There has been some buzz going around in regards to Steve Emerson supposedly having in his possession audio tapes that are to be the smoking gun proof positive that Imam Rauf is not the so-called “moderate” Muslim he portrays himself to be, but rather a closet radical Islamist and terrorist sympathizer/supporter.
The audio hasn’t been released yet, nor the context, but from the sounds of it….the context won’t matter a whole lot:
Steve Emerson has unearthed 13 hours of audio tape of Imam Rauf. Emerson and his team of investigators has spent the past four weeks going through the newly found material. Rauf is a “radical extremist cleric who cloaks himself in sheep’s clothing.”
Among the shocking revelations Emerson’s team will reveal next week — they found Rauf:
Defending wahhabism – a puritanical version of Islam that governs Saudi Arabia
Calling for the elimination of Israel by claiming a one-nation state, meaning no more Jewish State.
Defending Bin Laden’s violence
So…um….when do we get to listen to the tapes?
So far, we really only have Emerson’s word on it along with a few teaser clips, that these tapes are damning proof of Rauf’s “radical” beliefs. But if they are anything like other statements Rauf is already known to have made (like his 60 Minutes interview) which his critics already regard as evidence that Rauf is not a peaceful, moderate Muslim, then I will be colored unimpressed.
What I am curious to hear should these audio tapes be released, is not just the sensationalism of the snippet soundbytes, but the entire context of the speech in which the statements are taken from.
In today’s State Department Daily Press Briefing, Assistant Secretary Crowley warns against making Rauf into another Sherrod:
QUESTION: Imam Rauf. There has been some reporting today about – and some recordings of comments he had in 2005 saying that the U.S. Government has more blood on its hands of innocent Muslims than al-Qaida has of innocents. Do you have any reaction to that? And is that the type of outreach that – the type of person you would be sending for outreach to Muslim countries?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, first of all, let me say that Imam Feisal has arrived in Doha, Qatar from Bahrain. He will be giving remarks and attending a traditional event of handing out gifts and treats to children at the Doha Youth Center. He has another – a full range of other private events that include a lecture at a university, meetings with government officials, meetings with NGOs, participants in Iftars, and participation in services at mosques and Ramadan activities.
Imam Feisal is a distinguished cleric in this country, and I will let him discuss remarks that he’s made. We are aware of those remarks. I would just caution any of you that choose to writing – write on this, that once again, you have a case where a blogger has pulled out one passage from a very lengthy speech. If you read the entire speech, you will discover exactly why we think he is rightfully participating in this international speaking tour.
QUESTION: Is he the Muslim Shirley Sherrod?
MR. CROWLEY: That’s a good cautionary tale for everybody.
Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy points out that we can already examine the full context of Rauf’s 2005 remarks:
The University of South Australia’s Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Centre has the full transcript and full audio recording of Rauf’s 2005 remarks. Here are some excerpts not posted by the Atlas Shrugs blog:
On the bonds between Islam and Judeo Christianity:
We are united with Christians and Jews in terms of our belief in one God. In the tradition of the prophets. In our tradition of scriptures. The Jewish prophets, Jesus Christ and John the Baptist and Mary are in fact religious personalities and prophets of the Islamic faith as well…
From the point of view of Islamic theology, Islamic jurisprudence and Islamic history, the vast majority of Islamic history, it has been shaped or defined by a notion of multiculturalism and multireligiosity, if you might use that term. From the very beginning of Islamic history Islam created space for Christians of various persuasions, of Jews and even of Muslims of different schools of thought within the fabric of society.
On religious freedom:
A necessary part of this is to embrace and to welcome and to invite the religious voices in the public square, in the public debate, on how to build a good society. So multiculturalism, in my judgment, involves not only differences of culture and ethnicity but also multireligiosity, and that’s where the challenge and the rub comes in for many because there is a perception that multireligiosity must mean the potential conflict between different religious voices in the public square. I, for one, believe that that is not in fact the case.
