Truther mosque?

September 13, 2010

Well, isn’t that interesting? The Imam who wants to build a mosque community center rabat at Ground Zero in order to build bridges of understanding and religious tolerance is closely associated with an Islamic 9-11 Truther:

In his interview with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien on Wednesday, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf defended his plans to build a mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero, saying “You cannot heal a trauma by walking away from it. We have to sit down. We have to talk about it. We have to dialogue about it and find a way to move through it and beyond it.”

But a trove of videos and writings available on the Internet shows that a longtime partner of Rauf believes the 9/11 terror attacks were “an inside job” by U.S. government and corporate interests, the Investigative Project on Terrorism found.

Faiz Khan, a physician who claims to have been a first responder after the September 11 attacks, is a founding member of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth and is on the advisory board of the Muslims for 9/11 Truth. In an essay on the Alliance’s website, he argued that “the prime factor for the success of the criminal mission known as 9/11 did not come from the quarter known as ‘militant Islam’ although the phenomenon known as ‘militant Islamic networks’ may have played a partial role, or even a less than partial role – perhaps the role of patsy and scapegoat.”

Be sure to read the rest. The more that comes out about the background of those behind the project, the more I think it just isn’t going to happen.

Via The Weekly Standard

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


If it’s not a mosque, then what is it?

September 12, 2010

Writing in the New York Post, Amir Taheri has an interesting theory of what the proposed mosque/community center/whatever at Ground Zero really represents. He mentions the various types of Islamic buildings, all of which have very specific roles in Islam: for example, the takiyah is a Shiite building dedicated to passion plays about the death of Imam Husayn, while a zawiyyah is a type monastic complex.

But then, if the proposed building at Ground Zero is not a mosque, and if it isn’t a cultural center, then what is it?

Taheri’s answer? It is a rabat, a building meant to facilitate conquest:

The first rabat appeared at the time of the Prophet.

The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word “raid”). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders.

After each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat — or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiders to eat and rest and facilities to train and prepare for future razzias. Later Muslim rulers used the tactic of ghazva to conquer territory in the Persian and Byzantine empires. After each raid, they built a rabat to prepare for the next razzia.

It is no coincidence that Islamists routinely use the term ghazva to describe the 9/11 attacks against New York and Washington. The terrorists who carried out the attack are referred to as ghazis or shahids (martyrs).

Thus, building a rabat close to Ground Zero would be in accordance with a tradition started by the Prophet. To all those who believe and hope that the 9/11 ghazva would lead to the destruction of the American “Great Satan,” this would be of great symbolic value.

(…)

A rabat in the heart of Manhattan would be of great symbolic value to those who want a high-profile, “in your face” projection of Islam in the infidel West.

I’ll note that Taheri has been controversial in the past, but that last statement echoes the opinions of Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, writing in Canada’s Ottawa Citizen newspaper:

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it’s not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

Imam Rauf and other backers of the “Cordoba House” (since renamed Park51) have been adamant that the purpose of the new building is to promote interfaith understanding. Perhaps we should be listening to what other Muslims have to say, too.

RELATED: You know it’s a bad idea when…

(Crossposted to Sister Toldjah)


Klavan on the Culture: Does Islam Suck?

August 27, 2010

Rueful satire and reflections on the Ground Zero Mosque from PJTV‘s Andrew Klavan:

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Imam Rauf: building bridges to where, exactly? -UPDATED

August 23, 2010

Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam at the center of the controversy over the mosque proposed for Ground Zero in New York City, has claimed he is a man of moderation, a bridge-builder between Islam and America, between Muslims and Americans of other faiths. He wants to show that Islam and the Muslims can be a part of America’s democratic society.

Praising Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran’s theocratic fascist dictatorship is a funny way to do that, however. Soon after the fraudulent Iranian elections of 2009, he wrote, as reported by Michael Ledeen:

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.


(…)

  • (Obama’s) 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’s pure appeasement of Iranian tyranny.

So, then, just where does this bridge Imam Rauf wants to build lead?

UPDATE: From the horse’s… mouth. Tell me again this guy is a moderate? On what scale?

As Jim Geraghty puts it:

…to suggest that the indirect effects of a U.S. sanctions regime is remotely morally comparable to al-Qaeda’s deliberate mass murder – much less to suggest that they are morally worse - is to eviscerate one’s claim to be moderate, pro-American, or sensible. He says it is a “difficult subject to discuss with Western audiences.” Does he ever wonder why?


(Video) Bill Whittle: Tolerance or appeasement?

