 23, 2010 3:08 PM
Articles Related to Political News and commentaries, Understanding Islam:
- So, What Has All This 'Muslim Outreach' Crap Gotten Us? - Aug 23, 2010