Friday, July 02, 2010

The Insidious Ground Zero Mosque

Guest Commentary by Edward Cline:

I will begin with a comparison between two buildings, because a question of property rights entered recent debates and disputations about the propriety of the Ground Zero mosque, the rightness or wrongness of opposing its construction, and the nature of Islam itself. This mosque, to be called “Cordoba House,” is just a brief walk from Ground Zero in New York City. Its construction, to replace a private office building damaged on 9/11, has been approved by a city council. But, first allow me to discuss another building.

Years ago Korean Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification Church, bought a defunct, former first-class hotel in Manhattan, the New Yorker, and turned it into a center for the propagation of his religion, and also as a dorm and office space for his local followers. Doubtless many readers remember the Moonies, converts who had to be “de-programmed” by their parents of the brainwashing these young adults had experienced in Moon‘s “madrassas.”

There were countless numbers of them all over the country, knocking on doors and spreading literature about the Unification Church. They were as annoying as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, but as immune to reason as any Witness and Mormon traveling recruiter. And about as dangerous. They were squeaky clean, nicely dressed and well-behaved. One had the impression they were manufactured on an assembly line.

But, when Moon bought the hotel, no one objected. It was private property. I am guessing that Moon got tax and zoning exemptions and the like from the city government because his was a religious organization, just as I am sure Faisal Abdul Rauf and his cohorts will get them for the Cordoba mosque, as well.



It was inconceivable at the time that the Moonie elders were preaching anti-Americanism and Moonie jihad in the hotel. No one could imagine that they encouraged hate and called for conquest and replacing, with violence, if necessary, the Constitution of the United States with a Moonie Compact of Love and Peace. No one imagined that bombs and suicide vests were being assembled in the hotel basement, or that classes were being held on how to rig a vehicle to explode with the maximum number of casualties. Moonies who happened to live around town outside of the hotel were not regarded with suspicion by their neighbors or the authorities. No one contested Moon’s right to turn the property into a center for his creed (which is an amalgam of pacifist tenets borrowed from other creeds, but especially the Christian).

The idea that the Moonies were planning something awful and homicidal and destructive never occurred to anyone -- because no one had any reason to doubt the “benign” purposes of the hotel purchase. More often than not, Moon and his followers were the butt of jokes. (Try making a public joke about Islam, or Mohammad, or Allah today.) And, nothing happened. No car bombs exploded in Times Square, no massacres of commuters occurred in Grand Central Station. No planes were hijacked and flown into the Empire State Building.

The Moonies have faded from memory. The Islamists, however, do not want us to forget Islam.

Islam is not a Moonie religion. Moon’s religion did not attempt to incorporate or integrate a political agenda with its theological agenda. Islam does. Moon did not declare war on America from South Korea. Islam’s leading lights have, Shiite and Sunni, from all quarters where Islam reigns supreme. The religious and political elements of Islam are mutually supportive, complementary, and coextensive. They are based, in the Koran, on action -- by force or fraud or dissimulation -- with the sole object of conquest and anchoring Islam in the host, and soon-to-be vanquished country.

Someone remarked to me: We are not at war with Islam. War is tanks and machine guns and going over the top. We cannot be at war with an ideology.

Yes, we are at war with Islam. Just as we have been at war with Kant and his philosophical successors, and with John Dewey, and Marxism -- in short, with every anti-individual, anti-life, anti-rights, anti-mind philosophy. It is a war of ideas. “War” is not strictly a metaphor for the conflict that is raging right now under our noses. Islam is a body of ideas totalitarian in nature, designed to wipe out the individual and inculcate mindless obedience to irrational and arbitrary dictats spoken by an angel to a barbarian prophet. From a ghost. The “war” is a battle for men’s minds.

Reason seeks to enable men‘s minds. Islam seeks to cripple them. it is as simple as that.

In this culture, it is irrelevant that neither President Bush nor President Obama (nor their immediate predecessors in the White House) ever declared “war” against Islam, or against states that sponsor terrorism. If by chance we declared war on Iran -- with full, but belated justification -- that would be perceived on the Muslim or Arab Street as a declaration of war on Islam. Fine, I would answer. Have it your way. You are a tribe of manqués and we are about to take down one of your kingpins. Send Allah your Imprecations to slay us. But do not take it out on your moral superiors if nothing happens.

