Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Ground Zero Mosque: Legal: Yes; Moral: Never

By Greg L | 16 August 2010 | National Politics | 43 Comments

Guest Post by Sanford D. HornThe Jewish synagogue, the Christian/Catholic church, the Shinto and Confucian shrines, the Buddhist and Hindu temples, and yes, even the Islamic mosque are all houses of worship to be respected, revered and prayed in by people of faith seeking answers, guidance, truth, atonement and presumably a path to goodness, peace, righteousness and betterment.

Yet, as anyone with a pulse knows, more wars have been waged in the name of all that is holy, from Crusades, Inquisitions, pogroms, holocausts and in more recent history terrorist attacks.

Catholic priests are not calling for the destruction of any peoples for not accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Jewish rabbis are not condemning non-Jews for eating a ham and cheese sandwich, yet Muslim imams around the globe are demanding that all other faiths bow to Sharia law. There are also regular calls for the slaughter of “infidels,” even among Muslims themselves, not to mention the shouts from the mountaintops for the destruction of Israel, the United States, Western Civilization, Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims.

The United States of America is presumably the most religiously tolerant nation in the world – starting with the Puritans who sought religious freedom in the 1600s before there was even a United States. Catholics found a religious haven in the Maryland Colony, Jewish refugees found homes in the United States and assimilated, some would say far too deeply for our own good.

It is the irony of this deep-rooted tolerance that will one day befall the grandeur and religious freedoms of the United States. Nine years after the devastating attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the failed assaults on the White House or Capitol Building in Washington, DC, 3,000 people of numerous faiths lay murdered by Muslim extremists in New York City, Arlington, VA and a field in Shanksville, PA – scores of whom were never identified or found.

Nine years after Muslim extremists issued a clarion call to the global community that they will not play by the rules of civilized society, and adding insult to injury, literally so, there is a mosque planned for construction in the shadows of the September 11, 2001 attacks and murders.

We, as Americans, are being told by one of the most intolerant faiths, to be the tolerant nation we have been to other faiths. Political figures with absolutely no spines have weighed in on this issue is a most cowardly fashion. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has called for “mutual respect and tolerance,” in his support of this mosque at this location. Just how many synagogues and churches are being built in Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim country? We can expect groundbreaking ceremonies about the time bacon is declared kosher.

There is tolerance and then there is myopic stupidity. This nation bends over backwards to be tolerant – even in the face of all the wrongs committed in the United States. No nation is perfect and the US is certainly no exception with a history of slavery and internments, but this is not an issue of payback or overcompensation. This is an issue of common sense. Ultimately, we are killing ourselves from within by giving in to people who want us dead. There is no gray area here.

In addition to the weak-kneed Bloomberg, there are the politically correct New York Congressmen Jerrold Nadler and Anthony Weiner as well as New York Senator Chuck Schumer, who in their abject liberalism have given their blessing to this insidious project. All four are embarrassments as Jews. Where is the backbone of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani when he is needed?

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the chairman of the Cordoba Institute, the sponsoring organization of the Ground Zero mosque, said 19 days following the 9-11 attacks and murders that the United States was an accessory in those attacks, that Osama bin Laden was “made in the US,” and demands that the United States become more Sharia compliant. There is certainly nothing tolerant coming from Imam Rauf.

Imam Rauf still has yet to condemn Hezbollah or Hamas as terror organizations and has called for jihad against Jews, Christians, the United States, Israel and other Westerners. Rauf calls the United States repressive as a political statement, yet in his demands of a more Sharia compliant America, is calling for the deaths of homosexuals, the stoning of women who might be adulterous, and is categorically anti-Jewish and anti-Christian. Where is the tolerance, Imam Rauf?

Then there is the insipid weasel-ness of the White House. Let’s start with that deer in the headlights White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, who little more than a week ago said, “We’re not at war with a religion, but an idea.”

How naïve. Just where did this idea originate?

What next? A mosque planned at the Pentagon and in the field at Shanksville?

Then of course, Barack Obama feels compelled to weigh in with his obtuse two cents after declaring this a “local issue.” Although it most certainly is not a local issue, he would have been better off leaving it at that then demonstrating his tacit short sightedness.

“Let me be clear: as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,” said Obama, Friday, August 13 while hosting an iftar, the daily breaking of the fast during the month-long observance of Ramadan.

“That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable,” said Obama in supporting the Ground Zero mosque and showing his true colors.

Is the erection of such a structure legal? Yes, it is legal, but it most certainly is not moral. Obama had a golden opportunity to do the right thing, but instead, as usual, bowed to political correctness by taking the easy way out. The right thing would be to defend the right of people to worship and defend people’s religious freedoms, but then to strongly encourage that Imam Rauf relocate the mosque from the shadow of the site of the greatest and most horrific attack perpetrated on American soil.

And although this mosque is slated for construction on private property, where is the funding, to the tune of $100 million, coming from? There should be absolute transparency as to the origins of every last nickel going into such a structure, assuming a construction crew in New York City can even be found to work on such a project.

Such transparency has been called for by New York Congressman Peter King and GOP gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio, both of whom oppose the building of the Ground Zero mosque, while Lazio’s opponent, New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo supports the mosque. (Hopefully the voters in New York will remember that on November 2.)

Most Americans agree that the building of this mosque is legal. At the same time they also believe it to be a slap in the face of those who died there as well as their families who will have to see that structure in perpetuity while remembering their loved ones died at the hands of Muslim extremists – a term the Obama administration refuses to utter, again in the interest of political correctness.

Opposition is so strong that 68 percent of those asked, oppose the mosque being built at Ground Zero – and this was a CNN poll – certainly no right wing media outlet. And those who approve because the cultural center has board inclusive of people of Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths, don’t forget, the Nazis had Jews laboring as kapos during the Holocaust. Even the left of center Anti-Defamation League called for the mosque to be relocated, calling it “insensitive,” said ADL Chairman Abraham Foxman.

Mr. Obama need be reminded that slavery was, at one time, also legal, but it too was never moral or right.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. enough said on 16 Aug 2010 at 8:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    This issue can be simply addressed by looking at how Bloomgerg’s NY has blocked the Orthodox Christian St Nicholas Church - which WAS there before the moslem attack.

    Building this monstrosity is on its face an extension of the monstrosity constructed over Solomon’s Temple, and for the same reason.

    It is a message of victory and of the subordination to come.

    Over our dead bodies.

  2. Patty said on 16 Aug 2010 at 9:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Okay, let me get this straight.

    President B.O. and his administration host an ifta and cater to muslims and yet they banned Franklin Graham from the Naional Day of Prayer event at the Pentagon:


    I just want to make sure I got the facts straight.

    Proverbs 29:2, Proverbs 29:16

    Thank you Mr. Horn for your post.

  3. Anonymous said on 16 Aug 2010 at 11:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    Obama, in part, stated this defense of the Islamic Center:

    “we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion.”

    Forget about “affirmative action” minority set-asides, quotas in hiring, discrimination in college scholarships and admissions, promotion to unqualified individuals based on race and the double standard regarding “hate” crimes.

    Most people do not recognize that what happens in a mosque is sedition. Pure and simple. Islam is not just a “religion”, it is a cult, it is it’s own government, its judicial…in its sharia laws, and its military (jihadis) all rolled into one with one singular intent …and that is to rule wherever they take root. It is a invasive, systemic infection looking to take over the host once it has the quantum. Islam is all inclusive i.e. there is no separation of “church” and state. The church is the state. The state is the church .

