Imam Rauf’s NYT Op Ed
posted at 11:16 am on September 8, 2010 by Howard Portnoy
printer-friendly
Did you know that the word islam is a cognate of the Hebrew word shalom, meaning “peace”? Don’t berate yourself if you didn’t, because it isn’t true. This is just the latest fiction perpetrated by would-be Ground Zero imam Feisal Abdul Rauf in an at times touchy-feely op-ed in today’s New York Times.
The article is noteworthy in that its tone is at once defiant and faux-conciliatory. In one paragraph, the cleric comes out and says, “We are proceeding with the community center, Cordoba House,” like it or not. Several paragraphs later he attempts to assure opponents of the plan that he feels their pain, writing “I am very sensitive to the feelings of the families of victims of 9/11.” But the first assertion belies the second. If he were really sensitive to the needs and feelings of families of 9/11 victims, he would have long ago chosen a different site for his mosque.
Much of the op-ed is given over to exaggeration (“we are [proceeding] with the support of the downtown community”), word twisting (“President Obama … spoke out in support of our project”), and deflections back to the tired argument that this whole debate comes down to a question of rights and freedoms, when in fact it is about doing what is right. So far he has chosen not to do the right thing.
Not surprisingly, nowhere in the column does Rauf offer an explanation for or defense of his well-documented anti-American remarks, which include comparing the U.S. unfavorably with al Qaeda, or his support for the terrorist organization Hamas. He does offer up the promise that he will identify his financial backers – a request with which he has failed to comply so far, though it was revealed independently that one of the backers is himself a supporter of Hamas.
As to his feeble and insincere attempt to link Islam and Judaism etymologically, I would point out to the imam that the Hebrew word shalom means not only “peace,” as he correctly notes, but also “hello” and “goodbye.” In light of which, shalom, imam.
Related Articles
- Ground Zero mosque imam is a slumlord
- The myth of rampant Islamophobia
- GZ Mosque organizer owes nearly a quarter million dollars in back taxes
Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Taqiyya. That’s Islamic for bullshit.
rrpjr on September 8, 2010 at 12:02 PM
You hit on the first thing that jumped to my attention from the article. The imam’s attempt to sell “islam = shalom” formula. And since shalom = peace, islam is implied to have a similar meaning.
I also find it interesting the imam’s attempt to sell the co-existence of Christians, Jews, and muslims in Cordoba. I have my reservations as to the accuracy of this statement given the overall reductions of Christian and Jewish populations in lands controlled by muslims.
Actions speak much louder than words. And in the one instance where muslims could take the “high road”, they’d simply prefer pour salt on the wound, “like it or not”.
Neo-con Artist on September 8, 2010 at 12:05 PM
nor does he offer a recipe for latkes Mr Portnoy. and he doesn’t even deny that his Cordoba House won’t have weekly Koran burnings!
This op-ed piece is missing so many things that it’s not saltworthy.
audiculous on September 8, 2010 at 12:16 PM
Definitely not a trustworthy man no matter what religion. Fakey, phony.
jeanie on September 8, 2010 at 12:28 PM
He’s misguided and often deluded, but is sincere in all that he writes in his Green Room posts.
audiculous on September 8, 2010 at 12:35 PM
“We are proceeding with the community center, Cordoba House,” like it or not, BOY!
FIFY
Pervygrin on September 8, 2010 at 12:40 PM
He does realize that he’s in a very stark national minority in believing this should be done at this location, doesn’t he? In that light, all the smarmy, patronizing, headstrong talk just serves to make him look like a spiteful cur.
Good to know he’s super busy on his outreach project though. This definitely seems to be improving relations.
Heralder on September 8, 2010 at 1:02 PM
What a weird coincidence – the silent Iman has finally spoken on the first night of Rosh Hashanah.
And he leads his Rosh Hashanah message with the co-opting of Judaism, yea that’s just coincidental as well. Cordoba House, maybe it will have a Almohades room.
Move along, nothing to see here.
batterup on September 8, 2010 at 1:53 PM
Yep – in Hebrew, “Shalom” means “peace” (or, as noted, can be used as a greeting or farewell).
In Arabic, “peace” is “salaam”. The word “Islam” means “submission”.
Kol Tuv
MogenDavid on September 8, 2010 at 2:09 PM
I’ve heard this before but haven’t seen the connection. I’ve read that he has refused to renounce Hamas and that is greatly troubling but it is not the same thing as support. Anyone have a source to this?
shick on September 8, 2010 at 2:18 PM
shick
don’t hold your breath waiting for Mr Portnoy to provide some substantiation for the silly stuff that he writes. He will not and can not.
audiculous on September 8, 2010 at 2:40 PM
I don’t have a source, per se, on his refusal, but for some background and context, this is where I looked.
