Sunday, August 15, 2010

What's with the Ground Zero Mosque?

*******
*******
*******
Financial jihad at Ground Zero
Cordoba Initiative, Park 51 Project, Federal grant money
By Doug Hagmann
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Prepare to be righteously outraged.
As if it isn’t enough that slumlord and terrorist apologist Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his cadre of associates are rubbing salt in a still-gaping American wound through his plans to erect an iconic symbol of Islamic conquest in the shadows of the former World Trade Center, the Cordoba Initiative (as it was once known) is asking you, the American taxpayer, to subsidize it.
An application for a $5 million in federal grant money was reportedly
made on or about November 5, 2010 with the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) by Sharif El-Gamal, the developer of the Ground Zero mosque and Rauf associate.
The LMDC was formed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks by former Governor Pataki and former Mayor Giuliani to help plan the rebuilding and revitalization of Lower Manhattan. It is a joint State-City corporation governed by a 16-member Board of Directors, half appointed by the Governor of New York and half by the Mayor of New York.
They have yet to be awarded any funding by the LMDC as the confidential review process is still underway. Nonetheless, the mere
fact that El-Gamal and his associates applied for grant money is raising some eyebrows. Congressman Peter King (R-NY), the presumptive new chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee called it “absolutely disgraceful,” and added that “it goes entirely against the spirit of the fund” in an interview with Fox News. “It’s an affront to the memory of all those who were murdered on 9-11. There are so many worthwhile projects in lower Manhattan. This shows a gross insensitivity to the most fundamental feelings of New Yorkers and to those murdered on 9-11 it is a slap in the face that is a terrible insult.”
The grant application was submitted under the Lower Manhattan Community and Cultural Enhancement Program that is administered by the LMDC. That program was established “to provide up to a total of $17 million in grants through a competitive process to not-for-profit and government organizations engaged in cultural or community programs or projects.” The “Ground Zero mosque project is asking for nearly a third of the available money. Will they get it? Some of it? All of it? It’s indeed possible, according to the research and interviews I’ve conducted this week.
A source close to a member of the LMDC General Advisory Council confirmed that an application “was
submitted and met all of the criteria for consideration.” Additionally, “the applicants were extremely careful to structure the grant application to include the request for only the portion of the proposed structure that will not be used for religious activities.” This source stated that there is serious consideration being given to awarding at least some of the requested funds, although “there is some additional financial information needed from the applicants that has yet to be received.”
In addition to the LMDC grant money, the Cordoba Initiative is actively pursuing additional public funding.
As reported by Reuters in an article on August 27, 2010, a spokesman for New York City Comptroller John Liu said that the Islamic Center “could qualify for tax-free financing,” and that Liu “is willing to consider approving the public subsidy.” Rauf, El Gamal and the mosque’s backers are attempting to raise at least $70 million in tax-exempt debt to build the center.
Regardless of the funding sources, those of us who understand the Islamic playbook must not let the construction of this symbol of conquest happen. Not for our sake or the sake of our families and our future generations.
To courteously voice your concerns over the possible grant being awarded to the Cordoba Initiative (now referred to as the Park 51 Project), you might consider contacting the LMDC directly. Below is their contact information, along with a listing of the present board members.
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (212) 962-2300
Fax: (212) 962-2431 / 33
LMDC Board of Directors
Avi Schick, Chairman
John C. Whitehead, Founding Chairman
Lawrence T. Babbio, Jr.
Amanda M. Burden
Robert Douglass
Peter Davidson
Timothy Gilchrist
Robert M. Harding
Caswell Holloway
Thomas S. Johnson
Kate D. Levin
Robert K. Steel
Julie Menin
Kevin M. Rampe
William C. Rudin
Carl Weisbrod
John Zuccotti
*******
A Ground Zero Mosque is Demanded—But Can Islam Itself Learn Tolerance?
Muslim rage
By Kelly O'Connell
Sunday, September 12, 2010
”If the devil wants in, he’ll get in.”—Sons of Anarchy
Why do major religions react in radically different ways to similar stimulus? For example, why would desecration of one religion’s holy books bring mostly shrugs, whereas another religion threatens armed conflict when their guru is spoofed? It is part of the modern American myth to accept that “all religions teach the same thing, and lead to the same place.” This patent falsehood can be traced to Joseph Campbell and like minds who helped spread this brain-numbing disease of universalism. But what is the organic source of Muslim rage? This issue must be raised by Western politicians and officials as we are increasingly forced to adapt to Muslim communities, beliefs and practices.
It is unfair to ascribe unpleasant traits to an entire class of people that are shared by only part. But it would be suicidal for Americans to completely ignore the history and beliefs of a movement that is growing stronger, which has an explosive past, and that admittedly few understand. Of course to reduce all of Islam to anger and rage is a major error. But we must admit its adherents tend towards dramatic over-sensitivity to perceived slights. Yet, instead of making excuses for a trend that naturally saddens and makes us feel uncomfortable, we must accept Islam’s permanently aggrieved nature as a simple fact and then plan how to responsibly respond to future incidents. Along these lines, a few stories from the life of Mohammad will cast light upon the problem.
I. Multicultural Paradoxes
The recent threat by Florida pastor Terry Jones to burn copies of the Koran (aka Qur’an), versus imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s plan to build a Ground Zero mosque has produced an interesting study in contrasts. One cannot help but note the different standards used for the two situations. On the one hand, aggrieved Americans opposed to a Muslim religious center built on property cleared by Islamic terror have been advised to accept this as an act of good faith. But when a small-time pastor threatened to burn a copy of the Muslim holy book, Americans were again advised to be “sensitive” to the Muslim need to have their holy writ absolutely protected. Is this a contradiction, or an acceptable standard?
It is interesting that Islam has been essentially given the status of a “little brother” when it acts up, and concessions appear to be perpetually made on its behalf. But there is nothing amusing about Fatwas being called out on authors, or seeing massive public prayer demonstrations made in public streets, or any of the various violent attacks made on Western sites in the last few decades.
It is obvious for Islam to be treated as an equal and looked upon with respect that it must live up to modern standards of religious practice. But let’s being honest—Muslims in Western countries are not going to repatriate to the Saudi Peninsula, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc because they are criticized by their neighbors. And undoubtedly, truth be known, these expatriate Muslims live better, safer and more privileged lives than they did in their Muslim home states. Therefore, these Western Muslims ought to be given every encouragement to liberalize and separate off from the violent old creed. This means we consider taking the time and initiative to engage these newcomers in discussions about American history, our religious ideals, and the beauties of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
But what explains the curious Muslim impetus towards violent reactions to what they regard as acts of impiety? A brief study of the life of Mohammad provides some suggestions.
II. Studied Revenge or Unpleasant Coincidence?
A few incidents from the life of Muhammad give an unsettling premonition into the tenor of tolerance of Islam as a whole. Peerless historian of Islam Alfred Guillaume, in his book Islam, tells of an early interaction between Muhammad and the Jews which has proved an unfortunate template for the history of the two. Also, Martin Ling, master of Sufi history, uses the earliest sources to describe the story of how Muhammad responded to a woman and old man who poked fun of him through poems.
A. Acts of Muhammad
Jews:
After Muhammad heard the voice of Allah, and then began to preach to the pagans, Christians and Jews, he received much resistance against conversion. Driven from Mecca, he left on his Hijira, and came instruct the Jews elsewhere on his identity. Muhammad explained to them the fact he was the last prophet sent. When the Arab Jews realized he was not from the line of King David, nor even Jewish, as called for in Isaiah 9 regarding the Messiah, they apparently laughed in his face and scorned his claims as possibly the result of madness. Neither did the Jews throw in with his army. Muhammad never forgot or forgave this egregious act of impiety.
When Muhammad finally conquered Mecca he took all the remaining Jews of Medina, dug an enormous pit and began the grisly holy work of beheading 800 Jewish men in the public square. Apparently this took an entire day and long into the evening. Then the women were passed off to the Muslims as concubines while the children were sold off into slavery.
An Evil Old Man & Wretched Poetesses:
According to both Martin Lings in his Muhammad, His Life Based On The Earliest Sources, and Alfred Guillaume’s translation of from the Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq (The Life of Muhammad), the founder of Islam was tormented by a young woman from Mecca, Asma bint Marwan. She had been putting out poetry criticizing Muhammad when he asked, in exasperation, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” His follower Amayr b. Adiy al-Khatami went late at night to her house and ran a sword through her, having first pulled a suckling infant off her chest before the execution. When Muhammad heard of this brave feat the next day, he said, “You have helped God and His Apostle, O Umayr!”
A very aged man, Abu Afak—purportedly over 100 years old, was also executed for lampooning Muhammad through poetry. He was killed by Salem b. Omayr after Muhammad heard of his verse and exclaimed, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” Apparently, Asma Bint Marwan had heard of the old man’s execution which angered her into composing her own demeaning verses. Obviously, Muhammad did not accept criticism by poem.
