Do we really need to ask whether a publicity-seeking pastor in Florida is smart? Of course he isn’t. He is making a political statement. In the US, political statements are protected by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, so long as they do not incite immediate violence at the place they are made. (And yes, under US law, an action can be a statement, particularly when it’s political. Burning the American flag, for instance, is a protected political statement.)

Everyone under the sun is condemning this pastor’s intended action, excepting those few who agree with him that his incoherent statement needs to be made.

The Washington Post, for example, carries this piece reporting that even Evangelical Christian clerics are trying to get this guy, Terry Jones, to change his mind:

Evangelical leaders try to reach out to the pastor who plans to burn the Koran

Arab News reports that international political and religious leaders, including the Pope, think poorly of the pastor’s plans:

Qur’an-burning plan roundly denounced

The paper further editorializes on A wicked plan. The piece correctly notes that Mr Jones no more represents Christianity than Al-Qaeda represents Islam. The piece errs, though, in thinking that there must be some law to prevent him from going ahead. Other than a local ordinance forbidding open fires without a license—which the local government refuses to give him—there is no law to stop him. That law cannot be used preemptively to stop him, in fact, it can only punish him after the fact. The editorial notes that Mr Jones’ action could lead to the loss of life. Unless it appears that violence will erupt in the place he intends his act, imminently, there is no law to stop him. Immediately incitement of violence is one of the few exception to the right of free speech. Incitement of violence a few thousand miles away does not overcome that barrier.

I read many pieces that seek to make the equation that two wrongs do equal a right. If Muslims can be insulting by seeking to build 51Park, then Jones can be insulting by burning Qurans. That is and always has been nonsense. I say that because I do not think those opposing 51Park have any moral justification, beyond raw emotion, for their views. The do have freedom to express those views, of course. They do not have the freedom to squelch others’ 1st Amendment freedom of religion through the force of law. Equally, no one has the freedom to squelch Jones’ 1st Amendment freedom of speech.

As I had noted earlier, I thought the initial decision to build 51Park (then to be called ‘Cordoba House’) to be a mistake. Instead of quiet, rational argument against it, however, opponents to that plan turned the issue into something beyond just an unwise decision. They turned it into a plebiscite on Islam, actually, a plebiscite that confounded Islamic extremism with all of Islam. That, I believe, is an issue worth the digging in of heels.

Mr Jones is free to dig in his heels over his plan. That does not stop me or others from considering him to be an idiot and a very poor example of Christianity.

While many Saudis appear to believe that a woman’s place is in the home—preferably pregnant with male offspring—others think women actually have a role to play in the business world. Thus, as Gulf News reports, the Saudi Ministry of Labor is continuing its efforts to have women work as cashiers in supermarkets.

I’m mystified by arguments that having women work in this capacity is haram. Women certainly worked in the markets in the time of the Prophet, and ever since. You can go to various market stalls (or blankets) in any of the souks of major cities and find them operated by Bedouin women. Does the fact that this is not haram suggest that the practice is, actually, fine? Or might it be a perception that Bedouin women are somehow less than human, thus exempt from Islamic principles? I’m pleased to see the Ministry of Labor standing up to the troglodytes.

Saudi ministry undeterred by Islamist threats
Saudi Ministry of Labour to continue issuing work permits to women to work as cashiers in shopping centres
Abdul Rahman Shaheen

Riyadh: The Saudi Ministry of Labour has made it clear that it would continue issuing work permits to women to work as cashiers in shopping centres and would not be deterred by Islamist threats to boycott shops that employ women.

The experiment of employing Saudi women as cashiers has been implemented for the first time in leading shopping centres in Jeddah and the Eastern Province,” Deputy Minister of Labour Dr Abdul Wahid Al Humaid said in a statement published on Sunday by Al Riyadh newspaper.

However, the controversial experiment has not been tried in Riyadh and Qassim.

Al Humaid urged the people to cooperate with the efforts of the ministry to find employment for women as this is one of the limited opportunities available for the employment of women.
…

Economist has a brief review of a new book on pop culture in the Islamic world and how much it is influenced by American pop culture. Some, I’m sure, see this as ‘cultural imperialism’. I think rather that its a choice to use a foreign medium to put for new visions of existing culture.

