A Mosque at 9/11 ?Ground Zero??
by Brigitte Gabriel
"Imagine the American response in 1950 if the Japanese government sought to erect a shrine to its World War II Emperor in Pearl Harbor, right next to the sunken wreckage of the USS Arizona.
Would 'outrage' be strong enough to describe the response?
Now fast forward to 2010.
Less than nine years after the worst terrorist attack on American soil in our history, an imam who blames America for the 9/11 attack wants to construct a 13 story, $100 million dollar mosque and Islamic center 600 feet from 'Ground Zero.'
And he wants to unveil it to the world on September 11, 2011 ? the ten year anniversary of the greatest jihadist atrocity ever perpetrated against America on its own soil.
News and blog sites across the country are heating up over this. ACT! for America, the nation?s largest grassroots organization dedicated to combating radical Islam and global jihad, today launched a national petition opposing the mosque, which says in part:
'We are opposed to the grotesque symbolism represented by the building of this mosque at ?ground zero?? We are deeply disturbed by the insensitivity to the families of the victims of the 9/11 jihadist attack exhibited by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his supporters.'
As a measure of the public?s outrage , over 5,000 people had signed the petition in the first three hours.
Families of the victims of 9/11 are stunned by the news that this mosque is proceeding ahead. It does not appear to be the mosque per se, but the audacity of those pushing for it to be located on what one firefighter survivor described as 'sacred ground,' that is striking a nerve.
Debra Burlingame, the sister of the American Airlines pilot whose jet was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon, is the founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America. In a recent Fox News interview she said:
'"The idea that you would establish a religious institution that embraces the very Shariah Law that terrorists point to as their justification for what they did ? to build that where almost 3,000 people died, that is an obscenity to me."'
The views of the imam of the proposed mosque are also roiling the waters. Madeline Brooks, an ACT! for America chapter leader in Manhattan, wrote the following recently in American Thinker:
'During a recent Friday sermon, this writer did due diligence as a mosque monitor and heard Rauf deny that Muslims perpetrated 9/11. In an interview with CNN shortly after 9/11, Rauf said, ?U.S. policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. We [the U.S.] have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. Osama bin Laden was made in the USA.? Elsewhere, Rauf has stated that terrorism will end only when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims. And that it was Christians who started mass attacks on civilians.'
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said that if it?s legal to put a mosque at this site, then it should be allowed. But 'legal' and 'right' are not necessarily the same thing.
For years Americans have been lectured to by Islamist leaders and their enablers and supporters about how Americans must be more sensitive to the needs, customs, and sensibilities of Muslims.
But one would be hard-pressed to find something more insensitive than the placement of a mosque, whose imam supports Islamic sharia law, right next to the worst Islamic jihadist attack on American soil in history.
The fact that the imam behind this mosque claims locating the mosque here is intended to heal the wounds of 9/11 reveals either moral obtuseness or disingenuousness.
The Muslim world is all about symbolism. To the militant Islamist in Saudi Arabia, a mosque at ground zero would represent the ultimate in humiliation of the infidel.
To the families of the victims of 9/11, it is the ultimate slap in the face."
Posted by Debra Moore at 10:54 PM
Replies
47
SoWal Insider
Koran 9:29
This is what many of our enemies believe about the rest of the worlds population:
?Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.? Koran 2:191
?Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.? Koran 9:123
?When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.? Koran 9:5
I didn't copy and paste the entire misinterpreted verses and I won't go into the misinterpretations line by line, but what you are quoting is the interpretation of radical Islamics and what every anti-Islamic publication will have you believe; which is interesting because not even Islamics can interpret the Eastern Syriac dialect of Aramaic properly, which is the language the Qur'an was written in. Also, you want to believe that the entire Islamic community still lives in the 7th century, the time period that when Mohammed lived, war was going on and when the Quran was written; which BTW, many chapters are actually borrowed from the Hebrew Bible.
Matter of fact, the correct interpretations of the The Aramaic language of the Qur'an calls for the treatment of women with decency. It doesn't tell them to cover their faces, or that men are their Masters. It also states that Jesus is united with God. The Aramaic language implies that Jesus is anointed and deliverer; he raised the dead and cured the blind. The Qur'an calls him "the Messiah".
So, next time you post more of this spam, I mean info, to this site with your expert knowledge and interpretations of the Qur'an, I'll be waiting for delivery of the school of higher learning you obtained your degree of the Aramaic language and which Islamic scholars you break bread with that you debate the meaning of the verses with.
