http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s&feature=youtu.be
-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
Title aside, Gabriel makes some surprisingly good points during the first four minutes. But I wouldn’t go as far as to say that “the peaceful Muslims are irrelevant.” The radicals are currently in power in many Muslim-majority countries because they view the positions of the majority as irrelevant. How can we take them out of power? We’ve tried conventional warfare–that worked when we dealt with the Germans. We’ve tried stealth and subterfuge–that worked when we dealt with the Russians. Yet neither has worked when dealing with radical Islam.
I think the only thing that will work to destroy the poisonous ideology of the radicals is supporting and honoring the voices of the moderates. The peaceful Muslims are not irrelevant. They are our only hope for a bright future.
Chris, that’s a nice thought, but from everything we’ve seen so far those peaceful Muslims are not the answer. Better watch that video a few more times. Seriously…you should.
As Gabriele (sp) pointed out indirectly, peaceful Muslims make themselves irrelevant by continuing to be silent.
Silence, weather deserved or not, is taken as support or at the least nonresistance. Granted, Muslims are in a tough position. Speaking out against the radicals is very risky. But when others are willing to bleed and die to keep you safe and to make a herculean effort to eradicate the evil that risk might supply the perfect amount of collective will that would allow complete eradication and then reforms that would place all Muslims in agreement about living in peace. Reform would also have to include reforms to the legal structure as well if living in this century is the ultimate goal for peaceful Muslims.
It should also be noted that a lot of Muslims were willing to take extraordinary risks while we were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush recognized these people and warned about information leaks and activism that undermined these brave people and made their risk factor rise.
It should also be noted, unfortunately, that the political activism to create failure and discredit fed the enemy and mad the work of our military and those locals who risked their lives and the lives of their family members much more difficult.
The percentage of Americans who “blamed” Muslims as a group is fractional, hardly worth noting. But the constant politically correct blame game made a lot of Muslims feel fearful and oppressed unnecessarily. Gabriele made this point perfectly at the end of her speech…we have to dump this incredibly destructive political tool. As Bush often said…it’s not helpful. And I will take it one step farther and say it does a great deal of harm.
Then what IS the answer, Jack? This isn’t Nazism or Communism. It’s the third largest religion in the world. The radicals can’t be defeated using conventional warfare; it’s like cutting heads off a Hydra. Reform is the only option.
Interesting related reading:
Mercatornet
Daniel Pipes-2003
Discover the Networks
Re: “The radicals are currently in power in many Muslim-majority countries because they view the positions of the majority as irrelevant.”
Sorry kid, you have it backwards. That is Islam. It has been Islam for over a thousand years. The radicals are those who oppose theocracy-thugocrasy and seek democracy and a separation of politics and law from a brutal, sexist, totalitarian theocracy that defines every aspect of Muslim life. Please try to get a clue and abandon this weird left-wing fantasy world you find so comforting. Islam is no mere religion, it is a complete cultural, judicial, political system that dominates every aspect of Muslim life.
http://www.politicalislam.com/
http://www.cspipublishing.com/
From http://www.islamicity.com/
“Islam may seem exotic or even extreme in the modern world. Perhaps this is because religion does not dominate everyday life in the West today, whereas Muslims have religion always uppermost in their minds, and make no division between secular and sacred. They believe that the Divine Law, the Shari’a, should be taken very seriously, which is why issues related to religion are still so important.”
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
These are the radicals —
“The American Islamic Forum for Democracy’s (AIFD) mission is to advocate for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state.”
http://aifdemocracy.org/about/
It is true that peaceful Muslims abound in Islamic theocracies and monarchies where they are subjected to the brutal, backwards, medieval, intolerant and sexist confines of Sharia. Islam is the “religion” of peace where if you submit you may live a relatively relatively safe life except, for the activities of those 15-25% that are terrorists and whom kill for sport and Allah.
Excellent and informative video, Tina.
The silence from the Muslim community regarding actions taken by terrorists in the name of their faith remains deafening . . . . .
