ASMA

In 1997, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf established the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), a New-York based nonprofit organization which has been run by Rauf’s wife, Daisy Khan, since 2005. ASMA’s stated mission is to “elevate the discourse on Islam and foster environments in which Muslims thrive,” and to “strengthe[n] an authentic expression of Islam based on cultural and religious harmony.” ASMA has created five separate inter- and intra-faith programs:

1) The Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow program is designed to “cultivate and empower a global network of young Muslim leaders, creating a platform that can maximize their collective impacts as social change agents.” This initiative seeks to help young Muslims gain influential positions as social activists and political officials.

2) The Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equity seeks to “build a cohesive, global movement of Muslim women that will reclaim women’s rights in Islam, enabling them to make dignified choices and fully participate in creating just and flourishing societies.” This initiative is consistent with Imam Rauf’s assertion that authentic Islam, contrary to popular opinion, is highly respectful of women’s rights and freedoms. In a 2009 piece he penned for the Huffington Post, Rauf stated:
“The Prophet Muhammad has been known as the first feminist. … Gender equality is an intrinsic part of Islamic belief. The Qur’an makes no difference in the religious obligations of men and women and set the stage for women’s rights. Many of the limits placed on women in Muslim societies are due to local custom more than to Islamic teaching.”
Rauf’s claim is entirely inconsistent with the subjugation of women that is deeply rooted in Quranic teachings and Islamic traditions. For further details on these teachings and traditions, click here.

3) The ASMA Media program seeks to “promote an accurate, contextual, and balanced portrayal of Islam and Muslims, providing responsive and reliable information to media outlets and the general public.” This initiative aims to whitewash the aggressive and bellicose teachings of Islam – portraying them as isolated excerpts that, when viewed in their proper context, are merely anomalies that are unrepresentative of Islam’s generally peaceful goals. In a June 2005 interview in which Rauf participated on The Jackie Mason Show, the host noted that the Qur’an “says you should behead the infidel, that people … from other religions should either be beheaded, they should be skinned, they should be killed, tortured, murdered.” “Why does the Qur’an say this?” Mason asked Rauf. “That’s what confuses everybody.” To this, Rauf replied:
“One of the difficulties in interpretation of text  always, even in the Bible for that matter, is that there are certain verses which were revealed in certain contexts and certain times…. Many of these verses were revealed in certain contexts where the Prophet and his followers were not allowed to practice their religion. Like most prophets, like Jesus and Moses, who are highly regarded by Muslims, they were suppressed in those societies, not allowed to practice their faith. And permission was granted to the Muslims to fight those who fought them for that reason. However other verses in the Qur’an also are very clear on saying that the moment they stop fighting, [when] they sue for peace, then you should actually negotiate a peace treaty.”
In another 2005 interview, Rauf was asked: “Some Christians point to violent passages in the Qur’an. Other Christians point out there are similarly violent passages in the Bible. Do Muslims tend to downplay these Qur’an passages just as Christians do with the Bible? For example, at a Christian church service in America, you’re unlikely to hear a Bible passage where people are urged to kill each other even though such things are in the Bible. Is it the same with the Qur’an? Would such passages be read at mosques?: Rauf replied:
“They [these passages] are certainly not mentioned as the meat of the religion. Having said that, [some] groups feel that Islam is under attack. A few young males say, ‘the West is engaged in a crash of civilization, they [Westerners] want to destroy Islam, we have to protect it.’ So they [the young Muslim males] would draw from these controversial passages in the Qur’an.”
But as Gregory M. Davis points out in JihadWatch, the more aggressive and intolerant verses of the Qur’an do not stem from contexts where the Prophet Muhammad and his followers were barred from practicing their faith. Rather, those passages derive from the later years of Muhammad’s prophetic career, in Medina, where he had already consolidated immense political and military power:
“When the Qur’an was finally collated into book form under Caliph Uthman, the suras [i.e., chapters] were ordered from longest to shortest with no connection whatever to the order in which they were revealed or to their thematic content. In order to find out what the Qur’an says on a given topic, it is necessary to examine the other Islamic sources that give clues as to when in Muhammad’s lifetime the revelations occurred. Upon such examination, one discovers that the Meccan suras, revealed at a time when the Muslims were vulnerable, are generally benign; the later Medinan suras, revealed after Muhammad had made himself the head of an army, are bellicose.”
The fact that these “bellicose” injunctions were revealed to Muhammad late in his career is profoundly significant. As JihadWatch explains:
“The principle of abrogation – al-naskh wa al-mansukh – directs that verses revealed later in Muhammad’s career ‘abrogate’ – i.e., cancel and replace – earlier ones whose instructions they may contradict. Thus, passages revealed later in Muhammad’s career, in Medina, overrule passages revealed earlier, in Mecca. The Qur’an itself lays out the principle of abrogation.”
Rauf’s characterization of Islam’s calls for violent jihad as nothing more than exceptions to the religion’s generally benevolent injunctions, is disingenuous and misleading. For additional details on the importance of abrogation in Islamic doctrine, click here.

