Thursday, July 29, 2010

Ground Zero Mosque will teach Wahhabism

Behind the mosque


Posted: 12:37 AM, July 23, 2010

Imam Feisal Rauf, the central figure in the coterie planning a huge mosque just off Ground Zero, is a full-throated champion of the very same Muslim theologians and jurists identified in a landmark NYPD report as central to promoting the Islamic religious bigotry that fuels modern jihad terrorism.

This fact alone should compel Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg to withdraw their support for the proposed mosque.

In August 2007, the NYPD released "Radicalization in the West -- The Homegrown Threat." This landmark 90-page report looked at the threat that had become apparent since 9/11, analyzing the roots of recent terror plots in the United States, from Lackawanna, NY, to Portland, Ore., to Fort Dix, NJ.

The report noted that Saudi "Wahhabi" scholars feed the jihadist ideology, legitimizing an "extreme intolerance" toward non-Muslims, especially Jews, Christians and Hindus. In particular, the analysts noted that the "journey" of radicalization that produces homegrown jihadis often begins in a Wahhabi mosque.

The term "Wahhabi" refers to the 18th century founder of this austere Islamic tradition, Muhammad bin Abdul al-Wahhab, who claimed inspiration from 14th century jurist Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah.

At least two of Imam Rauf's books, a 2000 treatise on Islamic law and his 2004 "What's Right with Islam," laud the implementation of sharia -- including within America -- and the "rejuvenating" Islamic religious spirit of Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Wahhab.

He also lionizes as two ostensible "modernists" Jamal al-Dinal-Afghani (d. 1897), and his student Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905). In fact, both defended the Wahhabis, praised the salutary influence of Ibn Taymiyyah and promoted the pretense that sharia -- despite its permanent advocacy of jihad and dehumanizing injunctions on non-Muslims and women -- was somehow compatible with Western concepts of human rights, as in our own Bill of Rights.

In short, Feisal Rauf's public image as a devotee of the "contemplative" Sufi school of Islam cannot change the fact that his writings directed at Muslims are full of praise for the most noxious and dangerous Muslim thinkers.

Indeed, even the classical Sufi master that Rauf extols, the 12th-century jurist Abu Hamed Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali, issued opinions on jihad and the imposition of Islamic law on the vanquished non-Muslim populations that were as bellicose and bigoted as those of Ibn Taymiyyah.

Also relevant is the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow program run by the American Society for Muslim Advancement, an organization founded by Rauf and now run by his wife. Among the future leaders it has recognized are one of the co-authors of a "denunciation" of the NYPD report, a counter-report endorsed by all major Wahhabi-front organizations in America. Another "future leader" of interest to New Yorkers: Debbie Almontaser, the onetime head of the city's Khalil Gibran Academy.

More revealing is the fact that Rauf himself has refused to sign a straightforward pledge to "repudiate the threat from authoritative sharia to the religious freedom and safety of former Muslims," a pledge issued nine months ago by ex-Muslims under threat for their "apostasy." That refusal is a tacit admission that Rauf believes that sharia trumps such fundamental Western principles as freedom of conscience.

Wahhabism -- whether in the form promoted by Saudi money around the globe, or in the more openly nihilist brand embraced by terrorists -- is a totalitarian ideology comparable to Nazism or, closer still, the "state Shintoism" of imperial Japan. We would never have allowed a Shinto shrine at the site of the Pearl Harbor carnage -- especially one to serve as a recruiting station for Tokyo's militarists while World War II was still on.

For the same reasons, we must say no to a Wahhabi mosque at Ground Zero.

Andrew G. Bostom is the author of "The Legacy of Jihad" and "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism."

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Tell the New York commission no on the new mosque

Islam Experts: Ground Zero 'Mega Mosque' Is Political Statement
[Excerpt: "So this particular location, or the closest they can get to it, is the attempt to establish a historical marker for the visible progress of Islam worldwide, because it was with that event that they established themselves in the eyes of the world as legitimate victims of the West.”]
The Christian Post
July 20, 2010
by Michelle A. Vu

Several experts on Islam, including the Son of Hamas author, are opposed to the idea of building a “mega mosque” near Ground Zero because they say the motivation is political not reconciliation.

“Why was this particular site selected? Because the need for a $100 million mosque is so great? Because 45-47 Park Place is the only place left in Manhattan to put a mosque?” posed Mosab Hassan Yousef, author of the bestselling book Son of Hamas, on his blog Friday.
“No. Because it will make a powerful political and religious statement.”

