► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Ground Zero Mosque’

My response to those who claim it is a ‘human rights violation’ to protest mosques.

by Delectable ( 195 Comments › )
Filed under Free Speech, Islam at July 23rd, 2010 - 4:30 pm

I wrote the following in response to a terribly misguided post, written by Jeffrey Imm, of the group Responsible for Equality and Liberty (R.E.A.L.). A related post was linked to (and praised) by a certain husky pony-tailed blogger, which should tell you all you need to know about it! To boil it down, Mr. Imm believes that it is a ‘human rights violation’ to protest religious institutions, including those run by the Muslim Brotherhood. So he, in response, affirmatively defends the right of Muslims (including extremist Muslims, such as the Muslim Brotherhood) to worship wherever they want, including at Ground Zero. Below is an email I wrote in response. Please use the content in this email as helpful information whenever these topics come up with friends, colleagues, and/or family.

———————

To R.E.A.L.,

You are seeking to deny the legitimate moral and constitutional right that I and others have to protesting hate mosques being in our neighborhoods.
 
I have the first amendment right to protest, including protesting religious institutions. The problem is not that SIOA, Westboro Baptist Church, or MAS (the Muslim American Society, an organization that is considered a Muslim Brotherhood front group) protests a synagogue, mosque, or church. “Holy places” are not beyond reproach, and there is just as much a right to protest a church, synagogue, and/or mosque as there is a right to protest a community center. This is simple and basic American constitutional law that you (as a former FBI agent) were sworn to uphold.
 
Certainly, no one has the right to use intimidation tactics to block a mosque that include violence and/or threats of violence. I never said otherwise (and no one of merit would). However, I have every right to lobby a public official, or private individuals, and express displeasure about a new church, mosque, and/or synagogue being built. This is a basic American right that I enjoy as a citizen of this country. Yet you oppose any and all protests against mosques – even peaceful ones using no intimidation tactics.
 
When al-Awda/Code Pink/MAS/Adalah/etc protests outside synagogues and/or Jewish events (as they have done), I never think that the mere act of their protesting outside a house of worship is itself violative of human rights and decency. If in fact Judaism were a human rights violating faith, then perhaps Jews would deserve to be picketed! (but obviously, since the opposite is true, al-Awda/Code Pink/MAS/Adalah/etc are the haters) No, my problem with these organizations is the message found within their protests. In contradistinction, you appear to believe that simply protesting a house of worship is ipso facto evidence of a “human rights violation” (and/or hate speech) taking place. That is not only absurd and offensive, is the sort of reasoning that ultimately advocates on behalf of blasphemy laws.

This is not about whether or not the government is or should banning the building of a new mosque/synagogue/church. No – that is a separate matter altogether (and oddly enough, we may be in agreement on that matter).

The problem in China, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, et. al., is not one of protests of churches and/or synagogues. It is that the governments themselves ban churches/synagogues, and/or that the citizens themselves are violent towards certain religious and ethnic groups.

In fact, I believe that the USA needs to expand the definition of “terrorist organization” to include the Muslim Brotherhood and MAS. This would be most accurate, in light of Steve Emerson’s extensive work (as well as the body of evidence uncovered in the Holy Land Foundation trial), and then apply those laws when/if MAS wants to open a new mosque. But until then, I don’t think there is a way of writing a law that could survive constitutional protection that would be narrowly tailored enough to simply block MAS from opening a mosque, simply due to the fact that it is MAS, without then preventing me from building a synagogue. (Don’t believe me? Check out Geert Wilders’s trial in Holland for “hate speech,” to see how hate speech laws can go awry.) If you want to stop a mosque, you can do so legitimately due to zoning concerns and/or the loudness of the Shahada (call to prayer five times a day). However, if the zoning checks out, I believe you are really out of luck if you seek to have the government prevent a mosque from being built.

However, it is ludicrous to claim that somehow when Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer/SIOA protest a mosque, this is leading us down the path of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, etc. No, it is R.E.A.L. that is leading us down the path of China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc, by claiming that SIOA and others should be condemned (and/or prevented) for simply exercising their first amendment right to lobby and protest mosques.

This is about the right of individuals to protest a religious institution, which you impliedly – from all you have written in the past few weeks – believe they do not deserve.

After all, Pamela Gellar, Robert Spencer, and SIOA are not the government. They have no ability to prevent a mosque from being allowed in one place or another. What they are doing is ultimately lobbying to prevent future mosque building – which is their right. If you have a problem with the message they have (i.e., if you disagree that MAS is a bad organization, or that Islam is a bad religion), then feel free to explain why you disagree with them. Otherwise, even Dove Church has the right to say “Islam is of the Devil,” just as Westboro Baptist Church has the right to say “Judaism is of the devil.” And I have that same right to say that Westboro Baptist Church and Dove Church are hateful institutions, due to the messages they convey. It’s called a marketplace of ideas and freedom of speech – something I thought R.E.A.L. stood for.
 
In fact, I thought R.E.A.L. stood for human rights, consistency, and the constitution. However, your abject rejection of freedom of speech shows that R.E.A.L. is not consistent in support for universal human rights.
 
I am disappointed with what you have turned R.E.A.L. into. This is no longer a human rights organization when it does not stand for basic freedom of speech.
Rodan Update: In related news, a massive blow to the Islamic Imperialist Colonization of America has been dealt.
The board of trustees of a Staten Island Catholic Church have rejected the controversial sale of a church building to a Muslim group looking to open a mosque.
 
The collapse of the deal – which would have transferred the vacant convent of St. Margaret Mary Church to the Muslim American Society for $750,000 – came amid a national controversy over efforts to construct a mosque near Ground Zero.
Americans finally have stood up and said no to Islamic Imperialism!

