Imam Rauf’s Love of ‘Iranian Democracy’
Imam Rauf is a fan of the tyrannical Islamic Republic of Iran. He said so in the Huffington Post within a week of the phony “elections” of June 12th, 2009, when thousands of protesters were being tortured and killed all over the country.
He proclaimed that calm had returned to Iran, and that the “official” results — Ahmadinejad in a landslide — were correct. Indeed, the whole system, according to Imam Rauf, is admirable:
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.
Actually, by traditional Shi’ite standards, Khomeini’s totalitarian doctrine — the Guardian Council ensures that only politically correct candidates can run for office — is a heresy, as grand ayatollahs from Montazeri to Sistani have ruled.
Praising a medieval fascist like Khomeini and the dictatorship he set up is a funny way to build bridges to American society. I must be missing something in his subtle plan.
Phineas: you are not missing anything, except you might have overlooked that part of the “culture” space named for the imam’s wife: the Daisy Khan Stoning Center. This is to assist men in keeping sharia law when it may be too cold or snowy outside in the streets of New York to permit a good stoning of some poor innocent woman. The problem is, since the imam wants to keep in good grace with the mad mullahs of Iran, the Khan Center may be too luxurious since Khomeini preached that “there is no fun in islam.” Therefore, Rauf is considering how to include digging a hole in the Center without damaging the floor. Ahmadinthehead suggested that the imam consider a nuclear option for the floor, which Iran would be willing to build in the Manhattan Center, for peaceful purposes, of course.
Oh my, Dr Ledeen will join Jeffrey Goldberg’s list of demagogic racist anti-Islam people who are behaving exactly like the anti-Semites. So disappointing to see that in a Jew. Rouf is a moderate! He said nice things at a memorial to Daniel Pearl! He gave Jeffrey Goldberg an exclusive meeting!
Who are we kidding, Dr Ledeen was probably always on the list.
As the left has adeptly used the First Amendment to, in fact, suppress the First Amendment, the so called “right”, who are in fact the traditional liberals as defined classically should use all means to publicize the illegitimate references to the First Amendment by such organizations as the ACLU and dangerous individuals such as Rauf and, can you believe it, Bloomberg???. This malignancy which is now manifesting itself “in situ” in New York’s hallowed ground will, if not stopped, metastasize and destroy the American Experiment. It is a simplistic Good vs. Evil with no shades of gray. Nip it at the bud while there is still time.
As John Cleese used to say, and now for something completely different, Dr. Ledeen, please read the following article on, among other things, the Green Movement in Iran:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/me_iran0805_08_23.asp
Well, that article is just too far out for me. maybe the author is correct, but i doubt it. i do hope that the regime is ready to implode, obviously. and that could happen…
Here is a audio clip of the kindly Imam claiming that the US is worse than Al-Qaeda. You still want this dude to build his house in NYC, Mayor Bloomberg??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awISCKJzVtE
Funny sermon by the Re. Rauf. Funniest line: “…Madeline albright, who has since become my friend, ha ha ha…”
His reverence reminds us, if we need reminding, that lying and treachery in the cause of Allah and his Prophet (PBUH) is not merely permissible but laudable. Praise be to Allah and his Holy Prophet,Imams, Mullahs, Ayatollahs and Hashishi.
‘The Constitution is not a suicide pact.’ Every Conservative should learn the definition of “demopath”, its usages and ramifications on political discourse.
The clerics were the ones who were instrumental in toppling Mossadegh in 1953, who is Imam Rauf kidding?
Iranian sources have claimed that Mossadeqh murdered those of his enemies as he might. But however those things were, what is hardly open to speculation is the fact that, oil production was failing because, he nationalized without having the numbers of skilled people to keep the nation’s oil producing facilities in operation, . . .
More love from the good Imam at Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/08/explosive-in-faisals-own-words.html
Perhaps, after November we can have a Congressional investigation as to why this fake is on the payroll of the beleaguered American taxpayer.
Apart from everything else, Rauf repeats this false narrative: “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.” It’s been a pet peeve of mine for decades that this notion is repeated endlessly and even accepted by people on the right — so much so that anyone doubting it is likely to find himself regarded as crazy.