I'm waiting.
Beach FanaticAuthor
I didn't copy and paste the entire misinterpreted verses and I won't go into the misinterpretations line by line, but what you are quoting is the interpretation of radical Islamics and what every anti-Islamic publication will have you believe; which is interesting because not even Islamics can interpret the Eastern Syriac dialect of Aramaic properly, which is the language the Qur'an was written in. Also, you want to believe that the entire Islamic community still lives in the 7th century, the time period that when Mohammed lived, war was going on and when the Quran was written; which BTW, many chapters are actually borrowed from the Hebrew Bible.There are many interpretations of many religions,this just happens to be yours.Since you have annoited yourself an expert of the Koran,I would like to hear your expert opinion on Sharia Law.I will not cut and paste for you,since you already know the laws.
Matter of fact, the correct interpretations of the The Aramaic language of the Qur'an calls for the treatment of women with decency. It doesn't tell them to cover their faces, or that men are their Masters. It also states that Jesus is united with God. The Aramaic language implies that Jesus is anointed and deliverer; he raised the dead and cured the blind. The Qur'an calls him "the Messiah".
So, next time you post more of this spam, I mean info, to this site with your expert knowledge and interpretations of the Qur'an, I'll be waiting for delivery of the school of higher learning you obtained your degree of the Aramaic language and which Islamic scholars you break bread with that you debate the meaning of the verses with.
I'm waiting.
Edited
SoWal Insider
There are many interpretations of many religions,this just happens to be yours.Since you have annoited yourself an expert of the Koran,I would like to hear your expert opinion on Sharia Law.I will not cut and paste for you,since you already know the laws.
I didn't say I was interpreting the Qu'ran. What I am trying to explain, and what you have chosen to misunderstand, is the linguistics of the Aramaic language are such that translation of the true meaning is difficult to ascertain, even for the Islamic community. If I used English as a simple example, where you put the comma in the following sentence changes the meaning:
Time to eat, Grandma
or
Time to eat Grandma.
Also, you are just quoting the first line of an entire verse. Taken in context with the entire verse, the time period written, etc., it changes the interpretation drastically.
Looks like no matter what you learn about Islam, you will choose to eat Grandma. I'm betting Grandma is bitter.
Beach FanaticAuthor
I didn't say I was interpreting the Qu'ran. What I am trying to explain, and what you have chosen to misunderstand, is the linguistics of the Aramaic language are such that translation of the true meaning is difficult to ascertain, even for the Islamic community. If I used English as a simple example, where you put the comma in the following sentence changes the meaning:....and what does this have to do with Sharia law? Seriously, I am not trying to be a smart a..
Time to eat, Grandma
or
Time to eat Grandma.
Also, you are just quoting the first line of an entire verse. Taken in context with the entire verse, the time period written, etc., it changes the interpretation drastically.
Looks like no matter what you learn about Islam, you will choose to eat Grandma. I'm betting Grandma is bitter.
Edited
Banned
....and what does this have to do with Sharia law? Seriously, I am not trying to be a smart a..
Don't worry, nobody here would ever associate the word smart with any of your comments.
SoWal Expert
What she's saying is that you are posting the "interpretation" of the Quran by the Islamic version of the KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, or Westboro Baptist Church.
Just like the Christian Bible, it is written in an old (dead) language and in metaphor, so there is a great deal of gray area and misinterpretation - deliberate or otherwise - for political and social reasons.
For example, I can find a Biblical passage to support firebombing local seafood restaurants and markets. That doesn't mean it is right OR supported by the Christian religion as a whole.
Just like the Christian Bible, it is written in an old (dead) language and in metaphor, so there is a great deal of gray area and misinterpretation - deliberate or otherwise - for political and social reasons.
For example, I can find a Biblical passage to support firebombing local seafood restaurants and markets. That doesn't mean it is right OR supported by the Christian religion as a whole.
Edited
Banned
....and what does this have to do with Sharia law? Seriously, I am not trying to be a smart a..
Don't worry, nobody here would ever associate the word smart with any of your comments.
Beach Fanatic
Don't worry, nobody here would ever associate the word smart with any of your comments.
