A Mosque At Ground Zero?

Posted: August 23, 2010  Author: Dr. Richard Moss

The matter of the now infamous Ground Zero Mosque has been chewed over remorselessly by almost everyone.  The specifics revolve around the decision of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to create a thirteen story edifice replete with classrooms, lecture halls, and a mosque named, not insignificantly, Cordoba House, near Ground Zero, the site of radical Islam's greatest and most violent attack against the West. 

It is here, after all, where nearly 3000 Americans were massacred.  That number, while large, would have been much higher had the twin towers collapsed immediately and not an hour or so later, by which time most had already evacuated from the lower floors.  Still the suffering and loss were tragic, for the victims, families and the country, and the impact of that attack, with Americans still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, is very much with us today.

Mr. Rauf, one would think, would have had some inkling of the displeasure the location for such a project would cause in most Americans.  He claims to be prompted by a desire to build interfaith bridges, but is surely aware that there were other less provocative sites in Manhattan available to him.

On first glance, Mr. Rauf appears well suited for the role of "moderate" Muslim, credible as an ecumenical liaison, promoting unity and friendship between religions.  As the Wall Street Journal reports, Mr. Rauf hails from Kuwait but came to the states in his teens.  He has condemned terrorism and anti-Semitism, participated in "peace Seders" and supported human rights and democracy for the Muslim world.  But there are also other more troublesome aspects to his past that suggests his motives may be less than pure.  

For example:

He blamed US policies for 9/11.  Now which policies would those be?  Liberating Kuwait from Saddam Hussein?  Preventing ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo?  Stationing troops in Saudi Arabia to prevent yet another invasion from Iraq?  Supporting Israel?  (Yes, that might be one of them). 

“United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened on 9/11,” Mr. Rauf said soon after the attack, blaming, at least in part, the US and not the perpetrators.

In 2004, Rauf published a book in the US entitled What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America, which sounds innocent enough on the surface.  Except that in 2007, he reissued it overseas as A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Da’wa from the Heart of America Post 9/11. 

Da'wa is jihad by stealth employing deceptive and non-violent methods.  It is a kind of polite invitation (warning?) to submit to Islam.  Through various channels and institutions (the media, Academe, the government, "cultural centers," advocacy groups), the "faithful" integrate themselves into society, furthering Islamic interests on an unsuspecting public, until, having acquired sufficient strength, they can then impose their will, or, as many prominent Islamists advoctate, "conquer America."  Islamists cleverly take advantage of the freedoms and rights they enjoy in liberal democracies such as are found in the US, Europe, and elsewhere, to cultivate illiberal goals - the promotion of Sharia law.   

Rauf's choice of the name Cordoba House is also not encouraging.  Cordoba is a city in southern Spain conquered by invading Muslim armies in 711 AD; a Caliphate was established and the largest church was converted to a Mosque.  The building of Mosques atop churches, synagogues, and temples of other faiths is an old Muslim practice.  It has been done most notably in Jerusalem, Istanbul (the Hagia Sophia), Hindu India, Cordoba, and elsewhere.  It humbles the subjected peoples and establishes Islamic primacy.  Building the Cordoba House near the "rubble" of Ground Zero sends a clear message of ultimate Islamic victory. 

He equivocated on whether Hamas was a terrorist organization.  "The question of terrorism is a very complex question," he said.  Perhaps, he believes Hamas members are "resistance" fighters or some other such obfuscation.

His book was also reissued in the US by two organizations connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that supports Hamas and seeks a "grand jihad"; specifically, it calls for "destroying ...Western Civilization from within and sabatoging its miserable house." 

He has been less than forthcoming on the issue of funding.  At a price tag of $100 million (and for someone who believes in the implementation of Sharia law), it would not be surprising if Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States or even Iran were behind such a venture. 

Saudi Arabia, in particular, is known to have spent billions every year in building Madrassas, funding advocacy groups and organizations, and establishing Middle East programs and departments in Universities around the world, promoting its Wahabist (extreme) version of Islam and Sharia law - spreading basically the same religious fanaticism that gave us 9/11 in the first place.

And so for expressing reasonable concerns about the building of such a complex, spearheaded by such an individual, at Ground Zero, our elites feel compelled to scold opponents of the mosque as intolerant boobs motivated, of course, not by legitimate questions but by racist tendencies. 

In this way does the left react to criticism, which is to say, to vilify, sneer, and demonize, thereby marginalizing opponents and shutting off debate.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg lectured that critics of the mosque were disgracing the memory of firefighters who died in 9/11.  Although he subsequently recanted ever so slightly by signaling that the organizers of the project should show "special sensitivity to the situation." 

So which is it, Mr. Mayor?  Are there reasonable concerns or not? 