August 20, 2010

Bill Whittle of Pajamas Media has long been a sharp, uncompromising, and eloquent advocate for the defense of America and the West against the armed and the cultural jihad. His series at PJTV, Afterburner, is worth the price of subscription just for itself. In this latest episode, he places our reaction to the proposed Ground Zero mosque in the context of earlier Western failures to resist totalitarianism and the heavy price paid for that failure:

While I don’t agree with him wholly (although our differences are de minimis), and while one can perhaps fairly accuse  him of painting with too broad a brush, what Bill has to say is important and needs to be heard. I’ve often remarked myself that our fecklessness in the face of an aggressive Iran, the biggest sponsor of jihadist terror in the world, shows a civilizational lack of confidence and a willingness to appease all too reminiscent of the 1930s.

And we all know how that ended.

Back to the mosque at Ground Zero, regardless of the intentions of the builders (and those are suspect, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument), there is no doubt that its construction in that place will be seen in the Islamic world as a sign of Islamic supremacy and victory. For that alone, it must be exposed and opposed.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


You know the Ground Zero mosque is a bad idea…

August 19, 2010

…When even Muslims oppose it and call the rationale behind it “bunk.” Here’s a round up of recent opinions; some may surprise you:

From the Director-General of al-Arabiya TV, via MEMRI:

“The [Ground Zero] mosque… is a strange affair, because it is not an issue [that concerns] the Muslims. [In fact,] we never even heard of it until it became the focus of vociferous arguments between supporters and objectors, most of them non-Muslim Americans!…

“The Muslims never asked for this [mosque], and even the angry Muslims do not want it. This is one of the few times when the two opposing sides are in agreement. Nevertheless, the dispute flared up. It made the front pages of newspapers and [featured on] the major television programs. Demonstrations were held in the streets, and large posters were plastered on New York buses, demanding that the construction of the mosque be prevented and reminding everyone of the 9/11 crime. This really is a strange battle!

“I can’t imagine that Muslims [actually] want a mosque at this particular location, because it will become an arena for the promoters of hatred, and a monument to those who committed the crime. Moreover, there are no practicing Muslims in the area who need a place to worship, because it is a commercial district. Is there anyone who is [really] eager [to build] this mosque?…

I think that’s a point that all too few have considered: regardless of the intentions of the builders of the mosque, it will without doubt become a shrine for jihadists.

Next, from two Canadian Muslims who call the Ground Zero mosque a deliberate provocation:

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it’s not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna”

In America, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, head of a genuinely moderate Muslim group, is concerned that the mosque will only offer misguidance for the US Muslim community:

AIFD’s slogan is that its members are “Americans who happen to be Muslim, and not Muslims who demand to be American.” As a devout Muslim, Dr. Jasser has voiced strong opposition to the mosque now called “Park 51” that threatens to encroach on Ground Zero. When he first heard of the plans, he says, he wrote an op-ed for the New York Post detailing why he as a Muslim felt a mosque in such a location would only offer more misguidance for the U.S. Muslim community.

“The reality is that many of us have never said their rights should be infringed in any way but rather that we pray that a light will finally go on in their heads which tells them that ‘this ostentatious $100 million Islamic center should be built elsewhere and not in a place that casts a shadow upon the graves of thousands of Americans’ — still an open raw wound for most Americans,” Dr. Jasser explains.

Jasser also expresses deep concern that the organization funding the mosque, led by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has refused to exclude foreign funding from filling its coffers. Such financial transactions immediately offer the opportunity for foreign Islamists and their sympathizers to preach their version of political Islam and sharia, he warns, and present a very significant threat to national security.

“I cannot see genuine Muslim reform happening on the dime of foreign Islamist interests,” Jasser says. “Make no mistake, this Islamic center is not a spiritual statement but a global political one in the name of Islam. … Every group I have been directly involved with in building mosques and Islamic projects in the U.S. have rejected foreign funds entirely because of the ideological hypocrisies and Islamism that comes with them.”

Be sure to read Dr. Jasser’s moving essay at the New York Post link, above.

Finally, what does it say when the building of the mosque is opposed even by the scholars of Al-Azhar, the most highly regarded center of learning in the Sunni Islamic world?

A number of Al Azhar ulema expressed their opposition to building a mosque near [where] the events of September 11 [occurred], convinced that it is “a conspiracy to confirm a clear connection between the strikes of September [11] and Islam.” Dr. ‘Abd al-Mu‘ti Bayumi, a member of the Islamic Research Academy [of Al Azhar] told Al Masry Al Youm that he rejects the building of any mosque in this area [Ground Zero], because the “devious mentality” desires to connect these events [of 9/11] with Islam, though he maintains that Islam is innocent of this accusation. Instead, it is a “Zionist conspiracy,” which many are making use of to harm the religion. Likewise, Dr. Amna Nazir, professor of doctrine and philosophy at Al Azhar, expressed her rejection that a mosque be built near the World Trade Center, saying: “Building a mosque on this rubble indicates bad intention — even if we wished to shut our eyes, close our minds, and insist on good will. I hope it is a sincere step, and not a new conspiracy against Islam and Muslims.”