Yet, it is simple not true. The Shah “came to power” in 1941 when his father was forced by the Anglo-Soviet invasion to abdicate on account of his pro-German sympathies. The new Shah reigned as a British-style constitutional monarch, albeit one with powers more akin to 19th-century Britain than 20th. The Shah appointed Mossaddeq as PrIme Minister when his coalition in the Majlis (parliament) emerged as the largest (he was not elected). Mossaddeq favored nationalization of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and the Majlis passed a nationalization bill, which the Shah signed into law. This precipitated a long and complex domestic crisis as Britain (probably unwisely) tuned on economic pressure to roll back the seizure. Iran’s economy took a beating and there was a lot of political turmoil as a result. Interestingly, the mullahs did not support Mossaddeq through most of this. Faced with this turmoil, Mossaddeq demanded and got from the Majlis sweeping and unconsitutional emergency powers that enabled him to rule in many areas arbitrarily. The turmoil continued though and at one point, Mossaddeq resigned, likely as a political strategem, and the Shah appointed a new Prime Minister. Pro-Moddaddeq and pro-nationalization forces then staged violent demonstrations the upshot of which was that the Shaah again appointed Mossaddeq Prime Minister. Mossaddeq then refused to countenance the results of new elections and, completing ignoring the constitution, announced that he would hold a Napoleanic-style referendum on his rule, dismissed the parliament, and began to rule by decree.
Properly fearing for his life, the Shah fled the country, even as Britain’s MI-6 and the CIA were gearing up covertly to support anti-Mossaddeq forces in what should more accuarately be called a counter-coup to Mossaddeq’s coup. They succeeded in helping to get the Shah on board, organize anti-Mossaddeq forces and to oust Mossaddeq (who was tried for treason but allowed to live out his life at a comfortable country house, not shot like so many other unfortunate Third World political losers.
It may well be that the US would have been better off leaving Iran to its own devices — but Mossaddeq was no democrat; he was never elected; and it behooves his many fans to make the case that Iran is better off today without its Shah and its post-war constitution.
I was a child growing up in Switzerland when all what you describe happened in Persia. But I seem to remember, based on my mother’s outrage, that Mossadegh was killed by jumping out a window, or again my mother, was pushed to his death by someone.
thank you John, it is rare to read the truth about Mossadegh, I thank you for even daring to say it. Mossadegh was not a democrat, he was a dictator in velvet gloves. He was planning to oust the Shah with a coup but it did not work that way for him. History will find out that the Shah’s contemporaries have been so unfair to him. I assure you, as an Iranian, the Shah loved and cared for Iran and his people way more than Mossadegh. Mossadegh was indeed a demagogue, he has been able so far to fool a lot of people. Hope truth comes out the way you paid attention to it. Thank you a gain.
Mitra
Apart from everything else, Rauf repeats this false narrative: “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.” It’s been a pet peeve of mine for decades that this notion is repeated endlessly and even accepted by people on the right — so much so that anyone doubting it is likely to find himself regarded as crazy.
Yet, it is simple not true. The Shah “came to power” in 1941 when his father was forced by the Anglo-Soviet invasion to abdicate on account of his pro-German sympathies. The new Shah reigned as a British-style constitutional monarch, albeit one with powers more akin to 19th-century Britain than 20th. The Shah appointed Mossaddeq as PrIme Minister when his coalition in the Majlis (parliament) emerged as the largest (he was not elected). Mossaddeq favored nationalization of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and the Majlis passed a nationalization bill, which the Shah signed into law. This precipitated a long and complex domestic crisis as Britain (probably unwisely) turned on economic pressure to roll back the seizure. Iran’s economy took a beating and there was a lot of political turmoil as a result. Interestingly, the mullahs did not support Mossaddeq through most of this. Faced with unruly dissent, Mossaddeq demanded and got from the Majlis sweeping and unconsitutional emergency powers that enabled him to rule to a large extent arbitrarily. The turmoil continued, though, and at one point, Mossaddeq resigned, likely as a political strategem, and the Shah appointed a new Prime Minister. Pro-Mossaddeq and pro-nationalization forces then staged violent demonstrations the upshot of which was that the Shah again appointed Mossaddeq Prime Minister. Mossaddeq then refused to countenance the results of new elections and ignoring the constitution, announced that he would hold a Napoleanic-style referendum on his rule, dismissed the parliament, and began to rule by decree.
