≡ Menu

Rick Warren to Speak to Muslim Convention After Calling for Ahmadinejad Assassination

Seems to me that Rick Warren, one of the most popular Christian evangelical pastors in the nation, has some splainin’ to do to the Muslim bruthas when he Council national convention in two weeks.  You see, Brother Rick engaged in a surreal interview with Brother Sean on FOX News last week in which he called for the murder of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president.  Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to go over too well with the Convention guests.  I’d really like to see the video of this session especially the Q&A!  Somebody who attends, please send it to me.


Here’s Rick’s FOX commentary:

Hannity: Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, wants to wipe Israel off the map, is seeking nuclear weapons…I think we need to take him out.

WARREN: Yes.

HANNITY: Am I advocating something dark, evil, or something righteous?

WARREN: Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. And I believe…

HANNITY: By force?

WARREN: Well, if necessary. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers

Maybe, Rick can claim that Sean drugged him before the interview and that he was undergoing some kind of Manchurian Candidate brainwashing experience that turned him into a Muslim-bashing automaton.  I’m sure he’ll some sort of cute explanation to get himself off the hook, IF he has the guts to show up.

I note that Juan Cole will be the other keynote speaker.  I don’t think Juan’s going to be so understanding of Rev. Rick in HIS remarks.  Juan, don’t let Rick off the hook.  Skewer him.

Bufferfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail
youtube

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Salaam December 8, 2008, 4:22 PM

    Linked and excerpted at http://www.progressiveislam.info. Thanks Richard.

  • Robin December 8, 2008, 5:14 PM

    From the Christian reponse to “A Common Word Between Us and You” (An outreach letter written by Muslim leaders to the Christian community seeking mutual understanding and peace, October 2007)

    (these two paragraphs are posted in reverse sequence to make a point):

    We applaud that A Common Word Between Us and You stresses so insistently the unique devotion to one God, indeed the love of God, as the primary duty of every believer. God alone rightly commands our ultimate allegiance. When anyone or anything besides God commands our ultimate allegiance – a ruler, a nation, economic progress, or anything else – we end up serving idols and inevitably get mired in deep and deadly conflicts.

    Muslims and Christians have not always shaken hands in friendship; their relations have sometimes been tense, even characterized by outright hostility. Since Jesus Christ says, “First take the log out your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye” (Matthew 7:5), we want to begin by acknowledging that in the past (e.g. in the Crusades) and in the present (e.g. in excesses of the “war on terror”) many Christians have been guilty of sinning against our Muslim neighbors. Before we “shake your hand” in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world.

    Signed,
    Rick Warren (amongst dozens of other Christian leaders)

    Thank goodness he has several days to seek that same forgiveness prior to his speaking appearance at the MPAC convention.

    Physician, heal thyself

    For the full Christian response

    http://www.yale.edu/faith/acw/acw.htm

  • POTL December 10, 2008, 7:53 AM

    Is Ahmadinejad somehow representative of Muslims in general? If not, this entire post is misguided. If so, the world has even bigger problems than we thought.

    For a little perspective, it might be interesting to know what the VERY Muslim leaders of Saudi Arabia might think of this proposition.

  • Richard Silverstein December 10, 2008, 2:13 PM

    @POTL: Ahmadinejad is a Muslim. Are you saying that Muslims who disagree with his views wouldn’t mind Rick Warren saying he should be assassinated?

  • Ariel December 10, 2008, 11:45 PM

    B”H
    # On December 10th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
    Richard Silverstein said:

    @POTL: Ahmadinejad is a Muslim. Are you saying that Muslims who disagree with his views wouldn’t mind Rick Warren saying he should be assassinated?

    correct me if i am wrong however it doesn’t follow from Rick Warren’s words that you quote in the post above that he hates all Muslims or that he wanted Ahmadinajad asasinated
    because he is a Muslim rather because Ahmadinajad is seeking nuclear weapons and wants to wipe Israel off the map.
    PS. do you think that the following article:
    Dealing with Iran: A Biblical Approach

    By Rabbi Levi Brackman http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/387785/jewish/Dealing-with-Iran-A-Biblical-Approach.htm
    is “antimuslim”?
    do you see any contradiction in trying to prove that terrorists who murdered rabbi Gavrel and Rivka Holzberg and their guests just few days ago were not really antisemitic only pro Palestinian while describing the remarks by pastor Warren about Ahmadinjad as anti-Muslim?