True, they can’t resist falling for the siren’s song of the antisemitism and victimhood that is wired so deeply into the core of Islam, but this is nonetheless a very significant event: for these men to tell Imam Rauf that his project shouldn’t go forward is similar to a Catholic council of bishops telling a parish priest to “knock it off.” Their statement carries weight. And be sure to read the rest of  Raymond Ibrahim’s interesting article.

I guess Nancy Pelosi will want these people investigated, too.

(Crossposted after 10AM PST at Sister Toldjah)

Edit: Forgot a link…


(Video) We Remember

August 18, 2010

This just in: Dissent is no longer patriotic

August 18, 2010

I’m beginning to think Jonah Goldberg will have to add a new chapter or two to the next edition of his brilliant Liberal Fascism, just to cover Nancy Pelosi. In the wake of increasing opposition to the construction of a mega-mosque at Ground Zero, La Nancita has suggested that opponents should be placed under federal investigation!

“The freedom of religion is a Constitutional right.  Where a place of worship is located is a local decision.

“I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance that ‘We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center.  At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.’

Wait a gosh-darned minute, here! Critics of the mosque are getting funded? Where’s my check? Jeez… Waiting

And does that mean you want to investigate Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to find out who’s funding him, Madame Speaker of the House?

Shall the Congress also investigate the two-thirds of New York City residents who also oppose the mosque? Or the nearly 70% of the nation?

Nothing like threatening a federal investigation of those making use of their right to free speech to reveal your inner statist, eh, Nancy?

Joe McCarthy would be proud.

LINKS: Power Line says the Speaker has forgotten how to listen.

UPDATE: Say, Madame Speaker: Since we’re in an investigating mood, how about we investigate that little land deal you and San Francisco Mayor Newsom have got going for Treasure Island? Should be real interesting…


I think I’m OD’ing on the irony

August 18, 2010

For years -years!- the moonbat Left (which includes the Democrat leadership) railed at George W. Bush for destroying our image in the Muslim World, in spite of all the blood and treasure we spent liberating 60,000,000 Muslims from two of the worst tyrannies in the world, not to mention genuinely effective disaster relief in Muslim Indonesia after the Boxing Day tsunami, while their beloved UN did squat-all. Barack Obama campaigned to restore our good name and even went to Cairo to kowtow as a good dhimmi to make a speech apologizing for our supposed sins.

Yet now, with Obama making a complete fool of himself over the jihadist victory monument Ground Zero mosque, to whom does the Left turn to save their multicultural golden calf? George W. Bush. Byron York has the story:

“It’s time for W. to weigh in,” writes the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. Bush, Dowd explains, understands that “you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.” Dowd finds it “odd” that Obama seems less sure on that matter. But to set things back on the right course, she says, “W. needs to get his bullhorn back out” — a reference to Bush’s famous “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” speech at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. “I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue,” Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session. “He held Ramadan iftar dinners in the White House as part of a much broader effort to show that our fight against the al-Qaeda murderers who attacked us on 9/11 was not a crusade against Islam. He was absolutely right on this point, and it would be helpful to hear his views.”

And Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic, is also feeling some nostalgia for the former president. “Words I never thought I’d write: I pine for George W. Bush,” Beinart wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast. “Whatever his flaws, the man respected religion, all religion.” Beinart longs for the days when Bush “used to say that the ‘war on terror’ was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me…”

These people are asking for -nay, demanding!- BushChimpHitler’s help to make up for Obama? Pardon me while I laugh.  Rolling on the floor

There’s plenty to say at another time about their multicultural blindness toward the two faces of Islam; for now, I just want to lean back and savor the moment.

LINKS: More from Hot Air. Roger Kimball thinks this moment is delicious.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Well, that settles it

August 16, 2010

One of top medieval psychos in Hamas has endorsed the mosque planned for Ground Zero in New York City, saying it has to be built there:

A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero — insisting Muslims “have to build” it there.

“We have to build everywhere,” said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization’s chief on the Gaza Strip.

“In every area we have, [as] Muslim[s], we have to pray, and this mosque is the only site of prayer,” he said on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on WABC.

The Ground Zero mosque: Wahhabi-funded, terrorist-approved.

