Detailing some of the key evidence that the mosque at Ground Zero will be a triumphal mosque. "Triumphant Ground Zero Mosque," by Rowan Scarborough in Human Events, October 13:
A noted expert on the Islamic movement in the U.S. and aboard says a mosque at New York's Ground Zero would be seen by Muslims worldwide as a significant victory in ultimately bringing Islam's Sharia law to America.Stephen Coughlin, a former Pentagon adviser on Islam who now briefs organizations on the Islamic movement's true goals, told HUMAN EVENTS that type of victory is the objective of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the mosque's sponsor.
"Among other things, it's to establish a triumph by establishing its mission of 'Dawa,' just like Rauf's book suggested when published in its original title," said Coughlin. "I also think it's close to the nature of what it is to open a mosque. It opens up a seat of government. When a mosque is open, there's a claim of territory. When you open a mosque it establishes Islamic law within the purview of the mosque. There is a history of Islam putting up mosques that are associated with claims of victory."
One example, he said, is the Cordoba Mosque, which Muslims constructed on top of a Catholic church after conquering Spain and imposing Islamic rule in 784.
Imam Rauf chose that name in 2003 when he founded the Cordoba Initiative, which wants to build the large community center and mosque two blocks from where al Qaeda terrorists flew two planes into the World Trade Center's twin towers, killing nearly 3,000 innocent people.
Coughlin said Rauf's book, What's Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West, was first published in Malaysia under the title, A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11.
The cover shows the Statue of Liberty, with a crescent moon overhead, the internationally recognized symbol of Islam.
In another Rauf-authored book, Islam: A Sacred Law, the imam argued that Sharia--laws based on the Koran--must supercede all others. He seems to suggest it should replace the U.S. Constitution. The Muslim Brotherhood, a secretive global network of Islamists, also wants the West and all countries to live under Sharia law. Its goal is to methodically dominate the culture and politics of the United States, according to documents seized by federal authorities.
In Sacred Law, Rauf wrote, "justice and equity, and the concepts of right and wrong, can only be an extension of an attachment to God and abiding by his dictates. And since a Sharia is understood as the law with God at its center, it is not possible in principle to limit the Sharia to some aspects of human life and leave out others."
He also writes, "The Sharia thus covers every field of law--public and private, national and international--together with enormous amounts of material that Westerners would not regard as law at all."
Asked if Rauf is a moderate, as promoted on U.S. State Department-financed tours of the Middle East, Coughlin said:
"I think he is a person who does 'Dawa,' which is bring the message. You bring the message before you bring jihad. You have to remember if he is a man of peace, and he's an imam, peace means total submission to Islam. World peace means there will be peace in the world under Islamic law."...
Rauf: "I condemn everyone and anyone who commits acts of terrorism, and Hamas has committed acts of terrorism."
Why does he refuse to directly connect the verb "condemn" with the noun, "Hamas"? "I condemn Hamas."
Why does he instead turn his answer into the beginning of a syllogism, where he states only the two premises, and then leaves it to us to assume he is also making the syllogistic deduction that he condemns Hamas? Why does he refuse to actually say he condemns Hamas?
It's interesting in this context to note that Ibn Taymiyyah, a Muslim thinker influential on the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahabism, and Salafism, thought that syllogism was an inferior and uncertain form of logic.
Is Rauf, by stating only those two premises, but refusing to state the conclusion, counting on the unconscious assumption Westerners will make that he, like them, believes in the validity of syllogism? But what if he doesn't believe in syllogism, and does not think the deductive conclusion follows necessarily?
Is Rauf telegraphing to Wahabist and other Islamic scholars that he doesn't mean what he seems to be saying to Westerners about Hamas?
In any event, I think Rauf's above statement is part of playing a double-game. By leaving the conclusion unspoken, he telegraphs to the world's numerous Muslim Hamas supporters that he is resisting actually saying it. He's telling them that he is answering under duress, but fundamentally still on their side. That's why he refuses to come right out and say it. But naive Westerners assume he is, like them, drawing the obvious deductive conclusion.
If I'm being overly suspicious, well, that's what Rauf deserves for refusing to speak simply and directly in a situation where trust is obviously in short supply.
Asked if Rauf is a moderate, as promoted on U.S. State Department-financed tours of the Middle East, Coughlin said:
"I think he is a person who does 'Dawa,' which is bring the message. You bring the message before you bring jihad. You have to remember if he is a man of peace, and he's an imam, peace means total submission to Islam. World peace means there will be peace in the world under Islamic law."...
What a wussy convoluted response, doesn't want trouble from Obama, I guess.
Translation: hell no he's not "moderate" (except in the sense he's not hoping to see infidel American heads rolling - at least not yet). He want's you living under 7th century Sharia, fool!
Everything about Imam Rauf says "Dawa before Jihad". He is doing standard Islamic practice of 'offering' you the right to accept Islam, to "revert" in their terminology to what they believe is the one true faith in Allah. Pending such an 'offering', refusal to "revert" means that your heart is closed to Allah, and now you are fair game in war to be conquered with Jihad. That is the REAL message Rauf and his ilk are giving us. Making his words as sweet as he can to our Western ears, he is simply saying to us: "Submit or die."
