Speech by Feisal Abdul Rauf at the Daniel Pearl Memorial.

[alfredo]

This is a PDF, so if you click on it, the page will either download to your drive or open in your browser.
Ask yourself, are these the words of a dangerous radical?

http://www.bj.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/daniel_pearl_memorial.pdf

[snagglepuss]

1. His statement supporting the Iranian regime and its jurisprudence, a

justice system which, you may recall, along side with other medieval barbarities, sentences women including pregnant women and men to death by stoning, should also be read.





http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/what-president-obama-should-say-about-irans-election

[alfredo]

2. He was supporting the concept of rule of law, not any specific rule.

I saw nothing controversial in his message. He was giving advice on how Obama should handle the situation in Iran at that time.

[snagglepuss]

3. Hogwash. There is no rule of law in Iran. The stoning sentence of

Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani makes that perfectly clear, if it wasn't eminientlty clear before this latest travesty.


By the way where is Imam Rauf's statement condemning the stoning? An international plea for help by Ashtiani's children went out, please link to Rauf's response to that heart-wrenching plea. He got off his butt to write a statement defending the Iranian election.

Why would someone who has come to Irans's defense not lead a campaign to free Ashtiana and the others lined up to be stoned to death.

[alfredo]

4. He was calling for the peaceful resolution to the election,

and that all should adhere to the rule of law concerning the central authority. He wasn't passing any judgement on Sharia law. This was aimed at the Iranian government and the protesters, and how Obama should handle the situation. He was suggesting talking points.

[snagglepuss]

5. He is claiming it was a legitimate election and it wasn't legitimate. BTW

what about Raf's remaining mute about state sanctioned, clerical sanctioned stoning.


He is friendly with that despicable regime, wy didn't he denounce the barbarity and call for judicial reform in Iran?

[alfredo]

6. Just because we haven't heard it doesn't mean he hasn't

said it through the media in the Mideast. If he said it here, it would be preaching to the choir.

BTW, here is what I have been basing my argument on.

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.