    This is far more than just a “religion”, but something that cloaks itself in that term so it should not be given the same treatment contemplated under the first amendment. It’s rule is to consume whatever government is wherever it goes. To supplant and replace.

    The sooner America learns this , the better. Obama should be tried for treason in this issue for promoting the establishment of a foreign government on our soil.

  4. NoVA Scout said on 17 Aug 2010 at 12:12 am:
    Flag comment

    A link to Imam Rauf’s call for jihad against the United States (and Christians, Jew, and other Westerners) would be very helpful in understanding the context of this post.

  5. enough said on 17 Aug 2010 at 4:12 am:
    Flag comment

    What is unfathomable about the socilaist left’s infatuation with islam is the fact that under sharia law, they will be the first to have their throats cut. The homosexuals, the hollywood and Washington degenerates - toast.

    They exist in peace alongside the evil, intolerant Christian Right.

    They will be murdered ouright under the loving veil of islam.

    Yet they drool on.

  6. Tillie said on 17 Aug 2010 at 5:24 am:
    Flag comment


    it sure would be nice if the country would focus on our BIG problems like unemployment, deficit, war in Afghanistan, the medically uninsured, education or the lack thereof, trade deficit.

    Building a mosque in New York is not going to empower the muslims in the USA in any way. As for sedition - every religion is seditious. Why else do churches of all beliefs send out their missionaries. That’s sedition, isn’t it?

    I’ve seen the humongous congregation on Sunday morning TV (with the young super-rich preacher and his beautiful wife) sit there with eyes closed and waving their arms like they are in a trance. Sedition indeed!’

  7. Anonymous said on 17 Aug 2010 at 8:17 am:
    Flag comment

    Faisal Abdul Rauf in Arabic: Our Goal Is To Establish Sharia


  8. Anonymous said on 17 Aug 2010 at 9:16 am:
    Flag comment



  9. Anonymous said on 17 Aug 2010 at 10:04 am:
    Flag comment

    Interesting comparison of Obama quotes on Christianity and Islam:


  10. Anonymous said on 17 Aug 2010 at 10:24 am:
    Flag comment


  11. Anonymous said on 17 Aug 2010 at 10:38 am:
    Flag comment

    “Asian” in this context means Pakistani/Indian Muslims:


  12. Anonymous said on 17 Aug 2010 at 11:49 am:
    Flag comment

    Three Things About Islam You Didn’t Know:


  13. Anonymous said on 17 Aug 2010 at 12:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    M. Zuhdi Jasser on the Mosque & Religious Freedom
    August 17, 2010 6:59 AM
    By Kathryn Jean Lopez
    The former U.S. Navy officer, medical doctor, and Muslim responds to President Obama:

    Mr. President this is not about religious freedom. It is about the importance of the World Trade Center site to the psyche of the American People. It is about a blatant attack on our sovereignty by people whose ideology ultimately demands the elimination of our way of life. While Imam Faisal Rauf may not share their violent tendencies he does seem to share a belief that Islamic structures are a political statement and even Ground Zero should be looked upon through the lens of political Islam and not a solely American one.

    As a Muslim desperate to reform his faith, your remarks take us backwards from the day that my faith will come into modernity. I do not stand to eliminate Imam Rauf’s religious freedom; I stand to make sure that my children’s religious freedom will be determined by the liberty guaranteed in the American Constitution and not by clerics or leaders who are apologists for shar’iah law and will tell me what religious freedom is.

    ‘Park 51′, ‘The Cordoba House’ or whatever they are calling it today should not be built, not because it is not their right to do it – but because it is not right to do it.” Mr. President, your involvement in this issue is divisive not uniting. Your follow-up stating that ‘you will not speak to the wisdom of the construction of that mosque and center’ indicates a passive-aggressive meddling on your part that only marginalizes those Muslim and non-Muslim voices against it while pretending to understand both sides of the debate.


  14. Anonymous said on 17 Aug 2010 at 1:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Muslim Inbreeding: Impacts on Intelligence, Sanity, Health and Society


  15. Anonymous said on 17 Aug 2010 at 1:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Krauthammer said that rather than endorsing the mosque, Obama should have told his Muslim audience that:

    “you ought to consider the decency and propriety of establishing a house of worship dedicated to Islam at a spot where people were murdered in the name of Islam.”


  16. Freedom said on 17 Aug 2010 at 2:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    It’s inch by inch…give a little this time, oh, that didn’t hurt much…and then, give a little more next time…and next time…it just keeps going. It’s like the frog in the pot of cool water that’s gradually warming…before ya know it, it’s hot…too hot to jump out and you’re cooked…:( We must stop the political correctness and defend what we have known.

  17. Sanford Horn said on 17 Aug 2010 at 3:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Freedom, Anonymous, Enough and Patty - your additions are spot on, and too numerous to detail here.

    However, Tillie, building this mosque at this location will most certainly empower the Muslim community. This site was picked on purpose to rub our noses in the horrific attacks that Muslim extremists perpetrated in the first place. NY Gov. Paterson offered to help the Imam find another site and he was rebuffed. You can’t compare this to TV church - it’s apples and oranges.

    While there are bigger issues to deal with, as you suggest, and I concur, Rudy Giuliani had the right philosophy as NYC mayor - the broken windows theory. While there were bigger issues than broken windows, you start by replacing the broken windows, then fixing the next item, and so on, until a neighborhood is revitalized, and so on. It worked in NYC; it can work elsewhere, and yes, the mosque is a big deal.

  18. Yawning Wolf said on 17 Aug 2010 at 5:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    This is an opportunity for Muslims. If they make a conciliatory move, and build their mosque elsewhere, then I may start looking at them as the religion of peace they claim to be.

  19. Anonymous said on 17 Aug 2010 at 7:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    When will Muslims offer to pay to rebuild the World Trade Center? Allow churches and synagogues be built in their Islamic states?

    Look at what the Bin Laden Brothers have been busy building in Saudi Arabia:



    Ooooh..and how does one manage to become the second tallest building in the world? It helps to knock off some of the competition.

  20. Tillie said on 18 Aug 2010 at 8:20 am:
    Flag comment


    How many Muslims were involved in the WTT disaster? Should ALL Muslims pay to restore the WTT?

    Maybe we Europeans ought to pay the Indians for the land we stole from them and pay for all who were killed by scalp hunters?

    In the largest Muslim country, Indonesia, there are Christian churches of different denominations, Buddhist temples, Salvation Army, Seven Day Adventists. Don’t know about Jewish temples, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they exist.

  21. Tillie said on 18 Aug 2010 at 8:24 am:
    Flag comment

    “WTT” should be WTC.

  22. Cynic said on 18 Aug 2010 at 11:05 am:
    Flag comment


    From time to time we have paid the Indians for land, but I think that the white lawyers confiscated most of the payments by charging high legal fees.

  23. dans said on 18 Aug 2010 at 11:47 am:
    Flag comment

    “Building a mosque in New York is not going to empower the muslims in the USA in any way.”

    Bull feathers. The message will be that the Islamists are winning the war against the Great Satan, as where once stood the twin towers, what they saw as our two greatest symbols of capitalism, now stands a mosque.

    They claim the mosque will contain a memorial to 9/11. But what remains unanswered, is it to be a memorial to the victims, or the perpetrators ?

  24. Anonymous said on 18 Aug 2010 at 1:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    We Europeans? Who’s we, Tillie? This American hasn’t had any ancestors who could call themselves European for many, many generations.