4) The Arts and Culture program seeks to “highlight the artistic contributions of Muslims to contemporary American culture and world civilizations, evoking the universal language of beauty and inspiring rich cultural exchanges.”

5) The Interfaith program seeks to “collaborate with other faith-based organizations to build relationships of trust through dialogue and education, honoring the diversity of faiths, sharing commonalities, and celebrating differences.” Expanding on this perspective, Rauf, in a June 2005 interview, said that “the vast history of Islam through the 14 centuries of history has proven that except for certain moments in history, the predominant attitude of Muslims toward non-Muslims, especially to Jews and Christians, was one of friendship, was one of engagement.” In 2009, he took up this theme again, writing: “Religious freedom is at the core of Islam. The Quran expressly and unambiguously prohibits the coercion of faith because that violates a fundamental human right –  the right to a free conscience. The Quran says in one place ‘There shall be no compulsion in religion.’ And in another it says, ‘To you your beliefs and to me, mine.’”

But as JihadWatch explains, this very passage advocating religious freedom was abrogated by the so-called “Verse of the Sword,” which was revealed toward the end of Muhammad’s life:
“Then when the Sacred Months … have passed, then kill the [unbelievers] wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform [the Islamic ritual prayers] and give [alms], then leave their way free.”
JihadWatch offers additional details about Islam’s traditional hostility toward infidels:
“The violent injunctions of the Qur’an and the violent precedents set by Muhammad set the tone for the Islamic view of politics and of world history. Islamic scholarship divides the world into two spheres of influence, the House of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the House of War (dar al-harb). Islam means submission, and so the House of Islam includes those nations that have submitted to Islamic rule, which is to say those nations ruled by Sharia law. The rest of the world, which has not accepted Sharia law and so is not in a state of submission, exists in a state of rebellion or war with the will of Allah. It is incumbent on dar al-Islam to make war upon dar al-harb until such time that all nations submit to the will of Allah and accept Sharia law. Islam’s message to the non-Muslim world is the same now as it was in the time of Muhammad and throughout history: submit or be conquered. The only times since Muhammad when dar al-Islam was not actively at war with dar al-harb were when the Muslim world was too weak or divided to make war effectively.”
By all indications, Rauf’s (and ASMA’s) benign depiction of Islam’s relations with non-believers is a classic illustration of taqqiya, the strategic use of lies that are designed to gain for Islam an advantage in its overall quest to subjugate the dar al-harb. JihadWatch explains:

“Due to the state of war between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb,… systematic lying to the infidel, must be considered part and parcel of Islamic tactics. The parroting by Muslim organizations throughout dar al-harb that ‘Islam is a religion of peace,’ or that the origins of Muslim violence lie in the unbalanced psyches of particular individual ‘fanatics,’ must be considered as disinformation intended to induce the infidel world to let down its guard. Of course, individual Muslims may genuinely regard their religion as ‘peaceful’ – but only insofar as they are ignorant of its true teachings, or in the sense of the Egyptian theorist Sayyid Qutb, who posited in his Islam and Universal Peace that true peace would prevail in the world just as soon as Islam had conquered it. A telling point is that, while Muslims who present their religion as peaceful abound throughout dar al-harb, they are nearly non-existent in dar al-Islam. …

“‘Taqiyya’ is the religiously-sanctioned doctrine, with its origins in Shi’a Islam but now practiced by non-Shi’a as well, of deliberate dissimulation about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers… An example of ‘Taqiyya’ would be the insistence of a Muslim apologist that ‘of course’ there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Qur’anic verse – ‘There shall be no compulsion in religion.’ [2:256]  But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about ‘no compulsion in religion’ has been canceled out by later, far more intolerant and malevolent verses. In any case, history shows that within Islam there is, and always has been, ‘compulsion in religion’ for Muslims, and for non-Muslims.”

ASMA is bankrolled by a number of immensely wealthy foundations, among which are some of the world’s leading funders of leftist groups and causes. Foundations that have supported ASMA in recent years include:

• Carnegie Corporation of New York (click here to see a list of key recipients of Carnegie Corporation grants)
• Ford Foundation (click here to see a list of key recipients of Ford Foundation grants)
• Rockefeller Brothers
• Rockefeller Philanthropy
• Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), which gave ASMA $70,000 in 2006 and $100,000 in 2007 (click here to see a list of key recipients of RBF grants)
• Global Fund for Women
• William & Mary Greve Foundation
• The Sister Fund
• The Russell Family Foundation
• Danny Kaye & Sylvia Fine Foundation
• Graham Charitable Foundation
• Deak Family Foundation
• Henry Luce Foundation
• The Elizabeth Foundation
• The Ms. Foundation (click here to see a list of key recipients of Ms.Foundation grants)
• Hunt Alternatives