by Tina Grazier
How do you create an enemy where none exists? Point a big fat finger! Strongly insist that those with a differing opinion are extreme and insensitive. Label them as racist and phobic! Paint them in dark tones as the wicked fiends of intolerance and bigotry. Explain patiently with a note of piety that all “normal” people share your view and your deep concern about the harm these exremists will do if given a platform to speak. *** Label yourself as a paragon of virtue!
This scurilous tactic is common practice in the Democrat Party and shared by Imam Rauf and those who support his position on the ground zero mosque:
(Reza) Aslan, who recently authored the book ‘Beyond Fundamentalism: Confronting Religious Extremism in the Age of Globalization,’ began the roundtable discussion (on Meet the Press) with a bang: “I do want to remind everyone that in this country we do not define our constitutional rights by how they disturb people’s sensitivities-you only had to spend a few minutes at Ground Zero yesterday and to take in this international cabal of anti-Muslim zealots that had gathered together to spout the most vile racist bigotry to know that this is about something more.” ** The “something more” says Aslan is simply Islamophobia: Anti-Muslim sentiment in this country is at unprecedented levels. We all know this. But what’s truly disturbing is how mainstream it’s becoming with politicians on both sides-and I would have to include the former mayor [Giuliani] in this, in this category-openly and explicitly associating American Muslims with al-Qaeda. But let’s call a spade a spade for a moment. If you are painting 1.5 billion people with the same brush of violence and, and, and extremism, you’re a bigot. And I think what’s, what’s disturbing is the way that that’s become part of the, the, the natural discourse now. (all emphasis mine)
NEWSFLASH: Reza…you just painted all who oppose the mosque at ground zero (70% of Americans) with the same bigoted Islamaphobic label! But then that is just part of the plan…to discredit those with different opinions and concerns.
NEWSFLASH II: The only people that have said or implied that 1.5 billion people are engaging in “ISLAMIC VIOLENCE AND EXTREMISM” are you, Imam Rauf and his supporters…as a means of discrediting anyone who dares to question or disagree with your ideals and plans!
Imam Rauf was featured in a segment on FOX News this morning. He also labeled protesters of this mosque location as extreme and said he would not be deterred from building the mosque at ground zero. In other words he has claimed the high ground and his opponents have been dismissed as a radical islamophobic band of bigots. There is no need for compromise or discussion or respect for others on his part simply because he has, through a fiendish political tactic, become the victim.
I don’t care to debate the soundness of his decision, we’ve been over that. I would like to discuss the tactic he and others are using to completely discredit and invalidate anyone who dares to object or question his motive, the wisdom of his choice, and where that might lead if he and others are allowed to get away with it.
The Imam has not shown an ounce of tolerance, consideration or regard for those who lost loved ones on 911. He has said nothing as far as I know to acknowledge or address their concerns or that would indicate he empathizes with their feelings. He has not given the 70% of Americans who object to his choice the dignity and respect they deserve as citizens with a right to ask questions and have them answered. Instead he has focused his attention on HIS concerns, on HIS desires, and HIS rights. To add injury to insult he has also labeled his opponents as bigots and extremists.
These are not the actions of an honorable man. More importantly, by pulling a curtain of deception around the issue he has established a new basis for civility between Muslims and non-Muslims in America: The desires, beliefs, laws, traditions and rights of Muslims trump all others. This is a wound to the ideals of our founding that if allowed to fester will cause the complete destruction of our cherished Constitutional and judicial rights.
Mr. Rauf should be asked why he will not condemn extremists, like Hamas, that support terrorists and threaten peace and cooperation. He should be asked to explain why his book is sold in the ME with a different title expressing a much more sinister meaning. He should be asked to reconsider the affront that this mosque represents for many Americans and locate it somewhere else. But since those charged with asking these questions of the Imam have chosen to ignore these questions and concerns as he does the political game to discredit Americans will continue. The only way to rid ourselves of this fiendish political tactic is to expose it for what it is and continue to demand that issues are debated and discussed with mutual respect.
We Americans enjoy a good fight but we prefer to keep the fight honest. In the process of our debates we are likely to embellish a bit and use colorful descriptors. I have no desire to change the personality and color of our political discourse. What is unacceptable to me is avoidance and deflection made possible through the use of empty slanderous accusation.
I ask that you notice whether the charge of Islamaphobia has an overall basis in fact. What evidence is there that the majority of Americans hold extreme animosities toward all Muslims? Other than a few isolated incidents, what evidence is there that Americans have targeted Muslims other than those who are engaging in war against Israel and the West? Ask whether it is reasonable to question the motives of a Muslim man who will not answer direct questions and has questionable associations at a time when America has been targeted for attack by radical Muslims (Some living and being trained in our midst). Ask whether every American deserves to be treated with respect when expressing concerns or peacefully assembling in protest. Most importantly, ask whether being labeled a bigot for being in disagreement is an honorable method of winning an argument.
There are deeper motives afoot. The times we live in require vigilence and awareness of our surroundings. The battle is against an evil force that uses both volence and deception as tools of war. The tactic now being used against 70% of Americans will succeed if we fail to notice and stand up for ourselves. I have to question the purpose for it’s use and I’m tellin ya…it doesn’t look good.
Tina when I read your opening I swear it felt like I was reading Thomas Sole. You’re an excellent writer! You really and truly get your point across right off. I love that part. Your work should be required reading in the 8th thru the 12th grades.
Tina, this is so good, would you mind if we take it to the blogs for reprinting? We need to get this one out to everyone we can.
Tina: “How do you create an enemy where none exists? Point a big fat finger! Strongly insist that those with a differing opinion are extreme and insensitive. Label them as racist and phobic! Paint them in dark tones as the wicked fiends of intolerance and bigotry. Explain patiently with a note of piety that all “normal” people share your view and your deep concern about the harm these exremists will do if given a platform to speak.”
Thank you for outlining the strategy used by conservatives against Cordoba House. You do realize this describes, to a T, exactly what your side has been doing over the past several months? It’s extremely hypocritical of you to act like this only describes what Rauf and his supporters have done.
