Options
Eye of Newt: The Former House Speaker Knows a 'Stealth Jihadi' When He Sees One
· Wednesday, August 18, 2010
I do not often agree with President Barack Obama or New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. But they have taken the right position in the controversy over plans for a Muslim community center in lower Manhattan, defending religious freedom and property rights against government meddling driven by irrational prejudice.
In contrast, whatever residual respect I had for Newt Gingrich because of his libertarian impulses as a Republican opposition leader and speaker of the House has been wiped out by his shameful performance as a jingoistic rabble-rouser who insists that "we should not tolerate" what the Constitution requires us to tolerate. By conflating the avowedly moderate, pluralistic and ecumenical backers of Park 51 with the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center, he encourages the same sort of collectivist thinking that inspired those mass murderers.
Gingrich distinguishes between "well-meaning Muslims," who agree with him that the project should not be built so close to ground zero, and "radical Islamists," who are fundamentally hostile to the West. But he says the radicals include both "violent jihadis," who openly support terrorism, and "stealth jihadis," who advocate peaceful coexistence while using "political, cultural, societal, religious (and) intellectual tools" to achieve the same goal of Islamic domination.
Although Gingrich implies that the imam behind Park 51 -- Feisal Abdul Rauf -- is a stealth jihadi, there is not much evidence to support that view. Gingrich cites the project's original name, Cordoba House, as proof of Rauf's aggressive intentions, calling Cordoba "a symbol of Islamic conquest." Yet Rauf, rather more plausibly, says the name was intended to evoke the golden age of Spain under the relatively tolerant Cordoba caliphate, a period when Muslims, Jews and Christians lived together in what, by the standards of the Middle Ages, qualified as harmony.
One of Rauf's most prominent critics, Stephen Schwartz of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, notes some radical-sounding associates, but even he concedes that Rauf has reached out to Muslims with a wide variety of viewpoints. Though Rauf might be faking it, he has a long record of condemning violence and engaging in interreligious dialogue -- a record persuasive enough that the FBI looked to him for help in fighting terrorism.
To Gingrich, however, none of this really matters. In his view, anyone who supports Park 51 is a stealth jihadi by definition.
Gingrich does not object to the project because the wrong sort of Muslims are building it. He objects to any Muslim house of worship on that site. He declares that "there should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia." What an absurd non sequitur. Since when is a foreign state's intolerance an excuse for trampling Americans' constitutional rights?
Sarah Palin, the first national figure to make an issue of Park 51, says, "We all know that they have the right to do it." But Gingrich knows no such thing.
"The Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest," he says, "and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate." In response to those who note that interfering with the project because of its Muslim character would violate the First Amendment, he says, "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington."
Put aside the fact that if Nazis owned a lot next to the Holocaust Museum, they would have a right to put up a sign, subject to content-neutral regulations. Gingrich's comparison between Muslims and Nazis reflects his more general equating of Muslims with terrorists, which is at the heart of his objections to Park 51.
Jews, Christians or Hindus are free to build whatever they want at 51 Park Place, but not Muslims. Why? Because the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks were Muslims. Once you strip away the Orwellian rhetoric equating peaceful religious activity with violence, Gingrich's position really is as simple and appalling as that.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Acton Institute Senior Fellow, Marvin Olasky: "Liberals say and do so many nutty things. The Patriot puts them all in a nutshell--easy to crack and fun to read." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Jonah Goldberg: Big Business Gets the Hollywood Treatment
- Charles Krauthammer: The Joy of Winning
- Arnold Ahlert: Catholics vs. Obama
- Michael Reagan: White House Website Gone Wild
- Ken Blackwell: I'll Have Another
- Jeff Jacoby: The Peace Process Battered Israel's Reputation
- Victor Davis Hanson: The Bad/Good Idea of Removing Assad
- Michael Barone: Cocooned Liberals Are Unprepared for Political Debate
- R. Emmett Tyrrell: The Great Debate
- Cal Thomas: The Media's Religion Deficit
- Larry Elder: Why Jeremiah Wright Matters -- Still
- Ben Shapiro: First, They Came for Cory Booker
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
























Bruce
YOU live in the middle ages. NOT ME. Don't worry, sharia law will be here on top of you before you know it. Then we'll just see how much religious tolerance YOU can tolerate.
Posted August 18, 2010 at 7:47:13 AM
Bruce R Pierce
The Mosque at "ground zero" is just the tip of the "iceberg" what the Media is failing to talk about is the real healing and rebuilding the area that is not happening. Lets talk about reaching out those that want to rebuild the Greek Orthodox (Christian)Church, built in the early 1900's, The Port athority needs to give permission to rebuild and the Muslim Community needs to reachout and help them. That would be true tolerance not living, "under the relatively tolerant Cordoba caliphate" or any other caliphate.
Posted August 18, 2010 at 9:04:54 AM
MoeLarryCurley
I say we have a pig roast at Mecca and Medina. They (Muslims) could tolerate that...couldn't they.
Posted August 18, 2010 at 12:25:31 PM
Marsha
Jacob--take off your blinders. This is not about religious freedom. It's about the difference between common decency, and jihad and dominance.
Posted August 18, 2010 at 12:59:39 PM
A Citizen
Jacob (Dipwad) Sullum said; "Feisal Abdul Rauf -- is a stealth jihadi, there is not much evidence to support that view."
