Tag: Rauf

"Support Freedom of Religion"

Imam Rauf’s replacement mufti, the all new Ground Zero mosque imam Adhami, just came out with some very moderate statements that can only be misunderstood by the excremental eneMedia and shamelss Islam promoters like New Yok’s mayor Bloombugger:

Adhani: ‘Apostates against Islam must be jailed’

Atlas Shrugs

Now that the media has whitewashed and sanctioned the extremist jihadi rhetoric of Rauf and Daisy (it’s not extremism, it’s Islam, baby) the Khan, anything goes.

The new and more radical Ground Zero mosque imam Adhami, a disciple of the WTC unindicted co-conspirator Siraj Wahhaj, is now stumping for Islamic law on apostasy. Now one might say that Imam Adhami is a moderate, because he is only calling for jail for those who convert out of Islam, when death is ultimately the penalty demanded by the sharia (Islamic law). (Pamela has more)

Interesting, is it not, that for them ‘freedom of religion’ takes on a completely different meaning:

For them, freedom of religion means the freedom to kill unbelievers, apostates, adulterous wives, homosexuals and even their own children ‘if they fear rebellion’.

For them, freedom of religion means the freedom to strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers, to kill in order to spread the religion, the right to child-marriage, polygamy, female genital mutilation and the freedom to lie and deceive the unbelievers.

Freedom of religion means a whole lot of different things to them, like sedition, subversion, infiltration, to bring our miserable house down and to replace our law with the perverse despotism of Muhammad, profit of Islam.

Freedom of religion also includes the (public) stoning of women, head-chopping, cutting off arms and legs on opposite ends etc etc.

Their freedom of religion means enslaving us all, terrorizing us in the name of Allah, abandonment of reason and all power to the Mullah’s.

All of the above amounts to high treason against humanity and to any civilized  society.

In light of the above,  one of my favorite Churchill quotes comes to mind:

“It is the primary right of men to die and kill for the land they live in,  and to punish with exceptional severity all members of their own race who have warmed their hands at the invader’s hearth.” (Winston Churchill)

Who would be more deserving to hang next to those who are determined to destroy us with our own laws?

Teachable Moment

Imam Rauf, The Deceiver

Jamie Glazov interviews Victor David Hanson for Frontpagemag

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern.

FP: Victor Davis Hanson, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to talk to you today about the proposed mega-mosque next toGround Zero and how Obama is handling it.

First, what do you make of the controversy surrounding the mosque in general?

Hanson: Thanks Jamie.

Almost everything about the controversy is disingenuous. Mr Rauf, the Kuwaiti born, Western educated physicist, and self-described Sufi cleric, heretofore has had a successful career contextualizing everything from gender apartheid in the Middle East to Sharia law and jihad, in the sense that the onus is always on Westerners not to take radical Islamists at their word or to believe what they see and hear in the Middle East.

The problem is that Mr. Rauf is more apt to fault Western perceptions of Islam when he resides in the U.S., but not so eager to discuss Islamic extremism when he visits his familiar turf in the gulf. He knows well that candid criticism ofAmerica earns accolades among the cultural elite here while candid criticism of radical Islam in the Middle East can earn something not so nice. By the way, that is called a sort of heroic “bridge-building.”

Related links:

Take even the silly evocation of Cordoba: in toto it was not really a utopian medieval city of understanding, much less was it a city of tolerance during the Inquisition as the president alleged in Cairo (dates a little off, Mr. President). Mr. Rauf, the supposed Sufi version of Deepek Chopra, knew that, but he knew well also it was a rally cry of radical Islam to recapture al-Andalus. How wonderful—Cordoba sends a tingle up the legs of both Western liberals and radical Islamists, and for the opposite reasons!

Continue reading Teachable Moment

Ali Sina on Ground Zero Mosque, Cordova House

News first:

“Too much at stake”, says Daisy Khan – “Bad publicity is  also good for Islam….”

Daisy: whatever it takes to advance Islam…..

“We have to convince people that not all Muslims are extremists,” said Khan (how about we let Allah sort them out?)

ABC:  you are wrong when you think Obama is Muslim, but we can’t prove that he’s not…..

Faithfreedom.com

On 9/11 2001, Muslim jihadists butchered 3000 Americans.  Nine years later, a Muslim Imam wants to build a 13 story monument two blocks away from the site of that carnage.

Many Americans, particularly the New Yorkers and the families of the victims of that tragedy are outraged at the insensitivity, bordering arrogance of Faisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind this project.  Rauf says it is not a mosque but an Islamic center. The name does not change anything. Whatever you call it, it is of extreme poor judgment.

“Tolerant” Maoist Anita Dunn is all for it:

In 2004, Rauf published a book calling it “What is Right with Islam is What is Right with America.”  In that book he argued “The American political structure is Sharia compliant. For America to score even higher on the ‘Islamic’ or ‘Sharia compliance’ scale America would need to do two things. Invite the voices of all religions in shaping the nations’ practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws.”

The truth is that the American constitution and the Sharia law are opposite of each other. It is interesting however, how Rauf composed his statement.  He did not say that the Sharia is in compliance with the US constitution, but the other way round. By doing so he wanted to establish the superiority of the Sharia over the US constitution.

The fact is that the American Constitution and the Sharia differ fundamentally. For example, the Sharia does not recognize

  • Freedom of speech,
  • Freedom of conscience
  • Equality of all people before the law
  • Equality of the rights of women with men

Of course, as an Imam he can’t reject the Sharia. He will reject the constitution when not in compliance with the Sharia.

There is nothing in the constitution of the USA that is in agreement with the Sharia law.  You cannot find two documents more diametrically opposed to each other.

Think about stoning the adulterers, killing the apostates, hanging or beheading the homosexuals, chopping the hands of the thief, imposing a dress code on people and flogging them for consuming alcohol. These are all part of the Sharia law and against the Constitution. You can’t serve two masters. Muslims will have to either submit to the Sharia law or to the US constitution.  If they submit to one, they are in violation of the other.

But the disturbing part in Rauf’s statement is the fact that he compares Islamic laws with the secular laws of America. This is proof that his goal is to supplant the latter with the former.  Statements such as this make it clear that the ambition of Muslims in America is political.

Continue reading Ali Sina on Ground Zero Mosque, Cordova House