Five Things: The Sheikh’s Batmobile

LIBYANS sing along to Lionel Richie’s “Hello”, Iranians jam to Django Reinhardt, and Indonesian teenagers favour the post-punk stylings of Wire, a British cult band. Who knew? Richard Poplak, for one. Mr Poplak is the author of “The Sheikh’s Batmobile: In Pursuit of American Pop Culture in the Muslim World”, a tour through 17 Muslim countries in search of local interpretations of American culture, from cheesy reality television to Metallica. The chapters are organised by country—Libya, Indonesia, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, etc—with each section prefaced by religious statistics and venerated local pop-culture icons. The result is packed with surprises, five of which More Intelligent Life has chosen to highlight.

The Economist writer highlights the following:

On heavy metal
On video games as propaganda
On vanity
On punk rock in unexpected corners
On Palestinian video games

The Wall St. Journal carries a ‘symposium’ on moderate Islam. A group of six writers on Islam, from an American neocon and an American academic, to a former member of Jamma Islamiya and a Malaysian politician offer their thoughts on the subject. The six are:

•Anwar Ibrahim: The Ball Is in Our Court

•Bernard Lewis: A History of Tolerance

•Ed Husain: Don’t Call Me Moderate, Call Me Normal

•Reuel Marc Gerecht: Putting Up With Infidels Like Me

•Tawfik Hamid: Don’t Gloss Over The Violent Texts

•Akbar Ahmed: Mystics, Modernists and Literalists

Read what they have to say:

A Symposium: What Is Moderate Islam?

Here’s an interesting post from Volokh Conspiracy, taking a serious look at the various arguments being raised against the construction of 51Park, the erstwhile ‘Cordoba Center’.

Three Issues in the Debate over the “Ground Zero Mosque”
Ilya Somin

The ongoing debate over the “Ground Zero Mosque” has generated lots of commentary. But I fear that much of it conflates three separate issues: whether the government should use its power to block the construction of the mosque, whether the construction of any Islamic facility near Ground Zero is objectionable, and whether this particular organization is problematic because of the views of its leader. As I see it, the government should not suppress the mosque, and I see nothing wrong with building an Islamic facility near Ground Zero. But objections based on the dubious record of Cordoba Project leader Feisal Abdul Rauf are not so easily dismissed. There are many weak, foolish, and even bigoted anti-mosque arguments out there. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t any good ones.
…

Somin identifies and discusses three principle arguments:

I. The Role of Government.
II. Objections to the Presence of any Islamic Center.
III. Objections to this Particular Center.

I find his discussion to be generally apt, though I’m not quite sold on his parsings of statements by Imam Rauf. Refreshingly, comments to the post are not (yet) infected by the crazies. Others, for instance, do push back on his interpretation of Rauf’s intentions and speech. Definitely worth reading, comments too.

Asharq Alawsat runs a couple of pieces today that look at the 51Park cultural center and its main promoter, Imam Feisal Abul Rauf.

The first is an op-ed by Adel Al Toraifi, current Editor-in-Chief of Al-Majalla magazine. He takes a look at the dispute over the center through the eyes of Alexis de Tocqueville, the 19th C. French diplomat who wrote an important work analyzing American culture and society. Al Toraifi correctly notes that the US Constitution, through its Bill of Rights, seeks to put limits on ‘the tyranny of the majority’, i.e. mob rule, in order to protect the rights of minorities and individuals. He also notes that in times of tension—today’s economic crises fit the bill—Americans have strayed from the ideals put forth in the Constitution. They do, he concludes, come back from the extremes.

I do disagree with him, however, about whether the US is ‘suffering from a case of Islamophobia.’ The disease may not have reached every corner of the body politic, but the infection does exist and it is purulent. As I pointed out in an earlier post, it is not just the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ that is being questioned.

Tocqueville…and the Ground Zero Mosque Crisis
Adel Al Toraifi

In his historically important book “Democracy in America” (1838) Alexis de Tocqueville writes that “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.” This description put forward by the French diplomat brings to mind the escalation in the dispute in the US over the issue of building an Islamic community center and mosque close to the site where the World Trade Center collapsed in New York. In just a few weeks, the mosque issue has become a major public opinion issue in which everybody has had their say – including the US President – whether in favor of or against. However the issue has taken a negative turn both inside and outside of America due to the approach of the US mid-term elections, with the issue now being portrayed as a debate over America’s position towards Islam. This issue would not have reached this level of controversy if this project was scheduled to be built on any other street in New York or in any other US city; so is the US truly suffering from a case of Islamophobia?
…

Asharq Alawsat also runs an article from the Associated Press that gives an overview of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The article notes the controversy over him, over the questions of how 51Park will be funded, and arguments made, in good faith or bad, about him.