Yours, either.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Don't worry, nobody here would ever associate the word smart with any of your comments.Thanks for the laugh and the compliment.I don't expect any left leaning forum to agree with my views.Instead of smartazz comments Sam,how about actually responding(civil) to some of my questions.Peace and love dude.
Edited
margarita brocolia
I didn't say I was interpreting the Qu'ran. What I am trying to explain, and what you have chosen to misunderstand, is the linguistics of the Aramaic language are such that translation of the true meaning is difficult to ascertain, even for the Islamic community. If I used English as a simple example, where you put the comma in the following sentence changes the meaning:.
Time to eat, Grandma
or
Time to eat Grandma.
Also, you are just quoting the first line of an entire verse. Taken in context with the entire verse, the time period written, etc., it changes the interpretation drastically.
Looks like no matter what you learn about Islam, you will choose to eat Grandma. I'm betting Grandma is bitter.
..
..Love me some Lynne Truss!Eats Shoots and Leaves
.
Banned
Thanks for the laugh and the compliment.I don't expect any left leaning forum to agree with my views.Instead of smartazz comments Sam,how about actually responding(civil) to some of my questions.Peace and love dude.
Oh well bless your heart!
Beach Fanatic
In Reference to What Scooterbug Stated
Does Islam Promote Violence?
Dr. Javeed Akhter
Executive Director, The International Strategy and Policy Institute
Quoting the Koran (Qur?an) without context
The evangelist, Franklin Graham and the conservative Christian commentator, Pat Robertson?s, assertions that Islam exhorts its followers to be violent against non-Muslims, are only two of the most prominent voices that are part of a rising cacophony of vicious criticism of the Koran. One can read and hear a whole range of negative opinions about this issue in the media. Few have taken an in-depth look at the issue. What does the Koran actually say about violence against non-Muslims? Does it say what Robertson and Graham claim it does? Does it say that it is the religious duty of Muslims to kill infidels? But first some basic principles about reading and understanding the Koran. After all, studying the Koran is not exactly like reading Harry Potter. Like any other scripture, there are rules that may be followed for a proper understanding of the text.
Muslim scholars suggest that those who read the Koran should keep at a minimum the following principles in mind. First, the reader should have an awareness of the inner coherence in the Koran. As the verses are connected to each other, the reader should study, at the least, the preceding and following verses for a sense of the immediate context. Also, the reader should look at all of the verses that deal with the same subject in the book. These are frequently scattered all over the scripture. The indices provided in many of the exegeses of the Koran as well as the books of concordance allow the reader to get this information relatively easily. Often, there is information available about the occasion of revelation of a particular verse. This requires at least a cursory knowledge of Prophet Muhammad?s life.
As Professor Fazlur Rahman of the University of Chicago would frequently point out, the Koran, in part at least, may be looked upon as a running commentary on the mission of Prophet Muhammad. Finally, Koranic scholars advise us to analyze the way the Prophet implemented a particular directive in a verse of the Koran in his own life and ministry. For all Muslims, Prophet Muhammad was the ultimate exemplar of the Koran and its living embodiment.
Let us examine the verses in question with these exegetical principles in mind. One of the verses says:
Muslims were given permission to defend themselves just before Prophet Muhammad?s migration from Makkah (where he grew up) to the city of Madinah, which occurred in the 13th year of his 23-year mission. The danger to Muslims in Makkah at this time was extreme and there was a real possibility of their total eradication. They were permitted to fight back in self-defense against those who violently oppressed them. ?Permission is given (to fight) those who have taken up arms against you wrongfully. And, verily, God (Allah) is well able to give you succor. To those who have been driven forth from their homes for no reason than this that, say ?Our Lord is God.?
The Koran goes on to add:
The word Jihad comes from the root letters JHD, which means to struggle or to strive. It is understood by piety minded Muslims as a positive, noble and laudatory term. That is how most apply it in their personal, social, political and military lives. The history of the Muslims rulers, on the other hand, gives us examples of those who attempted to sanctify their wars of personal aggrandizement as wars for a noble cause by applying the label Jihad to them. A few even named their war departments as the departments of Jihad. This kind of behavior may be likened to a politician?s attempt to wrap him in the flag. Such exploitation of the term should not be allowed to corrupt the original or the commonly understood meaning of the word, which is to strive for the highest possible goals, struggle against injustice and practice self denial and self control to achieve the moral purity to which all piety minded people aspire.
