‹ Alle Einträge

Imam der Ground Zero Moschee: „Ich bin ein Jude“

 

Der Mann, der jetzt in der Debatte um die Ground-Zero-Moschee zum Hassprediger gestempelt wird,  Imam Rauf, hat seinerzeit beim Gedenkgottesdienst für Daniel Pearl gesprochen. Man kann den vollen Text seiner Ansprache auf der Website des Tempels B’nai Jeshurun finden. Wer diesen Text liest, dem wird die Haltlosigkeit und Infamie dieser ganzen Kampagne aufgehen.

Ein Mann, der an der Totenfeier des prominentesten Opfers von Al-Kaida teilnimmt, und der dort als Muslim folgendes sagt, ist mutiger und glaubwürdiger als viele derjenigen, die sich heute künstlich empören über die angebliche „Provokation“ durch das Gemeindezentrum, das dieser Imam leiten soll:

„We are here to assert the Islamic conviction of the moral equivalency of our Abrahamic faiths. If to be a Jew means to say with all one’s heart, mind and soul  Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu Adonai Ahad; hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the  is One, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one, Mr. Pearl.
If to be a Christian is to love the Lord our God with all of my heart, mind and soul,  to love for my fellow human being what I love for myself, then not only am I a Christian, but I have always been one Mr. Pearl.
And I am here to inform you, with the full authority of the Quranic texts and the practice of the Prophet Muhammad, that to say La ilaha illallah Muhammadun rasulullah is no different. It expresses the same theological and ethical principles and values.
We are here especially to seek your forgiveness and of your family for what has been done in the name of Islam.“

Damit es auch niemand überliest: „Wir sind hier, um Ihre Vergebung zu ersuchen für das, was im Namen des Islam getan worden ist.“ (Ganzer Text hier.)

Das hat dieser Imam im Angesicht der Hinterbliebenen von Daniel Pearl gesagt! Und denselben Mann macht man nun zum Opfer einer wochenlangen Hetzkampagne.

Dis-gus-ting.

Jeffrey Goldberg vom „Atlantic“ kämpft seit Wochen gegen die Rufmordkampagne an, mit der der Imam Rauf von der Cordoba Initiative überzogen wird.
Übrigens derselbe Goldberg, der den Irakkrieg befürwortet hat, der heute für eine harte Linie gegen Iran eintritt und immer wieder die derzeitige israelische Regierung verteidigt. (Das nur, um mal die ideologischen Fronten hier ein bisschen zu verwirren.)
Goldberg kennt den Mann nämlich, im Unterschied zu den meisten Teilnehmern der Debatte. Er hat erlebt, wie Imam Rauf beim Gedenkgottesdienst für den von Al Kaida ermordeten Daniel Pearl gesagt hat: „Ich bin ein Jude.“
Ich zitiere nachfolgend zwei Posts von Goldberg:

„If he could, Bin Laden would bomb the Cordoba Initiative. This seems like such an obvious point, but it is apparently not obvious to the many people who oppose the Cordoba Initiative’s planned mosque in lower Manhattan, so let me state it as clearly as possible: The Cordoba Initiative, which is headed by an imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an enemy of al Qaeda, no less than Rudolph Giuliani and the Anti-Defamation League are enemies of al Qaeda. Bin Laden would sooner dispatch a truck bomb to destroy the Cordoba Initiative’s proposed community center than he would attack the ADL, for the simple reason that Osama’s most dire enemies are Muslims. This is quantitatively true, of course — al Qaeda and its ideological affiliates have murdered thousands of Muslims — but it is ideologically true as well: al Qaeda’s goal is the purification of Islam (that is to say, its extreme understanding of Islam) and apostates pose more of a threat to Bin Laden’s understanding of Islam than do infidels.

I know Feisal Abdul Rauf; I’ve spoken with him at a public discussion at the 96th street mosque in New York about interfaith cooperation. He represents what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country. Bin Laden wants a clash of civilizations; the opponents of the mosque project are giving him what he wants.“

„In 2003, Imam Rauf was invited to speak at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the journalist murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan. The service was held at B’nai Jeshurun, a prominent synagogue in Manhattan, and in the audience was Judea Pearl, Daniel Pearl’s father. In his remarks, Rauf identified absolutely with Pearl, and identified himself absolutely with the ethical tradition of Judaism. „I am a Jew,“ he said.

There are those who would argue that these represent mere words, chosen carefully to appease a postentially suspicious audience. I would argue something different: That any Muslim imam who stands before a Jewish congregation and says, „I am a Jew,“ is placing his life in danger. Remember, Islamists hate the people they consider apostates even more than they hate Christians and Jews. In other words, the man many commentators on the right assert is a terrorist-sympathizer placed himself in mortal peril in order to identify himself with Christians and Jews, and specifically with the most famous Jewish victim of Islamism.“

Tja Leute, was nun?

245 Kommentare


  1. President Obama said many of the right things as the turmoil surrounding the outcome of the Iranian election unfolded. After Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, spoke Friday, Obama has an opportunity to make an additional crucial point.

    In his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo this month, Obama impressed Muslims with his understanding of Islam. He quoted from the Quran and reminded his audience of his Muslim heritage. Never before has an American president expressed such cultural and religious awareness.

    As protests mounted in Iran after the election, Obama rightly backed away from inserting the United States into the dispute. He said he was „deeply troubled“ by the violence and said the right to peaceably dissent was a universal value.

    As the protests continued, violence abated.

    Many Iranians who were so hopeful and so engaged in the election now fear their votes did not count, Obama said. „And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected.“

    Khamenei indicated that the voices have been heard and respected.