B. Muslim Law & Tribalism: Lex Talionis
It would be impossible to overlook the strong element of Lex Talionis, or “An eye for an eye” justice at the root of the Koran. The composition of the Muslim law, or Shari’ah, is no mystery, according to unparalleled orientalist Joseph Schacht. He points out in his Introduction to Muslim Law that a strong element found within Shari’ah is tribal or pagan law. Some of the most savage aspects of the Shari’ah, including judicial amputations for theft, etc, which can be traced to this pagan code.
One of the signal elements of Shari’ah is the fact that there appears to be no spirit of Natural Law in this code, meaning that punishments meted out centuries ago cannot be updated regardless of the barbarity. An example is the stoning of women, or lashing of apostates. Because this law is presented as perfect, it is not changed since one cannot update perfection.
C. Koran
The Koran (Qur’an) itself also calls for what appears violent acts and lawless deeds. As opposed to listing all the violent surahs (chapters), linked is a site where the reader might peruse them and decide for themselves whether these are the godly sentiments. If so, then we must decide how to integrate them into our society.
As one author writes,
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
D. Arab Psychology
According to Raphael Patai, in his book The Arab Mind, there are certain hallmarks of Arab and Muslim thought. First, is a belief that emotions cannot be held always in check, and that it is perfectly understandable when great anger or grief is unleashed. The result is a tendency to be overly emotional and offer blind loyalty to their causes. The scholar of Muslim society, Sania Hamady, in Temperament and Character of the Arabs, describes this as a balance between the quick-temper versus a typical sense of fatalistic resignation. Such outbursts of temper will strike most often in crowds and quite frequently include utter disregard for personal safety.
Patai also describes the Muslim tendency to attack randomly all foreigners when one group is initially targeted, a characteristic Middle East expert Bernard Lewis, in The Jews of Islam, claims represents a warring against all unbelievers, writing it was “‘al-kufru millatun wahida’ ...ie the realm of the unbelievers is one nation.” Patai also claims there is a deep-felt need in the Arab psyche for personal revenge, as characterized by the blood-feud, described by the phrase “Dam butlab dam,” or “Blood demands blood.” In fact, Patai describes this as one of the chief historic attributes of the Arab people, being a propensity towards strife and conflict, and the carrying of long grudges.
E. Jihad
Obviously, the doctrine of jihad is enormously controversial, but a few general remarks are apropos. First, it has been claimed, ad nauseam, that… “Islam is a religion of peace.” What exactly this sentiment would mean to an Arab from the classical period (Ayyam al-Arab, aka the Days of the Arabs) would be hard to fathom. But we can at least note that ancient Arabia boasted a warrior ethos which other antiquated societies, like ancient Greece, also claimed. There was no “pacifist movement” in the ancient world, and any person suggesting such would have found themselves excluded very quickly from the protective environs of the tribe. As Michael Bonner writes in Jihad In Islamic History, Doctrines & Practice, “Islam arose in an environment where warfare—or at any rate, armed violence with some kind of organization and planning—was characteristic of everyday life.“And Islam, having never had a Reformation, still carries the warrior mentality in its ethos to this day.
Second, and perhaps even more important, there was never a debate in ancient Islam about the “Just War” as developed by Saint Augustine, according to Bonner. The reason for this is quite easy to explain. Muslims followed Muhammad’s theory of God, not Christ’s. Islam does not value the notion of “turning the other cheek,” as Jesus taught. Instead, this society was seen as bathed in blood from ceaseless strife, struggle and warfare. A dichotomy was presented: There is a House of Peace (or Allah) and a House of War. All unbelievers live in the House of War, and therefore the House of God can attack the unbelievers at any time, justly. Therefore, a Muslim “Just War” has always been one which pitted Muslims against unbelievers.
III. 9/11 Mosques & Burnt Korans
What is more objectionable—building a Muslim outreach center where Muslim terrorists killed 3,000 Americans, or torching a copy of the Koran? Perhaps the question has no definitive answer, being a case of apples versus oranges. Instead, the query simply highlights the irony of the different responses of the two religions. While America is struggling to come to terms with what “tolerance” looks like for an ancient, violent creed we do not understand. Meanwhile, it seems the entire Muslim world is poised to leap into action at the slightest provocation, or the tiniest spark, as it were.
America’s way has always been based upon various Christian theories of government and religious tolerance, since our founding. This raises an interesting question: Given the claim by both Christianity and Islam of having the last prophetic voice of mankind—can anyone imagine Jesus having 800 Pharisees or Sadducee Jews put to death for refusing to accept His religious claims? Further, is it even conceivable that Christ would have had an old man or pregnant woman with suckling babe on chest—slaughtered for writing insulting poems? Perhaps it is therefore time we ask American Muslims to filter their ideas about God and Muhammad through the lens of Jesus, who died nobly for others instead of killing for his reputation or beliefs, and yet whose Spirit lives in America. After all, good Muslims say they believe in Jesus.
IV. Conclusion
Aristotle writes about the “telos” which is the direction in which a thing naturally moves. Could it be that Islam’s natural telos ~ at this point in time~ still moves towards the primitive and savage, being fixated on anger, revenge, over-reaction, and violence? If so, this still does not mean all Muslims tend towards violence, or that Islam cannot evolve. After all, isn’t it time Islam finally had its Reformation? Protestantism occurred about 1,500 years after Christ. Today it has been about 1,500 years since Muhammad preached. So the timing couldn’t be any better to turn over a new leaf, put aside violence, and embrace religious tolerance and civil society.
Until Islam does have a genuine Reformation, and gives up physical attacks, sexism, and primitive punishments, the majority of Americans will have mixed feelings about the religion. Until then, can we perhaps find some “failsafe” (“Fail-safe describes a feature which, in the event of failure, responds in a way that will cause no harm, or at least a minimum of harm…”) way to keep a handle Islam’s surfeit of anger and violence? And what might a “Failsafe Islam” look like? One which is kept in check by legal and ethical guidelines, those acceptable for America’s traditions and rights based theory of the Good Life. Hopefully, time will tell soon enough.
*******
Fox sends out ambush squad to talk to NYC mosque investors -- but doesn't mention key Fox investor
By David Neiwert
August 27, 2010
video
*******
One of Fox News' affiliates, WNYW, sent out a reporter named Charles Leaf to conduct an "investigation" of the "money trail" in the patented Fox Ambush Squad style, and yesterday the results ran a couple of times on Fox itself: First Megyn Kelly carried it on her morning "news" show, then Laura Ingraham featured it on The O'Reilly Factor, including an interview with Leaf, who tried to pretend that what he was doing was real journalism.
What's peculiar about this report is that it zeroes in on a few minor functionaries in the financial chain behind the construction of the mosque -- loan guarantors and the like. Leaf invades their homes, follows them into foyers, and tries to run after them in parking lots. All this, ostensibly, to follow the "money trail" behind the mosque.
Of course, they somehow neglected to try talking to one of the imam's more generous backers -- Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. Maybe that's because Talal is the No. 2 shareholder in Fox News.
Indeed, as none other than Rupert Murdoch's New York Post reported last May, the Kingdom Foundation, al-Waleed's personal charity, has donated a total of $305,000 to Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, a leadership and networking project sponsored jointly by two of Rauf's organizations, the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative. Al-Waleed owns a 7 percent, $2.3 billion stake in News Corporation. Likewise, News Corporation owns a 9 percent, $70 million stake — purchased in February — in Rotana, Al-Waleed's Saudi media conglomerate. Put another way: Rupert Murdoch and Fox News are in business, to the tune of billions of dollars, with one of the "Terror Mosque Imam's" principal patrons.
It's bad enough that they sicced their camera crews on a bunch of unsuspecting bankers, accountants and real-estate developers who are, unsurprisingly, not willing to have their lives destroyed by a scandal-mongering bunch of fake journalists on a witch hunt. But the pernicious part of this kind of reportage is the way that it implies guilt -- for some unnamed misdeed -- simply in the refusal to go on-camera.
*******
Erection of a Muslim Mosque at Ground Zero is an Insult to All Americans
My View: Barack Hussein Obama is the biggest enemy we have in this country
By Jerry McConnell Saturday, August 21, 2010
Since the very first mention of the erection of a Muslim Mosque almost on top of the ground desecrated by Muslims in an attack to destroy Amerrica’s financial capabilities by fire-bombing the World Trade Center’s two skyscraper buildings, Obama and his favorite people on earth, the Muslims, have been lying about their plans for the new edifice.
These people have gotten accustomed to good, honest and hard-working Americans bending over backwards to accommodate their repulsive and insanely demanding dictates on how WE should behave toward THEM in OUR country.
Since Barack Hussein Obama usurped our presidency by failing to provide LEGITIMATE proof of his “natural born residency” the Islamic faith followers have considered America to be THEIR country. Obama has practically said so in many instances, particularly in speeches given in foreign countries alluding to “America being a Muslim country and not Christian.”
I don’t know about you, but I have had it up to here with this sort of balderdash and outright lies coming from the man who is pretending to be our leader. He is not a leader; he is a follower; a follower of a foreign religious faith that has as its primary goal the total destruction of the United States of America.