The ?holy war? concept, for which many non-Muslims use the word Jihad, is foreign to Islam. Rather, it comes from a concept first used to justify the Crusades by the Christian Church during the middle Ages. The concept of ?holy war? may even go back to the time when the emperor Constantine the Great allegedly saw the vision in the sky with the inscription on the cross, ?in hoc signo vinces? (in this sign you will be the victor). The Arabic term, as has been pointed out by scholars, for ?the holy war? would be al-harab al-muqaddas, which neither appears in the Koran or the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (Hadith.) Muhammad?s wars were defensive wars against groups who sought to eradicate Islam and the Muslims.
It is interesting and useful for social scientists or philologists to study how the meaning and usage of words differ in different communities. Ironically, the word ?crusade?, because of its association with the crusades in the middle ages, should have had a pejorative sense to it and yet the word has acquired an ennobled meaning in the West.
This, in spite of the fact that the Church itself, along with most historians, acknowledge the injustice of the Crusades and the atrocities done in the name of faith. On the other hand, the word ?Jihad"which means for Muslims, striving for the highest possible goal, has acquired the negative connotation of the holy war.
It is clear from even a cursory study of the Koran that Islam does not permit, condone or promote violence. Just the opposite, it abhors violence and allows it only in self-defense. A claim to the contrary is no more than bad fiction.
The critics of the Koran should remember that if the Bible were similarly quoted out of context it would appear to be an extra ordinarily violent scripture. I will leave Graham and Robertson to defend the violence in the Bible and the history of Christianity.
Javeed Akhter is Executive Director of a local think tank ?The International Strategy and Policy Institute? and author of a new book on the biography of the Prophet titled ?The Seven Phases Of Prophet Muhammad?s Life? available at the Iqra bookstore in Chicago.
Does Islam Promote Violence?
Dr. Javeed Akhter
Executive Director, The International Strategy and Policy Institute
Quoting the Koran (Qur?an) without context
The evangelist, Franklin Graham and the conservative Christian commentator, Pat Robertson?s, assertions that Islam exhorts its followers to be violent against non-Muslims, are only two of the most prominent voices that are part of a rising cacophony of vicious criticism of the Koran. One can read and hear a whole range of negative opinions about this issue in the media. Few have taken an in-depth look at the issue. What does the Koran actually say about violence against non-Muslims? Does it say what Robertson and Graham claim it does? Does it say that it is the religious duty of Muslims to kill infidels? But first some basic principles about reading and understanding the Koran. After all, studying the Koran is not exactly like reading Harry Potter. Like any other scripture, there are rules that may be followed for a proper understanding of the text.
Muslim scholars suggest that those who read the Koran should keep at a minimum the following principles in mind. First, the reader should have an awareness of the inner coherence in the Koran. As the verses are connected to each other, the reader should study, at the least, the preceding and following verses for a sense of the immediate context. Also, the reader should look at all of the verses that deal with the same subject in the book. These are frequently scattered all over the scripture. The indices provided in many of the exegeses of the Koran as well as the books of concordance allow the reader to get this information relatively easily. Often, there is information available about the occasion of revelation of a particular verse. This requires at least a cursory knowledge of Prophet Muhammad?s life.
As Professor Fazlur Rahman of the University of Chicago would frequently point out, the Koran, in part at least, may be looked upon as a running commentary on the mission of Prophet Muhammad. Finally, Koranic scholars advise us to analyze the way the Prophet implemented a particular directive in a verse of the Koran in his own life and ministry. For all Muslims, Prophet Muhammad was the ultimate exemplar of the Koran and its living embodiment.
Let us examine the verses in question with these exegetical principles in mind. One of the verses says:
?put down the polytheists wherever you find them, and capture them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them at every ambush? (Koran 9:5).
​
The immediate context, as Muhammad Asad (The Message Of The Qur?an) points out, is that of a ?war in progress? and not a general directive. It was an attempt to motivate Muslims in self-defense.​
Muslims were given permission to defend themselves just before Prophet Muhammad?s migration from Makkah (where he grew up) to the city of Madinah, which occurred in the 13th year of his 23-year mission. The danger to Muslims in Makkah at this time was extreme and there was a real possibility of their total eradication. They were permitted to fight back in self-defense against those who violently oppressed them. ?Permission is given (to fight) those who have taken up arms against you wrongfully. And, verily, God (Allah) is well able to give you succor. To those who have been driven forth from their homes for no reason than this that, say ?Our Lord is God.?
