When the RG decided to publish not one but TWO pro-mosque pieces on the same day, my fibngers got a little raw! Not that I'm not used to that, but this was too much. More confusion for the reader, less comprehension by the writers.
Some context, then for those who want more...
Political blindness at Ground Zero
In todays RG (8-17) there is not one, but two pieces on the ground zero mosque and neither one presents a complete or accurate picture on this debate. First we have, on the front page as the lead story the headline “Ground Zero for Debate” by Mark Baker and then, on the last page of A section there is a guest editorial by Tom Hastings, director of PeaceVoice which is part of the Oregon Peace Initiative. Neither writer is qualified to speak on Islamic dogma and from their writings it seems obvious that neither one has studied Islam, Islamic doctrine or the dynamics of the Middle East. Therefore their opinions carry little weight for someone trying to understand what the face behind the curtain really means in regards to the GZ mosque.
The front page article relies heavily on personal opinion framed in a “freedom of religion” context to make its point. Rabbi Maurice Harris says he agrees with NYC Mayor Bloomberg who has said he endorses and defends the GZ mosque on the grounds of religious freedom. Eugene restauranteur Ibrahim Hamide, member of the city’s Human Rights Commission callously claims that the building of the mosque should take precedence over the “hurt feelings” of the 9-11 victims families. He claims bafflement at why there is opposition in what he sees as the most diverse city in the world. Hamide also says that the Imam, Faisal Rauf is “trying to show the true face of Islam” with this mosque, trying to show that it is religious freedom instead of a political issue.
Reverend Dan Bryant is on the freedom bus as well, saying, “I think (Obama) was absolutely right, it’s freedom of religion”. Rev Bryant is also disturbed that anyone could make a connection between the mosque and terrorism. “Were falling into the trap of equating Islam with terrorism”, he said.
Rabbi Jonathan Seidel of Or haGan Synagogue is not offended by a mosque at ground zero, saying “…This is an opportunity to teach and educate about Islam and tolerance and democracy”. Tolerance, democracy, freedom of religion, education, all fine ideals and worthy of promoting. Yet what does one do when our very ideals, the bedrock of our nation and it’s people conspire to destroy us from within, under the guise of these enlightened principles? Bryant, Hamide, Seidel, Harris, Bloomberg, Hastings et al seem to care not, and their unwillingness to even talk about any other context involving Islam creates an atmosphere of fear and paralysis in critical examination of the facts.
Tom Hastings screed against America is cut from the same cloth as those who excuse Islamic attacks by setting up straw man arguments which he then conveniently knocks down to prove his point. Mr. Hastings knows no more about Islamic theology that I know about giving birth. His plea to embrace the line “how does it feel” may help some feel better about what they don’t understand but it detracts from the salient point: a mosque at ground zero, good or bad.
The first half of his piece is moderately acceptable in that he calls for the mosque to be built somewhere else. Yet in the last half he creates the straw man and castigates the US for it’s sins and makes victims of Afghans and Iraqis. His claim “…when the imam(Rauf) promoting it claims he is doing it in the name of peace and understanding, can we support the armed occupation of other peoples lands in the name of democracy?” I would ask Mr. Hastings, what does our liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan (ostensibly) which was done under the banner of democratizing those countries possibly have in common with an imam who has stated he wants sharia law in the US? Western concepts of law have nothing at all compatible with sharia law which, among other delightful traits calls for the stoning to death for “adultery”, cutting off of hands and feet , the beating of wives if they disobey and the institutionalized second-class status of all women. There is no equal status between sharia and western law.
When Mr. Hastings claims that “He(Rauf) isn’t bringing guns to New York, just a place of worship.” That is technically correct. I don’t think the imam would breach NY state gun laws and transport them to the mosque. The name of the project “Cordoba Initiative” signifies that Islam has already won a battle against the infidel(kuffir) and the mosque is a physical testament to their power and control. Anyone can Google “Cordoba” and read about the conquest of Spain in 711AD, lasting for more than 450 years, and the mosque at Cordoba as well as the meaning behind the world’s largest Islamic shrine. If Mr. Hastings would do just a bit of research he would see that even though imam Rauf doesn’t have guns he really doesn’t need them. The symbol for Muslims to rally around is the mosque at ground zero.
He ends with a reference to the crusades, an obvious attempt to again paint western actions as an emotional issue for Muslims and gives no context for his reference.
The crusades are viewed by Muslims as an attempt, albeit successful to stop Islamic expansion, as dictated by Muhammad and Allah. The mosque in Cordoba is an example of that conquest, and is venerated by Muslims today as a symbol of Islamic hegemony in the face of the crusades.
Imam Rauf, cloaked in the smoke and mirrors of being seen as a “moderate Muslim”, along with his wife Daisy Kahn and the backers of the mosque have fooled the public and officials into believing the ground zero mosque is nothing more than a place for all faiths to sing kumbayya and get along, ala Rodney King. The imam lied about whether there would even be a mosque(http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/tonight-community-board-1-in.html), he advocates the imposition of sharia law and calls for restrictions on speech in his book “What’s Right With Islam”. He has lied about interfaith dialogue(http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/?singlepage=true) and he lies about where the funding will come from(http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/foreign_mosque_money_OSkAG6ucmWz6yPAJU61cTO?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME).
With no more than a few keystrokes any of the above nabobs could have found this information. Why the blinders from the media? Where did the concept of “unbiased journalism” go and is there a way to get it back? The answer would seem to be no, as past performance proves that agenda trumps honest reporting, unruffled feathers means more than critical investigation and religious relativism overshadows pragmatic research. Opinion over facts, that’s newsgathering today.
If the imams remarks are not enough to open the eyes of the ignorant, just in the past few days, the multimillionaire owner of the property, Sharif El-Gamal, in the true spirit of tolerance, interfaith dialogue and bridge-building threatened Raheel Raza, a founding member of the Muslim Canadian Congress who called the idea of a mosque 600 feet from the GZ mosque "a deliberate provocation."(http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/08/17/15054001.html). Tolerance and pluralism, Islamic style. When Greg Gutfeld of FoxNews Redeye announced he was building a gay bar next to the mosque(http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4696) in the spirit of “…break(ing) down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.” the tolerance of the west clashed with the hegemony of Islam when he received this response “Your free to open whatever you like. If you won’t consider the sensibilities of Muslims, your not going to build dialog(sic)”(Twitter). There is no two-way street when Muslims claim non-Muslims must take into account Islamic sensibilities yet they will not consider the same sensibilities in regards to the GZ mosque. Where is the outrage at this double standard? There won’t be, because Islam and Muslims are seen as a victim class, to be treated with kid gloves. It is shameful that those charged with leading can’t, or won’t let anything change their view that our tolerance will make everything better.
There is no doubt that freedom of religion allows just that, freedom to practice any or no spiritual bent. No one says a mosque cannot be built. No one is placing roadblocks against Muslims practicing their religion. Questions are unanswered, motives obfuscated and spin creates false impressions. We would not allow the KKK to build anything at the site of the 16th street Baptist Church where 3 innocent girls were murdered by a racist ideology, nor would we allow a tribute to Tojo at Pearl Harbor.
Move the mosque. Ask the tough questions. Demand satisfactory answers. Let us not let the strains of Kumbayya drown out the anguished cries and pleas for understanding of those who lost loved ones on 9-11.
No comments:
Post a Comment