Muslim columnists: Yes, the Ground Zero mosque is a deliberate provocation

posted at 11:36 am on August 9, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

What’s more, Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah wrote in the Ottawa Citizen this weekend, no one can really deny the motivations of its sponsors.  New York City already has 30 mosques, so it hardly requires one at the place where Muslim extremists murdered almost 3,000 people — including a number of Muslims.  Raza and Fatah wonder how the organizers would react to a Serbian Orthodox church on the ground where 8,000 Muslims got slaughtered in Srebrenica, and whether they would be defending property rights and the freedom of religious expression in that case.

But mostly, the two authors wonder where the mosque’s sponsors got their money:

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.

It’s a repugnant thought that $100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan.

On motivation, the authors insist that it’s purely spite and triumphalism:

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

The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna[.]“

The owners of the property have the right to determine the use made of it, assuming zoning issues and building codes are not violated in doing so.  The government doesn’t have the right to interfere on the basis of religious practice or belief.  The First Amendment keeps that kind of interference off the table — and we should be glad of it.  Otherwise, no religious practice would be entirely safe in the United States.

However, that doesn’t mean that private efforts can’t be made to dissuade the owners from constructing a provocation to the entire country at Ground Zero within the parameters of the law.  Those could take the forms of protests at the site, boycotts of the construction (perhaps convincing unions in the city to refuse to cooperate with the project), economic protests of those who own the property, and an investigation into the money trail as well. Government doesn’t have to do everything for us, after all, nor should it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

They are clearing exploiting the deaths of 3000 people to push their agenda. Of course our idiot political class chimed in and immediately began to attack people as bigots for pointing out the obvious goals of this terror connected group.

rob verdi on August 9, 2010 at 11:39 AM

A travesty, this has to be stopped. Every brick, every nail, every yard of concrete, every window has to be opposed….every sale, every truck, every worker….

ted c on August 9, 2010 at 11:41 AM

As is said in the other thread, imagine if a sketchy group that had connections to the KKK tried to build a Massive museum to the Confederacy right next to where MLK was murdered. Somehow I wouldn’t expect to the elites to support the choice or call those in opposition bigots.

rob verdi on August 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM

I’ll be there on 9/11 giving voice to concerns I have as well as many others who object to this mosque. I’m thankful others are speaking out now.

On another note, I’m tired of being told we have to allow this to show how tolerant we are. We already have. We showed it on 9/11. We didn’t bomb mosques in the U.S.. We didn’t boycott Muslim businesses. We didn’t attack Muslims living here. We shouldn’t have to allow this mosque in order to convince those who will never be convinced and whose motives are suspicious at best.

NYconservative on August 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM

IMHO this is nothing more than a dog marking it’s territory. That is exactally what they are doing.

milwife88 on August 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM

This is the equivelant of rubbing salt into an already open wound.

Maybe Mikey Bloomberg would like to rethink that idiotic speech he gave recently defending the building of this godless thing.

pilamaye on August 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Of course it is a blatant show of disrespect and a kinda victory spiking move. Every other thought is just goofy and self-deception.

RalphyBoy on August 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM

I saw recently that the builders of this mosque might not actually own 50% of the building which now sits on the proposed site.

Also, who is going to build this eyesore, will NYC tradesmen actually be willing to apply their skills to this thing?

Bishop on August 9, 2010 at 11:43 AM

I think it’s time to attack this thing “Texas-style”…though I don’t know how this specifically can happen in the city, as it’s more of a country thing. But necessity is the mother of invention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUr1NxJDC94

JetBoy on August 9, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Not that any of my questions matter, ernesto has already said that to oppose this is to be a bigot.

Bishop on August 9, 2010 at 11:44 AM

There was a construction worker from NYC on Fox and Friends this weekend who said that he knows a lot of tradesmen who will refuse to work on the construction of this mosque.

kingsjester on August 9, 2010 at 11:44 AM

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity

Didn’t FLOTUS meet with the Saudis during her Spanish vacation? Might it have been an appeal for funds?

a capella on August 9, 2010 at 11:46 AM

I guess the famous New York hard hats have the final say.