The Koran goes on to add:
?Hath not God repelled some men by others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of God is ever mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down.? (Koran 22: 39-42)
​
On another occasion the Koran says:​
?Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but don?t transgress limits; for God loves not the transgressor ... And fight them on until there is no more oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in God; but if they cease let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression?(Koran 2: 190-193)
​
Muslim scholars are of the opinion that war is permitted in self defense, when other nations have attacked an Islamic state, or if another state is oppressing a section of its own people. However, this is only a part of Jihad that Muslims are allowed to practice. A greater Jihad is struggle against one?s own inner self.​
The word Jihad comes from the root letters JHD, which means to struggle or to strive. It is understood by piety minded Muslims as a positive, noble and laudatory term. That is how most apply it in their personal, social, political and military lives. The history of the Muslims rulers, on the other hand, gives us examples of those who attempted to sanctify their wars of personal aggrandizement as wars for a noble cause by applying the label Jihad to them. A few even named their war departments as the departments of Jihad. This kind of behavior may be likened to a politician?s attempt to wrap him in the flag. Such exploitation of the term should not be allowed to corrupt the original or the commonly understood meaning of the word, which is to strive for the highest possible goals, struggle against injustice and practice self denial and self control to achieve the moral purity to which all piety minded people aspire.
The ?holy war? concept, for which many non-Muslims use the word Jihad, is foreign to Islam. Rather, it comes from a concept first used to justify the Crusades by the Christian Church during the middle Ages. The concept of ?holy war? may even go back to the time when the emperor Constantine the Great allegedly saw the vision in the sky with the inscription on the cross, ?in hoc signo vinces? (in this sign you will be the victor). The Arabic term, as has been pointed out by scholars, for ?the holy war? would be al-harab al-muqaddas, which neither appears in the Koran or the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (Hadith.) Muhammad?s wars were defensive wars against groups who sought to eradicate Islam and the Muslims.
It is interesting and useful for social scientists or philologists to study how the meaning and usage of words differ in different communities. Ironically, the word ?crusade?, because of its association with the crusades in the middle ages, should have had a pejorative sense to it and yet the word has acquired an ennobled meaning in the West.
This, in spite of the fact that the Church itself, along with most historians, acknowledge the injustice of the Crusades and the atrocities done in the name of faith. On the other hand, the word ?Jihad"which means for Muslims, striving for the highest possible goal, has acquired the negative connotation of the holy war.
It is clear from even a cursory study of the Koran that Islam does not permit, condone or promote violence. Just the opposite, it abhors violence and allows it only in self-defense. A claim to the contrary is no more than bad fiction.
The critics of the Koran should remember that if the Bible were similarly quoted out of context it would appear to be an extra ordinarily violent scripture. I will leave Graham and Robertson to defend the violence in the Bible and the history of Christianity.
Javeed Akhter is Executive Director of a local think tank ?The International Strategy and Policy Institute? and author of a new book on the biography of the Prophet titled ?The Seven Phases Of Prophet Muhammad?s Life? available at the Iqra bookstore in Chicago.
Beach Fanatic
Another thing, Ms. Gabriel in her article references Pearl Harbor. Huge difference than 9-11. She needs to understand the difference between an act of war sactioned by a country versus a terrorist attack by an extremist group.
We were not attached by a country, we were attacked by terrorists.
Just like Oklahoma City was attacked by a terrorist, who as a child was baptized Catholic and asked for last rites by a catholic priest.
And Jesus Wept: On a corner adjacent to the Oklahoma city memorial is a sculpture of Jesus weeping erected by St. Joseph's Catholic Church. St. Joseph's, one of the first brick and mortar churches in the city, was almost completely destroyed by the blast. .
By Ms Gabriel's reasoning this would have never been allowed.
You see what happens when you place blame on all of a group for the heinous acts of a few, that truly do not even represent them.
We were not attached by a country, we were attacked by terrorists.
Just like Oklahoma City was attacked by a terrorist, who as a child was baptized Catholic and asked for last rites by a catholic priest.
And Jesus Wept: On a corner adjacent to the Oklahoma city memorial is a sculpture of Jesus weeping erected by St. Joseph's Catholic Church. St. Joseph's, one of the first brick and mortar churches in the city, was almost completely destroyed by the blast. .
By Ms Gabriel's reasoning this would have never been allowed.
