You've misinterpreted his writing on Sharia, as I've pointed out in another thread.
I didn't misinterpret a thing he was advocating Sharia law but said that he didn't support the stringent penal code. Just because he doesn't support the death penalty or corporal punishment for homosexuality doesn't mean that he doesn't support the crimilization of homosexuality, the same is true for apostasy, adultery, and pre-marital sex. He supports Sharia or in his words he wants to ensure that our
"... secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad....". Aside for the aforementioned criminalization of non-criminal acts that would, also, entail such things as gender discrimination in property cases and the like.
It wouldn't make sense that his father or he were members of an Egyptian organization, since he's Kuwaiti.
What the Muslim Brotherhood? The Muslim Brotherhood is international not Egyptian though I have not claimed that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, I have seen no evidence to that effect, but being Kuwaiti and being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood are not mutually exclusive as the Musliim Brotherhood is a Sunni fundamentalist organization not an Egyptian nationalist organization.
And what he says regarding Hamas, he's right. If he is to be a peacemaker, pissing them off isn't the best method to creating peace.
Hamas intentionally murders men, women, and children, if you're for peace then you must be opposed to Hamas, if you're having trouble labeling them a terrorist organization then there's something wrong here.
And he clearly said that he doesn't blame the US or that the US deserved to be attacked - but added that bad foreign policy decisions over the years added to the likelihood of the attack.
He said the U.S. didn't deserve it, but he did blame the U.S. he clearly said that the U.S. was an "accessory" to the 9-11 attacks and that OBL was made in the USA less than 3 weeks after 9-11.
Do you deny that the US funded the mujaheddin in Afghanistan during Soviet occupation (and no, I'm not arguing that they directly funded bin Laden)?
I'm denying that they directly or knowingly and intentionally indirectly funded, armed, or trained the foreign Mujaheddin which would go on to form AQ, in fact AQ was what was left over of the fund-raising network of the foreign Mujaheddin.
And did that not come back to haunt us in essentially creating the Taliban? And didn't the Taliban shelter the planners of the attacks that brought down the towers?
Not really a lot of the people we directly funded and aided went on to become the primary adversaries of the Taliban; such as, Ahmad Shah Massoud leader of the Northern Alliance.
Thus, is it not accurate to say that foreign policy mistakes are part of what caused the attacks?
No it is not accurate because we did not fund the foreign Mujaheddin that would go on to become AQ.
That's not the same thing as blaming America and that's not what Rauf said. If he'd said that, then I guarantee you that Bush wouldn't have hired him as a bridge-builder to the Middle East.
No he said that we were an accessory to the crime.
Accessory - An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.
Words mean things.
The U.S. was not an accessory to 9-11, we did not create AQ, we did not create the Taliban, we did not aid in the creation of AQ and we did not aid in the creation of the Taliban. We aided indigenous Afghan Mujaheddin some of which would go on to form the Taliban, but if you want to play this 10 degrees of separation BS then we can say that the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan prompted us to support the domestic insurgency thus the Soviet Union is an accessory to 9-11, or we can say that Mohammad created the philosophy of Jihad in the defense of fellow Muslims thus prompting the foreign Mujaheddin to want to go to Afghanistan in the first place, thus Mohammad is an accessory to 9-11. And hey why stop there? If it wasn't for the ancient Israelite s then Mohammad never would have formed a monotheistic Abrahamic religion, thus the Jews are accessories to 9-11, or wait, if it wasn't for the Jewish contact with the Zoroastrian King Cyrus of Persia who released them from the Babylonian Captivity then the monotheistic Abrahamic religion of Judaism would never have existed, thus King Cyrus and the Babylonians are accessories to 9-11. Hey Babylon and Persia are modern day Iraq and Iran, Iraq and Iran were accessories to 9-11.
This is a manufactured controversy by the right-wing to stir xenophobia, anti-Muslim behavior, and hopefully keep the Tea Party so artificially fired up that they can get control of the House.
There is nothing manufactured about it, this is an overt Islamist who blamed the U.S. for 9-11 and said that OBL was made in the USA less than 3 weeks after the attacks, whorefuses to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, and who supports Sharia law.
Ironic that it was ignored for months - even though the founders were on Fox News back in December talking all about it (where Laura Ingraham said it was a good idea) and, when Republican numbers start to drift a bit (
Democrats take generic ballot lead - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com), it suddenly becomes a cause celebre for the right-wing brought up by the New York Post and Fox News...Hmmm...
Not that it changes a thing regarding my views about the victory Mega-Mosque but what exactly did Laura Ingraham say about the Mosque, because I seriously doubt she would say it's a good idea and if she did then she's a hypocrite and needs to be taken to task.