The tactics you have described have been used by both sides. The difference is, one side is wrong and the other is right. The tactics themselves are not deplorable if they’re based in truth. They become nasty when they’re only being used for political gain, which is exactly what this entire faux controversy is about.
“What is unacceptable to me is avoidance and deflection made possible through the use of empty slanderous accusation.”
You really don’t want to bring the word “slander” into this debate. Rauf has been called a terrorist sympathizer and even a terrorist. He’s also been accused of crimes such as fraudulently using his state-sponsored speaking tour (in which he denounced terrorism and tried to promote understanding between religions) to illegally raise funds for the community center. No evidence has been presented for these claims, but your side has sure gotten a lot of people to believe them. You’ve encouraged this with your so-called “legitimate questioning,” which is in fact based on nothing but irrational suspicion. So before you start throwing the word “slander” around, you might want to look at your own side. If I were Imam Rauf, I would be suing Pam Gellar’s ass off right now.
“The Imam has not shown an ounce of tolerance, consideration or regard for those who lost loved ones on 911.”
False. There’s going to be a memorial in the community center specifically set up to honor the victims of 9/11. There are also many families who lost loved ones in 9/11 that do support the cultural center. Do not speak as if 9/11 victims are a monolithic body who all share the same opinion. It’s offensive.
“He has not given the 70% of Americans who object to his choice the dignity and respect they deserve as citizens with a right to ask questions and have them answered.”
The website for the Cordoba Initiative answers many of the questions and concerns raised by its critics:
http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/frequently-asked-questions
And he has not shown anywhere near the amount of disrespect towards you that you have shown him by implying he may be a terrorist sympathizer. He has worked his entire life to overcome that stereotypical perception of himself and his religion, and to fight against terrorism. You are doing a huge disservice to him and to every other peaceful Muslim, and to the very cause of anti-terrorism itself, by trying to undo his life’s work.
“Instead he has focused his attention on HIS concerns, on HIS desires, and HIS rights. To add injury to insult he has also labeled his opponents as bigots and extremists.”
You guys labeled him first, Tina. It strikes me that you feel this is OK for you to do, but not for him to strike back. Such feelings of superiority are a common symptom of bigotry.
“More importantly, by pulling a curtain of deception around the issue he has established a new basis for civility between Muslims and non-Muslims in America: The desires, beliefs, laws, traditions and rights of Muslims trump all others.”
Another symptom of bigotry is feeling that allowing a minority group any kind of rights somehow violates your own. This could be observed during the integration battle, as well as the current same-sex marriage debate. It’s an irrational perception, and one that is demonstrably false. In no way does the cultural center “trump” the rights of anyone.
“Mr. Rauf should be asked why he will not condemn extremists, like Hamas, that support terrorists and threaten peace and cooperation.”
From the Cordoba Initiative website:
“Hamas is both a political movement and a terrorist organization. When Hamas commits atrocious acts of terror, those actions should be condemned. Imam Feisal has forcefully and consistently condemned all forms of terrorism, including those committed by Hamas, as un-Islamic. In his 2004 book, he even went so far as to include a copy of the Fatwa issued after 9/11 by the most respected clerics of Egypt defining the 9/11 attack as an un-Islamic act of terror and giving permission to Muslims in the U.S. armed forces to fight against those Muslims who committed this act of terror. Imam Feisal included this in his book to prove that terrorism must be fought even if Muslims have to fight fellow Muslims to stop it.”
I am 100% positive that this statement will not stop many people from continuing to make the claim that Rauf has not condemned Hamas. I sincerely hope you will not be one of these people.
“He should be asked to explain why his book is sold in the ME with a different title expressing a much more sinister meaning.”
There is nothing sinister in either of the two titles. You are seeing only what you want to see there.
“I have no desire to change the personality and color of our political discourse.”
You should. It’s awful.
“I ask that you notice whether the charge of Islamaphobia has an overall basis in fact. What evidence is there that the majority of Americans hold extreme animosities toward all Muslims?”
The evidence is that 70% of Americans oppose a community center because it is run by Muslims. What more do you need, really?
“Other than a few isolated incidents, what evidence is there that Americans have targeted Muslims other than those who are engaging in war against Israel and the West?”
“Isolated incidents.” Yeah, it’s just a coincidence that so many have happened this summer. Sure.
Chris, Jack here…you said, “The difference is, one side is wrong and the other is right. ” Au contre, I think both sides have right on their side and that is what makes this problem extremely difficult to resolve.
What we have is one side has a slightly more compelling reason to succeed and that reason will serve the greater good in the long run of things.
“Au contre, I think both sides have right on their side and that is what makes this problem extremely difficult to resolve.”
A generous concession, Jack.
“What we have is one side has a slightly more compelling reason to succeed and that reason will serve the greater good in the long run of things.”
I must disagree with this. Your efforts against Cordoba House, while intended to help in the struggle against extremism and terror, are only having a deleterious effect. Several experts have attested to this. Imam Feisal is engaged in the same struggle, and on the same side as you in the fight against radical Islam. And his efforts can help, as the FBI and the two most recent presidential administrations have found. The sooner you realize this, the better off the cause will be.
Chris: “Thank you for outlining the strategy used by conservatives against Cordoba House. You do realize this describes, to a T, exactly what your side has been doing over the past several months?”
No, it isn’t what conservatives have done.
“It’s extremely hypocritical of you to act like this only describes what Rauf and his supporters have done.”
I used this case as an example. You can go back in time and find many cases of what I am talking about. The situation in Arizona is another example. The left refuses to address the considerations of those who support the law but instead revert to the racist label.
“The tactics you have described have been used by both sides. The difference is, one side is wrong and the other is right. The tactics themselves are not deplorable if they’re based in truth.”
It would be helpful if you could give me an example of conservatives refusing to address considerations and reverting to labeling entire groups of people.
“They become nasty when they’re only being used for political gain, which is exactly what this entire faux controversy is about.”