You’re right that that position is a bit … nuanced. This isn’t asking if he likes strawberry flavored ice cream though; when it comes to terrorist organizations, refusal to condemn them does indicate support.
On another note, the Cordoba Initiative’s home page has a slogan that in light of this whole mangled mess kind of reads as a bit surreal:
Heralder on September 8, 2010 at 2:46 PM
Oops, sorry, I forgot to include the links.
Here is more of a summary.
And here is the NY Post article.
I’m going to say the Post is about a step from a tabloid in my experience of it, but the information contained there seems more than enough to base a solid opinion on it unless he someone else can refute those remarks.
Heralder on September 8, 2010 at 2:51 PM
No, Heralder, refusing to condemn hamas does not indicate support.
Does refusing to burn bibles indicate belief?
audiculous on September 8, 2010 at 2:54 PM
He wasn’t asked if he wanted to destroy Hamas.
Perhaps if I asked you if you wanted to agree that rape was bad and you couldn’t really bring yourself to say it is bad. At that point, if I miss the mark in saying you support rape, then that’s an error I’m not too concerned about making.
Heralder on September 8, 2010 at 2:59 PM
poor example. rape is, by definition, a crime. if somebody asks me if I approve of rape and I think the question and/or questioner to be idiotic and annoying and brush him and it off, it isn’t because I support rape.
but , more importantly, you’re equating a failure to offer on demand a gratuitous and public condemnation of Hamas with support. that’s not well-reasoned.
audiculous on September 8, 2010 at 3:08 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalom#Etymology
CK MacLeod on September 8, 2010 at 3:09 PM
No, but consider this. The question should be an easy one to answer. One mosque supporter told me that Rauf didn’t want to be forced to answering questions that would put him in a bad light. I call balogna on that response. I’ll give him the same response that I gave him. His non-response put him in much worse of a light than a simple, “Don’t be ridiculouse! Of course I don’t support Hamas! It’s a terrorist organization.” The fact that he didn’t is very troubling.
Another possibility that has been given is that Rauf considers himself a bridge building between Christians and Muslims. If he is to be successful building bridges he can’t speak ill of Hamas. Balogna! Terrorist extremists are not rational and are not capable of seeing any other perspective. They need to be called out for the terrorism that they use.
shick on September 8, 2010 at 3:36 PM
They’re analogous (though not perfectly) because this is in direct relation to the U.S. State Department’s classification of Hamas, which is that of a terrorist organization. That crosses legality at various points.
Also note, that in no way did Rauf “brush off” the questions as you indicate. It was clear avoidance.
I’ll yeild on the support issue, it’s a bad argument to get caught up in. Let’s say then that the indication given is that Rauf disagrees that Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Do you think that is a fair stance?
Heralder on September 8, 2010 at 3:53 PM
Colin,
Nice try. That still doesn’t make them cognates. I did a little background investigation of my own, breaking out some of my old linguistics texts. Islam is a derived form of the Arabic aslama, meaning “surrender.” Aslama and salaam share an etymological relationship but even they are not cognates, so it is not possible for shalom and islam to be.
Howard Portnoy on September 8, 2010 at 3:58 PM
Heralder, I would like to agree, given that you and i probably agree about what Hamas is, but when Rauf refuses to answer, it doesn’t give us a window into his thinking.
No condemnation and no attempt at justification is just….. nothing. and nothing to go on.
If he says something nice about Hamas or about the uses of terror, I’ll be glad to join you in jumping on his ass, but he’s not guilty of that from that NYPost article.
audiculous on September 8, 2010 at 4:17 PM
Here is what Rauf said:
So to be accurate, he does not claim that Islam and shalom or cognates – although in my view, he would be correct to do so. Even if the origins were not shared between homophones, thousands of years of parallel usage in proximity would tend to create a “cognate” relationship – but that does not at all appear to be the case here: As I point out in my post on this subject today – I have no idea why the trackback isn’t showing up – the S-L-M root common to Islam, salaam, aslama, shalom, and other homophones in Semitic languages is obvious – just as the logical relationship between “surrender” and “peace” is obvious to anyone who isn’t committed to inventing new reasons to attack Rauf.
CK MacLeod on September 8, 2010 at 4:17 PM
In your view, eh? Then it must be so.
As to “inventing new reasons to attack Rauf,” there is no need. He does a perfectly commendable job of impeaching himself. At least that’s fairly obvious to anyone who has not gone off the deep end.
Howard Portnoy on September 8, 2010 at 4:23 PM
Yeah, in my view based on the evidence I’ve cited and presented, the arguments I’ve made, and my direct reply to your argument based on your “research” on shalom/aslama/Islam. Anyone who cares to look into the question further can try a simple internet search under, say, “Islam shalom etymology,” and reach their own conclusions on credibility and who here may have “gone off the deep end.” (While they’re at it, they can also look up the definition of “cognate.”)
