Ibn Warraq on Imam Rauf

[I Ratant]

Then try again, only paying attention to what he actually said this time.

This whole meme - that Rauf's statements were a "veiled threat" - is so obviously a deliberate distortion of his comments that I find it difficult to believe that anyone actually believes it.

.
At 06:19 into this collection...
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-13-2010/islamophobiapalooza?xrs=eml_tds
.
He states the way the Islamic press will treat the refusal will be bad for the US.
Imputing a sinister basis for the very thought of the mosque, as in knowing and depending on the irrational behavior of the mobs in Islam over the furor that would result for the refusal isn't that far away from a possibility.
Use the threat of massive violence to ensure the mosque gets built.

 

[A'isha]

.
At 06:19 into this collection...
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-13-2010/islamophobiapalooza?xrs=eml_tds
.
He states the way the Islamic press will treat the refusal will be bad for the US.
Imputing a sinister basis for the very thought of the mosque, as in knowing and depending on the irrational behavior of the mobs in Islam over the furor that would result for the refusal isn't that far away from a possibility.
Use the threat of massive violence to ensure the mosque gets built.

Yeah, and that General Petraeus guy, he totally threatened our brave American fighting men and women like a common thug, over that whole Qu'ran burning thing!

 

[I Ratant]

General Petraeus, knowing the low quality of self-control over knee jerk responses to idiotic situations is well and correctly concerned about the safety of his troops with these needless provocations with sinister intents (the Imam blackmailing New York City, the reverend agitating out of sincere insanity), his job being nearly impossible in the first place, and incitement by crazies both over there and over here just makes it worse.

 

[Lyrandar]

General Petraeus, knowing the low quality of self-control over knee jerk responses to idiotic situations is well and correctly concerned about the safety of his troops with these needless provocations with sinister intents (the Imam blackmailing New York City, the reverend agitating out of sincere insanity), his job being nearly impossible in the first place, and incitement by crazies both over there and over here just makes it worse.

... How is the imam blackmailing NYC? The actions of the Islamic populace halfway around the world are entirely outside his control. It's not like they're only going to riot because he pointed out that they would. They were going to do that anyway if the mosque was blocked, whether or not Imam Rauf said anything.

 

[Praktik]

General Petraeus...is well and correctly concerned about the safety of his troops with these needless provocations with sinister intents (the Imam blackmailing New York City, the reverend agitating out of sincere insanity)

Sounds like moral relativism to me!

Im thinking of a song.... "one of these things is not like the other"

remember that one?

 

[Taarkin]

needless provocations with sinister intents (the Imam blackmailing New York City, the reverend agitating out of sincere insanity),

This didn't happen. Please don't talk about things that didn't happen as though they were things that did happen.

 

[I Ratant]

This didn't happen. Please don't talk about things that didn't happen as though they were things that did happen.

.
The idea of that mosque there is a provocation.
The idea of burning that book (sadly not to include all holy books) is a provocation.

 

[I Ratant]

... How is the imam blackmailing NYC? The actions of the Islamic populace halfway around the world are entirely outside his control. It's not like they're only going to riot because he pointed out that they would. They were going to do that anyway if the mosque was blocked, whether or not Imam Rauf said anything.

.
I-guy is playing the riot card.
As he intended when the idea of the mosque was first thought of.
If it couldn't be prevented by a zoning law (NYC needs an ex-post facto zoning law about memorials to mass murderers) the riot card was played, and will be played for every such event.
We Americans are supposed to be tolerant of others, and that includes worrying about how they respond at a distance to things in America.
So play the riot card, it will horrify the good hearted folks here to blame them for the lunacy in the Stone Age world of Islam.

 

[Taarkin]

.
The idea of that mosque there is a provocation.

No, it isn't. The strawman version of Park51 makes people mad, but it is an artificial construct that doesn't actually exist.

I-guy is playing the riot card.
As he intended when the idea of the mosque was first thought of.

Again, please don't make untrue statements and pretend that they are true. Why are you making untrue statements and trying to pass them off as true? I don't get it.

It's like a turducken of mendacity.

I would have gone with "You put the turd in turducken", but "mendacity" is cool too.

 

[Mister Earl]

"Ibn a bitch!" Hey, I kinda like that.

You mean "Ibn Gahiba!".

 

[A'isha]

.
I-guy is playing the riot card.
As he intended when the idea of the mosque was first thought of.
If it couldn't be prevented by a zoning law (NYC needs an ex-post facto zoning law about memorials to mass murderers) the riot card was played, and will be played for every such event.
We Americans are supposed to be tolerant of others, and that includes worrying about how they respond at a distance to things in America.
So play the riot card, it will horrify the good hearted folks here to blame them for the lunacy in the Stone Age world of Islam.

Your entire post is falsehoods wrapped inside untruths stuffed into sheer fiction.

It's like a turducken of mendacity.

 

[Praktik]

Your entire post is falsehoods wrapped inside untruths stuffed into sheer fiction.

It's like a turducken of mendacity.

LOL!