  • Richard Silverstein December 11, 2008, 11:19 AM

    @Ariel: Only non-Muslims (& presumptuous ones at that) like you & Rick Warren would be naive enough to believe that if you call for the assassination of a Muslim leader that fellow Muslims wouldn’t have a problem w. that merely because you tell them it doesn’t mean you hate ALL Muslims.

    I didn’t try to prove anything. I merely reported actual statements made by actual people. Now, if you can find statements from real Muslims or from the MPAC that say they don’t have a problem with what Warren said, I’d be happy to report that Muslims don’t feel the way I assume they would about this.

  • Ariel December 11, 2008, 4:47 PM

    B”H

    All i am saying is that “a Muslim-bashing automaton” is not a fair description of Rick Warren simply based on his call to asssinate some midele Eastern extremist politician who is threatening a WW3 and happens to be Muslim.
    Your charges would make sense if he would for example accuse all Muslims in contributing to global Jihad and demand to place all the Muslims in this country in the interment camps similar to Japanese during the World War 2
    It reminds me about people being branded racist for being against Obama because they felt he is a socialist , has anti Israel advisors or some other purely political reason.
    It is not a good ethical journalism , but smear tactics.
    PS. Also perhaps MPAC looks at inviting Rick Warren same way the Rebbe looked at inviting Jessie Helms to a Chabad event as described here:
    http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:cpFMcqct1RQJ:www.chabadflamingo.com/templates/articlecco_cdo/aid/331195/jewish/Address-by-Professor-Alan-Dershowitz.htm+dershowitz+rebbe%27s+letter+Jesse+Helms&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
    or more fully in the rebbe’s actual letter to Dershewitz on the subject.

  • Richard Silverstein December 11, 2008, 8:16 PM

    @Ariel:

    some midele Eastern extremist politician who is threatening a WW3 and happens to be Muslim.

    If you changed the word “Muslim” to “Jew” you could be talking about Ehud Olmert or any number of Israelis pols who’ve threatened Israel with nuclear attack. BTW, the claim that Ahmadinejad has threatened Israel with WW3 or even with attack is a lie. Prove yr claim if you can. And saying that Israel will disappear does not constitute a threat of WW3.

    As for placing Muslims in internment camps, you must be referring to Daniel Pipes who has views close to, but not quite that extreme.

  • Yoni December 11, 2008, 8:36 PM

    Richard, Israel only threatens Iran in response to Iran threatening Israel. The two are not the same. Iran’s leaders are gripped by a messianic eschatological ideology, believing they must ignite world nuclear war to initiate the Shiite redemption. Israel wants nothing to do with Iran, and only wants peace with the Muslim world. It is that massive world that doesn’t want peace with Israel.
    Also, although Iran has called for Israel to be erased from the pages of time and other such things, and not explicitly for it to be destroyed, this is a non-issue since these slogans are draped over missiles in military parades, so Iran clearly means destruction in any case.
    Lastly, how do you reconcile your urge to defend Iran in this case, and your anger at Rick Warren for his remarks? What about “assassinating” 6 million Jews? How can you be angry with Warren while essentially defending or even rationalizing Iranian genocidal imperialism?

  • Ariel December 12, 2008, 12:20 AM

    B”H
    1) If a person wants USA to assassinate Olmert for whatever grievances and threats to the world a real or imagined (but widely reported in the media to the point that even if they are not true much confusion exists about it and one can believe this person honestly believes them) he can’t be described as ““a Jewish-bashing automaton”
    Olmert doesn’t represent entire Jewish people (even his approval rating among Israelis is like 1.5% in a recent poll:-) and likewise the president of Iran or Asad or Khadafi etc. don’t represent entire Muslim ummah.
    (I know Muslims from Iran who feel Ahmadinajad is putting their country in danger and wouldn’t mind him replaced , killed or overthrown.)

    2) “BTW, the claim that Ahmadinejad has threatened Israel with WW3 or even with attack is a lie. Prove yr claim if you can.

    He made a number of contradictory statements on this subject over time
    .
    Associated Press is not sure it is a lie:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q&feature=related
    3)

    “And saying that Israel will disappear does not constitute a threat of WW3.


    If a bum panhandling on the streets of Teheran or New York says that it is not a threat but a president of a large Muslim nation that is reportedly building atomic weapons says it it is legitimate to see it as a threat.

    4) “As for placing Muslims in internment camps, you must be referring to Daniel Pipes who has views close to, but not quite that extreme.”

