"The Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth it is this, and Protestantism has ever felt it so; to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." (-John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine).

"Where the bishop is, there let the people gather; just as where ever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church". -St. Ignatius of Antioch (ca 110 AD)a martyr later thrown to the lions, wrote to a church in Asia Minor. Antioch was also where the term "Christian" was first used.

“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15

"This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic." -CCC 811
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts

Monday, September 12, 2011

9/11 Terrorist Attack 10th Year Celebration: Pope said NO VIOLENCE IN GOD'S NAME


By AP (The Philippine Star)

VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI has insisted that violence must never be carried out in God’s name as he marks the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Benedict sent a letter to Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York on the eve of the anniversary. He said Saturday he was praying for the thousands of innocent victims of the “brutal assault” and hoped that their families may find continued consolation.

He says the tragedy of the day was compounded by the attackers’ claim that they were acting in God’s name. He insists that “no circumstances can ever justify acts of terrorism.”

He calls for a greater commitment to justice and a “global culture of solidarity” to rid the world of the types of grievances that spark such acts of violence.

Monday, September 27, 2010

The People behind the Ground Zero Mosque

You might be wondering who are these people behind the "PUSH" in building the "Ground Zero Mosque". Here is a viable information from 60 Minutes.

Read American Catholic's article on the much heated debate. .

The Ground Zero Mosque and Religious Freedom, Part Three

In my previous posts on this topic (Part One and Part Two) and the comments contained therein, one of the things which I feel is missing in this discussion is a dialog about the humanity of Muslims. Are Muslims human? Do Muslims have a religious sense? Do Muslims desire for truth, beauty and goodness? In stead of writing about this, I am going to show you. Watch this entire 60 Minutes program and judge it. It is simply amazing. Let us dialog about it in the comments.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Young Muslims offer flowers to Christian clergymen in goodwill gesture

AMMAN (The Jordan Times) - A group of young Muslims on Monday offered flowers to Christian clergymen in Amman as a gesture of “peace and coexistence” against the backdrop of a Florida pastor’s recent threat to burn copies of the Koran.

“Shall we burn a copy of the Bible as a response to that? No, this is not what should be done,” Zeid Oweidi told reporters at the Greek Orthodox Church in Abdali yesterday.

Following Al Asr (afternoon) prayers at the King Abdullah I Mosque, Oweidi and a group of 10 people walked to the nearby church, where they greeted the clergymen and other congregation members with bouquets of flowers.

The gesture sought to reaffirm the state of interfaith coexistence in Jordan, he said, adding that Pastor Terry Jones’ plans to burn 20 copies of Islam’s holy book will not affect the “strong” relations between followers of the two religions in the Kingdom, where Christians constitute around 5 per cent of the population.

Oweidi said some Muslim clerics opposed his initiative, but he insisted on going through with it, because “we believe in the positive effect and the peaceful message behind what we are doing”.

Several churches in the country have issued statements over the past week condemning plans by Jones, head of the Florida-based Dove World Outreach Centre, to burn copies of the Koran on Saturday, the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the US.

Last week, the extremist preacher announced the plan was suspended following conflicting reports about him reaching a deal with New York’s Muslim community not to construct an Islamic centre near Ground Zero.

Jones’ plan was met with protests across the Muslim world, with thousands of people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries staging demonstrations.

Many in the US also protested against the plan, while President Barack Obama and other officials warned it would place American soldiers and diplomats abroad at risk.

The Vatican has also described the plan as an “outrageous and grave gesture”.

In the Amman ceremony yesterday, Economos Constantine Karmash slammed Jones’ “out of tune” behaviour.

“A [Christian] clergyman should believe God’s stricture to ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’,” he said

Monday, September 13, 2010

The Imam at Ground Zero

Proposed Ground Zero Mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
by Ronald J. Rychlak of Inside Catholic

The debate over the mosque at Ground Zero and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is of particular interest to me. I know Imam Rauf. Five years ago, he and I were participants in an interfaith dialogue event that took place in Rome. I spoke with him over the course of several days. I have read his book, What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America. In fact, he signed my copy with the inscription: "To Ron Rychlak, may God bond us in deepest spiritual kinship."

As a law professor, especially one who teaches Constitutional Law, I know that Rauf has the right to build his community center/mosque in any appropriately zoned area -- so he legally can build it at the location in question. Of course, if it is located at Ground Zero, it will be inextricably tied to terrorism that was motivated by Islamic extremism. It may even seem like a triumphant crowning on behalf of the terrorists. That means it will always be a point of controversy and division.

Controversy surrounding the Cordoba House will limit its ability to serve as a legitimate place of peace and worship. There will always be protesters and others who want to undermine the objectives of a true religious/civic center. That should cause Rauf to carefully consider his options at this point.

Moreover, the rhetoric that is being thrown around on the internet and elsewhere will continue if the center is built. That kind of speech not only stirs up anti-Islamic sentiment in the United States, it also gives the terrorists motivation to carry out their attacks. As such, we all have incentive to set this issue aside. That can only happen if the project is stopped.

I do not think that Rauf has bad intentions; he struck me as a nice and thoughtful man when I met him in 2005 (though I am concerned about early accounts regarding the developer behind the project). The mosque that Rauf oversaw back then was only 12 blocks from Ground Zero. He's not moving into an entirely foreign area and trying to claim victory with this new project. Still, he has to understand the feelings of others.



Boston Globe columnist James Carroll wrote a book about the Carmelite nuns who opened a convent near Auschwitz and erected a large cross, marking the site where so many innocent Jews -- but also non-Jewish political prisoners, including Catholic priests -- were murdered by the Nazis. In 1984, Pope John Paul II interceded and asked the nuns to move to a new location, but the controversial cross remained. Carroll, an excommunicated former priest, wrote movingly about the pain that the cross created for modern Jews.

John Paul was in no way devaluing the heartfelt mission of the nuns to pray for the souls of the dead when he asked them to move. He was teaching a lesson in respect: That was not the place for the nuns to be. Regardless of their intent or even their legal right, the location belonged to others. It had been purchased with their blood.

Most people now agree that moving the nuns was the right thing to do. Rauf should also do the right thing. Some have suggested that he could alleviate concern over the mosque by denouncing Islamic extremism. Alternatively, they say, he might hold an interfaith gathering designed to bring people together. To be honest, I don't think efforts like this would do much to change the minds of people on either side of the debate (though his critics might quit trying to depict him as an Islamic extremist).

Rauf needs to remember something he wrote in his book What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America: "Cain loved Abel, by killing him. That's why I advise my congregation to probe one who tells you, 'I love you like a brother.' The prophets understood this very well, which is why the golden rule is to love others as we love ourselves."

Americans are probing the decision to build the mosque. Arguably, it would be a statement of love. Those who worship there might be -- as I believe the nuns at Auschwitz were -- recognizing the loss to humanity and praying for God's guidance. There is legitimate reason, however, for concern. One need not be Islamaphobic to probe this matter. We certainly do not want to have something built that will encourage Cain (or those like him) to repeat the crime of killing his brother.

Only Imam Rauf is in a position to resolve this difficult situation. New York Governor David Paterson proposed to help him find a different location for the center. The Catholic Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, endorsed that plan. Rauf should take them up on the offer. Ground Zero, at least for now, belongs to others. They purchased it with their blood.

Indian bishop: We will not burn the Koran, but Islam must be more tolerant

by Nirmala Carvalho
Interviewed by AsiaNews, Mgr. Cornelius Leo, Archbishop of Bhopal, condemns the "burn the Koran" campaign launched by American pastor Terry Jones. The prelate urges Christians and Muslims to isolate extremists who offend other faiths: "Having respect for religion means respecting the human being."

