Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Freedom of Religion found dead at Ground Zero

America is blessed with the finest thinkers in the world.  So I thought, what would Thomas Jefferson say about all this?  Here is one mans opinion.

Freedom of Religion, Dead at Ground Zero

  Thomas Jefferson, were he alive today would undoubtedly weigh in about the GZ mosque. A clear thinker on the subject of church and state he knew where the line should be drawn, and made sure his peers knew it as well. We need to ask then, what would Tom do?

  Indeed, presented with this scenario, Thomas Jefferson would, without question weigh in. As a pre-eminent proponent of free choice and spiritual necessity he would take a side and stand by it. As the author of what we know today as the “Establishment Clause” or the wall of separation between church and state he was well aware of the importance of keeping the federal government out of the religious arena.

  “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” This letter to the Danbury Baptist Association dated 1802 represents a watershed moment in the developing ethos of American culture. Yet this letter also shows Jefferson stating clearly that this wall is based in a legislative mandate from the American people: federal law. Jefferson never spoke of the need for individual states to do the same and left open the door to local control of religious/spiritual issues. He felt that as individual as religion was there was still a need for some type of cohesive control.

   A Protestant, Anglican and eventually a Unitarian his views on God and man were clear when he wrote that the teachings of Jesus were “…outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." This professed faith in Jesus from a man who also claimed “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

   In Jeffersons time there was no such thing as “multiculturalism”. His worldview of all being equal may have been based in part by egalitarian principles but when it came to Islam he knew his enemy and acted accordingly. The Barbary Coast pirates and Jeffersons war with Islam was not new, yet Jefferson did, during his presidency effectively end Islamic piracy in the Mediterranean.

   Barbary piracy had been ongoing for hundreds of years by the time America saw its independence. Not until Americas independence in 1783 did naval protection from both France and Britain end, mandating the creation of a true American navy. Coastal defense had been the only thought up to now, but with European protection gone there was no choice. Jefferson organized and sent a compliment of warships to the Mediterranean including “Old Ironsides”, a ship purpose-built to deal with the pirates. Thus began a series of attacks and bombardments to convince the pirate nations to cease and desist.

   Negotiating a truce is the diplomatic way, and so Jefferson, along with John Adams, ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively met in London with the “Dey of Algiers” ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. When asked what gave him(Rahman Adja) the right to attack and enslave the people of a country they had no previous contact with he said “Islam was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

   200 years ago we hear rational for warfare based in Islamic doctrine and today we hear these same words being spoken by the likes of Al-Qaeda, bin-Laden, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Hizballah, the PA, Iran and a host of other Islamic groups and countries across the globe. How that jibes with the lefts view that Muslim anger is based in our western morals and values, Jefferson doesn’t say.

   By 1815 tribute payments(jizya) ended and treaties were negotiated, effectively ending piracy in the Mediterranean. After millions of Europeans and many Americans taken as slaves or murdered there was some measure of calm and peace. Those pirate countries of old are still Islamic enclaves after all these years: Algiers(Algeria), Morocco, Tunis(Tunesia), and Tripoli(Libya) and they are still producing jihadists. Jefferson may have broken the pirates for the short-term but there was nothing that could have been done to stop the longview of conquest and enslavement prevalent in Islamic tenets.

   Jefferson, as the consummate student of the religious and secular nature of man always wanted to know more, learn all aspects of the animal human. The Qur’an Jefferson owned, a rare first English translation printed in 1764 was not just for show. Jefferson acquired this Qur’an generally to learn about Islam and specifically to understand the Barbary Coast pirates and what drove them to acts of war.

   In 1800 as only the third president of the United States, Jefferson had no CIA to feed intelligence data to him, no daily intelligence briefings, no threat level warnings, no real security apparatus of any kind. The only way to learn about your enemy was to study his doctrine, his ideology and in the day what better way than to read their holy book. Moral guidance and behavior has always been based in theological arguments, thus Jeffersons need to understand Islam by way of the Qur’an. His understanding of why the pirates did what they did, through his reading of the Qur’an enabled the US to defeat the pirates and usher in a relatively peaceful era lasting about 200 years, until Sept 11, 2001.

   By Jefferson reading the Qur’an he gave himself knowledge and insight to an enemy which, up to that time was misunderstood. His drive to understand all the worlds religions, and how they affect mankind gave him the upper hand in dealing with, and finally defeating a theologically driven opponent.

   Jeffersons interest in Islam and the Qur’an drove him to learn as much as possible and so he furnished his personal library with scholarly works such as: Yazdi Sharaf al-Din 'Ali's Histoire de Timur-Bec, Sauveur Lusignan's History of the Revolt ofAli Bey which contained detailed information regarding Egyptian politics and government; and Paul Rycaut's History of the Present State of the Ottoman Empire. Jefferson decided he needed to learn Arabic and so, with the help of long-time friend Samuel Henley, professor of moral philosophy at William and Mary he began the process of learning Arabic. His first book on that subject “Poeseos Asiaticae Commentariorum”, a work in Latin by Sir William Jones was a historical and critical survey of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish poetry. His books on Arabic language included Rudimenta Linguae Arabicae, by Thomas Erpensius, and Simplification des Langues Orientales, an Arabic grammar book prepared by his friend and correspondent, C.-F. Volney.

   Most distressing to Jefferson was how Muslims clung to the claim that the Qur’an in infallible and the perfect word of Allah. In his mind no book of theology could claim that level of absolute authority. He said of the Qur’an and Muslims “"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if
there be one, he must approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear". So he thought the Qur’an, and Islam was a religion of “blindfolded fear” after studying the relevant texts. A prescient observation that applies to the current discourse on the GZ mosque.

   With all Jefferson knew about Islam and Muslims, from his studies and his first-hand dealings with it while a diplomat and the president, it is clear he understood the problems, spoke clearly on them and understood the dangers presented. If he were alive today, watching this debate swirl I believe he would have stepped in and demanded no religious sensibilities at ground zero. Jefferson would have asked that freedom of religion, at a site where Islamic doctrine murdered almost 3,000 be set aside and no spiritual dogma enhanced. Thomas Jefferson, defender of free expression of religion would have no protest when freedom of religion dies at a location where religion caused so much pain.

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

For Jefferson, freedom of religion died at ground zero.

Monday, August 30, 2010

Creeping sharia....what creeping sharia?

As the left travels further and further from reality they are helped by those who want to see the destruction of the west in order to bring about a new Amrerica, one which is so mullticulti women are second-class citizens, Christians and other non-Muslims will be either banned, subjugated or killed, and the worst part, no more BLTs!!
Time magazine, as the true dhimmi they are have seen fit to insult, degrade and castigate those who call for the support of freedom of speech, the equal rights of all people and the upholding of western culture and principals.
Pseudo-journalist Lisa Miller, in a most disingenuous and unbiased fashion, once again castigates those who fail to fall into lockstep with her call for tolerance.  Even as she admits there are problems within Islam, she fails to connect the dots as to why these problems exist, and offers no solutions except for the usual "Kumbayya" sheet music.
Insulting those you disagree with is not journalism.  Flingling mud at those who want nothing more than to uphold your right to attack them is stupid at best, dangerous at worst.  It is applying smear tactics instead of factual reporting.  Lisa Miller knows that she would not stand for the type of attacks she levels against those who oppose the GZ mosque yet has no trouble slinging poop.

Hippocrite.  Dangerous and ignorant, the worst traits for a journalist to have.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

GZ mosque weekend updates

And the torture never stops (thanks to Frank Zappa).  While we all enjoyed the weekend, the summer and our families the controversy rolls on.  More about the mosque which you will not find through the MSM can always be found here and the first update is about the Muslim Brotherhood and how they are connected to the mosque.  See the details here...

Next we have this story on financing of the mosque and wouldn't you know, our tax dollars may be paying for this monmument to jihadist supremacy.  Does it get any more surreal?;_ylt=AvlyliZT_jUGtQKUNAyz_1P9xg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTNhbXJ1YnBpBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTAwODI3L3VzX25ld3lvcmtjaXR5X21vc3F1ZQRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzUEcG9zAzUEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNncm91bmR6ZXJvbXU-

Also we have this piece about tension between the developer, Sharif el-Gamal and the imam Rauf over media attention.  Very telling on the inner workings between these two charismatic people.  Read it all here: Go to

Here is some background on the developer/owner Sharif el-Gamal.  From waiter to real estate mogul overnight....where did the money come from?  The Muslim Brotherhood, perhaps?

Would it surprise anyone to find out el-Gamal has anger issues?  I wouldn't be surprised at all, from the looks of his picture he strikes me as someone with a short fuse.  He is also known to police, evidentally he had numerous run-ins with the law in the past.  Hmmmm..that could explain a few things.