Many believe that opposing the Ground Zero mosque would be a violation of property rights. But where do property rights enter the picture? They do not, as least as far as mosque-building Muslims are concerned. Mosques are centers of indoctrination and propaganda, and of exhortations to wage war against the infidel -- us. Mosques are venues for spreading and entrenching Islam. They are field headquarters of conquest, and they have sprung up all over the country. The piety and good citizenship standing of the flocks of rank-and-file Muslims are irrelevant. They subscribe to the ideology, do not question it, and remain silent when their brethren blow up things and kill people. Their creed commands the silence, but it is still a matter of choice, of volition, and Muslims as a rule choose to remain silent. No man of reason should sympathize with them.

Some have cited the 14th Amendment as an intrinsic good to be brought to the defense of the builders of the Ground Zero mosque, forgetting that, first, that Amendment has been violated countless ways by our own government, and second, that we are indeed at war with Islam and its advocates. To iterate: Just as we were at war with Nazism, another body of inimical ideas (Hitler was its Mohammed, and he sought the help of Muslims to exterminate Jews in Palestine), we are at war with Islam. Islam respects neither individual rights, nor property rights, nor capitalism. It is a holistic vehicle for conquest and subjugation of all who do not subscribe to it. Period.

Faisal Rauf may look like a kindly, gentle cleric, but that is the soft, friendly face of Islam. The Koran permits falsehoods, deception, and lies -- taqiya -- in the name of Islam and Allah. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem looked harmless and well-meaning, too. Think again.

Rauf, the leading light of the Cordoba mosque, has said publicly that the Cordoba mosque is intended, among other things, to be a venue for “interfaith dialogue.”

However, Walid Shoebat, former terrorist but now a dedicated anti-Islamist, notes that, as a rule, public pronouncements by prominent Muslim spokesmen are consciously intended to say one thing for Western consumption, but these same spokesmen reveal their thoughts in Arabic. Rauf is a typical example:

For that we searched Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf’s own words – in the Arabic and not what he says in English to the western media. It should shock every American to find out that Faisal Abdul Rauf stated to the popular Islamic media Hadiyul-Islam on May 26th, 2010 in an article by Sa’da Abdul Maksoud.

In it he states that an Islamic state can be established regardless of the government being a kingdom or democracy. In another article titled “I do not believe in religious dialogue” should alarm the ardent skeptic on the mindset of the Islamic visionary who advocates establishing Islamic lobbies throughout the West.
The defenders of the mosque forget, or have never grasped as a first-hand understanding, that as we live in a mixed economy, we are also living in a culture of mixed epistemologies and metaphysics. The 14th Amendment is only as powerful as the culture that values and respects it, it is only as good as the government that upholds it. So, how can one reconcile the "rights" of the exponents of a religion that denies rights, in a deteriorating political culture, in which individual rights are usurped daily everywhere one looks?

An argument in defense of the Cordoba mosque, based on the 14th Amendment, is dependent on two conditions: that Islam is not an ideology inimical to freedom, bent on conquest and subjugation, and that we are not at war with it; and that our government, through the courts, is moved by an absolute fealty to reason, and so receptive to an argument based on the inviolability of property rights. Neither of these conditions exists today.

Respecting the alleged rights of the mosque builders is not going to stall or reverse the statist trends of our own government. On the other hand, “violating” them is not going to accelerate our own government’s “jihad” against reason and our freedoms. The Obama administration already has the pedal of power to the floor.

It could be about “property rights” were trends reversed and we were on our way to a recognition of individual rights and the sanctity of the Constitution. If we were, Islamists would not bother trying to infiltrate and conquer us by stealth. But, that is not the trend. We are hurtling faster and faster in the direction of fascism. Upholding the “rights” of the mosque builders is pointless when neither our government nor Islam recognizes individual rights. Look at today’s Supreme Court decision on guns and Citizens United. How do they jibe with its decision on Kelo and with its other decisions that nullify individual rights? The Supreme Court is an instance of our living in a culture of mixed moralities, mixed premises, mixed values. The irrational element in the culture is in the ascendant, despite the occasional semi-rational triumphs.

I do not know any more how better to argue the case against the Ground Zero mosque, other than to refer people to Dr. Leonard Peikoff's podcast on the issue.

