► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf’

I travelled to 51 Park Place yesterday

by Delectable ( 340 Comments › )
Filed under Islam, Religion at September 1st, 2010 - 2:00 pm

This column will come as a shock to some, but it must be written. It comes after a great deal of thought and soul searching, and after I wrote this article.

I travelled to 51 Park Place with my dad yesterday (we were in the neighborhood anyway). I saw firsthand that this location is not within eye distance of Ground Zero. There will be a large building blocking the view of this location and Ground Zero, and it will certainly not tower over Ground Zero and/or the Freedom Tower. This is close to Ground Zero, but not next door. The TV remembrance ceremony would not ever pan to the Cordoba Institute. I honestly believe this “Ground Zero mosque” is not even symbolically awful. It simply is a mosque in the neighborhood of Ground Zero.
 
I happen to believe the imam in particular is a fake-o moderate who wishes for a one-state solution vis-a-vis Israel and supports the Iranian regime. He claims to be a “bridge builder,” so he has a special responsibility to prove this by being transparent and clear in his denouncement of jihad as well as his financing, which he has not done. I thus support protests of Imam Rauf and his group. But I do not support blocking the Islamic center and mosque itself. Consider: (a) the reality that the location is not in fact within eye view of Ground Zero; (b) there is no pending allegation that this imam and/or the Cordoba Institute has broken any laws. After giving this serious thought, I don’t see why there is any cogent argument to be made to block this mosque. As I just said, I oppose this imam and support protests against the imam. But there is no “there there” that can or should be used to block Park51/Cordoba Institute from building at this site.
 
To put it in clearer perspective: if the American Nazi party were to want to be at that location and lawfully purchased the land, I say we would have to let them be there. (note that Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie, Illinois)
 
I don’t think there is any argument to be made for banning Park51/Cordoba Institute/”Ground Zero Mosque” that could withstand first amendment scrutiny. I also don’t understand the sensitivity argument. Firstly, Imam Rauf and his group can be the most insensitive bastards they want to be, in accordance with the law. Secondly, since the proposed building is not within eye view of Ground Zero, what is there to be sensitive about? Thirdly, if Imam Rauf is so bad, why is it better to have this mosque located uptown or in Brooklyn?
 
When people think about it, they realize that it really is no better to have a mosque in Times Square (as an example), and that is why we are starting to see people from all walks of life writing that they want all mosques banned. So the argument that it is only this “insensitive location” that is the problem is simply disingenuous. However, I ask: do we really want the government to have the ability to ban a religious institution? Do you trust the government to have that sort of power and not abuse it? I realize many of the protestors are simply expressing their distaste of Imam Rauf and his group (as a lobbying tool, rather than through governmental action), and are misinformed about the exact location of this proposed community center/mosque, believing it to be closer to Ground Zero than it is. But some of the protestors have started to literally say all mosques should be banned, and some politicians are starting to hitch their wagon to such extremists. This is a problem for all of us.
 
I believe Islam is a religion with a mainstream that often promotes inequality and violence, as well as antisemitism and supremacism. I would like that to change, but that is what appears to be the case today, with “mainstream leaders” that excuse away wife beating and Hamas. (see: Tariq Ramadan) However, as I said before, my analysis of Islam is unchanged even if I believed Islam were the equivalent of Nazism itself. I am also aware of the fact that Nazism at first spread by speech. And that is a pitfall of the first amendment and a risk we have to take. But if we start to say “no new mosques,” (or even that a certain radius around Ground Zero should be free of mosques) then we’ll start to see a primrose path of the government being in a position to ban all sorts of other speech. See, as an example, the Netherlands, where, for good-hearted reasons, there are hate speech laws. These very laws are being used to punish Geert Wilders, and possibly send him to jail. In Canada, Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn had to face bogus “hate speech” prosecutions. In France, while the hijab is banned in schools, so are kippahs and crosses. It is these sorts of situations that I would like to avoid.

And just to clarify – when there are allegations of laws being broken (such as the Muslim American Society, where there are allegations (and video evidence) that they have literally funded Hamas), then my analysis changes. The law provides the US government a tool to block/freeze the property of terrorist groups, if it is proven that they are in fact a terror front group.  See this  and see this. In contrast to the Muslim American Society, there is no such claim that the “Cordoba Institute” have violated these laws.
 
And with this all said – the first amendment does not require that the New York Times (as an example) publish Hamas propaganda. And on Sunday, Ali Abunimah (Electronic Intifada) published a load of human excrement in the NY Times, where he openly advocated the Hamas position. His whole column was rife with double standards, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies. The NY Times has no legal obligation to publish pro-jihad columns, and I believe that our efforts are much better spent opposing the NY Times, Washington Post(et al) for allowing their newspapers to advocate on behalf of jihad, than it is going after symbolic and ultimately less important issues, such as the Ground Zero Mosque, which would be a pyrrhic victory anyway, if won, as it could make all of us less free.

We are a nation of laws, not of men. Once we start to make exceptions to our laws for unpopular groups, we start to descend into anarchy.

I don’t like Imam Rauf and his group. In fact, a part of me believes he is as great a threat as Bin Laden, as he legitimizes Islamic radicalism. (see his support for the Iranian regime and belief in a one-state solution vis-a-vis Israel, as but examples of this) But as S. G. Tallentyre said, “Though I disagree with everything you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The Ground Zero Mosque Must be Stopped

by Delectable ( 244 Comments › )
Filed under Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance at May 10th, 2010 - 3:09 pm

Ground Zero 

Below is a column I received from Madeline Brooks, Chapter head of ACT Manhattan, which explains why the upcoming mega-mosque, planned two blocks by Ground Zero in NYC, must be stopped. I received permission to reprint this in full, and then I have a few comments I would like to add to the end.