On religious tolerance:
[O]ur law, our sense of justice, our articulation of justice, must flow from these two commandments of loving our God and loving our neighbour, and if we are not sure of how to articulate the love of God in the public square we certainly can allow each person and each group of each religious group to choose to love God in the vernacular and in the liturgy that it chooses and it prefers, but it gives us a broad basis of agreement on which we can love our fellow human beings and this, I suggest, is the mandate that lies before us today as we embark on this 21st Century and is the mandate and the homework assignment that lies ahead of us.On Islam and terrorism:
The broader community is in fact criticising and condemning actions of terrorism that are being done in the name of Islam… What complicates the discussion, intra-Islamically, is the fact that the West has not been cognisant and has not addressed the issues of its own contribution to much injustice in the Arab and Muslim world. It is a difficult subject to discuss with Western audiences but it is one that must be pointed out and must be raised.
Acts like the London bombing are completely against Islamic law. Suicide bombing, completely against Islamic law, completely, 100 per cent. But the facts of the matter is that people, I have discovered, are more motivated by emotion than by logic. If their emotions are in one place and their logic is behind, their emotions will drive their decisions more often than not, and therefore we need to address the emotional state of people and the extent to which those emotions are shaped by things that we can control and we can shape, this is how we will shape a better future.
As I’ve said before, Rauf’s statements on Sharia, 9/11 “blame”, and all the other supposed “gotcha” quotes, are not evidence of supposed “radical beliefs” of Islamist anti-Americanism and terrorist ties, but are rather very much mainstream political beliefs; one shared by many an anti-war pacifist, liberal multiculturalist, and even some isolationist/non-interventionist Paul Bearers coming from the right in criticizing American foreign policy:
What Rauf has been “caught” saying thus far is hardly alarmist beliefs. If you never saw his name associated with the sentence(s), you could just as well see a pacifist multiculturalist liberal or an isolationist/non-interventionist conservative echo the same type of criticism of the United States on foreign policy, “creating more terrorists”, “propping up dictatorships”, etc. How is his historical opinion on Hiroshima and Dresden any different than one held by an anti-war pacifist? How many of them also blame the U.S. for sanctions rather than Saddam that led to “the death of half a million Iraqi children”? During the 1st Gulf War, we intentionally destroyed the Iraqi water supply and then denied Iraqis materials needed to rebuild the supply and purify the water system. Thousands were denied clean water and waterborne illnesses became epidemic. According to the WHO and Unicef reports, over a million Iraqis died as a result, half of which were Iraqi children under 5 yrs old. I hold Saddam accountable. According to Islamic law, poisoning the water supply amounts to terrorism; and killing civilians and children in warfare is strictly forbidden (in the views of “moderates” and “peaceful” Muslims who do condemn terrorism from those they say “hijack their religion”). It’s why al Qaeda has to look to Qutb and Taymiyyah to find justification for acts of terrorism that is condemned by most of the Islamic world.
I look forward to the release of the Emerson tapes…..as well as hearing the full context of any cherry-picked quotes. If he does support Islamic terrorism, then we should all want to know about it.
I believe that the attempt to tie Rauf to Islamic radicalism is a side issue, anyway. Because I think most of those who have been opposed to Park51/Cordoba House from the very beginning before anything about Imam Rauf “came to light” or came to distortion, would be opposed irregardless of whether or not Rauf is “moderate” or radical. Peaceful or extremist. Proving him to have radical ties to Islamic terrorism, however, would make those who take offense to charges of Islamophobia feel better about themselves for their opposition to the Project, in the pretense that they make the distinction between the al Qaeda network and affiliates (those who are at war with us) and Islam itself (which is not).
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Flame on!
I know the answer. But perhaps you’d care to “enlighten” me as to the real answer?
I don’t know if he’s a radical…. I don’t know if he hangs out with terrorists.. I don’t know if he’s honest or a liar for certain….. But, what I DO know, is.. if he is all he “CLAIMS to be”, and wants to peacefully exist, and get along with Christians, Americans etc etc… He would acknowledge this Idea of his both Pisses us off, and is causing both Harmful Controversy, and distrust, to Muslims here…. he is CREATING negativity, when simply moving the location ( location location location, remember?) a few blocks, would change the tone of everything. And gain some goodwill….