We are living in an unprecedented time, when this country is under attack by secular jihadists in the White House, and religious ones from Mecca and Medina, both sides demanding unquestioning obedience from Americans, and no one is doing much about it. This is the larger picture -- an aerial photograph of the battlefield, if you will -- that must be grasped. It is and it is not about “property rights.”

Abundant information exists on the means and ends of Islam, on Faisal Rauf’s double-think and purposes, on the record of Islam’s depredations. Read Robert Spencer’s article, or Alyssa Lappen’s, or go to Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project site. These articles were picked at random from a mountain of information open to anyone willing to think.

We are engaged in a literal war, both physical and ideological, a war that has exceeded the time such a war should have been waged. A paramount example of it is Afghanistan. We went into that country looking for the Taliban, Al-Quada, and bin Laden. Seven or eight years later, we are still there -- building roads and hospitals and community centers and handing out candy and good will, now and then taking out a group of killers with a drone. In the meantime we are dealing with an unreliable and reluctant ally, Pakistan, and propping up Karzi's corrupt and "open-to-a-deal" government. Is this war a hallmark of rationality?

There’s no reconciliation possible between reason and faith, between reason and Islam. So, even though it may seem futile, I am opposed to the Ground Zero mosque, because of its symbolic power, because it is evidence of an invasion of this country by an alien philosophy inimical to my life and limb, because its backers are necessarily linked to terrorism and the jihad being waged against this county, and because I refuse to grant Islam any semblance of respect or advantage.

We are not battling Moonies here, but killers and enslavers who wish to offer Americans the choice of becoming Muslim Moonies -- or dhimmitude or death.

Again, no one should be deceived by the kindly, grandfatherly demeanor of Faisal Rauf. He is just a front man -- one of many such front men -- of a larger phenomenon. As a friend remarked to me in the middle of the battle, “Toohey was impeccably dressed and drank Cointreau.” Rauf looks like he would not hurt a fly, either. But, think again. Think twice. Take his assurances for what they are worth -- nothing -- and use his image as the portrait of our enemy. That kindly face hides a mind that subscribes to a philosophy that attacked this country on 9/11 and continues to attack it.

Crossposted at The Dougout

9 comments:

Damien said...

Grant Jones,

I oppose the ground zero mosque, but a war of simply of ideas through is much different than an actual war. The state does not have the right to punish people simply for its ideas. But in this case we are in a war both of ideas and an actual war.

As for Kant, I would argue that Rand Demonized him and used him as a scapegoat. I don't entirely agree with his philosophy either. I'm not one of his biggest fans, but no one has been able to give a convincing argument that he was a proto-fascists or a supporter of totalitarianism.

revereridesagain said...

But Damien, we are not in "a war simply of ideas", that's the point. If we were, this would not be an issue, as Ed aptly demonstrated in his comparison with the Moonies. The mosque is to be built 600 feet from where the enemy -- Islamists -- murdered nearly 3,000 of our citizens. The war is being fought through violence in numerous arenas, and the invasion is being aggressively pursued through fraudulent means for hidden purposes. This is not an issue of denying property rights. This is denying the enemy a beachhead.

Anonymous said...

Denying the mosque does not deny a beachhead here. There are many fronts in this war. . .
A recent Fox & Friends video segment which is no longer available:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4238242/wtc-investor-controversy

along with a disappeared related poll which was pulled the same day tells the story. An unofficial transcript of Johnson’s report for Fox & Friends:

(following are titles flashed during report) •Port Authority Seeks Investors •WTC Investor Controversy •Potential owner has ties to Middle East •Could Middle East Own New WTC? •Partner tied to Saudi Arabian Royal Family •ArabSheikh Mohamed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan (Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi) •SOARING HEIGHTS – New Building will be 1,776 ft high
Steve Doocey:
Welcome back. The twin towers of the World Trade Center stood as a stunning example of American exceptionalism and national pride. The government owner of the Trade Center site is now considering whether to accept a partnership bid to operate AND OWN the iconic “ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER” from an American company ‘with rich and powerful ARAB investors.” Fox News legal analyst, Peter J. Johnson Jr. is here to reveal and analyse this startling development. Peter . . . continued below - HRW

Anonymous said...

continued from above:

Peter Johnson Jr.:

Good morning, Steve. Thank you. You know, the American people like to have a say in their national landmarks. Witness the outrage here in New York City, over the Empire State building snub of the late Mother Teresa, whose owners once saluted communist China’s anniversary in blazing lights.
The World Trade Center yesterday and tomorrow is a touchstone of our past pain and our future pride. All Americans are invested in how a new American icon rises from the ashes where 2,752 lives were stolen.