Mumbai (AsiaNews) - "The threat of the Florida pastor has created such a reaction among our Muslim friends and the Muslims were rightly offended. In the same way, when some of their fanatical people do similar acts offending other’s religious beliefs, our Muslims friends should be able to also understand and feel for the hurt religious sentiments of the other religions" So says Mgr. Cornelius Leo, archbishop of Bhopal (Madhya Preadesh) regarding the "burn a Koran" campaign, which has caused widespread alarm around the world in these days.

Interviewed by AsiaNews, the bishop emphasizes that it is only thanks to the reciprocity that the foundations for trust and peaceful coexistence can be laid.

How have the Christian and Muslim communities of Madhya Pradesh reacted to the news of these days?

The announcement of the burning of the Koran has been denounced by Christian and Muslim leaders in our province, but in every region of India and the world. There are elements of fanaticism in all faiths. People of goodwill must not react to these provocations and reject any kind of fundamentalism.

In Madhya Pradesh, Christians and Muslims are a minority. What are the key elements for tolerance and mutual coexistence?

It is important for our communities to work together, not against the majority community (Hindus) and especially to isolate extremists. We do not live as a religious minority against the majority. Respect for religion means respecting the human being. In Madhya Pradesh, we have good relations with Muslim leaders, in fact many Muslims participated in the celebrations for the centenary of Mother Teresa.

Will this goodwill generated between the Muslim and Catholic Leaders be of any advantage to the Middle East Synod .

Mosques are being built all over the world and yet in the Middle East- Churches are not allowed , worship too has strict rules and regulations – and it is essential that our Muslim friends are aware of these things and the Spirit of Reciprocity should be the guiding principles for religious tolerance .

It is only through reciprocity that the foundations can be laid of mutual trust and peaceful coexistence for a new world order

Burn the Koran or the Constitution

[Source: Sultan Knish Blog] - The media's coverage of the 9th anniversary of the Muslim murder of 3,000 people was overshadowed by their panicked coverage of the possibility that Terry Jones, the pastor of a tiny Florida church, might actually burn the Koran. Last week Newsweek ran Fareed Zakaria's piece insisting that Americans overreacted to 9/11. So instead the media showed us where their priorities lie, by shortchanging the dead, ignoring their killers and instead turning the pastor of a small Florida church into a villain for even talking about the possibility of torching a book, whose contents helped inspire 9/11. It's as if on Holocaust Memorial Day, the key topic of discussion was not the murder of 6,000,000 Jews, but a protester who wanted to get his Bic lighter close to Mein Kampf.

In the weeks leading up to the anniversary, the media had been sanctimoniously lecturing Americans that their sensitivities regarding Ground Zero were irrelevant in the face of a Muslim desire to put up a massive and completely unnecessary Islamic complex in the area. Constitutional freedoms, real or imagined, trumped any sensitivities. But when a Gainesville pastor proposed returning a couple of copies of the Koran back to the environment by way of lighter fluid, suddenly freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and all that other stuff created by dead white men before the age of Walter Kronkite and CNN, were irrelevant in face of Muslim sensitivities.

Time Magazine and USA Today both ran polls asking whether burning the Koran should be criminalized as a hate crime. CNN gave a forum to a Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri to argue that burning a Koran would have been worse than 9/11 and warned that such actions "should be stopped by the U.S. government at any cost". Now Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri shows in his article that while he may not know the difference between "principal" and "principle", or "ensure" and "insure", he understands exactly how to push for the imposition of the horrifying barbarity of Islamic Sharia law in America.

In Dr. Qadri's own words: "any act of an individual or group which... hurts the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslim should be stopped at any cost." There are no details of just what "any cost" would imply, but certainly Dr. Qadri argues that Freedom of Speech cannot be used to protect anything that offends Muslims. And since just about everything from eating on Ramadan to liquor in taxi cabs to ice cream cones that look like Allah, has been known to offend Muslims, that means for September 11 you can kiss freedom goodbye. Or risk offending 1.5 billion Muslims. And we know what happens every time you offend the peaceful worshipers of the Religion of Peace. Riots, murder, terrorism and of course burning the American flag.

The same media which has consistently opposed a Constitutional amendment that bans flag burning (generally because they tend to agree with the flag burners), has now decided that burning the Koran should be a crime. Because burning the flag or killing thousands of Americans is no big deal-- but burning a Koran, someone should make a law about that.

Given a choice between burning the US Constitution or burning the Koran-- the media happily raises a lighter to the First Amendment. To them nothing American is sacred, but everything Islamic is.

Their defense of the Ground Zero Mosque was never about the Constitution. It was about kowtowing to the morally superior victims of American imperialism, starving in Dubai or Islamabad. If it helps them make their case to the people they think of as "The Great Unwashed", still clinging to their guns and religion, they will invoke the Constitution or the Magna Carta or an instruction manual from IKEA. From Obama on down, centuries of ideas about self-government are nothing but toys that they keep in the attic and bring out whenever particularly dull company comes over. They don't believe in self-government themselves. That is something they have in common with their brethren ruling with an iron fist beneath the sickle and hammer, or the crescent and star. Ideas, not the referendum or a national legacy of rights and responsibilities, are their source of political power. What the people and the law have to say about it, doesn't matter.

And so we come down to the ugly choice. Burning the Koran or burning the Constitution. The left has already made its choice. You can walk down the streets of Europe's greatest cities and see what remains of centuries of national struggle, republican ambitions and millions dying so that their language and their culture might have the shelter of a nation of their own. Now America is being presented with the same option. Touch your head to the floor or risk offending 1.5 billion Muslims. And what is the value of freedom compared to the feelings of a bunch of followers of Mohammed, with a long string of zeroes trailing after them around the globe.

It isn't about whether burning someone else's sacred book is right or wrong. To appease Muslim sensitivities, the US military burned a large number of Christian bibles last year. The same media which is panting breathlessly at the notion that anybody would dare use a holy book for kindling, smiled approvingly then. Because the issue isn't about burning anyone's holy books, but offending Muslims. That is the one law we are left with, after all the others have been tossed into the fire. Thou Shalt Not Enrage the Mohammedan.

What offends Muslims is anyone who disobeys their laws. And if our laws are to always defer to their sensitivities, then that means we have replaced the United States Constitution... with the Koran.

The media has put on a show of being concerned about US troops as outraged murderous members of the Religion of Peace might try to kill US soldiers in the full fury of their peacefulness, but if the media hadn't focused attention on the story, how would all those peaceful bearded types in Pakistan have even known about the Koran burning? In 2005, Newsweek falsely reported that American personnel in Gitmo had flushed a Koran. There was no actual truth to the report, but still 15 people died in the rioting. Yet the smug blond talking head on CNN who berated Terry Jones for "having blood on his hands", did not accuse Newsweek of having blood on their hands, even though they actually did. Just as there are no "blood on their hands" accusations for the media outlets who broadcast the heavily edited Wikileaks tape, or any of the Bin Laden videos, or leaked sensitive information about US military operation.

Dead US soldiers, like the Constitution, are only of interest when they're a handy talking point. If dead US soldiers were of interest to the media or General Petraeus, perhaps there might be some interest in just how many US soldiers have died in Afghanistan because they were denied proper aerial support or the right to fire on their assailants under McChrystal and Petraeus's Rules of Engagement, which put the focus on appeasing Muslims, over the lives of American boys on the front line.