With all the questions about financing swirling about, this story makes little sense.  Or does it?  How will this play in regards to public financing?  Will this cancel the project altogether due to it being a possible lease violation between him and Con-Ed?

As if 225K in back taxes weren't enough, now it seems he also has 13K in unpaid building violations.  While being urged to be open and transparant about his financilas and other aspects by a visiting imam, el-Gamal sticks to the silent treatment, hoping the opponents will just get tired and go away.

Well, that should be enough to keep you busy for a little while.  The saga continues and we will stay on top of it.
Stay here for weekend updates  the MSM refuses to tell you.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Have a Haram Ramadan!

I just stumbled on this, right in front of my nose.  As part of having this blog I allow adverts and wouldn't you know there is an ad here for a chance to win 1000$ a month during Ramadan!  Now I know gambling is haram, so how does this work?  Wouldn't you think MoneyGram would have a fatwa against it for "insulting Islam"?  I guess not, but still it brings up many questions.  I also love the zakat calculator, that is just precious!  So you don't have to click on the ad itself I include the weblink directly to the screen.

Happy Ramadan, infidel!

And people say Islam is NOT creeping into America.  Sheesh!

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Prof Matthew Dennis, Pt 2

The first article by Prof Dennis can be found above, this is the real first time I encountered him.  His take on history is sickening, I wonder how the students feel about him.

Oh well, here is the first article reputing his views.


In writing about the ongoing fight between Hamas and Israel, UofO history professor Matthew Dennis not only misses the mark on who is responsibile, he also manages to completely ignore the doctrine, theology and ideaology which drives this conflict and thus his conclusions don't reflect any real chance of success. Opening his screed with a moral comparison between Hamas and Israel, "The tactics and goals of Hamas....their actions are violations of international law and human rights. So are the actions of the Israeli government with its disproportional response, collective punishment and acceptance of civilian casualties." first sets Israel up as the bad guy and then slips into moral relativism. Lets see, it follows then that a "proportional response" from Israel would be for them to indiscriminately lob rockets into Gaza with no specific targets in mind, just mindless terror dropped on the heads of the innocents. I would also say that "collective punishment", in the mind of Mr Dennis applies only to Israel and is not to be put on the shoulders of Hamas. Selective punishment seems the more likely view from the writer.

I must challenge Mr Dennis claim that, "Some will object that Israels air strikes are a justified reaction to the hundreds of rocket attacks (3,000 since 2000) from Gaza....they miss the point. Military action repeatedly has failed to deliver comprehensive peace." The reason military action has not worked now or in the recent past (2000, 2006) is that loud, strident and consistent international condemnation of Israel has stunted Israels commitment to wage, and win an all-out war against Hamas. When you have the world, as it were telling you to be nice and stop upsetting those poor Palestinians, yet those same mouths refuse to condemn Hamas with the same level of emotion, the disconnect with truth becomes more acute. You cannot demand Israel stop defending themselves without demanding Hamas stop their incessant attacks. That is, unless the end of Israel and the destruction of the Jews is part of your thinking process.

When Mr Dennis quotes an Israeli member of parliament Dov Khenin as warning, "War is not the solution. ...There is another way, a real truce agreement. Not just a cease-fire..." he misses the one element which renders this quote not only specious but dangerous as well. Here is where Mr Dennis fails to grasp the doctrine of fundamental Islam which drives Hamas. Lets look at how the leaders of Islam(the Ulema), and in turn Hamas view and interpret a truce. Western thinking supposes a truce is but a means to work out areas of disagreement and come to an equitable solution for both sides. The four schools of Islamic jurisprudence however see it a bit different. From the Shafi'i school which is influential with Hamas and its leaders comes this, from the book 'Reliance of the Traveller', "Truces are permissible, not obligatory....Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim...If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (may Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud....The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax; namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims until it expires. -- Umdat al-Salik, o9.16". As one can see, a truce is specifically to regroup for the continuing battle, not the gateway for compromise and bridge-building. If this doctrine is ignored, then the process of building a concensus for a truce becomes based on false assumptions on the part of Israel and the West. We have seen, time and time again how any truce/ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is not for the benefit of both sides. Hamas is the only party to come away with anything valuable, and that is the strength to continue the attack against Israel.

Mr Dennis remark that, "People around the world....should support the voices of reason and peace in Israel and bring pressure to bear on leaders addicted to violence..." should be aimed squarely at Hamas, not Israel. It is Hamas and its leaders who are addicted to violence, as the over 3,000 rocket attacks since 2000 attest to, not Israel who, even though they do not have to, are being almost anal in their targeting of Hamas leaders and locations, trying their best to not kill or injure innocents, even going so far as to drop leaflets and making phone calls to warn residents that an attack was imminent. I wonder when the last time was that Hamas warned the residents of Ashkelon or Sderot that rockets were on the way.

Mr Dennis is correct when he says that the United States bears some responsibility for this crisis, however by insinuating that Bush is to blame without providing context does no one any good. The US has only itself to blame, going too far in bending over backwards to accomodate Islamic obfuscation and not bothering to check to see if what was being told was even close to the truth. It doesn't matter if its Bush or Obama or whoever, we have blinders on and are, at this time unable to see the clear danger fundamental Islam poses.

Finally Mr Dennis finishes with that old, tired canard, "..pursuing honest engagement leading to a genuine, comprehensive and final peace" with no real thought as to how this might end up other than everyone gathering around to sing Kumbaya. The reality is there will be no final peace between Israel and Hamas as long as both sides are viable entities. To drive the point home, lets read exactly what Hamas charter says is in store for Israel and jews, "Israel will exist, and will continue to exist, until Islam abolishes it, as it abolished that which was before it." [From the words of] The martyr, Imam Hasan al-Banna', Allah's mercy be upon him." To put the last theological piece in place, here is how Hamas defines itself, "Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model to be followed, the Koran its constitution, Jihad its way, and death for the sake of Allah its loftiest desire." To defeat our enemies we must understand the ideaology driving them. Israel and the West will disappear unless the doctrine which motivates Islam today is taken to heart as the truth. Fundamental Islam has at its core the theological foundation needed to justify their continued advance toward a world-wide caliphate, while at the same time taking advantage of the Wests naivetay(sic) in the doctrine of warfare against Islam.

This is how Hamas views any attempt at diplomacy..."There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." There should be no question now as to the goals of Hamas, and the reasons why peace cannot be achieved, even with a truce or cease-fire. The future of Israel is in the hands of those who understand her enemies. May God show them the way.

More Swiss Cheese!!

Do you remember the Swiss minaret ban a while ago?  Amidst all the rhetoric I tried once again to bring context.  N one listened then, maybe now this will find resonance.


Minarets Banned In Switzerland but Who is the Real Victim?

The Swiss make what is arguably the best chocolate, watches and cheese. There taste for religious tolerance, however is now at risk with their recent vote to ban minarets on newly constructed mosques. The reasons for this ban are many but is based in large part on the growing fear of Islamic global expansion. Not an unreasonable fear, considering what has been happening in regards to Islam in most of Europe the last 40 years.

“Anti-Islamic fear mongering” is a phrase steeped in emotion and an alleged causus belli, intimating that to be anti-Islamic means casting fear of Islam to the unsuspected. It is Islam itself which perpetuates fear-mongering as stated by bin-Laden where he said "Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America”(Time Magazine, 1995)

How is it that defamation of religion only applies to Islam and Muslims? Islamic countries demand respect for Islam yet deny it to Christians, Jews and other non-Islamic religions. Most Islamic countries are repressive, offer only limited human rights and virtually all persecute religious minorities. Non-Muslim, or non-Islamic peoples have no religious rights in Islamic countries, even the most moderate ones. Indonesia and Malaysia, often seen as bastions of secular Islam have religious restrictions against Christians and others, and they use sharia law, just in case a non-Muslim needs to be prosecuted for “insulting Islam”.

The shouts of blasphemy echo across the Muslim world, and supported by Islamic law those who defame Islam, either by cartoons, construction restrictions, banning of burqas or hijabs are to be dealt with harshly. Ever the willing dhimmi, western press fawns over the faults of their own society, claiming “Vengeance, boycotts, retaliation ... this clash with Islam could cost dearly." From the newspaper Le Temps in Geneva this misguided statement values restrictions on freedoms over truthfully examining the doctrine which would cause this display of cowardice and appeasement.