Barack Hussein Obama is the biggest enemy we have in this country. And he is slowly and deceitfully building an army of Muslim followers who will one day swoop down on us and try to physically destroy us and what we have held dear for over 234 years.
The sad part of this whole scenario is the fact that millions, yes I said millions, of deluded American citizens think that Obama is actually good for this country. He still polls about FORTY percent of our people as believing he is doing a good job as president. Where are their brains? These gullible fools will be rudely awakened one day to the truth; but it will be too late at that point to save them and us.
One Internet site, “ExposeObama.com” published by Floyd Brown constantly provides information about the failings and frailties of this man who poses as our leader. Brown provides facts to back his claims of Obama’s anti-American actions along with his love of the Muslim faith. He has irrefutable proof of Obama canceling an American tradition called ‘National Day of Prayer’ where the President takes the lead in gathering the citizens nationwide to pray for our country in whatever faith one happens to be.
At the same time of this cancellation, Obama graciously hosted a dinner in OUR Christian White House for the Muslim religious occasion of Ramadan. And, as Floyd Brown reports, “with cameras rolling, (he) gave his enthusiastic support to the construction of a Ground Zero Victory Mosque: He didn’t simply endorse it. he went out of his way to endorse it.”
Brown further explained that Obama used the 1st Amendment to the Constitution to cover himself by saying that “Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone. else including 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.”
Brown also insists that Obama’s use of the 1st Amendment was a cover to let the rest of the world and our enemies that he supports the Mosque, but the American people would be too stupid to realize what he was doing by wrapping his endorsement in the 1st Amendment.
But as Obama has done time and time again, over and over, he has, as Brown would say, “grossly underestimated the intelligence of the American people.”
Brown was right, from what I have observed only the Obama suck-ups and alibiers have bought into his story on acceptance of the Mosque. The well informed public can see that Obama is favoring his Muslim friends and co-believers over the grief-stricken survivors of the men and women who were killed by Muslims on September 22, 2001.
In his article, Brown quotes Bobby Eberle of ‘GOPUSA’ saying, “It’s almost as if he goes out of his way to put America last. ... he is too spineless to admit to the American people that, yes, he supports the construction of a Muslim mosque in the shadow of the location where nearly 3,000 innocent Americans died at the hands of Islamic terrorists.”
Millions of Americans have spoken out against the placement of this building that will be a permanent thumbing of the nose to the survivors of the victims of this Muslim atrocity and almost as if it were a gigantic placement at Ground Zero that loudly proclaims a victory over the infidel Christians of America on that spot.
Only fools can see it any other way.
*******
Are those who want a mosque at Ground Zero, Ameriphobes?
Let’s look at problems with Islam coming to America on these four basic levels, historical, theological, social and practical
By Rev. Michael Bresciani
Saturday, August 21, 2010
It is hard to believe that liberal politicians and some media are saying that those who oppose the mosque at Ground Zero are using the issue to divert attention away from real issues like the economy. They have labeled the naysayers as Islamophobes: a term that has less meaning today than ever before. Here’s why.
*******
*******
The vast amount of American blood spilled at Ground Zero is not something that can ever be reduced to an “issue” or a “diversion.” To suggest that, indicates that something has been lost in the realm of honor, respect and love for our countrymen. Have we come to that? According to most polls across the nation we have not. Politicians and media have not yet supplanted the will and voice of the people, just yet.
President Obama’s recent, although altogether completely new concern for the constitution is what is being cited for wanting to be fair to Muslims in his tacit endorsement for building a mosque near Ground Zero. What is the meaning of this sudden urgency to show America’s fairness to the world?
We know that trying to build a new Christian church in Iraq is out of the question because the older Coptic and Eastern Orthodox Churches there are under heavy persecution, even as Christians have been fleeing that country for well over two years. We also know the same persecution exists in dozens of Islamically controlled countries. Any attempt to build a Christian church in Mecca would not just fail, but would cost the lives of those who thought it possible if they were insistent about it.
Many years past as a young man, I attempted to assuage a denominational church to change to a non-denominational status. They did not take well to my idea and just when I thought I would lambaste them for their implacability I was rebuked and stayed by a scripture verse that I have no doubt that the Lord led me to. In Lamentations 3:36 the bible says “To subvert a man in his cause, the Lord approveth not.” The folks who attended that church were in full agreement with those who had years before founded the fellowship. It was meant to be a denomination and that is how they wanted it to continue. I backed off.
It is clear to anyone who hasn’t been mislead by the Johnny come lately socialistically bent textbooks used in our system of education that, our founding fathers were nearly all Christian and they pulled the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from the principles and teachings of the Bible. No amount of historical wrangling can extricate these well known truths from America’s history or her psyche. But alas, some keep trying.
It would seem as we all hang loose to see what “Change we can believe in” as given to us by Mr. Obama is going to look like, we must also let him know that changing our foundational underpinnings will not ever be a “change we can believe in.” Does this President not know that when you knock out the very foundations on which we stand you are left hanging in mid air from absolutely nothing? In any language known to man this is what always precedes the fall of a nation.
But what is it about Islam that America should be looking at, what makes it seem so attractive to our President and a few others so much so that, they want to build mosques in every city and in the very same place where over 3,000 people, mostly Americans, met with an untimely and cruel death at the hands of Muslim extremists.
We can analyze the problem on at least four separate levels in order to get what may seem only a cursory explanation but, if pondered carefully, will be seen as the only explanation necessary. Let’s look at problems with Islam coming to America on these four basic levels, historical, theological, social and practical.
Historical:
America could not understand why author Salman Rushdie was marked for assassination by Muslim Clerics for publishing his “Satanic Verses.” That was a long time ago and since then America and the rest of the western world has had ample time to study, research and ponder the beginnings of Islam and its place in the world. It is because of this, that it is now known that Muhammad was indeed the first person to cast aspersions on the religion that he was responsible for introducing.
It takes no history major to discover that he was doubtful about the origins of his revelations and at times admitted that it may have been inspired by the devil or a dark spirit of deception. If he doubted wouldn’t we also do well to doubt? We have something to bolster our doubt that Muhammad had no chance to see.
We have centuries of the history of Islam available to us today. It is a bloody history that eventually came to our front door on September 11, 2001, since that happened we have seen some of the best minds in our nation applying themselves to discover every aspect of the Islamic tradition, right down to the nuts and bolts. What they have learned has done nothing to quiet our doubts and fears.
Theological:
The acceptance of any new trend in the world is often based only on its popularity. An entire body of people emerges when enough people are involved in the new thing and we call that the pop-culture. Unfortunately, we have let this weakest of all forms of reasoning (popular trends) became the mark for religions, ancient or nascent, to be accepted or rejected. If it lasts and if enough people are caught in the sway of it, then it may become what is known as one of the “great world religions.”
The popularity of ideologies, religions or other social behaviors is not really what gives them any lasting credence. Like anything else it is the fruit or the long range outcome of a thing that ultimately determines its real value.
Jim Jones’s religion was popular for a while. Communism was popular for a while. The “Twist” was popular for a while. All of these produced a lot of death and some aching backs but they were soon to expire.
Not only has Christianity survived and flourished for over two thousand years but the fruit of it has survived along with it. What fruit? A partial list would include; millions of renewed lives, equality for women, the end of slavery, and America itself. That’s a pretty impressive list and it is the fruit that establishes the source as much as the obvious better foundation offered by its source.
Islam concludes that the problem with the world is that it has the wrong god; we are all missing something theologically, that, they cannot accept. Christianity says nay, but the problem with the world is singular and universal. The problem is sin. All men sin and are in need of a Savior.
According to God the reason we shouldn’t get involved with the worship of other gods is because they are simply nonexistent.(De 32:39) There is no choosing between their god and our God because there is only one God and he has provided a revelation of himself not dependent on men or the visions of some prophet. He entered history in the fullness of time and dealt with sin and man’s misguided notion that there are just dozens of ways to get to God.
Christ had no uncertainty about his mission, “…for this cause came I into the world.” (Jn 18:37) He never doubted the source of his revelation “…I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” (Jn 8:28b) He never doubted that he was the only way to directly reach God, “…I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (Jn 14:6) Finally, he never doubted that pseudo saviors and false religions would creep into the world and in some cases become what are now referred to as “great religions.” And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” (Mt. 24:11)
I could be charged with repeating this saying all too many times but for the few who may have missed it “Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Satan must stop short at the door of anything marked as a religion.” The god of this world (Satan) uses religion more than all other temptations and diversions combined to lure men away from their own salvation.
In fact Christ did not enter the world to create a new religion, he came only to provide men with salvation by dealing with their sins and thereby giving them something that is not too important in other religions, which is simply, life. “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” (Jn 10:10)
Dealing with the theology of Islam would not be complete without looking at the way Christ brought salvation to the world versus the Muslim idea of salvation In Islam, only the promulgation of the Muslim religion can bring the world to salvation. Unfortunately the Koran has clearly spelled out to the Muslims that they have a perfect right to hate and destroy those who won’t receive their message.