You continue to play…it is not a faux controversy to the 70% of Americans who are against this choice of location. I would imagine, given the high percentage, that there are Democrats and Independents involved in questioning this location. What “politcal” gain?
“You really don’t want to bring the word “slander” into this debate.”
Sorry but when someone accuses me, and my friends and associates, of bigotry I take it seriously:
Anyone seriously interested in the terror threat from within, and the need to be able to determine when political games may be cloaking dangers and hiding them from our view, should read the following article:
“WOOLSEY & MCCARTHY & SOYSTER: Second opinion needed on Shariah – Our political establishment wears blinders and ignores the threat,” By R. James Woolsey, Andrew C. McCarthy and Harry E. Soyster – The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/14/needed-a-second-opinion-on-shariah/?page=1
Tina: “No, it isn’t what conservatives have done.”
Let’s see: create an enemy where none exists? Check. The imam is and always has been a friend to America. Insist that the imam is being “extreme and insensitive?” Check. “Paint them in dark tones as the wicked fiends of intolerance and bigotry?” Check. By implying that he shares the goals of terrorists, that’s exactly what you’ve done. Express concern over the harm the imam might do if given a platform to speak? Check.
“It would be helpful if you could give me an example of conservatives refusing to address considerations and reverting to labeling entire groups of people.”
Not sure if I have an example of “refusing to address considerations,” because you have addressed most of the points I’ve brought up, albeit quite badly. However, one only has to look at the protest signs of those against the community center in order to see the labeling of all Muslims as extremists and terrorists. Or go to “Atlas Shrugs,” the website that started this whole controversy, and you’ll see nothing but comments insisting that all Muslims are engaged in a war with America. These comments stand unchallenged and are encouraged by the webmistress, Pam Gellar.
“He has been asked questions which he will not answer directly!”
Did you not read the long list of Frequently Asked Questions I posted from the Cordoba Initiative website? What questions are missing there, or what answers are not enough for you?
“I have not heard (or read) of a single person of note calling him names or accusing him of crimes.”
Then you’re even more uninformed than I thought. Jeffrey Kuhner, in an op-ed for the Washington Times, called him an “unrepentant militant Muslim, an Islamist fellow traveler.” (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/5/radical-islams-conquest-of-america/) Pamela Gellar has called him an “extremist,” a “radical,” a “terrorist sympathizer,” a “Ground Zero Supremacist” (whatever that’s supposed to mean in that lady’s demented mind), and refers to his wife Daisy Khan as “Daisy the Con.” She and other conservatives have accused the imam of “threatening America.” Here, she accuses him both of that and of using his state-sponsored speaking tour in order to illegally raise funds for the community center:
“Fresh off his US taxpayer funded [fund raising] tour of the Middle East, Imam Rauf held command over the mainstream media.”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/09/ground-zero-supremacist-imam-rauf-threatens-americaif-we-dont-do-this-right-anger-will-explode-in-th.html#comment-6a00d8341c60bf53ef0133f443111d970b
Note how she states that this was a “fund raising tour” as if it were fact. As I said before, no evidence has been presented for this accusation. If you really think that being called a racist is slander, than you must think that being falsely accused of actual criminal acts is slander as well. If not, you’re being hypocritical.
“The name of Raufs book in the ME is: A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America post-9/11
If I were in his place and my goal was building bridges I would not put WTC rubble in the title of my book. He seems to be presenting a totally different face to Muslimsof course he invites questions!!”
Can you please explain to me what exactly is offensive about that title? Because I’m not seeing it, at all.
“He wont because the questions that have been raised are based on information that is easily verified.”
OK, verify the accusation that he used his trip to illegally raise funds. Verify the accusation that he is involved with the Muslim Brotherhood. Verify the accusation that he supports Hamas. Verify the accusation that his intention is for the community center to be a victory for terrorists.
You can’t, and you know it, so you hide behind this noble idea of “asking questions.” It’s transparent and ugly.
“A nice gesture meant to appease.”
If that is your response to his decision to dedicate a 9/11 memorial in his community center, then you will say that about anything good the man does. Like with the “taquiyya” argument, you have proven that you are determined to be suspicious about this man no matter what he says or does.
“I have never said all families are against Raufs plan. I have only said it is a slap in the face to those who are against the location that lost family/friends.”
I feel for their loss, but they do no favors to the memories of their loved ones by reacting in such an irrational manner. This community center will be good for the community and for the cause of anti-terrorism in general. It will even include a dedication to the loved ones they lost. But they might not even know this, because of the huge amounts of misinformation that have been spread by you and your side.
“Then he should be willing to be forthcoming and answer the hard questions when asked. Ive watched him in interviews. Hes very clever in the way he avoids responding directly to the question about Hamas, for instance. Why?”
I believe I linked to a conservative blogger who explained this quite well a while back. Basically, Hamas is a very powerful movement in the Middle East. You have to keep in mind that many of the Muslims in the Middle East are uneducated and poor and will take any measure of good will they can get. Hamas is evil in its tactics, but it does provide food and shelter for a lot of these people. That doesn’t make them good, I’m just stating a fact. To publicly condemn them is to lose a lot of support in that part of the world. This is most likely why Rauf has been reluctant, up ’til now, to publicly condemn them. It seems that he believed it could damage his ability to connect with Muslims who might not necessarily support terror in concept, but who believed that Hamas was doing good for their families. However, he has always made his position on terrorism quite clear and one could be able to infer that he has always privately viewed Hamas with contempt. It goes against everything else he has ever advocated that he would support them. Do I believe his previous refusal to condemn them was morally right? No, I believe it was political and it was appeasement. But I see his reasons, and I don’t think it means that he secretly supported them. And now that he has done the right thing and publicly condemned Hamas, this issue should be dropped.
“He admits Hamas is a terrorist organization! This is followed by a clever explanation for his continuing support of Hamas:”
*sigh* What the hell, Tina? Where do you get this crap from? Where do you get off saying he “supports” Hamas? Before you merely said he didn’t condemn it, but now that he has, you actually say he supports it?
What kind of backwards world are you living in?