The minaret itself is not only a sign of a mosque it is also the platform for the muezzin to call the faithful to prayer 5 times a day. It may be viewed by the masses as merely an architectural edifice but according to the Brill Online Encyclopedia of Islam “[T]hroughout the mediaeval period, the role of the minaret oscillated between two polarities: as a sign of power and as an instrument for the adhan (call to prayer). As for the legitimacy of this latter polarity, however, the same minaret entry also points out that “It [the minaret] seems on the whole unrelated to its function of the adhan calling the faithful to prayer, which can be made quite adequately from the roof of the mosque or even from the house-top.” The minaret is a symbol of Islamic political power and thus is subject to any legislation whether pro or con.

When the loudest Islamic voices in Europe constantly call for Islamic hegemony, the death of Jews and Israel and for the flag of Islam to fly over 10 Downing Street it should be easy to understand the fear. Anjem Choudary, firebrand preacher in England and a true jihadist said it is only a matter of time before the flag of Islam flies over Downing Street, the White House and the Kremlin. Mr Choudary’s friend, Omar Bakri Mohammad, another English Imam has said “We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy”. Are not these words “fear-mongering”? Do these words carry less weight and less vitriol than the banning of minarets? No they do not, they show the absolute belief in Islam and the cause of jihad.

It is Islam which demonizes the west, claiming that we hate Muslims and are at war with Islam. There have been no statements to that effect from the west, however the claims of war from Islam against the west continue unabated. In order to deflect any questioning of Islamic hegemony the claims of “Islamophobia” and “fear-mongering” progress until there is no hope of untangling the web of lies and deceit.

The head of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi has this to say when approving the killing of non-Muslims “This is not my personal view. This what the Shari’a Law says, the law of Allah, the only valid law on the earth”. The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Ali Gom’a had this to say in an April 2008 interview in the daily Al-Ahram “Muslims must kill non-believers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam” There is not one peep of protest against these heinous calls yet minarets whip up anti-western sentiment as easily as whipping up cream.

Islamic doctrine has been in place for 1400 years and nothing the west says or does will have Islam hate us any more than they do now. Islamic intolerance is inculcated in the Qur’an, hadiths and sunnah of Muhammad beginning in 610AD. Sura 2, verse 190-193 says this about Islam’s enemies “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you....and slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse that slaughter. And fight them until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah”. Banning minarets cannot compare to advocating the murder of your enemies and it is the moral relativist who chooses to try.

The cries of fear-mongering carry no weight if applied to the west. America and all other democracies value the individual in all areas: religion, speech, voting, family, work, etc. Islam, through sharia law, the Qur’an and its interpretation by its leaders values blind loyalty, hatred of any outsider and the absolute need to conquer lands deemed part of Dar-al-Islam or the House of Islam.

The Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1942 during a talk entitled “Islam is not a religion of Pacifists” said this “Those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world”. Ask yourself then: what is closer to fear-mongering, banning minarets or calling for the conquest of the globe?

Minarets are an outward sign of Islam just as bells on a church or a cross on the roof are an outward sign of Christianity. Inside the walls of those houses of worship is where you will find the true tenets being preached. Christianity, Judaism, Catholicism and their offshoots preach love of neighbor, service above self, love of family and the goodness of all people. It is there you will find fear-mongering to be a thing of the past, no longer part and parcel of the liturgy.

Islam as defined today by its leaders and practiced by hundreds of million of Muslims across the globe is anything but tolerant and inclusive. If the Swiss see fit to try and reduce the influence of political Islam by banning minarets it is doing so in the interest of its citizens. The Swiss have seen first hand the immigration problems created by a massive influx of Muslims into Europe, and they have been on the receiving end of Islamic theology although to a lesser extent than Europe proper. It is not unusual, then for Switzerland to react this way. If Islamic leaders were to call for co-operation between the Muslim communities and their host countries in all areas, there would be little need for a minaret ban.

Muslims today are welcome in any country they wish to settle in. Political Islam, which is a part of social/familial Islam, is much less the partner in society and much more the pariah. The Swiss understand this and thus the ban on minarets. Let’s keep the chocolate, watches and cheese and forget the minarets.

Have a wonderful day!

Major Hassan and the Ft Hood jihad.

Remember Major Hassan?  At the time I was furious over the blindness about why this happened.  The RG did not publish this, afraid of hurting someones feelings, no doubt.


Nidal Malik Hasan. US Army Major, therapist for PTSD combat veterans, Jihadist. The signs were all there, and for over a year no one spoke up. For that silence 13 died and dozens were wounded.

Major Hasan was no anomaly, nor was he a victim of harassment. He was not suffering undue stress, plagued by insults or worried about how he was viewed by his fellow soldiers. No, Major Hasan practiced his religion exactly as directed by Muhammad through the Qur’an. His beliefs, behavior and actions are all a direct result of his understanding of Islam and its doctrine, tenets and theology.

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying (3-28)

There is no such animal as a radical Muslim, or an extremist Muslim, or even a militant Muslim. Muslims who do what Major Hasan did are not twisting Islam into some perversion of its true meaning. Through 1400 years of doctrine Islam is a religion of subjugation, enslavement, conversion or death. Those who follow Muhammad as “al-insan al-kamil”, the perfect man are required to, as the Qur’an says “… then fight and slay the pagans where you find them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them….but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay zakat then open the way for them…”(9-5) This is what Major Hasan did. Justification for jihad using the tenets of fundamental Islam is nothing new and must be viewed as the foundation for Islamic behavior.

Major Hasans actions leading up to Nov 5 should have been a red flag for anyone with an understanding of Islamic doctrine. All his behavior up to and including the shooting point with a steady finger to fundamental Islamic Ideology. Dressing in all white Arabic robes was a symbol of his desire and willingness to die for Allah, and an expectation of dying and becoming a martyr.

Allah has purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the Garden (of Paradise): they fight in his Cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in Truth…” (9-111)

The endless preaching for the purpose of converting non-Muslims to Islam is not something “extreme” or some kind of warped interpretation of Islamic doctrine. His use of a medical “Grand Round” to accomplish such goals should have not been let to stand, that behavior needed to be challenged, confronted and defeated.

The Islamic prosthelytising done by Major Hasan with his PTSD patients, which got him transferred from Virginia to Texas is called “Da’wa” in Arabic and is a requirement for all Muslims. Preaching for conversion is part and parcel of Islam, and a practice not uncommon among Muslims living with unbelievers. Major Hasan was merely doing what is mandated for Muslims by Muhammad and the Qur’an.

"Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of the bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. that (is the ordinance)....And those who are slain in the way of Allah, he rendereth not their actions vain" (47-4)

The shouts of “Allahu Akbar” witnesses claim he made fit perfectly with the terror jihadists wish to instill as they strive for martyrdom. Mohammad Atta, the leader of the Sept 11 hijackers said “Shout Allahu Akbar before claiming martyrdom as it will strike fear into the hearts of the infidels”. Is it any wonder then that a man who shouts Allahu Akbar would also say that he loves death as much as we love life? It is not, and it is the true, pure jihadist who claims these appellations.

Giving away his Qur’ans is especially noteworthy as a Muslim will not willingly give up his precious Qur’an unless he expects to not see the next sunrise. His business card has on it the letters SoA, which mean Soldier of Allah and he has been quoted as stating that he is a Muslim first and an American second. His ties with the radical Dar Al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, VA and its former Imam, Anbar Al-Awlaki should have raised many questions, especially in light of the fact that the mosque had been the meeting place for 3 of the 9-11 hijackers during a time where Major Hasan was also a member.

Major Hasan is not a victim of “sudden jihad syndrome” as detailed by Dr Daniel Pipes. His actions should prove beyond any doubt that what he did is a pure expression of jihad and follows the doctrine of Muhammad started in 610AD. His use of the Qur’an as justification for his actions are not radical, they are in perfect lockstep with how Islam is defined today by the four main Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i and Hanbali.

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25 Bukhari Hadith:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle(Muhammad) was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause.”

Initiating contact with Al-Qaeda, writing on pro-jihad websites, claiming that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a war against Islam, preaching death and hell if you do not become a Muslim, your business card with Soldier of Allah on it all point directly to the conclusion that Major Nidal Malik Hasan is, and has been for quite a while a full-blown jihadist.

Major Hasan is not endemic of Muslims as a whole yet he does represent how Islam is being defined today by its leaders. He embodies the essence of Islam and his actions speak clearly on how Islam should be practiced in its pure form. It is up to Muslims to make this sad episode a learning experience for non-Muslims but I suspect we will not be seeing throngs of Muslims denouncing those like Major Hasan, claiming he has hijacked Islam and made it something less than the religion of peace. The cries of Islamophobia, racism, victim hood and profiling will become louder and more strident and the obfuscation from Muslim advocacy groups will increase, making it difficult for non-Muslims to grasp the nugget.

