The man that wants to do this is not a "religious" man. He has spoken openly of what he wants: the destruction of western civilization. It is easy to understand why libs are so willing to accept this "faith"; it is the subjugation of the masses by the 'elites' (of the religion....).
He wants a place to launch sedition. He wants to replace our system of law, with a system based on a few 'elite' judges (can you say 'good ol' boys'). He does not want women to have rights. He does not want any person of any other faith to have rights. He only wants the 'religious elites' to have rights, but more than that, he wants them to have power over the rest of the population.
You can stop him now, when it is relatively easy or wait until the sedition starts and the power grows, before you open your eyes to 'the horror' that is this man's dream. At that point it will be a lot messier. Then the ones who were willing to lay down for him will be crying for those he has punished and hurt to stop him, because they will not have the courage to act at that point, either.
None of these things are true.
If you are calling me a liar, doesn't that make you love me, love me, because the libs protect and defend liars?
From article:
Rauf's Radicals | The Weekly Standard
The leader of the “Ground Zero mosque” project in New York, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is commonly portrayed as a moderate and a sincere believer in interfaith dialogue. Typical is a profile in Time that described Rauf and his wife as "the kind of Muslim leaders right-wing commentators fantasize about: modernists and moderates who openly condemn the death cult of al-Qaeda and its adherents." But such descriptions are belied by his record, especially at the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), the non-profit that he founded and chairs along with the Cordoba Initiative, sponsor of the proposed mosque and cultural center in downtown Manhattan.
...
Gamei'a's successor at the 96th St. mosque, Imam Abu-Namous, told the October 26, 2001 issue of the Forward that "Imam Al-Gamei'a had not been speaking on behalf of the Islamic Cultural Center, which 'will continue to participate' in interfaith dialogue.” But he added that "he considered the evidence against Osama bin Laden insufficient, and said he could 'not rule out' any possible perpetrators, whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish."
Rauf’s own rhetoric has not always been measured. On March 21, 2004, he told the Sydney Morning Herald that the U.S. and the West would have to recognize the damage they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end. The Australian daily reported “Imam Feisal said the West had to understand the terrorists’ point of view.” The paper also cited Rauf’s arguments that “the Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians . . . it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima.”
... “I have been saying since the 1967 war that if there is peace between Israel and Palestine, in time the Palestinians will prevail.”
Rauf projects an inclusive attitude. Describing the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow program, ASMA promises that it will include “representation of all religious ideologies & sects: (Shia, Sunni, Ismaili, Sufi, Salafi, secularists, traditionalist etc).” But “Salafi” is just a cover term for “Wahhabi”--the state sect in Saudi Arabia, which spreads around the globe its message of violence against Shias, Sunnis who reject “Salafism,” Ismailis, Sufis, secularists, and traditionalists.
Rauf, it is true, has recruited some Muslim dissidents and reformers to MLT, including the Canadian “Muslim refusenik” Irshad Manji and the Danish parliamentarian Naser Khader. Yet the radicals sponsored by MLT far outnumber such moderates. Islamists in the MLT roster include, in the U.S., Debbie Almontaser, the controversial nominee to head an Arabic-language high school in New York, the Khalil Gibran International Academy. Almontaser also took a leading role in a polemical assault on the New York Police Department led by the radical Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
In the Netherlands, ASMA has enrolled Mustafa Hamurcu and Nur Hamurcu from Milli Gorus, the anti-Jewish, conspiratorialist movement among Turkish Muslims.
In Britain, Rauf and ASMA have favored two academics, Tufyal Choudhury of Durham University and Hisham Hellyer of Warwick University, whose rhetoric focuses on Islamist grievances, mainly imagined. Choudhury has argued that tension between Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe is inevitable, and that integration of Muslims should be defined as “management of conflict.” Hellyer has alleged that security issues caused by Islamist terrorism have imposed restrictions on “housing, health, education” for European Muslims--an absurd charge.
Among British Muslims selected for MLT we also find three of the most assiduous detractors of Muslim moderates in the island. These are Aftab Ahmad Malik, an acolyte of the radical preacher Hamza Yusuf Hanson; Masud Ahmed Khan, who operates a website called deenport.com as a monitor against anti-extremist Muslims, and Fareena Alam. Alam’s contributions include a retrospective defense, in a 2007 London Guardian column, of John Walker Lindh, the American captured in 2001 fighting in Taliban ranks and sentenced to prison. Fareena Alam described Lindh as “the focus of a campaign of disinformation” and victim of a “gross miscarriage of justice.”
Another citation from Alam eloquently expresses the outlook prevalent among those Feisal Abdul Rauf hopes will be the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow. In mid-July 2010 she was quoted about debates over the headscarf and face coverings among Muslim women in Europe: the issue, she said, “has more to do with Europe's own identity crisis than with the presence of some 'dangerous other'. At a time when post-communist, secular, democratic Europe was supposed to have been ascendant, playing its decisive role at the end of history, Islam came and spoiled the party.” So triumphalist a view is hardly conducive to the "mutual recognition and respect" between Islam and the West that is the stated goal of the Ground Zero mosque plan.
Media Mum on Ground Zero Mosque Imam's Terror Ties, 'Blame America' Talk
“Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a key figure in Malaysian-based Perdana Global Peace Organization, according to its [w]ebsite,” reported The New York Post on June 5. “Perdana is the single biggest donor ($366,000) so far to the Free Gaza Movement, a key organizer of the six-ship flotilla that tried to break Israel's blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip Monday.”
Members of the flotilla included the IHH, a Turkish group with Hamas ties that has allegedly provided weapons to Islamic militants.
The New York Post also reported that Rauf “told a London-based Arabic newspaper that he will turn to Muslim nations for funding” to pay for the $100 million mosque.
Some critics of the mosque are concerned that the money may come from foreign leaders or terror groups who seek the destruction of the United States. Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio has demanded to know the legality of the funding behind the mosque.
Rauf has also made remarks that some have called inflammatory and put his claims that he is a “moderate” Muslim into question.
In 2001, Rauf told CBSÂ’s Â’60 MinutesÂ’ that the U.S. was partially responsible for the September 11th attacks.
“I wouldn`t say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States` policies were an accessory to the crime that happened,” Rauf said.
But, during the current controversy over the Ground Zero mosque, Rauf’s controversial statement was only reported by one network news show – CBS “Evening News” on July 20. It was ignored by the other networks, as well as The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Concerns over the mosqueÂ’s funding were only mentioned briefly in a quote in one New York Times article from June 18.
“Legitimate and understandable concerns about these two endeavors have arisen, and it is good these are being aired and discussed,” the Times quoted Joseph Zwilling, the spokesman for the New York Catholic Archdiocese, as saying. “'It is acceptable to ask questions about security, safety, the background and history of the groups hoping to build and buy.”
And in a Nexis search of The New York Times, The Washington Post and the three network news organizations, the separate terms “Feisal Abdul Rauf,” “New York and Mosque” and “Cordoba” revealed that, since last December, the network news stations covered theMosque issue 10 times, The New York Times covered it seven times and The Washington Post has covered it four times. None of those reports mentioned concerns over the funding sources or Rauf’s terror ties and previous comments.
and....
Mischief in Manhattan
The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"
So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?
Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?
There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.
If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.
It's a repugnant thought that $100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan.
Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.
The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.
If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America's Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.
As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.
Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.
Read more:
Mischief in Manhattan