RobCon on August 9, 2010 at 11:46 AM

mix ground pork into the concrete..

ted c on August 9, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Political class = ostriches with heads in sand.

Political class = Alfred E. Newman: “What me worry?”

Seriously, I keep hearing liberals concede that someone should ask questions about the source of the funding. Well, who the hell is asking those questions, and what responses are they getting? Is this the job of the media (fat chance) or federal, state, or local governmental officials (Bloomberg’s getting right on that, right?)?

At the rate that these “questions” will be asked, the mosque will be built and Muslims will control every liberal area of the country.

BuckeyeSam on August 9, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Once a synagogue and a church get built in Mecca, I’ll consider supporting this mosque. Not before.

OhioCoastie on August 9, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Not that any of my questions matter, ernesto has already said that to oppose this is to be a bigot.

Bishop on August 9, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Might as well pack it up and go home since the Absolute Moral Authority has spoken.

Bee on August 9, 2010 at 11:47 AM

rob verdi on August 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Not just the KKK, how about a group a bit less controversial, like the Sons of Confederate Veterans?

jdawg on August 9, 2010 at 11:48 AM

ernesto hardest hit.

DrAllecon on August 9, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Good. It exposes them for what they are.

exception on August 9, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Not that any of my questions matter, ernesto has already said that to oppose this is to be a bigot.

Bishop on August 9, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Oh he did? Well shit then, time to close this thread up.

angryed on August 9, 2010 at 11:49 AM

The owners of the property have the right to determine the use made of it, assuming zoning issues and building codes are not violated in doing so. The government doesn’t have the right to interfere on the basis of religious practice or belief.

I don’t agree. The act of building a house of worship is not a protected act of worship. Where I’m from, all buildings are built at the pleasure of the zoning board. I would think it’s no different in NYC, but maybe I’m just naive.

gryphon202 on August 9, 2010 at 11:51 AM

As I’ve stated before the silver lining here is I have no doubt were this not as issue, that Bloomberg would watch every Republican primary and debate take place for the Presidential run and then foice himself as the la-dee-da candidate into the race because he’s just so wonderful – and these plans have evaporated in smoke. As a commentator said, Bloomberg tried to knock it out of the ballpark with his little speech – and because he is no Reagan and stood there reading off a sheet of paper – he most certainly did not. A Mosque at Ground Zero will not play with anyone outside of spitting distance of Manhattan or DC.

Marcus on August 9, 2010 at 11:51 AM

I believe that the Spotted Owl was …well spotted living in the old building at this site. wink

Electrongod on August 9, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Churches and a synagogs for Mecca! Then we’ll talk.

Mojave Mark on August 9, 2010 at 11:52 AM

The owners of the property have the right to determine the use made of it

I have heard this little lecture enough times I am ready to throw up. The owners of property also have duties, which probably include disclosing the source of funding. Who will own the mosque? Rauf? Really? Are there no straw men? Does the NY recordation system have an accurate title record? What is the penalty for filing false documents with that office? How will contractors be paid? In cash? What banks are involved? This is $150 million project, is any part of it financed? If so, disclosure in mandatory. Who is paying the property taxes?

GTR640 on August 9, 2010 at 11:53 AM

mix ground pork into the concrete..

ted c on August 9, 2010 at 11:46 AM

And only tell them after they dedicate it. (I thought I was the only wicked one here).

OldEnglish on August 9, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Which city was it during the 60′s where the construction workers responded to an anti-war protest when they heard the flag was being burned, they confronted the hippies and there was a fine altercation. The sons of those guys need to respond today.

Bishop on August 9, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Raza and Fatah wonder how the organizers would react to a Serbian Orthodox church on the ground where 8,000 Muslims got slaughtered in Srebrenica

useless idiots.

sesquipedalian on August 9, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Something else to fight.