    I made a hypothetical statement giving an example of a type of person more fitting the description you gave Rick Warren.
    I don’t know if Daniel Pipes made such statements or anything close to that.

    5) I don’t know how you can support Israelis talking with people who have committed actual acts of terrorism in the past while at the same time complaining about Muslims letting Rick Warren (seemingly a mostly positive character http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Warren ) to speak at their convention.

  • Richard Silverstein December 12, 2008, 1:51 AM

    @Ariel:

    If a person wants USA to assassinate Olmert

    If an American advocated the U.S. “taking out” Ehud Olmert, not only would he be a stark raving lunatic, but the FBI would be on his doorstep within minutes. That apparently hasn’t happened to Pastor Rick or Sean Hannity. Maybe it should.

  • Ariel December 12, 2008, 8:16 AM

    B”H
    Richard Silverstein said:

    @Ariel:

    If a person wants USA to assassinate Olmert

    If an American advocated the U.S. “taking out” Ehud Olmert, not only would he be a stark raving lunatic, but the FBI would be on his doorstep within minutes. That apparently hasn’t happened to Pastor Rick or Sean Hannity. Maybe it should.

    I doubt it Samantha Powers a former advisor of Barak Obama has advocated US invading Israel in a TV interview:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw3m-kHYfHc

    and she was not arrested or questioned or the like.

  • Robin December 12, 2008, 1:20 PM

    Oh for goodness sakes Ariel, did you even listen to what she had to say? As in her reference to “Shar-Afat” (obviously a combination of Sharon/Arafat) and that she said BOTH sides have been tremendously irresponisible? Please please point to the phrase she uses that suggests taking out Olmert. You can’t can you? She is on the same page as General Jones.

    I think some things may be missing in this dialog. Up above POTL asks what the VERY Muslim country of KSA would think of taking out Ahmedinijad. While there is certainly no love loss between KSA and Iran (not ONLY the Sunni/Shia divide, but the fact that Iran’s revolution, while it took out the corrupt Shah led to much destabilization of the larger Sunni population by spreading like wildfire Islamic fundamentalism-not exactly something the Al-Sauds welcomed) the last thing on earth KSA wants in the GEOGRAPHICAL Muslim/Missle East world is more unrest. Who is going to assassinate him? Israel? The US? Sean Hannity himself? Maybe the all too “Christian” Rick Warren himself could volunteer. KSA happens to LIKE their relationship with the US and would be put in quite a bind if this were to occur. They couldn’t possibly continue on in some la-di-dah fashion with their close American ties without MAJOR unrest occurring within their own population. Think RIPPLE AFFECT here.

    Lest we forget the CIA’s roll in overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadeq. That wasn’t just a question of one leader, it was a case of overthrowing him and replacing him with the American friendly CORRUPT Shah. There would never have BEEN an Iranian revolution if it weren’t for this, if the people of Iran had been allowed to maintain their OWN sovereignty without foreign intervention. The Iranian fundamentalist revolution was in DIRECT response to this.

    Don’t even bother counting all the other CIA interventions in the Middle East.

    How do you think Hezzballah would react to an assassination of Ahmedinijad?

    Rick Warren and Sean Hannity are IDIOTS. Let’s pray to God that saner minds hold sway and that no more such actions even cross anyone’s minds.

  • Richard Silverstein December 12, 2008, 10:09 PM

    @Ariel:

    Samantha Powers a former advisor of Barak Obama has advocated US invading Israel in a TV interview

    What a lame characterization of her actual position. She said something that has been advocated by many serious Mideast analysts, American Jews as well as Israelis. That the U.S. may need to contribute to an international security force which would separate the Israeli and Palestinian sides to guarantee a future peace agreement. Such military forces exist in Kosovo, Lebanon & all over the world where there has been intractable conflict.

    So much for accuracy.

  • Richard Silverstein December 13, 2008, 2:23 AM

    @Yoni: We’ve been over this ground before. Could you at least keep better track of where you post this drivel so you don’t repeat yrself. Iran has not threatened Israel, but Israel HAS threatened Iran. As for “messianic eschatological ideology,” I’m impressed you know multisyllabic phrases, but you once again make declarative statements w/o providing any proof. Iran has NEVER threatened nuclear war against Israel. Nor has it said it wished to “assassinate” 6 million Jews.

