The Ground Zero Mosque secretly dedicated to the "Magnificent 19" will be just another manifestation of American appeasement to global jihad under the US watch of the Hussein Administration. The White House mosque appeasement comes under the New World Order effort to have a united world government religion confederation that includes Islam. As demonstrated, the White House is much more concerned about a pastor in Gainesville, Florida organizing a "Burn the Koran" day on the anniversary date of 9/11 than having a memorial shrine dedicated to Allah built upon the 2,977 perished souls forcibly sacrificed to that deity.
I personally wouldn't waste my personal time nor the matches burning a Quran. I had rather expose it for what it states and the sharia law it has produced. I do think that the amount of energy that it takes for anyone to condemn the act of Koran-burning for the sake of offending a Muslim should also be used in condemning the Koran statements depicting Jews as pigs, monkeys, and donkeys? (see Quran 2:65 / 8:60 / 62:5). I have to say that I'm somewhat puzzled by all those including conservatives rushing against a slated Koran burning when the Koran itself was written by a Jew-murdering (the tribe of Banu Qurayza) pedophile (via nine year-old Aisha) that instructs all its adherents to jihad against the non-believer as devil-motivated infidels (see Quran 4:76 / 8:39 / 9:5 / 9:29 / 9:73).
Is there something antisemitic about such Quran verses that should be done away with in principle? or should antisemitic verses along with the Jew-murdering connecting-history be tolerated just because billions of Muslims happen to accept such verses and history as indeed holy? Of all the people including the White House officials Obama, Clinton, Biden, Gates, Mullen, the Vatican, US Embassy in Pakistan, news media, and talk show hosts, who voiced their opposition to one American willing use his "freedom of expression" for a cause he believes in, how many of these people have actually read the Quran to see what it contains with corresponding Islamic history and hadith commentary?
Let's put this in precise prospective. One man with a small group in Gainesville, Florida can cause an international outcry that causes high government officials to get involved, yet when such things as a bunch of Muslims in the America's largest city where 9/11 occurred, desecrates an American flag in plan view for all to see, absolutely no outcry from government officials or otherwise is heard! YouTube has stated it would remove any video of Koran burning, yet the following video that I downloaded on the date of this blog has continually remained on YouTube for more than 3 years now. Why hasn't this video been taken off YouTube for being too offensive? Why such a double standard in government and media for the benefit of Islamic terrorists of all things damned, is what I simply can't understand!
From CNN "Larry King Live" (interview with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf by Soledad O'Brien on September 8, 2010)
Ruaf stated: "If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack. And I'm less concerned about the radicals in America than I'm concerned about the radicals in the Muslim world."
Not only is this lying devil threatening the US with Islamic terror but he himself connects "so-called" radical Islam with the mainstream Muslim world!
CNN / O'Brien: "There have been a lot of questions, and I think a fair amount of controversy and criticism about questions that people have had about your take on Hamas. You were asked in an interview in the radio; the interviewer said, is the State Department correct in designating Hamas as a terror group? And you dodged the question. You went on a long time. But there was really sort of no answer to it."
"So -- and I guess people sense that whatever that answer is, if you -- if you don't condemn Hamas, then in a way maybe you're supporting Hamas as a terror organization. So I guess I'd ask that question again. Do you -- you know, is the State Department right in saying that Hamas is a terrorist organization?"
Imam Rauf: "I condemn everyone and anyone who commits acts of terrorism. And Hamas has committed acts of terrorism."
CNN / O'Brien: "Let's talk about Islam..." (went to another subject)1
.
First, the Imam passed on the question as to whether the State Department was "right" in saying that Hamas was a terrorist organization of which O'Brien allowed him to do by not repeating the question as it was first asked.