Tina and J. Soden, how do you know that the Muslim community has been “silent?” Do Muslims typically get a lot of press? Are they interviewed a lot by the mainstream media? No, they’re not. The “silence” of the Muslim community is a lot like the “silence” of the feminist community on certain issues–it’s usually just an accusation made by people who really aren’t all that informed on what’s going on in these communities, and expect their voices to come to them instead of doing any research of their own to see what these people are saying.
I do remember a fairly prominent moderate Muslim named Imam Rauf who got a lot of press a while back. He’s worked with the U.S. government under Bush and Obama to reach out to moderate Muslims and make their voices heard above the din of the extremists. He preaches tolerance and acceptance, and even built a multi-faith community center near Ground Zero where people of all religions could gather and have a dialogue.
We all remember how the right wing reacted to that.
If “Palestinians” (Arab Muslims) loved their children more strongly than they hate Jews, that might solve some problems.
If Muslims loved one other as much as the Sunni and Shia sects hate each other, that might solve some problems too.
Islam is a disaster and a thugocracy. Read Shari’a for an eye-opener. Slavery is is explicitly permitted, homosexuality can get you sewn up in a bag and tossed off a cliff, pedophilia is allowed, and if you have sex with your goat you may sell the unclean animal to your neighbor as long as he does not know about it.
Islam has a long history of creating brutal strong men supported by theocratic cabals who seize power and subjugate. I see no indication that this historical behavior of Islam is going to change, except from the few true Muslim radicals seeking reform like the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
Re #9: More bull$*&t from Chris.
Muslims have free and easy access to the press as is demonstrated by the countless articles that have been written featuring Muslims in the press. What a total crock. A completely, totally, and ridiculously unsupportable claim. Just more blowing of smoke from the booby prize winning English major.
American Imams (who represent their Muslim adherents) have received tons of press coverage.
The former “bridge-builder” Anwar Al Awlaki was a darling of the press for his statement “The greatest sin in Islam after associating other gods besides Allah is killing an innocent soul.” (The Washington Post was one of the most useful of Awlaki’s useful idiots.)
Chris’ bogus and unsupportable claim is a (foolish and ignorant) opinion, not fact.
By the way, given the history of violent movements in human affairs, Brigitte Gabriel is absolutely correct, “the peaceful Muslims are irrelevant.”
Here is some standard twisted left wing logic for you. (Chris should love this, I can’t wait to see his defense.) —
The New Republic insists that identifying “moderate Muslims” feeds Islamophobia!
OK, I get it, there is no difference between Muslim terrorists and moderate Muslims and to distinguish such feeds my “Islamophobic” tendencies. Following this logic the same must apply to homosexuals and pederasts, to make a distinction between the two only feeds my latent “homophobia.” And pigs have wings.
Stop Saying “Moderate Muslims.” You’re Only Empowering Islamophobes.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118391/troubling-phrase-moderate-muslims-only-empowers-islamophobes
Perhaps the most telling segment of this exchange (not in the above video) is the following —
Chris Plante: Can you tell me who the head of the Muslim peace movement is?
Saba Ahmed: I guess it’s me right now.
More power to her. I would like to see a strong Muslim peace movement, but I am not holding my breath. Widespread Muslim love for Hezbollah and Hamas, and their deep seated hatred of Jews does not give me much hope.
American Islamic Forum for Democracy founder Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser claims to seek to build the future of Islam through the concepts of liberty and freedom. He is a potential peace leader but I have learned. (and this is old news recently discovered) that he may be two faced in his claims that most adherents to Islam are peaceful ostensibly because most do not belong to a Mosque.
The truth may be that nothing about Islam is peaceful because of its core intolerance for infidels outside of Islam and its proselytism — whether a Muslim belongs to a Mosque or not. I am not passing judgement. Not yet anyway.
Islam needs a strong, honest, earnest peace movement, imho. That would be welcome. None has been forthcoming from this supposed majority of peaceful Muslims and I do not foresee any changes in that fact in the near future. It may be that Islam is the “religion of peace” only for those who submit and will always be so.
In any case Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser who is, ostensibly, a peaceful Islamic moderate — and in contrast to Chris’ absurd claim — has received quite a fair amount of press in print, radio, and TV.