The jihad being waged against America is not new and Major Hasan is not a recently hatched player. His killing spree can be seen as part of the Muslim Brotherhoods grand plan for America which states “(we are)engaged in America a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it’s eliminated and Allahs religion is made victorious overall other religions” (spoken by Mohamed Akram in “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America”, 1991). Nidal Malik Hasan is, as his business card says, a soldier of Allah and the Muslim Brotherhood must be very proud at this moment.

Major Hasan is a portent of things to come if we refuse to identify Islamic ideology as the real cause behind the attack at Ft Hood. By continuing down our path of religious relativism and multiculturalism we will doom ourselves to many more Major Hasans. By neglecting to accept the doctrine driving jihadists and believing that he was abused as a child, was called mean names, has a tough life, is under stress or any other warm and fuzzy excuses we risk our future. Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a symptom of a much more dangerous disease, that of willful ignorance.

To see the facts and not accept them is not only irresponsible, it is dangerously misleading. If our leaders refuse to believe, even after being given the information that it is a religious ideology which drives people like Major Hasan there may be no hope for the survival of what we know as America and the West. Yes it goes against our core beliefs to question behavior based in religion yet we must get over this fear and critically question motives and beliefs of those who commit an act of hatred based in Islamic doctrine, tenets and ideology.

Or we can gather in a circle, hold hands and sing a few choruses of Kumbayaa and hope for the best.

The Christmas Jihad in Detroit

The attempted jihad bombing last Christmas was once again Allah-inspired.  This is a full-length article on the reasons behind, and the person responsibile for another attempt to make non-Muslims "feel subdued"


Once again, it happens. A seemingly innocent flight from Amsterdam to Detroit turns from deadly to heroic as passengers stop, or at least intervene in a bombers attempt to take 300 lives in the name of Allah. The detonator for 80 grams of PETN failed and as a result another Islamic homicide bomber is stopped and lives saved. Once again, Islamic doctrine, ideology and tenets have come into play yet the media, at least the majority keeps its politically correct posturing and claims this act must have anything else but Islamic theology to blame.

The pattern that is emerging of this young Nigerian jihadist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab parallels in many ways the path of Major Hasan, the Ft Hood jihadist accused of murdering 13 last November. The effect of “sudden jihad syndrome” is once again absent, as Abdulmutallab has shown a history of slow but steady inculcation down the path of jihad.

The scrambling of people, villages and countries to prove Abdulmutallab is not, could never be and would not ever think about doing what he is accused of doing is humorous if not sad, it’s like watching lemmings plunging off the same mindset cliff.

While attending boarding school in Kaduna, he was known as “Alfa”, a local sobriquet denoting a Muslim cleric. His preaching to colleagues earned him that name and he was seen as someone who, said his uncle was “a devoted Muslim who took his religion seriously and was committed to his studies”. Easygoing and passionate about Islam, very religious, polite and studious said one of his cousins yet it is unthinkable he would attempt a bombing on a plane.

Studious, passionate and religious Muslims can, and do claim their actions are in accordance with Islamic doctrine. Sheik Osama bin-Laden, a studious, passionate and religious Muslim claims “"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America” Time Magazine, 1999

In a January 2005 internet posting under the name Farouk1986 he wonders about how to deal with his "dilemma between liberalism and extremism". Was he listening to bin-Laden a little too closely and became confused about which one to follow? His friends at University College London seem confused as well. Fabrizio Cavallo Marincola, who studied with Abdulmutallab claims no outward signs of radicalization yet also says he did the “..bare minimum of work” and “When we were studying, he always would go off to pray," What exactly was Abdulmutallab praying for?

Jihad. He was praying for jihad to happen and for Islam to once again rule the planet. In another internet post Farouk1986 wrote “I won't go into too much details about my fantasy…(but)I imagine how the great jihad will take place, how the muslims will win (Allah willing) and rule the whole world and establish the greatest empire once again." A misunderstander of Islam he is not. His views are in perfect sync with Islamic dogma laid down 1400 years ago.

Despite the fact that almost all who knew him claimed that he presented nothing to indicate he would try to blow up 300 people on a plane, Abdulmutallab tried to leave engineering school and travel to Yemen and spend 7 years studying sharia. His parents said no and told him there was no money for that kind of extended study and to return to his mechanical engineering studies and get his masters degree. Nigerian Information Minister Dora Akunyili said that "The father said they were not ready to send him school fees or money for upkeep, that he should go back to Dubai and complete his masters. (But Abdulmutallab) said he was going to get everything free," Seven years to study sharia law and it’s being paid for by someone other than Mom and Dad. Who was the sponsor, and why the secrecy?

Mechanical engineering didn’t seem to be uppermost in Abdulmutallabs mind when, during an FBI interview he told them there were more jihadists like him in Yemen, waiting to strike and they would do so soon. Maybe it would behoove us to listen this time, as a few days before the Detroit attempt the leader of Al-Qaeda in Yemen boasted on a Islamic website what was planned for America. He said "We are carrying a bomb to hit the enemies of God….” OK, it’s beyond time for the intelligence community to wake up, take notice and act accordingly. If not we are bound to see many more such attempts…and successes.

The obvious and potentially lethal mistakes made by DHS and others have led us to this point. When the head of DHS, Janet Reno, in her most conciliatory tone says everything worked the way it was supposed to we should run screaming from the room. If everything went so well, explain how our bomber managed to get on the plane without a passport?

A passenger and his wife, Mr and Mrs Kurt Haskell of Newport, MI were on their way home from a safari in Uganda when, at Schipol Airport in Amsterdam they witnessed a well-dressed man taking Abdulmutallab to the ticket agent and asking if the man could board without a passport. The Haskells claim that the well-dressed man said “He is from Sudan and we do this all the time” Now remember that Abdulmutallab is Nigerian, not Sudanese. The ticket agent referred both men to a manager and the Haskells didn’t see Abdulmutallab again until he tried to detonate the bomb over Detroit. The Haskells are lawyers, and while that may get a few jokes they are reputable and respected so what they claim should be regarded as credible.

Abdulmutallab paid cash, had no luggage to speak of and boarded without a passport. These circumstances should have set off alarm bells. We almost lost 300 innocents if not for the bravery of other passengers and a post 9-11 mindset which allows us to get involved on a much more personal level.

Abdulmutallab was no MINO (Muslim in name only), he was in full jihad mode when attempting the bombing. It is being investigated that he contacted the cleric Anwar Awlaki for advice on jihad and Islamic doctrine. One post asked when it is allowed to lie to in order to deceive the enemy. Chillingly similar to Major Hasan of Ft Hood infamy when he asked Awlaki if it was OK for a Muslim to be in a non-Muslim army. Both questions based in Islamic ideology and both requesting an answer that would allow both men to carry out their plans with Islamic blessings.

High school classmates claim no outward signs of going postal. Michael Rimmer, a history teacher at the British International School in Lome, Togo says his impression of Abdulmutallab was extremely positive, noting his desire to donate $50 to an orphanage instead of using it to by himself something and saying he wasn’t comfortable going into a pub where alcohol was being served. At one point he was given the nickname “The Pope” due to his “saintly aura” Rimmer says. A name totally unsuitable for a Muslim yet one which fit him perfectly.

Al-Qaeda now claims responsibility for the bombing attempt and all eyes are turned to Yemen. The bomb itself is not new, and intelligence analysts now are certain that the bomb was sewn into a pair of underwear in order to pass through security screening undetected. It is only a miracle that the detonator failed or it was not activated correctly. Either way, the technology for this type of undetectable bomb will assuredly appear again, next time with possibly devastating results.

Whether or not Abdulmutallab was “radicalized” by a bunch of crazies is irrelevant. The crux of the biscuit is that Abdulmutallab acted within, and in accordance with Islamic tenets and theology. The majority of people will, due to that old bugaboo political correctness refuse to accept any explanation for his actions which blame his religion. Abdulmutallab was President of the Islamic Society at University College London and had organized symposiums on jihad, terrorism and Islamic perspectives on human rights, inviting and presenting speakers which included former Gitmo detainees. On the surface it seems so innocent yet security experts in London are coming to the conclusion that Abdulmutallab had been contacted by Al-Qaeda while a student and that Islam on English campuses is a problem getting worse, not better. It is very possible Abdulmutallab finished his conversion to a jihadist while a student and that Al-Qaeda had a hand in it. Universities and colleges in England are known for being hotbeds of Islamic indoctrination. The problem is not endemic yet but it is growing daily.

Abdulmutallab is another in a growing series of attacks based in Islamic theology. Time and again we regurgitate the line that “Islam is a religion of peace” yet time and again it is Muslims who use the doctrine of Islam to wreak havoc. May we see before we are truly blinded.

Another (p)brick in the wall

Once again, as if it is a surprise the RG has published another screed against the opponents, this time a UofO professor!  Lets pray that mine brings context to this very misleading piece...