Yousef, like several other Christian scholars with expertise on Islamic strategies, warns that despite appealing reasons given for the mosque – such as improving interfaith relations and promoting tolerance – it will stand as a “bold affirmation” of the same Quran cited by the Muslim extremists who brought down the World Trade Center and killed thousands of American civilians in 2001.

“If Cordoba and other Muslim organizations in America would like to ‘do a huge amount of good,’ let them build a hospital instead of a mosque,” proposed Yousef, whose father is one of the founding leaders of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. “Build something that will help the families of the 9/11 victims. Do something productive for humanity in general, instead of challenging liberty and confusing people about the realities of Islam.”

Yousef, who has become a follower of Jesus Christ, is an outspoken critic of Islam after witnessing first-hand how it inspired Muslims in the Middle East to use violence against their enemies. In his book Son of Hamas, Yousef details his life in the West Bank living under the ideology of terrorism and how he was shocked to learn about the teachings of Jesus to forgive and love one’s enemy.

The “Son of Hamas” author describes Westerners as going to almost any length to “avoid offending Islam,” while the Muslim community “appears to think nothing of pouring acid in America’s open wounds.”

Over the past few months, a heated, emotionally-charged debate has been occurring over whether to allow the construction of a 13-story Muslim community center two blocks from the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The Cordoba Initiative, which is behind the proposal for the $100 million Cordoba House, says the center will include a 500-seat auditorium, a swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, as well as bookstores and restaurants.

Opponents of the project say it is insensitive and offensive to the 2,976 victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and their family members.

“We feel that it is a cemetery and sacred ground and the dead should be honored,” said Pamela Geller, a conservative blogger and leader of a group called Stop the Islamicization of America, on CNN’S “America Morning” last week. “To build a 13-story mega mosque on the cemetery, on the largest site in American history, I think, is incredibly insensitive.”

New York’s Landmarks Preservation Commission is in the process of deciding whether to grant the current building on the site landmark status. If it is given landmark status, the Cordoba Initiative cannot raze the current building and replace it with its mosque. They could, however, build on top of the current building if they receive permission to add floors.

The Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement own the property at 45-47 Park Place after paying $4.85 million cash to Soho Properties, a Muslim-run real estate company, last year. They have been using the building for prayer meetings.

“One of the primary means of Da’wah, or Islamic mission, has to do with the planting of Islamic cultural centers and ultimately the placement of a mosque in strategic locations,” said a theologian, who has spent 40 years studying the Islamic world, to The Christian Post on Friday. He requested to remain anonymous.

The Islam expert, who has lived in Morocco and North Africa, said the world’s attention is and will probably always be on the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

“That is a historical marker in American history that is equivalent to the death of John F. Kennedy,” he said. “There are historical markers like that that never escape the memories of people.”

“So this particular location, or the closest they can get to it, is the attempt to establish a historical marker for the visible progress of Islam worldwide, because it was with that event that they established themselves in the eyes of the world as legitimate victims of the West.”

Muslims, the expert said, are using the victim strategy, showing that they have been mistreated by the West, to advance their agenda.

The New York commission is expected to vote in August on the landmark status of the 45-47 Park Place building.

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Hope and Change

How is that hope and change working for you?

Democrate Joe Biden: TAX IS PATRIOTIC: "It's time to be patriotic, time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

Yes the democrates raise taxes on you and me and dodge taxes for themselves.
Sen. John Kerry docks new boat in Rhode Island, saving taxes.

BOSTON — Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry is docking his family's new $7 million yacht in neighboring Rhode Island, allowing him to avoid paying roughly $500,000 in taxes to the cash-strapped Bay State.

May 10, 2010
Cap-and-Trade Is Back
By Brian Sussman
On Wednesday, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) plan to introduce legislation designed to inflate the cost of energy, strain family budgets, and decimate America's manufacturing sector -- all in the name of supposedly saving the climate.

Kerry and Lieberman have been revamping legislation that narrowly passed the House of Representatives last year. The House bill imposes oppressive limits on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and establishes a complex cap-and-trade scheme in which the federal government determines how much CO2 a business may emit. If a business exceeds its allowance, it may purchase additional "carbon credits" from an exchange, where the credits will be traded like a commodity. Rules for the exchange of carbon credits, including the trading of carbon derivatives, are addressed in the House bill, and my sources tell me that the Senate version will include these same stratagems.

