Slick, sly, smarmy and dangerous: Fareed Zakaria, son of an imam, is the prototype of the false ‘moderate Muslim’, a dyed in the wool stealth jihadist. Why is he not Â locked up in Gitmo?
About Newsweek’s surrender to the global jihad, seeÂ here andÂ here. AndÂ this one by Fareed Zakaria in March 2009 really takes the cake. So it isn’t surprising that Zakaria and Newsweek would now come out for the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero.
Ever since 9/11, liberals and conservatives have agreed that the lasting solution to the problem of Islamic terror is to prevail in the battle of ideas and to discredit radical Islam, the ideology that motivates young men to kill and be killed. Victory in the war on terror will be won when a moderate, mainstream version of Islam–one that is compatible with modernity–fully triumphs over the world view of Osama bin Laden.As the conservative Middle Eastern expert Daniel Pipes put it, “The U.S. role [in this struggle] is less to offer its own views than to help those Muslims with compatible views, especially on such issues as relations with non-Muslims, modernization, and the rights of women and minorities.” To that end, early in its tenure the Bush administration began a serious effort to seek out and support moderate Islam. Since then, Washington has funded mosques, schools, institutes, and community centers that are trying to modernize Islam around the world. Except, apparently, in New York City.
The debate over whether an Islamic center should be built a few blocks from the World Trade Center has ignored a fundamental point. If there is going to be a reformist movement in Islam, it is going to emerge from places like the proposed institute. We should be encouraging groups like the one behind this project, not demonizing them. Were this mosque being built in a foreign city, chances are that the U.S. government would be funding it.
The man spearheading the center, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a moderate Muslim clergyman. He has said one or two things about American foreign policy that strike me as overly critical –but it’s stuff you could read on The Huffington Post any day. On Islam, his main subject, Rauf’s views are clear: he routinely denounces all terrorism–as he did again last week, publicly. He speaks of the need for Muslims to live peacefully with all other religions. He emphasizes the commonalities among all faiths. He advocates equal rights for women, and argues against laws that in any way punish non-Muslims. His last book, What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America, argues that the United States is actually the ideal Islamic society because it encourages diversity and promotes freedom for individuals and for all religions. His vision of Islam is bin Laden’s nightmare….
Zakaria either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that besides being an open advocate for Sharia and restrictions on the freedom of speech in his bookÂ What’s Right with Islam, Rauf has (like CAIR)Â refused to denounce Hamas. He hasÂ lied about his commitment to religious dialogue. He hasÂ lied about whether the Islamic center planned for the Ground Zero site will contain a mosque or not. And he hasÂ lied about whether or not the project is getting foreign funding. HeÂ is involved with a group that helped fund the jihad flotilla against Israel.
The problem here is that Fareed Zakaria and everyone else in the world can tell us that Feisal Abdul Rauf is a moderate all day and all night long, but until these questions about his manifest duplicity and advocacy for Sharia are answered, their protestations will ring hollow.
The much larger issue that this center raises is, of course, of freedom of religion in America. Much has been written about this, and I would only urge people to read Michael Bloomberg’s speech on the subject last week. Bloomberg’s eloquent, brave, and carefully reasoned address should become required reading in every civics classroom in America. It probably will….
This is not really a freedom of religion issue at all. No one is advocating that Muslims should not be allowed to build mosques in the U.S., although I maintain that those mosques should be carefully scrutinized by law enforcement for jihad activity — and Muslims who are genuinely peaceful, eschew Sharia, and are loyal American citizens should have no problem with that. The question here is one of the appropriateness of the location (as well as of Rauf’s dishonesty). Does the freedom of religion really allow any group to build anything anywhere? As a recent parody had it, would the KKK be allowed to build a “shrine of reconciliation” on the site of the black Baptist church bombed by racists in the early Sixties? Would Michael Bloomberg or Fareed Zakaria really have no problem with that?
Here’s Hugh Fitzgerald:
In an interview he graciously gave after the Muslim terrorist attack in Mumbai, in the course of explaining why Indian Muslims might join Pakistani Muslims in attacking Indian Hindus and foreign non-Muslims, Fareed Zakaria did not mention “because the Qur’an tells them to slay the Unbelievers” and they took that, and the example of Muhammad, to heart; he never mentions, in this interview, or indeed in any of his writings or his television appearances — he’s quite a thrusting careerist, akin to Christine Amanpour, and has parlayed his slight foreignness into a useful element in his appeal to those who do the hiring and promoting — Fareed Zakaria said this:
“Muslim militants have been responsible for much of the violence that has plagued Mumbai in recent years. But these attacks seem to be of a different magnitude.
One of the untold stories of India is that the Muslim population has not shared in the boom the country has enjoyed over the last ten years. There is still a lot of institutional discrimination, and many remain persecuted.”
“The Muslim population has not shared in the boom”? Who owns Infosys? The Muslim population “has not shared in the boom”? How do Muslims do anywhere compared to non-Muslims, as in Malaysia, compared to Hindus and Chinese, or in Indonesia, compared to Chinese, or in Great Britain or France or Itally or Spain or Germany compared to any other non-Muslim immigrant group? Could it be the hatred of bid’a, or inshallah-fatalism, or the discouraging of free and skeptical inquiry in Islam, and the encouragment of an attitude of being an unquestioning “slave of Allah” who follows the rules as to What Is Commanded and What Is Prohibited, and is never to ask the reason, moral or intellectual, why?
No, for Fareed Zakaria, the fact that Muslims apparently — now that they are no longer the overlords -=- in India cannot quite compete with Hindus, expalins the possible participation of Indian Muslims in atrocities against non-Muslims.
But, then, what explains the participation of Pakistani Muslims? Or for that matter of those rich Arabs who run Al Qaeda?
Until and unless the smiling, if the scarily skull-faced Fareed Zakaria, with that smile glued onto his face, starts speaking truthfully and helpfully about Islam, he will be of no value, will not help any of his listeners or readers to understand the very subject about which, no doubt, his naively impressed employers hired him, because of his “special insight” or “special knowledge” or something.
He is a perfectly ordinary thrusting fellow, who has gotten far, but is not particulary impressive on any subject outside of Islam or the subcontinent,and fairly misleading on that subject.
So why is he still there?
Inertia, I suspect. And the inability, once you have spent money at a magazine or network building up a Personality, to admit that the quality is not there, and you should give someone else, or a few someone elses, a chance to show what they can do.