But like the Constitution, the bodies of American soldiers must burn, in the name of Muslim sensitivities.

In 1987, the National Endowment for the Arts partially funded Piss Christ, an image of a crucifix in urine. Two decades later in 2007, a Koran in a Pace University toilet triggered a 10 month investigation (in New York City, few murder cases are investigated half that long) and finally led to the arrest of one Stanislav Shmulevich on Hate Crime charges. Piss Christ, you see is a work of art. But Piss Koran is a hate crime. Similarly burning the Christian Bible soothes Muslim sensitivities. Burning the Koran inflames them. Killing US soldiers makes Muslims feel good. Killing Muslim terrorists inflames their sensitivities.

The Pace University case, in which a Muslim NYPD detective was assigned to pursue a student for a violation of Muslim law, served as a warning that the media chatter at Time, USA Today and CNN about making burning the Koran into a hate crime should not be taken lightly. Under the Constitution, burning the Koran is completely legal. But the Islamists and their Leftist allies have no regard for the Constitution. No more than they do for the lives of US soldiers or the dead at Ground Zero. They prefer Islamic law, with all its concomitant tyranny and brutality, over the freedoms and values of Americans.

Why do the hate the Constitution of ours so much? Because it is premised on legal equality and self-government, two sets of values anathema to the left and Islam. Under Islamic law, Christians, Jews, Hindus and all others are inferior to Muslims. Women are inferior to men. Koranic experts are superior to ordinary Muslims. First wives are superior to second wives. And so on it goes, a pyramid of discrimination and segregation, sanctioned and approved by Allah, Mohammed and Islam.

Under Islamic law, the sensitivities of Muslims trump the rights of non-Muslims. That is why in the Muslim world, no church or synagogue was allowed to be taller than a mosque. The Twin Towers which dared to be one of the world's tallest buildings, had to be knocked down to make way for Muslim skyscrapers in Dubai and Malaysia. Such is the arrogance and brutality of the Islamic worldview. And such are the horrors that it gives birth to.

Today at Ground Zero, a man did burn the Koran. He gave no interviews, only to say; "Americans should never be afraid to give their opinion". Such a view is not favored by Islam and the Liberal media, which is very determined that people should be afraid to give their opinions. And this last week has been a tremendous exercise in just that. In intimidating Americans. In intimidating America itself, with the threat of 1.5 billion Muslim sensitivities inflamed into a killing rage. Yet again.

But these handful of pages from the Koran were not the first thing burned at Ground Zero. Nine years ago, thousands of human beings were burned alive in the name of the Koran at this place. Pages from their books, their Rolodexes, their memos and their family photographs flew burning into the air, taking wing over the city and drifting down to the place where Imam Rauf and his gang of grinning henchmen would like to erect their symbol of contempt for the dead. The Muslim world did not tremble at the sensitivities of 300 million Americans when they burned 3,000 people at this spot. Like Fareed Zakaria, they either did not care, or they grinned in triumph, and danced in the streets.

Now when the moderate Muslims crawl out of their sewers to warn us that burning the Koran will lead to murder-- all they manage to do is show off their sick and hateful values. A value system that places a higher priority on printed pages than on the lives of non-Muslims. Such a value system cannot and must not be allowed to impose its will on the people of a free nation. Not on this sacred day, and not on any day. Ever.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

9/11 Koran Burning - A New American Tradition

One of the hi-jacked plane crashing in World Trade Center 9-11-2001
Thanks to Catholic Knight for this wonderful reflection why we DEMAND the same TOLERANCE from Islam and Muslims:

This is only an excerpt from his article entitled: 9/11 Koran Burning - A New American Tradition

During the 9/11 memorial service at the WTC site, protests were going on just a few blocks away. Supporters of the proposed "victory mosque" clashed with those opposed to it. All across America, in various places, Korans were torn and burned. An unidentified man burned pages from the Koran near the WTC site, while another group of people tore pages from the Koran in front of the Whitehouse in Washington DC. 'The Catholic Knight' does not condone this, but I would be lying if I said I didn't understand it. What's happening here is a pitiful display of helpless defiance. Americans are sick and tired, indeed fed up, with Islam's seeming relentless intolerance, and our Liberal politicians' spineless response to it. What Emperor Palaiologos said in 14th century, I am forced to repeat with sorrowful frustration: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Allow me to rephrased it my own way; Show me just what Islam has given us that is new, besides excessive violence in the name of religion.



In America, a few frustrated people burn Korans. In the Middle East, they burn Bibles, crosses and entire churches! In America, a few frustrated people said the don't like Islam. In the Middle East, they kidnap Christians and kill them! In America, a large majority of people (many non-religions) say "move your mosque" away from a certain controversial site. In the Middle East Christians are told they can't build churches at all and are treated as second-class citizens, often punished with death for expressing their Christian faith. You tell me, which group is more tolerant? Is it the one that occasionally burns Korans? or the one that regularly kills people in the name of the Koran? After ten years on a steady diet of Islamic violence in the name of religion, Americans are finally waking up to the fact that our leaders have lied to us (once again) and the so-called "religion of peace" appears just the opposite. I personally don't like this new American tradition of Koran burning. I don't think it solves anything, but I do understand America's frustration, and quite frankly, I can't blame those who do it. Mark my words though, this will be done again by similar folks next year, and the year after that, and the year after that, and so on for decades. Sadly but truly, it will soon become as American as apple pie. In response, from the Middle East every year we can expect a glut of riotous protests, along with church burnings, kidnappings, murders and mayhem. In so doing however, Muslims will only vindicate the message of those who burn the Koran.

Read the whole Article HERE

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Asra Q. Nomani, a Muslim, says there are a few brutal passages in the Quran that need to go up in smoke.

(Daily Beast) - On the plan to burn Qurans this weekend, I say to Muslims: Let's get over the symbolic insult and deal with the very real issues of literal interpretations of the Quran that are used to sanction domestic violence, terrorism, militancy, and suicide bombings in the name of Islam.

Gen. David Petraeus has weighed in, saying that the planned burnings by the Rev. Terry Jones' congregation in Florida will endanger U.S. soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. But I believe that there is something that endangers Americans and American soldiers even more: certain passages that—when read literally—pit Muslims against Americans and the West.

I believe the Qurans are being burnt because we, as Muslims, haven't dealt sincerely and intellectually with very serious issues that certain Quranic passages raise, particularly in the West. These include verses—when literally read—that say that disobedient wives can be beaten “lightly,” that Muslims can't be friends with the Jews and the Christians, and that it's OK to kill converts from Islam.

We, as Muslims, need to tear a few pages out of the Quran—symbolically, at least, by rejecting literal adherence to certain problematic verses.

The Christian faith had to deal with problematic verses from the Book of Deuteronomy that sanctioned violence. Jews have had to confront rigid readings of the Old Testament that sanctioned stonings. Muslims, too, must re-interpret verses that aren't compatible with life in the 21st century.

Look at one literal reading of the 34th verse of the fourth chapter of the Quran, An-Nisa, or Women. "[A]nd (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them," reads one widely accepted translation. Based on a literal reading, Saudi scholar Abdul Rahman al-Sheha concludes that when dealing with a “disobedient wife,” a Muslim man has a number of options. First, he should remind her of “the importance of following the instructions of the husband in Islam.” If that doesn't work, he can “leave the wife's bed.” Finally, he may “beat” her, though it must be without “hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the face, at any cost.”