Thirdly, to vaguely condemn some of Hamas' acts is one thing, but to condemn the very core foundation and purpose of Hamas by condemning the 1988 Hamas Covenant is quite another. The problem with media interviewers (especially the liberal based ones like CNN) is that they don't know the mindset of the jihadist nor the "stealth jihadists" like this Imam Rauf. During the whole interview nothing was asked about his naming of the Victory Mosque "Cordoba House" and its obvious link to the Islamic spreading victory of Spain in 711 CE. Nor was the question asked on whether once it was build would the "Islamic world" as well as himself consider it and the American soil it sits on be considered an Islamic Waqf territory that according to sharia law can never be controlled again by non-Muslims?2
The Bottom line is, the Victory Mosque will be build in accordance to UN / Quartet world reform. It is prophesied that at the End of Days all nations in a joint effort will come against Jewish Jerusalem.3 The siding with Islam over American sovereignty is simply a sign and symptom of the spiritual Esau and Ishmael covenant pact against Israel.4
Let's put this in precise prospective. One man with a small group in Gainesville, Florida can cause an international outcry that causes high government officials to get involved, yet when such things as a bunch of Muslims in the America's largest city where 9/11 occurred, desecrates an American flag in plan view for all to see, absolutely no outcry from government officials or otherwise is heard! YouTube has stated it would remove any video of Koran burning, yet the following video that I downloaded on the date of this blog has continually remained on YouTube for more than 3 years now. Why hasn't this video been taken off YouTube for being too offensive? Why such a double standard in government and media for the benefit of Islamic terrorists of all things damned, is what I simply can't understand!
From CNN "Larry King Live" (interview with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf by Soledad O'Brien on September 8, 2010)
Ruaf stated: "If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack. And I'm less concerned about the radicals in America than I'm concerned about the radicals in the Muslim world."
Not only is this lying devil threatening the US with Islamic terror but he himself connects "so-called" radical Islam with the mainstream Muslim world!
- Q. Who is it that controls his referred "headlines in the Muslim world"? the so-called "moderates" or so-called "extremists"?
- Q. Is he suggesting that the so-called moderates that supposedly far outnumber the extremists in the Muslim world are going to believe and accept that "Islam is under attack" if "they" (living in their Muslim countries) don't get "their" Victory Mosque build on our Ground Zero soil?
- Q. Shouldn't the duty of the moderates be to put on down any and all uprising of undue unrest from the few in number extremists in the name of mainstream "peaceful" Islam?
CNN / O'Brien: "There have been a lot of questions, and I think a fair amount of controversy and criticism about questions that people have had about your take on Hamas. You were asked in an interview in the radio; the interviewer said, is the State Department correct in designating Hamas as a terror group? And you dodged the question. You went on a long time. But there was really sort of no answer to it."
"So -- and I guess people sense that whatever that answer is, if you -- if you don't condemn Hamas, then in a way maybe you're supporting Hamas as a terror organization. So I guess I'd ask that question again. Do you -- you know, is the State Department right in saying that Hamas is a terrorist organization?"
Imam Rauf: "I condemn everyone and anyone who commits acts of terrorism. And Hamas has committed acts of terrorism."
CNN / O'Brien: "Let's talk about Islam..." (went to another subject)1
.
First, the Imam passed on the question as to whether the State Department was "right" in saying that Hamas was a terrorist organization of which O'Brien allowed him to do by not repeating the question as it was first asked.
Secondly, when he charged Hamas in committing "acts of terrorism" he is NOT talking about "terrorism against the Jewish Israelis" as CNN's Anderson Cooper and others who willfully ate that al-takiyah front hook, line , and sinker, knows better. The takiyah bridge-builder was talking about Hamas terror acts against the other Palestinian terror group Al-Fatah! I mean, what Islamic bridge-builder wouldn't want "peace" between two Islamic organizations in order to better attack Israel so that more "Victory Mosques" can be erected?