The Ground Zero Mosque Must Be Stopped!

By Madeline Brooks

Planting a mosque just two blocks from where Muslims murdered Americans on 9/11 is a huge slap in the face.   Why shouldn’t Muslims be sensitive enough to realize that a huge mosque planted right near the horrific wound to US created at Ground Zero by Muslims is outrageous to us?  They claim a right to be insulted by cartoons mocking their prophet, even to the point of beheading people.

The Imam of the Ground Zero Insult, Faisal Abdul Rauf, is not the nice guy he likes to hold himself out to be.  At his Friday afternoon khutbah services and in his book, “What’s Right With Islam,” Rauf states that he wants the mosque to be a place where inter-faith understanding is fostered.   His sonorous voice is smooth and almost hypnotic.  His writing style appears to be rational and unthreatening.

However, this does not jibe with aspects of him that are downright hostile and frightening.

During a recent Friday sermon, this writer did due diligence as a mosque monitor and heard Rauf deny that Muslims perpetrated 9/11.  In an interview with CNN shortly after 9/11, Rauf said, “U.S. policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.  We (the U.S.) have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world.  Osama bin Laden was made in the USA.”  Elsewhere, Rauf has stated that terrorism will only end when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims.  And that it was Christians who started mass attacks on civilians. 

Rauf has numerous ties to CAIR, an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Department of Justice funding case brought against Hamas, an openly terrorist organization.  CAIR is also the initiator of numerous “law fare” cases designed to intimidate non-Muslims from criticizing aggressive Muslim behavior, and to use our own legal and democratic processes to undermine and dominate America, forcing it to become Islamic. 

Rauf calls himself a Sufi, evoking among non-Muslims a “peace and love image,” similar to hippies.  But that’s not the whole picture.  Sufism has many sides to it, including the Koranic injunction to spread Islam one way or another, and it has a rich history of waging war too. Could it be that one of the frequently used tools of war, lying to the enemy, would explain the contradiction between Rauf’s image as reconciler of religions and his sympathies and associations with terrorists?  This is known as “taquiyya” among Muslims.

A previous Rauf project, Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, clearly shows on its website that it is headed and funded by individuals from Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned fifteen of the nineteen jihad jockeys who rode the 9/11 planes of destruction.  The funding for Cordoba House is much murkier, so far.  All that has been publically disclosed is that the support comes from unidentified sources in Saudi Arabia and Muslim ruled Malaysia.  Rauf reportedly says he paid $4.85 million for the property — in cash.  Where exactly did this money come from?  Was it Wahhabist supporting Saudi sources, which have already funded many other mosques in New York City?

The mosque is called Cordoba House.  Muslims like to refer to Spain and especially the city of Cordoba as a place where Muslim rule reached a glorious peak.  Contrary to the myth of a Golden Age of equality during the Muslim occupation of Spain and in particular in Cordoba, Spain and Cordoba were places where Christians and Jews suffered as social inferiors under Islam oppression.  Equal civil rights never existed for non-Muslims under Sharia, or Islamic law.  Rauf even admits as much when he writes, “Jews and Christians living under Muslim rule simply had to pay a tax to finance their protection by their Muslim overlords.”   This is not equality!  Americans do not demand a special tax to protect Muslims from ourselves.  That would be extortion, not ‘protection.’

Through another organization Rauf started called the Cordoba Initiative, he created the “Sharia Index.”  This will measure how closely countries follow Sharia, or Islamic law.  While Sharia can cover such relatively innocuous aspects of Muslim life as religious weddings (hopefully not to twelve year old girls) it also demands that all Muslim life be governed by laws derived from the Koran, without the intervention of civic institutions, such as democracy.  And the Koran dictates that everyone, even non-Muslims, must ultimately live under Sharia.  Do you understand how that is in direct conflict with our Constitution and other aspects of our secular society? 

Rauf gets even trickier here.  He states in his book, “What’s Right With Islam,” that a society that follows natural law, such as America, is already practicing Sharia.  However, he does not note that his peculiar definition of Sharia acceptance is shared by just about no other Imam.  So what prevents him from adjusting his singular idea of Sharia back to the norm of forced conversions, murdering non-Muslims and apostates who leave Islam, amputations of thieves’ hands, stoning of adulterous women, execution of homosexuals, etc.?  Throughout his writing, Rauf floats an image of a harmonious, pleasant Islam – nice to everybody.  But this is totally disconnected from Islam’s actual history of bloody conquest, enslavement, and humiliation of other people – which he never acknowledges. 

Still another unsettling part of Rauf’s problem mosque is why the city has given the building a pass.  Records for the Department of Buildings have shown numerous complaints for illegal construction and no access, yet the issues were listed as ‘resolved.’

The prestigious American groups that are reportedly also financing the mosque, The Ford Foundation and The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, need to think again about what they are getting into.  The Department of Buildings needs to reassess its action.  The Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, which supports the project (Why?  What has a religious building got to do with Immigration?) needs to re-evaluate its approval. 

Mayor Bloomberg himself needs to withdraw his support for this mosque, especially in light of the recent Times Square car bomb attempt.  If not, he will be helping to provide a handy meeting place for future terrorists, those who understand Imam Rauf’s real message:  Speak sweetly, appear to be a well adjusted member of American society, and plan the destruction of America, either with bombs or ‘peaceful’undermining. 

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg can be reached by phone: 311. By fax: (212) 788 8123. By email: http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html.

Community Board One can be reached by phone: (212) 442 5050.  By fax: (212) 442 5055.  By email: man01@cb.nyc.gov. Their street address is:  49-51 Chambers Street Room 715, New York, NY 10007-1209.

Needless to say, your comments should be respectful and fact based.

Now my comments:

(more…)