- Image via Wikipedia
Feisal Rauf recently appeared on Larry King Live to discuss the matter of the “Ground Zero Mosque.” In the course of the interview he noted that “if you don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world.” Some folks are taking this as a threat of violence. Not surprisingly, this is the view being pushed by the fine folks at Fox. However, it is reasonable to ask whether or not this is a threat.
Since some folks use fear as a tool it is tempting to question their sincerity in taking his remarks as threats. However, whether people see something as a threat or not can be a rather subjective matter. As such, let it be assumed that these claims are sincere: the folks who see it is a threat actually believe they are being threatened. Of course, feeling threatened and actually being threatened are too different things. This is similar to situations involving offense-a person might regard himself as offended when no offense was intended and it would be unreasonable to be offended.
To determine whether Rauf was making a threat or not involves considering what he actually said and what it reasonably implied. This is rather similar to analyzing an explanation that some people take as a justification. An explanation merely provides an account of how and why something occurred. A justification, in contrast, actually involves contending that it was good or at least acceptable. For example, someone might explain why 9/11 occurred in terms of factors such as religion, history, and politics without defending the attack. This might be seen by the uncritical as an attempt at justification, but it would not, in fact, be such a thing.
Returning to the main topic of whether his remark was a threat or not, the most reasonable interpretation is that he was issuing a warning rather than a threat. Of course, it is easy to confuse the two since both share a common form. To be specific, a threat and a warning both involve saying that if X occurs, then something bad will happen because of X. However, the difference lies in the intent. When someone is warned, the intent is a positive one-to help the person avoid a harm. A warning implies a degree of concern for those warned and the main intent is not to prevent X but to prevent the harm. After all, if I were to warn you not to touch a wire because you would get zapped, but you informed me you had turned off the power, then I would have no worry about you touching the wire.
When a threat is made, the intent is a negative one-to use fear to persuade others not to take the action. The main goal is not to prevent the harm but to deter others from doing X. As such, the person making the threat is not concerned with the well being of those being threatened but with getting them to do (or not do) what he wants on the basis of the threat.
In the case of Rauf’s remark, it does not seem to be a threat. Rather, he seems to be presenting a warning that if the community center is stopped, then this will have a negative impact on American relations and interests. As such, he seems to be motivated by a desire that America and Americans avoid a potential harm. It does not appear that he is presenting a potential harm in order to coerce people into doing what he wants.
It might be argued that Rauf is cleverly masking his threat behind the mask of warning and that he secretly wishes America ill. However, an appeal to secret motivations is hardly an effective basis for proof.
Giving what Rauf has actually said, he seems to be presenting a warning that is aimed at protecting America from potential harm rather than making a threat to get what he wants.
“However, it is reasonable to ask whether or not this is a threat.”
Well, ask him. Maybe it is not a threat but the truth. They can’t seem to behave themselves.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/09/feisal-abdul-ra.html
Here is Rauf arguing that the Ground Zero area is not sacred as if it is supposed to be some off limits religious site. No, it’s sacred nature comes not from religion; it comes from loss. This guy is making itself worse for himself every time his mouth opens. good thing Liberals are there to tell us what he ‘really’ means.
Who are “they”?
Out of curiosity, I must ask: should the businesses (including a strip club) in the sacred zone be forced to close?
I don’t claim to know what he really means-that would require knowing the content of his mind. However, the rational thing to do is go with the available evidence. The evidence supporting the view that he is not making threats appears to outweigh the evidence supporting the claim that he is.
‘Who are “they”?’- I’m not quite sure who ‘They’ are as I don’t have any names but if I were to guess it would be Muslims around the world that would cause violence upon others if the proposed mosque is not built.
“Out of curiosity, I must ask: should the businesses (including a strip club) in the sacred zone be forced to close?”- I don’t think the issue is one of force having to do with the proposed mosque location. I think it is a matter of prudence. If a bunch of radical strippers flew planes into buildings near the strip club’s location then maybe it would be prudent to close it. On a side note, a few of the 9/11 radical Muslim jihadists went to a strip club previous(of course not after) flying jets into the World Trade Center. Not important but an interesting tie in.
Well, sure the people who would engage in violence if the mosque were not built would do so if it were not built…by definition. 🙂
So the argument switches from the sacred to the prudent? How would it be imprudent to allow the building there? Should this principle be applied consistently: Should Christians be kept away from children because some priests molested kids? Should the Japanese be kept away from the US because they attacked us? Should Germans be kept away from Jews because of the Nazis?
I refer back to my response in your “Burining Books and Building Mosques” post.
While I am opposed I am as a rational man trying to think what is in the best interest for the Imam. It is totally up to them to build the Mosque there or not. I realize this. The purpose of this Mosque as said in so many words on seperate occasions is to build a bridge to help and heal relations between the Muslim and Western world. To me, if I were the Imam I would think building the Mosque where there is major opposition to doing so and ignoring all of the opposition would be counter productive to the symbol of the Mosque. He is acting like he can force this good will between two worlds when it is a give and take. In the end it will be give from the opposition side and take from the side trying to extend good will. I just don’t get it. It is only logical.
Apparently his view is that he did not anticipate the controversy ( as you might recall, this was not made into a controversy until fairly recently) and had he known, he would not have gone with this location. He now claims that if the mosque is moved, it will be used as PR by the radicals and this will be contrary to American interests. Interestingly, the idea that we must take into account the reaction of the radicals is one that was used time and time again by the Republicans. Of course, their view was typically we must do X or not do Y because this would embolden the radicals.