Here we go!

Shut up, sit down and stop asking questions, you Islamophobe!

Isn’t it wonderful how, in the spirit of tolerance, interfaith dialogue and understanding those who support the mosque can do no more than denigrate the opponents with the current litany of leftist hate: patriot(!), inappropriate, guilt by association(the worst kind), bigoted, oppressed, fear, fear-mongering demagogues, demonize, ignorant, misdirect, endanger and compromise. Words do mean something, contrary to that childhood ditty we all learned grammar school. Words evoke passion, emotion, feelings and desires. They can be used to inform, educate, enlighten or enrapture, or to inflame, anger, denigrate and marginalize. Matthew Dennis, professor of history and environmental studies at the UofO likes to use them as a weapon to demonize those who don’t support his view that the mosque is nothing more than another house of worship in lower Manhattan.

Prof. Dennis makes the first in a line of assumptions by saying “…and, yes, a place of worship that caters to the Muslim community(but is open to all),…”. Where does he get his information on who is allowed in a mosque? Has he ever tried to enter a mosque on a Friday night, just to sit in and watch? If he had he would have found that non-Muslims are not allowed in a mosque. If he can show this is false I encourage him to do so.

By attacking what he refers to as “American enterprise” in the form of businesses he obviously doesn’t like: fast-food, nail salons, a gentlemens club, off-track betting and street vendors selling t-shirts he not only shows a disdain for those whom work hard at jobs he would never think of having, but also forms a false moral equivalence between legitimate businesses and the statement of intolerance which is the mosque/community center.

The murderers of September 11th do indeed represent Islamic fundamentalism. They do not represent all Muslims but they do represent the definition of Islam today, as upheld by the seat of Sunni jurisprudence, Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Comparable to the Vatican, Al-Azhar University is from where Islamic doctrine flows. Sufi and Shia also follow the dictates of the mullahs at Al-Azhar, although they do have their own governing/religious bodies independent of the University. No matter, they all follow the Qur’an, the hadiths and sunnahs which define, clarify and determine what it is to be a Muslim.

There are many Muslim nations which, so far have not metastasized into full-blown, sharia-compliant countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Nigeria, Turkey and others across the globe. To say that because these countries are Muslim and moderate we should extend that feeling to all Muslim countries and by extension to Muslims is ludicrous. How does he know they are truly moderate? What proof does he have showing that they are not now, and will never be Islamic fundamentalists with no agenda? Virtually all Muslim countries, for the last few years have been burbling with jihadist tendencies but not until 9-11 did it begin to rise to the surface. More and more jihad attacks are taking place world-wide with little criticism being leveled at those who want us to be defeated.

The lightening rod for the GZ mosque controversy is the imam Feisal Adbul Rauf and as such the bulk of criticism has been directed at him. Mr. Dennis, with as straight a face as has ever been seen claims “…Feisal Abdul Rauf…is such an ambassador of peace and tolerance that the US State Department employs him abroad in its efforts to promote America and its values to an increasingly suspicious world”. To completely ignore the imams own words which contradict Mr. Dennis’s belief is stunning in its rejection of the truth. Does Mr. Dennis really choose to ignore what the imam says, and focus instead on only those words which soothe and placate? Let’s remind the readers who exactly the imam is, and what he really means.

First, imam Rauf is a liar. The imam lied about whether there would even be a mosque(, he advocates the imposition of sharia law and calls for restrictions on speech in his book “What’s Right With Islam is What’s Right for America”. He has lied about interfaith dialogue( and he lies about where the funding will come from(

On his continuing sojourn to the Arab world he recently spoke of how America has killed more people than Al Qaeda. I wonder how Mr. Dennis missed the estimated 270 million killed by Islam since its inception in 610AD.

The imam now claims that he wrote the Presidents speech in Cairo( Topping that whopper is the fact that now, the White House has acknowledged that yes, they are aware of the words spoken by the imam but they are so much pish-tosh and that the imam really, really wants interfaith dialogue!( The callous attitude towards Americans and the richness of denial is staggering.

In an interview with the Arabic language media outlet Hani Alwaziri done on February 7th, 2010 imam Rauf talked about his plans for what he termed ”American Style Islam” and what the Cordoba Initiative wished to achieve within the US. The imam stated clearly that his personal goal as a Muslim was to “…establish an American style Islam in the United States” by molding Islam in order to make it more palatable to Americans while at the same time “…preserving the integrity of Islamic ideology.”

Islamic theology and American democracy cannot co-exist therefore ultimately the constitution will have to be replaced with sharia.

There can be no doubt about his goals for a global Islamic caliphate when he says “If we look how Islam was spread from Hijaz (Arabia)…we note that Islam was shaped by the culture and society(it conquered-ed) but with preservation of the framework of belief and worship. We need to provide a GLOBAL ISLAM in accordance with the nature of each society.” Why do I find no comfort in that statement?

Fear to ask questions sets a dangerous precedent. Accusing ones opponents of fear-mongering prohibits any kind of dialogue which would be beneficial to the debate at hand. Yet, in the spirit of the attack dog he demonizes those who legitimately question aspects of the mosque and its supporters. Standing for open dialogue, free expression of ideas and supporting American ideals, if that makes one a “patriotic scoundrel” then I must be a card-carrying member.

His last hypothetical about government deciding a religious issue is nonsense. No one in government will take this on as a legal remedy to religious beliefs. That it antithetical to all we hold dear and would never stand up to constitutional challenges. There is no point to be made with this argument on any grounds.

Without any study, Mr. Dennis calls anyone who criticizes Islam as ignorant. Does he have any facts to back this up? How ignorant does one have to be to read the words of our enemies and understand them at face value? How is asking questions about the mosque in any way cause to abandon the constitution and endanger American freedom? By the looks of it, imam Rauf is the one who is endangering American freedom. Advocating for sharia in the US and planning for a new “American Islam” is not the “moderate and peaceful” imam so lovingly spoken of by Mr. Dennis.

There is nothing more dangerous to America than the willful refusal to entertain any idea which asks critical questions about Islam, Muslims or those associated with the GZ mosque. It is the most American thing one can do to ask questions and demand answers. The mosque is not about religion as no one advocates the taking away of any rights to Muslims. Some may try to make it so but there is no call to stop Muslims from practicing, imams to preach or mosques to be built. The mosque is about power, politics and Islam and thus should be scrutinized.

The name “Cordoba Initiative” was changed to “Park51” after questions were raised about the significance of the name Cordoba. The obvious embarrassment at being found out demanded a name change to something less evocative of Islamic conquest. No concerns, no probing demands from the media, just lapdog acceptance that it is now “Park51” and nothing else needs to be said.

My father once told me that one does not discriminate because of color, religion or ethnicity but that trash is trash no matter what. He taught me how to identify the difference between trash and treasure. Mr. Dennis sees any dissent as not worth acknowledging. I see an academic cloak stuffed with so much garbage.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

The Islamic Elephant in the Room

Nicholas Kristof, in his latest article brings a new meaning to the word denial.  Here is my reply...

To Ignore the Islamic Elephant in the Room.

No matter what, the left can always be counted on to ignore reality and focus on the feel-goods: tolerance, dialogue, blame and victim hood. Nicholas Kristof, in his 8-24 article does just this, with a heaping helping of assigned maliciousness against those who are, in his words “republican”. Oh horror, that dreaded R-word again, denoting intolerance, racism, apartheid and anti-liberalism. Might as well throw that appellation around, tainting the dialogue but appearing to be fair by identifying his opponents.

Right out of the gate, Kristof makes this statement “He(Osama bin-laden) fears Muslim clerics who can cite the Qur’an to denounce terrorism”. How does he know this, has he spoken to bin-Laden and gotten his assurances that he is indeed afraid of a cleric citing Qur-anic surahs? No references to anything which would bolster this claim, merely that since it is spoken it must be true. The fact is, no accepted Islamic cleric, either Sunni or Shia have used the Qur’an to denounce terrorism, on the contrary. Scholars from all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Shia and Sunni uphold the legal view that there are no verses in the Qur’an which denounce terrorism. Individual Muslims may not follow the strict tenets of jihad, but that does not make it any less applicable among Muslims worldwide.

For Mr. Kristof to say the mosque is something like a YMCA is disingenuous. A YMCA has no church, or synagogue, or temple within its walls, it does however have as its foundation a Christian ethos. By equating the YMCA, with no religious house within it, to a community center with a large mosque for Muslims only makes no sense. One does not equal the other. If he doesn’t like strip bars, shops, bars and liquor stores, just say so. Don’t use them as an example of why the mosque needs to be built.

