• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Obama enters GZ Mosque debate

Here's the full lecture by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf in which he made the quoted statements:

http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawkecentre/events/2005events/Imam_transcript.asp

He not only lays the death of the half million Iraqi children SOLELY on the door step of the US (and even tries to dishonestly make it look like US government officials accept that responsibility), many of his other views don't stand up to much scrutiny either. Perhaps because he cites only leftists and leftist anti-American documentaries (like Farenheit 911) as the source of those views. Whether you admit it or not, he's adopted the views of extremists on the left in the US and abroad.

In that lecture, he states: "Collateral damage is a nice thing to put on a paper but when the collateral damage is your own uncle or cousin, what passions do these arouse? How do you negotiate? How do you tell people whose homes have been destroyed, whose lives have been destroyed, that this does not justify your actions of terrorism. It's hard. Yes, it is true that it does not justify the acts of bombing innocent civilians, that does not solve the problem, but after 50 years of, in many cases, oppression, of US support of authoritarian regimes that have violated human rights in the most heinous of ways, how else do people get attention?" Like it or not, the latter part of that statement is an attempt to justify what happened on 9/11. Right after saying that he even mentions the half a million [dead Iraqi children] again. And by repeating the lie that the US is responsible for half a million Iraqi children dead during Saddam's rule as if that is fact, he is only strengthening the hatred of the US that has taken root in the Islamic world. He is only making matters worse.

And building a Mosque named Cordoba close to the site of 9/11 is not going to make things better either. Not when the Islamic world will view that as a victory over the US, just as they viewed the orignal Cordoba Mosque in Spain as a victory over Christians. America is NOT an intolerant country. There are nearly 2000 mosques in the US (contrast that with the number of churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia and other major muslim countries). There are over a hundred in New York City alone. Rauf says America must understand where Muslims are coming from. Well I would respond that perhaps he (and Muslims) need to understand where we are coming from just as much. He needs to understand why this is a sensitive issue to MOST Americans.
 
Openly talking about the effect U.S. policy has had on Muslims around the world and discussing that this is how terrorism is started is not extremist or anti-american. America has supported dictators and regimes that have killed thousands, probably more. Stating this is not anti-american or extremist, it is a fact. This does not justify the attacks of 9/11 and Rauf never says that it does.

And yet Park51's main movers, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan, are actually the kind of Muslim leaders right-wing commentators fantasize about: modernists and moderates who openly condemn the death cult of al-Qaeda and its adherents

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2008432,00.html
 
OMG BaC! These cordoba people are actually radicals of the most heinous order! They even admit it in their mission statement!

Solving some of the most intractable conflicts in the world today requires innovative strategies for cross-cultural engagement. Cordoba Initiative tackles this mandate with forethought, expertise and the ability to leverage contacts in influential positions within the Muslim World and the West. Thinking outside the box about international and intercultural conflict resolution also means thinking introspectively about each side's place within its own historical narrative with a view to devising internally oriented solutions.

Get your torches! These people need to be run out of town!

Please look at their website

http://www.cordobainitiative.org/
 
BAC can't seem to decide if Rauf is a left-wing or a right-wing extremist.

And his implication that intolerance is only being directed at this particular Muslim site is quaint, to say the least.
 
Here's the full lecture by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf in which he made the quoted statements:

BAC - here's something that might help us. On the previous page we talked about how presenting statements of the Imam and identifying them as anti-american isn't enough to prove he is an extremist.. You just assert it: "he's allied himself with extremists". But what you mean isn't that he materially supports them, but that his "anti-american" statements (itself a loaded term) ally him - perhaps unknowingly - with extremists ideologically.

I still don't think those statements do so. Perhaps this is because I've read similar sentiments from people who were not extremist Islamic fundamentalists but rather America-loving professors who were, well, Americans themselves. So this means that there are variations of thought here. Read a real Islamist tract and you'll see no caveats, no nuance - just exclamations of purity and categorical allegations of evil and the necessity to wipe it out. This, I argue, is the true identifier of extremism.

Take anti-government feeling in America, to take an example that is close to home. I would argue that the anti-government "sell the department of education" (to satirize) ideology is not in itself a sign of extremism, even though examples like Timothy McVeigh and the Unambomber argue from a position drenched in anti-government ideology. This is because normal, rational people introduce their politics with some kind of, well rationality. There's plenty of people out there arguing from an anti-government perspective that do so with reason, some allowances to their opponents and well-structured arguments. Some of them are very wrong, but they are honestly and non-threateningly so. Therefore it takes more for me to say someone is an anti-government "extremist" - I need to see the fanaticism in their language and style to really make the call.

The Imam says, in your quote: "Yes, it is true that it does not justify the acts of bombing innocent civilians, that does not solve the problem..." a caveat that could not even possibly occur to an extremist committed to violence. McVeigh wouldn't say it, Osama wouldn't say it. But rational people do.
 
Openly talking about the effect U.S. policy has had on Muslims around the world and discussing that this is how terrorism is started is not extremist or anti-american.

But lying about who REALLY caused the death of those hundreds of thousand of Iraqi children during Saddam's reign is extremist and anti-American. So is implying that the US has more muslim blood on it's hands than al-Qaeda and it's allies in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Imam might have something valid to say but noone from our side is going to listen when he starts off with dishonest crap like that. If he thinks we are, then he's as clueless about us as he claims we are about Muslims.
 
