Thursday, May 27, 2010

Ground Zero Imam, Founder of ASMA and Chairman of Cordoba Initiative: "I Do Not Believe in Religious Dialogue"

It appears that while the Imam of the Ground Zero Mosque is busy trying to put blinders over the eyes of Americans, he is showing his true colors to Arabic speakers.

Feisal Abdul Rauf, chairman of the Cordoba Initiative and Founder of ASMA, has been in the limelight for his proposal to build an Islamic Center 600 feet away from Ground Zero. When appeasing Western audiences, Abdul Rauf uses language drenched in pluralist, new-age, politically correct overtones. In his article for the New York Daily News, he has written:

My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America's Muslim population into the mainstream society. ...

The center will have a public memorial to the victims of 9/11 as well as a meditation room where all will be welcome for quiet reflection. The center will support soul and body. ...
My work is to make sure mosques are not recruiting grounds for radicals. ...
What could be a better use for the citizens in lower Manhattan? What could be a better monument to the victims of that tragic day?
When speaking to Arabic audiences, however, the headlines read quite differently. Although I am not fluent in Arabic, I can read enough to know what this Arabic headline says: "The Greatest Imam of Mosques in New York (says): 'I Do Not Believe in Religious Dialogue.'"

Part of this Arabic article is translated here, and it reads:

Religious dialogue as customarily understood is a set of events with discussions in large hotels that result in nothing. Religions do not dialogue and dialogue is not present in the attitudes of the followers, regardless of being Muslim or Christian. The image of Muslims in the West is complex which needs to be remedied.
This very same "anti-terrorist" said the following on CBS less than 3 weeks after 9/11:

"(The 9/11 attacks were part of a larger Islamic) reaction against the U.S. government politically, where we (the U.S.) espouse principles of democracy and human rights, and (yet) where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries... United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened... because we (Americans) have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. ...In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”
Sounding less and less like the "anti-terrorist" we'd expect, Abdul Rauf has also been quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald as having said:

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."
In saying this, Abdul Rauf equates the British and American militaries to Christians warriors. The same article states:

"Imam Feisal... said there could be little progress until the U.S. acknowledged backing dictators and the U.S. President gave an 'America Culpa' speech to the Muslim world."
It appears our newest neighborhood anti-terrorist has great wisdom to share for us about Islam, as well. According to the Huffington Post, he has said:

The Prophet Muhammad has been known as the first feminist. … Gender equality is an intrinsic part of Islamic belief.
Now, Muhammad is the very man who said husbands can beat their wives, who said women are deficient in their minds, who has been recorded as striking his wife in her chest and causing her pain, who was the greatest polygamist in Islam, who said women lack common sense, who said Hell will be mostly inhabited by women, who endorsed raping of female captives, and who is single-handedly the greatest cause for underage marriages around the world. If Abdul Rauf thinks Muhammad is "the first feminist," no wonder he considers himself the anti-terrorist!

Who is this man, and what does he really believe? What are his true goals? With reason enough to question the motives of any man who might want to build a mosque on ground zero, he is held in high suspicion considering his remarks in the past and now his apparent two-faced pandering to media of different languages. Perhaps time will tell the truth about Feisal Abdul Rauf; for now, I have some strong reservations.

Oh, and by the way, Abdul Rauf has done "sensitivity training" for the FBI. Ironic, considering how insensitive he is to American sentiments.

Many quotations, references, and leads in this article were made possible due to PajamasMedia and

*** UPDATE ***

Excellent report on Feisal Abdul Rauf by Robert Spencer, Debra Burlingame, and Sean Hannity


Adam said...

Why are Christian Churches of all denomination coming together... My question to New Yokers and Americans is ... Why a Mosque ? .. Why Not A Christian Church or Grand Chapel or Prayer House...

God Bless and Protect America from the Satanic Kult Of Kaaba

The Berean Search said...

I would bet my life savings Feisal Abdul Rauf is a card carrying member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and die hard stealth Jihadist.

One can only hope a talented investigative journalist is on this man's case, because I am certain if you dig enough there is a great story here.

Charis kai Eirene said...

Isn't it rather telling that these people refer to their organization as the "Cordoba Initiative?"

On the Cordoba Initiative website, they claim that their interest is in improving Muslim-West relations and they pretend that this will be through dialogue characterized by "mutual recognition and respect and away from heightened tensions." However we can see that their own chairman doesn't really buy into this. So what is it really about?

Well let's get back to the name and our history the 8th century A.D., Cordoba, Spain was invaded and captured by a Muslim ARMY. It subsequently became entrenched as the capital of an Islamic caliphate for several centuries. The Muslims destroyed a great Christian church to build the "Great Mosque of Cordoba!" How can we fail to see the parallels here with the efforts of the Cordoba Initiative to build a mosque on the site of a building destroyed by the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

The "Cordoba Initiative" of the 21st Century seems to have much more to do with the "Cordoba Invasion" by Muslims of the 8th Century than interfaith "dialogue." Well, unless by "dialogue," one means "destruction and domination."

minoria said...