So, why does it HAVE to be there??? He has an entire CITY to put it in…… but he is “hell bent” on ramming it thru, right there. Why Why Why???? He’s fueling the fire of “It’s a Victory Mosque”…, and he can end/disarm that….. so why won’t he?? Simple fix, to a very COMPLEX problem….
THAT is the question I’d like asked of him….
Whether we in the USA like it or not there is a very deep and underlying resentment in the Islamic world toward the USA. I know from having spent many days in Saudi Arabia and other areas of the Middle East that this resentment is not aimed at any particular individual, it is aimed at the “Great Satan” that everyone that I have met will eventually get around to talking about. The individuals that I have delt with are very, very willing to discuss, compare and contrast the tenents of Islam and readily discuss the meaning of Christ, John the Baptist, Moses . . . every significant person from the Christian faith has meaning to the Islamic faith. Yes, on and individual-to-individual basis, at least at the level I deal with, which are the “highly educated”, college grads almost entirely, the discussion is very open minded and non-controversial.
As Paul Harvey would have said . . . “The Rest of the Story”.
There are areas in every one of the major cities that I have been to that my Islamic associates will say . . . “Do NOT on any circumstances go there”. Within these areas the mere appearance of a “Western Face” is suffiicent to draw a “crowd” . . . and that crowd COULD possibly contain individuals that are “Radical”. It has happened to me, this meeting the “Radical”. I knew it instantly, the look of “hate and defiance” are palpable, hair raising experiences. It has happened to me in a restaurant, on an air plane, and in the emergency room at the hospital. All public locations and locations where, fortunately for me, weapons were NOT allowed. It is truly as if there is NO room for negotiation, only room for battle. All of these encounters have occurred when the Islamic male has been in company of his FAMILY or Wife. It is beyond me why that the intensity of hate rises when the female is present . . . but it is there. The cold look of hate comes from the man’s soul as he looks you directly in the eye. Why would he watch YOUR eyes?
So, even though I willingly and vocally say that there is ample opportunity for discussion . . . that discussion is “environmentally” very, very dependent. In the USA I fear that those “looks” of hate and willingness of the Islamic male to “protect and defend” the vanity of his faith would lead to a lot more controversial situations and perhaps explosively so.
It is my great factually based fear that to allow the creation of “Mecca-town/s” in the US we would see the exact same situation develop here as in the European countries, France, Germany, Italy and Great Britian. We are being asked to welcome into our midist a group that will hollow out a hole from which they will conduct a militaristic invasion of our “culture”.
Congratulations on an equitable essay–although my accolades may result in making it less popular. I am interested in familiarizing myself with the Emerson tapes, and feel assured you will do them justice with your reporting.
Although I’m an atheist, and generally opposed to all religion, I still accept equal rights in this country to think and do anything within the law to practice and promote one’s faith. If Rauf was such a radical, I doubt if G.W. Bush–who people on this site seem to admire–would have used him as an ambassador of goodwill.
We need to understand Islam, and some of their principles, in order not to distort some things Rauf stands for. For example, what would you think if the tables were turned, and America was primarily a Muslim country, and someone said that you had to believe Jesus Christ to be saved. That’s one reason they don’t allow proselytizing in many Islam nations–they say things that are against their religion. Unfortunately, may religious zealots in this country would agree with not allowing non-Christian ideas to he spoken here too.
But, in America, anyone can say and do whatever they want, within the limits of the law.
I never saw Rauf as a “radical”, I see him as a proponent of what’s been termed “soft-Jihad”..The slow, methodic, nose-under-the-tent practitioner of Islamic hegemony.
While we wait for a full release from Emerson/Geller, I’ve written a note to Geller (we used to communicate regularly several years ago, when she was a relative unknown) expressing the disappointment of this drawn-out, and sensationalist way they are handling this, and that if this is the extent of the “Words of Horror” from this “radical” then they have set their cause back tremendously.
The fact that I have yet to get a response, isn’t giving me warm-fuzzies.
Now the next obvious question, while we wait for the full release, is why do I get the feeling we won’t ever hear what Rauf is saying in the Middle-East while he’s out subbing for our State Department on our dime?
@Tadcf
I think Bush did have him do some “outreach” a few times, but I need to doublecheck.