    If I carjack your vehicle to ram it into and destroy your property, your garage, for example, does it do you any good if I say ” Now I shall build myself a brand new garage, for my use, on Tillie’s property…that should be enough for all to see that I meant no ill will. A very generous conciliatory move on my part, don’t you think?”


    Tired of government inaction, Christians and other religious minorities in Indonesia are pushing back against rising violence by Islamic hardliners. Christians were warned last week against worshipping on a field that houses a shuttered church in the industrial city of Bekasi, but 20 members of the congregation showed up, opening their service with a hymn.

    The act of defiance enraged 300 Islamist hardliners, many of whom hurled shoes and chanted death threats before pushing past a row of riot police, chasing members of the group and beating some with sticks.


    “Recent attacks have largely been led by the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), which is pushing for the implementation of Islamic-based laws in regions across the nation. ”


    “The Batak Christians deserve to be stabbed to death,” yelled Murhali Barda, the head of the local FPI chapter. “If they refuse to go home, we are ready to fight.”


    Christians have quietly applied and reapplied for permits so they can build their own churches, sometimes putting construction on hold for years as local authorities weigh the risks of angering hardliners. In the meantime, some congregations have held services in flats, offices and shopping centres.

    Minorities fed up with Islamist intolerance (Indonesia)

    August 17 2010 | South China Morning Post

    Tired of government inaction, Christians and other religious minorities in Indonesia are pushing back against rising violence by Islamic hardliners. Christians were warned last week against worshipping on a field that houses a shuttered church in the industrial city of Bekasi, but 20 members of the congregation showed up, opening their service with a hymn.

    The act of defiance enraged 300 Islamist hardliners, many of whom hurled shoes and chanted death threats before pushing past a row of riot police, chasing members of the group and beating some with sticks.

    “It’s nonsense,” said Yudi Tambunan of the Batak Christian Protestant Church, vowing to return every Sunday until their request for a house of worship, made more than two years ago, is approved. “The constitution guarantees our right to practise our religion. We want to do that on our own property, in our own church.”

    Indonesia, a secular country of 235 million people, has more Muslims than any other in the world. Although it has a long history of religious tolerance, a small extremist fringe has become more vocal.

    Hardliners have also become more violent, according to the Setara Institute for Peace and Democracy, a human rights group, which said there had already been 28 attacks on religious freedom this year, including everything from preventing groups performing prayers to shutting down or burning houses of worship. The institute said there were 18 such incidents last year and 17 in 2008.

    Although most Indonesians are moderate and oppose violence, the government has been slow to intervene because it relies heavily on the support of Islamic parties.

    Hundreds of people held an inter-faith rally in the capital on Sunday criticising this soft line. “Those attackers have to be arrested, otherwise they will feel their actions are right,” organiser Saur Siagain said.

    In some cases, provincial leaders appear to be fanning the flames.

    Acting on the orders of local officials, police helped hardliners forcibly close several mosques owned by Ahmadiyah, a sect they call deviant, last month in Manis Lor, a village in West Java province. But members of the sect, who differ from other Muslims about whether Mohammed was the final monotheist prophet, are refusing to back down.

    “We’re tired of being harassed and attacked,” said Yati Hidayat, a 48-year-old Ahmadiyah member. “We have the right to pray just like any other religious community. If anyone tries to stop us, we’re ready to fight.”

    Recent attacks have largely been led by the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), which is pushing for the implementation of Islamic-based laws in regions across the nation.

    They are known for smashing bars, attacking transvestites and attacking those considered blasphemous with bamboo clubs and stones.

    Minority groups, less than 15 per cent of the population, have long tried to keep a low profile.

    Christians have quietly applied and reapplied for permits so they can build their own churches, sometimes putting construction on hold for years as local authorities weigh the risks of angering hardliners. In the meantime, some congregations have held services in flats, offices and shopping centres.

    But as attacks become more frequent and more brutal they - with moderate Muslims - appear to be losing patience. “The Batak Christian Protestant Church and Ahmadiyah were around long before FPI,” said Hilmar Farid from Indonesia’s Social History Institute. “They are getting tired of being intimidated.”

    Although police were present during the August 8 attack in Bekasi, 40 kilometres east of the capital, they made little effort to stop FPI members as they became more and more vitriolic. “The Batak Christians deserve to be stabbed to death,” yelled Murhali Barda, the head of the local FPI chapter. “If they refuse to go home, we are ready to fight.”

    An argument broke out between Barda and three female members of the congregation. He grabbed one by the neck and other hardliners started punching them. All the while, clerics kept repeating: “Leave… We will not let you perform prayers here.”

    Political analysts warn that unless the government steps in to end persecution of religious minorities soon, groups like FPI will get bigger and more powerful. “The government is letting a small group of thugs carry out violence, causing great suffering to minority groups,” said Robertus Robet, a sociology lecturer at Jakarta State University.


    In Surabaya, the Jewish community preserves the last synagogue in Indonesia without a rabbi. The synagogue was purchased in the 1950s, and is in a traditional Orthodox, Sephardic style; men and women are separated by a mechiza and the pulpit and congregation face the simple, plain wood ark. The ark has been empty since its two Torah scrolls were relocated to the Jewish congregation in Singapore. There are a small number of individual Jews living in Jakarta, but most are not very religious. Essentially, the Jewish community in Indonesia is continuing to decline because of immigration sparked by a recent rise in anti-Semitism. Today, only about 20 Jews livie in Indonesia.


  25. Anonymous said on 18 Aug 2010 at 1:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Keith Ellison attempts to equate Moslems with Pilgrims …They fled to escape persecution by a religious state. Moslems do not depart Islamic States to realize religious freedom.

    Islam is infiltrating, colonizing to inflict its totalitarian tyranny.


    Rights of Non-Muslims
    in an
    Islamic State

    Samuel Shahid


    Recently a few books have been written about the rights of non-Muslims who are subjugated to the rule of the Islamic law. Most of these books presented the Islamic view in a favorable fashion, without unveiling the negative facet inherited in these laws.

    This brief study attempts to examine these laws as they are stated by the Four Schools of the Fiqh (jurisprudence). It aims at revealing to the reader the negative implications of these laws without ignoring the more tolerant views of modern reformers.

    Our ardent hope that this study will reveal to our readers the bare truth in its both positive and negative facets.


    Concept of “Islamic State”
    “An Islamic state is essentially an ideological state, and is thus radically different from a national state.” This statement made by Mawdudi lays the basic foundation for the political, economical, social, and religious system of all Islamic countries which impose the Islamic law. This ideological system intentionally discriminates between people according to their religious affiliations. Mawdudi, a prominent Pakistani Muslim scholar, summarizes the basic differences between Islamic and secular states as follows:

    An Islamic state is ideological. People who reside in it are divided into Muslims, who believe in its ideology and non-Muslims who do not believe.

    Responsibility for policy and administration of such a state “should rest primarily with those who believe in the Islamic ideology.” Non-Muslims, therefore, cannot be asked to undertake or be entrusted with the responsibility of policymaking.

    An Islamic state is bound to distinguish (i.e. discriminates) between Muslims and non-Muslims. However the Islamic law “Shari`a” guarantees to non-Muslims “certain specifically stated rights beyond which they are not permitted to meddle in the affairs of the state because they do not subscribe to its ideology.” Once they embrace the Islamic faith, they “become equal participants in all matters concerning the state and the government.”