If you think I'm in error on this, try to find a quote from Rauf's books or past public statements, or from his many years of peace-bridge building, where he directly denounces terrorist attacks against Jewish citizens of the State of Israel. This should be a clear indication if nothing else concerning his overall stance against terror attacks on Israel. There was a real and definite reason why he initially passed on condemning Hamas altogether when first publicly asked that O'Brien referred to in her questioning, of which even she herself stated that he "dodged the question". All of this is in addition to the fact that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a key figure in the Malaysian-based Perdana Global Peace Organization that in turn greatly contributed the pro-Hamas "Free Gaza Movement" that was behind the May 31, 2010 international attack on the Israeli Navy personnel.> http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/27924
If you think I'm in error on this, try to find a quote from Rauf's books or past public statements, or from his many years of peace-bridge building, where he directly denounces terrorist attacks against Jewish citizens of the State of Israel. This should be a clear indication if nothing else concerning his overall stance against terror attacks on Israel. There was a real and definite reason why he initially passed on condemning Hamas altogether when first publicly asked that O'Brien referred to in her questioning, of which even she herself stated that he "dodged the question". All of this is in addition to the fact that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a key figure in the Malaysian-based Perdana Global Peace Organization that in turn greatly contributed the pro-Hamas "Free Gaza Movement" that was behind the May 31, 2010 international attack on the Israeli Navy personnel.> http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/27924
Thirdly, to vaguely condemn some of Hamas' acts is one thing, but to condemn the very core foundation and purpose of Hamas by condemning the 1988 Hamas Covenant is quite another. The problem with media interviewers (especially the liberal based ones like CNN) is that they don't know the mindset of the jihadist nor the "stealth jihadists" like this Imam Rauf. During the whole interview nothing was asked about his naming of the Victory Mosque "Cordoba House" and its obvious link to the Islamic spreading victory of Spain in 711 CE. Nor was the question asked on whether once it was build would the "Islamic world" as well as himself consider it and the American soil it sits on be considered an Islamic Waqf territory that according to sharia law can never be controlled again by non-Muslims?2
The Bottom line is, the Victory Mosque will be build in accordance to UN / Quartet world reform. It is prophesied that at the End of Days all nations in a joint effort will come against Jewish Jerusalem.3 The siding with Islam over American sovereignty is simply a sign and symptom of the spiritual Esau and Ishmael covenant pact against Israel.4
Notes:
1. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/08/lkl.01.html
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waqf
1. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/08/lkl.01.html
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waqf
3. Zechariah 14:2-3
4. Joel 3:19 (Christian Bible)
Top photo: The original book printed in Malaysia entitled: "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11". The American printing changed the title to "What is Right with Islam".
Top photo: The original book printed in Malaysia entitled: "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11". The American printing changed the title to "What is Right with Islam".
12 comments:
This blog is total extremist bullhonky. That Kahane speech sounded like it was written by a child.
Actually, comments that comes in as anonymous making negative claims without explaining why seems to be what is childish and therefore written by a child.
The fact is, even though you don't think that Jew-murder shouldn't be considered "extremism" in your no-doubt Islamic-radical view, it is the so-called Palestinians who are proving more and more that Rabbi Meir Kahane (of blessed memory) was RIGHT - just like everything he said in the speech was right!
The bottom line here Anonymous-Mohammed is that "TRANSFER" would mean no more Arab-Palestinian terrorism, and the world knows - they (like yourself) favor Jew-murder over demanding and addressing Arab-Palestinian responsibility.
I'm sure you don't think that the dirty dung dog El Sayyid Nosair who murdered Kahane wasn't an extremist at all, even though the likes of such a devil-individual was convicted in the involvement with the first Islamic attack on the NYC Twin Towers in 1993, right Anonymous-Mohammed?
From the Wikipedia entry for "Park51" if you scroll down it says the following about the
"Ground Zero Mosque" under
"Opposition
The prospect of building a mosque close to Ground Zero was offensive to some opponents of the construction project, since the hijackers in the September 11, 2001 attacks identified as Muslim.[15] Newt Gingrich declared: "There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia."[27]
9/11 families
Some relatives of victims of the September 11 attacks said they found the proposal offensive because the perpetrators who committed the attacks did so in the name of Islam.[94] A number said that it was not an issue of freedom of religion, property rights, or racism, but rather one of sensitivity to the families of those killed, in choosing the specific location of the center.
