I feel the need to clarify before responding again: I am aware of his past writings regarding Wahhabism, and am greatly concerned by them. And I feel
that the appropriate authorities should thoroughly investigate him because of them, to ensure the safety of the people and to ensure that he is in
fact not supporting, financing, or concealing terrorist activity. That's just prudent, given his writings. All I'm saying is that there is a
difference between doing that - due process - and denying he and his community their religious and property rights based solely on the possibility
that they
might be a threat.
Originally posted by ollncasino
The fact that your ‘question’ contained a narrow proposition and then a conclusion - that if your narrowly framed proposition was factually
correct, then the Ground Zero Imam should be allowed to build his mosque.
My question did not contain any narrow proposition. It was a yes or no question. It was then followed by a statement of opinion consistent with the
Constitution and Laws of the United States of America, which I do not consider to be a narrow proposition at all, but rather the founding principles
and rule of law underpinning the very existence of our nation. Are you saying that you believe the community center should not be allowed to exist
where it does even if there is no proof that this particular Imam and his particular followers or the prospective patrons of this particular prayer
space take a radical or violent interpretation of the Qur'an or are planning, threatening, or committing violence, terror, or the espousement thereof?
This is why I asked the question. Because in the absence of such proof, there is no legal or constitutional basis for denying them their rights. That
isn't a narrow proposition but a statement of legal fact. Do you disagree?
(1) Wahhabi/Salafi Islam is an intolerant branch of Islam according to a NY Police Department Report
Wahhabism is indeed a violent and radical movement within the larger religion of Islam. That is a well established fact.
(2) The Ground Zero Imam supports Wahhabi/Salafi Islam and the introduction of Sharia law in the USA
I will again stress that his books (to which you linked articles referencing) are very concerning to me. I do have great concern about some of what he
has stated in those books regarding Wahhabism. And I do think that authorities should be rigorously investigating him, his finances, ties, etc. But in
America, what someone says, unless they directly threaten someone, is not legally tantamount to what they do. Which is why I keep asking the same
question. This would fall under the part of my question where I asked, "Is there any proof that this particular Imam and his particular followers or
the prospective patrons of this particular prayer space take a radical or violent interpretation of the Qur'an...?" I consider his writings evidence,
but not proof.
No one has answered this yet. Everything I can find on the man suggests that, today, he is a moderate Sufi, HOWEVER, as you have pointed out, some of
his writings can be interpreted as contrary to that moderate image. And that concerns me greatly. But the issue is, there has to be SOLID PROOF of
criminal intent, terrorist intent, support for terrorist activity, etc. in order to deny he and his community their constitutional rights.
Does such proof exist? Beyond what he wrote in some books?
(3) The Ground Zero Imam refuses to reveal the source of his funding for the $100 Million mosque.
I personally feel that he should be transparent about the funding. I am always an advocate of transparency and information. I feel the more there is,
the more we all know, and knowledge is always a good thing in this man's opinion. However, I do feel compelled to ask: do we insist on knowing the
source of funding for churches, synagogues, and temples? Don't misunderstand my meaning: I absolutely believe that the funding should be investigated
by the authorities. But why do we need to know them publicly when we don't demand the same of other religious institutions? If the authorities truly
believe there is criminal wrongdoing or ties to terrorism here, would they not fully investigate the finances involved like they always do? That's
what I want to see happen. But I am not interested in seeing people's constitutional and property rights trampled on the basis that they're Muslim and
might or
might not be supporters of Wahhabism today. There is a difference.
At least two of Imam Rauf's books, a 2000 treatise on Islamic law and his 2004 "What's Right with Islam," laud the implementation of sharia
-- including within America -- and the "rejuvenating" Islamic religious spirit of Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Wahhab.
And this is what concerns me most. I absolutely agree that there needs to be an investigation into his dealings, associations, and finances. And if
proof is found that this community center, he, or anyone associated with it are supporting, planning, financing, or committing acts of terror or
subversion, then the community center should cease to exist in my personal opinion, and he and others should be arrested and tried on terrorism
charges.
But again, this brings us back to the question I keep asking. Is there any proof?
Yes or no? Can you answer this question now?
edit on
10/17/2010 by AceWombat04 because: Clarification/spelling
