Imam Rauf's Veilled Threat

In the fog of ideological & psychological warfare, with conflicting claims of  a face saving compromise which would relocate the Ground Zero Mosque  of triumph and save the Florida Qur'ans from a fiery fate,  we need to get back to basics and focus on the significant core issues.

    The Imam behind the Ground Zero Mosque of Triumph, Feisal Abdul Rauf,  issued a  thinly veiled threat in an interview with The Larry King Show. The Washington post included a video clip in their article., headlined: "Imam Rauf: National security hinges on Mosque debate".

    The Post placed this quote  above the video: "Our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it."

This was a particularly difficult interview to transcribe because both the interviewer and interviewee spoke rapidly and  with soft voices.  The video buffers too slowly on my connection, my  eustachian tubes were not clearing, and my hearing aids are incompatible with my headset.  I had to use the telecoils, and my monitor is louder than my headset.  I did not get everything, but this should be close enough to convey the important meaning. 

..."But I also have a responsibility. If we move from that location the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse, the headline in the Islamic world will be that Islam is under attack. And I am less concerned by the radicals in America than I am concerned  by the radicals in the Muslim world. ... the danger from the radicals in the MW to our national security--to the nationals security of our troops- I have a niece who works in the Army in [inaudible] Iraq-- the concern for American citizens who live and work and travel overseas will increasingly be compromised if the radicals are strengthened.

If we do move it, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit  and their increasing aggression. The idea of [inaudible] is to create something like a Muslim Y. The YMCA was created one hundred and thirty years ago. to improve relationships between what was then called the American protestant religions by having young men and young women, of course they were separate at that time; YMCA/YWCA, common bond you know, by doing sports together and other programs together. [inaudible]
And that second street Y was an attempt by the Jewish community  to create a center where you'd create that kind of bonding.   We are now, today, where the Jewish community and the Catholic community was maybe seventy years ago, a century ago and this is our time; our turn to do that.

(What's on the table now?)
The biggest issue is the national security issue.
(How do you pull out without looking like you've lost?)

Without making it look both in this country and in the Muslim world.  You must remember that what we do is watched all over the world.  And we are very engaged with the Muslim world.  And our security is really number one, our national security, our personal security is extremely important. And this issue has become now a national security issue. And therefore in our conversations, in our decision making process, we have to weigh many many factors and that has been dominant among them.

(Is there a middle ground that has you pull out of the center and do something else? that's what it sounds like you are saying.)  We are discussing many things right now but, you know, we haven't found yet an option  that would work in a safe way.

(What are ... what you are considering?)

As I said,. we consider everything in life. but we have to be very cautious here because the voices of the radicals have ratcheted up and we must make sure that the moderates take over the conversation.

(Given what you know now, would you have built?)

As I mentioned it, this story is not new. People knew about it.  ...(Right, but given what you know now would you have said 'listen, lets not do it there because...'  because it sounds like  you are saying, in retrospect , you wouldn't have done it? )

Well,yes, if...if...(You would not have done it?)
If I knew this would happen, this would cause this kind of pain, I wouldn't have done it.  My life has been devoted to peace making,

(...There are so many people who say... if you are saying it was a mistake, then why can't you get out of it and not do it?)

because we have to now make sure that whatever we do actually results in greater peace, not in greater conflict.

(Why do you think this structure is causing all this controversy now? )

Well there is a certain amount of anti-Islamic sentiment in this country (what now?) and we have seen it in the attacks upon mosques in various parts of the country in the last several weeks. So it is clear that this issue is not just about our center which is an attempt to create peace between Muslims and  non-Muslims but this has aroused a certain anti-Islam sentiment which is unfortunate in this country--we need to look at it and have a discourse about it and make sure this does not dominate the discourse between us because Americans believe fundamentally  and in a very fundamental strong way about freedom of religion, about separation of governments and churches, in separation of church and state which means the power of the government should not be used to coerce people to believe in any religion but it should be used to defend and protect religious rights and freedoms.  So this is the conversation we need to have right now.