"the Cordoba Mosque, which Muslims constructed on top of a Catholic church after conquering Spain and imposing Islamic rule in 784."
And I keep pointing out that it was taken back by the christians after the Reconquista, and dedicated to christianity again.
The islamics LOST it!
So how could it be a matter of pride for them?
Hasn't anybody noticed that?
Did any one see this?
'View' Stars Fight with Bill O'Reilly ... Storm Off Set
http://www.tmz.com/videos?autoplay=true&mediaKey=e82697ba-e2fb-41c9-805f-b722ec75a30f
Read the comments.
Cordoba mosque? What a silly thing to bring up considering that the Moors PURCHASED it! That's right, they paid for it and then refurbished it into a mosque. Interestingly, the original cathedral's foundation remained and the work appears to have been ... pre-Christian. Now, fancy that, the Christians perhaps built this place of worship over a pagan temple only to have their place of worship removed for a mosque.
How terrible the "triumphal" aspect of all this must surely be for Christendom losing its holiest of holies in NYC. The nerve of the Muslims PURCHASING a plot of land for development of something that is comparable to centers for Jews in every major American city. *Obviously*, this is just like Hagia Sofia. I mean, I can't think of any instances of Christendom knocking down pagan sites in order to erect a church...
I lol'd.
RE: O'Reilly slamming NYC mosque
Oh, sorry. Had the wrong urls before. Here's the right one:
'View' Stars Fight with Bill O'Reilly ... Storm Off Set
http://www.tmz.com/2010/10/14/the-view-bill-oreilly-whoopi-goldberg-joy-behar-barbara-walters/
When this guy takes this route, I wonder why people complain about him? He can't be all bad.
Another pathetic attempt at equivalence. I'm not aware that here in America, Jews suicidally destroyed existing structures, killing thousands of innocents, then sought to build those "centers for Jews" to which you refer, on the remains of their victims. And unless you can tell us that that has happened here, then this latest attempt at equivalence falls on its face...
Still More Fun with FAQs
http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/frequently-asked-questions
Common sense, or not, this making “friends of convenience” is exactly what he is recommending the US do regarding Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood in the US-Muslim Engagement publication “Changing Course” on pages 59-60.
It is still not clear to me from this why Feisal Abdul Rauf would choose that moment, less than 2 months after 9/11, and on 60 Minutes, to declare that America had it coming.
He does this kind of thing too much. He could not give Aaron Klein a straight forward answer to the question "who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks?".
Here is my deconstruction.
We still do not know what he believes, only what he is doubtless sure the world wide general perception is.
On page 157 of his book, he compares Osama Bin Laden to Robin Hood. He rings the changes on how similar OBL is to Robin Hood before concluding with the question -
Nowhere does he mention 9/11, or why that might keep anyone from comparing Osama Bin Laden to Robin Hood.
It is on the subject of 9/11 that Feisal Abdul Rauf is his most evasive, elliptical, and hostile. I think the 60 Minutes interview should be looked at in the context of a larger pattern of similar statements made by Feisal Abdul Rauf.
Well, no, not always.
During the 6/06/10 interview with Aaron Klein, Feisal Abdul Rauf made it clear that if it were the diplomatic thing to do, he would not condemn terrorism, that he was a “bridge builder” who wasn’t really clear on the meaning of terrorism. It was this astonishingly weak response that required his clarification which still leaves a lot to be desired. (see "more fun with FAQs").
This passage comes from page 155 of Rauf‘s book “What‘s Right with Islam”, but it cuts the paragraph short. The very next sentence says:
“Do not kill the soul which God has made sacred except by right [of justice]”(Quran 6:151).”
Here is what Robert Spencer says about this verse:
This verse is a prohibition against killing other MUSLIMS. We know perfectly well that the criteria for killing non believers can be as trivial as a cartoon, or a rumor.Not all Muslims engage in this kind of dissembling, but Feisal does, and ignoring the implications of this are dire.
I just cited this in another thread, but I'll put it here, too.
It's a preliminary attempt at an 'Islamic Dictionary for Infidels', written by one Wolfgang Bruno, drawing extensively on a Muslim (nominal Muslim?) writer called Bassam Tibi.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/07/islamic-dictionary-for-infidels.html
Here are a couple of excerpts from that article:
'...the German-Syrian scholar Bassam Tibi, a Muslim reformist, is warning the West against wishful thinking in its "dialogue" with Muslims.
"The dialogue is not proceeding well because of the two-facedness of most Muslim interlocutors on the one hand and the gullibility of well-meaning Western idealists on the other."
'Muslims frequently claim, to obscure the realities of the war against non-Muslims, that "Islam means peace." The word "Islam" does indeed come from the same three-letter Arabic root (s-l-m) as the word "salaam," peace.
'"Islam," however, means "submission," not peace.
"Peace" in Islam equals submission to the will of Allah through his divine and eternal law, sharia.