The Ground Zero Mosque Must be Stopped

by Delectable ( 244 Comments › )
Filed under Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance at May 10th, 2010 - 3:09 pm

Ground Zero 

Below is a column I received from Madeline Brooks, Chapter head of ACT Manhattan, which explains why the upcoming mega-mosque, planned two blocks by Ground Zero in NYC, must be stopped. I received permission to reprint this in full, and then I have a few comments I would like to add to the end.

The Ground Zero Mosque Must Be Stopped!

By Madeline Brooks

Planting a mosque just two blocks from where Muslims murdered Americans on 9/11 is a huge slap in the face.   Why shouldn’t Muslims be sensitive enough to realize that a huge mosque planted right near the horrific wound to US created at Ground Zero by Muslims is outrageous to us?  They claim a right to be insulted by cartoons mocking their prophet, even to the point of beheading people.

The Imam of the Ground Zero Insult, Faisal Abdul Rauf, is not the nice guy he likes to hold himself out to be.  At his Friday afternoon khutbah services and in his book, “What’s Right With Islam,” Rauf states that he wants the mosque to be a place where inter-faith understanding is fostered.   His sonorous voice is smooth and almost hypnotic.  His writing style appears to be rational and unthreatening.

However, this does not jibe with aspects of him that are downright hostile and frightening.

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 only end when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims.  And that it was Christians who started mass attacks on civilians. 

Rauf has numerous ties to CAIR, an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Department of Justice funding case brought against Hamas, an openly terrorist organization.  CAIR is also the initiator of numerous “law fare” cases designed to intimidate non-Muslims from criticizing aggressive Muslim behavior, and to use our own legal and democratic processes to undermine and dominate America, forcing it to become Islamic. 

Rauf calls himself a Sufi, evoking among non-Muslims a “peace and love image,” similar to hippies.  But that’s not the whole picture.  Sufism has many sides to it, including the Koranic injunction to spread Islam one way or another, and it has a rich history of waging war too. Could it be that one of the frequently used tools of war, lying to the enemy, would explain the contradiction between Rauf’s image as reconciler of religions and his sympathies and associations with terrorists?  This is known as “taquiyya” among Muslims.

A previous Rauf project, Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, clearly shows on its website that it is headed and funded by individuals from Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned fifteen of the nineteen jihad jockeys who rode the 9/11 planes of destruction.  The funding for Cordoba House is much murkier, so far.  All that has been publically disclosed is that the support comes from unidentified sources in Saudi Arabia and Muslim ruled Malaysia.  Rauf reportedly says he paid $4.85 million for the property — in cash.  Where exactly did this money come from?  Was it Wahhabist supporting Saudi sources, which have already funded many other mosques in New York City?

The mosque is called Cordoba House.  Muslims like to refer to Spain and especially the city of Cordoba as a place where Muslim rule reached a glorious peak.  Contrary to the myth of a Golden Age of equality during the Muslim occupation of Spain and in particular in Cordoba, Spain and Cordoba were places where Christians and Jews suffered as social inferiors under Islam oppression.  Equal civil rights never existed for non-Muslims under Sharia, or Islamic law.  Rauf even admits as much when he writes, “Jews and Christians living under Muslim rule simply had to pay a tax to finance their protection by their Muslim overlords.”   This is not equality!  Americans do not demand a special tax to protect Muslims from ourselves.  That would be extortion, not ‘protection.’

Through another organization Rauf started called the Cordoba Initiative, he created the “Sharia Index.”  This will measure how closely countries follow Sharia, or Islamic law.  While Sharia can cover such relatively innocuous aspects of Muslim life as religious weddings (hopefully not to twelve year old girls) it also demands that all Muslim life be governed by laws derived from the Koran, without the intervention of civic institutions, such as democracy.  And the Koran dictates that everyone, even non-Muslims, must ultimately live under Sharia.  Do you understand how that is in direct conflict with our Constitution and other aspects of our secular society? 

Rauf gets even trickier here.  He states in his book, “What’s Right With Islam,” that a society that follows natural law, such as America, is already practicing Sharia.  However, he does not note that his peculiar definition of Sharia acceptance is shared by just about no other Imam.  So what prevents him from adjusting his singular idea of Sharia back to the norm of forced conversions, murdering non-Muslims and apostates who leave Islam, amputations of thieves’ hands, stoning of adulterous women, execution of homosexuals, etc.?  Throughout his writing, Rauf floats an image of a harmonious, pleasant Islam – nice to everybody.  But this is totally disconnected from Islam’s actual history of bloody conquest, enslavement, and humiliation of other people – which he never acknowledges. 

Still another unsettling part of Rauf’s problem mosque is why the city has given the building a pass.  Records for the Department of Buildings have shown numerous complaints for illegal construction and no access, yet the issues were listed as ‘resolved.’

The prestigious American groups that are reportedly also financing the mosque, The Ford Foundation and The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, need to think again about what they are getting into.  The Department of Buildings needs to reassess its action.  The Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, which supports the project (Why?  What has a religious building got to do with Immigration?) needs to re-evaluate its approval. 

Mayor Bloomberg himself needs to withdraw his support for this mosque, especially in light of the recent Times Square car bomb attempt.  If not, he will be helping to provide a handy meeting place for future terrorists, those who understand Imam Rauf’s real message:  Speak sweetly, appear to be a well adjusted member of American society, and plan the destruction of America, either with bombs or ‘peaceful’undermining. 

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg can be reached by phone: 311. By fax: (212) 788 8123. By email: http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html.

Community Board One can be reached by phone: (212) 442 5050.  By fax: (212) 442 5055.  By email: man01@cb.nyc.gov. Their street address is:  49-51 Chambers Street Room 715, New York, NY 10007-1209.

Needless to say, your comments should be respectful and fact based.

Now my comments:

(more…)