As far as the opposition, that is to be expected when there is a need to bridge gaps and heal relations. After all, if we all got along, there would be 1)no need for outreach and 2) no controversy about the building.
Are you saying it would be more prudent to build the Mosque because violence may occur if it is not?
If you mean “do you think we should give in to threats, like a shopkeeper threatened by the mafia”, then no.
If you mean “should we act in a way that avoids doing damage to our image and relations so as to lower the chance that people will react badly?’ then yes.
React badly and totally unacceptable human behavior are two seperate things.
Rauf is too smart to make a direct threat, but he certainly planted the seed. Look at what happened to poor Molly Norris.
‘Draw Muhammad’ cartoonist changes name, goes into hiding at FBI’s insistence [UPDATED]
Note: This report was originally published Sept. 15.
Seattle Weekly announced Wednesday that it will no longer run Molly Norris’s artwork. The newspaper is also reporting that legally, there is no more “Molly Norris.”
Norris — the Seattle-based illustrator whose cartoon sparked “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!” earlier this year and a subsequent fatwa against her — has gone into hiding and changed her name at the guidance of the FBI, reports the Seattle Weekly, which says:
“The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, ‘going ghost’: moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. She will no longer be publishing cartoons in our paper or in City Arts magazine, where she has been a regular contributor.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/comic-riffs/2010/09/report_draw_muhammad_cartoonis.html
More non-threats.
A popular Spanish nightclub has been forced to change its name from Mecca after sparking a furious reaction around the Islamic world.
Intelligence chiefs warned owners they were being targeted by extremists who claim the disco is insulting to their religion.
Hackers broke into the nightclub’s website and posted a video threatening ‘a great war between Spain and the people of Islam’ if the venue did not change its name.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1312539/Nightclub-forced-change-Mecca-threats-Muslim-extremists.html#ixzz0zjwK0NDp
Against all of Spain for one nightclub? Sheez! I just had a thought there have been threats of increased violence against US troops if one crackpot in Florida burns a Quran? I wonder if we would know if the violence against US tropps would be extra from a Quran burning or just your everyday run of the mill peak in violence against US troops. OMG! What if nobody told the ‘potential violence distributors’ that he really didn’t go through with the Quran burning? Will we be able to tell the difference between violence against troops and violence against troops because of the belief that some pastor in Florida burned a Quran?
Those would be threats. After all, a warning presupposes a concern for the well being of the person being warned and the primary objective is to protect the warned person from harm.
Turns out Rauf is a slumlord. I’m glad we know his intentions are good, because otherwise we might think he is a con artist.
While the Imam behind plans for a mosque near Ground Zero was jetting around the globe and advocating for his Downtown project, a pair of dilapidated apartment buildings he owns in New Jersey fell into such disrepair that cops have to stand watch in the event of a fire.
The fire watch, at taxpayer expense, was revealed during a court hearing today when Union City lawyers asked to have two buildings owned by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf placed into receivership so that rent s could be used to fix dozens of violations, including inoperable alarms and sprinklers.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ground_zero_mosque_imam_faisal_rauf_o173R8S3JZnekEC4V08H9L?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=#ixzz0zjxhqqRC
I wonder if his tenants are Muslim.
Assuming this is all true, it does not prove (or disprove) anything about his intentions regarding the community center. Of course, this information is relevant to considering the nature of his character.
This is what the NYT was writing in 2001. Yes, this is the same Al-Awlaki whom the Obama administration has targeted for assassination. Good thing we can divine their intentions, otherwise we may be inclined to be skeptical about their statements.
Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, spiritual leader at the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Virginia, one of the nation’s largest, which draws about 3,000 worshipers for communal prayers each Friday, said: ”In the past we were oblivious. We didn’t really care much because we never expected things to happen. Now I think things are different. What we might have tolerated in the past, we won’t tolerate any more.”
”There were some statements that were inflammatory, and were considered just talk, but now we realize that talk can be taken seriously and acted upon in a violent radical way,” said Mr. Al-Awlaki, who at 30 is held up as a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West: born in New Mexico to parents from Yemen, who studied Islam in Yemen and civil engineering at Colorado State University.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/19/us/nation-challenged-american-muslims-influential-american-muslims-temper-their.html?pagewanted=all
“It is too early to say whether their message will be heeded, or whether it is mere posturing.” from the same NYT article. And at wikipedia its obvious that this guys intentions were suspect from immediately after 9/11 on.
The gzm imam who’s a slumlord has been a slumlord since 1996. Been cited for safety violations over and again since then. Over the years I haven’t seen too many white slumlords equated with terrorists. They’re usually just criminals. It’s a damn shame and a cowinkydink the citys legal system of whatever party hasn’t been up to doing it’s duty for the people for fourteen years. But from my experience that’s cities in NJ for you. And NY. And Texas. And Colorado. Might as well live in a small village in China.
Speaking of Rauf, this seems appropriate:
A person I was seeing in psychoanalysis once said to me, “Don’t you think Fraud is rather overrated”, he had of course meant to say “Freud”, and he blushed.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/09/on-balance.html
This isn’t about Rauf but it is about another ‘moderate’ Mosque in the Northeast and some of our moonbat educators. I wonder if the Ground Zero Mosque will educate people on the history of Islam with the same facts. DOH!
http://www.peaceandtolerance.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=129:school-trip-to-moderate-mosque-inside-video-captures-kids-bowing-to-allah&catid=7:our-statements&Itemid=39