BetseyRoss on August 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Islam is not just a religion. Islam also includes political and economics laws, laws incompatible with freedom.

If you grant Muslims freedom of religion in the end you surrender your own freedom of religion.

Under Sharia law non-Muslims are second class citizens known as Dhimis. They can never be in authority over a Muslim and they get to pay a special tax.

Leaving Islam is a capital crime.
Insulting Islam (real or imagined) is a capital crime.
It is illegal to repair or build a non-Muslim place of worship.
Printing non-Muslim religious materials is forbidden.

Islam should be redefined as a subversive political movement with a religious component. As such they should be denied any protections afforded other religions by the 1st Amendment.

The Rock on August 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM

What an absolute disgrace! Maybe this will wake up Americans to NOT forget 9/11. It’s shocking to me how much they have.

I think the Americans liking this and letting this happen are more contemptious than the nasty jihadis and their supporters. I’d say WAKE UP USA, but I know they are sleeping and will stay asleep. I’m absolutely disgusted by it ALL.

Gob on August 9, 2010 at 11:56 AM

However, that doesn’t mean that private efforts can’t be made to dissuade the owners from constructing a provocation to the entire country at Ground Zero

How about opening a high end butcher shop that specializes in pork?

VibrioCocci on August 9, 2010 at 11:56 AM

will other ‘moderate’ muslims support these 2 writers?

cmsinaz on August 9, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Throughout the history of human warfare, the way you claim victory over your foe is to topple their Standard and erect yours in its place. Typically this “standard” was a large poll with a flag or emblem on the top. It was a signal to all armies in view that you have conquered the enemy.

This is what is happening. On Sept. 11, 2001, our standard was toppled. Now they are erecting their to claim victory over their enemy. Us.

The muslims in the middle east don’t know abstract ideas like religious tolerance. They know symbolism and the symbolic importance of a HUGE mosque being erected where those two skyscrapers once stood is one no one can mistake.

kurtzz3 on August 9, 2010 at 11:58 AM

people are protesting the building of mosques in other neigborhoods, too.

kingsjester on August 9, 2010 at 11:58 AM

I don’t agree. The act of building a house of worship is not a protected act of worship. Where I’m from, all buildings are built at the pleasure of the zoning board. I would think it’s no different in NYC, but maybe I’m just naive.

gryphon202 on August 9, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Haven’t the local boards approved the building? The police commissioner hasn’t identified a security threat. What legal mechanism is there to prevent the construction?

dedalus on August 9, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Shocka!

Bruno Strozek on August 9, 2010 at 11:59 AM

It’s easy to complain about it….what CAN we do to stop it???

(I’m in South Carolina and cannot afford to go up to NYC—what can I do?)

Lady Heather on August 9, 2010 at 11:59 AM

kingsjester on August 9, 2010 at 11:58 AM

nice piece KJ

cmsinaz on August 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM

I guess the famous New York hard hats have the final say.

RobCon on August 9, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Heh. Just imagine the costs of security during construction. Then there are the building inspectors, some of whom may have lost friends or family during 9-11. Yeeees, indeedy.

a capella on August 9, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Nice of these two muslims to admit what most of us know, but really- why should we listen to them at all on anything? They follow a religion started by a mass murderer who hated women, jews, non-muslims, muslims who didn’t meet his insane set of rules, men who allowed women any rights whatsoever, anyone who criticized him (don’t write any poems attacking him when he murders someone, or else he’ll have his goons murder you too).

This whole notion that some muslims are moderate or even rational in any sense of the word is offensive. We’d never dare claim anyone from the Manson family was moderate, so let’s not do so with followers of a man with a much higher body count.

TheBlueSite on August 9, 2010 at 12:02 PM

cmsinaz on August 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Thank you.

kingsjester on August 9, 2010 at 12:02 PM

jdawg,
Your probably right, and to be frank I would agree with any group that legally opposed such a thing.

rob verdi on August 9, 2010 at 12:03 PM

This is what happens when libs are in charge. How can the voting public in NY still be this stupid?