(via Sister Toldjah)


Mr. President, whose side are you on?

August 14, 2010

Last night, President Obama spoke at an Iftar dinner at the White House. (Iftar is the traditional Muslim dinner held at the end of during Ramadan.) In his remarks, he waded deep into controversy over the building of a large mosque at Ground Zero in New York City. In his remarks, he made clear his support for the mosque, appealing to America’s traditions of religious tolerance:

Now, that’s not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -– particularly New York.  Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan.  The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country.  And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable.  So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders.  And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear.  As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.  (Applause.)  And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.  This is America.  And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.  The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are.  The writ of the Founders must endure.

We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who led the response to that attack -– from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us also remember who we’re fighting against, and what we’re fighting for.  Our enemies respect no religious freedom.  Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam -– it’s a gross distortion of Islam.  These are not religious leaders -– they’re terrorists who murder innocent men and women and children.  In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion -– and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

Nice platitudes, which however include the condescending and patronizing section highlighted above. Mr. President, this is not about religious freedom: Muslims have the right to practice their faith in over 30 mosques in New York City, alone, and can build more. And it is not about private property rights (which is funny coming from you, given your treatment of property rights in the GM and Chrysler bailouts), for no serious critic says property owners do not have the right to do what they wish with their property within zoning laws.

It is, however, about the location chosen and the inappropriateness of exercising those rights at that place. Ground Zero is where a Muslim jihadist organization launched a razzia (“raid”) against the kuffar (“infidels”) for the sake of Allah (jihad fi sabil Allah) and in accordance with the Qur’an, chapter nine, verse five:

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

And, at the same link, verse 111:

Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

That act of war, done in the name of Islam and in accordance with Islamic law, killed 3,000 of our people and foreign guests. And you think it’s a good thing to build a mosque there? Muslim spokesmen and their liberal and libertarian apologists demand we be tolerant and sensitive. Tell me, sir, why shouldn’t they (and you) be tolerant and sensitive toward the nearly 70% of Americans who oppose building that mosque on that spot?

Contrary to popular Leftist mythology, Americans are very tolerant, generous people. We also have a well-developed sense of decency. And we are not bigots when we say that building a mosque at Ground Zero, one that will be headed by an Islamic supremacist imam and which every Muslim knows is a deliberate provocation, is indecent and an insult to the memory of those who died there.

And what does it say about you, sir, that you side with allies of the Muslim Brotherhood against the wishes of the people who elected you? I’ll let Jennifer Rubin have the last word:

Obama has shown his true sentiments now, after weeks of concealing them, on an issue of deep significance not only to the families and loved ones of 3,000 slaughtered Americans but also to the vast majority of his fellow citizens. He has once again revealed himself to be divorced from the values and concerns of his countrymen. He is entirely – and to many Americans, horridly — a creature of the left, with little ability to make moral distinctions. His sympathies for the Muslim World take precedence over those, such as they are, for his fellow citizens. This is nothing short of an abomination.

Indeed.

LINKS: Lots have been written about this in the last 24 hours. Bad Rachel calls it an act of appeasement. Power Line scoffs at the vapid multiculturalism of the President’s remarks. Debra Burlingame, sister of one of the pilots of the hijacked planes on 9-11, is stunned by the President’s statement. Andrew Bostom quotes Muslim apostate Ibn Warraq on Obama’s Ramadan obeisance to totalitarian Islam. Baseball Crank (always worth reading) says Obama has chosen sides. Blue Crab Boulevard says it’s not a question of rights, but one of wrongs.

ADDENDUM I: Inevitably, this is going to raise the “Obama’s a seekrit Mooslim” issue again. I don’t believe it for a minute and give it the same credence I give Laredo Trutherism. He is, however, an extremely cynical, yet intellectually shallow progressive politician of the Chicago type, who sees people not as individual citizens, but as groups to be pandered to in return for votes and donations. This is also further proof that he is a Leftist academic elitist who looks down on the rest of his countrymen, those “bitter clingers.”

ADDENDUM II: As a matter of pure politics, I have to ask: Is he insane? The leader of the Democratic Party, Obama has now nationalized the Ground Zero mosque issue and by his remarks guaranteed that Democratic candidates across the nation are going to be asked from now until Election Day whether they agree with the President’s endorsement of the mosque, which is strongly opposed by two-thirds of the nation. I wonder how many buried their head in their hands when they heard the news?

FINALLY: I’ve always tried to differentiate between Islam and Muslims, because not all Muslims agree with or want to practice the aggressive, illiberal, supremacist, and intolerant aspects of Islamic doctrine. And so I have to sympathize with those Muslims who must feel their legs have been kicked out from under them by the President’s divisive statement in support of what is, in effect, the effort to build a jihadist victory monument.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

EDIT: Fixed because I had mixed up the iftar meal with the Eid meal held at the end of Ramadan. Thanks to Helen in the ST comments section.