    Two main warnings: don’t repeat past threads in which you’ve made the same arguments & don’t offer yr own opinion unsupported on issues as important as these. If you do in future, I won’t approve the comment for publication.

  • Yoni December 13, 2008, 2:29 PM

    How can you say Iran has not threatened Israel? Here is a link to a report at jcpa.org, with photos of banners in English calling for Israel to be “wiped out of the world”:

    http://www.jcpa.org/text/ahmadinejad2-words.pdf

    It is part of a larger study which freely admits that Iran never called for Israel to be “destroyed” but shows that this is irrelevant, since the other statements were clearly meant in that sense anyway. Since I know you probably won’t read it, here is a direct link to a photo which appears in the study through google images of a Shihab-3 missile with the words “Israel will be wiped off the pages of time” written on it:

    http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html/final/eng/bu/iran/imgc/shihab.jpg

    I have confirmed that the first word reads “Esrail” through the PersianWiki.

    But my main problem with your perspective on all this is how can you make such a big deal out of Warren, and now Kulak, who are just laypeople, while downplaying a MISSILE??? This is an actual MISSILE with words calling for Israel’s annihilation on it, not to mention many other statements by leading figures in the government. How can you maximize the former and downplay the latter? It makes no sense. Iran’s views are indeed the equivalent of assassinating 6 million Jews, and they have the power to do it (or will soon)! According to your own logic, you should be making dozens of posts about Iran’s statements, but you actually downplay them or even deny them!!

  • Richard Silverstein December 13, 2008, 2:41 PM

    @Yoni: I don’t find Dore Gold & his anti-Iran propaganda outfit (JCPA) to be a credible source for anything. For every statement you can find by pro-Israel/anti-Iranian partisans claiming Iran wants to kill 6 million Jews or whatever claptrap you wish to claim I can find 10 claiming otherwise. So where does that get you?

    Rick Warren is one of the most popular Christian clergymen in the entire U.S. His audience is in the millions, if not 10s of millions.

    Iran currently does not even have the technical ability to reach Israel with a missile, let alone destroy it & they will not get this power soon as you claim. Israeli military analysts far wiser, more experienced & sophisticated than you such as Martin van Creveld say yr claim that Iran will, or even wishes to destroy Israel is nonsense.

    BTW, were you up in arms when Israeli schoolchildren wrote “love messages” on Israeli missiles about to be launched into Lebanese villages during the last war? Did that bother you as much as Iran’s messages do? I didn’t think so.

  • Yoni December 13, 2008, 6:34 PM

    Richard,

    The report shows pictures of signs in ENGLISH calling for Israel to be “wiped out of the world”. You don’t need to be an expert to understand that. The image to which I provided a direct link shows a Shihab-3 missile with “Israel will be wiped from the pages of time” written on it. You can confirm that the first word is “Esrail” by looking up the Persian alphabet. Again you don’t need to be an expert. Whether or not Iran has the capability at this time to attack Israel, the fact is that there is a MISSILE with these words written on it, as well as signs written in English and many other statements such as that Israel is a “microbe” which no one disputes. Even with the most minimalist approach toward Iranian capabilities and intentions, it is still far more significant than anything Warren or Kulak says.

    Regarding the children writing “love messages”, if you looked at the photos, and can read Hebrew, you can clearly see that the messages were directed toward “Hezbollah” and “Nasrallah”, not the Lebanese people as a whole, unlike Hamas and Hezbollah rockets which are inscribed with messages directed against Israeli civilians. The claim that the Israeli children were writing messages toward Lebanese Arabs as a whole is a myth circulated by the media, with its source in journalists who could not read Hebrew and assumed the worst when they saw the photographs.

  • Richard Silverstein December 14, 2008, 12:59 AM

    @Yoni: Once again, for every reference you can find to Iranians making threatening statements toward Israel I can find many more of Israelis threatening Iran. So what does this prove? It is simply ridiculous for you to claim that Israelis only make such statements because Iranians made them first. Belligerence bet. nations is never a one way street. It takes two to tango & believe me Israeli knows all the dance steps.

    You’re simply temporizing in describing the Israeli children’s messages as directed at Nasrallah. Those missiles were going to be launched into Lebanese villages filled with Lebanese civilians many of whom were killed & maimed by them. To exploit children in such a situation by allowing them to be used in propaganda photographs is repulsive. If Hezbollah did the same thing I would denounce it as well.

    You are ever the apologist & not a very convincing one at that.