@tadcf:
Delusions of grandeur much?
So will the tapes be released along with HUSSEIN’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE and official record of baptism, or can we actually count on hearing them??!!
I WILL add, that I have worked with, at two different location/jobs in a 13 year period, with a LARGE number of Muslims … the difference being… the gents I was with, were European Muslims.. Romanian and Mostly Yugoslavian Muslims.. Both Serbian and Bosnian (THERE is a combo for you!) yet not one I can recall, had this mentality we see constantly exhibited by the “Mid-East” Muslims… same religion, but not nearly the same mindset.. even taking into account the Serb-Bosnian feud mentality! So, why are ARAB Muslims so “bloodthirsty” in comparison to other Muslim nationalities??? What’s THEIR problem??? Why do they HATE so much???
And Tallgrass.. you last paragraph…. truer than you might think!!! Remember what Khrushchev said…. “WE will destroy you, from WITHIN”…… fits right in with you last paragraph…… that and one of those Muslim rads Omar Bakri Mohammed said “We will use your Democracy to destroy your Democracy.”
Now ask yourself, WHY does it have to be right THERE???? One more brick out of our foundation….
Here’s another take on the issue of the mosque.
The author then goes on to ask several pointed questions about the mosque itself, such as:
She states “These questions aren’t gratuitous”, and finishes by saying:
Irshad Manji is a practicing Muslim woman, openly gay, and committed to Muslim reform. As outspoken as she is on women’s rights and gay rights regarding the Islamic faith, she has received death threats from the more radical Islamic sects.
More numbers to consider. Perhaps an answer to your question of “why there”..
http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2010/08/progress-of-islamic-conquest.html
The issue isnt what Rauf has said to Wester audiences, the issue is what has he been saying to Middle Eastern audiences, in Arabic and away from Western ears.
@johngalt
-Nice find, and I agree with the brave woman in all but her opening paragraph.
My thoughts and feelings are not based on the impending election, the “power” of the media over me (I receive no TV, and the radio is for music.), and most important, I “fear” them, not.
I am galled, verging on pissed by Rauf’s chutzpa and crass, and the liberals that enable and empower him.
-I posit that my view is more common than not, Ms. Manji.
What ever happened to “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”???
@Patvann
Your view is probably more common than not. And to a certain extent, I agree with you. I have my own negative views and feelings of Islam. The author, though, is an example of someone who is fighting, not for the spread and domination of Islam, but the reform that is necessary throughout the religion.
As for Rauf, I don’t care what he says. I care that he is doing it on my dime, promoting a cause that 70% or so of the taxpayers in the country are against.
@johngalt
I pray o God everyday that more Moslems like her come to the fore. She and many like her is why I fight so hard against the statements in the vein of: “all Moslems are bad”.
Unfortunately, in the eyes of many Moslems, (especially the loud ones) she is in-fact a “bad” Moslem.
i keep it simple! if you don’t like my country, get out. if you think we should change, change your thinking. if you want us to be pc, then you rspect us first. and don’t insult our intellignece by claiming we are anti muslim. we didn’t attack mecca last time i looked.
americans are being treated like an abused woman and some are responding like they are beaten up and actually blame themselves because muslims don’t like them.
From what I have seen Word, him calling for Jihad would not be enough to convince you. You are deliberately blind.
(This is where you accuse me of seeing what I want to.)
@Hard Right:
I’m actually near-sighted. I recently got an eye exam, and my doctor said my vision has actually improved as I’ve gotten older.
Well, please point me to where he calls for jihad, and I’ll re-orient my estimation of whether or not he is a terror-supporting Islamic radical. Santorum saying it doesn’t make it so. The only kind of jihad I see him advocating for is the “inner struggle” variety, for which critics will poo-poo as “political correctness” interpreting (maybe so, maybe not so…).
No, yours might be the correct view. It’s possible. I just think there’s more in Rauf’s 27 yrs of things he’s said “right” than naught; but if he’s said 99% of the time things we regard as harmless, pc-ified Islam pipe-dreaming and condemnation of Islamic terrorism, all of that gets flushed as taqqiyah.
