Monday, August 16, 2010

Today's Reading Assignment

...from a pair of brave Muslims, Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah. They penned a recent op-ed for the Ottawa Citizen that deserves wider play here in the States.

Why? Because they recognize the planned "Ground Zero" mosque for what it is: a deliberate provocation aimed at squarely at the west. A few salient paragraphs:

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

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

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?


Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.

The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.

Incidentally, Mr. Fatah has a new book coming out this fall. It's entitled The Jew is Not My Enemy. We can only imagine the reception that volume will receive. But obviously, he's not afraid to stand up for the truth. If only the mayor of New York had similar courage.


PCSSEPA said...

The lines Bloomberg and Courage do not intersect. They run parallel; just like his universe runs to ours.

jon said...

US News and World Report:
"First here are the facts: The building in question is planned to be a Muslim community center, a sort of YMCA (or, I suppose, YMMA). The plans are for it to have fitness facilities (swimming pool, gym, basketball court), a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant and a cooking school, exhibition space, a library, art studios, a 9/11 memorial--the impudence! the outrage!--and childcare facilities (which no doubt will soon be referred to as a "Manhattan Madrasa"). And it's also going to house a mosque.

But calling the entire building a mosque is a bit like referring to the Empire State Building as a 103-story Walgreens because the pharmacy chain has a store on the ground floor.

And for that matter it's important to keep in mind that it's not at ground zero. It's two blocks north of ground zero, on a street running parallel to the old World Trade Center site. And as FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver has observed, Park51

'although somewhat architecturally daring does not contain minarets or other spire-like features that would give it greater prominence than an ordinary, 12-story building. Like dozens and dozens of other buildings, and several other places of worship near to Ground Zero, it would be quite well concealed among Lower Manhattan's dense street grid.'"

Also, read this article to understand how the molehill became a mountain:

"A group of progressive Muslim-Americans plans to build an Islamic community center two and a half blocks from ground zero in lower Manhattan. They have had a mosque in the same neighborhood for many years. There's another mosque two blocks away from the site. City officials support the project. Muslims have been praying at the Pentagon, the other building hit on Sept. 11, for many years."

tfhr said...


The imam of the proposed "YMMA" thinks that Hamas and Hezbollah are not terrorist organizations. Are you OK with that? Or do you think they're just clubs for lonely Muslim men with anger issues?

He is neither "moderate" nor "progressive", as if those words mean anything concrete. If the intent of this construction is to build a bridge and the reaction is clearly one of pain and anger on behalf of survivors of 9-11, then how can such a project be a positive when it inspires such negativity? This project clearly harms the interests of Muslims all over the United States by being arrogantly insistent on making a show.

Turning down the invitation by New York's governor to talk about a nearby alternative site should reveal even to you that the imam's objective here is to make a political statement, not build a bridge.

Peaceful Crusader said...

Islamic ideology motivated the 9/11 attacks and Islamic ideology will be taught in the Mega Mosque.
It is private property do you think Women will be treated as equals there? Do you think free speech, and criticism of Islam will be allowed? Think there will be BBQ pork? Think there will be a Gay Bar? Think there will be a Synagogue? Get a clue jon It's a MOSQUE.
And if the landing from the planes smashed into the building, its ground zero.

Swami said...

Calling it a Mosque is entirely reasonable.
Many churches and synagogues have a wide variety of other facilities co-located. Schools, auditoriums, kitchens, playgrounds etc. Even book stores.

The fact that someone goes to school at "St Francis" does not make it wrong to call "St Francis" a church, if that is what it is.

You've picked the wrong analogy with your "Empire State Building/Walgreens" comparison.

This would be more like calling The Port Authority Bus Terminal a "Bus Terminal", even though it houses many other activities.

Peaceful Crusader said...

Sounds like they are being threatened

Dymphna said...


The News and World Report article is good as far as it goes. It just conveniently omits a whole lot of activity:

There are going to be about six floors in that "Initiative" (they threw out the "mosque" appellation) devoted to the Shariah Index Project.

This "project" is an initiative all right: the focus is on making western democracies Shariah-compliant.

The courts in Saudia Arabia today are considering paralyzing a man who caused the paralysis of another (that's Sharia "equal justice" for you). Compliance with this judicial philosophy is not something that we'd particularly welcome, but we may get it anyway.

The new Supreme Court appointee, Kagan, is an expert about and a sympathizer of Shariah...

Fortunately more and more states are considering legal means to block this anti-constitutional "project" funded and pushed by the Muslim Brotherhood in all its guises, including those which Daisy Khan directs in this country.

THE MB have met with and determined closely what the work of Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan will be. The time line starts in Malaysia in 2006 and goes to the end of 2008 in Northern Virginia. They have a good plan and it's been throroughly worked overby at least 14 Shariah experts.

We know who seven of these folks are, but the Cordoba mosque folks have airbrushed out the rest.

Anyone who thinks a mosque is like a church hasn't done much reading of the original sources.

I suggest starting with "Reliance of the Traveler". It's available on Amazon and has all the correct imprimaturs from leading scholars in Islamic jurisprudence. It's also a fascinating book.

They've put it all out there for us to see. It just depends on how many want to bother looking.