You see what happens when you place blame on all of a group for the heinous acts of a few, that truly do not even represent them.
Edited
Beach FanaticAuthor
Oh well bless your heart!Oh Sammy,it's o.k dude,it's just the internet,I don't take any of it seriously.
I am sorry to come along and pee pee in your sandbox.I know it must be difficult to accept someone with differing views from yours and your buddies here but that is what makes diversity among Americans so important,you know,that whole "tolerance" and "acceptance" thing.Hypocrisy stinks a joint up(bad pun,I know) so lets try to be civil to one another,instead of being a-holes to one another.Cool?
Beach Fanatic
Here's what's happening at another of the 9/11 sites.
Why did no one object to the "Pentagon mosque"? - War Room - Salon.com
Why did no one object to the "Pentagon mosque"? - War Room - Salon.com
Navy imam Chaplain Abuhena M. Saifulislam lifted his voice to God as he called to prayer more than 100 Department of Defense employees Monday at a celebration of Ramadan at the Pentagon.
God is most great, sang the lieutenant commander and Islamic leader, in Arabic, as iftar ? the end of the daily fast began.
Uniformed military personnel, civilians and family members faced Mecca and knelt on adorned prayer rugs chanting their prayers in quiet invocation to Allah.
SoWal Insider
A Mosque at 9/11 ?Ground Zero??the first sentence shows the mind of the writer. pure fantasy..... it's a christian redneck's wet dream
by Brigitte Gabriel
"Imagine the American response in 1950 if the Japanese government sought to erect a shrine to its World War II Emperor in Pearl Harbor, right next to the sunken wreckage of the USS Arizona.
Would 'outrage' be strong enough to describe the response?
Now fast forward to 2010.
Less than nine years after the worst terrorist attack on American soil in our history, an imam who blames America for the 9/11 attack wants to construct a 13 story, $100 million dollar mosque and Islamic center 600 feet from 'Ground Zero.'
And he wants to unveil it to the world on September 11, 2011 ? the ten year anniversary of the greatest jihadist atrocity ever perpetrated against America on its own soil.
News and blog sites across the country are heating up over this. ACT! for America, the nation?s largest grassroots organization dedicated to combating radical Islam and global jihad, today launched a national petition opposing the mosque, which says in part:
'We are opposed to the grotesque symbolism represented by the building of this mosque at ?ground zero?? We are deeply disturbed by the insensitivity to the families of the victims of the 9/11 jihadist attack exhibited by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his supporters.'
As a measure of the public?s outrage , over 5,000 people had signed the petition in the first three hours.
Families of the victims of 9/11 are stunned by the news that this mosque is proceeding ahead. It does not appear to be the mosque per se, but the audacity of those pushing for it to be located on what one firefighter survivor described as 'sacred ground,' that is striking a nerve.
Debra Burlingame, the sister of the American Airlines pilot whose jet was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon, is the founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America. In a recent Fox News interview she said:
'"The idea that you would establish a religious institution that embraces the very Shariah Law that terrorists point to as their justification for what they did ? to build that where almost 3,000 people died, that is an obscenity to me."'
The views of the imam of the proposed mosque are also roiling the waters. Madeline Brooks, an ACT! for America chapter leader in Manhattan, wrote the following recently in American Thinker:
'During a recent Friday sermon, this writer did due diligence as a mosque monitor and heard Rauf deny that Muslims perpetrated 9/11. In an interview with CNN shortly after 9/11, Rauf said, ?U.S. policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. We [the U.S.] have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. Osama bin Laden was made in the USA.? Elsewhere, Rauf has stated that terrorism will end only when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims. And that it was Christians who started mass attacks on civilians.'
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said that if it?s legal to put a mosque at this site, then it should be allowed. But 'legal' and 'right' are not necessarily the same thing.
For years Americans have been lectured to by Islamist leaders and their enablers and supporters about how Americans must be more sensitive to the needs, customs, and sensibilities of Muslims.
But one would be hard-pressed to find something more insensitive than the placement of a mosque, whose imam supports Islamic sharia law, right next to the worst Islamic jihadist attack on American soil in history.
The fact that the imam behind this mosque claims locating the mosque here is intended to heal the wounds of 9/11 reveals either moral obtuseness or disingenuousness.
The Muslim world is all about symbolism. To the militant Islamist in Saudi Arabia, a mosque at ground zero would represent the ultimate in humiliation of the infidel.