You see where he says the“United States policies were an accessory” to the 9/11 attacks and I see where he says in the same interview “fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam.” So how to make sense of it? Is there a contradiction? If he were engaged in the so-called (shia) tradition of taqqiyah (I believe much distorted and elevated to mythological stature by Islamic critics), why would he have even made the first remark (and to an American audience)? Obvious ammo for those who are guarded against “creeping Sharia” and the “Islamization” of America.
I really don’t see how his statements make him an Islamic radical or jihadist supporter when things he’s said that sound alarming to those of us on the right are sentiments that are echoed by so many liberals who sympathize with Palestinians and criticize U.S. foreign policy on a regular basis.
@Hankster58 #4: One of the best opposition pieces I’ve read and whose tone I can appreciate is the WaPo op-ed written by Karen Hughes. Another recent piece I like is by Mansoor Ijaz. I am especially impressed by his willingness to give up his seat to ease the minds of his fellow Americans. Appeasement? Or patriotic understanding? it hearkens back to the willingness of Japanese Americans to prove their loyalty by fighting for a country that had their family members living behind barbed wires. I’m one who believes in the logic of racial and religious profiling when appropriate, as something other than having a basis in racism and religious bigotry.
Rauf might not yet understand. No different than the opposition side, each wants to make the other side understand its point of view. He is hearing supporters offer encouragement, which probably drowns out the vocalized pitch of the opposers. Maybe he will begin to listen and seriously weigh in the fact that if his intent in earnest is to build dialogue and rescue the reputation of his faith, the route he’s taken to do so isn’t working.
Got a little worked up perhaps? Slip of the tongue? Maybe he thought he was in a friendly enough audience to get away with it? Pieces of evidence Word. For me, his repeated refusal to condemn Hamas and the MB as terrorist organizations carries a lot of weight and puts the lie to his condemnation of “fanatacism and terrorism.”
Like I have said before, he has too many of the traits of prior “phony” moderates.
As much as I have come to respect your previous opinions, we are ceratinly not going to agree on this anytime soon.
As for whether he is being “Sherroded”, that remains to be seen. I will say that I want to see the rest of the video too.
@John Galt
Isn’t the Koran (like the Bible) against homosexuality – so how can someone claim to Muslim (or Christian) and gay? Surely it would be far easier and smarter to give up such outdated religions rather than change them.
@ GaffaUK… Do you never change your mind/view/opinion?? Then why can’t a religion?? Christians accept Gays (well most i’m aware of)… But, insulting to some or not… these “hard line” Islamics, live one step out of the stone age…. be it Homosexuals, Women, etc… they behave like Cave Men… Machismo minus Brain cells….. I won’t even give them the “Machismo” part.. a coward who plants a bomb in a baby buggy, then phones in to say “I did it” isn’t “macho, he’s a cowardly POS! Beating/stoning women (13-15 yr old girls who don’t want to be sexually abused (married my butt!) and used my older MEN) isn’t being a man… we call it something else here.
You’re from the UK…. how about, using your logic, the next time you criticize the Government in UK… they “Draw and Quarter” you.. that IS what they used to do…. um, “before they changed their views on such things”…… evolution, when things are WRONG and need to be changed, is good. Things that are GOOD, and don’t need to be changed on a lark, like our Constitution… ought to be left alone. I takes wise, and decent human beings to know the difference between the two….
“Surely it would be far easier and smarter to give up such outdated religions rather than change them.”
Surely it would have been easier for the Pilgrims to stay in merry old England and live life under the thumb of the British ruling class as serfs and cannon fodder.
Maybe they had ambitions and dreams.
Seriously Gaffa, those religions are ‘outdated’?
“From what I have seen Word, him calling for Jihad would not be enough to convince you. You are deliberately blind.”
The word “jihad” has a single, narrow meaning for most of us, because of the way it’s used by Muslim extremists who are at war with the West. The word is just as frequently used by Muslims in a way that has totally different connotations. The definitions might be worth looking up. It can be helpful to know what someone is actually talking about or calling for.
@Gaffa
Wordsmith is better equipped than I to answer this question.