Re More Chris bull$%^t about the Imam Rauf’s “Community Center”.
First it was not just the “right wing” that reacted to a building of a triumphal mosque near Ground Zero you silly, propagandizing extremist left-wing ignoramus.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was the founder of the fund raising Cordoba group to build the Ground Zero Mosque.
“Cordoba” refers to the triumphal mosque built in Cordoba Spain after the successful Islamic conquest of and dominance of Europe. After receiving negative attention the fund raising group’s name was changed and the supposed “multi-faith community center” was added on as a piece of PR fluff.
Some interesting Rauf quotes:
“United States policies were an accessory to the crime” of 9/11.”
“The United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.”
“American political structure is sharia-compliant.”
A few interesting Rauf facts:
He was a slumlord. Even after a large influx of county and state money, Rauf’s properties remained in a state of disrepair, with tenants complaining not only about a lack of heat and hot water, but also about infestations of roaches, bedbugs, and rats.
Rauf is a permanent trustee of an Islamic Cultural Center (ICC) which employed Imam Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, who stated “only the Jews” could have perpetrated the 9/11 attacks; that if Americans only knew about this Jewish culpability, “they would have done to Jews what Hitler did”; and that Jews “disseminate corruption in the land” and spread “heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism, and drugs.”
Rauf has clearly and repeatedly suggested that terrorism is an understandable response to American actions in Iraq, Israel, and elsewhere in the Middle East.
Rauf’s book, What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America was produced by the extremist Muslim Brotherhod fronts, the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought. Rauf promoted his book at a gathering of Hizb ut Tahrir in Malaysia, an organization that seeks to impose sharia on the United States and other countries worldwide. In the book he suggests that the “American Constitution and system of governance uphold the core principles of Islamic law” (i.e., sharia).
In 2013 Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife fled their home to go on “separate vacations” after being charged in a $20 million dollar lawsuit for embezzlement for looting $3 million in donations given to the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement to line his pockets.
This is Chris’ wonderful “multi-faith community center” builder, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. You just gotta love the guy, Rauf that is.
Since the magnificent English major brought it up, here is the some recent news on the Ground Zero Mosque.
The proposed 15 story structure ain’t gonna be built. The Mosque and Islamic Community Center opened in the existing building in 2011. Contrary to Chris’ bogus and deceptive claim it was — or ever became — a “multi-faith community center near Ground Zero where people of all religions could gather and have a dialogue” the actual plan was for a Mosque and and Islamic Center where supposedly some “inter-faith workshops” would be held. (Inter-faith workshops as in explaining to infidels how wonderful Islam is.)
But the Islamic Community Center at the Ground Zero Mosque never took off, the inter-faith workshops never materialized, and the site has mostly been used for prayer services instead of Islamic community events.
As of April of this year the developer, Sharif El-Gamal, has abandoned the proposed 15-story Ground Zero Mosque and Islamic Community Center at 41-51 Park Place, seeks to raise the existing building, and construct a three-story Ground Zero Islamic Museum “dedicated to exploring the faith of Islam and its arts and culture.” Needless to say community members living in and around the Park Place site and 911 victims families are none to happy about this proposed museum either. There is no doubt in my mind that the extreme left wing Democrat machine that runs New York City will shove the Islamic Museum down their throats. YAY!
Just thought you might like to know.
Oops, sloppy, sloppy … the above should have read … Contrary to Chris’ bogus and deceptive claim it never was — nor ever became — a “multi-faith community center” near Ground Zero where people of all religions could gather and have a dialogue.” The actual plan was for a Mosque and an Islamic Center where supposedly some “inter-faith workshops” would be held.
Pie I suppose the left believes that the German and Japanese people overcame the shame they experienced with in your face activism but by my recollection is that redemption and accord was made possible through adjustments in their thinking, appropriate shame and self-analysis, and the acknowledgment of a need to re-brand (to use the current vernacular) their image through good works and appropriate citizenship.
Lessons could be learned if the enablers would stop the subterfuge of PC explanations and excuses.
