The Imam Behind the 'Ground Zero Mosque'

christiefan915

Catalyst
Note that Muslims in NYC predated the twin towers.

"The last legal hurdle to the proposed Islamic center near the site of the World Trade Center has been removed, but ignorance, bigotry and politics are more formidable obstacles. The unanimous vote Tuesday, Aug. 3, by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission means the building that currently occupies 45-47 Park Place can be torn down, clearing the way for Park51, a project known to its critics as the "Ground Zero Mosque." Criticism spans the gamut, from the ill-informed anguish of those who mistakenly view Islam as the malevolent force that brought down the towers to the ill-considered opportunism of right-wing politicians who see Islam as an easy target.

(Ironically, Islam's roots in New York City are in the area around the site of the World Trade Center, and they predate the Twin Towers: in the late 19th century, a portion of lower Manhattan was known as Little Syria and was inhabited by Arab immigrants - Muslims and Christians - from the Ottoman Empire.)

With city authorities now out of the way, it is the people spearheading the project who must bear the enormous pressure to give up their plans and scrap the building. They are being accused of sympathizing with the men who crashed the planes on 9/11 and of designing the project as, in Newt Gingrich's reckoning, "an act of triumphalism."

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 - ironically, just the kind of "peaceful Muslims" whom Sarah Palin, in her now infamous tweet, asked to "refudiate" the mosque. Rauf is a Sufi, which is Islam's most mystical and accommodating denomination.

The Kuwaiti-born Rauf, 52, is the imam of a mosque in New York City's Tribeca district, has written extensively on Islam and its place in modern society and often argues that American democracy is the embodiment of Islam's ideal society. (One of his books is titled What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America.) He is a contributor to the Washington Post's On Faith blog, and the stated aim of his organization, the Cordoba Initiative, is "to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, steering the world back to the course of mutual recognition and respect and away from heightened tensions." His Indian-born wife is an architect and a recipient of the Interfaith Center Award for Promoting Peace and Interfaith Understanding. (Can Sufism defuse terrorism?)

Since 9/11, Western "experts" have said repeatedly that Muslim leaders who fit Rauf's description should be sought out and empowered to fight the rising tide of extremism. In truth, such figures abound in Muslim lands, even if their work goes unnoticed by armchair pundits elsewhere. Their cause is not helped when someone like Rauf finds himself being excoriated for some perceived reluctance to condemn Hamas and accused of being an extremist himself. If anything, this browbeating of a moderate Muslim empowers the narrative promoted by al-Qaeda: that the West loathes everything about Islam and will stop at nothing to destroy it. (See Daisy Khan explain the role of women leaders in Islam.)

Rauf and Khan have said Park51 - envisaged as a 15-story structure, including a mosque, cultural center and auditorium - will promote greater interfaith dialogue. The furor over the project only underlines how desperately it is needed."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100803/us_time/08599200843200
 
So called "moderate islamists" are just lying about the true nature of the religion.

Lying about islam to infidels is permissible in islam. It's called taquiyah, or lying to stupid liberals about how islam will murder them.
 
So called "moderate islamists" are just lying about the true nature of the religion.

Lying about islam to infidels is permissible in islam. It's called taquiyah, or lying to stupid liberals about how islam will murder them.

Taqiyya: ...the practice of precautionary dissimulation whereby believers may conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.

It's people like you who hate and fear Muslims, not liberals.
 
Taqiyya: ...the practice of precautionary dissimulation whereby believers may conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.

It's people like you who hate and fear Muslims, not liberals.

there are better sources than wiki....

The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's
beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a
time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from
physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be
"Dissimulation."

The above definition must be elaborated upon before any undertaking of this
topic is to ensue. Although correct, the definition suffers from an
apparent generalization, and lacks some fundamental details that should be
construed:

First, the CONCEALMENT of one's beliefs does NOT necessitate an ABANDONMENT
of these beliefs. The distinction between "concealment" and "abandonment"
MUST be noted here.

Second, there are numerous exceptions to the above definition, and they
MUST be judged according to the situation that one is placed in. As such,
one should NOT make a narrow-minded generalization that encompasses all
situations, thereby failing to fully absorb the spirit of the definition.

Third, the word "beliefs" and/or "convictions" does NOT necessarily mean
"religious" beliefs and/or convictions.

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/1.html
 
there are better sources than wiki....

The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's
beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a
time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from
physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be
"Dissimulation."

The above definition must be elaborated upon before any undertaking of this
topic is to ensue. Although correct, the definition suffers from an
apparent generalization, and lacks some fundamental details that should be
construed:

First, the CONCEALMENT of one's beliefs does NOT necessitate an ABANDONMENT
of these beliefs. The distinction between "concealment" and "abandonment"
MUST be noted here.

Second, there are numerous exceptions to the above definition, and they
MUST be judged according to the situation that one is placed in. As such,
one should NOT make a narrow-minded generalization that encompasses all
situations, thereby failing to fully absorb the spirit of the definition.

Third, the word "beliefs" and/or "convictions" does NOT necessarily mean
"religious" beliefs and/or convictions.

