Ground Zero imam: I never would have done it if I knew it would create tensions
posted at 10:33 pm on September 8, 2010 by Allahpundit
Wish I had the full transcript, but this will have to do for now.
Rauf said that if he knew how controversial the project would be, he “never would have done this – not have done something that would create more divisiveness.”
However, he said he is convinced he shouldn’t move the center now because “our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it and what we do.”…
“If we don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world,” Rauf said. “… If we don’t handle this crisis correctly, it could become something very dangerous indeed.”
He said moving the project to another location would strengthen Islamist radicals’ ability to recruit followers and will increase violence against Americans.
Two things. First, this is an interesting contrast to the position of most liberal GZM supporters that opinion on the other side — 66 percent nationally, per the latest WaPo poll — is beneath contempt. Rauf is willing to make a concession to the feelings of opponents, at least in theory, in the name of “dialogue”; that’s more than you can say for the lefty commentariat who’ve treated this episode, as always, mainly as an exercise in self-congratulation for their moral supremacy. Second, Rauf’s point about having to build in order to deny jihadis the propaganda-fueling grievance of seeing the mosque moved is an ironic twist on the last post about Merkel and Westergaard. Once again, the fear of violence is dictating someone’s actions — except in this case, there are propaganda opportunities no matter what happens. If the mosque is moved, the terrorist line will be that America is biased against Islam; if the mosque stays, the terrorist line will be that Islam has triumphed by building a shrine at the doorstep of their great victory. That was all foreseeable when the decision to build on the site was undertaken, and Rauf and company went ahead with it anyway.
There’s more at the link — he concedes that Hamas has committed terrorist acts but danced around the Ron Paul-ian question of whether the U.S. was an “accessory to the crime” on 9/11. Meanwhile, the Egyptian businessman who provided a majority of the funding for the site tells the AP that this was just a business transaction for him, and that if he can’t turn a profit on the site, he’s happy to unload it. Exit quotation: “If someone wants to give me 18 or 20 million dollars today, it’s all theirs.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
You mean kinda like a Muslim Labor Union Boss, or an Iman Jesse Jackson?
ziggyville on September 9, 2010 at 12:03 PM
OOPS. Make that “IMAM Jesse Jackson”
ziggyville on September 9, 2010 at 12:05 PM
Rauf never comes off the mosque being built there. That explains all. He keeps that thorn in the paw and then can dance around with a new question, “What do we do now that the mosque must be built next to ground zero?” Pretty pathetic that we skip past the question “Why does the mosque have to be there?” since that argument is the one he can’t win but MUST win for his jihady goals to be met. Rauf can’t get 100 million for a ordinary mosque and he knows it has to be a victory mosque for that to fund raising to happen along with the symbolism he really wants.
Conan on September 9, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Why is the location a deal breaker for you?
What timing being pushed? And what about it causes you to question the project?
I don’t think Rauf issued any threat. When he’s spoke about national security, he was speaking very broadly. You’ll see he speaks about how the mosque plays in headlines in the middle east and how it allows the radicals to take control of the conversation by playing into their story line of a clash between east and west.
Rauf’s mission is to bring together the West and the Mideast, the West and Islam. A big part of that is showing Muslims that the U.S. is inherently tolerant of their religion and their freedom to practice it. That’s hard to do when there is so much vitriol aimed at Muslims because they want to build a mosque in lower Manhattan (not to mention the whole Koran burning stunt).
By protesting this mosque, we’re playing into the hands of the radicals – for no good reason.
Tom_Shipley on September 9, 2010 at 12:24 PM
I am so tired of Islam and angry Muslims…
Fartnokker on September 9, 2010 at 12:25 PM
And he decided to do that by putting a mosque in a location sure to upset people. There are mosques all over this country that weren’t being protested. Some large event at one of those would have done the same without needlessly insulting 9/11 victims.
Well, if part of it is showing how the West is tolerant of Islam, why can’t the other part be showing how Islam can be tolerant of the West?
Both are needless provocations that should be stopped, but both do offer opportunities for each side to showcase tolerance.
Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 12:29 PM
And by having a mosque built in a building that was hit by a piece of the plane on 9/11 and having its grand opening on the 10th anniversary of the attacks, we’re playing into the hands of the radicals, for no good reason.
Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 12:34 PM
And then his pants caught on fire.
roux on September 9, 2010 at 12:37 PM
By protesting this mosque, we’re playing into the hands of the radicals – for no good reason.
Tom_Shipley on September 9, 2010 at 12:24 PM
just give em what they want
sounds like how you spoil children
only these toddlers cut your head off
I want a rib joint in Mecca
and since bussiness will be scarce I want subsidies
Sonosam on September 9, 2010 at 12:37 PM
I didn’t say they would win. I said they were taking this shit seriously.
And too many of us aren’t.