Also, while some Christians vehemently disparage gays who practice the religion, there are many who follow Christ that accept a person’s homosexuality, while not necessarily approving of it. Would you ask of them, the gays, to drop their love of Christ, because some in the religion cannot abide the two together?
Sadly, for every Mansoor, it seems there is a muslim who takes the opposite position…
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/muslim_soldier_refuses_deploym.html
@Hankster58
As far as I can see most Christians (and Muslims) don’t accept gays as being a valid part of their religion. How many openly gay clergy are practising in the Anglican or Catholic church? The Bible may have got reinterpreted and selectively ‘edited’ over the centuries but it’s still pretty much the same thing…
Leviticus 18:22:
“You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination.”
Leviticus 20:13:
“If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death.”
Comparing laws and religions is not the same. Laws are far more flexible than religious edicts especially from ‘holy’ books. Fortunately people rarely quote laws which have long since been scrapped whereas millions quote lines from the Bible and the Koran as if that is the ‘truth’ we should live our lives by today. And yet if you only choose to take bits from the Bible – in a la carte fashion – they who says which bits are still valid and which bits aren’t?
And if the Constitution was so perfect it wouldn’t have needed to be amended 27 times! lol
@Tom
Not sure what the pilgrims have to do with this – but yes rather than trying to change Britain they got the hell out. Good for them. Of course people can change governments but do you really believe there will be a time when Christianity and Islam embraces homosexuality by allowing openly gay clergy into their ranks and a time when they remove anti-gay passages in the Bible and Koran? Waste of time – hence outdated.
@johngalt
It’s not just some in the religion who are homophobic but the actual religions themselves. I am not saying gays should drop their love of Christ – I’m wondering why they are in a religion which specifically condemns them. If homsexuality is a sin and if those gay people don’t believe what they are doing is sinful then obviously there is a massive incompatibility issue there. Although I guess that hasn’t stopped many Christians in the past from doing other sinful things without an ounce of remorse or regret.
Uh-oh…another possible complication on building the mosque…
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/mosque_big_owes_tax_rNN0l21LN43U6WhTmIawSP
You must live in a narrow world , there are MANY MORE Churches than just Catholic and Anglican… try looking OUTSIDE of the UK.. you DO know there is a world beyond it don’t you?? LOL! 😉 …. there are MANY “Christian” Denominations that don’t give gays fits.. The Episcopals I believe are ORDAINING Gay ministers for one…
As to the Constitution…. the Amending process was written in, right up front, should “adjustments” become necessary… so since it was designed to be “self adjusting” without having to discard it, so YES, I think it IS the “most perfect governing document” ever written in the History of Man!! The only problem we have today, in regards to it, are Politicians, who are warped and corrupt, who do not FOLLOW it to the letter, or rather than follow LEGAL methods to “get their way”… CHEAP and try to CIRCUMVENT it.. which is why we have so much trouble today. If we would have some men, with the backbone to both charge, and then HANG wanton violators of our Constitution (treasonists as far as I’m concerned) America would be a MUCH BETTER place for it!! IMHO
As far as “getting the hell out” of Britain than try and change it…. Britain was hopeless politically.. still is!!! We see you cannot defend yourself from crime and assault, without YOU going to prison for it. Kissing liberal ass and PROTECTING Criminals rights, at the detriment of YOUR OWN??? Are you guys NUTS?? Freedom???? You now Kiss Islamic ass by instituting “Sharia law” into YOUR law… kissing ass once again!! Are you Britain, or an “islamic colony”??? Freedom???
We may have some faults here, and need to do some serious housekeeping, BUT, we are far better off, than you guys in GB are my friend…. and yes, I have a “former” British friend here who I learn a lot from.. so I DO have “first hand knowledge” of what I speak…. by the way, he’s an AMERICAN citizen now…….. and he owns his own gun……. do you??? Nope.. kissin ass the the “wankers” on the Liberal side.. you can’t!! You guys kiss it.. 200+ years back, we chose to KICK IT. That’s the difference between our systems in a nutshell…… again.. IMHO…..
The information at the link may not be smoking gun proof of Imam Rauf’s ties to terrorism yet he dern well is not innocent when it comes to the company that keeps him.