The advancement of Islam is predicated on the shedding of other people’s blood while in Christianity salvation is supplied only by the shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross. Advances in Christianity are accomplished through the preaching of the gospel but no one can be forced to receive it, they must come to it on their own or not at all.
The capstone of Christ’s life and ministry has always been his final act. We call it the resurrection from the dead. Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin Jim Jones, and yes, even Muhammad are still only dead. Christ never asked us to put our faith in a nonexistent god or a dead prophet or savior as he himself said “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” (Mt 22:32)
Socially:
It is no secret that the social system that is spawned by Islam is a seventh century draconian dinosaur that creates a living hell for women. They are held as second class citizens who can be stoned to death for minor infractions. They must be clothed in a Burqa in some Islamic countries for their entire lives. Will America’s 150 million women submit to this, ever?
If a woman is raped in Muslim nations she will be put to death if she cannot find four male witnesses to the crime. This goes beyond cruel on to the level of pure insanity, is this kind of treatment what we want for our women in the USA? Children are stoned and have their hands cut off for simple theft. How American does that sound? Socially speaking most of what Islam practices everyday in Muslim countries would be a complete disaster to the social structure of this nation.
Practical:
We hear a lot about the many Muslims in this nation who are said to be moderates. We have also seen what happens when they step over the line to become radical as in the Fort Hood massacre where after years of living as a moderate, Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan decided to take his Muslim beliefs more seriously and kill others on the Fort Hood complex. That any Muslim can suddenly change on a whim into a dangerous radical makes it anything but a practical religion.
In Erie County New York a TV station owner killed and beheaded his wife in an honor killing. He started a TV station with the intention of bridging the cultural gap between Americans and Muslims. What possessed him to suddenly become a radical Muslim is of the same nature as what may have sparked the same in Maj. Nidal Hasan. Whether whim or fancy, it is that short distance across the line from moderate religious practitioner to crazed radical murderer that worries us the most about the so called “moderate Muslims.”
Behavior that is shaped and guided by Sharia law may be acceptable in Muslim countries but in America most of us are satisfied to go with the Constitution. Those who are guided by the Bible have no call to become violent for any reason. If someone else does not accept our faith the most we can do is pray for them and continue to be the best example of Christ likeness we can. This is more civil, more humanitarian and certainly much safer.
So what are the practical aspects of Islam for America? I must admit that after study and careful consideration of the history, the derivation and the practice of Islam I could not find any.
*******
*******
Obama Akbar
Obama himself created the problem, by being vague and misleading, Muslim, Christian, Ground Zero
By Daniel Greenfield
Saturday, August 21, 2010
The media is all worked up over a poll that shows the majority of Americans don’t think Obama is a Christians and nearly a 1/4 of Americans think that Obama is a Muslim. Naturally the “mainstream” conservative blogs are embarrassed by these results. Politico is calling it a new Birtherism. Left unasked is the question of why people might think that.
There’s Obama own statements on the topic in which he emphasized his family connections to Islam. This is what he said in Turkey;
Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country – I know, because I am one of them.
This is what he said later in Cairo;
“Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk.”
This time Obama included the mention that he is a Christian, but his emphasis was still on Islam.
There was Obama saying in an interview that he had a basically Muslim childhood…
“I was a little Jakarta street kid,” he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office. He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics—and more likely to be aware of their nationalism—if he once studied the Koran with them.
Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”
There Obama was also documented as attending a mosque and his religion was listed as Islam.
In short, Obama’s family on his father’s side is Muslim. He grew up with a Muslim stepfather in a Muslim country. Then he went to Trinity Church and found a mentor there in the form of Jeremiah Wright. Wright was a former Black Muslim, his sermons still sound more Muslim than Christian, with their rantings about America, and obvious bigotry. Obama’s church was Muslim influenced, which may have attracted him to it and to Wright.
Take all this together, and it’s not too surprising why some people would have the perception that Obama is Muslim, in part or in whole.
The media would like to pretend that this is a smear and bigoted. Some of the “mainstream” conservative blogs would like to pretend it’s stupid and contemptible. But Obama himself created the problem, by being vague and misleading. When speaking to Americans, he emphasized his Christianity. When speaking to Muslims, he emphasized Islam. Both sets of audiences could be forgiven for thinking that Obama was feeding them an identity that they would find more compatible.
Obama tried to use his Muslim background to booster his foreign policy credibility to the likes of Kristoff. But as it turned out, he’s actually quite bad at the foreign policy thing, and his invocation of a Muslim background only came back to bite him in the #####. When the man himself variously emphasized and deemphasized his Muslim ties when politically convenient, it’s not surprising that he has spawned some confusion in that regard.
Then there’s Obama’s own middle name, Hussein, which generally references Hussein Ibn Ali, Mohammed’s grandson and a revered figure within Islam. Obama was given that name supposedly in honor of his own Muslim grandfather.
With all this litany of available material, it’s not too surprising that many people think that Obama might be a Muslim. Or aren’t sure what he is.
Let’s take a look at John Kerry for a moment. Kerry did have a Jewish grandfather, but few people thought that Kerry himself was Jewish. On the other hand quite a number of people thought that Barry Goldwater was Jewish. Both Kerry and Goldwater had Jews in their paternal line, neither were Jewish themselves. Goldwater however had a vaguely Jewish sounding last name, Kerry doesn’t.
However if Kerry’s middle name was Shlomo, and he spent a whole lot of time discussing a childhood in Israel and his affinity for Judaism—people would hardly be blamed for thinking that he might be Jewish. That isn’t bigotry, it’s reality.
By labeling the perception that Obama is a Muslim, a “smear”, the media is implicitly suggesting that to be thought a Muslim is a bad thing. Yet isn’t that exactly the kind of bigotry, the press takes great care to condemn?
If Obama being a Muslim is as value neutral as him liking Chinese food, then why get all hysterical over the perception? A perception that Obama himself has fed by repeatedly mentioning his ties to Islam. When some thought that Goldwater was Jewish, the media did not launch into a crazed frenzy of accusations about bigotry. Goldwater himself simply stated that he was not Jewish. His campaign did not label such claims, a smear. Nor did Goldwater feel the need to assure everyone that he prays in a church every day.
What Obama is experiencing is more akin to what George Allen experienced, (that was a case where the media overtly used a Jewish background as a smear against a Republican), and Obama’s situation, like Allen’s, is of his own making. Obama, like Allen, hides his background. Unlike Allen, Obama also displays it selectively when it’s convenient. That leads to a schizophrenic approach that leaves people confused.
For example, the media insists that using Obama’s middle name is an act of bigotry. Obama doesn’t use it himself and dropped it. Yet when Obama gives a speech in a Muslim country, he uses Hussein. This sends a completely schizophrenic message, that his middle name is a bad thing in America, but a good one in the Muslim world.
It’s no wonder that this kind of thing causes people to wonder just who and what Obama really is. Because if Obama himself seems a tad ambiguous on the subject, what conclusions can the public be expected to draw?
Finally as to the question of is Obama a Muslim? In Muslim eyes he might well be, since he recited the Shahada and still remembers it by heart. That declaration is what it takes to become a Muslim. Under Muslim rule, Jews were convicted of heresy and executed, on the mere accusation by a Muslim that they had recited it.
Here for example is the case of a Jewish girl from 1853
c. 1853: E.L. MITFORD from “Appeal in Behalf of the Jewish Nation”
“I will narrate a case which took place at Tangier, and with which I was, therefore, well acquainted. The individual sufferer was an interesting Jewess, of respectable family, residing at Tangier; and much is it to be regretted that our Consul-General had not influence—or, if he did possess any, that he did not exert it—to avert the horrid catastrophe.
This young creature was summoned before the Cadi, by two Moors, who deposed to her having pronounced their confession of faith. This, however, she utterly denied, but in vain; and the Cadi had no alternative, even had he possessed the inclination, but to decree her conformity to Islamism, on pain of death. I was never able to obtain correct information as to whether the witnesses were actuated by sinister motives, or whether the poor girl really did repeat the fatal words in jest. There is, doubtless, much friendly intercourse between the Jews and the better-disposed Moors, in which gossip and jesting are sometimes carried beyond the verge of safety…
The Jews came forward with offers of immense sums of money to save her, but her fate was irrevocably decided, and the only mercy the baffled tyrant could afford his young and innocent victim, was to allow of her being decapitated, instead of being burnt alive. I had an account of the closing scene from an eyewitness, who was one of the guards at the execution—and although, as a body, there is nowhere a more dissolute set of irregular soldiery than the Morocco Moors, yet he confessed to me that many of his vice-hardened companions could not restrain their tears, and that he himself could not look with dry eyes on a sight of such cold-blooded atrocity.
This beautiful young creature was led out to where a pile ready for firing had been raised for her last couch, her long, dark hair flowing disheveled over her shoulders, she looked around in vain for a heart and hand that could succor, though so many eyes pitied her; for the last time she was offered—with the executioner and the pyre in all their terror before her—her life, on condition of being false to her G-d; she only asked for a few minutes for prayer, after which her throat was cut by the executioner, according the barbarous custom of the country, and her body consumed on the fire.”