Bruno Strozek on September 9, 2010 at 12:56 PM
We are always playing into the hands of Muslims because every thing pisses them off. A building that had the landing gear of one of the planes that went into the WTC is too close for me. It is no less or more arbitrary then your assertion that locality is unimportant. The developers supposedly got the building for a song and you indicate that this project has been in the works for a long time. You think the issue coming to the fore is because of elections in November, which makes no sense, but I think it was pushed to the front so that the publicity would garner the developers money. Either to build the center or to be bought out, I have serious doubts that one solution is dearer to their hearts than the other. As to no threats,
if this center gets built (big IF) the opponents will acknowledge their loss, move on no threat of violence, if it it doesn’t get built you need only look at this quote. Nice rationalization on your part. I think it’s safe to say we must agree to disagree.
Cindy Munford on September 9, 2010 at 1:27 PM
Rush is predicting that phase II of the muslim GZM will be US funding. They will demand that the US government fund the mosque in order to demonstrate understanding, unity, etc, etc, etc.
I can see it coming too. Bloomblob and Bammie will fold like cheap burkas. Where else will they get the money?
slickwillie2001 on September 9, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Let Bloomberg stroke a check from his own account if it’s so important to him.
Cindy Munford on September 9, 2010 at 2:18 PM
First off, the Cordoba Center is not scheduled to open on 9/11/11… that’s just one of the many pieces of misinformation the right-wing has thrown out there. Second, I don’t really see the huge deal if it were to. The intent of the center is one of peace and brotherhood and it will contain a memorial to those who were killed on 9/11.
So what if they want to open it on 9/11 in an attempt to honor those who died by opening a center that promotes peace and harmony among all religions?
Third, Rauf, the Sufi sect of Islam and those who are building this mosque are not radical islamists. In fact, they are at odds with radical islam.
Building this mosque does not play into the hands of al qaeda… it in fact would help refute their claim that the U.S. is in tolerant of and out to destroy Islam.
Tom_Shipley on September 9, 2010 at 2:39 PM
This is doing the right thing. Allowing a faith their constitutional right to open a center/place of worship where they choose and where the local community approves. It doesn’t matter what the f*ck anyone else thinks…
But, the message it sends does show that America is tolerant of all faiths and not a nation that’s at war with Islam.
Some people want to project that notion. Those who do not and oppose the mosque being built should seriously consider why they oppose it and consider if they should be opposing it.
Tom_Shipley on September 9, 2010 at 2:43 PM
Sorta reminds me of the arguments put forth by the old Commie lovers; “We just want peace!” Trouble was, their definition of “peace” was that everyone should stop struggling against evil, and accept slavery. You would do well to acquaint yourself with Islam, Stud. Islamic “peace and harmony” is one of three choices: 1) you become one of them, believe the way they, worship the way they do, and live the way they do. 2) you accept total slave status in their society. 3) you die. Those are your “choices”. (Kinda reminds me of the “choices” Adolf was offering people in 1939. Hmmm?)
There’s your peace and harmony. Maybe folks like you will be able to get those “plexiglas navels” cheaper once ObamaCare starts. Until then, try to remember that Islam doesn’t just PERMIT Islamists lying to “infidels” like you, Islam ENCOURAGES LYING AS A METHOD TO SUBJUGATE INFIDELS. Maybe you and your friends will be celebrating “National Peace and Harmony Day” on September 11.
oldleprechaun on September 9, 2010 at 3:32 PM
If this was the first mosque in the U.S. the argument might work but we have tons of them, including a few in NYC.
Cindy Munford on September 9, 2010 at 4:59 PM
Funny you should mention that. The Catholic Church relocated a convent from the grounds of Auschwitz because of Jewish protests. The local Catholics countered that about 200,000 Catholics also died at Auschwitz and hence that Catholics had a legitimate reason to assemble and pray at the site. Pope John Paul II ordered the convent moved, on the principle that the prayers offered could happen anywhere in the universe and still be effective, and that Jewish sensibilities ought to be considered.
So there’s the prior art — take it or leave it.
As for Catholic Churches and schools — you are welcome to go there if you wish, but few blame Catholicism itself for the matter, because the rules of Catholicism expressly prohibit what the miscreant priests did, proclaiming it a sin. Unfortunately, the rules of Islam allow what the highjackers did, and, in fact, those rules permit them entry to heaven for what they did. Again, you are certainly welcome to go there if you wish, but I doubt you’ll have many fellow travellers, and the few you have you may not like.
unclesmrgol on September 9, 2010 at 7:56 PM
Ah, what you mean is that practitioners of Christianity might not be perfect. You need to be concise in your criticism, given your examples.
We admit we might not be perfect, but we strive for perfection, and said perfection does not include killing innocents for our faith.
As for those who would kill others, the Church has the concept of Just Warfare. Christians must not remain complaisant when confronted with sin, just as the Lord did not remain so when confronted with the sellers and the moneychangers. A just response may also include violence if necessary to prevent greater violence. And abortion is indeed violence of the highest order — the murder of innocent children.
unclesmrgol on September 9, 2010 at 8:08 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3