Time To Celebrate The Ground Zero Mosque “Party Space”?

by THE EDITOR August 4, 2010
For all those who lost relatives in 9/11, any complaint against the construction of the “Ground Zero Mosque” on the site of the old Burlington Coat Factory building is just another sign of ”intolerance”. Relatives can refer to Adam Zerwer’s argument posted in The American Prospect Magazine and then parroted in sneering nonsensical form in the Huffington Post, which ridicules and minimizes any and all legitimate objections to the proposed mosque’s location, and feel chastened. Of course, if they were to believe the Huffington Post, there would be no complaints from anyone if the proposed mosque center were to be named “The Newt Gingrich House of Pancakes.”
There is no point in trawling through the bilge produced by Adam Zerwer and his ilk, who assume in the name of being “progressive” that they are the right people to redress the wrongs of history. Zerwer himself sounds like a latter-day Dr. Pangloss (everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds) when he elsewhere enthuses about Sharia finance as a means to “engage with the Islamic world”, or extols the merits of having a woman with no experience as a judge serving as a judge in the Supreme Court.
Zerwer takes at face value the mission statement made by the Cordoba Initiative:
“Cordoba Initiative aims to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, bringing back the atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect that we have longed for since Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony and prosperity eight hundred years ago.”
Zerwer uses this to dismiss the concerns of Newt Gingrich, which relate to the choice of title “Cordoba” being synonymous with Islam’s historic invasion and supplanting of Western Christian culture. Irrespective of the arguments of taqiyya, any graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism should be aware of Feisal Abdul Reif’s comments about Muslim terror attacks against America, made in the immediate aftermath of 9/11:
Bradley: And throughout the Muslim world, there is also strong opposition to America's foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East because of its support of Israel and economic sanctions against Iraq.
Feisal: it is a reaction against the US government politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights, and where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.
Bradley: Are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?
Feisal: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.
Bradley: You say that we're an accessory? How?
Feisal: Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.
If Feisal Abdul Rauf genuinely wanted to engage in “bringing back the atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect that we have longed for since Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony” he should have started by having some respect and consideration for those who lost relatives in 9/11.
On the Cordoba Initiative website, Rauf cites approval for the mosque from Jewish representatives and Christian representatives, but nowhere can I see him citing support from a single 9/11 relative who wants to see his center for “interfaith tolerance” situated near Ground Zero.
If there is a real intention for Rauf to set up a center for interfaith tolerance – somewhere in his proposed edifice of 13 stories, would there not be a room for even one small Christian chapel or a synagogue? That would be a proof of interfaith tolerance.
But this is the problem with Islam and its naïve supporters, be they Quislings or useful idiots, that is never mentioned, the elephant in the room that exposes the hollow sham of all interfaith exercises. In countries that have already genuflected to Islam, such as Britain, interfaith ceremonies and services would be held in Christian churches, but these were NEVER held in mosques.
Interfaith tolerance, for most Muslim imams, demands tolerance from others, and not for others.
The so called “progressives” who support the idea of a lovely 13 story building embellished with Islamic patterns, seem to marginalize the grief and rage of the relatives of those who died on 9/11:
"This is my only son," said Eileen Tallon, who lost her son in the attack. "He was a firefighter and he went into rescue people that day. I'm upset about the building of the mosque, because Muslim terrorists murdered my son and 3,000 Americans at this site."
"Such was the violence on 9-11 that my brother's remains were never found," said Christina Regenhard said. "He was killed by Islamists and now they want to build a mosque on his grave. Their victory will be complete."
"The leader of the mosque is a 'bad guy' as we say in New York," the slain man's father, Albert Regenhard, added. "His father was a member of Muslim Brotherhood. These are the groups that include Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda."
The New York “Community Board” voted 29 to 1 to allow the Cordoba Initiative Mosque to be built, despite the objections of relatives:
That is a burial ground," said retired FDNY Deputy Chief Al Santora, referring to the fact that victims' remains were scattered for blocks.  Santora's 23-year-old son, Christopher, was the youngest firefighter to die that day. "I do have a problem with having a mosque on top of the site where [terrorists] can gloat about what they did," said Santora, with his wife, Maureen, by his side.
In a display of profound insensitivity, Daisy Khan, Feisal Abdul Rauf’s wife (who now heads ASMA, the group that Rauf founded) took the microphone and told 9/11 relatives that the Cordoba’s proposed center would provide “much needed party space and much needed venue space.”
Daisy Khan was booed, but her statement that Ground Zero Mosque would be a “party space” belies the genuine contempt for the victims, embodied in the attempts to construct a mosque near the site.