A group of victims' relatives, 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, called the proposal "a gross insult to the memory of those who were killed on that terrible day".[95] Debra Burlingame, a co-founder of the group whose brother died in the attacks, said:
This is a place which is 600 feet [180 m] from where almost 3,000 people were torn to pieces by Islamic extremists ... it is incredibly insensitive and audacious ... for them to build a mosque ... so that they could be in proximity to where that atrocity happened ... 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.[70]
Sally Regenhard, whose son was a firefighter who was killed in the attacks, and who has testified before Congress on 9/11, said that the center would be "sacrilege on sacred ground", and that "People are being accused of being anti-Muslim and racist, but this is simply a matter of sensitivity."[43][164] Former NY Fire Department Deputy Chief Jim Riches, whose son Jim was killed, said: "I don't want to have to go down to a memorial where my son died on 9/11, and look at a mosque," adding "this is all about location, location, location. It's not about religious freedom ... be sensitive to the families."[94][165] Michael Burke, whose brother died, wrote: "Freedom of religion or expression and private property rights are not the issues ... Decency is; right and wrong is ... [M]any believe that their "rights" supersede all other considerations, like what is respectful, considerate, and decent. A mosque ... steps from Ground Zero in a building damaged in the attacks is ... astoundingly insensitive".[166]"
The Wikipedia entry continues
"C. Lee Hanson, whose son, daughter-in-law, and baby granddaughter were killed, felt that building a tribute to Islam so close to the World Trade Center site would be insensitive: "The pain never goes away. When I look over there and I see a mosque, it's going to hurt. Build it someplace else."[61][166] Rosemary Cain, whose son was killed, called the project a "slap in the face", and said "I think it's despicable. That's sacred ground", and "I don't want a mosque on my son's grave".[94][55] Nancy Nee, whose brother was killed, said: "It's almost like a trophy. The whole thing just reeks of arrogance at this point."[167]
Evelyn Pettigano, who lost a sister, said: "I don't like it. I'm not prejudiced ... It's too close to the area where our family members were murdered."[76] Dov Shefi, whose son Haggai was killed, said: "the establishment of a mosque in this place ... is like bringing a pig into the Holy Temple. It is inconceivable that in all the city of New York, this site was specifically chosen."[168] Cindy McGinty, whose husband was killed, said she hoped that officials would keep an eye on the funding source for the project, adding: "Why did they pick this spot? Why aren't they being more sensitive? I don't trust it."[40] Barry Zelman, whose brother was killed, said: "We can say all Muslims did not do this, which is true. But they [terrorists] did it in the name of that religion. You wouldn't have a German cultural center on top of a death camp."[167]
Rosaleen Tallon-DaRos, whose brother died, urged that the mosque not be put on that site, as did Tim Brown, a New York City firefighter who survived the attack.[169] He said: "The families lost their loved ones to terrorists, Islamic, Muslim terrorists who do not believe in religious freedom."[170] Maureen Basnicki, a Canadian whose husband Ken died, questioned the message of the mosque and said that "this all adds hurt and insult to our injuries."[171]"
and continues
"Muslims
The building of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero has been criticized by some Muslims. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community does not directly oppose the building of a mosque near ground zero but views that the sentiments of non-Muslims should not be unduly hurt. They state that there are other places where mosques can be built and they do not see why that particular location has been chosen.[38] The head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Mirza Masroor Ahmad in London, stated that:
If a mosque is built at the proposed site, then the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community would like to see churches, synagogues, Hindu places of worship and places of worship of all other religions also built near Ground Zero. That would be a good example of how from an act of evil and terror has emerged unity and peace.[38][172]
Muslim neoconservative[173] journalist Stephen Schwartz, Executive Director of the non-profit Center for Islamic Pluralism, said that building the center two blocks from Ground Zero is inconsistent with the Sufi philosophy of simplicity of faith and sensitivity towards others and disregards the security of American Muslims.[95] He also criticized what he termed Abdul Rauf's radical and suspect associations.[174]
Another founding member of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, Zuhdi Jasser, who is also the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a group of Muslim professionals in the Phoenix Valley of Arizona, strongly opposed the project, saying:
For us, a mosque was always a place to pray ... not a way to make an ostentatious architectural statement. Ground Zero shouldn't be about promoting Islam. It's the place where war was declared on us as Americans."[95] ... American freedom of religion is a right, but ... it is not right to make one's religion a global political statement with a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero. ... Islamists in 'moderate' disguise are still Islamists. In their own more subtle ways, the WTC mosque organizers end up serving the same aims (as) separatist and supremacist wings of political Islam.[175]"
and continues
"Neda Bolourchi, a Muslim whose mother died in 9/11, said: "I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world."[176]
Authors Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, board members of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said:
New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshipers. [W]e Muslims know ... [this] mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith, ... as Fitna, meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran. ... As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens, and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to soothe the pain.[177]