Such appalling recommendations occur because we haven't yet universally drawn a line in the sand, as Muslims, and said that this verse may have been progressive for the seventh century when women were supposedly beaten indiscriminately, but it isn't compatible with the modern day, if read literally. Instead, we do something called the "4:34 dance," suggesting that the light beating be the result of everything from hitting a woman with noodles (yes, you read that right) to a traditional toothbrush, called a “miswak,” from the root of a plant.

The kidnapping and killing of my friend and colleague Daniel Pearl in 2002 forced me to confront the link between literalist interpretations of the Quran and their role in sanctioning violence in the world. For critics of Islam, these verses are the smoking gun that proves that Islam is intrinsically violent. These are verses such as At-Tauba (“The Repentance”) 9:5, which states that Muslims should “slay the pagans wherever ye find them” or Al-Mâ'idah (“The Table Spread with Food”) 5:51, which reads, “Take not the Jews and Christians as friends.”

We need to reject literal reads of the Quran and recognize that these verses were communicated during specific moments of war, and they aren't edicts for all time. We, as Muslims, must reject the notion that we read these words literally. To many, that would be an act of blasphemy. But, until we do, the literal words of the Quran will be used to rally hate against the faith. And that is why, indeed, Qurans will be burned by the small congregation of about 50 folks from the Rev. Terry Jones' Dove World Outreach Center. It's really just these particular verses that need to go up in smoke.

Friday, September 3, 2010

Why Islamic Moderates Are So Scarce

(Source: National Review)
It goes back to a ninth-century theological dispute.

As past statements of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf continue to surface, many Americans have concluded that the would-be builder of a mosque at Ground Zero is lying when he calls himself a “moderate” representative of his faith. The more disturbing possibility, however, is that he’s telling the truth — that Rauf is indeed the voice of mainstream Islam.

One indication is the resounding silence from the rest of the Islamic community. If that community were truly moderate — as we in the West understand the term — one might expect it to distance itself from a man who blames the U.S. for the 9/11 attacks, says we have more innocent blood on our hands than al-Qaeda, and refuses to disown the genocidal agenda of Hamas.

A few brave Muslim individuals have indeed come out against the mosque, but they are exceptions. Where are the large numbers of Muslims who find Rauf’s statements offensive? Where are their organizations and institutions? Why aren’t they weighing in to repudiate Rauf and his apparent aims?

It’s a common problem. Each time some new offense is perpetrated in the name of Islam — whether it’s the latest suicide bombing in a public square or a woman’s being beaten and mutilated by her own family — it is mostly Western leaders and the press who voice their disapproval. The more one looks for the larger Muslim community to denounce the violence, the more “moderate Islam” seems to vanish like a mirage in the desert.

Why this is so — what happened to moderate Islam and what sort of hope we may have for it in the future — is the subject of Robert Reilly’s brilliant and groundbreaking new book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind. Reilly is a veteran of the Reagan White House, director of the Voice of America under George W. Bush, a board member of the Middle East Media Research Institute, and a frequent contributor to numerous national publications. He has made a deep dive into Muslim thought and history to discover the sources of the present Islamic condition.

The result is anything but dry. Closing is a page-turner that reads almost like an intellectual detective novel. It is among those few brave books on Islam — others would include Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations and Andrew McCarthy’s recent The Grand Jihad — that should be read by anyone who wants to understand one of the most fundamental causes of conflict in the 21st century.

Reilly does in fact locate the elusive moderate Islam — back in the 8th and 9th centuries, when the rationalist Mu’tazilites dominated Islamic thought under Caliph al-Ma’mun. The period is often referred to as the “golden age of Islam,” when that civilization produced some of its highest achievements in philosophy and science. It didn’t last. In 849, the second year of the reign of Caliph Ja’afar al-Mutawakkil, the Mu’tazilites were overthrown. Holding Mu’tazilite beliefs became a crime punishable by death, and the decidedly anti-rationalist Ash’arites soon came to dominate the faith, as they would continue to do, in one form or another, through the modern era.

What makes Closing so compelling is Reilly’s ability to tie seemingly arcane questions of Islamic theology to many of the characteristics of Islamic civilization that we in the West find so hard to fathom. Fundamentally, Ash’arism was a rejection of “natural law” and reason in favor of an all-powerful God of pure will and power. The idea of an ordered universe that behaves according to certain ordained laws — whether moral or physical — would have been understood by the Mu’tazilites. For the Ash’arites, this was blasphemy, an outrage against God’s omnipotence.

In the language of philosophy, this way of looking at the world is known, somewhat confusingly, as “voluntarism.” To quote Reilly, it “holds that God is the primary cause of everything and there are no secondary causes. There is no causal mediation. Therefore, what may seem to be ‘natural laws,’ such as the laws of gravity, physics, etc. are really nothing more than God’s customs or habits, which He is at complete liberty to break or change at any moment.”

While Christianity recognizes the possibility of miracles, when God intervenes to supersede natural law, in Islam every nanosecond is the functional equivalent of a miracle, the result of God’s divine act. Thus there is no law of gravity, only God’s will, determining moment by moment that the apple will fall from the tree. Neither is there any morality, no objective good and evil as we in the West would see it, only the arbitrary decrees of an all-powerful God. There is no “truth that is written in our hearts,” only the truths that are written in the Koran, which could just as well be otherwise if such were the whim of God. As Ibn Hazm pronounced in the 11th century, “He judges as He pleases, and whatever He judges is just. . . . If God the Exalted had informed us that He would punish us for the acts of others . . . all that would have been right and just.”

The problem, one might say, is obvious. In science, the repudiation of natural law meant the explicit denial of cause and effect. No wonder that the rise of the Ash’arites coincided with the decline of a once-vibrant Islamic intellectual culture after the 13th century. And no wonder that societies that exalt the power and arbitrary will of God to the exclusion of reason can hardly understand, let alone embrace, modern democratic institutions, which are founded, as our Declaration of Independence makes clear, in the self-evident and enduring truths of natural law.

Nor can we be surprised that such cultures endorse institutionalized domestic violence or rampant terrorism and the murder of innocents. As hard as it is for the secular Left to accept, Western culture is founded on and steeped in the Judeo-Christian assumption that our innate understanding of what is right is a direct reflection of God’s goodness and justice as reflected in His universal law, to which even He adheres. We make a mistake when we assume other cultures are necessarily speaking the same moral language.

Is there a possibility that Islam can find its way back to the root philosophies of its golden age? There are those within Islam who want to, but — like the voices raised in opposition to the mosque — they are lonely, even threatened, outposts within their faith. One thing Reilly’s account makes clear: Only when we move beyond the common platitudes of our contemporary political discussion and begin to deal with Islam as it really is — rather than the fiction that it is the equivalent of our Western culture dressed up in a burqa — will we be able to help make progress in that direction.

— Josh Gilder is one of the founding directors of the White House Writers Group.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Islamolepsy: The New Pathology

Is the disease incurable?

August 31, 2010 - by David Solway

In a recent YouTube video, a de facto symposium of world-class scholars and political authors, including Paul Williams, Melanie Phillips, Bernard Lewis, and Mark Steyn, have united to articulate a grim and pressing warning to a seemingly insensible Western world. As Steyn tells it, the world’s most advanced societies are starting to go out of business, on the one hand refusing to assess and confront the gathering Islamic storm that threatens their survival and, on the other, losing out in the reproductive sweepstakes. Europe in particular is poised to suffer a Damoclean fate. Tracing an inverted family tree in which four grandparents and two parents produce one child, the continent is losing the battle of generational replenishment. It is only a matter of time before Europe as we know it closes shop and a burgeoning Islamic ummah accomplishes its version of a corporate takeover.

