Jump to content

Talk:Feisal Abdul Rauf

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Larry King interview

[edit]

There should be some quotes from a recent interview with him from Larry King Live. I'd like to get direct quotes... but secondhand sources gave this info:

The imam told CNN's Soledad O'Brien on "Larry King Live" that "had I known [the controversy] would happen, we certainly would never have done this." Asked if he meant he would not have picked the location, Rauf said, "we would not have done something that would create more divisiveness." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcc1 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sufism

[edit]

We are told that Feisal Abdul Rauf is a Sufi, but we are not told which Sufi order he is affiliated to, or who his Sheikh was when he entered that Sufi order. Without such detail the claim that he is a Sufi reads as an unsupported personal opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.75.252 (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article's new section addresses that. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 comments

[edit]

Can somebody insert the comments that he made in the interview with Ed Bradley? Its not clear what he actually said that is disputed. 96.242.44.134 (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Here you go! http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/?singlepage=true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.89.169 (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shariah law in the United States

[edit]

The part of this biography that says Feisal Abdul Rauf has advocated Islamic law in the United States is either wrong or is not cited correctly. The citation leads to a column at the Huffington Post, in which Rauf is attempting to explain what Shariah law means in the context of Islamic countries by using the US constituion as a frame of reference for the American readers of this column. At the end of this piece he specifically endorses attempts to bring civil law into compliance with a moderate form of Shariah law in countries with Muslim majorities. As the US does not have a Muslim majority, the claim that he advocates Shariah law in the United States will be stricken from this entry.

In addition, the section regarding his views was very selective in what was taken from the cited piece. I added a quote from said piece as well as a nearly verbatim summary of the first sentence of that piece which I believe puts his remarks into a more accurate context for readers.

Sagesiah (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He DOES advocate Sharia Law. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/?singlepage=true

Look at the website of his organization, The Cordoba Initiative, under Shariah Index Project. He does absolutely advocate Shariah Law in the United States. I don't think you could find a better source because it is from the organization he started and ran for years. Musoniki (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islam is a religion of religious law, to complain that an Imam talks of sharia is a profound ignorance. You may as well be offended that a Jewish rabbi speaks of hallakah and Torah law, that's what his religion is. Virtually every religion has some kind of personal law anyway.138.84.243.137 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shwartz

[edit]

The long quote from professional polemicist and neocon hawk Steve Schwartz has no business as the end of this article. Its an NPOV and BLP violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.245.110 (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have POVs. Notable persons have opinions.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth stating, on that note, that Stephen Schwartz is a recognized editor (to his own page, as well as others) on Wikipedia. 72.192.26.173 (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Call to Prayer from the WTC Rubble

[edit]

This should be reformatted. It makes it seem like this is a separate work, when it is in fact the title of a translation (by Mizan, 2007) of his earlier listed English language book What's Right with Islam IS What's Right with America (2004) See Google Translation of the Mizan's page on the book (Original Malay language version of the publisher's page).

Craig Pennington (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doha Debates

[edit]

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was a panelist on Doha Debates, April 28 2005. The house believed that the war on terror has become a war on Islam. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was against the motion in this discussion.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.101.122 (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV reverts

[edit]

Caution to the IP not to engage in baseless POV reverts.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over structure/content of lead paragraphs

[edit]

Clearly, AR's notablity relates in large part to his comments on 9.11 and on Hamas. That is what most of the comments by notable persons on his has related to. An editor or two have been seeking engergetically to either delete or hide that info. That is POV editing that is not acceptable.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% the emphasis should be on those quotes. Without that emphasis, the article is just another wikipedia white-wash job that attempts to bury the facts that make this man notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.34.8 (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Look, I, and other users, have noticed that you are either consciously or subconsciously pushing an agenda, structuring the text in a biased way and inserting biased language into the would-be neutral text. I once again encourage you to put aside your personal opinions on Rauf and think rationally. In regard to this dispute about whether to structure the paragraph around his plans to build Cordoba House or his comments on 9/11 and Hamas, no one on the national stage criticized his remarks about 9/11 or Hamas until the Cordoba House controversy arose. That is the context in which his remarks have become nationally publicized. Gingrich, Palin and the rest criticized those comments in the context of the Cordoba controversy. To mention those previously obscure quotes before you've even mentioned the context of Cordoba House defies logic. Let's be honest: what you're really doing here is framing the lead paragraphs around the talking points of his critics. The paragraph should instead be structured neutrally and logically-i.e., around the Cordoba House controversy. Let us compare your suggested paragraph to the earlier version.