To the families of the victims of 9/11, it is the ultimate slap in the face."
Posted by Debra Moore at 10:54 PM
SoWal Insider
Oh Sammy,it's o.k dude,it's just the internet,I don't take any of it seriously.what would you do if your thinking was allowed to be acted upon? seriously, what would you do to make things right for you?
I am sorry to come along and pee pee in your sandbox.I know it must be difficult to accept someone with differing views from yours and your buddies here but that is what makes diversity among Americans so important,you know,that whole "tolerance" and "acceptance" thing.Hypocrisy stinks a joint up(bad pun,I know) so lets try to be civil to one another,instead of being a-holes to one another.Cool?
Beach Fanatic
the first sentence shows the mind of the writer. pure fantasy..... it's a christian redneck's wet dream
You never seem to miss an opportunity to bash Christianity. God bless you..
Beach Fanatic
IMHO, Bloomberg got it right. I bolded part of it - funny how so-called defenders of the Constitution accuse people of being left-leaning when they support Constitutional freedoms they don't agree with.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg's remarks as delivered on Governors Island:"We have come here to Governors Island to stand where the earliest settlers first set foot in New Amsterdam, and where the seeds of religious tolerance were first planted. We've come here to see the inspiring symbol of liberty that, more than 250 years later, would greet millions of immigrants in the harbor, and we come here to state as strongly as ever ? this is the freest city in the world. That's what makes New York special and different and strong.
"Our doors are open to everyone ? everyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard and play by the rules. New York City was built by immigrants, and it is sustained by immigrants ? by people from more than a hundred different countries speaking more than two hundred different languages and professing every faith. And whether your parents were born here, or you came yesterday, you are a New Yorker.
"We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That's life and it's part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognise that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11.
"On that day, 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn't want us to enjoy the freedom to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams and to live our own lives.
"Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that, even here in a city that is rooted in Dutch tolerance, was hard-won over many years. In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch Governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue ? and they were turned down.
"In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal, political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies ? and the organiser was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.
"In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion ? and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780's ? St Peter's on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Centre site and one block south of the proposed mosque and community centre.
"This morning, the city's Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted not to extend landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community centre are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.
"The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right ? and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the US Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question ? should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.
"The World Trade Centre Site will forever hold a special place in our City, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves ? and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans ? if we said 'no' to a mosque in lower Manhattan.
"Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values ? and play into our enemies' hands ? if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists ? and we should not stand for that.
"For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime ? as important a test ? and it is critically important that we get it right.
"On September 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked 'What God do you pray to?' 'What beliefs do you hold?'
"The attack was an act of war ? and our first responders defended not only our city but also our country and our Constitution. We do not honour their lives by denying the very Constitutional rights they died protecting. We honour their lives by defending those rights ? and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.
"Of course, it is fair to ask the organisers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation ? and in fact, their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. By doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our city even closer together and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any way consistent with Islam. Muslims are as much a part of our city and our country as the people of any faith and they are as welcome to worship in lower Manhattan as any other group. In fact, they have been worshipping at the site for the better part of a year, as is their right.
"The local community board in lower Manhattan voted overwhelming to support the proposal and if it moves forward, I expect the community centre and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighbourhood and the entire city.
"Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure ? and there is no neighborhood in this city that is off limits to God's love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us today can attest."
Mayor Michael Bloomberg's remarks as delivered on Governors Island:"We have come here to Governors Island to stand where the earliest settlers first set foot in New Amsterdam, and where the seeds of religious tolerance were first planted. We've come here to see the inspiring symbol of liberty that, more than 250 years later, would greet millions of immigrants in the harbor, and we come here to state as strongly as ever ? this is the freest city in the world. That's what makes New York special and different and strong.
"Our doors are open to everyone ? everyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard and play by the rules. New York City was built by immigrants, and it is sustained by immigrants ? by people from more than a hundred different countries speaking more than two hundred different languages and professing every faith. And whether your parents were born here, or you came yesterday, you are a New Yorker.
"We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That's life and it's part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognise that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11.
"On that day, 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn't want us to enjoy the freedom to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams and to live our own lives.
"Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that, even here in a city that is rooted in Dutch tolerance, was hard-won over many years. In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch Governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue ? and they were turned down.
"In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal, political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies ? and the organiser was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.