Meanwhile, it would be a mistake to conclude that a vibrant and rejuvenated Islam is patiently waiting for the inevitable historical denouement to occur. On the contrary, even as it prepares to celebrate its demographic triumph, it is robustly — and successfully — pursuing its evident intention to assert itself as a destabilizing factor in European society. And its most powerful ally in its campaign of eventual conquest is the European postmodern elite itself, for whom one truth is as good as another and no culture is worse than any other — with the exception, naturally, of the Judeo-Christian armature of norms and values now regarded as both decadent and expendable. Europe’s political class, public intellectuals, journalists, activist judges, talking heads, and, oddly enough, parts of the clergy have banded together as a fifth column to usher in a new dispensation, which Bat Ye’or and others have aptly dubbed Eurabia.

How could so unprecedented a collapse of will and principle have taken place? How is it possible that, in the words of Bernard Lewis from the video discussion, Muslims “now consider Europe the House of Islam”? And that the European intelligentsia have given them the key to the front door?

The continent is suffering from what we might call Islamolepsy, the kind of rigidity found in schizophrenia and hypnotic trances, now transposed upon a collective cultural sensibility and reducing it to a condition of social and political helplessness. It does not know how to fight back; indeed, apart from a few pitiful twitches like banning articles of clothing, it is increasingly incapable of doing so. Sharia law is gradually being introduced in Britain, with the approval of Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury — a harbinger of things to come in other EU countries. Counter episodes are unconvincing. Much has been made, for example, of Switzerland’s curtailing of minarets, but the new mega-mosque in Cologne, Germany, will boast two 18-storey high minarets, and in Belgium Christian churches are being turned into mosques, a scene straight out of French novelist Jean Raspail’s premonitory The Camp of the Saints. There are currently 6,000 mosques in Europe and the number is growing.

Far more worrisome, America as well may be gradually succumbing to the same pandemic. Melanie Phillips, author of Londonistan and The World Turned Upside Down, laments that Europe now malingers in a state of denial, “and to a certain extent, America too.” But it is far more than a certain extent, as the current Park51 mosque controversy makes amply clear. Whether or not the mosque should be built two blocks from Ground Zero has triggered a vehement debate among the American public, but it is the minor question. The major concern is whether or not Islam should be permitted to infiltrate the living plasm of American society — an issue for which the Ground Zero mosque is merely representative, functioning as a symbol and an attention-concentrator.

What is most astonishing is that the question even needs to be raised in the first place, since the slightest acquaintance with the historical brunt of Islam, its desire to establish a world-dominant caliphate, its 1400-year record of conquest, spoliation and oppression, its doctrinal ordnance which enjoins the suppression or murder of the infidel in surah after surah of the Koran and the ancillary literature, its practice of taqiyyah (or obligatory lying as a form of defense under duress, as in Koran 16: 106, which has been interpreted to mean deception in order to promote its underlying agenda), and its campaign to impose sharia law upon the social and juridical framework of a free society — all this should have alerted us immediately to the menace. That is, assuming we were awake and sentient.

The sort of contentions we have been witnessing could only occur in favored societies — the U.S. no less than Europe — for which the real world lies somewhere beyond their borders, despite the blows they may have received. As a result, they can preoccupy themselves with febrile pieties, idle or inexpedient disputes, recondite theories, sentimental indulgences, intellectual fantasies and utopian schemes that must inevitably fail. These are societies that are able to preen themselves on their sophistication and enlightenment only because they have managed to retire into an arbor of relative peace and considerable opulence. They feel no hazard in inviting the 7th century into the 21rst while deprecating their own traditions, usages, and foundational premises. It should be conceded, however, that the chief culprits in the charade of self-delegitimation derive mainly from the more advantaged and connected strata of society.

This is certainly true for three of Park51’s most prominent champions, the American president himself, New York’s bleeding heart mayor Michael Bloomberg, and America’s doyen libertarian, the ineffable Ron Paul. These influential appeasers don’t seem to understand what is going on out there beyond their insulated thought bubbles — though some, it may be, only pretend not to. They don’t seem to be at all disconcerted by the far more serious problem to which Michael Ledeen draws our attention, the 1200 radical mosques that stipple the American landscape, breeding grounds for the Islamization of the United States.

The propitiators among us are equally blind to an attendant and escalating phenomenon, namely, jihadi training camps like Islamberg in upstate New York where recruits and converts to the Faith Militant are taught to handle firearms and acquire bomb-making skills. As Paul Williams, author of The Day of Islam, discloses, Islamberg is only one of thirty such compounds across the U.S. affiliated with Jamat al-Fuqra, a paramilitary organization founded by Pakistani cleric Sheik Mubarak Ali Gilani. These are Waziristan-type enclaves on American soil which are being allowed to ramify and which have already committed acts of violence, including firebombings and assassinations going back to the 1980s. And yet little is being done to police or dismantle them.

Perhaps the most distressing fact of all is not so much the craftiness of the Muslim actors in the current drama — this is to be expected — but the utter naivety and mental sclerosis of our media mavens, public intellectuals, and a hefty segment of the political class who have rallied to the Islamic cause — though perhaps this too was to be expected. The “willful blindness” that Andrew McCarthy speaks about, and explores more fully in The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, has descended upon us like a biblical plague, which is now beginning to look like a permanent condition. A toxic mix of credulousness and fear has infected an entire generation of ingenues, sophists, socialist fellow-travelers, timeservers, and sycophants who are devotedly bringing their country into harm’s way. How can we explain what is nothing less than a passion for self-immolation, a welcoming of the encroaching darkness?

What we are observing, I suspect, is the onset of a debilitating disorder which manifests as a seizure of the mental organ, a lack of elasticity in responding to complex and threatening situations. It is as if the mind has been paralyzed by a variant form of cataleptic fit, characterized by fixity of posture, obliviousness to external stimuli, loss of control, and diminished sensitivity to pain. The malady is induced by profound emotional shock accompanied by withdrawal from reality — an unconscious way, perhaps, of amortizing the great multicultural blunder for which we are responsible but cannot admit to ourselves. Knowing subliminally that we have been instrumental in soliciting our own ruin, and too weak to respond decisively, the only asylum that remains is a species of dementia that shields us from the truth.

In other words, those who suffer from the distemper, as it emerges in the social and political sphere, are simply unable to acknowledge, absorb, and confront the magnitude of what is transpiring before their very eyes. They cannot discriminate among the external stimuli or recognize them for what they are. Suicide bombings, terrorist strikes, multiple casualties, stealth jihad, meretricious vouchers of good intentions, legal assaults, cultural implosion, a billion-strong adversary riding the wave of the future — it is all too much for our Islamoleptic media, intelligentsia, entertainers, and political masters to fully take in. It appears they have sought refuge from the unassimilable in a classic fugue state or succumbed to split-mind syndrome. As Martin Amis astutely comments in The Second Plane, “The death cult always benefits, initially at least, from its capacity to astonish and stupefy.” I quibble only with Amis’ “initially.” The trouble is that once stupefaction sets in, it tends to make itself at home.

The etiology of the affliction that merits the name of Islamolepsy issues, it bears repeating, in a host of predictable symptoms: the rejection of personal complicity, the denial of palpable reality, the construction of an alternate world in which a bellicose and inimical claim to ascendancy is blithely endorsed, the rigid and untenable conviction of superior insight, the false consolation of intellectual torpor and, of course, the tendency to fall back on moral histrionics to discredit those who can still see clearly.