“In a covert game, this is particularly good:
giving permission to Muslims in the U.S. armed forces to fight against those Muslims who committed this act of terror.
For heavens sake, Chrisall of those Muslims who committed this act (911) of terrorARE DEAD! They died in the planes. Of what importance is it that he gives his permission to fight against the dead?”
So you wouldn’t say that Osama bin Laden “committed” this act of terror? Or the other members of Al Qaeda who participated and are still alive? Gah. You are playing semantics here, and to be frank, you’re embarrassing yourself. You’re taking the least likely interpretation of the imam’s words and acting as if your radical interpretation somehow proves anything. Seriously, it makes you look stupid, and you’re not. Show some class.
“(although I still find “rubble” offensive”
So now the word “rubble” is offensive. Wow. I just…wow. You are hitting new lows.
“from a man that supports Hamas as long as they play nice”
He does not support Hamas. You keep stating this as fact, but you’ve provided no evidence other than your own wild interpretation (twisting) of his words. You are engaging in SLANDER when you make this false accusation.
Hey, here’s an idea for where Rauf can get his funding: suing the crap out of you and everyone else who keeps spreading these lies about him.
Another important point: Rauf has come out in support of the state of Israel.
“Well, I’m not a politician. … The issue of terrorism is a very complex question. … I am a bridge builder. My work is … I do not want to be placed nor will I accept a position where I am the target of one side or another. My attempt is to see a peace in Israel. … Targeting of civilians is wrong. It’s a sin in our religion, whoever does it. … I am a supporter of the State of Israel.”
http://mediamatters.org/research/201008240027
Now, would someone who shared the goals of Hamas say this?
Also, I take back my accusation of slander. Since your false accusations have actually been written rather than spoken, what you are actually guilty of is libel.
Chris: “Let’s see: create an enemy where none exists? Check.”…etc.
No, Chris…I am asking you for examples when conservatives have refused to debate an issue and instead resorted to labeling, or branding, Democrat/progressive/liberals. We have described them as socialists or Mrxist but with evidence to demonstrate and back up the claim. There is a difference between describing what people do, name calling, and BRANDING!
“Insist that the imam is being “extreme and insensitive?” Check. “Paint them in dark tones as the wicked fiends of intolerance and bigotry?” Check. By implying that he shares the goals of terrorists, that’s exactly what you’ve done. Express concern over the harm the imam might do if given a platform to speak? Check.”
You have missed the point completely.
Lets try Arizona! Arizona passes a law that mirrors federal law. The WH and the DOJ say the law is racist and the professionally trained officers that will uphold the law will use race as a basis for stopping families “when they stop for ice cream”. The BRAND was applied before Eric Holder (or the President) even read the law!
Regarding the mosque people were shocked that anyone would consider a mosque at ground zero. The name that was chosen (Cordoba), the conquering Muslim history and tradition, and all of the other considerations have compelled people to ask questions do some research. The label/brand “terrorist” was not used to describe him Rauf. His right to build the mosque was not questioned.
We are at war whether or not you get it. One of the fronts our enemy has devised in its war against us is COVERT! It involves infiltrating our country, passing as moderate, obtaining jobs in education, government, research and legal fields. It involves creating mosques that preach tolerance and moderation where it can be viewed by the public and radical indoctrination in private. Given the questions that surround this man and his associations, including working with our government, the approach to ask questions is understandable, particularly when he failed to bend toward the side of honoring the majority opinion and compromise by building his moswque elsewhere.
“…go to “Atlas Shrugs,” the website that started this whole controversy, and you’ll see nothing but comments insisting that all Muslims are engaged in a war with America.”
Yes, the “opinion” exists that all Muslims follow the same book and that makes it nearly impossible to believe that if push came to shove even moderate Muslims would find themselves in agreement with those who would establish a worldwide Muslim caliphate. Given the controversies over the text this “opinion” is understandable. Not all Germans liked or agreed with Hitler but when he became all powerful Germans fell in line or parished.
You need to discern the difference between “opinion” expressed and BRANDING by officials, party leaders and media! The attempt was made to brand Clarence Thomas a sexual harrasser. The President branded the officer who arrested the professor as racist before he had the facts. That is what I am talking about.
“Jeffrey Kuhner, in an op-ed for the Washington Times, called him an “unrepentant militant Muslim, an Islamist fellow traveler.”
If that is all you got from Mr. Kuhner’s piece then you are less informed and resonable than I ever thought. You think we are engaged in a game of neener neener…some high school click competition or something. Mr’ Kuhner expressed his opinion backed up by citing Rauf’s many conflicting stances and other information about his associations. Expressing an “opinion” is not branding!
“Can you please explain to me what exactly is offensive about that title? Because I’m not seeing it, at all.”
You don’t get it because you live in the world, or hope to live in a world, of happy ponies!
It has been explained to you in several different ways. To get it, and everything else that concerns people, you have to be willing to consider the possibility (for you we can make it a “remote” possibility) that his man is indeed a covert terrorist, part of the breed who’s job it is is to look like a moderate. To make friends. To seem peaceful and kind. Within himself he would be of the mind that erecting a mosque at the site of the most fantastic terrorist strike on the most powerful nation in the west would signal to the entire Muslim world that Al Qaeda and the entire Muslim terrorist movement is supreme and has conquered the “Great Satan”. Symbolism, poetry and flowery expression are common in this culture.
” verify the accusation that he used his trip to illegally raise funds. Verify the accusation that he supports Hamas. Verify the accusation that his intention is for the community center to be a victory for terrorists.”
Is it possible that he will receive funds from the Saudi Arabia? That is all that anyone suggested. Since “possibilities” are always flatly denied by apologists like you the conversation has become heated, I’ll give you that. The links to Hamas and The Muslim Brotherhood were taken from his own site…some if it has been scrubbed, I provided links to other information.
“You can’t, and you know it, so you hide behind this noble idea of “asking questions.” It’s transparent and ugly.”
Pardon me, but you are full of s**t and your denial of even a possibility is getting tiresome…it’s juvenile.