Tommy_G on August 9, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Haven’t the local boards approved the building? The police commissioner hasn’t identified a security threat. What legal mechanism is there to prevent the construction?

dedalus on August 9, 2010 at 11:59 AM

The only board that I’m aware of that held a binding vote so far was the landmark board. And that was a vote to determine if the site would be given protected landmark status. There was a vote a few weeks back by a citizen’s board that was non-binding.

I don’t live in NYC, so it’s hard for me to say specifically how things are done there, but legally speaking, I just don’t think building a mosque (or a church, of a synagogue) is ipso facto protected by the first amendment. That’s an awfully flimsy argument for a conservative like Ed to be making.

gryphon202 on August 9, 2010 at 12:03 PM

capella on August 9, 2010 at 12:01 PM

I truly hope they take a stand and not one drop of concrete is poured….

cmsinaz on August 9, 2010 at 12:03 PM

And only tell them after they dedicate it. (I thought I was the only wicked one here).

OldEnglish on August 9, 2010 at 11:54 AM

I was thinking C-4 for mortar. Does that make me bad?

VegasRick on August 9, 2010 at 12:03 PM

It would make a great target for some crazy how happened to hijack a Saudi jet. The irony.

J_Crater on August 9, 2010 at 12:04 PM

New York will regret forever the building of a mosque at Ground Zero as will our whole country.

Herb on August 9, 2010 at 12:04 PM

How many times have we heard from the left that our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are tools for recruiting jihadis? A helluva lot.

Allowing a giant Islamic symbol at ground zero is worse.
For jihad recruiters, its just that sign of weakness great Satan haters take to heart.

Tribal societies attack each other at the least lack of strength, give people who have been taught to hate us a monument to our weakness on the very spot they’ve achieved a great success before and recruiters can have a field day.

A mosque at ground zero isn’t just a thumb in our eye, its an important tool for Islamic radicals, who BTW, want to kill us.

Speakup on August 9, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Islam should be redefined as a subversive political movement with a religious component. As such they should be denied any protections afforded other religions by the 1st Amendment.

The Rock on August 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM

I AGREE.
The writer of the article basically referred to the ‘peaceful’ parts of Islam & though he is rightfully pointing out the motive here, this muslim is in serious denial about his own ‘religion’.
Abrogation, my friend.
When reading the Koran,hadiths & suras, one must understand the concept of abrogation.
Then it all becomes clear.
Islam should not be allowed to openly practice here in the US bcs it is a political ideology masked as a religion.
Islam will NEVER be compatible with western or Judeo-Christian ideals. Islam will NEVER be compatible with human rights & ideas of freedom.
Islam is a pestilence. Those who follow it are either evil, ignorant, or delusional.

Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Whatever the official name is, everybody will see it as the Muhammad Atta Shrine and Mosque.

RBMN on August 9, 2010 at 12:07 PM

This symbol of Islamist slaughter of thousands of innocents will never be built. I’m not sure the intent is to actually build it. The effort is already reaping a harvest of heartbreak, and will continue to provide opportunities for propagandizing and tormenting the families of the victims of their slaughter, and everyone else in the country with a heart and a mind.

Agitating and exploiting for propaganda purposes may be the real goal of the Islamist scum behind this effort. In fact, I suspect they can’t believe there are so many idiots out there who can ignore a dagger in the heart so long as the assassin holds an olive branch between his teeth.

novaculus on August 9, 2010 at 12:07 PM

I was thinking C-4 for mortar. Does that make me bad?

VegasRick on August 9, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Good Idea and that makes you a red-blooded American.

Holger on August 9, 2010 at 12:07 PM

The question remains: Is Islam even compatible with Western civilization? Marxism certainly isn’t, and Islam being a barbaric, repressive political system, I don’t understand why anybody would automatically assume it’ll fair any better just because it also has religion components.