Akbar Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, while noting that blaming all Muslims for 9/11 was "ridiculous", said:
I don't think the Muslim leadership has fully appreciated the impact of 9/11 on America. They assume Americans have forgotten 9/11 and even, in a profound way, forgiven 9/11, and that has not happened. The wounds remain largely open ... and when wounds are raw, an episode like constructing a house of worship – even one protected by the Constitution, protected by law – becomes like salt in the wounds.[178]
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, general manager of Al-Arabiya television, also criticized the project in a column titled "A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?" in the Arab daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat, saying:
Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the September 11 cemetery ... the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens! [179][180]
Rima Fakih, the first Muslim-American crowned Miss USA as Miss USA 2010, opposed the project on the grounds of it being insensitive to families of 9/11 victims, telling Inside Edition:
I totally agree with President Obama with the statement on the constitutional rights of freedom of religion. [But] it shouldn't be so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than religion.[181]"
and continues
"Politicians
A number of American politicians spoke out against the Park51 project. Arizona Senator John McCain, the Republicans' 2008 presidential nominee, said that it "would harm relations, rather than help",[182][183] while his running mate Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor, wrote on Twitter that "Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate" ([ [sic]])).[184][185] Other critics included Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and 2012 Republican presidential candidate;[186] Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson;[182] Maine Senator Olympia Snowe;[182] Idaho Senators Jim Risch[187] and Mike Crapo;[188] Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson; and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.[36] North Carolina congressional candidate Ilario Pantano said, "It is about ... territorial conquest. This mosque is a Martyr–Marker honoring the terrorists".[189]
Former House Speaker Republican Newt Gingrich said: "It's not about religion and is clearly an aggressive act that is offensive."[87] Commenting on the project's name, he wrote:
"Cordoba House" is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Cordoba, 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 ... every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.[190][191][192]
Gingrich also decried the proposed Islamic center as a symbol of Muslim "triumphalism," and said that building the center near the site of the 9/11 attacks "would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum."[193] Commenting on what Gingrich said, The Economist claimed that "Like Mr bin Laden, Mr Gingrich is apparently still relitigating the victories and defeats of religious wars fought in Europe and the Middle East centuries ago. He should rejoin the modern world, before he does real harm."[18]"
and continues
"New York Republicans who criticized the plan included former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who called it a "desecration; Nobody would allow something like that at Pearl Harbor ... Let's have some respect for who died there and why they died there."[194] Congressman Peter King, then the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, called it "offensive to so many people." Other opponents included former New York Governor George Pataki and former Congressman Rick Lazio.[195][196][197][198][199] Gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino said, "The vast majority of New Yorkers and Americans have rejected their idea. If a bridge was their intent, why jam it down our throats? Why does it have to be right there?" He said that if he were elected Governor of New York, he would use the power of eminent domain to stop construction of the center and instead build a war memorial in its place.[192][200][201][199][202]
New York Republican Congressional candidate George Demos also objected. He said that the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, the only religious structure destroyed in the 9/11 attacks, should be rebuilt before moving forward on building an Islamic center in the area, and called for an investigation into the project's financing.[203][204][205]
New York City Council Member Dan Halloran became the first elected official in New York City to publicly criticize the project, "If we want a nation of peace," said city councilman Dan Halloran, whose cousin died on 9/11, "then peace comes with understanding. And they need to understand that this is sacred ground to New Yorkers."[206]
Paul Sipos, a member of Manhattan Community Board 1, said:
If the Japanese decided to open a cultural center across from Pearl Harbor, that would be insensitive. If the Germans opened a Bach choral society across from Auschwitz, even after all these years, that would be an insensitive setting. I have absolutely nothing against Islam. I just think: Why there?[71]
A Republican political action committee, the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee, a Washington-based organization, created a television commercial attacking the proposal, saying "we Americans will be heard".[31][87][207][208]
Democratic Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman indicated that he felt the project should be halted, pending further evaluation of its impact on the families and friends of 9/11 victims, project's sponsors' intentions, and their sources of funding.[132]"
and continues
"New York Democratic Assemblyman of District 92 and Attorney-General-candidate Richard Brodsky said it was, "offensive to me ... raises concerns and bad memories and needs to be dealt with on a human level. The murder wasn't an Islamic crime, but it was a crime committed in the name of Islam by people most Muslims reject."[209]