    All that set the right tone.

    Friday, Khameini reaffirmed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the winner. And he made clear that this election was not a referendum on the foundations of the Islamic Republic. All of the candidates support it.

    But he also said that opponents who did not believe the election results should challenge them through legal means.

    This provides a chance for Obama to show Iranians that he understands their Islamic Republic and how it developed — and to lay the groundwork for negotiations once the election dispute is resolved.

    A majority of Iran ’s population is Shiite Muslims. Since its founding in the 7th century, Shiites have based their political theory on the cardinal concept of the legitimacy of the ruler.

    The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was in part to depose the shah, who had come to power in 1953 after a CIA-sponsored coup overthrew democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossaddeq. And in part it was an opportunity to craft an Islamic state with a legitimate ruler according to Shia political theory.

    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.

    Before the election, the Iranian government allowed an unprecedented degree of political discourse so that the election would establish a legitimate ruler.

    Now, on the streets of Teheran and undoubtedly in high political circles behind the scenes, Iranians are asking themselves, has this election confirmed the legitimacy of the ruler?

    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.

    His administration understands that what is going on now in Iran is an attempt by the Iranian people to live up to their own ideals. Just as American democracy developed over many years, the United States recognizes that this election is part of the process of an evolving democracy in Iran.

    That would send a resounding message to the Iranian presidential candidates and their supporters that President Obama understands the ideals of the Islamic Republic and that he seeks a peaceful and harmonious Iran that has the unquestioned support of a majority of its population.

    As a result, President Obama may well find that no matter who is elected president of Iran, the chances of a negotiated rapprochement between the two countries would be far greater than it has been in the past 30 years.

    Such a rapprochement will help resolve conflicts from Palestine and Israel through Iraq and Afghanistan to Pakistan where, contrary to popular belief, Iran and the United States have many common interests.

    Abdul Rauf is chairman of the Cordoba Initiative, an independent, non-partisan and multi-national project that seeks to use religion to improve Muslim-West relations. (www.cordobainitiative.org). He is the author of „What’s Right with Islam is What’s Right with America.“

    Publiziert im Zentralorgan des Hopychangy-ismus:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf/what-president-obama-shou_b_218249.html


  2. June 19, 2009, als die Tausende Iraner gegen die Wahlfälscher demonstrierten.

  3.   Dybth

    Keith Olbermann hat in seiner Show ‚Countdown‘ wunderbar zu der ganzen Debatte Stellung bezogen:


  4. die sich heute künstlich empören über die angebliche “Provokation” durch das Gemeindezentrum

    Ich dachte immer, Sie seien der Meinung man müsse Rücksicht nehmen auf die Verletzung von Gefühlen anderer, und man solle die Meinungsfreiheit mit Verantwortung wahrnehmen.

    Habe ich Sie da falsch verstanden?

    (Und damit das klar ist: Ich bin für die Moschee. Ich wäre sogar dafür, sie direkt auf dem Ground Zero zu erstellen)


  5. „Tja Leute, was nun?“

    Das Statement des Herrn genau lesen. Es ist eine bedingte Aussage wird so nicht zu Protesten führen. Klassisches Nebeldeutsch.

  6.   Jörg Lau

    @ MR: Dieses Iran-Statement eine Woche nach der Wahl ist mir auch zu leisetreterisch. Diese Idee, man könne Khamenei durch die Schmeichelei, er habe „the right tone“ getroffen, als er versprach, die Proteste zu hören, irgendwie dahinloben, dies wirklich zu tun, ist naiv. Klarer politischer Irrtum. Der Crackdown kam viel schlimmer als man hatte ahnen können. Dass Rauf heute noch glaubt, dies war eine Phase der „evolving democracy“ kann ich mir nicht vorstellen.

    Und was sagen Sie nun zu der Pearl-Geschichte?


  7. @ JL

    Gottverdammt nocjmal kapieren Sie denn nicht was da steht:

    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.

    a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, that establishes the rule of law.

    Obama soll offiziell die Grundlage der iranischen Diktatuir gutheißen.

  8.   Das Wort

    Die Hamas wollte Rauf auf Nachfrage dann doch nicht als „terroristisch“ einordnen und wand sich damit heraus, dass das Thema sehr „komplex“ sei. Er ist kein Unterstützer von Al-Qaida, aber das war es dann wohl auch schon.

  9.   J.S.

    Ich versteh nicht warum dieser Imam Rauf dann auf so eine Missverständliche Idee besteht.

    Die meisten Al-Qadia Rekruten kennen diese Ansprache beim Gedenkgottesdienst für Daniel Pearl doch gar nicht.
    Die Masse wird nur sehen: die Türme der „Ungläubigen“ sind weg und jetzt kommt da eine Moschee hin.

    Und was ist wenn Imam Rauf tatsächlich von Al-Qadia getötet wird? Wird dann auch die Moschee abgerissen falls da ein weniger westlicher Imam Einzug hält?

    Es geht durchaus nicht nur um Gefühle bzw. Hetzkampagnen.

  10.   J.S.

    Ich erinnere daran, wie stolz bin Laden auf den missionarischen Effekt der Anschläge vom 11.September war. (Siehe Transcript!)

    Es ist sicher legitim dort eine Moschee zu bauen und ich zweifele auch nicht den Charakter der Leute die das wollen an.

    Aber eine Moschee an dieser Stelle ist eben keine Moschee wie jede andere. Das will wohl überlegt sein. Und ich sehe nicht das sich die Befürworter sich rational begründeten Argumenten stellen würden.

 

Bitte melden Sie sich an, um zu kommentieren.

Anmelden Registrieren