During an Iftar dinner for Ramadam at the White House, President Barack Obama, before his Moslem audience, endorsed the Ground Zero Mosque, saying that "... This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.” 

He too back tracked somewhat by the next day with the uproar over his words resounding across the land, indicating that he was commenting only on the legal "right" to proceed with the construction but not the "wisdom" of such a decision. 

This, of course, was never the point.  No one ever questioned their constitutional right to build a Mosque as long as local zoning ordinances and other legal requirements were met.  It was whether it was proper to do so at that particular address.  In effect, the President clarified nothing. 

Probably, though, the first day's remarks reflect his true feelings on the matter; that is, he sees no problem with the Ground Zero Mosque.  What follows is the cover up.  Not unlike his reactions during the Skip Gates imbroglio (blame police first, ask questions later).  And others.

This is also a piece with the general attitude of the intelligentsia and media who can see nothing but blind racism (Islamophobic version) in the 70% of the population that opposes the Ground Zero Mosque. 

All along many in the print and broadcast media have painted legitimate questions surrounding the mosque as hopelessly bigoted.  As Charles Krauthammer writes, it is a trend of the left over any number of recent issues.

Disagree with Obamacare and the vast expansion of government?  Nothing more than racist sentiment towards our first black President.  Oppose illegal immigration (and support the Arizona Law)?  Xenophobia.  Resentment over a single judge overturning a referendum against gay marriage by seven million voters in California?  Homophobia.  And, of course, if one finds oneself a bit skittish over the construction of a 13 story Mosque and cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero with the incendiary moniker of "Cordoba House," why then one obviously suffers from Islamophobia.

When the left's policies and attitudes are assailed by a majority of the citizens, as they have been since Obama took office, it can't be because the recommendations are unsound?  Rather, it must be because the great unwashed are a bunch of racist yahoos unable to overcome their retrograde tendencies and admire the grand vision and brilliance of the left.  It falls to their betters in the media and government to correct their bad habits while insulting them for good measure. 

It is also consistent with the left's general world view regarding oppressors and oppressed: Muslims are another "victim" group at the hands of greedy white, male, Christian capitalists.

But there is the matter of simple good taste or, to paraphrase Mayor Bloomberg, "sensitivity." 

Carmelite Nuns were not part of the Nazi killing apparatus and yet when Holocaust survivors were offended by a Carmelite Convent outside of Aushwitz, Pope John Paul requested that they move.  Nor would racism explain why many would oppose a Japanese Cultural Center at Pearl Harbor or Nanking.  Or a German monument at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem.  It is a question of common sense, decency, and respect.

Liberal progressives in government and the media have attempted to frame the Ground Zero mosque debate in terms of first amendment rights and "tolerance."  But it is neither.  America has nothing to prove in regards to religious freedom and no one questions Rauf's "right" to build the mosque. 

There are, after all, 2300 mosques in the US and 200 in NYC alone.  Muslims worship freely in this country as do others of all faiths. 

Muslims have immigrated to this country of their own volition as do millions of others each year seeking a better life; they enjoy far greater religious freedom here than in their nations of origin.

The issue has nothing to do with religious freedom, which Muslims already enjoy in this country, but one of civility and deference to the sensibilities of most Americans regarding the site of the most violent attack ever on American soil.

Tolerance should no longer be viewed as a one way street with the burden of proof falling on the US but never the Muslim world.  Let Muslim nations or individual mosques and Imams in the US for that matter explicitly renounce terrorism and terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, the second class status of women and of non-Muslims in Islamic countries, the implementation of Sharia in the US or Europe, and the principle of Jihad. 

Let Saudi Arabia allow non-Muslims into Mecca and Medina, embrace separation of mosque and state, and allow the building of churches and synagogues in its land.  

Muslims should be held to the same standard as everyone else and bigoted or violent behavior no longer explained away or ignored.  We should not shrink from demanding some degree of reciprocity.   What is good here, should be good there.  Tolerance, diversity, and pluralism, after all, are universal values which should be embraced and promoted in all corners of the world including the Muslim world. 

It is left to our nation to champion Western values.  

The American system based on individual liberty, human rights, democracy, and free market capitalism has been the single greatest engine of human progress in the world; it should be defended as such, which is to say, vigorously and unabashedly - notwithstanding liberal prattling about "tolerance" - and their Islamist allies who would take advantage of our liberties to humiliate us.

Raum's effort is nothing more than a thinly veiled provocation; an attempt to see how far America can be pushed.  But America is not without resources.  Our constitution provides for freedom of religion; it also provides for the right of peaceful assembly and protest; as well as the right to do nothing to assist the imam in his inflammatory and obnoxious endeavor.

The "Ground Zero" Mosque belongs no where near Ground Zero.

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2007 - 2012 ExodusMD.com. All rights reserved. Contact Web Design by Sabramedia.com