But, as we approach the ninth anniversary of September 11th, the World Trade Center has been delayed by wrenching political disagreements, legal roadblocks and cost overruns. In fact, witness the controversy over building a mosque on the site of the infamous sneak attack by al-qaeda terrorists.

The government owner of the site, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, facing a depressed real estate market is now seeking a private partner to partially own and fully operate One World Trade Center.

One of the final bidders in that confidential if not secret bidding process is a company called “The Related Companies” which may be the most prominently held real estate company in the United States.

But, just as important “The Related Companies” also happens to be a company which is substantially bankrolled by the most powerful Arab corporate interests int he world. These Arab companies have either invested or loaned what may be billions of dollars to the company and it’s international projects.

These partners include the Mubadala Development Company (http://www.mubadala.ae/) wholly owned by the Abu Dhabi government of the United Arab Emirates, the UAE and shared by the crowned Prince of Abu Dhabi and also a company called the Olayan Group which is a group apparently owned by the Saudi Arabian Royal family.

Each of these companies are also rich sources of co-investment capital Olayan related – in it’s own words – taking advantage of any opportunity regardless of size or scale. The ties between The Related and the Arab finance community that Related has formed a joint venture based in Abu Dhabi with one of the largest Arab equity and asset managers – and that’s called “Gulf Related”.

continued below -HRW

Anonymous said...

continued from above:

What do we know about the UAE and Saudi Arabia? The UAE and Saudi Arabia each recognized Taliban control of Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks. We also know that 9/11 al-qaeda terrorists trained in Afghanistan and we know that 15 of the September 11th terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and two from the UAE. Eleven of the hijackers travelled through Dubai to the US and half of the money paid to the hijackers was funnelled through Dubai banks. Investigation has uncovered a mountain of allegations with regard to pre-9/11 Saudi financial support of al-qaeda.

They are now aligned as an American partner in the war on terrorism. This month the Port Authority will select it’s partner on the seventeen hundred and seventy six foot tower, originally dubbed the “Freedom Tower”. The once and future World Trade Center.

The future ownership of this Public Trust is in the hands of political appointees of the Governers of New Jersey and New York.

For anyone who suffered a loss, this news may be dizzying.

We know that ours is a forgiving nation. And we know that we have a well deserved place in the global economy. So, the question becomes this morning, in considering who should own and operate this hallowed ground. . .
Are our wounds too raw ?
Is our pride too deep?
And is our principal too strong to even consider what may yet become the cruelest irony yet – of one of the most infamous days in our national history?

We welcome, as Americans, Arab partnership. But, we ask this morning -

AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?


==============================
The mosque will be the barracks to ensure ME partners succeed in their direction of the management of the "Freedom Tower".

This MUST NOT be tolerated or permitted.
-HRW

revereridesagain said...

Anonymous brings up an important point that is tending to get lost in the concern about the Cordoba mosque. The entire Ground Zero area is a target for Islamic triumphalism.

This is no more a "property rights" or "war simply of ideas" issue than allowing projects financed by the German Nazi Party or the Empire of Japan to be constructed in NYC in 1943 would have been. The difference is that we had identified the enemy by then. But just overcoming the "Islamophobia" and other thought-stopping tactics and convincing Americans to learn the truth about Islam is a massive undertaking.

Anonymous said...

RRA - Further evidence of this triumphalist dictate is the fact that Fox removed the related poll within 24 hours of posting it. It has since also removed the video report . . .which is exactly what I anticipated would happen. That is the reason I transcribed the video early on. Such a story will not be permitted to fade into oblivion. -HRW

Pastorius said...

Fox is owned, in large part, by the Saudi Royal Family. You may already know that, but it is worth bringing up.

Damien said...

Revere Rides Again,

I am not saying that we are not in a war here, if that is what you thought, I was saying.