The prognosis is not encouraging, for Islamolepsy resembles the most tenacious and virulent of pathologies. Perhaps it is even incurable.
David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, has just been released by Mantua Books.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Why the "Cordoba Mosque" now Park 51 should not be there!

Megamosque to rise beside Ground Zero?

POSTSCRIPT By Federico D. Pascual Jr. (The Philippine Star) Updated August 29,

CORDOBA: Americans, especially New Yorkers, are grappling with the highly emotional question of whether or not to allow near Ground Zero the building of a megamosque packaged with an Islamic center originally called Córdoba House.

Ground Zero refers to the site of the World Trade Center twin towers that al-Queda terrorists destroyed by crashing jetliners into them on Sept. 11, 2001. Almost 3,000 persons were killed in that worst attack ever on the mainland US,
A number of Americans steeped in religious tolerance would allow Córdoba House (now renamed Park51 after its address on Park Place in Lower Manhattan, because of the emotional objections to “Córdoba”). But many others object.
<

The Córdoba House, to cost $100 million, will be a 13-story glass and steel structure. Beside the mosque, it includes an auditorium, a performance arts theater, a fitness center, a swimming pool, children’s area, art studio, a food court, a 9/11 memorial, and prayer space for 2,000 people.
* * *

PROS & CONS: Córdoba House would replace an old Italianate-style building damaged in the 9/11 attacks — if the building erected in the 1850s is not given a “landmark” status and thus preserved.

The center’s sponsors said its original name was meant to invoke 8th-11th Century Córdoba, in Spain, which they called a model of peaceful coexistence among Muslims, Christians and Jews. The center, they added, would be a platform for interfaith dialogue.

But opponents said the name recalls the Islamic conquest of the Christian city of Córdoba. Other objections refer to the lack of transparency in its funding, and the center’s nearness (two blocks) to Ground Zero.

Polls have shown that a majority of Americans and residents of New York State and New York City oppose the center’s being built near Ground Zero, while a majority of Manhattan residents allow it.

* * *

PINOY MUSLIMS: Reacting to perceived threats and domestic police problems, some European countries have been reviewing their handling of Islamic inroads, as they have also started revising their immigration rules.

Here, we had a mini-controversy years ago when a mosque was proposed to be built in the Unimart area in Greenhills, San Juan, which has an unusual number of Muslim stallholders selling duty-free stuff.

An outcry from the generally Christian community shelved the idea.

But more than a decade ago in Quiapo, a “golden mosque” suddenly materialized without anybody sounding an alarm, or at least posting a notice. Now the Muslims eking out a living around it sometimes figure in police news stories.

* * *

MY FEELING: New York is too distant for us Filipinos to bother with, but the issues of religious freedom, cultural diversity, and America’s being a nation of immigrants cannot but draw us into the debate.

My feeling from the very beginning was that the Córdoba House was just too close to the memorial being built on the WTC site. It seemed to me that Islamic proponents of the center were taking advantage of America’s democratic tolerance.

I could not compose my thoughts on the issue until I came upon the statement attributed to former Speaker Newt Gingrich objecting to it. I agree with him, especially on the lack of reciprocity and the center’s closeness to Ground Zero.

* * *

NEWT’S OBJECTION: Here is Gingrich’s statement on Córdoba House:

“There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia . The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

“The proposed ‘Córdoba House’ overlooking the World Trade Center site — where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks — is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites.

“For example, most of them don’t understand that ‘Cordoba House’ is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Córdoba, Spain — the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex.

“Today, some of the Mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to ‘symbolize inter-faith cooperation’ when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Córdoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way.

“Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for ‘religious toleration’ are arrogantly dishonest. They ignore the fact that more than 100 mosques already exist in New York City. Meanwhile, there are no churches or synagogues in all of Saudi Arabia. In fact no Christian or Jew can even enter Mecca. And they lecture us about tolerance.

“If the people behind the Cordoba House were serious about religious toleration, they would be imploring the Saudis, as fellow Muslims, to immediately open up Mecca to all and immediately announce their intention to allow non-Muslim houses of worship in the Kingdom. They should be asked by the news media if they would be willing to lead such a campaign.

“We have not been able to rebuild the World Trade Center in nine years. Now we are being told a 13-story, $100-million megamosque will be built within a year overlooking the site of the most devastating surprise attack in American history.

“Finally where is the money coming from? The people behind the Córdoba House refuse to reveal all their funding sources. America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.

“No mosque. No self deception. No surrender.

“The time to take a stand is now — at this site on this issue.”

* * *

Near Ground Zero Mega Mosque: Developer was once a Waiter turned Mogul overnight

Everyone thinks it was Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf who's behind the controversial "Mega Mosque" near Ground Zero. He was not. It was a certain El-Gamal, who was once a waiter turned a mogul overnight.

Read the article below.

No Answers from Developer of Mosque Near Ground ZeroEl-Gamal rose from waiter to real estate mogul
Updated: Wednesday, 25 Aug 2010, 2:06 PM EDT
Published : Tuesday, 24 Aug 2010, 10:42 PM EDT

by CHARLES LEAF

MYFOXNY.COM - While Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf has dominated headlines about the proposed cultural center and mosque near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan, developer Sharif el-Gamal, 37, is actually the central figure behind the project.

Yet just a few years ago, el-Gamal was waiting tables in some fancy Manhattan restaurants.

Naturally, we wanted to talk to Sharif el-Gamal to learn more about the man and his plans, but apparently he didn't want to meet us. We made repeated requests for a sit down interview with him, left him multiple voice mail messages and he never returned any of our calls. We even went to his office and talked to colleagues, but we were turned away. He left us with no choice: We had to go find him.

El-Gamal is an American Muslim reportedly born to a Polish mother and an Egyptian father. He was raised in Brooklyn.

Today, el-Gamal's company, Soho Properties, owns the building where arguably the most controversial mosque in the world will be built. He bought the old Burlington Coat Factory building at 45 Park Place, two blocks from the World Trade Center site, for $4.8 million in cash in 2009.

We asked him where he got the money to put down on the property, but he stayed silent when we approached him.

His newfound notoriety was an extraordinary leap from his not-too-distant days as a waiter at Serafina, a trendy Upper East Side eatery, and at Michael's, an upscale celebrity-filled restaurant packed with a veritable who's who in media.

El-Gamal's former restaurant bosses and co-workers told Fox 5 that the young and opportunistic el-Gamal thrived on the buzz from bumping elbows with marquee names and relished the opportunity to schmooze the high dollar clientele.

"Customers would come in and ask for him, he had his regulars," said Cosmo Sammarone, a Serafina waiter.

El-Gamal left Serafina in 2002 and started selling real estate. But in just a year, he went from broker to business owner and launched his own real estate company, Soho Properties, in 2003. Records show he is the president and chief executive officer.

A long-time associate of his says el-Gamal isn't quite who he seems to be. The associate asked Fox 5 to protect his identity because he fears retribution.

"I was pretty much in shock when I saw him on the news as the developer," the associate said. "What I can say about Sharif is nothing good.

He said el-Gamal liked living in the fast lane, meeting celebrities in the restaurants were he worked, and partying with them at nightclubs.

"Very persuasive, master manipulator," he said of el-Gamal.

Today, el-Gamal's holdings included at least four buildings in Manhattan, including the site near Ground Zero, one in Chelsea, and two residential buildings in Washington Heights, where tenants seem to like him.