Pie: “In 2013 Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife fled their home to go on “separate vacations” after being charged in a $20 million dollar lawsuit for embezzlement for looting $3 million in donations given to the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement to line his pockets.”
This suit has been dropped, Pie, and the accuser now says he believes the money was properly spent:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/06/ground-zero-imam-fraud-suit-dropped/
As for Rauf’s statement that “United States policies were an accessory to the crime” of 9/11,” Glenn Beck said almost exactly the same thing:
“When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems.”
Rauf has made it pretty clear that he has a very different interpretation of sharia than that shared by the Taliban and other believers in Islamic dominance. Why would it bother you for him to say that the U.S. Constitution is consistent with sharia? Obviously, that means he believes in the Constitution.
Your attempts to take Rauf’s statements and legal dealings out of context prove my point. Even moderate Muslims who attempt to spread a message of peace won’t escape your wrath, so the constant refrain by conservatives of “where are the moderate Muslims?” is disingenuous.
Chris we (Both Pie and I) recently posted links to a person we believe is a moderate Muslim who also supports America, freedom, and the Constitution. Your charge of dis-ingenuousness is untrue and unfounded.
I also recall a conversation we had about remarks made by Rauf in the ME and translated into English that demonstrate the man speaks with forked tongue. He also has refused to denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization. There are many reasons to doubt his genuine love of America.
I get it that you find him an honest man. I think you are naive. A man who is willing for the USA to remain a free and secular society would say that his religion does not conflict with the Constitution. The way he expresses himself allows for what I think is his belief that under Sharia the Constitution would finally be repaired to reflect the law as he sees it.
Why would he bother to make such a statement? To deceive, of course. Have you really never met a smooth talker?
Tina: “Chris we (Both Pie and I) recently posted links to a person we believe is a moderate Muslim who also supports America, freedom, and the Constitution. Your charge of dis-ingenuousness is untrue and unfounded.”
I’m aware that you are happy to link to moderate Muslims…as long as they vocally support the American right wing. If they are even remotely left-of-center, you accuse them of being probable terrorists.
“I also recall a conversation we had about remarks made by Rauf in the ME and translated into English that demonstrate the man speaks with forked tongue.”
I recall you taking his words out of context and leaping to the worst possible interpretation of his words, just as as has been done in this thread.
“He also has refused to denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization. There are many reasons to doubt his genuine love of America.”
I am really sick of every single Muslim ever being asked to denounce Hamas. It’s a trap. In any case, here is Rauf’s statement:
“Asked if he agreed with the State Department’s assessment, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf told WABC radio, “Look, I’m not a politician.
“The issue of terrorism is a very complex question,” he told interviewer Aaron Klein.
“There was an attempt in the ’90s to have the UN define what terrorism is and say who was a terrorist. There was no ability to get agreement on that.”
Asked again for his opinion on Hamas, an exasperated Rauf wouldn’t budge.
“I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy,” Rauf said, insisting that he wants to see peace in Israel between Jews and Arabs.”
http://nypost.com/2010/06/19/imam-terror-error/
Rauf has made it abundantly clear that he does not support many of the actions taken by Hamas.
“The way he expresses himself allows for what I think is his belief that under Sharia the Constitution would finally be repaired to reflect the law as he sees it.”
The fact that this is not at all a rational interpretation of his statements doesn’t bother you in the slightest?
Re Chris 21: “I’m aware that you are happy to link to moderate Muslims…as long as they vocally support the American right wing. If they are even remotely left-of-center, you accuse them of being probable terrorists.”
HAH! There goes The Magnificent Ass again … nothing more needs to be said regarding that juvenile screed.
Try reading Shari’a yourself Chris and highlight the where, oh say — cutting off the hand of a thief, or sewing a homosexual up in a bag and tossing him off a cliff, or executing a Muslim who converts to another religion, or where criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death — is consistent with the Constitution Of The United States. In Shari’a men are regarded as superior and women are treated as deficient in intelligence, morals and religion, and must therefore be protected from their own weaknesses. I would like to hear your arguments on how Shari’a is consistent with your values and our Constitution. That would make for some interesting reading and be a welcome relief from your usual endless blathering of extreme left-wing drivel, specious misrepresentations, and asinine insults. Please make particular note of any US constitutional compliance with the widespread Shar’a practice of accusing rape victims of illicit sexual relations (zina), an offense which carries punishments ranging from imprisonment and flogging to death by stoning.