    The above view is the representative of the Hanifites, one of the four Islamic schools of jurisprudence. The other three schools are the Malikites, the Hanbilites (the strictest and the most fundamentalist of all), and the Shafi`ites. All four schools agree dogmatically on the basic creeds of Islam but differ in their interpretations of Islamic law which is derived from four sources:

    Qur’an (read or recite): The sacred book of Muslim community containing direct quotes from Allah as allegedly dictated by Gabriel.

    Hadith (narrative): The collections of Islamic traditions including sayings and deeds of Muhammad as heard by his contemporaries, first, second, and third hand.

    Al-Qiyas (analogy or comparison): The legal decision drawn by Islamic Jurists based on precedent cases.

    Ijma’ (consensus): The interpretations of Islamic laws handed down by the consensus of reputed Muslim scholars in a certain country.
    Textual laws prescribed in the Qur’an are few. The door is left wide open for prominent scholars versed in the Qur’an, the Hadith, and other Islamic discipline to present their Fatwa (legal opinion) as we shall see later.

    Classification of Non-Muslims:

    In his article, “The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State,” Sheikh Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdullah remarks that legists classify non-Muslims or infidels into two categories: Dar-ul-Harb or the household of War, which refers to non-Muslims who are not bound by a peace treaty, or covenant, and whose blood and property are not protected by the law of vendetta or retaliation; and Dar-us-Salam or the household of Peace, which refers to those who fall into three classifications:

    Zimmis (those in custody) are non-Muslim subjects who live in Muslim countries and agree to pay the Jizya (tribute) in exchange for protection and safety, and to be subject to Islamic law. These enjoy a permanent covenant.

    People of the Hudna (truce) are those who sign a peace treaty with Muslims after being defeated in war. They agree to reside in their own land, yet to be subject to the legal jurisprudence of Islam like Zimmis, provided they do not wage war against Muslims.

    Musta’min (protected one) are persons who come to an Islamic country as messengers, merchants, visitors, or student wanting to learn about Islam. A Musta’min should not wage war against Muslims and he is not obliged to pay Jizya, but he would be urged to embrace Islam. If a Musta’min does not accept Islam, he is allowed to return safely to his own country. Muslims are forbidden to hurt him in any way. When he is back in his own homeland, he is treated as one who belongs to the Household of War.
    This study will focus on the laws pertaining to Zimmis.

    Islamic Law and Zimmis
    Muslim Muftis (legal authorities) agree that the contract of the Zimmis should be offered primarily to the People of the Book, that is, Christians and Jews, then to the Magis or Zoroastrians. However, they disagree on whether any contract should be signed with other groups such as communists or atheists. The Hanbalites and the Shafi`ites believe that no contract should be made with the ungodly or those who do not believe in the supreme God. Hanifites and Malikites affirm that the Jizya may be accepted from all infidels regardless of their beliefs and faith in God. Abu Hanifa, however, did not want pagan Arabs to have this option because they are the people of the Prophet. They. must be given only two options: accept Islam or be killed.

    The Jizya (tribute)
    Jizya literally means penalty. It is a protection tax levied on non-Muslims living under Islamic regimes, confirming their legal status. Mawdudi states that “the acceptance of the Jizya establishes the sanctity of their lives and property, and thereafter neither the Islamic state, nor the Muslim public have any right to violate their property, honor or liberty.” Paying the Jizya is a symbol of humiliation and submission because Zimmis are not regarded as citizens of the Islamic state although they are, in most cases, natives to the country.

    Such an attitude alienates the Zimmis from being an essential part of the community. How can a Zimmi feel at home in his own land, among his own people, and with his own government, when he knows that the Jizya, which he pays, is a symbol of humiliation and submission? In his book The Islamic Law Pertaining to non-Muslims, Sheikh `Abdulla Mustafa Al-Muraghi indicates that the. Jizya can only be exempted from the Zimmi who becomes a Muslim or dies. The Shafi`i reiterates that the Jizya is not automatically put aside when the Zimmi embraces Islam. Exemption from the Jizya has become an incentive to encourage Zimmis to relinquish their faith and embrace Islam.

    Sheik Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdulla summarizes the purpose of the Jizya. He says, quoting Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, that the Jizya is enacted:

    “…to spare the blood (of the Zimmis), to be a symbol of humiliation of the infidels and as an insult and punishment to them, and as the Shafi`ites indicate, the Jizya is offered in exchange for residing in an Islamic country.” Thus Ibn Qayyim adds, “Since the entire religion belongs to God, it aims at humiliating ungodliness and its followers, and insulting them. Imposing the Jizya on the followers of ungodliness and oppressing them is required by God’s religion. The Qur’anic text hints at this meaning when it says: `until they give the tribute by force with humiliation.’ (Qur’an 9:29). What contradicts this is leaving the infidels to enjoy their might and practice their religion as they wish so that they would have power and authority.”

    Zimmis and Religious Practices
    Muslims believe that the Zimmis are Mushrikun (polytheists) for they see the belief in the Trinity as belief in three gods. Islam is the only true religion, they claim. Therefore, to protect Muslims from corruption, especially against the unforgivable sin of shirk (polytheism), its practice is forbidden among Muslims, because it is considered the greatest abomination. When Christians practice it publicly, it becomes an enticement and exhortation to apostasy. It is significant here to notice that according to Muraghi, Zimmis and infidels are polytheists and therefore, must have the same treatment.

    According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on Zimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:

    Zimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. “Old churches” are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.

    Zimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.

    Zimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.

    Zimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.

    Zimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.

    Zimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.

    Zimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries.
    Mawdudi, who is a Hanifite, expresses a more generous opinion toward Christians. He said:

    “In their own towns and cities they are allowed to do so (practice their religion) with the fullest freedom. In purely Muslim areas, however, an Islamic government has full discretion to put such restrictions on their practices as it deems necessary.”
    Apostasy in Islam
    Apostasy means rejection of the religion of Islam either by action or the word of the mouth. “The act of apostasy, thus, put an end to one’s adherence to Islam.” when one rejects the fundamental creeds of Islam, he rejects the faith, and this is an act of apostasy such an act is a grave sin in Islam. The Qur’an indicates,

    “How shall Allah guide those who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Apostle was true and the clear sign had come unto them. But Allah guides not the people of unjust of such the reward is that on them rests the curse of Allah, of His angels and of all mankind in that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be their lot, except for those that repent after that and make amends; for verily Allah is Oft-forging, Most Merciful (Qur’an 3:86-89).
    Officially, Islamic law requires Muslims not to force Zimmis to embrace Islam. It is the duty of every Muslim, they hold, to manifest the virtues of Islam so that those who are non-Muslims will convert willingly after discovering its greatness and truth. Once a person becomes a Muslim, he cannot recant. If he does, he will be warned first, then he will be given three days to reconsider and repent. If he persists in his apostasy, his wife is required to divorce him, his property is confiscated, and his children are taken away from him. He is not allowed to remarry. Instead, he should be taken to court and sentenced to death. If he repents, he may return to his wife and children or remarry. According to the Hanifites an apostate female is not allowed to get married. She must spend time in meditation in order to return to Islam. If she does not repent or recant, she will not be sentenced to death, but she is to be persecuted, beaten and jailed until she dies. Other schools of Shari`a demand her death. The above punishment is prescribed in a Hadith recorded by the Bukhari: “It is reported by `Abaas … that the messenger of Allah … said, `Whosoever changes his religion (from Islam to any other faith), kill him.”

    In his book Shari`ah: The Islamic Law, Doi remarks, “The punishment by death in the case of Apostasy has been unanimously agreed upon by all the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence.”