(Lets talk about money: one hundred million dollars is the price tag for this Islamic cultural center, where are you going to get the money?)

Well we have yet to raise a capital campaign...(You have no money for it yet?)

We haven't raised any money for it yet.  .

(Where will you get the money?)

We'll get the money from whatever sources we can, domestically especially, and be very transparent about how we raise the money. This has been something that we have committed ourselves to . (Meaning you will list whoever is giving you money?) Yes.  ( Will you turn down money from people who give money to say, HAMAS?) Absolutely. (No question about it; anyone who gives money to HAMAS can not give money to you ?) We will do whatever is absolutely correct and legal and safe thing   to do.

(Which means what exactly? Because that's an extra condition?)  You see, I'm the visionary behind it, I'm not the actual builder, I'm not the financial expert, I'm not  the legal expert on these things, but I have a vision here of  establishing something which I know, in my heart of hearts, will be a powerful instrument of peace.

(  Who would you not take money from, who would you say no to, who would you turn away?)

We would turn it from anybody who was deemed to be a danger to this process.  (People I think, here in New York and around the country would say ' that is sacred land, that is a special place for everyone in America-- is that a step toward peace?) As Clyde Haberman [sp?] and many many people have said, "look what exists in that neighborhood", look what exists around the corner.  ( Oh, I believe you, I've lived downtown, so I know the neighborhood very well. )

So lets be clear, calling this particular block sacred  ground is and what exists there... you know...(strip clubs and delis, I've been there a million times, but I think when people call it sacred ground, they're saying something terrible  happened on this spot and and we've...)

We've got to be fair you can't say a place that has strip joints is sacred ground. We've got to be just, we've got to speak the truth we've got to have justice for everybody,  we're a country of justice for all, not just for non-Muslims only or some groups and not for others This is what America is all about, Solidad. We've got to really mean what we say and say what our values  are truly about.

This isn't... the discourse has been hijacked by people who say "no".

(you've heard about this Pastor in Florida, Terry Jones,who is proposing burning Qur'ans on 9/11,  what do you think of that?)

I would plead with him to seriously consider what he is doing. (Why?)  Its going to feed to the radicals in the Muslim world.  Its dangerous, General Petraeus has said that. It is something that is not the right thing to do on that ground. ...
.
(Do you  think he has a right to do it?)

And more importantly, well, we have freedom in this country, freedom of speech, but with freedom comes responsibility.  It is a famous saying to shout fire in a crowded theatre, this is dangerous for our national security, and also the un-Christian thing to do.  Jesus Christ didn't teach us to do that, we Muslims have a ... we look to the example of our Prophet- to our Prophet's sunnah. Many Christians say, 'What would Jesus do"
Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, Jesus taught us to love your enemy, we are not your enemies.  This is what Jesus taught us to do, and I would like to suggest that  you know--we all have to live  by the highest principles of our faith traditions  

• "If we move from that location the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse" 

I presume he means  us, the Americans who resist the erection of a victory Mosque on the scene of the  accursed abomination.

• "the headline in the Islamic world will be that Islam is under attack."

The finger of blame switches from those who are poking a gigantic middle finger in our eye to those of us who are vociferously resisting  the attack.

• "I am concerned  by the radicals in the Muslim world. "... 
• "the danger from the radicals in the MW to our national security"

    "Radical" Muslims are likely to throw stones and bombs at our troops, assault tourists and businessmen overseas, and terrorize us at home because we vocally resist the erection of  their symbol of triumph in the place where they murdered 2700 people nine years ago.   We are accused of provoking our tormentors by resisting them.   Does anyone else perceive the moral inversion performed in this case?

    Muslims are taught that any step taken to injure or anger us is imputed to their credit as a deed of righteousness, to be weighed against their sins on Judgment Day.  You'd learn that fun fact in 9:120, if you'd read that damn Qur'an instead of ignoring or burning it. They don't need any incentive from us to attack us. 

• "If we do move it, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit  and their increasing aggression."

    If they relocate the project, moderate Muslims will be radicalized and recruited by terrorists.  The difference between a moderate and a radical is that the latter is fully aware of Allah's imperatives and seeks to implement them.  Moderates are either ignorant or indolent,  those whom Muhammad called hypocrites whose Islam goes no deeper than their throats.  They profess but do not practice.   We have been told that  relocating the project from Ground Zero will cause more Muslims to seek to implement Allah's imperatives.  In that case, is there any real difference in the beliefs of radicals and moderates?

• "The YMCA was created one hundred and thirty years ago. to improve relationships between what was then called the American protestant religions"...
• "We are now, today, where the Jewish community and the Catholic community was maybe seventy years ago, a century ago and this is our time; our turn to do that."

    A Young Muslim's Christian Association?  Oh, right, a Young Muslim's Association.   The Y serves 45 million people in 120 countries. Guess which countries ain't served.  No Y in Arabia or North Africa, why is that?  But we need another Muslim (terrorist) recruiting station in New York. Yeah, right.

• "The biggest issue is the national security issue."

    How big is it?  How many more attacks, how much increase in the scale of those attacks? If that face saving compromise Pastor Terry Jones thought he had worked out was genuine, would that result in a national security problem?

• "You must remember that what we do is watched all over the world."
• this issue has become now a national security issue.

    The question was one of  relocating the project without the appearance of defeat. How about the reality?  It would be a strategic setback because any alternative location would not have the psychological effect of the Ground Zero location, it would contribute much less to the Muslim's sense of triumph.  The answer speaks volumes.  Rauf is concerned about defeat in the eyes of the Ummah.  But anything that deflates their egos should bring about some reduction in recruitment and enthusiasm for terrorism. That would make a positive contribution to peace and security.  Strategy is inverted along with morality.

• "we haven't found yet an option  that would work in a safe way"

    No options that would not increase the security risk?  We get more attacks unless the symbol of Islamic supremacy is erected on the site of the abomination?

• "we have to be very cautious here because the voices of the radicals have ratcheted up and we must make sure that the moderates take over the conversation"

    The emphasis is on "radicals" and "moderates". The moderate voice is quiescent because "moderates" are not zealots; they are not empowered and motivated to speak out and act; they are passive.  The "radicals" have the mission, motivation and machine guns; they are activated.

    Did anything escape your attention in that quote? Look again.  Who is Rauf concerned with?  Only Muslims; our perceptions, attitudes, feelings and interests don't count, they are not under consideration. He ain't interested in anyone but Muslims.

• "If I knew this would happen, this would cause this kind of pain, I wouldn't have done it.  My life has been devoted to peace making,"

    Rauf was not expecting a vigorous, vociferous reaction.  He was not expecting intensive and extensive news coverage.  Did he make a war?  No, he made a controversy, and that ain't exactly the polar opposite of "peace making".  Of course, Muslims make peace by subjugating disbelievers. Peace follows victory.

• "we have to now make sure that whatever we do actually results in greater peace, not in greater conflict."

    He can not admit defeat and back down because that would result in "greater conflict".  If we surrender, that results in peace; if he surrenders, that results in conflict.  Got a clue yet?

• "there is a certain amount of anti-Islamic sentiment in this country"
• " it is clear that this issue is not just about our center"
• "make sure this does not dominate the discourse between us because Americans believe fundamentally  and in a very fundamental strong way about freedom of religion, about separation of governments and churches, in separation of church and state which means the power of the government should not be used to coerce people to believe in any religion but it should be used to defend and protect religious rights and freedoms."

    Nineteen Muslims hijacked four airliners and flew three of them into office buildings.  Their act was motivated by the preaching and example of Muhammad bin Abdullah, the founder of Islam.  Their act was celebrated by Muslims all over the world.  What sort of fool expects us to have a neutral or pro-Islamic sentiment after that?   A cockpit voice recorder was recovered, exposing  exclamations of "Allahu akhbar" as the flight crew was murdered.   People wondered why, and research was done; books and movies were created which expose the doctrines and practices of Islam.  Some of us looked up the Barbary Wars, and what we discovered in  the historical recored confirmed what we learned  from your texts and outraged us.

    How is it possible to have a discourse not dominated by the fact that your demon demands that you conquer and subjugate us?   Freedom of religion means that we can choose any religion or none at all. Islam demands that it have a monopoly, that only Allah be worshiped.  The two are not compatible, they are polar opposites.

    Separation of Church and state means that the two institutions are independent, they do not interfere in each other's affairs. Islam demands that all law be Allah's law, Shari'ah, not man made legislation.  That is the polar opposite of separation of church and state.   Freedom of religion and separation of church and state do not serve as your license to wage war on us or dominate us by out breeding us, subversion & sedition.

• ( Will you turn down money from people who give money to say, HAMAS?) "Absolutely". (No question about it; anyone who gives money to HAMAS can not give money to you ?) "We will do whatever is absolutely correct and legal and safe thing   to do."
• "We would turn it from anybody who was deemed to be a danger to this process."

    Wear your black dot garden gloves to keep a grip on this snake. Why is HAMAS an issue?  Rauf will not acknowledge the fact that it is a terrorist organization.  Neither would he acknowledge the fact, if asked, that there is no difference between HAMAS  and Islam.

    Giving money to HAMAS is illegal. Taking money from HAMAS donors is not illegal.  Their willingness to donate to you  as well as  to HAMAS tells us  who & what you are. The fact that you want to disassociate yourself from them provides the same information.  But we already knew that you are Muslims.  What constitutes a "danger to this process" ?  The implication is that you would reject money from anyone whose reputation or associations would impair your false image of peaceful  moderation.

• "We've got to be fair you can't say a place that has strip joints is sacred ground."
  

    What makes any ground sacred?  What desecrates it?  If the flesh, bone & blood of your family and associates is finely divided and splattered over several city blocks by an aircraft  impact   and the subsequent collapse of  the impacted building,  are that place, those scattered remains and their memories any less sacred  to you than they would be in a consecrated cemetery  in your church yard?  In fact, there was a church on that site.  Is the site desecrated by the presence of strip joints and other business establishments which pre-existed the accursed abomination?

    If your loved one and  colleagues were murdered by assassins motivated by the damnable doctrines of an accursed war cult, what is the effect on your psyche of the erection, on the site where the ash and smoke of your loved one settled, of a shrine where the war cult's devotees will remind their  demon seventeen times every day of how your loved one and you have "earned" his wrath & "gone astray"; a place where they will curse us and supplicate their demon for "victory over the disbelieving folk"?  Does that or does that not impair the sanctity of the site more than a strip club around the corner?  

• "I would plead with him to seriously consider what he is doing. (Why?)  Its going to feed to the radicals in the Muslim world.  Its dangerous, General Petraeus has said that. It is something that is not the right thing to do on that ground. ..."

    Burning a Qir'an as a symbol of objection to the damnable doctrines enshrined therein and the accursed actions inspired thereby and to the erection of a  shrine to them  in a place where those  damnable doctrines and accursed actions resulted in more than 2000 deaths  "feeds radicals"  but burning the American flag, the symbol of liberty and justice for all, chanting "death to America" ,  and bearing signs reading "Islam will dominate the world" and "freedom go to Hell" along with "behead those who Insult Islam"  are innocent acts of no import or impact whatsoever, though they are carried out by thousands where as Terry Jones has fifty in his congregation.  Proportionality, anyone?  Can you perceive moral inversion??

• 'What would Jesus do" 

    He lectures us  by Jesus?  Unholy sacrilege!!! The Islamic version of Jesus is Allah's slave, not God's son, was not crucified, neither was he killed nor resurrected.  And he will return to lead the Muslims in  battle against us, the final and ultimate genocide.  He will rule the world by the Qur'an.   The arrogance of Muslims knows no bounds.  If you have any doubt about the veracity of this paragraph, read this blog post: The Defamation of Jesus Christ.