Your an idiot and your willfully ignorant. I'm done with you.
Posted August 18, 2010 at 1:09:51 PM
Caseace
"Although Gingrich implies that the imam behind Park 51 -- Feisal Abdul Rauf -- is a stealth jihadi, there is not much evidence to support that view".
Why not rephrase that sentence and say "there is SOME evidence to support that view..." or are you discounting what he HAS said?
Posted August 18, 2010 at 1:19:33 PM
JTG
Tolerance is one thing while blind ignorance is another. Take a look at Europe and what the muslims have done to it. Now take a look no further than Dearborn,MI and you will see the overtaking of a city. Step by step, Jacob.
Get in step.
Posted August 18, 2010 at 2:54:12 PM
Michael V.
I agree that they have a right to build the Mosque, but just because you have the right to do something, does not mean it is the right thing to do. Maybe you should read the August 3rd column by William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal title WTC Mosque, Meet the Auschwitz Nuns for enlightenment. The catholic church opened a convent in the shadows of Auschwitz, and felt the same heat and outrage as the builders of this mosque are receiving today; and this occured 50 years after the fact, not 9 years. People, like yourself and Rauf, need to use comon sense when it comes to the building of this Mosque. Especially, since the design calls for two 13 story towers. You do not think that is more than coincidence?
Posted August 18, 2010 at 3:51:58 PM
jm
another classic example of the left "hate" of the right or conservative opinion. The obvious has been pointed out, building such an opulent Muslim education center at the site of one of the most tragic terrorist attacks on our soil, with plans to innaugurate it on the 10 yr anniversary of 9-11. Ge theat 2x4 out of your eye before you start picking on the splinter in other American patriots eyes. Sharia is here. 10% or more of the 1.2 B Muslims are estimated to be radicalized. All efforts to accomodate, facilitat, placate and incorporate muslim businesses and organizations into our American society are being made by Obama. He had a choice to keep his mouth shut at hte white house dinner. Not only did he not take that option, but he endorsed, and further emboldened our radical muslim friends, by making the comments he did. Our friends in the middle east have never been more fearful of the radical elements in Iran and Syria, than they have ben in the past 12 months, much due to our lack of interest or innaction in reigning in Iran and in telling Israel to piss off. THE 83% unfavorable rating of Bush has now risen to 85% of those in the middle eastern states now have an unfavorable opinion of The USA, largely due to the lack of leadership Obama has demonstrated. He is either incompetent or all is proceeding according to his plan for his post American world. Our greatest danger is from within and Jacob, the sooner you and yours open you reyes and accept this the sooner your anger at the right for pointing out the realities of the present (as opposed to the last 8 years of Bush).
Posted August 18, 2010 at 5:00:15 PM
Alfalpha
MoeLarryCurly - I say we make that weenie roast nuclear. If we melt enough sand into glass and reflect enough sunlight, we can solve global warming, too!
Posted August 18, 2010 at 7:39:15 PM
Luther
Mr. Sullum is right on this one. I am offended by Muslims. Period. They reject the savior of the world, Jesus Christ. I am also offended, to a lesser degreee, that they want to build a mosque NEAR ground zero. I also realize that UN-free countries would likely deny Christians a permit to build a church. But it is BECAUSE we are free, BECAUSE our founders didn't create a theocracy, and BECAUSE we allow things that offend many of us (like tatoos, smoking, porn, Hindus, atheists, Democrats, etc).
1) As a Christian and an American, I refuse to deny private property rights using force.
2) Shame on them for wanting to build a mosque there.
It is the statist only that cannot agree to both of those statements.
Posted August 19, 2010 at 9:11:33 AM
JCJ
Jacob Sullum, my friend, you need to be enlightened.
Please read below entirely.
In July 2010, journalist Andrew McCarthy revealed that Feisal Abdul Rauf's 2004 book, "What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America" was originally published in Malaysia under a different title: "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11". >>> Note the term "Dawa".
"What's Right with Islam" was produced after the original, with Feisal’s cooperation, by the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought. Both of those organizations are American tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood. McCarthy explains the meaning of the term "dawa", from the book's title:
"Dawa, whether done from the rubble of the World Trade Center or elsewhere, is the missionary work by which Islam is spread.... [D]awa is proselytism, but not involving only spiritual elements — for Islam is not merely a religion, and spiritual elements are just a small part of its doctrine. In truth, Islam is a comprehensive political, social, and economic system with its own authoritarian legal framework, sharia, which aspires to govern all aspects of life....
"The purpose of dawa, like the purpose of jihad, is to implement, spread, and defend sharia. Scholar Robert Spencer incisively refers to "dawa" practices as 'stealth jihad,' the advancement of the sharia agenda through means other than violence and agents other than terrorists. These include extortion, cultivation of sympathizers in the media and the universities, exploitation of our legal system and tradition of religious liberty, infiltration of our political system, and fundraising.
This is why Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and the world’s most influential Islamic cleric, boldly promises that Islam will 'conquer America' and 'conquer Europe' through dawa."
Posted August 19, 2010 at 9:16:24 AM
Lit linstock
I wonder if Mr. Sullum would support a white supremacist worship and education center next to The King Center in Atlanta.
With many things in today's society, just because it's legal doesn't make it right. This is what we get when we separate law from morality so as not to offend someone's delicate sensibilities.
Posted August 19, 2010 at 11:22:50 AM