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/1.html

It's footnoted from: "Taqiyah". Oxford Dictionary of Islam. John L. Esposito, Ed. Oxford University Press. 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed 9 June, 2006.

Both definitions say fundamentally the same thing.
 
JC, Yurt. From nAHZi we expect paranoid crazy talk as he pisses himself and hides from the evil classes of people that he imagines are of one mind. I did not think you were insane. There are non-practicing Muslims, moderates and some fundamentalist nuts are of varying degrees of dangerous. To pretend they are all of one type is just crazy.

We should welcome them into the fold of Americanism (i.e., individualism) instead of alienating them. Alienating them will only radicalize them.
 
JC, Yurt. From nAHZi we expect paranoid crazy talk as he pisses himself and hides from the evil classes of people that he imagines are of one mind. I did not think you were insane. There are non-practicing Muslims, moderates and some fundamentalist nuts are of varying degrees of dangerous. To pretend they are all of one type is just crazy.

We should welcome them into the fold of Americanism (i.e., individualism) instead of alienating them. Alienating them will only radicalize them.

You're like two idiot brothers From "Growing Up Gotti", slapping each other around and horseplaying and swearing your polar opposites, fughedaboutit.
 
Last edited:
There are lying Christian leaders and there are lying Muslam leaders and there are lying jewish leaders...

One is about the same as another...

Fundamentalism is fundamentalism.
 
There are lying Christian leaders and there are lying Muslam leaders and there are lying jewish leaders...

One is about the same as another...

Fundamentalism is fundamentalism.

And they're all bad. But for some reason you can only criticize judaism and christianity.
 
Build a Mosque on ground zero = definitely will be targeted and probably destroyed by angry newyorkers who lost loved ones on 911.

Whats the motive behind them wanting to put it there? hmmmm geeee. could it be so that they can spark a holy war?

no win situation for newyork & america on this one. time to call in the cia to take care of this another way.
 
So called "moderate islamists" are just lying about the true nature of the religion.

Lying about islam to infidels is permissible in islam. It's called taquiyah, or lying to stupid liberals about how islam will murder them.

Islamic empires were historically more civilized and less brutal then christain empires.
 
Wasn't it the European nations that shipped Millions of blacks across the Ocean, forced them to conver to christanity and made their lives hell. Half of them didn't even survive the voyage. The slavery in the western Hemisphere was the most savage and brutal in the history of slavery. Muslims, Christains, and Jews all worship the same God. The 3 religions have a lot in common. They respect and honor all the prophets of the old testament. Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet. Muslims follow many of the Jewish laws. The conflict with the middle east is mostly political. Islamic empires were historical more civilized. When the crusaders captured Jurusalem they butchered everyone living in the city. When the muslims recaptured the city they most of its inhabinates alone. When the crusaders captured Constantinople they butchered the people in the city and brought destruction upon it. When the Turks captured the city they didn't devestate it. Muslim empires gave economic and political incentives to get people to convert. Christain empires force people to convert. When the Turks conquered the balkans they respected the christain rights. When the Balkan States got independence they buchered the muslims. Even when they were fighting for indpendence they managed to butcher more muslims then muslims butchered christains and the muslims were the minority. Christain nations question the loyalty of muslims living in their country. When have christains living in a muslim country ever had any loyalty. Why did Britain and France have to colonize the Ottamon empire instead of immediatly granting the arabs their indepenence? Why did the British create the devision between Muslims and Hindu's when they colonized India. Just as disasterous as the europeanian created devision between Hutus and tutsi in Rwanda. Why did Britain and France decide to go to war with Egypt when it nationalized the suez canal. Why did America care that Iran was nationalzing its oil? France, Britain, Italy, Spain colonized Africa. Why did the dutch colonize Indonesia? The world would still be colonized by Europe if it hadn't been for the 2 world wars. The Soviet Union opressed, slaughtered, enslaved a lot of muslims. Isn't any wonder that Russia is currently having problems with muslims. China forces muslims to have abortions, sterilizations. They also put Han's in charge of Turkish regions. Does it suprise anyone that Muslims don't like the government. Arn't the Tebetans just as annoying to the chinese. European countries make it very difficult for muslims to become citizens and to get inolved in politics.
Is it any wonder that their is conflict with muslims?
 
NO they weren't. They regularly had christians as slaves.
Didn't everyone have slaves in those days? The Jews enslaved their relatives over a debt!
I don't think humans as a whole were very nice. We have come a short distance, but still have a ways to go, we don't care for things that aren't like us, it is those baser instincts of ours.
 
JC, Yurt. From nAHZi we expect paranoid crazy talk as he pisses himself and hides from the evil classes of people that he imagines are of one mind. I did not think you were insane. There are non-practicing Muslims, moderates and some fundamentalist nuts are of varying degrees of dangerous. To pretend they are all of one type is just crazy.

We should welcome them into the fold of Americanism (i.e., individualism) instead of alienating them. Alienating them will only radicalize them.
Corrupt 'em, it is the American way! They love our TV, our music and our fashion!
 
Back
Top