Feisal Abdul Rauf, The Useful Idiots' Best Friend

If there was any lingering doubt that Rauf was playing for fools the fringe of Americans who have been shouting "bigotry!" at anyone who thinks building a victory dialogue mosque in the 9/11 debris is offensive, these last tidbits should now put those doubts to rest.

First, Rauf enthusiastically endorsed the Iranian Revolution... and hasn't walked back from that a bit.

Second, this apologist for Islamofascism is now saying we need to build this mosque because -- get this -- if we don't, the radicals will be upset.

As Ace points out, this fully exposes both the lie that Islam is no different than other religions and the mafia-like extortion tactics of some so-called Islamic "moderates." If the radicals are just a tiny, misguided minority of Islam that don't represent the Islamic faith, why are moderates telling us (a predominantly Christian country, mind you) that we need to appease them? Rauf seems to be essentially saying "Gee, nice country you've got there. It would be a shame if some radicals attacked it. Maybe you should build this mosque at Ground Zero, so there isn't another Ground Zero next year." Sure. Any other jizya we can pay while we're at it?

I really feel for the truly liberal Muslims out there, especially those that have spoken out against the GZM. They've got Christian idiots burning Korans on the one hand, and their fellow Muslims trying to build a mosque at the site of Islamic radicals' greatest modern atrocity on the other. Theirs is a narrow place, beset on all sides. All I can really tell them is: hey, turning the other cheek isn't always easy for us either, but stick with it and maybe you can lead Islam into the Enlightenment.

UPDATE: James Taranto agrees:

What was initially marketed as a gesture of conciliation has turned into a protection racket: Give Rauf what he wants, he tells us, or there's no telling what those angry Muslim extremists might do. Rauf's outrageous comments ought to erase all doubt that the construction of the Ground Zero mosque would be a victory for terrorism.
posted by Dave on 09.09.10 at 01:15 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/10028






Comments

I think that powerline post is pretty weak tea. A lot of people were optimistic about the Iranian Revolution in the early days for a variety of reasons - not least of which was the understandable relief at the removal of the Shah and the naive faith that whatever replaced it still had to end up being a significant improvement. They were wrong, but it's ridiculous to assert that everyone should have known this in 1979 and that anyone who said anything positive about the Islamic gov't in the first few months of it's existence, and before it actually started doing the evil things it evnetually did, necessarily sympathizes with what it eventually became.


libarbarian   ·  September 9, 2010 06:53 PM

One more thing.


If the radicals are just a tiny, misguided
minority of Islam that don't represent the Islamic faith, why are moderates telling us .. that we need to appease them?

Hmmmm .... would you say the same thing if an American politician said something similar? What if an American politician said something like "people are angry about Obamacare and if you don't repeal it they will start looking at 'second ammendment' solutions"?

Would you say that such a politician was "threatening" violence or would you say the politician was just making a statement of fact because there really are angry people in this country who really might decide to lash out violently if they continue to feel put upon and oppressed.

Well, likewise, there really ARE muslim radicals who really WILL use this incident to recruit new fighters and really WILL lash out at the US and anyone else they perceive to be related to this "attack" on their religion.

So, on what basis do you decide when such statements are threats or just statements of fact?

Anonymous   ·  September 9, 2010 07:13 PM

lib,

Yes, but Rauf hasn't walked that back at all in the 30 years since. He still endorses theocratic rule.

Also, it's not at all true that no one expected or should have expected Islamic rule would be exactly as horrible as it has been -- in fact that was the opinion of most on the right at the time. The Shah was far from ideal, but he was pro-Western and pro-modernization (much like the autocrats in Taiwan and S Korea who eventually gave way to something far better). It was immediately obvious his successors were neither.

TallDave   ·  September 9, 2010 07:19 PM

Anon,

The American Revolution was a Second Amendment solution. It wasn't about killing people because they exercised freedom of speech.

Angle's statement has been widely taken out of context. She only stated what most Americans believe: the 2nd Amendment exists partly as a check on the government's power.

TallDave   ·  September 9, 2010 07:25 PM

They've got Christian idiots burning Korans on the one hand...

Yep, and if they are really a liberal and tolerant they'll deal with the insults just like the rest of us.

Meanwhile all the rest will be further revealed as anything but liberal or tolerant; in other words our enemies.

ThomasD   ·  September 10, 2010 01:53 PM

Yes, but Rauf hasn't walked that back at all in the 30 years since.

How do you know this? Because you are not personally aware of him doing so? How much of his statements and writing from the last 3 decades do you have access to?

This statement of his emerged a few days ago. Do you really think that the fact that the fact that you haven't yet read about any "walkback" since then proves he still thinks the same thing?

Frankly, I know very little about this dude. I know enough about the American partisan media to know that, if he actually has actually made statements of regret, you certainly won't hear about it from the sources who are hyping up his 30 year old generic statement of support.

He still endorses theocratic rule.

Actively? Or are you just extrapolating from the fact that you are not personally aware of any retractions issued over the last 30 years?


libarbarian   ·  September 10, 2010 06:49 PM

You want to see a REAL model of mendacious bullshit in support of an evil regime then go read the story about Chomsky's "Distortions at Fourth Hand".

"Distortions" is a mealy mouthed defense of the Khmer Rouge disguised as an exercise in media criticism. Basically, Chomsky takes the "I don't really know the truth but here's why all the people reporting it are probably liars" approach. That is bad, but by itself could be chalked up to naivete. However, to this day Chomsky continues to insist that he wasn't "wrong" about anything at all and that he was only offering criticism of the early reporting of genocide. Anyone who reads DAFH and isn't already a Chomskyite would see that as total bullshit - he clearly thought that the reports of genocide were false.


Now, if you can find quotes from this Imam actively supporting the current regime, or even pulling a Chomsky and saying "Well, I wasn't really wrong about what I said before" then I will believe you. If your only argument is that he didn't stand up and publicly denounce ever having supported them in any way, then I will still be very skeptical of any claim that he still supports them, let alone "theocratic rule" in general.

libarbarian   ·  September 10, 2010 07:01 PM

lib,

Rauf endorsed theocratic rule on 2009, and cited specifically the principle of vilayet-i-faquih that the Ayatollahs use to justify their rule.

http://riseofthecenter.com/2010/08/26/hitchens-on-imam-raufs-dark-sides/

It's important to realize this is the demarcation between Muslim liberals and Muslim theocrats -- and the Sistani school of Shia thought rejects vilayet-i-faquih, so it isn't like this is just something all Muslims, or even all Shia, believe it. One can be a relatively moderate theocrat, of course, but not a liberal theocrat.

Perhaps I should write a post on this. The rise of the Najaf school of thought may turn out to be the biggest consequence of liberating Iraq, as Iranians grow more disgusted with their pseudo-democracy every day.

TallDave   ·  September 11, 2010 10:03 AM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


September 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits