Imam Abdul Rauf's advice to Barack Obama

[Robert Campbell]

Here's a piece by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, from June 2009.

It contains his advice to President Obama about responding to the rigged reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

http://www.cordobain...-irans-election

After the revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took the Shiite concept of the Rightly Guided Imam and created the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, which means the rule of the jurisprudent. This institutionalizes the Islamic rule of law. The Council of Guardians serves to ensure these principles.

Yes, Ayatollah Khomeini came up with the doctrine that the supreme Islamic jurisprudent should rule. But my understanding is that this a Khomeinist doctrine, pure and simple. It is rejected by many senior clerics in Shi'a Islam, including Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq and the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri in Iran.

President Obama has rightly said that his administration will not interfere with the internal affairs of Iran, unlike what happened in 1953. Now he has an opportunity to have a greater positive impact on Iranian-American relations. He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution -- to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, that establishes the rule of law.

Well, let's see how that works...

According to Velayat-e-Faqih, the Ayatollah Khomeini was entitled to rule and now the Ayatollah Khamenei is entitled to rule.

Ayatollah Khamenei could choose to bless the results of a rigged election if he wanted to.

If he did, his word would be law.

He did choose to bless the results of a rigged election.

Over and out.

And since Imam Abdul Rauf is not a Khomeinist, what is he doing promoting Khomeinist doctrine?

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

In other words, he's an apologist for tyranny.

I love the guy already.

[Robert Campbell]

Another perspective on Imam Abdul Rauf comes from this rather puffish piece in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.c...?_r=1&th&emc=th

Andrew Sinanoglou, who was married by Mr. Abdul Rauf last fall, said he was surprised that the imam had become a contentious figure. His greatest knack, Mr. Sinanoglou said, was making disparate groups comfortable. At the wedding, he brought together Mr. Sinanoglou's family, descended from Greek Christians thrown out of Asia Minor by Muslims, and his wife's conservative Muslim father.

"He's an excellent schmoozer," Mr. Sinanoglou said of the imam.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe it has something to do with money?

"Over and out:" "Over" means I am done and it's your turn. "Out" means this is the last word by me or you respecting this conversation. "Over and out" thus means "talk and shutup" and is a contradiction most often found until recently in Hollywood movies, but now on OL.

--Brant

learned this in the army

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

I was vaguely aware that "over and out" isn't correct usage; in fact, that it's contradictory when taken literally.

But, you know, it kind of fits, in a comment about Imam Abdul Rauf.

The impression I'm gradually forming is not of some terribly sinister or ill-intentioned individual.

Just a guy who has been repeatedly rewarded for talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The impression I'm gradually forming is not of some terribly sinister or ill-intentioned individual.

Just a guy who has been repeatedly rewarded for talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Robert,

This is exactly the impression I am getting of him.

I suppose that is inherent to the role of a "bridge-builder" to some extent, but I smell sleaze in the mix. (That is my opinion at this point in learning about him.)

If this is the only objection I will be able to find about him, I will back off on him. My real concern is that this kind of person is a perfect front for a Trojan Horse, and his past includes very friendly relations with people who would be all too willing to do a Trojan Horse project.

Michael

[Darrell Hougen]

If Rauf is attempting to build bridges, then he is failing miserably. It is possible that he is talking out of both sides of his mouth simply for his own gain. He may not have any sinsiter goal in mind --- he may want to be in charge of big project, both for his own personal prestige and for monetary gain. But, by the same token, his goals may not be particularly good. He is willing to do a deal with the exporters of radical Islam inside the governments of places like Saudi Arabia and Iran, again for his own personal gain. He gets what he wants --- a big pledge to the project. Unfortunately, they also get what they want --- a symbol of Islamic triumph at Ground Zero. He probably named his project the Cordoba Initiative in order to attract investment from radical forces, knowing fully the implications of that choice of name. But, that is also one of the things that opponents of the project find so offensive.

I don't think Rauf particularly cares for the victims of 9/11 or the people of New York or the United States. And, I don't think he'll back off of his plans for the location of the mosque unless forced to do so. It is likely that his (presumably) radical backers would drop their pledges of funding if the mosque were moved further from Ground Zero, thereby torpedoing the entire plan. His backers probably aren't in this because of any good will for the United States. They have a religious and political agenda that they are attempting to promote and wouldn't provide significant funds to the project if they didn't see that agenda being promoted. An ordinary mosque or madrassa somewhere else could be supported with a lot less money. This project is divisive by its nature. No bridges are being built. Instead, animosities are being stirred up.

Darrell

[Libertarian Muslim]

Darrel, Cordoba for Muslims is not seen as a place of Islamic triumph over conquered territories, rather it is seen as a place where different religious groups, Jews, Christians and Muslims worked together and created a society that flourished and brought in some of the greatest advancements in the sciences during that short period.. That is what it is referring to..

The notion that we'd celebrate our conquests like you assert is silly.. I can't think of any types of occasions where we celebrate conquest, not even the conquest of Mecca which is our holiest site..

You're question Robert as to whether Sufis support it is a good question, but as Sufis are not a particular group like 'Shia' or 'Sunnis' can be divided and instead are in both it is hard to answer. I would say that the majority of those that hold 'Sufi' ideals do not support the ideas of Wilayat al Faqih. As you said, the ideas of Wilayat al Faqih (Governance of the Scholars) were created by Khomenei, prior to this the majority of the 'Shia' believed and most still do believe in the ideals of Wilayat al Ummah (Governance of the People).

Also, I'm not sure how many people here actually understand what Sufism actually is? It's not a category of Muslim like 'Sunni' or 'Shia' where there are specific beliefs separating the groups, rather Sufism is more of a spiritual aspect of Islam that gets addressed.. Some would argue that it would be somewhat of a spiritual chivalry to complement physical chivalry..

But there are various orders etc and it's all quite complex to simply add the label 'sufi' to things as Sufis can range from Whirling Dervishes to those of the Chechen (and previously the Bosnian) Mujahideen that are not Wahhabi or Salafi..

[Brant Gaede]

Spain from my historical ignorance struck me as much more tolerable under the Muslims than Christians way back then. If I were to be delivered way back in time to way back then to one or the other I'd want to end up there before El Cid got going.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

One item that makes me wonder a little about Trojan Horsing is a photo that was allegedly taken off a web page describing Imam Abdul Rauf's efforts to rate different governments on their purported compliance with shari'a.

At some of the work group's sessions, an Iranian religious scholar was present. A photo showing Imam Abdul Rauf and Mohammad Javad Larijani was subsequently taken off the page, presumably on account of Larijani's role as an apologist for the Iranian regime (he allegedly denied that anyone is tortured in Iranian prisons).

The photo is still on the Cordoba House website, however:

http://www.cordobain...ve.org/SIP2.jpg

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Isn't that Lindsay Perigo?

--Brant

[Darrell Hougen]

Darrell, Cordoba for Muslims is not seen as a place of Islamic triumph over conquered territories, rather it is seen as a place where different religious groups, Jews, Christians and Muslims worked together and created a society that flourished and brought in some of the greatest advancements in the sciences during that short period.. That is what it is referring to..

The notion that we'd celebrate our conquests like you assert is silly.. I can't think of any types of occasions where we celebrate conquest, not even the conquest of Mecca which is our holiest site..

Adonis,

You say a lot of things that don't quite have the ring of truth to them and the above it is one such statement. It is hard to find actual evidence about the history of the Cordoba Mosque, as it was built so long ago, but it is evident that it was built on the site of the Church of St. Vincent after the latter was torn down. This doesn't make the Muslim conquerers worse than the Christians. The Church of St. Vincent sat on the site of a previous Roman temple and after the Reconquista, Christians converted the Cordoba Mosque back to a Christian church. Nevertheless, it was typical of Muslim conquerers to build mosques where there had been churches or non-Christian temples in a clear attempt of assert Muslim domination of an area.

Here is a link to an article about some of the history. The author argues that the time of tolerance between Muslims and Christians probably occurred before the building of the Mosque. Here is the relevant quote:

... I’m not entirely sure if the mosque was famed for allowing different religions to pray together so much as the previous incarnation of the worship space — that is, the Church of St. Vincent — in the early years after the Muslim conquest. The Muslims conquered Cordoba in 712. Work on the Mosque didn’t begin until 784 and it didn’t become the large structure it’s known as until the late 10th century. The co-worshiping happened, I’m pretty sure, prior to Umayyad emir Abd-ar-Ramman I’s conquest of Cordoba a generation after Muslims first took the city. He’s the guy who started the mosque project. He’s also one of the great Muslim rulers of history.

Here is another interesting link. It talks about "tolerance" in Medieval Spain:

Before the 18th century's "enlightened" philosophers existed, with their humanistic ideas, there was no ideological precedent which made a virtue of tolerance and respect for other beliefs than one's own - something which is all too often forgotten in our guilt-ridden, altruistically-minded times. Medieval people, of all religions, were alternately fanatical and pragmatic, as the situation demanded, but never broad-minded in the liberal, relativist sense of the word. Such a thing was impossible in the Middle Ages, simply because the idea that there could be more than one "truth" did not exist. Equality, as conceived at the time of the French Revolution, is above all a political convention, not a biological fact.

Therefore, in spite of lengthy peaceful interludes and economically-motivated episodes of laissez-faire, there was generally, in the 800-year long war between Spain's Christians and Muslims, an uninhibited desire to cause as much harm and humiliation to one's adversary as possible. This explains many of the apparently irrational acts which took place - perfectly illustrated by the story of how the huge bells of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela were dragged 500 miles south to Cordoba and then all the way back again.

At the height of Muslim power, during the Omega Caliphate at the end of the 10th century, the fearsome warlord Al-Mansur led a bloody raid through northern Spain, going as far into Christian territory as Santiago de Compostela. On the loose in the great pilgrims' city, the Moor had the audacity of riding his horse into the cathedral and letting it drink from the font of holy water, outraging the Christian townsfolk; then, even more insultingly, he had the church's bells carried 500 miles south to Cordoba, where they were melted down to make lamps to illuminate the Great Mosque.

When, two and a half centuries later, in 1236, the Castillian King Ferdinand the Third ("The Saint") reconquered Cordoba, his first action, to avenge the humiliation caused by Al-Mansur, was to have the lamps carried back to the shrine of Saint James, where they were melted down to make a new set of bells.

If modern day Muslims view the Cordoba Mosque as a sign of tolerance, that would be great. I just haven't seen any evidence of it.

Darrell

[Libertarian Muslim]

Darrell, Cordoba for Muslims is not seen as a place of Islamic triumph over conquered territories, rather it is seen as a place where different religious groups, Jews, Christians and Muslims worked together and created a society that flourished and brought in some of the greatest advancements in the sciences during that short period.. That is what it is referring to..

The notion that we'd celebrate our conquests like you assert is silly.. I can't think of any types of occasions where we celebrate conquest, not even the conquest of Mecca which is our holiest site..

Adonis,

You say a lot of things that don't quite have the ring of truth to them and the above it is one such statement. It is hard to find actual evidence about the history of the Cordoba Mosque, as it was built so long ago, but it is evident that it was built on the site of the Church of St. Vincent after the latter was torn down. This doesn't make the Muslim conquerers worse than the Christians. The Church of St. Vincent sat on the site of a previous Roman temple and after the Reconquista, Christians converted the Cordoba Mosque back to a Christian church. Nevertheless, it was typical of Muslim conquerers to build mosques where there had been churches or non-Christian temples in a clear attempt of assert Muslim domination of an area.

Here is a link to an article about some of the history. The author argues that the time of tolerance between Muslims and Christians probably occurred before the building of the Mosque. Here is the relevant quote:

... I’m not entirely sure if the mosque was famed for allowing different religions to pray together so much as the previous incarnation of the worship space — that is, the Church of St. Vincent — in the early years after the Muslim conquest. The Muslims conquered Cordoba in 712. Work on the Mosque didn’t begin until 784 and it didn’t become the large structure it’s known as until the late 10th century. The co-worshiping happened, I’m pretty sure, prior to Umayyad emir Abd-ar-Ramman I’s conquest of Cordoba a generation after Muslims first took the city. He’s the guy who started the mosque project. He’s also one of the great Muslim rulers of history.

Here is another interesting link. It talks about "tolerance" in Medieval Spain:

Before the 18th century's "enlightened" philosophers existed, with their humanistic ideas, there was no ideological precedent which made a virtue of tolerance and respect for other beliefs than one's own - something which is all too often forgotten in our guilt-ridden, altruistically-minded times. Medieval people, of all religions, were alternately fanatical and pragmatic, as the situation demanded, but never broad-minded in the liberal, relativist sense of the word. Such a thing was impossible in the Middle Ages, simply because the idea that there could be more than one "truth" did not exist. Equality, as conceived at the time of the French Revolution, is above all a political convention, not a biological fact.

Therefore, in spite of lengthy peaceful interludes and economically-motivated episodes of laissez-faire, there was generally, in the 800-year long war between Spain's Christians and Muslims, an uninhibited desire to cause as much harm and humiliation to one's adversary as possible. This explains many of the apparently irrational acts which took place - perfectly illustrated by the story of how the huge bells of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela were dragged 500 miles south to Cordoba and then all the way back again.

At the height of Muslim power, during the Omega Caliphate at the end of the 10th century, the fearsome warlord Al-Mansur led a bloody raid through northern Spain, going as far into Christian territory as Santiago de Compostela. On the loose in the great pilgrims' city, the Moor had the audacity of riding his horse into the cathedral and letting it drink from the font of holy water, outraging the Christian townsfolk; then, even more insultingly, he had the church's bells carried 500 miles south to Cordoba, where they were melted down to make lamps to illuminate the Great Mosque.

When, two and a half centuries later, in 1236, the Castillian King Ferdinand the Third ("The Saint") reconquered Cordoba, his first action, to avenge the humiliation caused by Al-Mansur, was to have the lamps carried back to the shrine of Saint James, where they were melted down to make a new set of bells.

If modern day Muslims view the Cordoba Mosque as a sign of tolerance, that would be great. I just haven't seen any evidence of it.

