Make no mistake about it, the vast majority of Americans oppose the building of this mosque. For the Left to say Americans are split over this is whistling past the graveyard.
It is a learning experience because so far the War on Terror has been an uphill fight to define the parameters of that war. Just to get the left to admit we have a problem with Radical Jihadist Islam has been difficult enough. But to go further, to get the left to admit that we have a clash of civilizations on our hands, a problem with Islam as it is widely practiced around the world, has been the real struggle.
The actions of this Imam and his planned mosque have unintentionally brought that part of the war to the attention of the American people. Slowly, surely, people are learning the dynamics that gave rise to the 9/11 Twin Towers attack. There is a lot to learn.
The Imam has said the mosque must be built or he would be in violation of Sharia Law. What law is that? Is that the Islamic law that says once ground belongs to Islam, Dar Al-Islam, it is no longer part of Dar Al-Harb, the land of non-believers? It becomes part of a trust and cannot be given back. This would be consistent with his statement that he has no right (under Sharia Law) to give it up.
On May 25, 2010, Abdul Rauf wrote an article in the New York Daily News:
My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America’s Muslim population into the mainstream society.” [emphasis added]
But what he says in English contradicts what he says in Arabic. As detailed in an article in Pajamas Media by Walid Shoebat,
only two months before, on March 24, 2010, Abdul Rauf is quoted in an article in Arabic for the website Rights4All entitled “The Most Prominent Imam in New York: ‘I Do Not Believe in Religious Dialogue.’” Rights4All is the website of the media department of Cairo University, the leading educational institution of the Arabic-speaking world.
In the article, the imam said the following of the “religious dialogue” and “interweaving into the mainstream society” that he so solemnly seems to advocate in the Daily News and elsewhere:
This phrase is inaccurate. Religious dialogue as customarily understood is a set of events with discussions in large hotels that result in nothing. Religions do not dialogue and dialogue is not present in the attitudes of the followers, regardless of being Muslim or Christian. The image of Muslims in the West is complex which needs to be remedied.”
Furthermore, Imam Rauf wants the imposition of Sharia Law in the West. He says in an interview on Hadiyul-Islam by Sa’da Abdul Maksoud:
New laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of Muhammad … so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with Sharia.” [emphasis in translation]
These are the same laws that call for cutting the hand off of thieves, stoning women for adultery, keeping women from inheritances, killing homosexuals and other Medieval types of law that contradict our Constitution.
And if one is of a bent to assume the Imam is sincere and peaceful and not medieval, preferring to reform Sharia, then hear him again in the same interview:
The challenge I was referring to is this; how do we call for the principles and standards that the prophet (peace be upon him) used to build the Islamic state in Medina.”
He goes on to call this state a perfect mold for governance.
The problem is that the Islamic State in Medina was more similar to the laws governing Saudia Arabia today than to our American Constitution. Outside of a Constitutional Convention and the process of amending the Constitution, all religious activity must be in compliance with the Constitution. Sharia Law is not. And because many Muslims who are against terrorism are also in favor of Sharia Law, then their prescription is anathema as well.
I would maintain that Sharia law is in opposition to the Constitution and to implement Sharia Law would be to displace the Constitution. Therefore, a moderate Muslim is not one who wants to make America a Sharia-compliant country. Imam Rauf is therefore not a moderate Muslim. A moderate Islam would be willing to tolerate other religions as political and civil equals, a point Rauf does not accept by his own admission. Neither does Sharia Law. See above.
The Left, by supporting this Imam, undermines those true Muslim moderates who are eager, but frightened, to enter the fray against their own fellow Muslims, who consider them borderline apostates for having “other” views.
By supporting this imam, one gives this version of Islam heft over true moderate Muslims. True moderate Muslims do not seek a theocratic state. Imam Rauf does and that is the core difference.
In order to help moderate Islam in its fight with radical Islam we must make this distinction between Muslims who want to rebuild the Caliphate (theocratic state) and those who do not. Thanks to Imam Rauf for unintentionally helping us make this distinction to the American people.
Yes to moderate mosques just about everywhere, no to mosques advocating the re-emergence of the Islamic Caliphate.