The fact that the imam and his wife are friends of Mr. Kristofs and have told him they are for womens rights within Islam must make it all right to ignore the Islamic elephant rambling around. Imam Rauf may be whispering sweetness in the ears of those in the west, to the east he tells a different tale. The imam lied about whether there would even be a mosque(, he advocates the imposition of sharia law and calls for restrictions on speech in his book “What’s Right With Islam is What’s Right for America”. He has lied about interfaith dialogue( and he lies about where the funding will come from( Just a few days ago, during his “Islamic World Outreach White House tour 2010”, t-shirts available in the lobby imam Rauf spoke eloquently on the evils of America “"We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.” ( Suspiciously absent is any mention of the approximately 270 million lives taken by Islam and jihad over the past 1400 years. Nothing about the taking of lands or of the cultural annihilation and enslavement endemic to Islamic doctrine. No mention at all of the ongoing slaughter by Muslims of Christians, Hindus, Jews, non-believers in Indonesia, Thailand, Ethiopia, Somalia, Philippines, Lebanon, Israel, Russia, China or the Maldives. Mr. Kristof, In his need to feel liberally warm and fuzzy will breach no candor and entertain no criticism of Islam. After all, his friends the imam and his wife tell him everything is OK, that they are just like him.

Is it a misconception, as Mr. Kristof claims to understand that Islam is a warlike religion which drives believers to terrorism? Evidentially he believes this is so yet presents no argument to support this assumption. By simply reading the Qur’an, and understanding the context and chronology with which it was written it becomes very easy to see how one would, as Mr. Kristof puts it “misunderstand Islam”. With verse after verse calling for jihad against unbelievers (9-111,9-29 to name but two) it becomes almost comical to claim Islam is a “religion of peace”. No school of Islamic jurisprudence, whether Sunni or Shia advocates anything less than the conversion, subjugation or murder of all non-Muslims and the institution of sharia law across the land.

His comparison between Islam and the crusades follows the same tired path of religious relativism so many fall into. Yes the crusades were brutal and yes the church massacred many thousands of non-catholics on the way to the holy land. No doubt the havoc wreaked by all involved was almost too ugly to contemplate. Yet it must be remembered that the crusades, all three of them were a direct reaction to the spread of Islam throughout the known world at the time. By the time the first crusade was launched by Pope Urban II in 1095AD Islam had taken Spain and was knocking at the gates of Vienna and the French enclave of Tours. There is large moral difference between a response to naked aggression, and the naked aggression itself. Self-defense versus self-fulfillment in the name of Allah.

The few examples of Christians as terrorists do not represent any type of orchestrated plan to conquer the world. There is no organized Christian doctrine demanding its followers to kill in the name of Jesus, nor any call to wage war against non-believers on a permanent basis. If Mr. Kristof can show that this is not so, please do. He cannot, as there exists no such dogma.

The old testament is violent, militaristic and on occasion vengeful. In each instance of calls to fight it was always determined that there was a specific enemy, at a specific location and the fighting was to be between only those identified. The timing of the battle was until one side relented, or was vanquished. Nowhere is there a call for open-ended warfare against all who oppose. To make the argument that they are equal in import is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Contrary to his claims of this issue being a matter of religious tolerance, I ask: has anyone called for the banning of mosques, or prohibiting Muslims from practicing their faith, or taking away any civil right guaranteed by the US constitution to Muslims? The answer is no, not in any way. So the claim that this is based in religious persecution is specious, and a diversion from the real issue which is, as the imam says, a matter of tolerance. The banning of Bibles in Saudi Arabia is based in the Qur’an, and the Islamic doctrine which upholds Islam as the one true religion, with all others relegated to the dustbin of Islamic history. There is no equivalence between being aware of someone’s feelings and acting accordingly and the doctrinal hatred of anything non-Muslim and the imposition thereof.

Mr. Kristofs last barb “Today’s crusaders against the Islamic community center are promoting a similar paranoid intolerance, and one day we will be ashamed of it” can be viewed through the lens of ignorance and an unwillingness to ask the critical questions. His attempt to paint opponents of the mosque as Islamophobes, racists (what race is Islam again?), bigots, republicans(horrors!) and hate-mongers casts a negative light not on the objects of his scorn, but on himself as he shows how, even in the face of obvious truths he denies, denies, denies.

When my so-called “moderate Muslim friend” tells me he supports sharia in the US, I shudder. When he tells me he is funding the mosque with possibly Saudi Wahhabi money, I cringe. When he says religious dialogue is useless, I spit. The end sympathy should read “Today’s protesters against the ground zero mosque and the community center are promoting open dialogue and free speech, and one day they will be thanked by all of us”.

As much as I admire Nicholas Kristof for his normally insightful writings, this piece of Islamic apologism and attacks against well-meaning opponents smacks of dissonant resonance. The problems can be solved overnight, and quite simply, too. Move the mosque a distance of at least a mile from ground zero. Simple, easy and with the dearth of empty property right now in lower Manhattan is should be a piece of falafel to find the perfect location.

Solve the problem, heal the rift and bring real tolerance to the debate: move the mosque. Sorry, Nick but that’s the way it should be.

Islam on TV

A quick note: you can see "Islam Today" TV in the Willamette Valley on CTV29, comcast cable.  Monday night 9PM, Tues Morning 9AM, Wednesday afternoon 3PM.  All the news about Islam the MSM is afraid to tell you.  This program is not politically correct in any way and some might find offense.  The purpose is to inform and educate.  If viewers have a problem with the content, it is suggested to go complain to those who created the news, not the ones reporting it.  Tune in and see what's up with Islam in the 21st century. 

The first GZ mosque article to the RG

This is the firist GZ article I did.  No, it did not appear in the RG but for everyone who wants more than the MSM version, enjoy.

A Ground-Zero Mosque? Why not a Shrine to Tojo at Pearl Harbor?

Pandoras Box has been opened and the spirits are flying. By no means are these spirits benign, and the NYC Landmark Commission wants no part of reigning in these destructive spirits. The box is the proposed mega-mosque a mere 600 feet from ground zero, the spirits are deception, false accusations and a show of Islamic supremacism.

For those who pride themselves on being diverse, tolerant and multi-culti the mosque represents a perfect way for them to express their judeo-christa-islam experiences. All religions are equal, none are above (or below) the others. Forgetting for a moment that ¾ of all terrorist attacks are done by Muslims, with justification for those attacks based in copious amounts of Qur’anic quotes and passages from the ahadiths, they glom on to the 2% who claim to speak for Muslims and Islam. False assumptions tend to get people killed.

There are 200 mosques in the greater NYC area, why another one? The imam of this new mega-mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf says this new center will be for interfaith dialogue, understanding religions and a bridge between Islam and the West. He claims all will be welcome: Jews, Christians, Hindus and all other faiths. Yes that may be true, but none of those other faiths are allowed inside the mosque, sharia law demands it. Is there one temple, church or synagogue anywhere in the US which keeps out those who have questions? What does Islam have to hide and what happens behind those doors when they close for Friday night services? Imam Rauf won’t say and that should be, among other questions at the top of the list.

Despite all the press, questions and answers and conferences held about this mosque the waters are still very muddy in regards to truthful answers.

When asked by WABC radio, as reported in the New York Post June 19th if he, imam Rauf supported Hamas his answer was as evasive as Nixon deciding if he was a crook. Imam Rauf said, “"I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy," No need to read between the lines, he wants to be viewed by Hamas as a man of peace , likewise he sees Hamas as a group willing and able to serve peace. By tacitly supporting Hamas he agrees with their charter which calls for the death of Jews and the destruction of Israel (see articles 7, 11, 13 and the introduction by Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood). Hamas has never disputed it’s charter, why would Imam Rauf?

Imam Rauf’s statements on tolerance, interfaith co-operation and “bridge-building” would ring true if not for his own statements on dialogue.

Walid Shoebat, reknowned Islamic scholar and anti-jihad supporter, in Pajamas Media on May 27, 2010 brought to the spotlight a serious contradiction in the imams words. In an article for the New York Daily News dated May 25 Rauf writes, “My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. (…)Our purpose is to interweave America’s Muslim population into the mainstream society.” Soothing words to a gullible western audience. However these words may act as a salve the imam, in order to placate Muslims and jihadists had this to say only 2 months previous, on March 24, 2010 on the site “Rights4All”. In Arabic he stated, “Religious dialogue as customarily understood is a set of events with discussions in large hotels that result in nothing. Religions do not dialogue and dialogue is not present in the attitudes of the followers, regardless of being Muslim….”. There is a dichotomy which escapes the media, namely that when one speaks out of both sides of the mouth, the one least offensive becomes the prevailing dogma.