Senate Majority Leader Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada said, "it is time to bring people together, not a time for polarization, and I think it would be better off for everyone if it were built somewhere else."[210] Jim Manley, a spokesperson for Reid earlier had said, "The First Amendment protects freedom of religion ... Senator Reid respects that, but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else."[211]
Democratic National Committee chairman, former Democratic Presidential Candidate, and 79th Governor of Vermont Howard Dean called the project "a real affront to people who lost their lives" and wrote "the builders have to be willing to go beyond what is their right and be willing to talk about feelings whether the feelings are 'justified' or not." Dean also argues that most people opposed "are not right-wing hate mongers".[212]
Democratic Representative Mike McMahon of New York's 13 District provided a written statement:
We have seen very clearly in the past weeks that building a mosque two blocks from ground zero will not promote necessary interfaith dialogue, but will continue to fracture the faiths and citizens of our city and this country. As such, I am opposed to the construction of the Cordoba Center at the currently-proposed location and urge all parties to work with local community leaders to find a more appropriate site.[213]
Democratic Representative Steve Israel of the 2nd District in New York said in Newsday, "While they have a constitutional right to build the mosque, it would be better if they had demonstrated more sensitivity to the families of 9/11 victims. I urge them to do so before proceeding further."[214]
Democratic Representative Tim Bishop of New York's 1st District also disagrees with the location, "As a New Yorker, I believe Ground Zero is sacred ground and should unite us. If the group seeking to build the mosque is sincere in its efforts to bring people together, I would urge them to seek an alternative location which is less divisive. I dispute the wisdom of building at that location, not the constitutional right."[215]
Democrat John Hall of northern New York's 19th District was also quoted as being against the chosen location, "I think honoring those killed on Sept. 11 and showing sensitivity to their families, it would be best if the center were built at a different location".[216]"
and continues
"Organizations
New York City fireman Tim Brown opposed the project, saying: "A mosque ... that's using foreign money from countries with shariah law is unacceptable, especially in this neighborhood". Brown allied with the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), a conservative law firm founded by Pat Robertson that champions the rights of Christians to build and worship freely.[32] Brown sought to pressure Abdul Rauf to disclose fully the project's funding sources.[32] Peter Ferrara, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union (not to be confused with the ACLU), observed: "The Cordoba Mosque was the third largest mosque complex in the world ... built on the site of a former Christian church, to commemorate the Muslim conquest of Spain. This perpetuated a cultural Muslim practice of building mosques on the sites of historic conquests."[217]
More than 20,000 people signed an online petition for the Committee to Stop the Ground Zero Mosque, and unsuccessfully lobbied the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission to give the location landmark status, which would have added a major hurdle to construction.[32]
Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said "putting a mosque ... very close to Ground Zero is unacceptable. ... Even though the vast majority of Muslims ... condemned their actions on Sept. 11, 2001, it still remains a fact that the people who perpetrated the 9/11 attack were Muslims and proclaimed they were doing what they were doing in the name of Islam."[218] Bill Rench, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church which is located near the proposed mosque site, also spoke out against its construction.[219]
The Zionist Organization of America opposes the construction of Park51 due to its location, and questions about Abdul Rauf.[220] The Simon Wiesenthal Center also opposes the location of the planned Park51.[221]
Speaking in his capacity as a "spokesperson for the conservative Tea Party political movement", Mark Williams called it a monument to the terror attacks.[51] He characterized the proposed religious facilities at the site as a place which would be used for "terrorists to worship their monkey god".[222][223] Williams would be expelled from the National Tea Party Federation two months after making this remark, for racially inflammatory remarks regarding a later and unrelated controversy.[224][225]
The Dove World Outreach Center also held a protest against the building of Park51.[226]
Others
Writing in the National Review, political blogger Daniel Pipes stated his opposition to the construction of any Islamist institution anywhere[227] although he did not object to a truly moderate Muslim institution in proximity to Ground Zero.[227]
Notable British comedian and internet personality Pat Condell criticized the construction of Park51 in a video entitled "No mosque at Ground Zero"[228] where he claimed that it was representative of Islamic triumphalism and that the United States was soon on the verge of Islamization and have its freedoms trimmed, as Europe has.[229]
Similarly, political commentator Charles Krauthammer also criticized the construction, saying that it could potentially serve as a breeding ground for Islamic extremism.[230]
On August 9, 2010, Greg Gutfeld stated that he planned on constructing New York City's first Islamic-friendly gay bar next to the proposed center. He stated that "As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque. ... Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I've decided to do the same thing." He insisted that "this is not a joke," and further stated that the project was "an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world."[231][232][233][234]"
See the website
isgap.org the pdf article headlined
"Proud to be Ashamed to be a Jew: On Jewish Self-Criticism and its Pathologies" by
Richard Landes in
April 2015 scroll down to where it says
"Raw Fear: The Real Meaning of Islamophobia"
americanthinker.com has an article headlined
"Why Muslims Must Hate Jews"
By Nonie Darwish on
August 3, 2012
Post a Comment