But lying about who REALLY caused the death of those hundreds of thousand of Iraqi children during Saddam's reign is extremist and anti-American. So is implying that the US has more muslim blood on it's hands than al-Qaeda and it's allies in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Imam might have something valid to say but noone from our side is going to listen when he starts off with dishonest crap like that. If he thinks we are, then he's as clueless about us as he claims we are about Muslims.

So?
 
Given all of the hateful signs placed by the majority of protestors there, how can anyone not think this is about anti-Islamic bigotry?
 
They have gotten so nasty that even the whackadoodle Gingrich decided not to address a rally on the matter on 9/11/2010.

That's wack.
 
OMG BaC! These cordoba people are actually radicals of the most heinous order! They even admit it in their mission statement!

Why did they name it the Cordoba Mosque?

Here's what the website you linked says:

http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/frequently-asked-questions

The name Cordoba was chosen carefully to reflect a period of time during which Islam played a monumental role in the enrichment of human civilization and knowledge. A thousand years ago Muslims, Jews, and Christians coexisted and created a prosperous center of intellectual, spiritual, cultural and commercial life in Cordoba, Spain.

I'd be more comfortable if they'd left that first sentence out entirely. And the second sentence sounds nice but the fact is Cordoba was a city dominated both politically and religiously by Islam. It was a city conquered by jihad. When it was conquered, many of it's inhabitants were slaughtered or enslaved. It was not a democracy or republic. Islam was fully in control. And to demonstrate Islam's power over everyone else, they destroyed the Christian Church of St Vincent's and built a mosque, named the Cordoba Mosque, over the ruins to commemorate their victory over the Christians. It signified successful conquest and soon became the second most important religious site in the Muslim world.

And it wasn't the only church they replaced with a mosque either. All across Spain, Muslims converted churches to mosques. And there were rules against building new churches. There was a message being sent to Christians in that act, just as the burning of Churches in Kosovo was a message to Christians there. Nor is Spain the only place where muslims have built mosques on the holy sites of other religions. The Dome of the Rock was built on the ruins of Judiasm's holiest site, the Temple Mount. The Grand Mosque of Domascus was built on the site of the Cathedral of St John the Baptist. The Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque after the conquest of Constantinople.

Yes, there were times when muslims *worked* side by side with Jews and Christians in Spain, but for the most part, each of the communities lived in distinct neighborhoods within the city. And non-Muslims (dhimmis) lived under restrictions. They paid higher taxes. Examples were made of Christians who dissented (some were even beheaded). Insurrections occurred repeatedly during the 700s and 800s. A revolt in Cordova in 818 resulted in over 300 people being crucified and 20,000 people being expelled from their lands. There was also much fighting between the Muslim sects. The longest period of real tolerance was in the 900s, during the reign of Abd-ar-Rahman III. But over most of the time Muslims controlled southern Spain, the treatment of non-Muslims was far less tolerant. In fact, in the 10th century, a massive forced conversion of Christians took place after which the majority of the population became muslim (they called them muladies, muslims of ethnic Iberian origin). Many people (even Muslims) left the Muslim controlled areas during this time and went to areas that had been reconquered by Christians. In the 11th century, there were pograms against Jews. This was also a Spain that continued to engage in jihad. Every year raiding parties were sent to attack Christian Spanish kingdoms to the north, or France, Italy, eastern Europe or the Aagean islands. Thousands of people were enslaved. The caliph had a militia composed of tens of thousands of Christian slaves and a harem with many a captured Christian woman. Women in general, had a much lower status than in Western society, even back then.

So you can see why some object to calling this new Mosque "Cordoba". Change the name, change the date and pick another site if you insist on building a new Mosque.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps this is because I've read similar sentiments from people who were not extremist Islamic fundamentalists but rather America-loving professors who were, well, Americans themselves.

That doesn't mean they weren't American extremists.

The Imam says, in your quote: "Yes, it is true that it does not justify the acts of bombing innocent civilians, that does not solve the problem..."

and then turns right around and tries to justify the terrorist acts using the claimed half million dead Iraqi children.
 
Why did they name it the Cordoba Mosque?

Here's what the website you linked says:

http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/frequently-asked-questions



I'd be more comfortable if they'd left that first sentence out entirely. And the second sentence sounds nice but the fact is Cordoba was a city dominated both politically and religiously by Islam. <snipped to remove tedious blather>

Change the name, change the date and pick another site if you insist on building a new Mosque.

So, because the Crusades failed and the Muslims took extreme measures to punish the countries from which the Crusaders came, we can now deny the Muslims of lower Manhattan their right to peaceable assembly. Gotcha!:rolleyes:
 
That doesn't mean they weren't American extremists.

(yawn) yes... American "extremists" whose ideological call to action involved demonstration and political awareness. They may be staunchly opposed to intervention and the exercise of American power - perhaps even identifying against the upper classes. Now, they may be left (even far left) or right-wing paleocons but the simple fact is that these people are now probably building ships in bottles and writing stern letters to the editor, and whipping their reading audiences up into a frenzy, a frenzy of letter writing and blog posts and 54 person demos at the state house.

So you'll excuse me if I still find your tack unconvincing: these ideas are no indicator of potential for violence. I think the far more universal warning signs include a vehemence of extraordinary character, a Manichean view of the world, a sense of urgency, and a call to action that implies the ends are worth any means. This applies to Islamic militants, Tim McVeigh "patriots", some eco-terrorists and abortion doctor killers. This does not apply to Rauf.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom