Imam Rauf: Bill O'Reilly's 'uninformed' comments 'were offensive'

Just when we thought the Bill O’Reilly-View dust-up might be dying down comes a statement from Feisal Rauf, imam of the Cordoba House at Park51, site of the proposed mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero in New York.

Taqiyya spin-doctor Rauf with black eyeliner…

Lebanese journalist: Ground Zero mosque imam Rauf is a false moderate who is deceiving Americans

USA Today

“Bill O’Reilly’s remarks about Islam on The View were not helpful to the cause of mutual trust and understanding and only served to further fuel an irrational fear of Islam,” says Rauf. “We all have a right to express our opinions. But we also have a responsibility to do so in a civil and respectful fashion.”

He adds, “If future generations are to live in a safe and peaceful world, we must break the cycle of misunderstanding and mistrust that encourages extremism here and around the world. Mr. O’Reilly’s uninformed comments were offensive, not only to his interviewers, but also to millions of American Muslims.”

A View of ‘The View’ One Day Later

14 thoughts on “Imam Rauf: Bill O'Reilly's 'uninformed' comments 'were offensive'”

  1. Muslims are like cockroaches they crawl out from under their rocks and squirm, run and lie when the light of ‘truth’ is shone on them.

  2. So, is Hamdan Badr a misunderstander of the deen of puppies and honey and flowers?

    “We suggested that they convert to Islam and be saved, or pay the jizya poll tax, or else, we would wage war against them…We are commanded to enjoin people to worship Allah. We are commanded to enjoin the creatures to worship their Creator, to save whoever wants to be saved from worshipping slaves so that they will worship the Master of Slaves, and bring them from the injustice of the other religions to the justice of Islam, from the narrow straits of this world to the spaciousness of the world to come. That is the mission of every Muslim in this life.”

    How about Abu Yahya al-Liby?

    “And fight them until there is no Fitnah [polytheism], and religion is wholly for Allah” (8:39): i.e. unless you fight them, there will be Fitnah, and Fitnah is infidelity [kufr] and polytheism [shirk], as the interpreters have said. And in the agreed-upon Hadeeth from Ibn Umar (with whom Allah was pleased), “I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”…to the end of the Hadeeth… Therefore, let our intent be clear, our target defined and our objective declared: the establishment of Allah’s religion in its complete and comprehensive sense which is articulated by the statement of Allah, “and religion is wholly for Allah”…Jihad…is the highest and greatest form of disassociation…This is our path until everyone submits to the religion of Allah (the Glorious and Great) and complies with its rules and surrenders to its authority.”

    Osama bin Laden?

    “Offensive Jihad is an established and basic tenet of this religion. It is a religious duty rejected only by the most deluded…Divine foundations that are built upon hating the infidels, repudiating them with tongue and teeth till they embrace Islam or pay the jizya with willing submission and humility…The Prophet was “sent in the final hours with the sword, so that none is worshipped but Allah alone, partnerless.” [Muhammad’s] provision has been provided under the shadow of his spear, and humiliation and contempt are upon whoever opposes his command. Why else did the sword come as an important pillar, enslaving mankind to their Master [Allah]?…Muslims, and especially the learned among them, should spread sharia law to the world–that and nothing else. Not laws under the “umbrella of justice, morality, and rights” as understood by the masses. No, the sharia of Islam is the foundation. And the most important issue in Islam is the tawhid of Allah, the Exalted, the Most High. And whoever openly and clearly repudiates these issues, we consign him to the infidels…Who told you that transgression against man is impermissible–if he is an infidel? What about Offensive Jihad? Allah Exalted, the Most High, said: “Fight them! Allah will torment them with your hands” [9:14]. And he said: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them–seize them, besiege them, and make ready to ambush them…” [9:5]…Islam improves; it is not improved. For the Muslim, even if he was a slave, is a million times more superior than an infidel lord…As for the word “oppression,” those addressed take it to mean being placed under the authority of Islam by the sword, as the Prophet did with the infidels. They think that something that denies them [the freedom] to pursue obscenities, atheism and blasphemy, and idolatry is an “oppression.” They think that an attack launched against their ground, as in an Offensive Jihad, is an injustice, and so forth…Justice is freeing slaves from being enslaved to other slaves in order to worship the Lord of mankind; from the chaos of religions to the righteousness of Islam; from the narrow confines of the world to the broad possibilities of this world and the Hereafter…For it is, in fact, part of our religion to impose our particular beliefs upon others. Whoever doubts this, let him turn to the deeds of the Companions when they raided the lands of the Christians and Omar imposed upon them the conditions of dhimmi. These conditions involve clothing attire, specific situations, and class distinctions known to ulema as the pact of Omar, and they are notoriously famous.”


    “Does Islam or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam; either willing submission; or payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword – for it is not right to let the infidel live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam; or die.”


    “Furthermore, how can they [intellectuals] claim that we have no right to force a people to change its particular values, when they transgress the bounds of nature? Such are lies. In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the Sharia from being publicly voiced among the people.”

    Muhammad al-Arifi?

    “There is no doubt that a person whom Allah enables to sacrifice his soul, and to fight for the sake of Allah, has been graced with a great honor. The Prophet Muhammad said that the dust of battle for the sake of Allah and the smoke of Hell shall never meet in a man’s nose…Devotion to Jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah…is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer…Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight [the Muslims]…The Koranic verses that deal with fighting the infidels and conquering their countries say that they should convert to Islam, pay the jizya poll tax, or be killed. If the Muslims had implemented this, we would not have reached the humiliation in which we find ourselves today.”

    Averroes?! That Averroes, who commented on the writings of the teacher of Alexander the Great (called Dhul Qarnayn in Islam and considered a mujahid who conquered the world for Allah and “humiliated the people of Shirk” c.f. Tafsir ibn Kathir and Tafsir al-Jalalayn)?

    “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah…This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation.”


    “Jihaad of the Sword: to fight the Mushrikeen for the Deen…when ‘Jihaad Feesabeelillah’ is said…striving against the Kuffar with the sword until they enter Islam, or pay the Jizya with willing submission and they are under humiliation.”

    I guess you’re right, Imam Rauf — al-Islam is indeed the deen of sugar and spice and everything nice, and the Shari’a, the hukm of Allah alone to the exclusion of the man-made hukm (the legislation of taghout) is definitely preferable to democracy and republicanism i.e. the rule of secular law, if one discounts its totalitarian theocratic nature of Shariat Allah which does not recognize the privacy of individuals because it controls every aspect of life from toilet etiquette to the highest echelons of state and is basically an intolerable police state, which suppressesall zand i.e. freethought as rijs i.e. an abomination and fitna i.e. a seduction from abject Slavery to Allah and zulm i.e. an “oppression”, which stifles the free market, which engages in aggression against foreign domains not yet submitted to Islamic Sharia, which exacts draconian punishments for even the most minor crimes, which forbids many harmless and even beneficial things such as art and music, which oppresses male so-called “true believers” even while it greatly privileges them over others, and categorically denies even the most basic civil rights to nonbelievers (who can only be semi-slave subjects, never ever citizens), women (ditto), apostates (whose blood and property are not protected and can be shed and plundered by any “true believer” with impunity), children, and homosexuals in a system of religious and gender apartheid.

    Imam Rauf, you’re a swell guy!

  3. Attempts to separate terror and islam will
    result in terror as response to all religion.
    what goes around will come around.

    Bill O’Reilly deserves appreciation
    for calling the spade a spade

    Moderator: “Islam extend more and more with reference to the “freedom of religon”,
    how far is it justified in your opinion?

    00:20 Dr. Schachtschneider: “To this they (Muslims) have NO RIGHT!
    They have the freedom of believe and confession.
    Protected through our religion fundamental rights, derogable and inviolable.

    BUT they have not the right of undisturbed practice of religion,
    because Islam is not a basic legal capacity religon
    within the meaning of the Basic Law (no secularisation),
    then religious justified, it is essential a judicial system.

    And this judicial sytem that Islam publicizes,
    is with our free constitutional order not compatible,
    not capable with democracy (vs. Sharia Law)
    … men and women are not treated equally (4:34 “beat them” [women]) ….”

  5. Yes, O’Reilly’s remarks were offensive…especially those he made when discussing what happened on the view with Glenn Beck on the GB Show…come to think of it, Beck’s comments were offensive, too. Neither of those two “dhimmi-wits” seem to understand that Islam is the problem, it doesn’t matter whether it’s extremist or moderate…those labels simply describe the tactics, but the end game is the same…domination of everything and everyone.

  6. If Bill Oreilly can lump all muslims into one group does that mean that when a white american molests a child that all white americans are pedophiles? Or when a Catholic priest molests a choirboy does that make all Catholics child molestors? It must because Bill Oreilly has a television show so EVERYTHING he says must be the truth otherwise he wouldn’t have that program and be paid huge sums of money to state his personal opinions. Unless of course he is paid to cause problems by stating inaccurate statements that certain people choose to believe? I guess that would make the people who listen to Bill OReilly be people who are easily led and unable to make decisions by themselves without turning to morons like OReilly or Limbaugh to make them for them

  7. I grew up less than one block from what I believe is the first mosque in Cedar Rapids Iowa and in my whole life I never experienced any problems with the people. They were kind and friendly at all times. Now I do not claim to be an expert on the subject but I am enough of an expert to realize that just because their beliefs differ from mine does not give me the right t o expect THEM to change and conform to my beliefs. We tried that with the American Indians. We cut their hair and dressed them in suits and expected them to worship our choice of God and as a result we almost destroyed an entire culture. The good white Americans have ALWAYS used war to demand their way. When the Indians wouldn’t conform we just KILLED them. When the Vietnamese wanted to be communist we sacrificed almost 60,000 young american boys and countless Vietnamese troops and civilians to FORCE them to be just like us good white Americans. If the African American people who have lived here for centuries can’t be good enough for us white people How in the world do idiots like Bill Oreilly,Rush Limbaugh or any other hate mongers ever expect any foreigh culture or religion to pass muster?

    1. “I do not claim to be an expert on the subject but I am enough of an expert to realize that just because their beliefs differ from mine does not give me the right t o expect THEM to change and conform to my beliefs.”

      Fair enough. You believe in tolerance. Muslims don’t. They expect you to conform to their beliefs:

      you, the infidel, the kafir, has three choices: 1.) to pay the jiziya (a tax that will impoverish you) “with willing submission while feeling utterly subdued and humiliated”, 2.) you can convert to Islam or 3.) you will be killed.

      Stick around. You can learn something about Islam.

      I’m not an expert on American Indians but last time I checked they were doing fairly well with their casinos.
      I know that Vietnam didn’t want to be Communist (because I was there) and that our cut and run cost 2.5 million Vietnamese (who trusted us) their existence and their lives.

      “Muslims (you know) are kind and friendly at all times”

      Sure. Until they have the upper hand. Or until you draw a Muhammad cartoon.

      You seem to be a pretty mixed up, America hating kid.

      Why don’t you learn something about the constitution? Why don’t you learn something about Islam before you mouth off?

  8. I am not a kid by a long shot and in fact was in the US Navy back in the 1960,s. I love America but hate it when we believe we have all the answers and that it should be OUR way all the time. The Indians who are doing “allright” with the casinos have little to do with the point I was making. When a White person who originally came from Europe decided that all Indians should either conform or be eliminated shows the mindset that still seems to be in affect with many radical Americans. I believe in allowing people to choose what religion they choose to worship and I believe the constitution would agree that all people should have equal rights NOT JUST THE ONES YOU LIKE. If you read my first comment I think it explains it Bill OReilly has no right to refer to all MUSLIMS as the same anymore than white people or catholics or anyone else There are bad in every race and every religion and there are good ones. We all get to choose which we would prefer to be and it appears as if you have made your choice and I have made mine as well. Fortuntately the constitution you speak of gives us both that right. If you can’t see that we have fought wars to force people to believe in doing things “OUR WAY” I feel sorry for you.

    1. Cut the crap, Frank.

      Muslims don’t want to be equal under your constitution, they are religiously obliged to replace it with sharia, Islamic law, and that means to rule over you.

      You say:

      I believe in allowing people to choose what religion they choose to worship and I believe the constitution would agree that all people should have equal rights NOT JUST THE ONES YOU LIKE.

      That only works for people who are at least equally tolerant.

      See if you can tolerate this:

      Female Genital Mutilation
      Child Marriage
      Honor Killing
      Status of Dhimmi for unbelievers (like yourself)
      No Alcohol, No Music, No Art
      Genocide of Jews & Christians
      Submission under Islamic law

      Want more?

  9. Of course I don’t believe in those but what gives US the right to determine how other countries choose to live? Is our way the ONLY way? I would agree with the no alcohol by the way. It causes such suffering and death it should be abolished. Almost all domestic abuse issues are alcohol related and thousands of automoblie deaths each year. But the good old fashionaed American lobbyists make sure that alcohol is readily available just as tobacco is. I would rather see these issues dealt with by ALL the countries rather than the United States being the POLICE for the entire globe. That is exactly why so many nations hate America. I think we need to go back to Isolationism to a degree. It might even help our employment issues if we stayed within our borders a little more often. And I still believe that people like OReilly and limbaugh just say the things they say so they can make HUGE amounts of money. I don’t see them working for nothing and if they wern’t so controversial they wouldn’t be multi millionaires now would they?

  10. My, you really have issues, Frank.

    “OReilly has no right to refer to all MUSLIMS as the same…”

    OReilly has the right of the first amendment to say what he wants to say. Besides, he did not, repeat: DID NOT “refer to all Muslims as the same”- he said “Muslims attacked US on 9/11” and 99.9 % of Americans who are not stark raving mad know that this is true.

    “what gives US the right to determine how other countries choose to live? ”

    We don’t. Give me one example where we have assumed the “right to determine how other countries choose to live…?”

    If America doesn’t “police the world” would you rather have other nations (Somalia, China, Iran, Russia or Pakistan) rule over us?

    “Why do they hate us, why do other nations hate us..?”

    I don’t give a flying f*kc for “nations (who) hate America. What a dumb blanket statement that is, especially in light of the fact that millions and millions would migrate to America today if only they could.

    “I would rather see these issues dealt with by ALL the countries rather than the United States…”

    You have an institution called the UN which consists of the most corrupt 56 Muslim/Arab nations perverting every issue. You prefer that over your national interest, Frank?

    “I think we need to go back to Isolationism to a degree.”

    I see a contradiction here “to some degree”

    Frank: pack it in! Take your meds or educate yourself.

    I am no fan of O’Reilly or Limbaugh, but if they can make money I say good on them.

    And remember: “controversial” is the dumbest word in cheap journOlism today. Its meant to shut down the opposition to liberal, hare-brained and Socialist claptrap.

    I’m not buying any, Frank.

Comments are closed.