UPDATE: The President tries to walk-back his comments from last night. Good luck with that, bub.


Now I’m confused: Can Muslims be Islamophobic?

August 9, 2010

I mean, that’s the only explanation why two Muslims would call the mosque to be built just a few hundred feet from Ground Zero a provocation, and that every Muslim knows that’s what it is, isn’t it?

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it’s not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna”

And the Iranian Muslim-American woman who lost her mother when United 175 slammed into the South Tower, she must be an Islamophobe, too:

When I am asked about the people who murdered my mother, I try to hold back my anger. I try to have a more spiritual perspective. I tell myself that perhaps what happened was meant to happen — that it was my mother’s destiny to perish this way. I try to take solace in the notion that her death has forced a much-needed conversation and reevaluation of the role of religion in the Muslim community, of the duties and obligations that the faith imposes and of its impact on the non-Muslim world.

But a mosque near Ground Zero will not move this conversation forward. There were many mosques in the United States before Sept. 11; their mere existence did not bring cross-cultural understanding. The proposed center in New York may be heralded as a peace offering — may genuinely seek to focus on “promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture,” as its Web site declares — but I fear that over time, it will cultivate a fundamentalist version of the Muslim faith, embracing those who share such beliefs and hating those who do not.

The Sept. 11 attacks were the product of a hateful ideology that the perpetrators were willing to die for. They believed that all non-Muslims are infidels and that the duty of Muslims is to renounce them. I am not a theologian, but I know that the men who killed my mother carried this message in their hearts and minds. Obedient and dutiful soldiers, they marched toward their promised rewards in heaven with utter disregard for the value of the human beings they killed.

Liberal multiculturalists and “Big L” Libertarians tell us we’re being intolerant and somehow slighting the principles on which the US was founded when we say a mosque shouldn’t be built at Ground Zero, that it will only cause strife and be a symbol of victory for those Muslims who support the jihad against the West. They imply that we’re being bigoted, ignorant, and Islamophobic.

Yet when lifelong Muslims themselves say the same things, shouldn’t we listen?

LINKS: More from Hot Air.


Best response yet to the “Ground Zero mosque”

August 9, 2010

Of all the responses I’ve seen yet to the mosque slated to be built just yards from the ruins of the World Trade Center, Greg Gutfeld has come up with the best.

Build a bar next door. But not just any bar – a bar that caters to closeted gay Muslims:

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance.

Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.

Genius.


Ground Zero Mosque: should CBS have rejected this ad?

July 7, 2010

CBS has refused to air the following ad from the National Republican Trust, which I assume is a  Republican Party-affiliated group, opposing the construction of a large mosque just yards from Ground Zero, the site of the most devastating of the September 11th attacks. Before commenting further, I’ll let you watch it. Tito, roll tape!

It’s powerful and intense, no doubt. And anyone who’s followed this blog knows my feelings about Islam and the jihad against the West. And I do oppose building that mosque. But two questions remain.

Does this ad cross the line into religious prejudice and smear Muslims in general? No, I think it stays just this side of that. The message it conveys is true: there is a religiously-inspired war against us, that war is being fought in the name of Islam’s god and for the supremacy of Islam, and the massacre of 3,000 of us was launched by a Muslim group and carried out by Muslims for Allah’s sake:

Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

(Qur’an sura 9, verse 111)

It’s also true that a mosque is a symbol of conquest and the supremacy of Islam. To place one at Ground Zero would be interpreted inevitably in the Islamic world as a victory marker. So the ad is right to object for this reason, too.

The other question revolves around CBS’s right to refuse to carry it. Recalling what’s happened in the last few years when someone has “offended Islam” (riots against cartoons, the murder of a filmmaker, a professor getting his hands cut off for asking the wrong question), one can understand if the managers there are afraid of the reaction to this ad. And they are a publicly-traded private company and can freely choose which commercials to accept and which to reject. So I think Big Peace is wrong to characterize this as a “ban,” which implies censorship. The ad is free to run elsewhere, such as YouTube.

But I still wish they had accepted it, because this ad raises important issues for both New York City and the nation that should be freely discussed. I suspect its rejection was born largely of fear, and it is the resulting surrender of the right of free speech and the tacit acceptance of dhimmitude that makes CBS’ rejection wrong. The corporation has both a moral duty and a self-interest in the defense of that right, and it should change its mind and run the ad.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,846 other followers