CK MacLeod on September 8, 2010 at 4:59 PM
Well his point is valid… he is right and you seem to be wrong. Rather than being rude you should correct your error.
lexhamfox on September 8, 2010 at 5:03 PM
Colin, they can look up cognate and arrive at the same wrong conclusion you evidently did. You are free to believe what you want and burn black candles for me at your silly little blog. I have nothing more to say to you.
Lexhamfox: You are likewise entitled to your opinions, but this conversation is between former friends, in addition to which I disagree with your view. So let’s leave it at that.
Howard Portnoy on September 8, 2010 at 5:31 PM
Howard Portnoy on September 8, 2010 at 5:31 PM
Classy as always, Howard.
CK MacLeod on September 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM
Right back at ya, slick!
Howard Portnoy on September 8, 2010 at 6:05 PM
Heralder, because he knew you were asking Rauf said…..
audiculous on September 9, 2010 at 1:37 AM
Good! Then I have no more issue with that issue.
Heralder on September 9, 2010 at 9:06 AM
I remain unconvinced. The quote audiculous cites is from today’s NYT. It is an article in which Rauf says that if “known how much strife would arise over his plan for a Muslim community center and mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center site, he would not have proposed it.”
So why can’t he back off now? “[B]ecause that would embolden radicals of all faiths and create security risks for the United States and Americans abroad.”
The “argument” doesn’t make a shred of since, but little that comes from this man’s mouth does.
As to his earlier stated position on Hamas: “I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy.”
If this man were half as clever as he thinks he is, he’d be truly dangerous.
Howard Portnoy on September 9, 2010 at 10:27 AM
Yes, but my point was that he refused to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization, and now he has. I’m not aparty to what he may, or may not secretly think.
This doesn’t change my mind about the wisdom of the placement, name and pretty much the entire handling of the Cordoba House initiative and I’d still be happy if funding fell through or they gave up and moved it because all my previous reasons for opposition still stand.
Unfortunately, it also doesn’t change the fact that most of what this man says is patronizing tripe.
Heralder on September 9, 2010 at 11:04 AM
Thanks for this link. I was afraid he would say something like that. What I mean is….I was afraid that my perception of him might be wrong. I hate it when I’m wrong. It looks like I might have been.
I’m not saying there aren’t other areas about him that are suspicious but the fact that he has come out and condemned Hamas is important. That doesn’t mean of course his condemnation is sincere. Arafat was feeding us (or at least Carter) a load of bunk.
The more facts I see about Rauf indicate that he may be more sincere than I thought.
shick on September 9, 2010 at 12:29 PM
I don’t see the imam condemning hamas as a terrorist organization. Per the quotes above and a reading of the transcript with CNN, he specifically tap-dances around that particular condemnation.
He specifically constructs his words to limit his condemnation to terrorist acts, but not the organization.
Neo-con Artist on September 9, 2010 at 4:34 PM
Neo-con Artist
it’s called a syllogism. look it up.
“I condemn everyone and anyone who commits acts of terrorism, and
Hamas has committed acts of terrorism.”
audiculous on September 10, 2010 at 1:32 AM
shick
thank you much. it’s always good to find honesty and “stand-up”.
audiculous on September 10, 2010 at 1:34 AM
audiculous/fuster:
It’s still tap dancing. Rather than coming out and stating in a single declarative sentence that he condemns Hamas, he dances around it.
Howard Portnoy on September 10, 2010 at 4:39 PM
Mr Portnoy, much as I love thee, you’re being hopeless on this point.
That’s not only a condemnation of Hamas, but a statement that he agrees that they’re terrorists. That’s the full boat.
Get off that point and move on to something else, for the love of truth.
(I’m only audiculous here on Hot Air because the site wouldn’t let me register as fuster)
audiculous on September 10, 2010 at 7:38 PM
Fine. Audiculous it is.
If this were Rauf’s first or only statement on the subject, I would be willing to cut him some slack. As recently as 3 months ago, however, he was unwilling to take a stance on Hamas, insisting that terrorism is “complicated” and stating, “I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy.”
This was before 70 percent of the country came out against his half-baked idea to erect a shrine to Islam at a site where 3,000 were killed in the name of that religion.
I think you’re the one who needs to get it a rest.
Howard Portnoy on September 10, 2010 at 8:35 PM
AFAIK it IS his only statement on Hamas and terrorism. Refusing to discuss it with the NYPost isn’t a statement, but if you’ve got something else that he said on the subject, I’m all eyes.
audiculous on September 10, 2010 at 9:17 PM
Now you’re tap dancing. I’m finished with this topic. All yours.
Howard Portnoy on September 10, 2010 at 9:31 PM
have some honey cake. catch you later.
audiculous on September 10, 2010 at 9:47 PM