Darrell

What you fail to mention is that the Muslims bought the Church of St Vincent and didn't take it over.

Also, you fail to mention a whole chunk of history there..

You haven't found those Islamic views of Cordoba being a place of great collaboration between Muslims, Christians and Jews because you only look at sources that are biased against Islam. The fact is that without the Muslims in Spain, there would most certainly have been no renaissance and the whole idea that Ferdinand was something of a good person is outrageous.. Any person who advocates ethnic cleansing in my opinion is a savage.. Ferdinand and Isabella included..

[kiaer.ts]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Libertarian Muslim]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I've watched several of this man's videos.. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He just regurgitates rubbish and has no real understanding of Islam..

His idea that the West shouldn't recognize Islam as a religion is just silly..

Even more ridiculous is the idea that Americans should infringe on the rights of Americans to protect the rights of Americans..

[kiaer.ts]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJQ4bwGPRuk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJQ4bwGPRuk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJQ4bwGPRuk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Libertarian Muslim]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJQ4bwGPRuk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJQ4bwGPRuk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJQ4bwGPRuk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Oh please..

I would hate for the Imam to stop building the Center, simply because it would give a victory to those against the project who would then believe that every time they make a protest about something the Muslim community does, that Muslims would then give up their rights in fear of such people.. In addition to that, the cessation of the project due to these circumstances would give an even bigger victory to extremists in the Muslim world that would then be able use it for propaganda and say 'See! They say they love equal rights, but these don't apply if you're a Muslim and they hate Islam'

It's now, more important than ever to build this community center because the repercussions of not following through will be bad, and ultimately very bad for the US..

There is only benefit for Americans if it goes ahead.

[kiaer.ts]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPzC0ZEZ8NQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPzC0ZEZ8NQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPzC0ZEZ8NQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Edited August 29, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Libertarian Muslim]

A bit silly really when they use the argument comparing this to building a German cultural center near a concentration camp or a Disneyland near Hiroshima.

If people of one nation A commit a crime against another nation B and then that very same nation A wanting to build a place of worship in the land of nation B then it may not be appropriate..

However, in this case, it's not the same.. In this case it's people of (allegedly) various nationalities C, I, and A that attacked another nation B and people of nationality B that wish to build a place of worship in their own country B..

Remember, nation B is a land where there is freedom of religion.

Also, there are many Catholic churches in the Middle East despite the fact that the Catholics launched the Crusades that killed many Muslims, Christians and Jews.. You don't see Muslims protesting or trying to burn them down..

Edited August 29, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[Selene]

Folks:

It seems difficult to obtain "objective" historical sources for the Mezquita, Cordoba Mosque and the Islamic rule on the Iberian peninsula between 711 and 1492. However, this section presents one view from a Sephardic organization which seems to be well documented.

"One of the characteristic features of the early history of Spain is the successive waves of different people who spread across the Iberian Peninsula. Phoenicians, Greeks, Vandals, Visigoths, Muslims, Jews, and Christians all occupied Spain at one point or another. History records communities of Jews living on the Iberian Peninsula from as early as the destruction of the first temple in Jerusalem (Diaz-Mas 1). But it was during the realm of the Moors in Al-Andalus (land of the vandals) which the Jews thrived the greatest. Though this was a time of artistic, educational, and cultural enlightenment, it was not completely serene or without persecution for the Jewish people."

http://www.sephardicstudies.org/islam.html

The above link concludes that:

"The golden age of Spain was golden, but for the Jews, it was always a bit tarnished."

Adam

[Selene]

Marc Tracey of The Tablet ["A New Read on Jewish Life"] explained in an article "Why, Cordoba? concluded that:

"Imam Rauf, the man behind the Cordoba Initiative, appears to be doing much the same thing as Halkin: using his view of what Spain used to be to advance his idea for what the world ought to be today. (Rauf is traveling and did not reply to requests for comment.) “We strive for a ‘New Cordoba,’ a time when Jews, Christians, Muslims, and all other faith traditions will live together in peace, enjoying a renewed vision of what the good society can look like,” he writes in the introduction to his 2004 book.

I asked Halkin what he thought of the Cordoba Initiative’s name. “It’s obvious what Cordoba stands for,” he replied. “Whether the real Cordoba was what Cordoba stands for is another question. But there’s nothing terribly wrong with it.”

So, maybe the solution is just to move beyond symbols? “We’re all basically defending our choices and lives and honors,” Halkin told me. “My Halevi is a defense of the choices I’ve made.”

“I’m willing to put Halevi aside and just say it,” he added."

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/42700/why-cordoba/

I found the article attempting to present the veneer of presenting both sides.

The name The Tablet, was, in my youth, the printed organ of the Catholic Church which amused me.

Adam