Imam Behind NYC Mosque Faces Divisions Over Center

I’m not a big fan of Lex Talionis, an-eye-for-an-eye, and thus would not make a very good Saudi. The Saudi legal system falls back on that form of retributive justice more than I care for. In the case of the Sri Lankan maid who returned from her job in Riyadh with at least 19 nails embedded in her body, allegedly put there by her Saudi employers, I might make an exception.

Photo: Arab News

Lankan officials seek justice for maid in nails & needles case
MOHAMMED RASOOLDEEN, ARAB NEWS

RIYADH: Sri Lankan officials strongly urged authorities in Saudi Arabia on Friday to investigate and bring to justice the persons responsible for torturing L.T. Ariyawathi, a 49-year-old Sri Lankan housemaid by heating up nails and needles and pushing them into her legs, arms, hands and forehead.

The maid said the Saudi couple she worked for in a Riyadh household committed the crime as a form of punishment. The couple has not been identified and Saudi officials were not available for comment on Friday.

Lankan Justice Ministry sources told Arab News on Friday that legal counsel would be provided to the maid to file a case in Saudi Arabia over the incident.

“The Bureau (of Foreign Employment) will make all arrangements to take her to Saudi Arabia to testify,” said L.K. Ruhunuge of the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment.
…

I do not think this behavior typical of Saudis or Saudi employers of domestic workers: this act is singularly depraved. But the Saudi system for employing foreign domestic workers does not do nearly enough to protect those workers. Other aspects of Saudi society—primarily, privacy within one’s own home, but also a disdain for foreigners, women, and non-Muslims—make the situation worse. With this worker now back in Sri Lanka, conducting a full investigation into the case will be difficult and will rely on the good will of Saudi authorities. I truly do hope they step up. It’s not just the employer(s) who are shamed by this crime, but the whole of Saudi society. It’s seen internationally as ‘just another example of Saudi brutality’.

Several commenters has stated that while the Park51 people have full legal rights to build their center where they propose, it is not wise to do so. Because building it as planned would offend the sensibilities of many, perhaps a majority of Americans, they should forgo exercising their right in order to better achieve harmony.

That was pretty much my thought before the center became a blazing political issue: Yes, the rights exist, but they need not be put into play as many could be expected to object.

As I later said, though, I believe the situation changed with its politization and backing away from building the center would be to say something which the builders do not want to say. It would, in effect, accept the premise that there’s something so noxious with Islam that it desecrates the memory of 9/11. I really don’t see many Muslims willing to say, “Yep, you’re right. Islam is the problem and an Islamic center certainly doesn’t belong here.”

Had the issue remained simply a matter of local politics, then it would have been relatively easy and relatively painless for the builders to simply back out. The issue is no longer local, however, and the problems disclosed by the controversy are not local.

As this article from The Washington Post points out, objections to building Islamic centers or mosques are not limited to geographic areas which attract heightened sensitivities. The article discusses the rhetoric flying around a plan to build a mosque in Murfreeboro, Tennessee. Now certainly, some do hold Murfreesboro ‘sacred’. It was the scene of a brutal battle in the American Civil War, in 1862. But as that battle ha nothing to do with Islam or Muslims, its ‘sanctity’ has nothing to do with the current uproar. Instead, what we see is blatant anti-Islamic bias.

Jump over to Riverside County, CA and we find another exercise in anti-Islamic bigotry. Those protesting the building of a mosque in Temecula are not dissembling, but make very clear that they argue purely on religious and political grounds.

Sheepshead Bay, in Brooklyn, NY is facing similar anti-Islamic demagoguery against the building of a mosque. So, too, are Georgia, and Sheboygan, WI.

Together, I think these protests—while certainly protected by the US 1st Amendment as free speech—are being carried out in such a way as to make it unmistakable that the issue is pure religious prejudice. Religious prejudice, I believe, should be fought always and constantly.

The issue of Park51, though, isn’t just a battle of words and feelings. There are those, still, who seek to use the power of the state to prevent the center’s being built. Eugene Volokh Ilya Somin, at Volokh Conspiracy law blog, points to efforts to use the state power of ‘eminent domain’ to seize the property and put it to a ‘better use’. He notes that this is unlikely to happen because it would be soon apparent that whatever reasons the state gave would be pretextual, merely trying to hide the anti-Muslim bias of those seeking to stop the center. [Attribution for the post at Volokh Conspiracy was mistaken. It's now fixed.]

UPDATE: On the matter of sensitivities, here’s an Associated Press piece of interest: 9/11 families, others rally in favor of NYC mosque

In looking at the issue of Cordoba Center at 51 Park Place in New York, people astutely note that freedom of religion is clashing with freedom of speech. While the group seeking to build the center is assured its religious freedom to do so, critics are equally assured their freedom to criticize their decision to do so. That’s exactly right.

There’s no foul, no oppression, no violation of any freedom when citizens criticize an act, rightly or wrongly. Freedom of Speech practically requires that someone else will be offended. After all, if everyone believed the same things, then such a freedom would not be needed. Offenses to the concept of free speech come only when government acts or is enlisted to act against speech and those who make it.

Freedom of Religion is similar. The right itself and the laws to protect it would not be needed if everyone prayed in the same way to the same god or gods. Again, the right is offended only when government acts or is enlisted to act against or prejudicially in favor of a religion.

No government has acted in any way to violate the rights of the sponsors of Cordoba Center. Instead, government has acted in a way to show no preference of a religion nor animus toward a religion. Nor has government sought to suppress speech against Cordoba Center. There has been no censorship, there has been no favoritism. President Obama correctly and legally supported the rights of the center’s sponsors to build on land for which they held the property rights to build.

President Obama also criticized—obliquely—their decision to build an Islamic center at that particular location. That’s fine. It’s not censorship, it’s not offensive to their religious beliefs. No one is shielded against criticism, only against governmental coercion.

Many Americans believe it was a bad decision to seek to build the Cordoba Center in that particular location, close to 70% of Americans, in fact. Most of the objections seem to me to be wrong-headed, but not malicious. Many seem to believe they have some sort of ownership right to the idea of tragedy of 9/11. Some families of those killed in the attacks on the Twin Towers claim and are granted some sort of moral ownership of the site of their loved ones’ deaths. Some of them are offended by the thought of building an Islamic center near that site. They find it ‘insensitive’ at best. This argument is undercut by the support by some other 9/11 families to have the center built. With both groups holding equal claim to the moral high ground from which to speak, I fail to find any persuasive argument in either direction. Neither side has the higher moral ground.

One side, however, does have a stronger claim to legitimacy, legitimacy based on the logical strength of their argument. The other side’s argument rests on logical fallacy as well as a great deal of incoherent feelings, not based on fact but instead on innuendo and often conspiratorial thinking.

As I said earlier, criticizing the group wanting to build the Cordoba Center at that site is constitutionally protected. What is not protected, what offends the Constitution, is the effort of find some way to force government to stop the center’s construction.

The logical flaws in the arguments against the center are several: Ad Hominem, Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Fear, Appeal to Spite, Compostion, the Genetic Fallacy, Poisoning the Well, Personal Attack, the Slippery Slope, and perhaps most pernicious, the Two Wrongs Make a Right argument. Most of the arguments against the center do not confine themselves to just one logical error, they combine many of them. I’ve get to come across a situation where compounded errors result in a correct response.

As I’ve said, I don’t think most people making fallacious arguments are doing it out of spite or in bad faith. I believe they are just not thinking clearly and are letting their emotions rule. There’s certainly a role for emotions in life, but the formulation of public policy is not one of them.

I keep hearing that “Moderate Muslims aren’t speaking out against extremists”. Many take a further, utterly illogical step to conclude, “That must mean the moderates support extremism.”

Just to help those whose ability to use an Internet search engine is hampered, here’re a few places to look and listen:

American Muslims Make Video to Rebut Militants
Laurie Goodstein, NY Times

A recent spate of arrests of Muslims accused of terrorism in the United States has revealed that many of them were radicalized by militant preaching they found on the Internet.

Now nine influential American Muslim scholars have come together in a YouTube video to repudiate the militants’ message. The nine represent a diversity of theological schools within Islam, and several of them have large followings among American Muslim youths.
…

If that’s too American-Muslim-centric, then take a look at this page of linked quotes, via Mujahiba blog.