The mere supposed utterance of those words that Obama describes as the most beautiful sound on earth, was enough to doom her to a horrible death. Under Islamic law. (This while in the United States, freedom of conscience had long ago been enshrined into law.)
So from a Muslim perspective, Obama is either a Muslim or a heretic. And heresy carries a high price.
But what does Obama himself think? I doubt very much that Obama has a hidden prayer rug he takes out several times a day. I don’t think that Obama is either Muslim or Christian in the religious sense.
However culturally, Obama is more Muslim than he is Christian. Because religion is also culture. And growing up in a religion, shapes you culturally, not just spiritually. Had Obama grown up a Catholic or a Buddhist, he would undeniably see the world somewhat differently than he does today. I doubt that Obama himself would deny that. Indeed Obama has repeatedly boasted about his cultural exposure. But cultural exposure works both ways.
You do not just look out at a culture, you are also shaped by it. As Obama has been. So while Obama is not a Muslim, he has been influenced culturally by the Muslim world. That is what he tried to bill as an asset. And it is part of why his statements to Americans feel off, and why some Americans question where his allegiance lies. The media can choose to call this bigotry, but had the President of the United States during WW2, been raised in Germany, Japan or Russia—similar questions would have been asked. And such questions are not unreasonable in a time of war.
Obama’s doubletalk and the media’s paranoid reaction of shrieking that everyone is a bigot has done the rest, feeding the perception that there is a cover-up. And that can be laid at the door of Obama and his own media backers.
The media meanwhile is sticking to its narrative on the Ground Zero Mosque. AP has issued a political style guide to insure a properly politically correct description of the mosque. Frank Gaffney at BigPeace fact checks them.
Interestingly, among those who formerly used the now-proscribed descriptor “Ground Zero mosque” is none other than Feisal Abdul Rauf, its imam and chief promoter. He called it that even though the proposed venue has always been two blocks away from the World Trade Center site.
Perhaps Rauf used this moniker because his planned location for the mosque was part of the real estate attacked and damaged on 9/11 – the home of the Burlington Coat Factory until it was struck by a landing gear from a plane that struck one of the Twin Towers. Perhaps he used that term to brand his “Cordoba House” because body parts from the victims of those attacks have been found all over Lower Manhattan, including the old Burlington factory area, making it part of the hallowed ground.
Or perhaps, Imam Rauf called his project the Ground Zero mosque because he wanted to associate his 15-story, $100 million complex as closely as possible to the location where nearly 3,000 Americans and other innocent people – precisely because they were murdered there by people who wanted, as he does, to “bring shariah to America.”
The last explanation would certainly conform to the triumphalist past practice of adherents to shariah, the barbaric, totalitarian political program that masquerades as a religion. Indeed, there is a tradition of constructing mosques at the site of previous Islamic conquests for example in Jerusalem, Istanbul and Cordoba, Spain. (See http://www.NoMosqueAtGroundZero.com). Yes, it was for Cordoba – where a Catholic church was converted into the world’s third largest mosque by the Moorish conquerors of Spain – that Rauf wanted initially to name his Ground Zero mosque.
And while the media tries to practice its “art of silencing”, construction workers are saying they will refuse to work on this project.
A growing number of New York construction workers are vowing not to work on the mosque planned near Ground Zero.
“It’s a very touchy thing because they want to do this on sacred ground,” said Dave Kaiser, 38, a blaster who is working to rebuild the World Trade Center site.
“I wouldn’t work there, especially after I found out about what the imam said about U.S. policy being responsible for 9/11,” Kaiser said.
The grass-roots movement is gaining momentum on the Internet. One construction worker created the “Hard Hat Pledge” on his blog and asked others to vow not to work on the project if it stays on Park Place.
“Thousands of people are signing up from all over the country,” said creator Andy Sullivan, a construction worker from Brooklyn. “People who sell glass, steel, lumber, insurance. They are all refusing to do work if they build there.”
“Hopefully, this will be a tool to get them to move it,” he said. “I got a problem with this ostentatious building looming over Ground Zero.”
But I’m sure the AP executives over in midtown Manhattan have a much better grasp of the mosque’s location than the construction workers who are right on the spot.
Meanwhile the overall media narrative is that everyone who thinks the mosque is in poor taste is a crazed bigot. Of course neither the media, nor Keith “First they came for the Communists” Olbermann have anything to say about genuine horrors and atrocities like this.
On July 22, a group of madrassa (Islamic school) students gang-raped a 12-year-old Christian girl in Gujar Khan, Rawalpindi district. A teacher who reportedly witnessed the rape stated:
“Three or four Christian girls were washing dishes near a pond…. These guys ran towards them, and the girls started running. One of them fell on the ground, and these madrassa students got hold of her and took her in the fields. I tried to stop them, but they were 15-16 in number.”
But no instead we have the media getting outraged because people are offended by a mosque near the place where Muslims murdered 3000 people in the name of Islam. Or a Disney employee who wants to wear a Hijab. Or a pig’s head left outside of a mosque. The Telegraph actually calls this incident “a serious racist attack”.
Personally I don’t consider an act in which no one was injured and which there wasn’t even any property damage to be a serious attack. On the other hand murders, rapes and synagogue burnings seem like actual “serious racist attacks”.
Meanwhile Rauf himself has been tied to what even a dishonest press should admit is “extremism”
Now Feisal Abdul Rauf seeks to follow in his father’s footsteps with the Park 51 project—the so-called Ground Zero mosque—and appears to be following the course set by his father,
The younger Rauf has said he plans to get the $100 million he needs from Islamic nations.
The elder Rauf, who taught in Cairo and Kuwaiti universities before migrating to New York City in 1965, wasn’t satisfied with converted storefronts and assembly halls that Muslims had been using.
With $1.3 million in Kuwaiti, Saudi and Libyan cash, he purchased apartment buildings on the corner of Third Avenue and East 96th Street.
For the next 20 years, the elder Rauf, who died in 2004 at age 87, compiled building permits from the city, reached out to public officials—and, finding local donations anemic, he toured the Islamic world to secure funding.
Ultimately, money poured in from individuals and governments in 46 nations.
The project, however, was still beset by controversy. Governments of the various donor countries vied for influence, and architect Aly Dadras was fired, allegedly because he hired a Jewish-owned firm as a technical consultant, according to news reports.
In October 2001, the mosque’s imam, Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, blamed the 9/11 attacks on Jews. He then immediately resigned and returned to his native Egypt.
The next month, his replacement, Imam Omar Saleem Abu-Namous, said he needed proof that Islamic extremists were behind the attack.
Sounds familiar doesn’t it. A real estate buying spree in Manhattan funded by terrorist supporting regimes leads to a hatefilled mosque. Like father, like son.
And Jack Kemp reminds us how tolerant some of the signage on Manhattan mosques can get.
Anyone really want this near Ground Zero?
But speaking of Islamist takeovers of other people’s holy sites by attempting to build mosques on them, both of Israel’s Chief Rabbis have issued a call to rebuild Joseph’s Tomb, which was taken over by Muslims.
In the early days of the al-Aqsa Intifada, on the morning of October 7, 2000, Israel withdrew the small contingent of IDF border policemen who had been guarding the site of the Tomb of the Patriarch Joseph and its Yeshiva. The holy site was located in Shechem in Samaria, the town the Arabs call “Nablus”. Over the preceding days, the Tomb had been attacked with gunfire, stones, and firebombs. The IDF defenders in the compound withstood the attacks and stopped several attempts by armed Palestinians to break in. An IDF border policemen was wounded, and the heavy rioting prevented his evacuation for treatment in time to save his life.
In order to prevent further loss of life and to lower tensions in the area, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak authorized the temporary evacuation of the site, based on the agreement of the Palestinian Authority (PA) to safeguard the location, in accordance with their obligations under the Oslo Accords to protect holy sites, Jewish and Christian, and ensure access by all. The PA also pledged to prevent any vandalism and to return the Tomb to its original state after the violence settled down.
The PA pledge was brazenly violated about two hours after the Israeli evacuation, when a Palestinian Arab mob entered the Tomb compound and began to systematically destroy everything in sight, including all remnants of the Yeshiva. The furniture and books that were left behind were burned by the mob. The Palestinian police stood by, failing to prevent any of these violent activities, despite their commitment to guard the Tomb. Within hours, Joseph’s Tomb was reduced to a smoldering heap of rubble. Within two days, as an Associated Press dispatch reported, “the dome of the tomb was painted green and bulldozers were seen clearing the surrounding area,” as the Palestinian Arabs sought to transform the biblical Joseph’s resting place into a Moslem holy site.
Israel’s withdrawal from the site was later understood as a grave strategic error. It marked the first time that the IDF had withdrawn under fire, surrendering territory to Palestinian Arab violence. Coming barely a week after the start of the al-Aqsa Intifada, the retreat from Joseph’s Tomb sent a dangerous signal to Yasser Arafat, confirming that violence would force Israel to capitulate.
And now….