“…you have proven that you are determined to be suspicious about this man no matter what he says or does.”
And you have proven that you are willing to be led down the garden path! I’d rather be a bit suspicious, especially given this mans record of duplicity.
“Do I believe his previous refusal to condemn them was morally right? No, I believe it was political and it was appeasement. But I see his reasons, and I don’t think it means that he secretly supported them. And now that he has done the right thing and publicly condemned Hamas, this issue should be dropped.”
OK drop the issue. If he continues to associate with organizations that support Hamas you will excuse me if I continue to suspect his intentions.
“*sigh* What the hell, Tina? Where do you get this crap from?”
I read the man’s words with the possibility in mind that he is having us on for his own covert reasons. Alone the statement menas little or nothing. Gathered into na bunch with other things he says…maybe his words have double meaning or are meant to deceive.
“So you wouldn’t say that Osama bin Laden “committed” this act of terror? Or the other members of Al Qaeda who participated and are still alive?”
I am saying it is “possible” that the man chooses his words to carefully send messages to the Muslim world. Bin Laden planned it…but committed? Depends on how you interpret the meaning of the word. it depends on how Mulsims would interpret it. He did say “this act” of terror.
” You are playing semantics here, and to be frank, you’re embarrassing yourself. You’re taking the least likely interpretation of the imam’s words and acting as if your radical interpretation somehow proves anything.”
Lets just say I would be better suited than you for work at the FBI or CIA involving interpretation of documents where being open to possibilities is an asset!
“Seriously, it makes you look stupid, and you’re not. Show some class.”
Thanks for the compliment…I think. See item above…I think I do “show some class” and I also think I’m grown up enough to know people are not always what they seem.
“So now the word “rubble” is offensive”
I want you to give this some serious thought! Close your eyes and imagine the blown out burning buildings, see them crashing to the ground, think about the bodies that were so vaporized they became nothing more than particles in the dust floating in the air…now think a little harder about the aftermath when people were still trapped and burned or hurt and think about the people that workled tirelessly for days and weeks and months to recover as many survivors, then bodies, then body parts and belongings as they could before they started to clean up the rest of the RUBBLE that resulted from this attack!
“He does not support Hamas. You keep stating this as fact, but you’ve provided no evidence other than your own wild interpretation (twisting) of his words.”
Bologna. I gave you several links…here’s more. I apologize for the length of content, it was necessary for context:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244528/imam-rauf-and-one-state-solution-israeli-palestinian-conflict-andy-mccarthy
If he supports the one state solution he supports the goals of Hamas.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243536/raufs-dawa-world-trade-center-rubble-andrew-c-mccarthy
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=194989
http://bigpeace.com/nmay/2010/08/21/the-dutch-connection-the-funding-of-the-ground-zero-mosque-part-2/
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/545180/201008261900/Mosques-Saudi-Patron.aspx
Now see some questions another American Muslim would ask Rauf here:
http://www.mzuhdijasser.com/7942/imam-rauf-american-muslim
“Hey, here’s an idea for where Rauf can get his funding: suing the crap out of you and everyone else who keeps spreading these lies about him.
Grow up!
Now, would someone who shared the goals of Hamas say this?
Surebecause peace in Israel for him will come when Israel no longer exists as a Jewish state.
Also, I take back my accusation of slander. Since your false accusations have actually been written rather than spoken, what you are actually guilty of is libel.
I have not accused him of anything. I have accumulated controversial information about him as a prominent figure with a controversial goal; I have asked questions; I have invited others to discuss these issues and the controvesy with me.
In terms of the accusations being false we have yet to determine the extent to which these troubling bits of information will be proved true or false. That is the point of the inquiry. I repeat, grow up!
“No, Chris…”
Yes, Tina. You have made Imam Rauf out to be an enemy of the United States. This man has devoted his entire life to combatting terrorism and extremism. In his work with the FBI and the state department, he has done a hell of a lot more in this battle than you have, so I’d say you owe him a great deal of respect and thanks. Not to mention a giant apology.
“You have missed the point completely.
Lets try Arizona! Arizona passes a law that mirrors federal law. The WH and the DOJ say the law is racist and the professionally trained officers that will uphold the law will use race as a basis for stopping families “when they stop for ice cream”. The BRAND was applied before Eric Holder (or the President) even read the law!”
I’m not going to discuss the Arizona law with you again. You originally brought up the Cordoba House issue and that is all I will discuss here.
“Regarding the mosque people were shocked that anyone would consider a mosque at ground zero.”
That’s strange, because it’s neither a “mosque” nor is it “at Ground Zero.” Yet you keep repeating that misinformation.
“The label/brand “terrorist” was not used to describe him Rauf. His right to build the mosque was not questioned.”
Wrong and wrong.
“Yes, the “opinion” exists that all Muslims follow the same book and that makes it nearly impossible to believe that if push came to shove even moderate Muslims would find themselves in agreement with those who would establish a worldwide Muslim caliphate. Given the controversies over the text this “opinion” is understandable.”
It’s not understandable, because there is a lot of information out there about the different sects of Islam and the differing interpretations of the Koran and Sharia. The only way someone could have this opinion is if they stop at “All Muslims follow the Koran and Sharia,” and then deduce from that that all Muslims therefore believe the same thing. This is a stupid conclusion, and one that is never made for any other religious group, yet I’ve seen it made countless times by your side just over the past few months.
“The President branded the officer who arrested the professor as racist before he had the facts.”
False. The president never said that the officer was a racist.
“If that is all you got from Mr. Kuhner’s piece then you are less informed and resonable than I ever thought.”
Tina, you asked me to point to instances of name-calling and accusations directed at Imam Rauf. I pointed out this one. I didn’t say anything further about his piece because that’s not what we were talking about.
“You think we are engaged in a game of neener neener…some high school click competition or something.”
So when you specifically say that there hasn’t been name-calling or accusations made against Rauf, and I point out that this is false, you backtrack and act like that particular issue doesn’t matter?
That’s a pretty chickensh!t tactic, I gotta say.
“Mr’ Kuhner expressed his opinion backed up by citing Rauf’s many conflicting stances and other information about his associations. Expressing an “opinion” is not branding!”
So calling someone a racist is branding, but calling someone a radical Islamic extremist is not? Please explain the difference. I think your stance is that it’s an opinion when a conservative says something about a liberal, but “branding” when a liberal says something about a conservative. But maybe your position is more nuanced than that.
“You don’t get it because you live in the world, or hope to live in a world, of happy ponies!
It has been explained to you in several different ways. To get it, and everything else that concerns people, you have to be willing to consider the possibility (for you we can make it a “remote” possibility) that his man is indeed a covert terrorist, part of the breed who’s job it is is to look like a moderate.”
Tina, I don’t tend to suspect people of being covert terrorists unless there is evidence of such.
You haven’t provided any evidence of such. You’ve tried, and failed, in many creative and comical ways.
It’s time to come to the conclusion that if this is all you got, you’re almost certainly wrong.
“Within himself he would be of the mind that erecting a mosque at the site of the most fantastic terrorist strike on the most powerful nation in the west would signal to the entire Muslim world that Al Qaeda and the entire Muslim terrorist movement is supreme and has conquered the “Great Satan”.”
Well, if that were his plan, I would think he would actually erect a “mosque.” But he’s not.
“Is it possible that he will receive funds from the Saudi Arabia?”
Yeah. So does Fox News. Are they covert terrorists too?
“Lets just say I would be better suited than you for work at the FBI”
Funny, because the FBI seems to think that Rauf is better suited for their work then you are.
“I want you to give this some serious thought!”
I’ve thought about 9/11 a lot, Tina. Every American has. None of those thoughts in any way make me think that the word “rubble” is offensive. A quick google search for “9/11 rubble” turned up over 500,000 results. Many are news articles where reporters or elected officials use the word “rubble.” Do these instances offend you too? Or is it only offensive when Muslims say it?
For someone who has accused me of playing “word cop” in the past, you sure seem hung up on words Rauf uses that you don’t like, even when they are completely accurate and harmless.
I will have to respond to the rest later.
Chris: “Yes, Tina. You have made Imam Rauf out to be an enemy of the United States.”
OK…in your mind It’s not OK to question a mans credentials. It’s not OK to ask questions. It’s not OK to point out discrepencies in his answers and behaviors. it’s not OK to point out questionable associations. And anyone who does is labeled ISLAMOPHOBIC. You have decided this and nothing will change your minjd. You and Rauf are of one mind because he has also said this about those who DARE to question or protest his choice! You prove my point over and over and over again.
” In his work with the FBI and the state department, he has done a hell of a lot more in this battle than you have…”
Irrelevant.
“…you owe him a great deal of respect and thanks. Not to mention a giant apology.”
I owe him nothing. You owe me an apology…I have not calkled this man any name or branded him a terrorist. I have questioned theb purpose and intention forn building a mosque on this site and used information that I have gathered to back my reasons for DOUBT! Doubt! Doubt! Doubt means you don’t know!!!
“That’s strange, because it’s neither a “mosque” nor is it “at Ground Zero.” Yet you keep repeating that misinformation.”
Debatable (and the plans have changed as the need to spin has increased).
“It’s not understandable, because there is a lot of information out there about the different sects of Islam and the differing interpretations of the Koran and Sharia.”
That only muddies the waters and makes it difficult to KNOW what this man believes and supports.
“This is a stupid conclusion”
It wasn’t a conclusion it was an observation.
“False. The president never said that the officer was a racist.”
The President jumped to the conclusion that racial profiling was involved in the decision to arrest the professor…hence the beer summit!
“So when you specifically say that there hasn’t been name-calling or accusations made against Rauf, and I point out that this is false, you backtrack and act like that particular issue doesn’t matter?”
Read the Kuhner pioece again and put those words in context…within the context of the piece the description fits. The point of this article “LABELING” is about making accusations without information or evidence to suggest the label has any merit.
“So calling someone a racist is branding, but calling someone a radical Islamic extremist is not?”
OMG! How to get through that thick PC indoctrinated skull?
All TP’s have been BRANDED racist for simply holding an opinion on immigration.
Rauf has not been “branded” a terrorist…his credability has been questioned…there’s a difference.
You and Rauf, however, are BRANDING anyone who questions as Islamophobic…anyone who questions is the same as someonbe who actually comes right out andsay the man IS A TERRORIST!
“Tina, I don’t tend to suspect people of being covert terrorists unless there is evidence of such.”
You don’t have that much trouble suspecting TP’s of being racist and homophobic!
“Well, if that were his plan, I would think he would actually erect a “mosque.” But he’s not.”
My God you are naive. What is it fifteen floors. You really believe that ther won’t be a mosque and areas where only Muslims are welcome won’t be included? Besides it was first described as a mosque and community center. The groups that are involved in soft jihad use the community center aspect as a front…to fool naive, stupid, trusting, overly tolerant Americans!
“Or is it only offensive when Muslims say it?”
It is offensive when it is used as part of a book title to be sold in a country with a lot of extremists about the WTC site specifically!
“you sure seem hung up on words Rauf uses that you don’t like, even when they are completely accurate and harmless.”
Hung up? Once again it is not OK to question the motives of a man that is by his own behavior and words duplicitous. And by the way the FBI is not opposed to using or working with shady characters…it’s the world they live in. As for the state department, especially the current one, thier sympathies are not always in what I believe to be the best interest of the US either. I believe it is still my right to question them too without being branded!
George Bush, when questioned about protesters who said and did outlandish things about him said only that we live in an open society and people have a right to protest and say what they do. The party that claims to be tolerant has no such ability…or grace!
Let’s look at the links you posted, Tina.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244528/imam-rauf-and-one-state-solution-israeli-palestinian-conflict-andy-mccarthy
This one you use as to claim that Rauf’s support of a one-state solution is evidence of his sympathies to Hamas. But anyone who has been keeping themselves even slightly informed on the Israel-Palestine conflict knows that the one-state solution is no longer a radical or anti-Semitic position.
From JTA, “The Global News Service of the Jewish People:”
JERUSALEM (JTA) — In one of the more curious twists in Israeli politics, prominent figures on Israels right wing have begun pushing for a one-state solution with Israelis and Palestinians as equal citizens with full voting rights.
http://jta.org/news/article/2010/08/02/2740309/is-one-state-solution-an-answer-to-greater-israel-dreams
So no, Rauf’s support of a one-state solution is in no way an indication that he supports Hamas. His direct quote that says “I am a supporter of the state of Israel” should put that notion to rest as well.
“http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243536/raufs-dawa-
world-trade-center-rubble-andrew-c-mccarthy”
This link is based on guilt-by-association logic, and it also leaves out quite a bit about ISNA and IITT. Media Matters has a good rebuttal, illustrating the defense of ISNA by the ACLU as well as Jewish and Christian leaders, here:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007270038
“http://bigpeace.com/nmay/2010/08/21/the-dutch-connection-the-funding-of-the-ground-zero-mosque-part-2/”
This link simply makes the logical fallacy I referred to earlier of taking the word “sharia” out of context and acting as if that word somehow overrides everything else a person or organization says. The writer assumes that because WISE believes in sharia, then they can’t possibly believe in women’s rights. But this is nearly equivalent to saying that it is impossible for any Muslim to believe in women’s rights. Sharia is simply how Muslims refer to God’s law. Their interpretations of what that law commands differ widely. To leave this part out is to engage in very shallow thinking, and it leads to unfair and inaccurate conclusions. It is clear that WISE is for women’s rights.
The link also claims that Rauf is a member of the Perdana Group. According to the FAQS on the Cordoba Initiative website:
“Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has never been a member of this group. Several years ago, Imam Feisal was invited to Malaysia, the most moderate Islamic country in the world, to participate in a Peace Conference sponsored by the Perdana Peace Group. He was one of the hundreds of speakers present. He has no political, advisory or business affiliation of any nature with the Perdana group. A photo of Imam Feisal was taken at the conference, and this has been used to prove his membership in the Perdana Global Peace Organization, but the allegation is false. Because of the controversy surrounding Perdana, we have requested the Perdana Group to remove the photo of him from their publicity.”
All of the links you listed take things out of context, use misleading information, and are based on specious logic.
Chris: “But anyone who has been keeping themselves even slightly informed on the Israel-Palestine conflict knows that the one-state solution is no longer a radical or anti-Semitic position.”
and anyone who has watched the history of Palestinian/Israeli peace efforts knows that Israel has made concessions in tha past only to see the Palestinians eventually say nope not good enough and the whole thing fall apart. I’m not holding my breath. If it does come to anything I will be impressed and be happy to serve up a you told me so.
By the way this is nothing new for Israel…Palestinians that live in Israel now have voting righs and serve in the Knesset. It is Hamas and the Palestinians that back them that will, in the end, be unreasonable and botch the whole thing for the simple reason that they have not given up their number one goal (driving the Jews into the sea).
“So no, Rauf’s support of a one-state solution is in no way an indication that he supports Hamas. His direct quote that says “I am a supporter of the state of Israel” should put that notion to rest as well.”
Not if you place it alongside other remarks and associations. this man is a question mark. When he speaks of compatability he puts it in terms of Islam first. As I said, it may be in his mind that “voting rights” are given but under Sharia law. He does seem committed to sharia law and that is something you seem to think can be married to freedom as we know it. I’m not convinced.
“Sharia is simply how Muslims refer to God’s law.”
Now who’s making all Muslims exactly alike…what happened to all of the differences and variations you spoke about before?
“All of the links you listed take things out of context, use misleading information, and are based on specious logic.”
You continue to argue with me as if I were making a case to prove he is a terrorist! I have never asserted that. I haven’t said these articles prove anything accept that they add to a preponderance of evidence that suggests he MIGHT BE aligned with those who don’t believe in violence to reach the goal of a world wide caliphate but instead will use words, politics and the law. If I’m correct in my concerns we do have something to worry about. They believe in their hearts they are doing us a favor…just a bit arrogant…but it will mean that we live under their religious terms not our Constituion.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with my logic or the logic of those who share my concerns!
“I have not accused him of anything.”
This is a lie. You said he was a supporter of Hamas. You phrased this as fact, not question. That is an accusation. Do not try and deny that.
“Irrelevant.”
There is no way that pointing out Imam Rauf’s years of service to the United States and our goal of counter-terrorism could be “irrelevant” in a discussion where you have asked me to consider the possibility that Imam Rauf “is indeed a covert terrorist.” It’s completely relevant. You just choose to ignore it.
“That only muddies the waters and makes it difficult to KNOW what this man believes and supports.”
It’s not at all difficult. Read passages of his book. Read more than just the out-of-context excerpts that Andrew McCarthy posts. His views are out there and they are quite clear.
“The President jumped to the conclusion that racial profiling was involved in the decision to arrest the professor…hence the beer summit!”
Wrong again, Tina. The president did say that the officer acted stupidly, and pointed out that there is a history of racial profiling in this country that should not be ignored. But he very deliberately did not address whether he believed that this was an instance of racial profiling.
“Read the Kuhner pioece again and put those words in context…within the context of the piece the description fits. The point of this article “LABELING” is about making accusations without information or evidence to suggest the label has any merit.”
The label of “radical extremist” he puts on Rauf IS completely without merit.
“You don’t have that much trouble suspecting TP’s of being racist and homophobic!”
Racism and homophobia are rampant in our culture. I do see a lot of it within the Tea Party. I do not think every individual involved is a racist or homophobe. There is a big difference between thinking that a particular group may harbor somewhat more racist and homophobic sentiments than other people in our society, and accusing someone of committing acts that are downright criminal. Racism and homophobia aren’t illegal.
“It is offensive when it is used as part of a book title to be sold in a country with a lot of extremists about the WTC site specifically!”
Again, why? There is nothing offensive about the word “rubble” no matter how you slice it.
“I believe it is still my right to question them too without being branded!”
As long as you get to subjectively define the words “question” and “branded,” and change the definitions when it suits you.
“Now who’s making all Muslims exactly alike…what happened to all of the differences and variations you spoke about before?”
This seriously makes no sense. You left out the part right after that where I said that Sharia is interpreted in many different ways by different Muslims. What I said is no more of a generalization than saying all Christians believe in the Bible.
“They believe in their hearts they are doing us a favor…just a bit arrogant…but it will mean that we live under their religious terms not our Constituion.”
Imam Rauf argues that people can live under both…I may disagree, but he has always supported our Constitution and never advocated against it. When he does, let me know.
Chris: “This is a lie. You said he was a supporter of Hamas. You phrased this as fact, not question. That is an accusation. Do not try and deny that.”
He refuses to say Hamas is a terrorist organization. In doing so he lends an air of legitimacy to Hamas…that IMHP is support for Hamas.
“There is no way that pointing out Imam Rauf’s years of service to the United States and our goal of counter-terrorism could be ‘irrelevant'”
You wrote: “In his work with the FBI and the state department, he has done a hell of a lot more in this battle than you have…”
I responded, “irrelevant!” Still is.
” Read more than just the out-of-context excerpts that Andrew McCarthy posts. His views are out there and they are quite clear.”
Are they! I don’t care if he has written billions of pages of sweet sounding words…anyone is capable of doing that. What troubles me is the things he has said while in the ME and the things he will not say no matter how hard he is pressed. They don’t bother you…FINE!
“The president did say that the officer acted stupidly, and pointed out that there is a history of racial profiling in this country that should not be ignored. But he very deliberately did not address whether he believed that this was an instance of racial profiling.”
My point is the rush to label. He spoke without knowing a thing about the officer, his training or reputation…and without knowing anything about the behavior of the professor. He was thinking racial profiling or he would not have brought it up. Everyone got the message and everyone knew a day later that the President had spoken carelessly and stupidly himself.
“Racism and homophobia are rampant in our culture. I do see a lot of it within the Tea Party.”
Rampant my a**! Rampant is a favorite word of the left…it always accompanies the labels racist and homophobe.
“There is nothing offensive about the word “rubble” no matter how you slice it.”
So if I’m a Muslim or an Islamist/terrorist, I will read the title “A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11.” and think nothing of it? Please! This man is saying to Muslims worldwide…I intend to build a moaque on the rubble of the towers our brothers destroyed on 9/11…I/we will proselytize to bring people to sharia….and the goal of a caliphate will be realized without violence.
Sorry, I do find the very idea of choosing this site offensive and calculated. You don’t. FINE!
But consider:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=17283
You seem to choose to believe that Islam is religious only and couldn’t possibly pose a threat to our freedoms. Because you believe the Imama is a nice well meaning person you are willing to overlook things that others, including Muslims, are pointing out about the religion and it’s followers ultimate goals. FINE! I don’t choose to ignore them.
“Imam Rauf argues that people can live under both…I may disagree, but he has always supported our Constitution and never advocated against it. When he does, let me know.”
I will…in the mean time he has gone on TV to BRAND or LABEL anyone who dares to question his intentions and choice of location as “Islamophobic” as have his supporters.
I stand by my original assertion and the purpose of this piece.
“He refuses to say Hamas is a terrorist organization”
Did you already forget that I proved this isn’t true?
“I responded, “irrelevant!” Still is.”
Can you explain why it’s irrelevant? Simply saying it doesn’t make it so.
“You seem to choose to believe that Islam is religious only and couldn’t possibly pose a threat to our freedoms”
Radical Islam does. Islamic terrorism does. Imam Rauf is trying to combat these things. You don’t like that, for some backwards reason.
As for the words “rubble” and “dawa,” you are simply playing “word police,” as you have accused me of in the past. I find it interesting that you don’t seem to find racist epithets offensive, but the word “rubble” sends you into a tizzy.
Chris: “Can you explain why it’s irrelevant? Simply saying it doesn’t make it so.”
I stupidly assumed that highlighting what I said would be enough to clarify. Try it this way:
Tina, this is so true!
If anyone questions your assertions, label them as America Hating LIBERALS!!!
First, you will have to change the definition of liberal to suit whatever you want it to mean. OR, call them America Hating socialists/fascists/whatever will inflame and scare.
Next, you have to attribute heinous acts that fit to your newfound definition.
The final step is easy. Having done the first two, people are easily duped into thinking these nasty folks are extreme and insensitive!
You didn’t think we were dumb enough to believe only one side pulls this nonsense, did you?
Thank you though, for pointing out–again–why partisanship is bad for America.
Quentin: “If anyone questions your assertions, label them as America Hating LIBERALS!!! ** First, you will have to change the definition of liberal to suit whatever you want it to mean.”
A. Progressives (Marxists) named themselves “liberal” to hide their true intentions. We only call them by the name they chose for themselves.
B. Marxism is not compatable with our Constitution and free market system, hence the “American hating” descriptor. A few hard core progressives have actually earned the label, IMHO.
C. I would not brand or label all progressives, liberals, Marxists as American hating myself.
“OR, call them America Hating socialists/fascists/whatever will inflame and scare.”
I say people are suggesting fascist or Marxist “ideas” when they are doing so…again, this is not labeling or branding. I address myself to the ideas, not to persons or groups.
“Next, you have to attribute heinous acts that fit to your newfound definition.”
Attribute is an interesting choice of words. Have you an example in mind that is not true?
“The final step is easy. Having done the first two, people are easily duped into thinking these nasty folks are extreme and insensitive!”
“people are easily duped” is not a “step”. It is a judgement of your fellow man. Generally speaking, people are only “duped” when they are not given a true picture because information is distorted or withheld. Given sufficient information I trust most Americans to make the right choice.
“You didn’t think we were dumb enough to believe only one side pulls this nonsense, did you?”
I think you may be “dumb enough” not to know the difference after reading this petulant screed, not that it matters since you see yourself as above it all.