I have a quick question: the concern has been raised in some quarters that the imam, Abdul Rauf, who will run the mosque has secret leanings towards a rather violent Islamic sect called Wahabi-specifically what he tells Westerners is significantly different from what he tells other Muslims. There is a big debate on another board about this and I’d like to debunk it if possible, and note I personally am 100% in agreement with the quote above even if he turns out (in part or in whole) to be what some have accused him of being.
It doesn’t matter too much either way. Given all the stupidity on this issue I suppose he’s trying to thread the needle a little bit but I don’t know if that’s going to matter. Certainly what he did say is better than Paterson’s “you wouldn’t consider going away, would you?” trial balloon.
Wellll…every cite I’ve seen lists him as a Sufi ( of what tariqa I don’t know ) and states that he teaches classes on Sufism. Being a Sufi is 100% incompatible with being a Wahhabi, which considers that sort of mysticism heretical. So if he is living a double-life, it is a completely contradictory one that involves a level of double-dealing detail that only a conspiracy theorist could embrace.
I think it pretty highly unlikely.
That said, as I’ve noted elsewhere one should never use “Sufism” as a shorthand for “Islamic liberalism”. There are very liberal Sufis and very conservative Sufis. But what definitely doesn’t exist are Wahhabi Sufis.
Easy debunk : ask them for a cite. They make the crazy conspiracy theory, they get to prove and document it. Otherwise, it’s just hot air and smear tactics.
'Cause there is no point in fearing the commies, any more, so they have to find someone to hate and fear. They are taking a good run at “socialists,” but it just doesn’t have the traction, (what with most people thinking “Sweden” when they hear “socialism”–and then getting all confused about Ingmar Bergman and Britt Ekland and ABBA), that hating people, some of whom do barbarous things in the name of their religion, does. (And distinguishing among Sunnis and Shi’a and Sufis is hard work, so lumping them all together is much easier on their brains.)
To me the most surprising part of the anti-Islam backlash since 9/11 isn’t the tribalism or hatred. That’s expected. What always catches me off guard is the bedwetting terror. Widespread pussification is the technical term, I believe. Have some dignity, people.
The ones who are engaging in classic “poltical correctness” are the ones opposing the mosque, not the ones upholding freedom of religion and equal justice under law.
Sure, the mosque isn’t actually at “ground zero”, and sure, unlike a real terror attack it won’t harm or kill anyone, and technically it isn’t really a mosque anyway. But it makes some people feel bad, because they experienced terrible trauma (or watched other people experiencing terrible trauma on their televisions). And we have to be sensitive and respect the feelings of those who have been so traumatized.
It’s the same sort of thinking as saying, sure “niggardly” has nothing to do with the racial slur (the word is actually of Old Norse origin), but it makes some people feel bad, and shouldn’t we be more sensitive and respect their feelings, and what about the Middle Passage and Jim Crow and all that?
I don’t like this sort of bleating when it comes from those on the Left; I certainly don’t like it any better when it comes from those on the Right.
…Alaska… And yes, this is exactly what I’m talking about. Some New Yorkers are grumbling about this but I’d wager not that many are really upset. Whereas people around the country seem outraged on behalf of New York to no particular purpose other than an expression of intolerance directed at Muslims. If about 35 percent of Manhattan residents are opposed, 50 percent of New Yorkers, and 70 percent of people around the country that does speak volumes.
I have never seen a borough by borough breakdown and I couldn’t find one online. I assure you the answer is “plenty.” And don’t forget that the environmental and economic fallout hit Manhattan harder than anyplace else because the towers were in Manhattan. Maybe people in Manhattan are more likely to know that there are already mosques in the area and have been for ages, so they don’t think the Muslims are invading.
To be fair, television and politicians are hard at work to obtain such a result. It’s not like America woke up one day and spontaneously freaked right the fuck out. In fact, if I recall clearly, right after 9/11 the general message seemed to be “don’t freak out, and please don’t blame all Muslims for this !”.
Then the message got tweaked, for some nebulous reason I can’t quite put my finger on.
Post # 267 contains the source post. Not aimed at anyone on the board, the original comment was in regards to those with issue of the mosque being placed near the WTC site.