Flim Flam Imam?

Wednesday, February 6, AD 2013

3 Responses to Flim Flam Imam?

  • He was not speaking of peace and ecumenism in the west much of the time either. Quotations from panel discussions and interviews in the fall of 2001 could have been published in The Nation, the opinion sheet for that slice of the chatterati Thomas Sowell calls “the one-uppers”. Rauf represented the intersection of the pathologies in American and Arab political cultures (which, I suppose, amounts to “building bridges” or some such).

    It is a good deal more plausible that a man in his 60s whose occupational life has consisted of superintending a small religious congregation would take to misappropriating or embezzling donations than is the proposition that such a man would launch a new career as a real-estate developer. There was always something hinky there.

  • One less mosque in NY.
    One more con man found out.
    One less; “Mohamed is the prophet, Allah is King and God.”

    I’ll sleep better tonight.

  • The suicide bombers were promised 72 virgins in heaven and that their families would be well provided for. After they are “in heaven” did the suicide bombers’ families receive any real aid?

The Imam and the Truther

Tuesday, September 14, AD 2010

Hattip to Andy McCarthy at National Review Online. A very close associate of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the guiding force behind the Ground Zero Mosque and who I have designated the Flim Flam Imam, is a 911 Truther according to Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism:

Faiz Khan, a physician who claims to have been a first responder after the September 11 attacks, is a founding member of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth and is on the advisory board of the Muslims for 9/11 Truth. In an essay on the Alliance’s website, he argued that “the prime factor for the success of the criminal mission known as 9/11 did not come from the quarter known as ‘militant Islam’ although the phenomenon known as ‘militant Islamic networks’ may have played a partial role, or even a less than partial role – perhaps the role of patsy and scapegoat.”…

Continue reading...

5 Responses to The Imam and the Truther

  • A great deal of mental energy (but not a lot of sense) is devoted by these characters to shifting responsibility from perpetrators to the United States Government. Because they feel an affinity for the perpetrators.

  • Well, he’s not completely off-base about the sleazeballs that occupy the Saudi and American positions of power.

    That the US government is behind 9/11 is nuts. That certain elements within our govenrment took advantage of the situation to push their agenda, well, that’s politics.

  • Once you believe in the lie that is Islam, it’s a very short journey to believe in Trutherism. Is there any doubt that Dr. Khan doubts the Holocaust? The picture of Khan at the podium implies there are people willing to give this man a forum. This is the true tragedy.

  • Dr. Khan is a nutcase and should be ignored.

  • Dr. Khan is a nutcase and should be exposed. So should his connections, esp. to this Flim Flam Imam who claims to be oh-so-sensible.

Xenophobia, Patriphobia and the Ground Zero Mosque

Tuesday, September 7, AD 2010

The Ground Zero Mosque Debate has been interesting.  The vast majority of Americans oppose it, while about a third of Americans support the building of the mosque.  This issue has been debated quite a bit on this blog, and my opposition to the mosque is set forth in my post Cynical Brilliance which may be read here.  The debate has raged around the internet, much of it merely repeating the same points ad nauseum.  One of the more original contributions is that of Professor Carson Holloway at Public Discourse:

Liberal patriphobia also arises in part from liberals’ sensitivity to the historical traumas that have been inflicted on the human race through a disordered love of one’s own. In the European experience, Nazism and Fascism stand as sobering reminders of the enormous criminality that has been done in the name of a perverted patriotism. In America, the historical crime of slavery was initiated and defended on the basis of whites’ definition of Africans as alien and other, and hence as not possessed of any rights that demanded respect. Liberals are correct to be mindful of such injustices, sensitive to their causes, and alert to avoiding their recurrence. They err, however, in laying the blame for such crimes entirely at the feet of the love of one’s own as such. The real culprit is the excess of the love of one’s own, not to say an insanely inflated version of it. As St. Augustine remarked, the abuse of a thing does not take away its use; and it would be no less foolish to abandon the love of one’s own because of the excesses of nationalism than it would be to abandon erotic love because of crimes of jealousy.

Although well-intentioned in its origins, liberal patriphobia should be rejected as incoherent and morally dangerous. It is incoherent because it is what C.S. Lewis called, in The Abolition of Man, a mere moral innovation—that is, a novel teaching that rejects important portions of the moral tradition of the human race on which it is nevertheless silently parasitic. This was, in fact, Lewis’s criticism of Nazism. It wrenched from traditional morality the universally accepted principle that a man must love and serve his country, while at the same time it abandoned the equally venerable claim that justice requires that we respect the rights of all men, even those of foreign nationality. Modern liberalism simply reverses this error, denying that a man may especially cherish his countrymen while groundlessly insisting that he love the whole human race. In fact, modern liberalism learned its love for humanity from a traditional morality that also taught a heightened love for one’s own. If one principle is to be rejected, then both are groundless. If one is to be retained, then both have authority.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Xenophobia, Patriphobia and the Ground Zero Mosque