    A non-Muslim wishing to become a Muslim is encouraged to do so and anyone, even a father or a mother, who attempts to stop him, may be punished. However, anyone who makes an effort to proselytize a Muslim to any other faith may face punishment.

    Civic Laws
    Zimmis and Muslims are subject to the same civic laws. They are to be treated alike in matters of honor, theft, adultery, murder, and damaging property. They have to be punished in accordance with the Islamic law regardless of their religious affiliation. Zimmis and Muslims alike are subject to Islamic laws in matters of civic business, financial transactions such as sales, leases, firms, establishment of companies, farms, securities, mortgages, and contracts. For instance, theft is punishable by cutting off the thief’s hand whether he is a Muslim or a Christian. But when it comes to privileges, the Zimmis do not enjoy the same treatment. For instance, Zimmis are not issued licenses to carry weapons.

    Marriage and Children
    A Muslim male can marry a Zimmi girl, but a Zimmi man is not allowed to marry a Muslim girl. If a woman embraces Islam and wants to get married, her non-Muslim father does not have the authority to give her away to her bridegroom. She must be given away by a Muslim guardian.

    If one parent is a Muslim, children must be raised as Muslims. If the father is a Zimmi and his wife converts to Islam, she must get a divorce; then she will have the right of custody of her child. Some fundamentalist schools indicate that a Muslim husband has the right to confine his Zimmi wife to her home and restrain her from going to her own house of worship.

    Capital Punishment
    The Hanifites believe that both Zimmis and Muslims must suffer the same Penalty for similar crimes. If a Muslim kills a Zimmi intentionally, he must be killed in return. The same applies to a Christian who kills a Muslim. But other schools of Law have different interpretations of Islamic law. The Shafi`ites declare that a Muslim who assassinates a Zimmi must not be killed, because it is not reasonable to equate a Muslim with a polytheist (Mushrik). In such a case, blood price must be paid. The penalty depends on the school of law adopted by the particular Islamic country where the crime or offense is committed. This illustrates the implication of different interpretations of the Islamic law based on the Hadith.

    Each school attempts to document its legal opinion by referring to the Hadith or to an incident experienced by the Prophet or the “rightly guided” Caliphs.

    The Witness of Zimmis
    Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis or Musta’min. Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court. According to the Shari`a, a Zimmi is not even qualified to be under oath. Muraghi states bluntly, “The testimony of a Zimmi is not accepted because Allah - may He be exalted - said: `God will not let the infidels (kafir) have an upper hand over the believers’.” A Zimmi, regarded as an infidel, cannot testify against any Muslim regardless of his moral credibility. If a Zimmi has falsely accused another Zimmi and was once punished, his credibility and integrity is tarnished and his testimony is no longer acceptable. One serious implication of this is that if one Muslim has committed a serious offense against another, witnessed by Zimmis only, the court will have difficulty deciding the case since the testimonies of Zimmis are not acceptable. Yet, this same Zimmi whose integrity is blemished, if he converts to Islam, will have his testimony accepted against the Zimmis and Muslims alike, because according to the Shari`a, “By embracing Islam he has gained a new credibility which would enable him to witness…” All he has to do is to utter the Islamic confession of faith before witnesses, and that will elevate him from being an outcast to being a respected Muslim enjoying all the privileges of a devout Muslim.

    Personal Law
    On personal matters of marriages, divorces, and inheritance, Zimmis are allowed to appeal to their own religious courts. Each Christian denomination has the right and authority to determine the outcome of each case. Zimmis are free to practice their own social and religious rites at home and in church without interference from the state, even in such matters as drinking wine, rearing pigs, and eating pork, as long as they do not sell them to Muslims. Zimmis are generally denied the right to appeal to an Islamic court in family matters, marriage, divorce, and inheritance. However, in the event a Muslim judge agrees to take such a case, the court must apply Islamic law.

    Political Rights and Duties
    The Islamic state is an ideological state, thus the head of the state inevitably must be a Muslim, because he is bound by the Shari`a to conduct and administer the state in accordance with the Qur’an and the Sunna. The function of his advisory council is to assist him in implementing the Islamic principles and adhering to them. Anyone who does not embrace Islamic ideology cannot be the head of state or a member of the council.

    Mawdudi, aware of the requirements of modern society, seems to be more tolerant toward Zimmis. He says,

    “In regard to a parliament or a legislature of the modern type which is considerably different from the advisory council in its traditional sense, this rule could be relaxed to allow non-Muslims to be members provided that it has been fully ensured in the constitution that no law which is repugnant to the Qur’an and the Sunna should be enacted, that the Qur’an and the Sunna should be the chief source of public law, and that the head of the state should necessarily be a Muslim.”
    Under these circumstances, the sphere of influence of non-Muslim minorities would be limited to matters relating to general problems of the country or to the interest of the minorities. Their participation should not damage the fundamental requirement of Islam. Mawdudi adds,

    “It is possible to form a separate representative assembly for all non-Muslim groups in tbe capacity of a central agency. The membership and the voting rights of such an assembly will be confined to non-Muslims and they would be given the fullest freedom within its frame-work.”
    These views do not receive the approval of most other schools of the Shari`a which hold that non-Muslims are not allowed to assume any position which might bestow on them any authority over any Muslim. A position of sovereignty demands the implementation of Islamic ideology. It is alleged that a non-Muslim (regardless of his ability, sincerity, and loyalty to his country) cannot and would not work faithfully to achieve the ideological and political goals of Islam.

    Business World
    The political arena and the official public sectors are not the only area in which non-Muslims are not allowed to assume a position of authority. A Muslim employee who works in a company inquires in a letter “if it is permissible for a Muslim owner (of a company) to confer authority on a Christian over other Muslims? (Al-Muslim Weekly; Vol. 8; issue No. 418; Friday 2, 5, 1993).

    In response to this inquiry three eminent Muslim scholars issued their legal opinions:

    Sheikh Manna` K. Al-Qubtan, professor of Higher studies at the School of Islamic Law in Riyadh, indicates that:

    Basically, the command of non-Muslims over Muslims in not admissible, because God Almighty said: ‘Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur’an 4:141}. For God - Glory be to Him - has elevated Muslims to the highest rank (over all men) and foreordained to them the might, by virtue of the Qurtanic text in which God the Almighty said: ‘Might and strength be to Allah, the Prophet (Muhammad) and the believers (Muslims) {Qur’an 63:8}.
    Thus, the authority of non-Muslim over a Muslim is incompatible with these two verses, since the Muslim has to submit to and obey whoever is in charge over him. The Muslim, therefore becomes inferior to him, and this should not be the case with the Muslim.