"In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion ? and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780's ? St Peter's on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Centre site and one block south of the proposed mosque and community centre.
"This morning, the city's Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted not to extend landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community centre are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.
"The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right ? and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the US Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question ? should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.
"The World Trade Centre Site will forever hold a special place in our City, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves ? and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans ? if we said 'no' to a mosque in lower Manhattan.
"Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values ? and play into our enemies' hands ? if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists ? and we should not stand for that.
"For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime ? as important a test ? and it is critically important that we get it right.
"On September 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked 'What God do you pray to?' 'What beliefs do you hold?'
"The attack was an act of war ? and our first responders defended not only our city but also our country and our Constitution. We do not honour their lives by denying the very Constitutional rights they died protecting. We honour their lives by defending those rights ? and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.
"Of course, it is fair to ask the organisers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation ? and in fact, their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. By doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our city even closer together and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any way consistent with Islam. Muslims are as much a part of our city and our country as the people of any faith and they are as welcome to worship in lower Manhattan as any other group. In fact, they have been worshipping at the site for the better part of a year, as is their right.
"The local community board in lower Manhattan voted overwhelming to support the proposal and if it moves forward, I expect the community centre and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighbourhood and the entire city.
"Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure ? and there is no neighborhood in this city that is off limits to God's love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us today can attest."
SoWal Insider
where's my answer from the patriot who asks his fellow man to be tolerant of intolerance? talk the talk?
Beach Fanatic
Bloomberg is a power crazed nut job.
This is not about religious freedom. There are over 100 mosques in New York. They are free to worship. This is Islam working to destroy our freedom.
"Islam uses the U.S. Constitution to demand the exercise of religious freedom while advocating for Shariah law, which fuses church and state and seeks to subjugate non-Muslims. Islamists are using our freedoms in an effort to destroy our freedoms.
Moreover, much of the $100 million in funding for the mosque is coming from Saudi Arabia. Riyadh has been aggressively supporting the building of madrassas and mosques around the world. The Saudi regime promotes Wahhabism, a particularly virulent strain of Islam. For example, Christian churches and synagogues are banned in Saudi Arabia; religious persecution is rampant. Yet no one - not New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo or any other sanctimonious liberal supporter of the ground-zero mosque - has bothered to investigate the sources of Mr. Rauf's funding. Are Wahhabists behind the mosque? If so, it probably will become a forum for hatred and extremism - just like a Saudi-funded mosque in Northern Virginia where the al-Qaeda-linked cleric Anwar al-Awlaki preached the virtues of jihadism.
Instead of addressing these issues, liberals such as Mr. Bloomberg are wrapping themselves in the flag of religious freedom."
This is not about religious freedom. There are over 100 mosques in New York. They are free to worship. This is Islam working to destroy our freedom.
"Islam uses the U.S. Constitution to demand the exercise of religious freedom while advocating for Shariah law, which fuses church and state and seeks to subjugate non-Muslims. Islamists are using our freedoms in an effort to destroy our freedoms.
Moreover, much of the $100 million in funding for the mosque is coming from Saudi Arabia. Riyadh has been aggressively supporting the building of madrassas and mosques around the world. The Saudi regime promotes Wahhabism, a particularly virulent strain of Islam. For example, Christian churches and synagogues are banned in Saudi Arabia; religious persecution is rampant. Yet no one - not New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo or any other sanctimonious liberal supporter of the ground-zero mosque - has bothered to investigate the sources of Mr. Rauf's funding. Are Wahhabists behind the mosque? If so, it probably will become a forum for hatred and extremism - just like a Saudi-funded mosque in Northern Virginia where the al-Qaeda-linked cleric Anwar al-Awlaki preached the virtues of jihadism.
Instead of addressing these issues, liberals such as Mr. Bloomberg are wrapping themselves in the flag of religious freedom."
Banned
Oh Sammy,it's o.k dude,it's just the internet,I don't take any of it seriously.
I am sorry to come along and pee pee in your sandbox.I know it must be difficult to accept someone with differing views from yours and your buddies here but that is what makes diversity among Americans so important,you know,that whole "tolerance" and "acceptance" thing.Hypocrisy stinks a joint up(bad pun,I know) so lets try to be civil to one another,instead of being a-holes to one another.Cool?
If you're going to preach civility, talk the talk would be a more appropriate moniker.
Thread locked
This conversation is read-only until a moderator unlocks it.