The Shah dismissed him from office –as the constitution expressly empowered the Shah to do — but Mossaddeq refused to honor the Shah’s authority.
Properly fearing for his life amidst this coup d’etat, the Shah was forced to flee the country, even as Britain’s MI-6 and the CIA were gearing up covertly to support anti-Mossaddeq forces in what should more accuarately be called a counter-coup to Mossaddeq’s coup. They succeeded in helping to get the Shah on board, organize anti-Mossaddeq forces and to oust Mossaddeq (who was tried for treason but allowed to live out his life at a comfortable country house, not shot like so many other unfortunate Third World political losers.
It may well be that the US would have been better off leaving Iran to its own devices — but Mossaddeq was no democrat; he was never elected; and it behooves his many fans to make the case that Iran is better off today without its Shah and its post-war constitution.
John Burke is absolutely correct. Also, as Potkin Azarmehr, a fellow Iranian I assume, correctly points out Mossadegh did not have the support of the clergy and this will be the only time in history that I will side with the clergy. You can’t even begin to imagine how difficult this is for me. The question in 1953 was simple. Should Iran stay a member of the Western block and modernize accordingly or be swallowed by the eastern block and become a source of raw materials for the then Soviet Union. It cannot be historically argued that Mossadegh was not a socialist and that he was not flirting with the Tudeh Party, a proxy of the Soviet Commintern. His closest confidant was no other that the Red Prince Mozzafar Firouz (Farmanfarma). Yes, the US did intervene. But it intervened on the side of the Iranian people to save them from servitude to the Soviet Union. Under Mossadegh the worst possible thing that could have been done to Iran and Iranians was done in the nationalization of its only commodity of export. As I mentioned in a previous post when a governement is no longer dependent on its people for revenues and has its own piggy bank it will, most assuredly, lead to corruption and lack of answerabilty to the population. Had those who were advising the young Shah on his return, people such as Forooghi and Zahedi, insisted that oil be privatized in the form of several public companies with traded shares, then I dare say we could have seen the actual dawn of democracy since the general population would have to have been kept happy so taxes would have been forthcoming. It is not a stretch to surmise form this that the 1979 revolution was a direct result of Mossadegh’s leftist ideology. If you have forgotten 1953 because it is in the distant past, look no further than the US today and witness how such ideologies destroy well oiled machines that have stood the test of history.
Not being a reader of the Huffington Post, except in those occasions of a “You have to see this with your own eyes” link, I didn’t know Rouf was a regular there. Now some of the angry reaction to the Ground Zero Mosque protests make sense: the Left can’t have one of theirs be portrayed as anything but a good, sensible, caring member of the “reality-based community.”
Nor, especially, can they let themselves be portrayed as being in bed with any kind of theocrat!
He charmed his way in, and must have said things palatable to that audience, so now they must defend him or look like fools. Or, worse, “co-dependent” with the violence of the “heteropatriarchy.”
Curiouser and curiouser …
i found this very interesting after i have just seen part of the interview with rauf proclaiming islam a peaceful and just religion. but i am sure when this is brought to light it will be spun around and around till stoning of women does not happen in iran it is just an evil republican political trick to win the elections in nov.
Michael, aren’t there similarities between Mossadegh and the Honduran character who was elected, but wanted to re-write the Honduran constitution to allow him to seek re-election? Both stepped outside of the parameters of the office they held.
Plus, wasn’t there Soviet involvement with Mossadegh? I seem to recall talking about this with my friend who was born in Moscow, and whose maternal grandfather was in the Soviet Diplomatic Corps.
mossadeqh was appointed, not elected. and yes, the russians/soviets meddled in persia for centuries, including the 20th
I haven’t noticed a sudden reformation in Russian behavior here in the 21st Century.
I’m going out on a limb on this, but given the different schools, or faces, of history, identified by Max I. Dimont
in “Jews, God & History”, there are a number of influencing factors regarding Russia.