    Dr. Salih Al-Sadlan, professor of Shari`a at the School of Islamic Law, Riyadh, cites the same verses and asserts that it is not permissible for a infidel (in this case is a Christian) to be in charge over Muslims whether in the private or public sector. Such an act:

    “entails the humiliaton of the Muslim and the exaltation of the infidel (Christian). This infidel may exploit his position to humiliate and insult the Muslims who work under his administration. It is advisable to the company owner to fear God Almighty and to authorize only a Muslim over the Muslims. Also, the injunctions issued by the ruler, provides that an infidel should not be in charge when there is a Muslim available to assume the command. Our advice to the company owner is to remove this infidel and to replace him with a Muslim.”
    In his response Dr. Fahd Al-`Usaymi, professor of Islamic studies at the Teachers’ College in Riyadh, remarks that the Muslim owner of the company should seek a Muslim employee who is better than the Christian (manager), or equal to him or even less qualified but has the ability to be trained to obtain the same skill enjoyed by the Christian. It is not permissible for a Christian to be in charge of Muslims by the virtue of the general evidences which denote the superiority of the Muslim over others. Then he quotes (Qur’an 63:8) and also cites verse 22 of Chapter 58:

    Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Apostle, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred.
    `Usaymi claims that being under the authority of a Christian may force Muslims to flatter him and humiliate themselves to this infidel on the hope to obtain some of what he has. This is against the confirmed evidences. Then he alludes to the story of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab the second Caliph, who was displeased with one of his governors who appointed a Zimmi as a treasurer, and remarked: “Have the wombs of women become sterile that they gave birth only to this man?” Then `Usaymi adds:

    Muslims should fear God in their Muslim brothers and train them… for honesty and fear of God are, originally, in the Muslim, contrary to the infidel (the Christian) who, originally, is dishonest and does not fear God.
    Does this mean that a Christian who owns a business cannot employ a Muslim to work for him? Even worse, does this mean that a Zimmi, regardless of his unequal qualification, cannot be appointed to the right position where he would serve his country the best? This question demands an answer.

    Freedom of Expression
    Mawdudi, who is more lenient than most Muslim scholars, presents a revolutionary opinion when he emphasizes that in an Islamic state:

    “all non-Muslims will have the freedom of conscience, opinion, expression, and association as the one enjoyed by Muslims themselves, subject to the same limitations as are imposed by law on Muslims.”
    Mawdudi’s views are not accepted by most Islamic schools of law, especially in regard to freedom of expression like criticism of Islam and the government. Even in a country like Pakistan, the homeland of Mawdudi, it is illegal to criticize the government or the head of state. Many political prisoners are confined to jails in Pakistan and most other Islamic countries. Through the course of history. except in rare cases, not even Muslims have been given freedom to criticize Islam without being persecuted or sentenced to death. It is far less likely for a Zimmi to get away with criticizing Islam.

    In Mawdudi’s statement, the term “limitations” is vaguely defined. If it were explicitly defined, you would find, in the final analysis, that it curbs any type of criticism against the Islamic faith and government.

    Moreover, how can the Zimmis express the positive aspects of their religion when they are not allowed to use the media or advertise them on radio or TV? Perhaps Mawdudi meant by his proposals to allow such freedom to Zimmis only among themselves. Otherwise, they would be subject to penalty. Yet, Muslims are allowed, according to the Shari`a (law) to propagate their faith among all religious sects without any limitations.

    Muslims and Zimmis
    Relationships between Muslims and Zimmis are classified in two categories: what is forbidden and what is allowable.

    I. The Forbidden:

    A Muslim is not allowed to:

    emulate the Zimmis in their dress or behavior.

    attend Zimmi festivals or support them in any way which may give them any power over Muslims.

    lease his house or sell his land for the construction of a church, temple, liquor store, or anything that may benefit the Zimmi’s faith.

    work for Zimmis in any job that might promote their faith such as constructing a church.

    make any endowment to churches or temples.

    carry any vessel that contains wine, work in wine production, or transport pigs.

    address Zimmis with any title such as: “my master” or “my lord.”
    II. The Allowable

    A Muslim is allowed to:

    financially assist the Zimmis, provided the money is not used in violation of Islamic law like buying wine or pork.

    give the right of pre-emption (priority in buying property) to his Zimmi neighbor. The Hanbilites disapprove of this.

    eat food prepared by the People of the Book.

    console the Zimmis in an illness or in the loss of a loved one. It is also permissible for a Muslims to escort a funeral to the cemetery, but he has to walk in front of the coffin, not behind it, and he must depart before the deceased is buried.

    congratulate the Zimmis for a wedding, birth of a child, return from a long trip, or recovery from illness. However, Muslims are warned not to utter any word which may suggest approval of the Zimmis’ faith, such as: “May Allah exalt you,” “May Allah honor you,” or “May Allah give your religion victory.”
    This study shows us that non-Muslims are not regarded as citizens by any Islamic state, even if they are original natives of the land. To say otherwise is to conceal the truth. Justice and equality require that any Christian Pakistani, Melanesian, Turk, or Arab be treated as any other citizen of his own country. He deserves to enjoy the same privileges of citizenship regardless of religious affiliation. To claim that Islam is the true religion and to accuse other religions of infidelity is a social, religious and legal offense against the People of the Book.

    Christians believe that their religion is the true religion of God and Islam is not. Does that mean that Great Britain, which is headed by a Queen, the head of the Anglican Church, should treat its Muslim subjects as a second class? Moreover, why do Muslims in the West enjoy all freedoms allotted to all citizens of these lands, while Muslim countries do not allow native Christians the same freedom? Muslims in the West build mosques, schools, and educational centers and have access to the media without any restriction. They publicly advertise their activities and are allowed to distribute their Islamic materials freely, while native Christians of any Islamic country are not allowed to do so. Why are Christians in the West allowed to embrace any religion they wish without persecution while a person who chooses to convert to another religion in any Islamic country, is considered an apostate and must be killed if he persists in his apostasy? These questions and others are left for readers to ponder.


  26. Anonymous said on 18 Aug 2010 at 1:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Feisal Abdul Rauf By Alyssa Lappen
    An investigative report prepared for ACT! for America

    Feisal Abdul Rauf, born in Kuwait in 1948, boasts of his issue from an “Egyptian family steeped in religious scholarship.” 1 He presents himself as a Muslim moderate.2 Yet Feisal Rauf’s Muslim Brotherhood provenance, radical by definition, is as authentic as it gets.

    Evidence of family, and direct Rauf Muslim Brotherhood connections

    Rauf’s father Dr. Muhammad Abdul Rauf (1917-2004), was an Egyptian contemporary of Muslim Brotherhood (MB) founder Hassan al-Banna.

    Rauf’s father studied and taught at Islam’s closest equivalent to the Vatican — Al-Azhar University — beside Hassan al-Banna, perpetuating the pious family tradition of radicalism.

    In 1948, Rauf’s father fled Egypt, during its first MB crackdown; Feisal was born in Kuwait. 3

    In 1965, Feisal’s father left Malaysia for New York City to stealthily buy two thirds of an E. 96th Street block for an Islamic “personal trust,” revealing its $1.3 million Islamic money from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Libya only after construction of the MB mosque began in 1984. 4

    Likewise, 46 Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) nations funded the $17 million Islamic Cultural Center, only after its 1992 opening did Rauf’s father reveal that funding source or admit his long-term plans for discriminatory Muslim-only housing for the Islamic complex. 5

    Rauf’s father named Feisal as a permanent trustee of the MB mosque.

    Under Feisal’s permanent trusteeship, ICC employed Al-Azhar imam Muhammad Gemeaha. A week after fleeing the U.S. on Sept. 28, 2001 he stated, “only the Jews” could have perpetrated 9/11; Allah says Jews “disseminate corruption in the land,” spread “heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism, and drugs.” Americans would exterminate Jews like “Hitler did” if they knew.

    ICC then hired Al-Azhar envoy Omar Saleem Abu-Namous. He too saw no “conclusive evidence” that Muslims committed the atrocities, but rather saw Muslims as innocent victims. 6

    At Perdana Global Peace Organization, an MB, Hamas and al-Qaeda affiliate, Rauf is second in command to antisemitic former Malaysian P.M. and Islamic law advocate Mahathir Mohamad,7 who in Nov. 2002, incited global anti-West financial war as a “jihad worth fighting for.”8

    On May 7, 2010, Rauf himself stated, “Some people say … Muslims … attacked on 9/11 … ”9

    In 2001 on 60 Minutes, Rauf called U.S. policies “an accessory to the crime that happened,” and said, “In … the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden was made in the USA.” 10

    Rauf wants to impose sharia in the U.S. His 2004 book, What’s Right with Islam, is translated into Malay as the Call from the WTC Rubble. 11

    In Dec. 2007 Rauf promoted the book at a Kuala Lumpur Hizb ut Tahrir (HT) meeting. 12 Banned in Germany since 2003 and outlawed in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, among other places — the organization is ideologically akin to the MB.

    In the fiscal year ended Jun. 30, 2009, Feisal’s ASMA accepted at least $1.3 million, including $576,312 from Qatar,13 whose government stands accused of funding international terrorism, has long harbored terror financiers, and for decades hosted Muslim Brotherhood spiritual chief Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Rauf is quite friendly with Qaradawi, a large, founding shareholder in terror-funding al-Taqwa Bank who champions sharia law, wife beating and suicide bombing. 14

    Rauf concluded in the Washington Post, shortly after President Obama’s June 2009 Cairo speech, that he’d challenged Muslims to “Live up to the tenets of our religion, embrace Shariah law as conceived by the Prophet, and see what happens.” 15

    Rauf seeks more U.S. legal “leeway” for sharia — to put Muslims above the law — by

    “[Inviting] voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation’s practical life, [and allowing] religious communities … to judge …according to their own laws.16

    On Dec. 9, 2007, Rauf said in Arabic to Sa’da Abdul Maksoud of the Hadi-el-Islam website, that current, unjust governments, “do not follow Islamic laws.” He advocates establishing sharia

    “in more [ways than one] … through a kingdom or a democracy, [so long as the] fundamentals of Shariah [exist, with standards of Muslim scholars] required to
    govern. …to organize … relationships between government … and the governed.” 17

    In March 2010, also in Arabic, Rauf stridently denounced interfaith discussions. “I don’t believe in interfaith dialogue,” he said in an article that highlighted his statement in its headline. 18

    Rauf’s Manhattan ASMA offices at 475 Riverside Drive occupy the suite next door to Council of American-Islamic-Relations (CAIR) of NY; its national parent is the U.S. arm of the MB terrorist group, Hamas, and an unindicted coconspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror financing case in which the organization and five officers were convicted.19

    At the Jul. 13, 2010 New York Landmarks hearing on the fate a 152-year-old wrought-iron era building where a piece of jet fuselage fell through its roof on 9/11 — CAIR-NY executive director Zaed Ramadan supported destroying the structure opposite Ground Zero to build Rauf’s 15 story mosque, a monument to Muslim victory to tower above the memorial site. 20

    Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan in 2009 both refused to sign a Freedom Pledge to protect former Muslims from the death sentence sought by most sharia interpretations for Muslim apostates. On Oct. 20, 2009, Former Muslims United asked ASMA’s executives to pledge to

    “renounce, repudiate and oppose any physical intimidation, or worldly and corporal
    punishment, of apostates …, [however] that punishment may be determined or carried out by myself or any other Muslim including the [apostate’s] family, community, Mosque leaders, Shariah court or judge, and Muslim government or regime.”21

    Rauf’s 2000 and 2004 books both laud sharia and envision implementing it in the U.S. – and “rejuvenating” the Islamic spirit of 14th century jurist Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah and his 18th century heir Muhammad bin Abdul al-Wahhab. Rauf also lauds purported “modernists” Jamal al-Dinal-Afghani (d. 1897) and Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905) who revered Wahhabis, Ibn Taymiyyah and like Rauf pretended sharia – with perennial jihad and countless strictures on non-Muslims and women – complements Western ideas like those in the U.S. Bill of Rights. 22

    Rauf also authorized two mainstay MB organizations, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) to produce “a special non-commercial edition” of his 2004 book to promote “proper [Western] understanding of Islam…”23

    Rauf’s ASMA in 2004 established the purportedly liberal Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow.24 Its liberal faces are largely overwhelmed by sharia devotees like al Qaeda supporter Yasir Qadhi,25 CAIR-NY community affairs director Faiza N. Ali — who co-authored CAIR’s fallacious “denunciation” of a superb 2008 NYPD report on homegrown jihadists — and CAIR-NY community organizer Debbie Almontaser, who once ran the city’s Khalil Gibran Academy.26

    Since at least 2006, Rauf’s U.S.-based Cordoba Initiative has partnered with Gallup Organization and “Sunni and Shi’a scholars from Morocco to Indonesia” to create “an Islamic legal benchmark for measuring ‘Islamicity’ of a state”—sharia index—for official, state, public and press use in the “Muslim and Western worlds.” He initiated the project, funded by Malaysia and many other nations in the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). 27

    A key sharia index board member, Jasser Auda, doubles on the academic council at the U.K. the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) office and in summer 2010 taught with Muslim Brotherhood heavies—e.g. former ISNA leadership development head Louay Safi, IIIT v.p. and NAIT founding general manager Jamal Barzinji and Minaret of Freedom head Imad Ad Deen Ahmad, present at the Beirut terrorist convention in January 2001. No mistaking their intent.

  27. Anonymous said on 18 Aug 2010 at 4:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    Zimmi = Dhimmi

    “The Arabic root-word “Z-M-M” (from which “dhimmi” issues) means “the opposite of praise,” that is, to “censure,” “dispraise too much,” “blame,” “criticize,” “find fault with,” “accuse,” “obligate,” “hold liable,” “hold in bad conscience,” “accuse,” and “hold guilty,” etc. And that’s not a semantic connotation, that is the meaning, according to the Elias Modern Arabic Dictionary.”


  28. Old Redneck said on 19 Aug 2010 at 4:57 am:
    Flag comment

    Let’s insert a few facts — something that’s in short supply here.

    FACT 1. George W. Bush hosted an Iftar dinner in the White House EVERY YEAR FOR THE EIGHT YEARS HE WAS IN OFFICE.

    FACT 2. There’s a mosque only four blocks from the WTC site that’s as big as St. Patrick’s Cathedral and that’s been there since 1970. Why no protests about it?

    FACT 3. The Muslim congregation that is proposing to build a community center at 51 Park has been meeting there for several years ever since they purchased the old Burlington Coat Factory building. No one complained or even noticed for all these years.

    FACT 4. It’s not a “mosque.” It’s a community center with facilities open for use by the entire community.

  29. Old Redneck said on 19 Aug 2010 at 4:59 am:
    Flag comment

    Oh, and by the way — let’s insert another fact.

    The imam of this congregation was selected TWICE by the Bush Administration to travel throughout the Middle East, representing the USofA.

  30. Cynic said on 19 Aug 2010 at 11:35 am:
    Flag comment

    Fact 4. It’s not a “Mosque” - no, but the community center will include a Mosque. And, would not be surprised, if after it is build, they will changed its function to that of a Mosque.

  31. Anonymous said on 19 Aug 2010 at 5:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    “FACT 4. It’s not a “mosque.” It’s a community center with facilities open for use by the entire community.”

    If it’s being sold as “only community center”, then they can’t use the “religious freedom” argument.

  32. Jack said on 19 Aug 2010 at 8:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    “FACT 2. There’s a mosque only four blocks from the WTC site that’s as big as St. Patrick’s Cathedral and that’s been there since 1970. Why no protests about it?”