The day after his Daily News article appeared his words popped up again, this time on the popular Islamic website Hadiyul-Islam. In his interview on Hadiyul-Islam by Sa’da Abdul Maksoud, Rauf was asked his views on Sharia in the US and elsewhere. His answer should be taken very seriously.

“Throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians, it is clear an Islamic state can be established…through a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Sharia that are required to govern.”

The Imam is saying the establishment of Sharia in a democracy is important and can be done. No clearer statement can be found advocating the destruction of the US and the establishing of an Islamic regime.

When questioned whether he was advocating for sharia in America he said, “Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws.” How does he reconcile his disparate statements? He doesn’t, for as of today he is traveling to Arab countries, under the protection of the State Department and Obama( Will he call for donations for the new mosque, or will this trip be something more? The State Dept won’t say.

Imam Rauf lied about a mosque being built at the site. One NYC Landmarks Commission Board member said that he was told that the Islamic Center at Ground Zero would contain no mosque. But then imam Rauf said that it would contain a "prayer area." Quickly on his heels his wife Daisy Khan, apparently forgetting the practiced propaganda turned to the crowd and shouted "There are 200 mosques in New York. What's the problem with another?" Is there, or isn’t there a mosque at ground zero? There will be as long as Rauf and his bunch get their way.

The imams lies concerning the funding is most disturbing as it points to a deliberate attempt to disguise the sources and claim that they are benign, caring donations. "We hope to raise it from a combination of gifts from the local Muslim community and perhaps from some combination of bonds or something like that," Rauf said to Aaron Klein of WABC News. Sounds good, right? No terrorist money or donations from shady jihadists. Nevertheless the lie is exposed by his statement seen in the New York Post where in an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat News Rauf told the newspaper that funding would come from Muslims in the United States and from overseas.

"Imam Abdul Rauf . . . told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Islamic center will be financed through contributions from Muslims in the US, as well as by donations from Arab and Islamic countries." Again, which is it, Rauf? Arab sources or caring individuals and bond measures? With Islamic terror on the rise world-wide and a lack of understand the ideology of our enemies it would be likely, with his track record so far that Arab sources of funding would be the norm. Since the imam has not been forthright on financing it is imperative to ask, and get satisfactory answers.

Imam Rauf, as moderate a picture as he presents to the west is a fundamentalist Islamist. While ignoring history and promoting the strictest version of Islam he has hands in supporting jihadist causes. Imam Rauf plays a key role and is a prominent figure in the Malaysian-based Perdana Global Peace Organization, according to its website.

Perdana is the single biggest donor ($366,000) so far to the Free Gaza Movement, a key organizer of the six-ship flotilla that recently tried to break Israel's blockade of Hamas-run Gaza. With Imam Raufs help the jihad flotilla made headlines by provoking and attacking first the members of the IDF who intervened in stopping the blockade runners.

With the imam obfuscating, misdirecting and outright lying about motive, financing and loyalty there should be no approval of this mega-mosque. As the NYC Landmark Commission just approved the mosque it is now incumbent upon those of us who believe this is an affront to the memories, dignity and honor of those who were murdered to do everything legal to stop this monument to Islamic conquest.

The name, “Corboba Initiative” is not just a name, it is a reference to Islamic conquest in Spain. After the conquest of Spain by the Moors(Islam) in 711AD, less than 100 years after the death of Muhammad the largest Mosque in the world was built in Cordoba, the site of Islams first world conquest. The name is an affront to all who have died at the hands of Islam as well as those on 9/11.

We should, as Americans never ban the building of religious houses, but it is of utmost importance that we understand the implications of our actions, and act accordingly. The promoters of the mega-mosque seem only determined to build a monument to Islamic conquest, not one which would define the word “inclusive”. Honor the memories of our war dead and those killed by Islam, build the mosque somewhere else.

The blind leading the stupid

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(, 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( and he lies about where the funding will come from(

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."( Tolerance and pluralism, Islamic style. When Greg Gutfeld of FoxNews Redeye announced he was building a gay bar next to the mosque( 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.

MPAC, the GZ mosque and Taqiyya

In the RG(8-22) Mr Haris Tarin recounts the life of his father, tolerance and his fears of America.  Another spin, confusing in it's ramblings but pointed in it's hatred.

Will the RG publish this one?

I bet not....

A Tolerant Hatred of Intolerance

From the first day, America was a land of immigrants. It’s no secret, the history of the United States and who the founders were. The first to make it to these shores did so under a singular banner: freedom of everything. Well, not quite that broad but in principal it was an exodus from tyranny into the light of a new, mankind-friendly world of brotherhood, equality and freedom of conscience. Over 200 years later, the great American experiment chugs along, the occasional hitch in the gitalong making things that much more interesting.

Haris Tarin (8-21) knows well the challenges and hardships new arrivals to the US face. It would seem then that he would also know well the importance of becoming American and exercising the right to free speech and honorable dissent. His recollections of his family and how important it was for his Father to make it to that shining city on the hill where he could be free to be a Muslim in America are as touching as any immigrant story told. His fathers flight from Islamic persecution in Afghanistan, and determination to make it in America as an American reinforces the principals we, as Americans believe, support, and die for.

Then the bashing commences. Cries of intolerance, malignment, fear-mongering and Muslim-baiting echo throughout the rest of the article, as though it is accepted fact that Islamophobia runs rampant across the land and mobs of pitch-fork wielding peasants are rounding up Muslims. It is assumed that his fathers America has become another Spanish Inquisition, with Muslims now strapped to the rack. This is nonsense.

The America Mr. Tarin laments as of the past is, in reality alive and well. Accepting as America is regarding the tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to be free we still are leery of strangers with strange habits. A self-protection mechanism of sorts, the new guy must prove he is “one of us” before we allow the full implementation of the American identity.

The 19th century saw mass immigration, and with it many problems on the road to assimilation. The government, in its infinite wisdom decided to attack the Mormons, claiming they were dangerous enough to be removed from the US permanently. Yet we know today that reason prevailed and we accept what is now a thriving and vital part of the American tapestry. Certain aspects of Mormonism which created the original friction have been reformed, most notably the practice of polygamy. This was required for the integration of Mormons into the mainstream.

Catholicism in America also has a checkered past. The most notable example would be JFK. His spirituality and Catholic upbringing were seriously questioned as he rose through the political ranks, culminating in rancorous criticism during the presidential campaign in 1960. He made a powerful speech during the campaign where he addressed his beliefs, laying to rest any detractions based in him being Catholic. These are but two examples of many showing how the American psyche performs when religion is at stake.

The perception of a majority of Americans is that the motive behind the ground zero mosque is less than pure. There are serious questions asked, and no answers forthcoming. It is not wrong, or Islamophobic, or intolerant to ask questions but Mr. Tarin thinks it is. His children will be made to suffer and will be devastated if these questions continue. He conflates questions about the mosque with a hatred of Muslims in general. I doubt he is able to show one instance where someone, anyone publicly called for the suppression civil rights for Muslims, Islam or the mosque. Legitimate questions have been asked and Mr. Tarin, as a claimed American but more so as a Muslim should be asking those same questions, and demanding answers.

His statement where he agrees with Newt Gingrich, that there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia carries little weight as he goes on to say that that is precisely the reason his father left Afghanistan: religious freedoms, or lack of them. He does not ask why there are none of these houses of worship, or offer any explanation, from a Muslim perspective for reasons behind this. I would then ask Mr. Tarin, is it not true that any belief outside of Islam is forbidden in virtually all Islamic countries? American tolerance may be on display for all to see, but your faith prohibits anything which challenges the Islamic status-quo. Why?

The continual lament of being on the receiving end of so much hatred is beginning to wear thin. He asks: what do I tell my children about the fear-mongering against Muslims and mosques? How about this: 80% of mosques in the US (appx1800) are directly funded by Saudi money, the Wahhabi doctrine of jihad is the predominate narrative, mosques from Virginia, Oregon, California, Texas, Minnesota and other states have preached jihad and produced homicide bombers and that as an American Muslim it is required that they claim Islam back from those who define it as a religion of hatred. Rather than inculcating his children on how they are supposedly hated, how about trying to show them why this is occurring, and give them tools to fight, and change this dangerous viewpoint.

As Washington director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council I fear his narrative is already written for him.

MPAC is an ideological brother to the Muslim Brotherhood, a pure jihadist group started by Hassan al-Banna in 1928. The mission statement of the MB is this: “God is our purpose, the Prophet our leader, the Quran our Constitution, jihad our way, and dying for God our Supreme Objective.” One of the senior advisors of MPAC , Dr. Maher Hathout founded the Islamic Center of Southern California which became MPAC. His upbringing at the feet of the Muslim Brotherhood helped create the doctrine which today drives the Muslim Public Affairs Council. His brother, Hassan was the real voice of Islam, not only was he responsible for the actual founding of MPAC and ICSC, his ties with the MB and jihadists is a record of fact(

Does Mr. Tarin disavow any connection to the MB and the ICSC, and if so, how does he reconcile his position as director of the Washington office of MPAC with the ideological and historical ties with the MB?