And if evidence continues to mount up that Islam is simply incompatible with freedom and liberty, then what? Eventually, if Islam doesn’t succedde, somehow, in reforming itself, Islam may have to be isolated and contained, just like with Communism during the Cold War.

FloatingRock on August 9, 2010 at 12:08 PM

This is what happens when libs are in charge. How can the voting public in NY still be this stupid?

Tommy_G on August 9, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Bcs they are not personally affected by the evil that is Islam.
And they may never get it. Those are dhimmis in waiting.
Some people don’t mind being slaves.

Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Canadians have more cajones than New Yorkers?

faraway on August 9, 2010 at 12:09 PM

succedde = succeed

FloatingRock on August 9, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Otherwise, no religious practice would be entirely safe in the United States.

That assumes one believes islam is an actual religion. I do not. It’s a cult.

Why does New York already have 30 mosques? There should be 0.

BowHuntingTexas on August 9, 2010 at 12:10 PM

And if evidence continues to mount up that Islam is simply incompatible with freedom and liberty, then what? Eventually, if Islam doesn’t succedde, somehow, in reforming itself, Islam may have to be isolated and contained, just like with Communism during the Cold War.

FloatingRock on August 9, 2010 at 12:08 PM

The evidence for incompatibility is in the Koran & all other Islamic ‘religous’ writings & musings.
Read it.
Your eyes will be opened.

Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 12:10 PM

I was thinking C-4 for mortar. Does that make me bad?

VegasRick on August 9, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Is that you, O’neil?

OldEnglish on August 9, 2010 at 12:10 PM

ernesto hardest hit.

DrAllecon on August 9, 2010 at 11:49 AM

No sign of ernie on the thread so far-must still be waiting for the talking points.

My guess is the Spin on this one will be that these columnists aren’t “Muslim religious scholars”, so have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Del Dolemonte on August 9, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Tarek Fatah is a pretty big lefty, so I would not fall to in love with him, but he certainly has the right of it here. His view is that mild socialism is better than radical Islam – perhaps true in the short term, except that when the socialism collapses, as it always does, the door is once again open to radical Islam.

I was in a bit of a foodfight with some deliberately obtuse libs over on Megan McArdle’s blog last week over the meaning of the Ground Zero Mosque – they claimed that I had no way to judge the intentions of the Mosque’s backers or how it would be received in the Muslim world. Now I have the read of a couple of real, genuine Muslims.

holdfast on August 9, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Is that you, O’neil?

OldEnglish on August 9, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Closet Stargate fan?
LOL!

Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Next plan:
A museum called “Hooray for Nazis!” built right beside Bergen Belsen.

This is a disgrace.

mjk on August 9, 2010 at 12:14 PM

The question remains: Is Islam even compatible with Western civilization?

FloatingRock on August 9, 2010 at 12:08 PM

The two are like Macs and PCs: not only is the software totally incompatible, but so is the ‘hardware’. Trying to install Western ideas of gender equality and justice on some of them is like trying to install Halo on a Super Nintendo. It will NEVER work.

Dark-Star on August 9, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Muslims columnists are clearly islamophobic.

MadisonConservative on August 9, 2010 at 12:15 PM

legally speaking, I just don’t think building a mosque (or a church, of a synagogue) is ipso facto protected by the first amendment. That’s an awfully flimsy argument for a conservative like Ed to be making.

gryphon202 on August 9, 2010 at 12:03 PM

The sale was a free market transaction. The new owner has a right to build on the property subject to local zoning restrictions. The First Amendment would only come into play if the government tried to restrict the building solely because of its particular religious practice.

dedalus on August 9, 2010 at 12:17 PM

My guess is the Spin on this one will be that these columnists aren’t “Muslim religious scholars”, so have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Del Dolemonte on August 9, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Ditto.
They do to a point. But they are either practicing Taquiyya, or are truly ignorant of their own ‘religion’, in which case they are considered heretics & must be brought back to the truth of Islam.