Chief Rabbis Shlomo Amar and Yona Metzger issued a joint call Thursday to rebuild Joseph’s Tomb (Kever Yosef) in Samaria. The tomb, which contains the remains of the Biblical Joseph, has been seriously damaged by Palestinian Authority vandals.
Except the agreement requires PA consent and so the site remains held hostage. Naturally the media will not be reporting on this.
In other good news, Putin will be sending 50 armored vehicles to the PA. Because just giving Iran nukes isn’t enough…
Sheik Yermani at Winds of Jihad notes that the 100 million dollar cost of the mosque could sure pay for a lot of flood relief in Pakistan. But of course as usual it’s the gullible infidels who will pick up the tab, for a country where 59 percent of the population thinks we’re the enemy, while they finance mosques near Ground Zero.
A recent July poll conducted by the Pew Research Center Global Attitudes Project showed that 17 percent of Pakistanis held a favorable opinion of the United States, with 59 percent actually describing the United States as an “enemy.”
******* 
Report of Investigation Park 51
What do “global warming,” “global governance” and “sustainable development” have to do with the proposed Ground Zero mosque
By Doug Hagmann
Saturday, August 21, 2010
What do “global warming,” “global governance” and “sustainable development” have to do with the proposed “Ground Zero mosque?” One would think absolutely nothing; however investigation into the money, organizations and people behind the project has uncovered some revealing and disturbing connections. An extensive analysis of these findings provides the missing insight into the larger agenda, motives and modus operandi associated with what is now known as the Park51project. It also reveals the reasons behind the persistence of the insipid and insulting project and why it remains viable in the face of such visceral opposition.
Those who oppose the construction of an Islamic center in close proximity to Ground Zero are legitimately upset by the hubris of Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf and his associates, and his lack of class and sensitivity exhibited by their insistence to continue forward despite the plaintive objections of those most affected and victimized by the terrorist attacks. Some in opposition appear perplexed that the individuals behind the project have not relented or even acquiesced to open dialogue about moving the Islamic center due to the volatility created by the project. To date, overtures made by the governor of New York as well as members of the clergy have been quietly rebuffed by the people behind the project. If building bridges and fostering goodwill is, in fact, their objective, it is reasonable to question their reluctance and outright refusal to mitigate any ill will by reconsidering the location of the Islamic center. For the purpose of a comprehensive investigation, it is not only reasonable, it is imperative.
Opposition to the Islamic center to date has been limited to information that is known or has been most easily uncovered about Imam Abdul-Rauf and the Cordoba Initiative. That Abdul-Rauf has suggested that the 9/11 attacks were a result of American foreign policy and his refusal to characterize Hamas as a terrorist organization should themselves be sufficient reasons to cause any person of reasonable sensibilities to oppose the construction, especially at this location. Yet, those behind the project, as well as those in support of the project do not appear to be adversely affected and remain undeterred. Once again, it is an investigative imperative to determine why.
Despite such obviously controversial positions, Abdul-Rauf presses forward with the approval of political leaders from Barack Hussein Obama to Michael Bloomberg. Together with many in the corporate media, project supporters deflect from the core issue into a specious constitutional argument relating to freedom of religion, despite the fact that no one is preventing Islam from being practiced in the United States. The issues are even further diluted and deflected by those who insist that the project is neither a mosque nor will it be located at Ground Zero. While both assertions might be considered technically accurate in the eyes of Western thought and culture, they are nothing more than frivolous defenses at best and intellectual deception at worst.
Changing of the name from the Cordoba House to Park 51
Those who espouse such defenses either fail to understand or deliberately refuse to address the iconic Islamic symbolism behind the “9/11 Victory Mosque.” That the planned venture is technically outside of the footprint of the former World Trade Center complex is offered as a legitimate defense, which might hold true if one is to be so myopic as to disregard the Muslim world view. Perhaps that is the reason for the project makeover that began with the changing of the name from the Cordoba House to Park 51. It is not a likely coincidence that once the symbolic nature of Cordoba became more widely known, those behind the project opted to promote a more secular version of the initiative, while concurrently expunging certain elements relating to Islamic Shariah law from their web site.
Despite the plentiful amount of information developed by independent researchers, bloggers, and commentators that has been published about the questionable associations of project front man ABDUL-RAUF over the last few weeks, he continues to travel to the Middle East as an emissary of America at the behest of the Obama/Clinton State Department. Ostensibly, his purpose is to “discuss Muslim life in America and religious tolerance” with Islamic leaders in Muslim countries. Despite his questionable associations, the U.S. State Department is steadfast in their support of his goodwill tour.
U.S. State Department invoking an unprecedented shroud of secrecy
Not only is the U.S. State Department unwavering in their support in spite of such controversy, they are invoking an unprecedented shroud of secrecy over the trip. When questioned about the content and message of Abdul-Rauf’s goodwill tour, U.S. State Department Spokesman Phillip Crowley curiously cited a 62 year-old law, erroneously claiming that the law shields Rauf’s message from the American public – at least by way of government web sites - as cited in this article published Tuesday by the editor of Family Security Matters.
It is clearly evident that there is something very disturbing taking place behind the scenes that is permitting this “duck or bleed” approach being employed by politicians and lawmakers. It is only when we investigate deeper into the people and groups behind this assault on American sensibilities and “follow the money” do we find the nefarious nexus of “Cap and Trade globalists,” Progressives” and Islamic leaders who are pushing for a “one world” religion.
The latter group, including foreign entities and governments, is working to replace our Judeo-Christian heritage with Islam as the dominant religion of America and Shariah in place of the U.S. Constitution. It is being conducted under the pretext of interfaith dialogue and unity, an objective for which Feisal ABDUL RAUF and his closest associates have been groomed.
ABDUL RAUF and his associates are working to install Shariah in the U.S.
While ABDUL RAUF and his associates are working to install Shariah in the U.S., the former group is engaged in the systematic effort to destroy the current religious and moral structures as a means to facilitate their objectives of control and domination. The Progressives and globalists are exploiting this transformation for their own agenda, which is the implementation of global governance. That is exactly what can be found when the layers of deception and distraction are carefully and methodically pulled back and the prospective money sources are identified.
Consider the following diagram that outlines the money behind the New York City Islamic center, and use the hyperlinks to secure detailed information about each individual or organization:
*******
*******
Key Project Individuals
Feisal ABDUL RAUF
DOB: 10/23/1948
Kuwait-born Educated in the UK and Malaysia; arrived in the U.S. in 1965
BS in physics at Columbia University in 1971
Addresses associated with ABDUL-RAUF:
227 78th Street, First Floor, North Bergen, NJ 07047
8400 River Road, North Bergen, NJ 07047-6244
P.O. Box 7376, North Bergen, NJ 07047
Imam at the Masjid al Farah (established 1990)
245 West Broadway
New York, NY
*******
Islam Means the End of Religious Freedom
His endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque is another case of Obama standing "with the Muslims" and against Americans of all other faiths
By Daniel Greenfield
Sunday, August 15, 2010
At an Iftar dinner in the White House, Barack Hussein Obama proclaimed that he supports the building of the Ground Zero mosque as part of his “unshakable commitment to religious freedom”. Which of course sounds very noble and good, until you ask a single question, Where is the religious freedom in the Muslim world?
Obama has made the case for Islam in America, on the grounds that America’s religious diversity promotes the religious freedom of all. Islam no less than any other belief system. Yet if introducing Islam into America promotes religious freedom, then why is there no religious freedom in the Muslim world? Why are churches firebombed in Malaysia because Christians presumed to use the word Allah? Why are non-Muslims forbidden to enter the city of Mecca, from which Jews and Christians were ethnically cleansed by Mohammed? Why are Coptic Christians being oppressed and humiliated by the Egyptian government? Why are Muslims murdering Buddhist teachers in Thailand? There are a thousand examples, all of which add up to a single conclusion—Muslims demand religious freedom, yet are not willing to give it to others.
Jews are fleeing European cities in record numbers because of Muslim persecution
This has ominous implications for the prospects of religious freedom in America. Nor is this a theoretical issue. Jews are fleeing European cities in record numbers because of Muslim persecution. The recent case of Malmo, highlights the fact that Islam actually threatens religious diversity. Simply to protect themselves, Malmo’s 650 Jews were forced to spend half a million Kronor a year. The situation is much the same across Europe, as Jewish institutions are forced to become fortresses. What the Nazis did not succeed in accomplishing in Europe, the rise of Islam seems to be doing.
Nor are Christians safe, they are simply in the majority for now. But Christians and other religions were once in the majority in the Middle East. Until they were massacred and repressed by the tidal wave of Islam. Today the religions that were once a majority, whether it is Jews in Israel, Christians in Byzantium or Zoroastrians in Persia, have become oppressed minorities. Some may take comfort in the notion that “It can’t happen here.” But the fate of Europe’s Jews, shows that it can happen here. And that it is happening here.
Religious freedom requires that the religions which enjoy it, agree to tolerate each other. If they do not, instead of religious freedom, there is a religious war.