  • Yoni December 14, 2008, 2:13 PM

    “It is simply ridiculous for you to claim that Israelis only make such statements because Iranians made them first. Belligerence bet. nations is never a one way street. It takes two to tango & believe me Israeli knows all the dance steps.”

    So according to you if you lived in the thirties and forties you would say that Jews hate Nazis and Nazis hate Jews, there are extremists on both sides, and they should all calm down for talks and negotiations? Or does your logic not extend that far? What the heck does Israel have to do with Iran? Israel wants nothing to do with Iran, and doesn’t want to destroy Iran anymore that it wants to destroy Swaziland or Paraguay. It is Iran that is gripped by Shiite extremism, and which sees Israel as an illegitimate state according to Sharia law, same as how Neturei Karta oppose Israel’s existence. It is in reaction to Iran’s theologically driven threats, and support for Hizbullah and Hamas, that Israelis fear Iran. No amount of your forced pseudo-intellectual relativism can change that fact.

  • Richard Silverstein December 14, 2008, 10:09 PM

    @Yoni: Are you saying Iranians are Nazis & Israelis Jews? Sorry, I don’t accept the premise or the analogy.

    Iran & Israel are involved in a fight to the death & both see the other as a threat to their existence. To claim Israel has no interest in Iran is not credible. Of course, Iran is funding & supplying Israel’s enemies because it sees Israel as a major anti-Musim irritant in the Middle East. Were the I-P conflict ever to be solved, this hostility would significantly decrease.

  • POTL December 15, 2008, 11:24 AM

    @Richard Silverstein

    Sorry for the late reply. To answer your question, consider the final sentence of my previous post:

    “”For a little perspective, it might be interesting to know what the VERY Muslim leaders of Saudi Arabia might think of this proposition.”

    More specifically, it is impossible to know what Muslims in general, or certainly all Muslims, would think of Warren’s comments. However, I can assure you, that there are MANY Muslims that would endorse Warren’s comments.

    Regardless of that even, Warren’s comments still do not imply that he was being disrespectful of Muslims in general. Unless you are implying that all Muslims would feel the same way about his comments, which I would disagree with.

  • Richard Silverstein December 15, 2008, 5:56 PM

    @POTL:

    I can assure you, that there are MANY Muslims that would endorse Warren’s comments.

    THis is a lie & a rather stupid one at that. I dare you to provide support for this idea fr. any serious reputable Muslim figure who would endorse the assassination of either Ahmadinejad or Muslim leaders in general. Go on & find some evidence. And I’m not talking about Nonie Darwish or Walid Shoebat.

  • randy December 21, 2008, 4:59 AM

    Wha’ts wrong with Warren’s comments? Isn’t the Islamic agenda to rid the world of Israel and the USA? Correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t 9/11 Islam motivated? And isn’t Islam a form of government that intends to overtake the world?

  • TheLazyGun December 21, 2008, 8:59 AM

    Wow. Thread is actually quite amazing in a couple of ways, but denial on both sides is amazing.

    Let’s go back to 2005 ~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/27/israel.iran

    I’m pretty sure wiped off that map means elimination of Israel as a country. Would it have suited you better if Sean had asked Rick: “So you think Ahmadinejad should disappear?” Then it wouldn’t be an assassination, he’d just be saying he shouldn’t be there..Right? At least that is Richard’s mind set regarding Israel and the disappearing doesn’t constitute violence. That is a pure legalistic view instead of observing the intent of the comment.

    Now do some Israeli’s feel aggressive towards Muslim nations? Yes. Do some Muslims feel aggressive towards Israel? Yes. Okay that topic is closed. Regardless of WHY.

    I don’t agree with Islam. I try to be a Christian, and have my flaws as all of us do as HUMANS. But I will not Attack a person, or condone attacks merely because a person or country is Muslim.

    I believe Rick was being asked about a certain situation, and a particular person. I believe he answered honestly what he felt instead of side stepping. He wasn’t asked about a Religion or group of people affiliated with one belief, but a single person who has a well known documented view. A view I doubt everyone in Iran supports.

    TheLazyGun.

  • Richard Silverstein December 21, 2008, 4:31 PM

    @randy: You’re wrong on almost every count. There is a difference bet. “Islamic” and “Islamist” which you’ve missed. There is no “Islamic” agenda to rid the world of anyone including any nation. And Islam isn’t a form of government except in the few places in the world which observe sharia law.