Records show el-Gamal bought the Washington Heights properties in 2007 for a little less than $3 million each.

Ken Brandman, president of N.Y. Commercial Real Estate Services, knows el-Gamal well. He, too, was a bit surprised to hear el-Gamal is the developer in the mosque near Ground Zero.

"I don't think he has a lot of money," Brandman said. "I'm sure he didn't buy it with his own money."

Soho Properties bought the site for the mosque for $4.8 million in cash. Just four months later, with Manhattan's real estate market collapsed, el-Gamal made an even bigger deal.

With credit super tight, and prices plummeting, he paid $45 million for a 12-story commercial building in Chelsea that sold three years earlier for $31 million.

"It seems like a lot of pay in a downturn, considering it went for considerably less during the boom," said Stuart Elliott, the editor of Real Deal magazine.

El-Gamal, the waiter turned mogul, plunked down another $5 million as down payment on the Chelsea building.

"Something's up with that deal," Ken Brandman said. "Unless someone gave him a lot of money, or he won the lottery, than somebody else put up the money."

Fox 5 News has learned that el-Gamal did have help from a man named Hisham Elzanaty. Mortgage documents show that Elzanaty is the guarantor on the $39 million loan el-Gamal's company secured to buy the building.

We repeatedly asked El-Gamal where he raised the money, where it was coming from, but he refused to answer our questions and run from us. He also did not answer the question of whether he would consider relocating the mosque.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

How The 'Ground Zero Mosque' Controversy Is Challenging Democracy

Abigail R. Esman (Source: Forbes.com)
(Abigail R. Esmanis a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands. Her most recent book is Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West.)

It isn't for the reasons that you think.

She said what? They did what?

As the pandemonium over the project alternately dubbed "the mosque at Ground Zero" or "the mosque near Ground Zero" (depending on your point of view) grows louder and more cacophonous, the stakes grow ever higher--and the outrageousness and outrage more severe. Not only has the project taken over the debate at cocktail parties: It has taken over the political debate as well. And just as has happened in Europe, American democratic principles as a result are now at risk.

Hyperbole? I don't think so.

Some contend that opposition to the mosque is itself anti-American, a violation of the right to practice one's religion--all religions. But that's a false argument. No one has oppressed the practice of Islam. No one has suggested that Muslims may not pray. They have simply argued that this place--this specific place--is not the right place, just as prayer is banned from public schools.

Rather, the attack on democracy has come from those who support the project, beginning earlier this month with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's endorsement of what then was called "Cordoba House." Since when do politicians intervene in religious issues in this country? (Some have argued that President Obama also expressed approval, though I disagree: Rather, he observed the legal right of the prospective founders to build it but wisely stopped short of offering an opinion.) Subsequently, other politicians, both Republican and Democrat, both for and against, have entered the fray. None of them belong there.

More recently, the politics grew even more appalling: Last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi proposed investigating the funding of those who oppose the project--including, I suppose, private citizens like me. I can almost hear Joe McCarthy cheering from his grave. Has Pelosi spent so many years in politics that she cannot imagine people holding viewpoints nobody has paid for? Who has paid for hers?

Here's one possibility: Sheikh Al-Waleed bin Talal. After 9/11, Al-Waleed offered $10 million in aid to New York City--but only after first blaming Americans themselves for the attacks, a viewpoint Feisal Rauf, Cordoba House's leader and the imam of the mosque-to-be, evidently shares. (Then-mayor Rudy Giuliani refused the gift.) After all, Al-Waleed, who has donated $27 million to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and sponsored telethons for their cause, appears to share Pelosi's view: He has given $305,000 to the project. (Yes, I know Al-Waleed is also a primary shareholder of Fox News; I'm disgusted by that too.)

Also last week, Imam Rauf began a tour of the Middle East on behalf of the U.S. State Department. Yes, a religious leader is now an official representative for the United States. Could the State Department really not find another Muslim for the job? Should U.S. taxpayers really be subsidizing the travels of a cleric? Has the U.S. ever sent a rabbi, say, to Palestine or Israel, or a Catholic priest to Britain or Ireland? (This last is a sincere question: I honestly don't know.)

Officials insist that Rauf will not be soliciting funds during this trip, and therefore that the American taxpayers are not funding his fundraising. But let's be realistic. Fundraising is not done in a single meeting. It is done by building relationships. And while in the Middle East, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers, Rauf will be meeting people he would not otherwise have met. And he will be building relationships with them, because that is what he has been sent over there to do. Inevitably, one if not more of these people will offer to subsidize his project, either now or in the very near future. So unless the U.S government prohibits everyone Rauf meets during this trip to send monies to the project--which it cannot do--then yes, the U.S. government--or rather, you and I--has funded this trip, which is, indeed, a fundraising mission for Park51 aka Cordoba.

Let's talk about that "Park51" moniker for a moment. Until a couple of weeks ago, when people started recognizing the implications, the project was called "Cordoba." Then Rauf and his wife, Daisy Kahn, went on a PR binge, and the name magically changed overnight into one worthy of a top ad agency campaign: Park51. It has the allure and cachet of "Park Avenue," of course, and the chic of a nightclub like Studio54. But a mosque by any other name is still a mosque, and a bad idea is still a bad idea no matter what you call it.

And it is a bad idea--one that just keeps getting worse. For Rauf and his entourage, there is no backing down: As Muslims, they have their all-important "honor" to preserve. They will not give. They will simply force their will. Meantime, those opposed remain opposed, and many increasingly find Rauf's intractability aggressive, even threatening. Chances are, if or when Cordoba/Park51 is built, confrontations will flare. Someone will get hurt. We can nearly guarantee it.

So yes, Speaker Pelosi: I think it is a terrible idea, a catastrophic idea that has already infiltrated the very freedoms you and others who support this operation claim to be defending. And it will get worse.

And before you violate my personal affairs on this, let me reassure you: No one is calling for a ban on Muslim worship. Some of us simply are insulted. Others are afraid. No one paid us to feel that way. They only had to live their lives: make a film, like Theo van Gogh; write an article, like Steven Vincent, or a book, like Salman Rushdie; draw a cartoon, like Kurt Westergaard; ask a question, like Daniel Pearl; or simply be: in the wrong place, at the wrong time, on a certain sunny September morning.

Monday, August 23, 2010

The Ground Zero mosque and the Empire State Building

Long Island, NY (CNS taken from The Long Island Catholic)—Two controversies, with seemingly similar issues involving property rights and religious expression, are playing out in New York City this month: the proposed construction of an Islamic community center and mosque in close proximity to ground zero, and the Empire State Building's rejection of a request to honor Blessed Teresa of Calcutta on the 100th anniversary of her birth. Actually, however, there is much more that is different than similar about these issues.

Most glaringly, in our view, is the question of whether, in each instance, controversy is even justified. On the question of the mosque, strong feelings on both sides are entirely understandable.

We need of course to guard against religious intolerance, and any tendency to demonize Islam as a whole for the murderous terrorism of Islamic extremists. We Catholics know all too well the terrible consequences that can result when the evils committed by some, ostensibly in compliance with their religious beliefs, are used to stigmatize and castigate an entire faith community.

At the same time, there seem very real and legitimate questions about the background, beliefs, and past statements of the imam associated with the ground zero project; and it seems therefore not out of bounds for reasonable people to seek answers to those questions.