Looking at the religious map of the world today, Islam has grown in non-Muslim countries, while non-Muslims continue to dwindle in Muslim countries. And even the number of non-Muslim religious believers in non-Muslim countries dwindles, when Muslims are introduced into the equation. If Islam were a fish in a fish tank, it’s clear that it would be a piranha. If you put it into the fish tank, very soon you have a lot of Islamic piranhas and only a handful of other fish that survive, only because the piranhas need to keep some of them alive in order to feed on them. If you don’t like that picture, take an honest look at the Muslim world, with its dominant Muslim caste and inferior non-Muslims living in the cracks of their walls, and draw a better one.
Over and over again, the rise of Islam has meant the eradication of religious freedom
The question is do we want to import this into the United States? Because history and current events show that there is no better way to insure the end of religious freedom in the United States, than to introduce Islam into the picture. Over and over again, the rise of Islam has meant the eradication of religious freedom. And those who fail to learn from that past, will be doomed to repeat it.
Obama attempted to position his remarks as being against religious intolerance, but yet he spoke in defense of religious intolerance. Because what greater act of religious intolerance could there than building a mosque in a place where Muslims had previously murdered 3000 Americans? Nor are such actions unique on the part of Muslims, who have routinely hijacked other people’s sacred areas and structures to make a statement about Islamic supremacism. If Islam were truly as tolerant as Obama claims, its adherents would not attempt to build a massive mosque complex that they do not actually need in this place.
And what of the Iftar dinner itself which Obama spoke at. The Iftar dinner is the nightly break in the fast of Ramadan. And what is Ramadan? It commemorates the revelation of the first verses of the Koran to Mohammed. And those first verses of the Koran conclude with, “Guide us the straight way, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).” That same verses appears in the daily prayers of Muslims.
Ramadan marks the beginning of Islam’s intolerance for other religions
Seen in that light, Ramadan marks the beginning of Islam’s intolerance for other religions, as embodied in its scriptures. When Muslims schools teach pupils that Jews are apes and Christians are pigs, they are relying on the wellspring of hate already in the Koran. A non-Muslim country holding an event to mark any aspect of Ramadan is as mad as sheep celebrating their own slaughter.
Let’s look at how some of the participants in Obama’s Iftar dinner embody that famous Islamic tolerance. There is Hassan Jaber, Executive Director of ACCESS. “ACCESS paid for commercial driving lessons and attempts at hazardous material hauling certificates for two men convicted as part of the Detroit Al-Qaeda sleeper cell. Testimony at their trial revealed that the men planned to bomb the MGM Grand Casino and a host of other prominent US sites.” (Debbie Schlussel). Access has funded a conference at which Sami Al Arian, of Islamic Jihad, spoke. There’s also Ingrid Mattson, who is against any reform of Islam and places loyalty to Islam before America. There’s MPAC’s Salam Al Marayat, who has defended Hezbollah who has been described as having “disturbing sympathies for Islamic terrorists”. Dalia Mogahed, an apologist for Sharia law and the subjugation of women. And those are only some of the names in attendance.
Finally let’s turn to Obama’s own enthusiasm for religious freedom. That enthusiasm was markedly absent when Caplin and Drysdale lawyers were intimidating conservative. churches. They even intimidated Jewish non-profit groups who wanted Palin to speak at an Anti-Ahmadinejad rally, by threatening their tax exempt status. Mortimer Caplin was a major supporter of Obama, and part of Obama for America. But Obama was not upset when his supporters were silencing the religious freedom of Christians and Jews.Which suggests that his “Unshakable Commitment to Religious Freedom” is actually rather shaky indeed. And appears to be reserved for Muslims. Which would reaffirm what Obama himself said in his own book; “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction”.
His endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque is another case of Obama standing “with the Muslims” and against Americans of all other faiths
His endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque is another case of Obama standing “with the Muslims” and against Americans of all other faiths, who want the freedom to practice their religion in peace without harassment, persecution and violence from the followers of Islam, who believe that all other religions are invalid, and that all forms of government and law that are not governed by the Koran, have no right to exist.
Religious Freedom must be defended, from all those who would take it away. The history of Islam is the history of genocide, oppression and ethnic cleansing practiced by Muslims against non-Muslims. Islam is the death blow to religious diversity and freedom. And nowhere better is that seen than Mecca, a city that was once a mecca for different religions, which is now barred to all but Muslims. Mecca is the Muslim ideal. And it exemplifies what they hope to accomplish.
Meanwhile, Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, the Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, has praised terrorism saying “Allahu Akbar! These are signs of victory: Jihad has remained the only wining card and the light of hope in the hands of those sincere people among the Ummah”. He has called Jews “scum of the earth” and “rats of the world”, Christians, “cross-worshipers” and filled with “rotten ideas and poisonous culture” and had similarly charming things to say of Hindus. This is how the world looks from Mecca, the heart of Islam. And this is why Islam and religious freedom are incompatible.
Obama concluded his remarks by saying: “And we can only achieve “liberty and justice for all” if we live by that one rule at the heart of every great religion, including Islam — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.” But that is not the rule at the heart of Islam. And this is not the first time that he has tried to sell that particular lie. But Islam never equates Muslims with non-Muslims, as Obama pretends it does. Its offer of brotherhood is only open to fellow Muslims. Its tolerance is only for fellow Muslims. And that is at the heart of the problem. And it is why the rise of Islam means the end of liberty and justice for all. To stand for liberty and justice is to take a stand against Islamic bigotry.
*******
*******
Obama Apologizes for Stupid Americans’ Opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque
Over the past 100 years, America has brought peace and prosperity to billions, while Muslims have been slaughtering and enslaving their neighbors, especially women, wholesale
By Fred Dardick
Saturday, August 14, 2010
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26570
It’s amazing that Obama lacked the foresight to see that supporting the construction of a $100 million mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero, something that 70% of Americans oppose, won’t end well. But I guess when your closest advisors are Valerie Jarrett the slumlord, Robert Gibbs the clown, Rham Emmanuel the communist, and Michelle Obama the millionaire’s wife, equating “religious freedom” with an Islamic cultural center whose purpose is to promote Sharia law is the kind of progressive garbage you get.
For you liberals who somehow got forwarded this column and still don’t know what Sharia law is, allow me to enlighten you. It is the literal interpretation of Islam that leads to the widespread abuse and enslavement of women. It’s also called the reality of “that woman in Iran who’s waiting to see if she’s going to get stoned to death for adultery” rules. Who knows if she really committed adultery? In Islamic societies all a man has to do to give his wife the proverbial dirt nap, is simply claim she did.
Under Sharia law, men are the judge, jury and executioners of women, and Obama apparently thinks Americans are too stupid to know this. While Obama may be able to lawyer his way around the Ground Zero mosque as a “religious tolerance” issue, the rest of us know a load of bs when we see one.
Americans don’t give a hoot what the college professors and attorneys think. Allowing the Islamist barbarians who keep their boots firmly planted on women’s throats and brought the 9/11 massacre to our shores, to build their Arch de’ Terrorism 2 blocks from Ground Zero can kiss our you know what.
Not only do Americans view the structure as anything but a bridge to understanding, Islamists around the world will also rightly perceive the mosque in a very different light than the simple “right to build a place of worship”. They will see it as spitting in the face of evil America and hold it up as a shining example in their enslaved societies to promote hatred of the West. It will become a “stupid Americans let us build a mosque on their graves, so let’s finish the job and kill them all” kind of thing.
Ever wonder how the Islamic Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem got built smack dab on top of the ancient Jewish temple mount? I can promise you, it was no attempt to “build bridges” either that put it there. It was more like “let’s take over the Jews most treasured religious site and plant a mosque on it to show them who’s boss”. That’s why Jews pray at the Western Wall, because if they tried to visit the top of the temple mount, the Arabs would riot.
Every time Obama speaks to Muslims, it’s always how wonderful and understanding Islam is compared to our knuckle dragging Judeo-Christian customs. Rather than apologizing endlessly for America, and in this case our opposition to the Ground Zero mosque, how about being honest for a change, champ?
Over the past 100 years, America has brought peace and prosperity to billions around the world, while at the same time Muslims have been slaughtering and enslaving their neighbors, especially women, wholesale. Talk about the war that never ends. Shia vs. Sunni violence has been going on for centuries and, by the looks of Iraq, will continue for centuries more.
The irony is if our President, who clearly feels his #1 job is reaching out to the Muslim world, had half a brain in his communist head, he would be out there speaking forcefully against Sharia law and educating his fellow Islamists to the dangers of a literal interpretation of the Koran.
Who knows, maybe then Obama could finally do some good for a change and save lives, rather than destroy them.
*******
Obama’s Ground Zero Mosque
For Barack Obama, the answer is now pretty clear: He stands with shariah
By Frank Gaffney Jr.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
At a White House celebration of Ramadan in the company of representatives of several of the Nation’s most prominent Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, President Obama announced his strong support for one of their most immediate objectives: the construction of a mega-mosque and “cultural center” at Ground Zero. In so doing, he publicly embraced the greatest tar-baby of his presidency.