'The absence of sharia is the absence of peace.
'Bassam Tibi explains:
"First, both sides should acknowledge candidly that although they might use identical terms these mean different things to each of them.
The word 'peace,' for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam – or 'House of Islam' – to the entire world," explained Tibi. '...
'According to Tibi, the quest of converting the entire world to Islam is an immutable fixture of the Muslim worldview.
'Only if this task is accomplished, if the world has become a "Dar al-Islam," will it also be a "Dar a-Salam," or a house of peace."
'This strategy of deceiving non-Muslims by twisting words to conceal the real, Islamic agenda while Muslims are not yet strong enough to impose their will is sanctioned by Islamic texts:
'IslamOnline quotes Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, in stating:
"Lying is forbidden unless it is for necessity. In that case, the principle "necessity makes the unlawful permissible" applies. (…) Some of these acceptable lies is what we call connotation, a word carrying a double meaning. The Muslim may use the positive not the negative interpretation of the word."...
'Muslims feel "oppressed" when they can't fully practice their religious laws in the West.
'But since these laws ultimately require the subjugation of non-Muslims, "freedom of religion" for Muslims essentially means the freedom to make others unfree. [i.e. Muslims are seeking a license to enslave - dda].
'According to Tibi,
"world peace, the final stage of the da'wa (call to embrace Islam), is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam…
"Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Qur'anic command to spread Islam as a way to peace.
"The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims.
“Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of "opening" the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad.
“Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur'an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists.
"Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da'wa, are blamed for this state of war, for the da'wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it.
"In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them.
"Only when Muslim power is weak is "temporary truce" (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of "temporary")." And so on...
The conclusion of Bruno's essay, with various key 'Islamspeak' terms translated into what they really mean for us non-Muslims who stand in the cross-hairs of Jihad.
"...Jihad is, simply put, anything undertaken to advance the spread of Islam, peaceful or not.
"Which means that Jihad is always present, even if there should be a temporary absence of violence because Muslims are too weak to use force.
"On the other hand, "aggression" is anything undertaken by non-Muslims to obstruct the advance of Islam, non-violent or not.
{Thus, Mr Spencer and Pam Geller's massive - and peaceful - rally against the Ground Zero rabat, is "aggression", in Muslim eyes, because it is impeding the advance of Islam and the expansion of Muslim power over non-Muslims - dda}.
"Based on this information, maybe we could make a sketch of a dictionary to explain what many Muslims actually think when they use various terms Westerners and infidels understand very differently:
"'Peace': "Peace" in Islam equals submission to the will of Allah through his divine and eternal law, sharia, and the extension of the Dar al-Islam – or 'House of Islam' – to cover the entire world.
"The absence of sharia is the absence of peace.
"Since it is the will of Allah that Islam will rule the entire planet,
"entering non-Muslim lands to subjugate the population and wipe out their corrupt, infidel culture is not seen by Muslims as "waging war," but as spreading peace.
{This means that in Muslim doublethink, the nineteen allahu-akbaring murderers, on September 11, were 'spreading peace' - dda}.
"'Freedom': Hurriyya, freedom, means freeing all people from being slaves of the laws of men
and making them live in perfect slavery, in submission to the will of Allah and his laws.
{which is, in practice, their subjection to cruel, capricious and downright murderous Muslim overlords with hairtrigger tempers – dda}.
"'Religious freedom': Subjugation of non-Muslims to religious apartheid and second class citizenship in their own country under Islamic rule.
"This option is only available to Christians and Jews, not Hindus, Buddhists or others, who have only the choice between embracing Islam or death.
"Muslims should practice sharia.
"Since these laws [i.e. sharia laws - dda] require the subjugation of non-Muslims,
"freedom of religion" for Muslims essentially means
**the freedom to make others unfree** {my emphasis - dda}.
"'Jihad': Peaceful, inner struggle that has killed up to 80 million people in the Indian subcontinent alone, and enslaved or killed tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of people on three continents for 1350 years.
"It can also be violent, but only for defensive purposes, such as the Muslims who defended their way from the Arabian Peninsula to the borders of China, wiping out the indigenous cultures along the way.
"'Aggression': When non-Muslims do anything to preserve their culture and resist the Islamization of their country.
"Even when this "aggression" is non-violent, such as publishing a cartoon critical of Islam, this intolerable insult to Islamic supremacy on earth can be answered with violence by Muslims.
"Since a refusal to submit to sharia is a rebellion against Allah, the very existence of non-Muslim communities can be viewed as an act of aggression."
"Since a refusal to submit to sharia is a rebellion against Allah, the very existence of non-Muslim communities can be viewed as an act of aggression."
That is the proverbial 'bottom line' isn't it, dda. Fail to submit, and you are open to warfare, Jihad. What totally primitive backwards savages believe in this stuff? Violence is peace? Deceit is truth? Submission is victory? Aggression is resistance? How crazy!!
No wonder the Islamic world is so upside down. They can't see up from down. This is better than voodoo! - LOL - They're out to lunch!