    Answer 1: Then they don’t need another one there.

    Answer 2: It’s been there since 1970. In other words, it is not being built as a symbol of victory.

  33. Disgusted said on 20 Aug 2010 at 5:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    Is it legal to build the mosque/center? Yes. Is it “moral”? It isn’t a question of morality. It’s a question of sensitivity. It’s insensitive to build it that close to the WTC site. And its an insult to the families of those killed there. It’s an “In-Your-Face” move.
    My question is this: How does the US rid itself of the Muslim threat and remain true to the freedom of religious practice guarantee in the Constitution? I don’t think you can. What’s to say an uber-liberal gets elected president (I mean way past the Big O, so don’t start resonating) and decides to rid the US of the invasive Roman Catholic menace? After all, some of their leaders have done unspeakable things to children and they have a history of intolerance of protestants. Suppose an uber-fundamentalist Christian gets elected and sees the Mormon theology as an affront to Christianity and wants to rid the nation of that nonsense? No sane person would allow these things to happen.
    So where does the line get drawn? Do you attack this place like the Branch Davidian fiasco? What if children are in there? Is it okay since some of their zealots decided to take out the WTC? Then we’re not in the US anymore; we’re in Northern Ireland or Israel/Palestine.

  34. Scout said on 20 Aug 2010 at 9:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Were some of the people involved in building this center involved in the attack on the WTC? Why aren’t they in jail? I didn’t realize that there was any connection. what am I missing? Why would those of us who lost friends or relatives at the World Trade Center in 2001 have any problem with or sensitivity about this project? Maybe I just don’t have enough information. If I find out that these guys who are behind what looks like a very nice contribution to lower Manhattan and a very sincere effort to have a peaceful outreach to all faiths were in on the attack, I certainly will change my view of this. But I have seen absolutely no evidence of this.

  35. Anonymous said on 21 Aug 2010 at 9:32 am:
    Flag comment

    Where is the evidence that this is “a very sincere effort to have a peaceful outreach to all faiths”? I have seen absolutely no evidence of this.

    Islamists are certainly well known for a wide variety of “outreach” efforts around the globe. Although one would be hard pressed to honestly described any as “peaceful”.





    Three Things (You Need to Know) About Islam

    Oh dear. What a tangled little web they weave….

    “Ground Zero Mosque Imam Says: ‘I Am a Jew, I Have Always Been One’…”


    I am not buying into the “we come in peace” connivance. I will never submit to Islamic theocracy or governance.


    This is a far more accurate example of Muslim community “outreach”: Submit, depart or die:


  36. Anonymous said on 21 Aug 2010 at 10:17 am:
    Flag comment

    This one’s most DEFINATLY for you Dimmi Bulbs:


  37. Anonymous said on 21 Aug 2010 at 10:37 am:
    Flag comment

    “The proposed mosque near to ground zero is not really a religious institution. It would be — as many mosques throughout the nation are — a terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and training center. It is not the worship of Islam that is the problem. It is the efforts to advance Sharia law, with its requirement of jihad and violence, that is the nub of the issue.

    There is a global effort to advance Sharia law and make it the legal system of the world. Most major banks and financial institutions offer Sharia compliant funds, which have their investments vetted by the most fundamentalist and reactionary of clerics to assure that they advance Sharia law.

    Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the founder of the proposed mosque, helps to prepare a Sharia index that rates countries on their degree of compliance with Sharia law. In the United Kingdom, many courts have recognized Sharia as the governing law on matters between two Muslims.

    Not only is Sharia law a vicious anti-female code that orders death by stoning, promotes child marriage, decriminalizes abuse of women and gives wives no rights in divorce, but it also explicitly recognizes the duty of all Muslims to wage jihad against non-believers and promotes violence to achieve its goals. In this respect, violent jihad is as inherent in Sharia law as revolution is in communist doctrine.

    But there are non-Sharia mosques where peaceful and spiritual Muslims worship God in their own way without promoting violence. A soon-to-be published study funded by Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy found that 20 percent of the mosques in the United States have no taint of Sharia and simply promote peaceful worship. But 80 percent are filled with violent literature, Sharia teachings, and promotion of jihad and its inevitable concomitant — terrorism.

    Which brings us to the ground zero mosque. There can be no doubt that any mosque organized and run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf will be based on Sharia law and will serve as local branch office of the pan-Islamic terrorist offensive against the west. That such a facility should be located right next to the place where jihad achieved its most hideous triumph is unspeakably inappropriate.

    President Obama is confusing the issue when he describes it as one of religious freedom. There is broad latitude to worship God as one chooses. But there is none to promote violence and terrorism. The record of involvement of Sharia mosques with the 9-11 attackers and the Ft. Hood massacre shooter is so deep and extensive that it vividly underscores the difference between a religious institution and an organization that promotes terrorism.

    Politically, President Obama’s defense of the mosque and his efforts to make it a First Amendment issue are incredibly self-destructive. They raise questions about his political sanity. It is hard to believe how tone deaf he must have become to take such a position.

    He has now embraced two positions that are anathema to two-thirds of all Americans — the mosque and opposition to Arizona’s immigration law. Neither was a controversy that sought him out. He waded into each one voluntarily with flags flying. He had no role in the Arizona law, but his lawsuit to invalidate it made it his fight. He does not sit on the New York City Planning Commission, but his endorsement of the mosque puts him squarely in the center of controversy. What is he using for brains these days?

    To continue the efforts to battle Sharia law and the attempts of radical Muslims to use it to destroy our values and the gains of feminism, please follow the work funded by the Center for Security Policy and conducted by David Yerushalmi. To help to fund their efforts, go to centerforsecuritypolicy.org.”


  38. Scout said on 21 Aug 2010 at 12:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    So what is the evidence that these guys were involved in the 9/11 plot? If there is none, why do we care about this particular site? Would we care if a Catholic community center were built on the same land? If it isn’t about this site, then it must be about Muslims. If it’s about muslims, why is it ever OK for them to build a mosque?

  39. Citizen12 said on 21 Aug 2010 at 1:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mischief in Manhattan
    We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation
    By Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, Citizen Special August 17, 2010

    “The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.”


    This Manhattan issue is just another slice of Islamic propaganda designed to break down the resistance to the intended goal of the islamafication of the globe.

    The American people have got to get past the view that this is some religious freedom issue and accept the fact that while many of their friends and neighbors may seem to be peaceful followers of Islam, the powers that run the movement are in this for a different matter all together.

    “The global Islamist insurgency has not yet reached its final stage in which an Islamist government or governments work to re-establish a pan-Islamic caliphate.”

    “Saudi officials, the primary financial backers of militant Islam, have long understood the need to fight and win the battle for ideas………U.S. strategy will fail if it focuses only upon capturing and killing insurgents but ignores the battle of ideas.


  40. InTheNavy said on 26 Aug 2010 at 6:10 am:
    Flag comment

    Add this to your daily reading: www.jihadwatch.org

  41. Anonymous said on 26 Aug 2010 at 4:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Add this as well: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/

  42. Anonymous said on 26 Aug 2010 at 5:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    “At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war.”

    From Gates of Vienna. Amen to that statement and someone tell Chris Cuomo to either get a clue or sit
    down and shut up.


  43. Cynic said on 26 Aug 2010 at 9:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    What about the 1529 battle of Vienna. Suleiman the Magnificent (Suleiman I) got beaten then. Seems his camels and troops could not handle the rainy weather and the German mercenaries that came to the aid of Austria and its allies.


Comments are closed.

Views: 3835