In the process, Mr. Obama also inadvertently served up what he likes to call a “teachable moment” concerning the nature of the enemy we are confronting, and the extent to which it is succeeding in the Brotherhood’s stated mission: “…Eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
As the AP reported, “President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully endorsed building a mosque near Ground Zero saying the country’s founding principles demanded no less. ‘As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,’ Obama said, weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York and the nation. ‘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 unshakable.’
“Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us—a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.”
So much for the pretense that, as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had previously declared, the President would not get involved because the Ground Zero mosque (GZM) controversy was “a local matter.” (As opposed, say, to the arrest of a Harvard professor on disorderly conduct charges.)
Gone too is the option of continuing to conceal an extraordinary fact: the Obama administration is endorsing not only this “local matter,” but explicitly endorsing the agenda of the imam behind it – Feisal Abdul Rauf. Rauf is the Muslim Brother, who together with his wife Daisy Khan (a.k.a. Daisy Kahn for tax purposes, at least) runs the tellingly named “Cordoba Initiative.” He is believed to be on a taxpayer-underwritten junket and/or fund-raising tour of the Middle East, courtesy of the State Department, which insists that he is a “moderate” in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary. Interestingly, the President’s rhetoric – like that of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other apologists for and boosters of the GZM – tracks perfectly with the Muslim Brotherhood line about why we need to allow what Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin has correctly described as an “Islamist victory arch” close by some of America’s most hallowed ground. It is, we are told, all about “religious freedom” and “tolerance.”
Actually, it is all about submission to shariah – arguably the most intolerant of theo-political-legal codes, ironically particularly when it comes to respect for freedom of religion. Rauf’s mosque complex and the shariah ideology/doctrine that animates it – the same program that animated the jihadists who destroyed the World Trade Center and many of its occupants on 9/11 – has everything to do with power, not faith.
As notable as what the President said is the company he keeps. Consider a few examples from this year’s Iftar dinner guest list:
Ingrid Mattson heads the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the country, the Islamic Society of North America. ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in the biggest terrorism financing trial in the nation’s history and was identified as a Brotherhood “associated or friendly” group in documents introduced as evidence uncontested in that Holy Land Foundation prosecution. Ms. Mattson now presides over the selection, training and certification of Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military and prison system – interestingly, a job formerly in the hands of Muslim Brother Abdurahman Alamoudi, the founder and first head of the American Muslim Council, who is currently serving a 23-year sentence on terrorism charges.
Salam Al-Marayati is president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). In 1999, then-House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt withdrew his nomination of Al-Marayati to a leadership position on the National Commission on Terrorism when it became public that Al-Marayati claimed that the terrorist group, Hezbollah, was a legitimate organization and has the right to attack the Israeli Army.
Dalia Mogahed runs the insidious Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and advises President Obama on Muslim affairs as a member of the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In an October 2009 interview with the London Telegraph, she made the following astounding assertions: “I think the reason so many women support shariah is because they have a very different understanding of shariah than the common perception in Western media.” “The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with shariah compliance.” “The portrayal of shariah has been oversimplified in many cases.”
The most prominent American public figure to directly challenge such pap is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who, in remarks before the American Enterprise Institute last month, declared, “Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence. But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of shariah.”
In a brilliant appreciation of Mr. Gingrich’s address, Andrew McCarthy, an accomplished former federal prosecutor (he put away the ringleader of the first effort to destroy the World Trade Center, “the Blind Sheikh,” OmarAbdel-Rahman) and author of the superb New York Times bestseller, The Grand Jihad , wrote in National Review Online: “Henceforth, there should be no place to hide for any candidate, including any incumbent. The question will be: Where do you stand on shariah?”
*******
Statement By Debra Burlingame On President Obama’s Support For The Ground Zero Mosque
By News on the Net
Posted on Saturday, August 14th, 2010
This morning, Debra Burlingame, Keep America Safe Board Member and Co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, released the following statement in response to President Obama’s remarks about the Ground Zero mosque:
"Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see. Since that dark day, Americans have been asked to bear the burden of defending those values, again and again and again. Now this president declares that the victims of 9/11 and their families must bear another burden. We must stand silent at the last place in America where 9/11 is still remembered with reverence or risk being called religious bigots."
“Muslims have worshiped in New York without incident both before and after the attacks of 9/11. This controversy is not about religious freedom. 9/11 was more than a ‘deeply traumatic event,’ it was an act of war. Building a 15-story mosque at Ground Zero is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah. Those who continue to target and kill American civilians and U.S. troops will see it as a symbol of their historic progress at the site of their most bloody victory. Demolishing a building that was damaged by wreckage from one of the hijacked planes in order to build a mosque and Islamic Center will further energize those who regard it as a ratification of their violent and divinely ordered mission: the spread of shariah law and its subjugation of all free people, including secular Muslims who come to this country fleeing that medieval ideology, which destroys lives and crushes the human spirit.
“We are stunned by the president’s willingness to disregard what Americans should be proud of: our enduring generosity to others on 9/11–a day when human decency triumphed over human depravity. On that day, when 3,000 of our fellow human beings were killed in a barbaric act of raw religious intolerance unlike any this country had ever seen, Americans did not turn outward with hatred or violence, we turned to each other, armed with nothing more than American flags and countless acts of kindness. In a breathtakingly inappropriate setting, the president has chosen to declare our memories of 9/11 obsolete and the sanctity of Ground Zero finished. No one who has lived this history and felt the sting of our country’s loss that day can truly believe that putting our families through more wrenching heartache can be an act of peace.
“We will honor the memory of our loved ones. We will protect our children, whose lives will never be the same. We will not stand silent.”
Debra Burlingame Board Member Keep America Safe
*******
Obama’s Ramadan White House Bow to Islam
Obama "forcefull” support of the Ground Zero Mosque?
By Judi McLeod
Friday, August 13, 2010
Obama “forcefully” comes out in support of the Ground Zero Mosque?
“President Obama on Friday forcefully endorsed building a mosque near ground zero, saying the country’s founding principles demanded no less.” (Associated Press, Aug. 13, 2010).
Don’t make us all laugh, Associated Press! Obama has never done anything forceful in his 49 years on earth, other than to be there to take advantage of whatever was going at the time.
Obama’s strategy for fight has been his ongoing battle against ordinary Americans, and that fight has been stylized by lobbing insults at the constituency (usually on Friday nights) before departing for another vacation or golf game.
It is very convenient for Obama to be in the White House at a chapter in history when being forceful, confrontational, down to earth or realistic is politically incorrect.
This master of the mealy mouthed mouths platitudes via a TelePrompter and travels to Town Halls with his very own cheering section.
Forceful indeed!
When is the last time anybody ran into a forceful Metrosexual?
Obama is a wuss who talks about plugging holes when the holes needing to be plugged have been exaggerated all out of proportion.
As this corner has said before the only hole Obama should plug is the rabbit hole in which he is trying to drag down American society.
Truth is the closest Barack Obama ever gets to forceful is surrounding himself with forceful females: Oprah Winfrey with whom he celebrated his last birthday; slumlord Valerie Jarrett and his globetrotting wife.
Since when can surreptitious, which Obama truly is, be translated into “forceful”? When it is AP who is sending the message, that’s when.
It’s easy to come on like a despot when you have all the toys, all the bells and whistles, all the power and money in your little corner. As easy as saying you got all the balls through the hoop when no one was there to prove otherwise.
“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country, Obama said weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York City and the nation,” Obama told AP.
“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,” he said. “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”
Make that a global citizen and a president whose eligibility is questionable. And make it what is left of America when the most anti-American president ever elected gets through with it.
And what have Muslims having the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country really have to do with building a mega mosque so near to the site where so many died at the hands of radical Islam on Sept. 11, 2001?
The obsession for a Mosque near Ground Zero when 70% of Americans object, is being forceful on the part of those pushing for a September 11, 2011 groundbreaking.
Obama was not being forceful but pandering to the Muslim Brotherhood at the White House on Ramadan.
Mark Friday, Aug. 13, 2010 as Obama’s biggest bow to the power of Islam, not abroad this time, but right in the White House.
Meanwhile, it’s just another Friday night in ObamaLand.
*******
Obama Defends Ground Zero Mosque as ‘The Writ of Our Founders’
Obama is all for it
By Warner Todd Huston
Friday, August 13, 2010
We have finally heard the full and definitive take that President Obama has on the outrageous Ground Zero mosque project. He’s all for it.
During Obama’s Ramadan celebration dinner (called an Iftar dinner) Obama addressed the Ground Zero mosque.
Even as Obama claimed that he understood that Ground Zero was “hallowed ground” he went on to say that the Muslims may build their Mosque anywhere they want and we should let them because of it is in keeping with “the writ from our founders.”
Here are the relevant parts of the address (my bold for emphasis):
That is not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities – particularly in 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. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. 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 anyone else in this country. 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 will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.
We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who have led our 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 always remember who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for. Our enemies respect no freedom of religion. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam – it is a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders – these are terrorists who murder innocent men, 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.
*******