Yours: In a 2001 interview, Abdul Rauf stated that the U.S. was "an accessory to the crime that happened".[2] In 2010 he declined to state that Hamas was a terrorist organization. That year, his plan to build Cordoba House, an Islamic community center and mosque, two blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan led to a national debate, in which critics such as politicians Rudy Giuliani, Rick Lazio, Carl Paladino, and Sarah Palin questioned his controversial remarks about 9/11 and Hamas.-------

Earlier version: In 2010, Abdul Rauf received national attention for his plans to build Cordoba House, an Islamic community center, two blocks away from Ground Zero in Manhattan. Amid an ensuing national debate over the project, critics such as politicians Rudy Giuliani, Rick Lazio, and Sarah Palin questioned his leadership of the initiative, pointing to controversial remarks he previously made about 9/11 and Hamas.------

The second, earlier version is efficient, grammatically smoother, and not structured like it came straight out of an anti-Rauf talking points memo. Your version is poorly structured, redundant, a wee bit biased. I welcome others to compare the above paragraphs and offer suggestions for compromise. Dmalveaux (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing: you begin the paragraph with the topic sentence "In a 2001 interview, Abdul Rauf stated that the U.S. was "an accessory to the crime that happened" but you don't even mention what crime-9/11-and you leave out the context to his quote. There's no need to add partial, or full, quotes to the lead paragraphs. They're detailed fairly, in full, in the Criticism section. Because of the size limitations on the lead paragraphs, you cannot fairly clip the quotes, nor should you, for the lead paragraphs should simply summarize the major aspects of his life, not detail them in full. --Dmalveaux (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added the CIA-Osama bin Laden controversy link, along with a clip from a transcript of Daisy Khan explaining her husband's comment which was part of a longer interview which some people, unsurprisingly, chose to cherry-pick. Epeefleche, I am not the problem here. I am trying to clarify and put the 'soundbites' into their original context. I will not tolerate all this spin and POV. I hope I've made myself clear, as I am furious over your insulting the efforts of myself (and presumably others). (As for the Hamas comments, I suggest you review what Tony Blair said about Northern Ireland, and how there's a militant wing and a political wing to these groups. Along with the following: "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water." Why you insist Feisal Abdul Rauf insult the people we have to negotiate with is beyond me. The next time that works will be the first, and fortunately he realizes that even if you don't or won't.) Flatterworld (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now tried to merge the problematical lede statements with the Criticisms section, dividing it into the specific two areas. The lede is to summarize who the guy is, not get into arguments about what he did or didn't say or believe or imply. Look at the best articles about politicians - all these arguments have been argued before, and that sort of thing is removed from the lede. Flatterworld (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cordoba

[edit]

I believe the name of the project has since been changed from Cordoba House. Also, if you look at a map, repeatedly saying "two blocks" or "barely two blocks" from "ground zero" is a serious stretch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnmonaghan (talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the map, and it is actually only ONE block from the WTC7 site. Also it is the very site where a jet engine crashed into the Burlington Coat Factory store. Radio Sharon (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the name was changed to Park 51 after it became known that Cordoba to Muslims indicated a seminal victory such as they achieved at Cordoba, Spain, when Muslim armies defeated the Visigoths, converted the largest church of the area into a mosque, and made the population dhimmis. The article should surely mention the current name of the project, but the original meaning of Cordoba is very important to a valid understanding of the issue. Musoniki (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph needs rewriting, proper placement

[edit]

I've removed the following paragraph from the "Cordoba House" section, where it clearly didn't fit.

Zakaria, a recipient of the civil rights group the Anti-Defamation League's Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize, returned the prize and the $10,000 honorarium saying that he "cannot in good conscience hold onto the award or the honorarium that came with it" after the ADL's head—while he opined that some of those who oppose the mosque are "bigots", and that the plan's proponents may have every right to build the mosque at that location—appealed to the builders to consider the sensitivities of the 9/11 victims' families, saying that building the mosque at that site would unnecessarily cause more pain for families of some victims of 9/11.[3][4][5][6][7] Zakaria "urged the ADL to reverse its decision."[8] --71.233.44.242 (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.thedohadebates.com/debates/magic.asp?d=26
  2. ^ "Prominent American Muslims denounce terror committed in the name of Islam". 60 Minutes. IslamForToday.com. September 30, 2001. Retrieved July 22, 2010.
  3. ^ Jacoby, Susan (August 6, 2010). "The Spirited Atheist: Ground Zero mosque protected by First Amendment-but it's still salt in a wound". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 6, 2010.
  4. ^ "Jewish group opposes ground zero mosque". Associated Press. July 30, 2010. Retrieved July 31, 2010.
  5. ^ Barbaro, Michael (July 30, 2010). "Debate Heats Up About Mosque Near Ground Zero". The New York Times. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
  6. ^ Scherer, Ron (August 3, 2010). "Ground Zero mosque clears hurdle, but firestorm far from over". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved August 4, 2010.
  7. ^ "The ADL, the Mosque and the Fight Against Bigotry". The New York Times. August 4, 2010.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference newsweek1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Photos