You can read more on Shari’a here (and on dozens of other web sites, it is pretty well known) — http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html
You can read about US constitutional law here — http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/constitutional_law
Fair enough, I missed that on the Rauf lawsuit settlement, but I do find it interesting that you defend a slumlord who pushes his book that deals with supposed Shari’a-US Constitution compliance to Muslim extremists with terrorist connections (Hizb-ut-Tahrir). Shari’a also condones lying to infidels. My hunch is that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a two faced liar.
Since you seem to be willfully ignorant Hizb-ut-Tahrir and conveniently ignore Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s ties to them, here are some fun facts —
Hizb-ut-Tahrir (Arabic for “The Party of Liberation”) defines itself as “a political group and not a priestly one,” a “political party whose ideology is Islam, so politics is its work and Islam is its ideology.”
The long term objective of Hizb-ut-Tahrir’s is to replace existing governments with theocratic Muslim rule and to bring about a worldwide Islamic government under a single ruler (caliph) where “all of life’s affairs in society are administered according to the Shari’ah rules.”
Hizb-ut-Tahrir has been outlawed in a number of nations that regard it as subversive and linked to terrorists.
Hizb-ut-Tahrir is outlawed as a terrorist group in Russia, Germany, and many Islamic countries
In August 2007, approximately 80,000 members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir gathered in the Bung Karno sports stadium in Jakarta, Indonesia to call for the creation of a unified Muslim Caliphate spanning the entire Islamic world. The delegates in attendance, who hailed not only from Indonesia but also from Europe, Africa and the Middle East, punctuated their demands with cries of “Allah is great.”
Sound familiar? Have you heard of the invasion of Iraq by ISIS, Chris? You know that hot and dusty former country half-way across the world?
Hizb-ut-Tahrir , this is the group the “moderate Muslim” Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf lectures to regarding US Constitution-Shari’a compliance. Moderate my ass.
“I am really sick of every single Muslim ever being asked to denounce Hamas. It’s a trap.”
Sheesh, you are really on a Magnificent Ass tear, but then you always are, no? No one is asking every single Muslim to denounce Hamas, (especially not Hamas and other extremists and terrorist groups) but a viable and active peace movement from “peaceful” Muslims would be welcome. You think not. OK, I got it. I just happen to think that if 15-25% of Muslims are terrorists why not 15-25% supporting a peace movement?
As to the rest of your screed above, take your bigoted and idiotic misrepresentations and slurs of Tina and myself and your absurd inventions of our motivations and shove them up your …
Tina,
Chris is a paradigm of how the peaceful are — in fact — irrelevant, particularly the extreme left wing “peaceful” who would hand the keys of the city over to religious barbarian zealots in the name of political correctness.
In light of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s connections to Hizb-ut-Tahrir, if he truly is the “peace builder” he claims to be, it appears to be one or both of the usual two Islamic forms of “peace” —
The “peace” of submission to Islam and Shari’ah.
The peace of the grave for anyone who does not.
Re 21 Chris: “Asked if he agreed with the State Department’s assessment, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf told WABC radio, “Look, I’m not a politician.
“The issue of terrorism is a very complex question,” he told interviewer Aaron Klein.
“There was an attempt in the ’90s to have the UN define what terrorism is and say who was a terrorist. There was no ability to get agreement on that.”
Asked again for his opinion on Hamas, an exasperated Rauf wouldn’t budge.
“I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy,” Rauf said, insisting that he wants to see peace in Israel between Jews and Arabs.”
*** Translation: The “peace builder” publicly refuses to recognize terrorism and does not wish to be seen as an adversary to terrorism and terrorist organizations (and thus also avoids being put on an execution list).
More revealing Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf statements —
“We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.”
*** Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf lies to attack the United States and cloud the issue on terrorism. The British government reported that at most only 50,000 deaths could be attributed to the sanctions, which were brought on by the actions by former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. There are more Islamic terrorists organizations than just al Qaida, it is Rauf’s intent to downplay the murder of Muslims and others by Islam, Shari’ah, and Islamic terror organizations.
“The differences, perhaps, may lie on whether the solution lies in the two-state solution or in a one-state solution. I believe that you had someone here recently who spoke about having a one land and two people’s solution to Israel. And I personally – my own personal analysis tells me that a one-state solution is a more coherent one than a two-state solution. So if we address the underlying issue, if we figure out a way to create condominiums, to condominiamise Israel and Palestine so you have two peoples co-existing on one state, then we have a different paradigm which will allow us to move forward.”
*** Translation: A one-state solution is code for the destruction of Israel. In the “one state” solution Palestinian Muslims would quickly outnumber the Jewish residents of Israel, a position advocated by radical groups like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
“… what makes people, in my opinion, commit suicide for political reasons have their origins in politics and political objectives and worldly objectives rather than other worldly objectives [i.e. Islam]. But the psychology of human beings and the brittleness of the human condition and how many of us have thought about taking our own lives, we may be jilted, had a bad relationship, you know, didn’t get tenure at the university, failed an important course, there’s a host of reason why people feel so depressed with themselves that they are willing to contemplate ending their own lives. And if you can access those individuals and deploy them for your own worldly objectives, this is exactly what has happened in much of the Muslim world. ”
*** Translation: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf dismisses that suicide bombings are driven by Islamic religious beliefs and that suicide bombing terror activities are equivalent to lost love or loss of tenure.
“The United States has supported authoritarian regimes, and it’s understandable that people in those nations would take action into their own hands. 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?”
*** Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf justifies acts of terrorism by blaming the United States for the oppression of Islamic regimes of their own citizens and ignores U.S. aid of Muslim citizens in nations such as Kosovo and Kuwait.
Fascinating comments Pie, thank you for providing it!
Why shouldn’t Rauf “lecture” extremist Muslim groups and try to give them a copy of his book? His interpretation of sharia is clearly different from theirs; are you saying that moderate Muslims shouldn’t try to convince the radicals to change their mind? Are you saying if they do try to do so, that is proof that they themselves are radicals? Your argument is incoherent.
As for the slum lord thing, it may be true, but it doesn’t have much to do with his religion or his good work spreading a message of tolerance. MLK Jr. was a philanderer. I’m not saying the man is perfect, I’m saying that this is an example of a moderate Muslim that conservatives have tried to demonize, not because he’s said or done anything truly radical, but because his beliefs don’t fit the conservative model of political correctness.
And yes, your policing of every single word, and your deliberate decision to leap to the worst possible interpretations of his statements and actions, is political correctness.
At #24 Pie and Rauf: “…Rauf said, insisting that he wants to see peace in Israel between Jews and Arabs.”
Just the kind of remark that sounds touchy feeley and “peaceful” and isn’t.
Inside Israel Arabs, Jews, Palestinians, and Christians already live in peace with each other. They are all represented in the Knesset, the children attend school together, and in the hospitals doctors from all three treat patients of all three, even victims of terror and war from other nations are treated regardless of nationality, race or religion.
This is the type of remark that makes me suspicious of his intentions. What about Peace in Arab nations between Arabs and Jews?
Also, while criticizing the US for sanctions in Iraq Rauf fails to note the sanctions would have ended quickly and easily had Saddam not played games…had Saddam simply showed UN inspectors everything he had.
(Also absent are the many murders and mass deaths, the rapes, imprisonments and maimings, some that led to death or disfigurement at the hands of Saddam and his sons.)
Is this a man interested in the truth or a man interested in excusing and covering for terrorists and tyrants while making the United States wrong and the root of their problem?
America has given billions in aid, not to mention spilling a lot of blood, to defend and liberate Muslims (Arabs as well as others of many faiths) in the region. These backhanded insults do not impress me as being supportive of Muslims or of peace and they certainly are not indicative of a man who shares a love of liberty or equal justice.