Nor, given such questions, should calls for special sensitivity to the victims of 9/11 and their families be casually dismissed. Analogies have been made to Pope John Paul II's decision some years ago to ask the Carmelite nuns to relocate their convent from just outside the former Auschwitz Nazi death camp. There was no question about the sisters' prayerful, penitential intent; yet after much prayerful deliberation, Pope John Paul II concluded that out of sensitivity and respect for the victims of the Holocaust, the convent should be moved.

And so -- even while the mosque issue is undoubtedly susceptible to political, religious and cultural exploitation -- reasonable people can and do disagree as to its appropriateness at ground zero. The controversy is understandable.

Not so the question of lighting the Empire State Building in blue and white, the colors of Blessed Teresa's Missionaries of Charity, to commemorate her 100th birthday Aug. 26. Why should this even be controversial? Why would the Empire State Building ownership, who have lit its towering edifice over the years in honor of others who have rendered public service, refuse to do so for this Nobel Prize-winning missionary to the "poorest of the poor?"

While a recently revised application form for such honors refers to a "specific policy against lighting for religious figures," that policy appears to have been revised after the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights first requested the lighting honor for Mother Teresa back in February -- filling out an application that contained no such restrictions. And, as Catholic League president William Donohue points out, the building has in the past been lit in honor of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Salvation Army, and even Catholic Church leaders Pope John Paul II and Cardinal John O'Connor -- all of whom, like Mother Teresa, were known for humanitarian efforts and human rights advocacy inspired by their religious convictions.

Of course, as a private organization, the Empire State Building has the right to act as it wishes. But so do the Catholic League and others, in protesting its decision. In fact, that is another key difference with these two issues. Opponents of the ground zero mosque sought government intervention to block its construction on private property. Supporters of lighting the Empire State Building to honor Mother Teresa - even though they enjoy the support of such city government leaders as Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn -- are trying to use public opinion and moral suasion, not government coercion, to get ownership to change its mind.

In the meantime, as Msgr. Rick Figliozzi notes, the controversy is serving to draw greater attention to Mother Teresa's life and legacy. And that should inspire us to honor her memory not only with tributes and -- as Mayor Bloomberg appropriately suggests -- good works on her birthday. It should move us to strive to imitate, as best we can, her entire life of humble, loving service to those in need -- through whom she loved and served her Lord and Savior.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Will the Real Moderate Muslim Please Rise?

On August 21, 2010, in Blog, by Farid Ghadry

Debate for and against the Ground Zero Mosque is raging. But deep underneath this debate, most Americans are missing the most important of arguments.

What constitutes a moderate Muslim?

Is it the Muslim who accepts money from the Wahhabis or the Salafis but claims co-existence? Or is it the American-Muslim who refuses to live but under Shariah even though Shariah contradicts American Laws? Is it the Muslim who hides his wife under a veil but condemns Hamas or is it the Muslim who refuses to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah but claims to be a bridge builder? Is it the Muslim who claims to be a bridge builder but is insensitive to the families of 9/11 or the one that honor kills his daughters but has an American Flag raised on his lawn?

Most, if not all US officials, will not be able to answer these questions for a very simple reason: The extremists have hijacked moderation and have blurred the lines to confuse policy makers and US Officials. When we have Muslims who agree with Hamas influence the US Government, as has the Obama administration permitted, the results are that Americans are starting to believe he is a Muslim and worse even, Mayor Bloomberg's sense of political correctness is fogging his logic. It is a tactic used by not only Muslim extremists but also by Arab dictators. Assad, for example, started the Reform Party of Syria inside Syria. He and Rifaat al-Assad, his uncle, hijacked the Damascus Declaration, a Syrian opposition group made-up of secular and moderate Syrians.

None of the US Officials have any Islamic experts on their staff (Have to be non-Muslims because extremists will influence these officials) to be able to, reasonably, understand what the aims of the extremists are when they build a Mosque at Ground Zero even though it is offensive to the 9/11 families and many Americans. It is no different than building Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem on top of the Temple Mount to erase all traces of Judaism. The next Mosque will be built on Ground Zero if we let ourselves be so ignorant for so long.

If I say I am a moderate and you, as an official, are uneducated about Islam, as Michael Bloomberg is, you will believe I am a moderate even though I am a Salafi. All Salafis and Wahhabis think they are moderates and they all know what to say in order to project this image. That's a notion that goes undetected by US Officials and it is up to them to dig deeper to start delineating between who is a REAL moderate and who is a puppet in the hands of the extremists and who is an extremist who has refined the art of Taqieh to perfection. Does Bloomberg understand what Taqieh is? I doubt it. Al-Aryan convinced American Officials he was a moderate until he was caught with his hands in the cookie jar raising funds for Hamas.

Do not judge a moderate Muslim by what he says or does. Judge him by how his wives and daughters live. That's key. No matter how good they are at Taqieh, they cannot hide who they really are when it comes to their families. If his daughter (Over 18) can date a young man and be trusted, as a young lady, to come home at 11 pm, then he is a moderate Muslim. If his wife can go out on her own to visit friends, then he is a moderate. If he says that he is a moderate, ask him to introduce your son to his daughter and see if fear or hate jump at you through his eyes. Judge them by how they treat their families privately.

All US Governors, Mayors, and Federal Judges should have non-Muslim experts on their staff they can call at any time to understand how extremist and violent Muslims have hijacked the faith ever since oil has been discovered and Saudi Arabia has ruled Makah and Medina for power, al-Ghazou, and Shariah-enforced States.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Archbishop Dolan offers to help in NYC mosque debate

New York City, N.Y. (CNA/EWTN News).- As the controversy over the planned building of a mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero in New York City grows increasingly heated, Archbishop Timothy Dolan urged the different factions to carry on a “respectful discussion” and offered to mediate between those who support the plans and those who oppose them.

Photo Source: The Rocking Traddy
The New York archbishop made his remarks in a brief and impromptu news conference on Aug. 18 at Covenant House, a Catholic facility in Manhattan for homeless youth.

“My major prayer is that what has turned into somewhat of a divisive issue might develop into an occasion of very civil, rational, loving, respectful discussion,” he stressed.

Archbishop Dolan then praised both New York Mayor Bloomberg and Gov. David Paterson for their contributions to the debate, though both are on different sides of the issue.

"Mayor Bloomberg articulated in a particularly of eloquent way the principles of religious freedom and the hospitality on which this great country and this wonderful community is based," the archbishop said.

Bloomberg supports the plans for the mosque and Islamic center, and according to ABC News, has said it would be a "sad day" if the project is canceled. Governor Paterson, however, has offered to hold discussions with the imam and mosque developers in order to find another suitable location.

“I think the governor’s initiative is welcome," Archbishop Dolan said. "Both of what they (he and Mayor Bloomberg) are trying to do is bring people together to look into this problem.”

The prelate then cited the example of Pope John Paul II, who advised a group of sisters in 1993 to move from their convent at the former Auschwitz death camp after protests from Jewish leaders.

“He’s the one who said, ‘Let’s keep the idea, and maybe move the address,’ ” the archbishop said. “It worked there; might work here.”

“Those who wonder about the wisdom of the situation of the mosque, near such a wounded site, ask what I think are some legitimate questions that I think deserve attention,” he added.

When asked if he would play a part in the ongoing discussions over the planned mosque and Islamic center, Archbishop Dolan replied, “I'd be honored to ... If I can be a part, say but the word.”

“In kind of a backdoor way, I think we already are (a part of the discussion) in the archdiocese,” he added, in “more of a quiet, behind the scenes way – a lot of our pastors in that area and a lot of other religious leaders are part already of the conversation that needs to keep going on.”

My Blog List

My Calendar