Thank you again Nabeel.Nabeel,Robert Spencer in a video talked about him.He tells us how the Imam in a 2004 book wrote "The American POLITICAL structure is SHARIAH COMPLIANT,for America to score even higher on the ISLAMIC or SHARIAH COMPLIANCE scale,America would need to do 2 things,invite the voices of all religions to join the dialogue in SHAPING the nation's PRACTICAL life,and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their OWN LAWS."(His 2004 book"What is Right with Islam")


He gave himself away,he is for discrimination against US non-Muslims.
The video is:

His father was with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Michelle Qureshi said...

Thanks, Minoria - I have uploaded the video as an update.


minoria said...

You are welcome Nabeel.I didn't know you were not aware of it.It is shocking,the video.And now the massacre in Pakistan.One little bit of good news is that dear Rifqa Bary survived her operation,but she will have chemotherapy in the future.I hope she does well,and gets the company of her real frineds,like ex-Muslim Jivanjee.Pray for her ,all of you people.Thank you.

T. Ambrose Nazianzus said...

I think part of what he says actually makes sense. The other part, of course, is revisionist. Mohammad, and modern Muslim treatment of women, is quite repressive.

(On the next part-please read carefully, and consider in charity!)

That being said, I think some of his statements are quite spot on. We should be aware of ideological systems which govern the US (especially our involvement in the Middle East), and the potentiality that they could have created the very forces that seek to destroy us. We should consider how US funding in the Middle East against the USSR provided today's terrorists with the resources necessary to turn against us, once the USSR threat had been neutralized (especially in Afghanistan). This doesn't place the blame on the US-ideological and religious beliefs created extreme Isalm, which is responsible. But insofar as we involved ourselves in the Middle East (and funded these guys originally), we have some sliver of blame.

As to religious dialogue-what is the context of the quote? What else did he say? This seems cherry picked to me. I think his definition of "religious dialogue," against which he argues, is spot on. Religious dialogue is not effectively done in the conference room, but in actually living with people of different religions. You don't learn about the "common believer" from intellectual discussion, but from personal experience, and no amount of dialogue and trust can be established without this basic premise being satisfied. The Muslim and Christian positions, at heart, reject the idea of dialogue-we're conversion religions. Perhaps, it is this notion that he wishes to change?

This doesn't mean I support putting a mosque on the site. This doesn't mean I think the imam is completely on our side. But, having read the quotes provided, I'm not convinced this creates the "damning" portrait that it suggests. I think Slavoj Zizek is right-we operate on certain ideological systems that blind us to the reality of our actions, and I think our work against the USSR, in conjunction with Muslim group, helped create some of our problems we have today (not completely. There is historical precedent in Islam for attacking "Christian" nations).

I hope folks are willing to address this, in charity, and with intellectual rigor. I mean, I'm a Trad-Catholic. I can't be all bad!

otto said...

But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima.

You know Mr. Rauf, many Americans worked to build and use those weapons. And I mean MANY. They built little towns, communities, lived around the clock; there were literally hundreds of thousands of people helping the war effort, all in order to defeat what at that time was evil and wicked (forever shall remain). I think it might have just so happened that a few western Muslims mixed in with the bunch.

otto said...

I agree with miniora,

Sharia Compliance Scale needs to stop right now. Just listen to how ridiculous that sounds. All the money and funding going to this should be cut off. I bet its public funding and terrorist sponsored donations. It is twisted, really twisted that there are institution within the western world that are DEVOTED to Islamizing non Muslims, and GOD KNOWS who the funding comes from! And there are willing non Muslims to help the Muslims achieve this goal - is it really because they don't know, just don't care, or are completely ignorant? Or is it something else all together?

Verumi said...

Odo said: ...And there are willing non Muslims to help the Muslims achieve this goal - is it really because they don't know, just don't care, or are completely ignorant? Or is it something else all together?

Nabeel's post on the slaughter of Ahmadiyyas is also still fresh in my mind as I reflect on your question.

Let my preamble my thoughts with the following humor on mass murders: ". . . 20 people, you go to a hospital, they look through a small window at you forever. And over that, we can't deal with it, you know? Someone's killed 100,000 people. We're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning. I can't even get down the gym! . . . ~ Eddie Izzard, stand-up comedian

I see Eddie Izzard as some sort of a Shakespearean fool in this case. Perhaps some of the non-Muslims who support Islamic agenda are neither ignorant nor apathetic; they simply cannot accept the existence of such wickedness. Some people deal with it in humor. Some people deal with it with hope by pursuing peace and harmony with wicked Muslims, however misguided that hope in the end may be.

For my part, I am, for the moment, stupefied.