On afternoon of September 11, 2001, Salam al-Maryati, head of MPAC made this outrageous claim on a Los Angeles radio show: “If we’re going to look at suspects we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list…”. Again, Islamiists use Israel as the catch-all bad guy, making sure the MSM eagerly laps it up and spews it back to the masses.

Mr. Tarin, as well meaning as he says he is fronts for a group with a history of anti-semitism,, hatred of the west and advocates the same doctrine as the Muslim Britherhood.

Mr. Tarin finishes his article saying he will refuse to allow the voices of fear to lessen the experiences of his father and degrade the America his father so dearly loved. May I suggest that he begin with a look at Islam as seen today by the west, and how the ulema defines being a Muslim. As director of MPAC in Washington my hopes for some kind of flash of insight which will enable Mr. Tarin to see the light fades into the darkness.

This mosque at ground zero is not a religious issue. No one is advocating the taking away of anyone’s right to practice any or no religion. No one is saying that Muslims cannot practice their religion at all. No one has spoken out against Muslims having a mosque. However, Islam has made it into a religious debate where we Americans are being led by the nose to believe we are intolerant and hateful of Muslims.

Islam has an identity problem and neither the imam Rauf, his wife Daisy Kahn nor the owner of the property, Sharif el-Gamal cares. The louder they shout that the mosque will be built the greater the opposition. Haris Tarin should know this as director of MPAC/Washington yet he remains in his happy place, content to bash America and support a mosque which 70% of Americans want moved.

Tolerating the intolerant, the new American ethos.

Monday, August 23, 2010

What the RG won't tell you

For years I have been writing to the RG in hopes of getting them to understand the importance of context in a story.  They do not seem to get it.  I keep submitting and thhey keep rejecting.  So, for your enjoyment I am going to post everything I write.  Fell free to distribute far and wide.

Here is the first of many articles on Islam.


William Dalrymple and his Mystical Mosque

Todays editorial (8-19) titled “Who‘s behind the mosque” seeks to examine why we hate Muslims and what the true nature of imam Feisal Abdul Rauf appears to be. First, let’s be clear. If it is a community center which includes a mosque then it is also a mosque located in a community center. Framing it in only one context slants the readers opinion toward what the writer wants the story to explain. So now, let’s talk about the mosque at ground zero inside a community center/community center with a mosque inside at ground zero in the proper light.

William Dalrymple writes mainly Mugal Indian love stories as that is his area of interest. His knowledge of Islam and Muslims comes from his years living in Asia. Taking nothing away from his writing abilities in fiction his qualifications to write serious, critically thought out tomes on such a serious subject as the GZ mosque and the dynamics involved lack peer-reviewed gravitas.

His claim that Americans have an incomplete and inadequate understanding of Islam is correct, yet he presents no reason for this confusion. Saying that this failure of understanding hampers our efforts to fight extremism and to reconcile with the peaceful adherents implies that it is us, the American people who need to be responsible for seeing the light, even though we, it is claimed know not how to find this light. It is not the responsibility of America to blindly grasp at Islamic straws to see which is the right one, it is Islam and Muslims who must make us understand, by word and deed what peaceful Islam looks like.

Mr. Dalrymple calls imam Rauf “…one of America’s leading thinkers of Sufism, the mystical form of Islam, which in terms of goals and outlook couldn’t be farther from the violent Wahhabism of the jihadists.” Mr. Dalrymple provides no clue as to where he gets this idea, only that if he believes it, then it must be true. Sufism is not Wahhabism, true, but that does not make it any less dangerous. Implying that the Wahhabi form of Islam is the premier poster child for jihad is an insult to Sunni, Shia and the other minor sects of Islam.

Some Sufi leaders understand, and fight against those true jihadists. As far back as 1999, the Naqshbandi Sufi leader Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani said during a State Department Open Forum that Islamists controlled most mosques in America: "The most dangerous thing that is going on now in these mosques….is the extremist ideology. (…)they took over the mosques; and we can say that they took over more than 80% of the mosques…(..)And there are more than 3000 mosques in the US. So it means that the methodology or ideology of extremist has been spread to 80% of the Muslim population, but not all of them agree with it."( However, in the spirit of bridge-building and tolerance it should be noted that Sufism goes both ways, depending on who is leading. The above Sufi leader is but a small voice against Islamic hegemony, but it is almost meaningless in the face of Sufi history regarding jihad. Among the Sufis who aided Islam with the sword: the Naqshbandi sheikh Shamil al-Daghestani, who fought a prolonged war against the Russians in the Caucasus in the nineteenth century; Sayyid Muhammad ‘Abdullah al-Somali, a sheikh of the Salihiyya order who led Muslims against the British and Italians in Somalia from 1899 to 1920; the Qadiri sheikh ‘Uthman ibn Fodi, who led jihad in Northern Nigeria from 1804 to 1808 to establish Islamic rule(sharia); the Qadiri sheikh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaza’iri, who led the Algerians against the French from 1832 to 1847; the Darqawi faqir al-Hajj Muhammad al-Ahrash, who fought the French in Egypt in 1799; the Tijani sheikh al-Hajj ‘Umar Tal, who led Islamic Jihad in Guinea, Senegal, and Mali from 1852 to 1864; and the Qadiri sheikh Ma’ al-‘Aynayn al-Qalqami, who helped marshal Muslim resistance to the French in northern Mauritania and southern Morocco from 1905 to 1909.

Mr. Dalrymple’s assertion about the nature of Sufism being completely non-violent is incorrect, and thus imam Rauf should be scrutinized accordingly.

Today, many Sufis are non-literalists when it comes to the Qur’an and focus on the batini, or the "inner" or "esoteric" meaning of the Qur'anic verses rather than on the zahiri, the "outward" or "exoteric"-i.e., literal-meaning as Bin Ladin and his followers do. Another sect of Islam that is rather moderate in its approach to the Qur'an is the Barelwi (Barelvi) with one group in India and the other in the U.K. However these non-literalists are not a majority of Sufis, nor do they represent the current majority dogma within Sufi Islam. This is problematic when it is claimed Sufis “just want to get along”.

It seems that Mr. Dalrymples message is meant to show Sufi Islam as the peaceful sect, and thus we should all believe in Sufism, take the imam for what he says, and all will be well when we embrace the way of the Sufi. As a proclaimed historian he should be ashamed to present a picture of Islam without, it seems doing any historical research.

The rest of his claims border on the specious with more platitudes such as “moderate”, “pluralistic”, “Front line against violent Islam”, “tolerant beliefs”, “deeply rooted resistance movement”. All these may be true, yet the words of imam Rauf belie any credence in these words. Rauf lied about whether there would even be a mosque( He lied about the source of funding( He lied about interfaith dialogue( He refuses to denounce Hamas as a terrorist group. He advocates sharia in the US and the censorship of speech insulting to Muslims in his book “What’s Right with Islam is What’s Right for America”.

Mr. Dalrymple concludes with this last bit of stretch “Men like imam Feisal Abdul Rauf should be embraced as vital allies, and we should only have contempt for those who, through ignorance or political calculation, attempt to conflate them with the extremists” Men like the imam are not Wahhabis, to be sure. If it’s vital allies in the war against western values, democracy, freedom of religion, civil rights and all the rest of what makes us the greatest country on earth, then imam Rauf is the guy. If we want vital allies in the battle against creeping sharia and stealth jihad, the upholding of the constitution and bill of rights, William Dalrymple is not who I want on my team.

Too many so-called experts on the inner workings of this GZ debate miss the mark entirely. Driven by a need to explain away any Islamophobia, racism, bigotry and discrimination they cry to the rafters that Islam is misunderstood, we are xenophobic and not capable of understanding other cultures/religions/societies and unwilling to accept blame for our own future demise. We can ignore the words of hate and intolerance coming from a “moderate Muslim”, or we can ask difficult and critical questions, demand forthright answers and move on from there. Imam Rauf would prefer we remained silent, be the good dhimmi and feel subdued by our new masters. No surprise if we were to see Mr. Dalrymple at the front row, beaming warmly as he bows to Mecca and begins Friday prayer. Imam Rauf would insist upon that.

The mosque at ground zero is an insult to all Americans, not just those who died but also those who lost loved ones. If Islam really believes in interfaith dialogue, bridge-building and tolerance they would gladly move it. As of now they refuse. I pray that resolution comes quickly, but I fear a long period of pain and anxiety, due in large part to Islamic apologists like William Dalrymple.