One is geography. Essentially land-locked, other than when its cold water ports, like Archangel, are open.
Another is ideology, which, in Russia’s case, is influenced by the “I and thou” relationship written about by Martin Buber, Nikolai Berdyaev, Paul Tillich and Jacques Maritain. For the saying, “Moscow is the third Rome, and there will not be a 4th” was reinforced by the throwing off the Mongol yoke, and the collapse of Constantinople at roughly the same time.
I think muslims consider Manhattan as occupied arab land.
No one has been able to answer my question as why the mosque cannot be built on top of the ruins according to tradition?
Because there are people who will not let them get away with it, is the answer that I keep on getting when I ask that question.
Sharia, Part One: Muslim Women
Sharia law, or simply Sharia or, in Arabic, شريعة Šarīʿa, is a complex set of rules for Muslims transmitted by Allah. However, any comparisons to the Christian Bible would be tantamount to comparing our Bible to eternal truths within “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.”
According to Wikipedia, “Muslims believe all Sharia is derived from two primary sources, the divine revelations set forth in the Qur’an, and the sayings and example set by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. . . [and subject to] the consensus of the religious scholars” and Islamic jurists who interpret Sharia.
“The imam [the position held by the Ground Zero monster-mosque-builder Feisel Abdul Rauf] has varying responsibilities depending on the interpretation of Sharia . . . leader of communal prayers, . . . scholar, religious leader or political leader. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexuality, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting.”
In a nutshell, Sharia represents the words Muslims live by, necessarily updated to reflect the passage of fourteen hundred years since the holy Prophet Muhammad passed to his reward no doubt stll in the loving arms of his child bride Aisha, whom he took to his holy marital bed when she was all of eight years old and who was just one of his 13 wives and concubines.
Despite all the updating and interpretation over fourteen centuries, things really haven’t changed an awful lot for Muslims, and even less so for Muslim women.
Nonie Darwash was one of those (Egyptian) Muslim women.
Now considered an Islamic apostate . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1860)
Mr. Kedeen, could i ask you to return to the Cossiga post for a bit when my question gets through?
You beat me to it, but I’m still having a crack at this. I can’t believe this guy’s being trusted by the administration to their legwork… Great job, by the way.
tks. there’s a lot on him, a target-rich environment.
Indeed, Dr. Ledeen. And let’s not forget that the duly appointed Mossadegh disappointed the Ayatollahs including Khomenie who backed his overthrow and the return of the Shah.
i thank you, john burke, for the mini-history lesson. few of us might know all of that background. those who promote that fraud, imam rouf, would do well to read & heed what you’ve written. thanks again…m
It becomes increasingly clear that Imam Rauf sees himself as a theorist – and perhaps an arbiter – of political structures. His “Shariah Index” project sets out to develop a systematic algorithm for evaluating the extent to which a nation’s laws are consistent with Shariah. He is careful to discuss this project only in the context of what he calls “Muslim countries”, of which he claims there are 44.
In another Huff Puff, about Shariah law, he said the following;
“In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government – legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf/what-shariah-law-is-all-a_b_190825.html
He does not say exactly where “Muslims want” a judiciary whose rulings run counter to the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I suppose it is possible that Mr. Rauf, who appears to be a US citizen, is only interested in imposing Shariah law on other countries, of which he is not a citizen.
The Founders appear to have neglected the possibility that a religion might exist whose “free exercise” necessarily involves “an establishment of religion”.
C’mon folks don’t think too hard about this. Simply thought the answer is quite clear: Destroy America, build Mosques. Anyone not understanding this is in denial. Listen, when I can sell pastrami sandwiches in Mecca to pilgrims during Ramadan at the foot of the holy whateveritis they worship then maybe Moslems will build a Mosque in the shadow of TWC with peaceful intent. Until such time there is no measurement of honesty and trust that is dependable and reliable. The Mosque will only be a symbol of victory over THE GREAT SATAN. The saddest thing about it are the politicians allowing this travesty to occur. Mayor Bloomberg, or shall I say King Bloomberg the First, is a prime example.
Pleased to see this internet site is effective on my iphone 4 , everything I would like to perform can be functional. Thanks for preserving it up up to now using the newest.