Now I have the read of a couple of real, genuine Muslims.

holdfast on August 9, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Real genuine muslims practice everything the Koran & additional readings commands.
And that isn’t what these guys are advocating.
As I said above, they are either practicing Taquiyya or have conveniently forgotten the concept of abrogation when reading the Koran.

Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 12:17 PM

They are clearing exploiting the deaths of 3000 people to push their agenda. Of course our idiot political class chimed in and immediately began to attack people as bigots for pointing out the obvious goals of this terror connected group.

rob verdi on August 9, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Never let a crisis go to waste! Hmmmm where have I heard that before?

Monica on August 9, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Trying to install Western ideas of gender equality and justice on some of them is like trying to install Halo on a Super Nintendo. It will NEVER work.

Dark-Star on August 9, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Nerdspeak, but well taken, LOL!

The sale was a free market transaction. The new owner has a right to build on the property subject to local zoning restrictions. The First Amendment would only come into play if the government tried to restrict the building solely because of its particular religious practice.

dedalus on August 9, 2010 at 12:17 PM

I agree. Which is why this needs to happen NOW:

Islam should be redefined as a subversive political movement with a religious component. As such they should be denied any protections afforded other religions by the 1st Amendment.

The Rock on August 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 12:20 PM

The First Amendment would only come into play if the government tried to restrict the building solely because of its particular religious practice.

dedalus on August 9, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Building isn’t a religious practice. I think a pretty good argument could be made that Islam itself isn’t a religious practice, instead being a political system seeking to supplant our small-r republican government. They won’t put a stop to the ground-zero mosque, but they won’t give it a second thought. Depressing.

gryphon202 on August 9, 2010 at 12:20 PM

BTW for the “crime” of expressing their opinions, both of the authors of this piece have in the past been threatened, including death threats.

Del Dolemonte on August 9, 2010 at 12:20 PM

I’m betting that when Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf does fundraising abroad behind closed doors, he’ll call the mosque “The Great Victory Mosque”. Hopefully Memri can catch him on tape doing that.

theCork on August 9, 2010 at 12:24 PM

MadCon, you raaaaacist, what would CK MacLeod say if he read your comments? Tsk, tsk.

Aloha snackbar.

OhioCoastie on August 9, 2010 at 12:24 PM

Muslims columnists are clearly islamophobic.
MadisonConservative on August 9, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Makes me a tad worried that these two courageous columnists better watch their backs (and their necks).

Telling us infidels about this triumphalist fitna will probably incite a nasty muslim reaction.

Fatwa on them both will be soon forthcoming?

marybel on August 9, 2010 at 12:24 PM

CK Mcleod needs to chime in.

midlander on August 9, 2010 at 12:24 PM

Hey, offer free ham sandwiches on the street outside the new mosque for those that worship the pedophile… (should I have capitalized pedophile in that sentence?)

CC

CapedConservative on August 9, 2010 at 12:25 PM

FloatingRock on August 9, 2010 at 12:08 PM

“Islam reformed is Islam no longer.”

Lord Cromer, Consul General to Egypt, 1880

Islam is monolithic. It is totalitarian theocracy masquerading as religion. It is impossible to extricate only the benign and purely religious from the 7th century barbarity, bigotry and misogyny of the rest.

Having said that, I am grateful to the Muslim authors of this piece. I distinguish these decent Muslims from Islamists.

novaculus on August 9, 2010 at 12:26 PM

I wonder what the elites think of this:

BERLIN — The authorities in Hamburg said Monday that they had shut down the mosque there where several of the hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks had met because it remained a source of radicalization nearly a decade later.

rob verdi on August 9, 2010 at 12:26 PM

What’s more, Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah wrote in the Ottawa Citizen this weekend, no one can really deny the motivations of its sponsors. New York City already has 30 mosques, so it hardly requires one at the place where Muslim extremists murdered almost 3,000 people — including a number of Muslims. Raza and Fatah wonder how the organizers would react to a Serbian Orthodox church on the ground where 8,000 Muslims got slaughtered in Srebrenica, and whether they would be defending property rights and the freedom of religious expression in that case.
============================================================
It has been a sharp stick to the eye,since day #1!