 

[Serafim Svensson]

My reading of Rauf's statement is that he was using the "idea of Vilayet-i-faqih to mean "rule of law" and thus to contrast it with the preceding regime of the Shah, which was despotic for which there was no rule of law. He was telling Obama to compliment Iran on -- at a minimum -- establishing courts that operate on the principle of the rule of law.

I disagree. I don't think he meant to say that Khomeini created the principle of the rule of law in the 1970s. That doesn't make sense to me.

He was not endorsing Iran as a State, or the use of vilayet-i-faqih to enforce religious law.

Well, he did say that Vilayet-i-faqih institutionalizes the Islamic rule of law. Not rule of law in general.

I doubt he was saying that enshrining Shi'a Sharia law was a good thing, particularly since Rauf is not Shi'a

He didn't discuss particulars of the interpretations of Islamic law. His words were about the general principle. Granted, it's a Shi'a "theory", but it's not like he must reject anything Shi'a because he's not a Shi'a himself. And remember, he's someone who thinks that "core Islamic values overlap with core American values". I don't think he would have any problem finding such overlaps between Sunni and Shi'a.

and since Iran is not particularly respectful of Sufism.

Interestingly, Iran seems to be more respectful of the Sunni dervishes. But that may be for purley political reasons.

 

[Lyrandar]

.
I-guy is playing the riot card.
As he intended when the idea of the mosque was first thought of.

You can't possibly know that for certain. Not without a lot more evidence than I've seen.

If it couldn't be prevented by a zoning law (NYC needs an ex-post facto zoning law about memorials to mass murderers) the riot card was played, and will be played for every such event.
We Americans are supposed to be tolerant of others, and that includes worrying about how they respond at a distance to things in America.
So play the riot card, it will horrify the good hearted folks here to blame them for the lunacy in the Stone Age world of Islam.

... how is a mosque a memorial to mass murderers?

And it mostly horrifies me to know that irrationality and insensitivity here will trigger irrationality and insensitivity elsewhere. Why don't we actually try to break that cycle instead of whining about how they're being irrational?

 

[I Am The Scum]

I Ratant, do you even realize the whole point of the "there will be riots" comment? It is a statement that by shutting down the project, it will lend credence to the notion that America is at war with Islam, and that Muslims are openly discriminated against in this country. This, in turn, leads to riots. A while back, there were riots because a quran got flushed down the toilet at Gitmo, even though said flushing never actually occurred. To say that Rauf is "holding NY hostage" by this comment is like saying that by me telling you that smoking causes cancer, I am "holding you hostage" in regards to what you can inhale.

If you can point out how anything I previously said is actually wrong, then by all means, please do. I'm not interested in hearing anybody whine about hurt feelings.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Isn't it interesting though how the Imam is claiming Islam is a religion of peace and that it's only extremists who are giving it a bad name. But then has to warn that Muslims will make violent protests as a reaction to people trying to stop a Muslim related building from being built in a certain area?

Bit of a mixed message.

 

[A'isha]

Isn't it interesting though how the Imam is claiming Islam is a religion of peace and that it's only extremists who are giving it a bad name. But then has to warn that Muslims will make violent protests as a reaction to people trying to stop a Muslim related building from being built in a certain area?

Bit of a mixed message.

Not really. Acknowledging that extremists (and those influenced by extremists) might do something foolish and violent doesn't contradict in the least the statement that those extremists do not speak for all of Islam and are giving Muslims everywhere a bad name.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Isn't it interesting though how the Imam is claiming Islam is a religion of peace and that it's only extremists who are giving it a bad name. But then has to warn that Muslims will make violent protests as a reaction to people trying to stop a Muslim related building from being built in a certain area?

Bit of a mixed message.

I think it speaks against the idea that his definition of extremists are uncommon.

 

[bluskool]

In other words, far from being the supreme and absolute authority in all matters as in the Khomeini model, a faqih (Leader) has authority over religious issues only...

Okay, but that could mean anything. What isn't a religious issue in a Muslim country? For example, where would honor killings fall?

 

[marksman]

I disagree. I don't think he meant to say that Khomeini created the principle of the rule of law in the 1970s.

I didn't say Rauf said Khomeini creates the principle of the rule of law. I'm saying Rauf is talkign abotu contracting the courts Khomeini did create -- which were at least nominally devoted to the rule of law -- to the notoriously corrupt courts of the Shah.

I am not saying Iranian justice is fair (it's not), I am not saying that is is not draconian (it is). Nor is Rauf. Rauf is just advising Obama on how to approach the Iranians diplomatically.

he did say that Vilayet-i-faqih institutionalizes the Islamic rule of law. Not rule of law in general.

Yes, he did. The statement comes from a longer statement in a 2009 Huffington Post column that he wrote in support of the people demonstrating against the rigged Iranian elections. His statement was advising Obama to exhort Iranian government to live up to its ideals. one of those ideals is abiding by the rule of law, which is how he characterizes Khomeini's invocation of Vilayet-i-faqih.

In an article in which Rauf is speaking out in support of the demonstrators and in opposition to the iranian regime, Rauf is not calling for a system in which Shia sharia law is made the law of the land. You have been misled by people who are deliberately distorting Rauf's message.