Muslims are judged and misjudged over and over by such as Hannity and Pipes etc etc-it is really hurtful and exhausting- there are many more informed people and actual scholars that do not make the airwaves– I wonder why?– Non-Muslims are often more informed thans Muslims about Muslim sociology and range of tradition.

But anyway the question of Israel/Palestine may or may not be as central to an intelligent, diplomatic Indonesian Imam as to a Palestinian imam. Regarding his statement, “Territorial integrity” means alot of things. I wonder: What significance does the statement of one imam have anyway? He is trying to open doors of dialogue, not negotiating a deal. Given all he is doing for Muslims, in the community, I do not think it fair to call him a sell out. It would easy enough to ask him what his strategy might be.

I feel like your argument style is inconsistent and bases itself in assumptions that aren’t necessarily always (if ever) true.

There can be a tremendous difference between being a non-Mormon and an anti-Mormon. In the same way, I don’t automatically equate being a non-Muslim westerner with being anti-Muslim. Nor do I think having ‘a major agenda’ should necessarily preclude you from drawing conclusions about certain things or sharing those conclusions with others.

What I’m trying to say, is that from what I’m reading, in your argument process, you are making huge jumps from a previously mentioned category to new categories that aren’t inherently related and are potentially quite different.

Nor do I equate a person’s ‘non’ status or even ‘anti’ status with ignorance or with a lack of “right to judge.” It might make sense in the course of argument to recognize one’s status or self-definition – but I can’t see why you should have to be a Muslim to draw a conclusion about Muslims.

Look, if I sounded contemptuous, I’m sorry about that. I haven’t been ignoring you – but I might be guilty of reading your points and dismissing some of them out of hand. It’s not that I’m ignoring you. It’s that I disagree with you enough that I can tell we would argue and I don’t enjoy argument just for the sake of arguing – as some do. I’m also not wild about entering a discussion with someone who easily tosses out a phrase such as “Israeli apartheid.” It’s not that I’m unsympathetic to the Palestinian plight – but I think Israel has the right to exist and to protect itself.

So then I take it you think anti-Mormons and non-Mormons with little knowledge and major agendas should have a say in defining LDS doctrine?

“I sense that in general our views and takes on things are going to be very different. So I don’t see the point of really arguing with some of the differences I have with your post and thoughts.”

Ignore me, I’m not really all that important, but face the concepts. If not in a post or blog comment, in your own mind at least. In this case, it is quite clear that one local religious community blackballed another one and refused to partake in inter-faith community building because of a far-distant issue that didn’t affect local community life. Only when that weaker community got a local leader imposed on it from outside who caved on that foreign issue did the stronger community agree to cooperate on local issues. New York is the poorer for it.

BTW, liked the pictures from the Met.

I wouldn’t try to argue with you that Mr. Ali’s views are ‘unrepresentative’ of the vast majority of Muslims. However, even you might recognize that this might be a reason why his views are refreshing to some – particularly to Jewish people and Israelis.

I sense that in general our views and takes on things are going to be very different. So I don’t see the point of really arguing with some of the differences I have with your post and thoughts.

Why wouldn’t non-Muslim westerners have this right? Personally, It’s much more ridiculous to think that non-Muslim westerners should be excluded from having an opinion about any aspect of any religion.

Oh, and if there’s one statement in there that shows Mr. Ali is in fact totally unrepresentative of the vast majority of Muslims (and of anyone interested in true justice for Arabs and Jews in the Middle East) it is this comment from Rabbi Schneier:

“It was impressive when he spoke to the congregation about Israel’s territorial integrity”

It’s great that he’s doing all sort of inter-denominational work at the local level, kudos for that. But it’s clear he’s only being allowed to do that because he’ll sell his soul and commit to supporting Israeli Apartheid. Note what the reaction was to the prior Imam Abu Namous – even though he tried similar outreach, the Rabbis insisted on making support for Israeli Apartheid a litmus test. When Abu Namous rejected Apartheid, they refused to cooperate on local (i.e., totally unrelated to foreign affairs) issues with him. Perhaps because Abu Namous as a Palestinian knows that Israel ethnically cleansed almost a million of his fellow countrymen and continues to do so at a slower pace along with killing, starvation, siege, land-theft, institutionalized laws privileging one race over another, etc.

What it comes down to is one set of religious leaders blackmailing another religious community based on an ideological bugbear. Not unlike how lobbies in Congress (the Israeli lobby being one, but certainly many others with their single issues be it farm subsidies, health care companies, defense contractors, etc.) can blackmail over a single issue.

The smart thing to do would be to say: “ok, we disagree on this issue halfway around the world, that’s ok. But we agree on the need for local cooperation and tolerance, so let’s do it here in our community.” Instead, we have Schneier and his ilk saying “your opinion on this issue that doesn’t directly affect our local community is unacceptable, cave in to us or you’re out in the cold as far as we’re concerned.” It worked apparently, they got the Palestinian kicked out (something Palestinians are all too used to, they have become a wandering people frequently abused and expelled from wherever their latest country of refuge is, ironically so similar to much of Jewish history), no doubt with the Kuwaitis and other financiers of the mosque hoping to curry favor with US politicians.