[edit]

We have a photo of Feisal Abdul Rauf which we all like (I presume). If we had a photo of him making a speech elsewhere in the world, as he's been sent around to do, that would make sense to me. If we had a photo of the Park51 location, that would also make sense to me. But two guys (out of hundreds if not thousands equally 'qualified' on the topic - as opposed to members of the general public) who we're quoting? I just don't see that it makes sense. The article isn't that long, and beyond the content issue the photos are affecting the paragraph formatting. Why are these two guys so important? They have their own articles, so anyone can click on their wikified names if they want to see what they look like. I would call this an act of gratuitous photo-ing. ;-) iow, I think it makes the article look silly. Flatterworld (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference sources, specifically WorldNetDaily

[edit]

This is the latest discussion I could find on using WorldNetDaily. In my experience, it's usually possible - and certainly preferable - to find a more reliable source. If one can't be found, one is reminded that "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't". ;-) Anyway, that's why I removed it, as the New York Post link was also present. Flatterworld (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I'm not too familiar with the wiki scene, and honestly I'm a bit lazy. But maybe you all can put these to good use. They're links to his writings available in the "last 365 days" search on The Star (Malaysia):

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.78.218 (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas Commentary

[edit]

This section should be checked for accuracy and fairness. The quotes are eclipsed to smithereens and there are no opposing views of interpretation. These are necessary, especially concerning such a controversial figure. Wikipedia is not for people to cast their opinions on people, it is simply for hard information. The idea of "comments on this person/event/thing in the media" as a legitimate encyclopedic sectional form should be regulated and investigated for OPINION, which has no place in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.20.128 (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 comments

[edit]

I'd like to make this section clearer. I suggest we follow this approach:

  1. Start with what he was quoted as saying
  2. Follow up with what opponents think these quotes mean, or imply
  3. Finish with any clarifications or other remarks by Feisal, such as a protest that "60 minutes" took his remarks out of context.
    • "The ‘60 Minutes’ piece was completely incorrect, as the statement was edited out of context. In the full interview, Imam Feisal describes the mistake the C.I.A. made in the 1980s by financing Osama bin Laden and strengthening the Taliban. This view is widely shared within the U.S. and the U.S. government today, and Imam Feisal underlines the importance of not supporting ‘friends of convenience’ who may in the future become our enemies." [1]

I'll check back and see if anyone objects . . . --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Very opinionated; wiki is for fact-based articles, not opinions. This article is not a reliable source as it is clearly one-sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.89.169 (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kahn vs. Khan

[edit]

This article initially mentions "Daisy Kahn" twice.

Further down, the article refers simply to "KHAN" in an interview with Christiane Amanpour, but it does not provide a first name.

Is "Daisy Kahn" and "KHAN" the same person? This needs to be clarified. - Drusha (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khan is correct; typos fixed. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to FBI in 2003

[edit]

Some interesting comments from Feisal Abdul Rauf to fbi back in 2003.[2] Do you think they should be included? Truthsort (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First NY mosque

[edit]

the first Mosque in New York City, which took 25 years to complete and opened in 1991

two mosques already have firm roots in Lower Manhattan and that one of them was founded in 1970

Does not compute Simon de Danser (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cordoba Initiative, Cordoba House, Park51

[edit]

I've tried to clarify the differences, as the Park51 article seems determined to claim they're all the same thing, which they're not. We should probably have a separate section for the Cordoba Initiative, but at least this helps set the record straight for now. Flatterworld (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation "slumlord"

[edit]

This seems deliberately contentious. There is no such recognized occupation, and Wikipedia's own article "Slumlord" [3] labels this term derogatory.

AviJacobson (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably correct. But we should also remove (and I will shortly) "bridge builder", which is not a recognized occupation either.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 things I think should be somewhere

[edit]

Positions on the Iranian revolutions and Sharia law. Both are fairly controversial issues.