Its has been a design,all along,to put the icing on the
successful Terrorist Attack,and God forebid,the day its built,they will,dance in the streets once again!!

I heard a New Yorker,who called in the CoastoCoast Show,
who is livid over this obomination,he is a Hard Hat,he
claims,therefore in the construction trade,he vows,that
his brothers and sisters,who lost other brother and sist
ers,the First Responders,vows not to build this Mosque!!

In my own mind,this is nothing more than a second attack,
INSULT TO INJURY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And,I also notice that the name Cordoba has been dropped!

canopfor on August 9, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 12:20 PM

That would do it, and that is what you’d need to do in order to enable the government to restrict Islam. However, the risk is that a future government applies those tools to other religious groups.

dedalus on August 9, 2010 at 12:30 PM

O/T
========

Karl Rove is on a tear,in for Rush!!

canopfor on August 9, 2010 at 12:30 PM

And,I also notice that the name Cordoba has been dropped!

canopfor on August 9, 2010 at 12:27 PM

It’s like a bobcat trying to disguise itself as a house cat.

kingsjester on August 9, 2010 at 12:30 PM

“Fitna,” huh? So, Geert Wilders right, Michael Bloomberg wrong? Imagine that.

rrpjr on August 9, 2010 at 12:32 PM

CK Mcleod needs to chime in.
midlander on August 9, 2010 at 12:24 PM

No, please, not that.

rrpjr on August 9, 2010 at 12:33 PM

The First Amendment would only come into play if the government tried to restrict the building solely because of its particular religious practice.

dedalus on August 9, 2010 at 12:17 PM

What do the poll numbers say? I bet that with a little effort we could get a sufficient number of American’s behind an amendment. Probably, no sweat.

A Constitutional amendment forbidding new mosques within a mile of Ground Zero.

FloatingRock on August 9, 2010 at 12:34 PM

And,I also notice that the name Cordoba has been dropped!
canopfor on August 9, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Did the King of Spain ask Mrs Obama to have that dropped prior to fund raising in Rihyad(sp)?

midlander on August 9, 2010 at 12:35 PM

I sincerely hope ernesto and The Race Card will show up forthwith to put these self-hating Muslims in their place.

MadisonConservative on August 9, 2010 at 12:35 PM

And,I also notice that the name Cordoba has been dropped!

canopfor on August 9, 2010 at 12:27 PM

That alone is an admission of guilt.

OldEnglish on August 9, 2010 at 12:36 PM

You’re just afraid of CK’s relentless and overpowering logic, rrpjr. You H8r, you.

OhioCoastie on August 9, 2010 at 12:36 PM

OhioCoastie on August 9, 2010 at 12:36 PM

I haven’t seen CK here at all in quite some time. I wonder if something happened…?

gryphon202 on August 9, 2010 at 12:38 PM

rrpjr on August 9, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Okay. I submit a laminated retraction.

midlander on August 9, 2010 at 12:38 PM

Interesting!!
===================

Obama sent a secret letter to Iraq’s top Shiite cleric
======================================================
Posted By Barbara Slavin Thursday, August 5, 2010 – 7:10 PM

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/

canopfor on August 9, 2010 at 12:38 PM

I haven’t seen CK in a while. Did he move on to HuffPo or someplace else?

kingsjester on August 9, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Islam should be redefined as a subversive political movement with a religious component. As such they should be denied any protections afforded other religions by the 1st Amendment.

The Rock on August 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM

We need a constitutional amendment to outlaw the fascist ideology disguised as a religion known as islam.

Rebar on August 9, 2010 at 12:39 PM

And,I also notice that the name Cordoba has been dropped!

canopfor on August 9, 2010 at 12:27 PM
============================================
That alone is an admission of guilt.

OldEnglish on August 9, 2010 at 12:36 PM

OldEnglish: Afffrimitive,at 200%!!:)

canopfor on August 9, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3