The issue is not about mosques not being allowed to be built – it is about building them a stone’s throw from a site where 2,605 people lost their lives as a result of Muslim terrorism, on a morning when Islam-inspired fanatics killed a total of 2,976 people.
One of the five pillars of Islam is the requirement of a Muslim to try to make the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, a city within a kingdom officially founded in 1932. In the entire kingdom of Saudi Arabia there is not a single church. No visitors to Saudi Arabia are allowed to carry a crucifix or a Bible. There are still no statements confirming where Feisal Abdul Rauf will be gaining his money, but throughout the world, large mosques have been built with huge donations from Saudi Arabia. Some of these mosques are associated with extreme Islamism, of the sort that has led to attempted terror attacks, such as the East London Mosque, where underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdumutallab worshipped.
Feisal Abdul Rauf should disclose where his funds are coming from. He should answer why he claims he wants to establish this center and he should explain if he believes – like his wife Daisy – that there is much need for “party space” near Ground Zero.
Yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg made a speech in which he said:
“This morning, the City’s Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted not to extend landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.
“The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.
“The World Trade Center Site will forever hold a special place in our City, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves – and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans – if we said ‘no’ to a mosque in Lower Manhattan.
“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values – and play into our enemies’ hands – if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists – and we should not stand for that.
“For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime – as important a test – and it is critically important that we get it right.
“On September 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked ‘What God do you pray to?’ ‘What beliefs do you hold?’
“The attack was an act of war – and our first responders defended not only our City but also our country and our Constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very Constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights – and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.
“Of course, it is fair to ask the organizers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation – and in fact, their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. By doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our City even closer together and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any way consistent with Islam. Muslims are as much a part of our City and our country as the people of any faith and they are as welcome to worship in Lower Manhattan as any other group. In fact, they have been worshipping at the site for the better part of a year, as is their right...”
But has Rauf showed “some special sensitivity” to the situation? He has not – like his wife Daisy Khan - spoken of a “party space”, but he has shown no humility either. The mosque is dividing America, with the lemmings of the left squealing about equality and rights, oblivious to the fact that in every Islamic country – including so-called moderate” nations like Malaysia - the rights of non-Muslims or apostates are not safeguarded.
Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich have been pilloried by the left and so-called “progressives” for objecting to the mosque on patriotic grounds. For those who would undermine American independence, attacking patriotism is a successful means of eroding a nation – it has certainly worked in countries like Britain. When patriotism and concern for the memories of those who died in an act of war are regarded as concepts to be attacked – the political life of America shows itself to be riven in two.
CAIR is a group that appears to be more closely linked to Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan than is publicly acknowledged, as Alyssa A. Lappen wrote here previously. And now, as we show today, CAIR is condemning those who criticize the mosque as siding with “anti-Muslim bigots.”
This is not about the bigotry or intolerance of those who condemn the building of the Cordoba Initiative Mosque. The real issue is about questioning and condemning the insensitivity of those who would impose an edifice that proclaims a religious ideology near the spot where two and a half thousand people died as a result of the extremes of that ideology.
Feisal Abdul Rauf, nearly a decade ago, stated that the horrors of 9/11, and other attacks against American civilians, were partly the fault of America itself: “United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”
Well I am sure, now that the Landmark Preservation Commission has removed the last major obstacle to the construction of this monument to revisionism and Islamic imperialism, that Daisy and Feisal will be satisfied. Daisy will be reassured that something “much-needed” will distract away from the memory of the 2,605 innocent people whose lives were extinguished by Islamic fanatics. And Feisal will assume that he is putting right the wrongs of American history, when America was an “accessory” to the Islamist attacks made against it.
After all, as Daisy Khan tried to tell those recalcitrant relatives, the site of Ground Zero has a need for “party space.”
Party on, dudes……?
The following are recent FamilySecurityMatters.org articles which feature this mosque proposal.
Herbert London
July 29, 2010
Edward Cline
July 23, 2010
Alyssa A. Lappen
July16, 2010
The Editor
July 16, 2010
Alyssa A. Lappen
July 13, 2010
Edward Cline
July 3, 2010
Frank Gaffney, Jr.,
June 30, 2010
The Editor
June 15, 2010
Madeline Brooks
May 11, 2010
Phil Orenstein
May 24, 2010
Gadi Adelman
May 10, 2010

blog comments powered by Disqus

FSM Archives

10 year FSM Anniversary