Both of which he goes on about in this article written by him in Al Ghad an Egyptian paper http://www.alghad.com/?article=12635. It's in Arabic and the best I can do is Google translate it but someone who is fluent should do some kind of write-up. It's notable because it's written by Rauf and some of the stuff is criticized by Ibn Warraq in this article. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/246268/one-imam-multiple-messages-ibn-warraq?page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.44.116 (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An answer by Viewerindepth:

The link to Al Ghad newspaper had nothing to do with Iran. It is an article about Obama's previously palnned visit to Turkey. Here is a most accurate translation possible (I've used an excerpt of it inside the article myself):

President Barack Obama takes, through his visit next Tuesday to Turkey, the next step to fulfilling his promises to the Islamic World. Many a critic have warned him, ‘Don’t do this.’ I think they are mistaken. This is exactly the right thing to do, and President Obama is the right person to do it.

The President is to address the United Nations Forum of Alliance of Civilizations in Istanbul—as a means for talking directly to Muslims—about finding common ground for coexistence in peace. Critics say that Obama should not call the Islamic World to a dialogue because there is nothing in common. They say that that would bring benefit to Osama Bin Laden’s depiction as the Protector of the Islamic World. They say that conflicts in the Middle East, with Iran, inside Iraq, and between India and Pakistan, are not rooted in religion; that they are secular worldly conflicts aiming at earth, power, and control.

That might be true. But true as well, that religion, even though not the cardinal impetus of these conflicts, is the core solution. To comprehend this, one must understand the role Islam plays in the Islamic World.

In the United States, when we have some complaint, we say, ‘Hey, this is not constitutional! There must be some law.’ The Declaration of Independence and the subsequent Bill of Rights are the core of what we believe in.

But in the Middle East, when someone has some complaint, and says, ‘There must be a law,’ he completely knows what law he means. The only law a Muslim needs is in the Quran and Hadith. People have inquired of me after September 11, ‘Why do many a movement with a political agenda take a religious name, like “the Muslim Brotherhood”, or “Hezbollah” (the Party of Allah), or “HAMAS” (Islamic Resistance Movement)?’ And I still answer them, that the Islamic aptitude for law and justice starts with a religious language, because secular movements have failed in bringing about what Muslims wanted, which is life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.

If that looked suspiciously like a Declaration of Independence, this is because the Islamic Law and the American democratic principles have a lot in common, contrary to what many people in the west believe. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Creator—sublime be His name—has given man certain rights that cannot be ignored. And those who had made up the Constitution said they had set rules for justice, guaranteed calmness and peace for the inside, encouraged general prosperity, and supported the blessings of freedom.

In the same sense, the Islamic Law (Sharia Law) believes that Allah, blessed be His name, has ordered the political justice, economic justice, and helping the weak and the poor; and these are profound Islamic concepts. Many Muslims do believe that what they have from their governments should be the same as what the Islamic state and America provide for their citizens, for personal freedom and dignity are Islamic concepts as well.

Obama had shocked the Islamic World when he used an excerpt from the Hadith in the breakfast of the National Prayer on February the fifth; and it ran like, ‘None of you is considered to be a believer, until he wishes for his brother as he wishes for himself.’ The President had rendered that equal to Christianity’s ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’, and Judaism’s ‘what is hateful to you, do not do to your brother’.

The President’s use of Islamic language asserts that Islam is compatible with the American values, Christianity, and Judaism; while Osama bin Laden’s message gain power from saying that America is trying to impose the western values upon others, leading to the collapse of Islam. The United States had fell, many a time, into that trap.

What Obama can do is to reverse that picture. He can press the universality of the Islamic values and the western ones. He can say, that if America could keep the values of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights; and if Muslims could keep to the Islamic Sharia Law, we would find much fewer issues of conflict, and more common ground. When these matters are settled, Muslims will no longer fear the western control; and the west will no longer fear the Islamic expansion. We can, then, put the fake Clash of Civilizations under testimony.

N.B. I'm a citizen in some Arabic country, and I want just to press that Feisal Abdul Rauf is an imposter. He is not the one he claims to be; for he is purly Islamic in a radical way. Here they know about him, and some consider him the next Tarek bin Ziad, the conqueror of Spain (Al Andalus). Naming his intended Islamic center 'Cordoba' is a very imprudent hinting at the late Great mosque of Cordoba that was converted from a church in Spain during the brutal Islamic invasion. Now the Muslim religious leaders think that America is the next Andalus; that they will take over it by either "peace" (deceit) or war if needed (if things are to continue as it is going on now, with a president of Islamic origin welcoming Islam in his country, and little scared presidents in other countries who always talk about the "peace" of Islamic terrorism--if all that is to continue, I don't think there would be a war needed for Islam to take control over the free people of the west).

If you need anything, I'm around.--Viewerindepth (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but the other source, Red County, does not appear to be a reliable sourced under the WP:RS policy, and it doesn't mention anything about Rauf's father being a member in the Muslim Brotherhood. Please do not add that again unless you can cite a reliable source that supports it, and place somewhere in the article where its attribution has relevance. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a ref link to the English language version which is also listed under Other writings. I suggest you read it in full. Flatterworld (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Khan deserves an article in her own right

[edit]

You know, it's awfully sexist to redirect a woman's name to the article on her husband. Especially when she's scarcely mentioned there. I believe Daisy clears the notability bar, because she was a feminist activist in the news years before her husband even became famous. I'll create an article for her (when I find the time to do a proper job of it), but if anyone wants to jump in, please do.

However, I believe the sexist redirect ought to be deleted immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanna-Hypatia (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not sexist. It's a reasonable protocol for topics that do not have, or do not yet have their own article, but are closely related to extant ones. If you think Khan is notable, then feel free to start an article on her, and make sure to include the reliable sources that establish her notability. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian-American

[edit]

It clearly states that Rauf is a Kuwait born American Muslim. So wouldn't that make him Kuwaiti-American. Since we cannot edit I need someone to look into that please. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binyaminrauf (talk • contribs) 04:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not insert Ibn warraq's comments

[edit]

"In the book’s chatty and ostentatiously friendly preface, Rauf tells us that he is an American and a Muslim, and proud to be both. Then comes this sentence: “September 11, a day that will live in infamy for having provoked the United States into a war, confused and frightened many non-Muslim Americans about Islam.” Note that in this description of why 9/11 will “live in infamy,” there is not a word about Islamic terrorists killing 2,976 people. We saw earlier how Rauf characterized 9/11 as “a crime that happened”; now it is a provocation.

It is not unusual for Rauf to dismiss or ignore the victims of 9/11. During a lecture he gave in Australia in 2005, Rauf said,

“We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims. You may remember that the U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was secretary of state and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.

In his preface and introduction, Rauf presents a picture of Islam that is historically almost totally false, and doctrinally so watered down as to be hardly recognizable as Islam. Like President Obama in his Cairo speech — not surprising, since Rauf claims the speech was drawn from his writings — Rauf pegs the number of Muslims in the United States at between 5 and 7 million. This is a common Muslim tactic: to overstate their numbers, like the frog in the fable who puffed himself up. The real number, according to the Pew Research Center, is something like 2.5 million. That is less than 1 percent of the population. [..] Rauf does something similar with the Islamic world’s lack of American values, claiming that

“America is substantively an ‘Islamic’ country, by which I mean a country whose systems remarkably embody the principles that Islamic law requires of a government.”

For gullible multiculturalists and Western liberals, the thought that the U.S. Constitution is sharia compliant is most reassuring — “Ah! There is no real clash of civilizations after all. Rauf is a true moderate who wants to get along.”

And for an Islamic triumphalist, it is a way to infiltrate Western institutions and eventually destroy them from within.”

— Ibn Warraq, The Two Faces of Feisal Rauf

It amazes me how a man can be so ungrateful to a nation that gave him a life filled with freedom.  Brendon ishere 08:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

founded two non-profit organizations whose stated missions are to enhance the discourse on Islam in society.

[edit]

The two organizations he founded are closely connected, even sharing infrastructure, space, utilities, fiscal agent, vendor services, and co-sponsorship of programs. But the stated missions are different, according to the websites of the two organizations. Even the name "American Society for Muslim Advancement" gives a very different view than the "Cordoba Initiative." I am only talking about surface differences--the image presented to the public. If you look closely at the Cordoba Initiative website, you see that there is still a goal of introducing Shariah law. Musoniki (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR. You need published secondary sources that state this. --NeilN talk to me 17:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Feisal Abdul Rauf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Feisal Abdul Rauf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Feisal Abdul Rauf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another fact about Imam Rauf

[edit]

Imam Rauf is a Sufi shaikh of the Qadiri tariqah in NYC. 2603:7000:9100:10A4:E50B:8E5D:5447:BD15 (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source we can cite, per WP:V, WP:IRS, et al.? Nightscream (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
There were six entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
  • ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feisal_Abdul_Rauf&oldid=1256769015"