In an e-mail sent to the media last week regarding their plans, Kerry and Lieberman said, "We can no longer wait to solve this problem which threatens our economy, our security and our environment."

My insiders also say the new Kerry-Lieberman proposal will keep the House bill's goal of attaining a 17-percent reduction of greenhouse gases (below their 2005 level) by 2020. Apparently the Senate bill will allow cap-and-trade to hit power companies first, and then within six years include the manufacturing sector.

The new bill apparently calls for more loan guarantees to build nuclear plants and grants U.S. coastal states a share of the revenue produced by any expansion of offshore oil and natural-gas drilling.

This is a bill that will cause all of us to suffer great loss.

Presently, 40 percent of CO2 emissions in the United States are derived from electricity generation, 35 percent from transportation, and 25 percent from business, industry, and natural gas to heat homes.

So where will the 17% cut come from, especially given that (according to U.S. census projections) there will be an additional 30 million people in the United States by 2020? If the cuts are distributed proportionately, the biggest blow will be to electricity production. Since 50 percent of our nation's electricity is derived from coal, that industry and its customers will be hit hardest. Coal plants are going to have to be shuttered. And what will replace that energy resource? Nothing.

Some might counter that the House bill touts complex tax credits for wind and solar development. However, when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, those two alternatives don't provide a watt of energy -- they're simply enhancements, not baseload providers. Additionally, the Kerry-Lieberman loan giveaway for the construction of nuclear plants -- which do not generate carbon emissions -- is simply a lure to entice gullible Republicans to bite, because the White House is not a fan of nuclear power.

Recall that during his January State of the Union address, Mr. Obama said that America needs to be "building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country."

In an apparent move to make good on his promise, two days after the speech, Bloomberg reported: "President Barack Obama, acting on a pledge to support nuclear power, will propose tripling guarantees for new reactors to more than $45 billion[.]"

However, the proposal was a ruse. Many forget that shortly after taking office Obama's first budget planned to cut off money for the Nevada nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain -- meaning that the $10 billion in taxpayer dollars spent since 1983 to ready Yucca for storing nuclear waste was a total loss. Yucca Mountain will officially be zeroed out in fiscal year 2011.

Meantime, Energy Secretary Steven Chu has announced the creation of a special panel to find a solution for storing nuclear waste.

Problem is, we already had a solution -- Yucca Mountain.

America has no nuclear option. And, as I have written here at American Thinker, the probability of additional drilling for domestic fossil fuels is low as well.

So where will the carbon cuts come from? They'll come from the American people, who will be forced to use less energy because of the higher costs imposed by cap-and-trade and a variety of new energy taxes.

Proving my point, last week members of Congress, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, took part in the Good Jobs, Green Jobs National Conference. One of the better-attended seminars was entitled "Efficiency and Renewables." Presenters included Nancy Sutley, White House Council on Environmental Quality. According to the brochure promoting this session, "The cheapest, cleanest, and fastest emission reductions will come from the energy we never have to use at all. Cutting energy use also saves money on homeowners' electricity bills and reduces costs for business."

Translation: America does not need a plan for additional power plants to serve a growing population; instead, the people must use less power. Coercion through increased pricing will be a key prod in producing the societal behavior modification necessary to accomplish this goal.

By the way, Nancy Sutley is also the woman who announced the hiring of the radical Van Jones in March 2009, declaring: "Van Jones has been a strong voice for green jobs, and we look forward to having him work with departments and agencies to advance the President's agenda of creating 21st-century jobs that improve energy efficiency and utilize renewable resources. Jones will also help to shape and advance the administration's energy and climate initiatives with a specific interest in improvements and opportunities for vulnerable communities."

Further straining the family budget, a new set of fees and taxes will be imposed on all sectors of the economy that produce greenhouse gases. This will include transportation, farming, livestock production -- even restaurants that cook barbecued chicken and ribs over an open flame and bottling companies that sell fizzy drinks. To absorb the increased cost of doing business, companies large and small will be forced to raise their prices. Already pinched personal bank accounts will be further hammered, as virtually everything is going to cost more.

The Kerry-Lieberman bill is also a job-killer. To meet the demands of the new emissions limits, the few manufacturing businesses that remain in the United States will be further shipped overseas. This is a part of an elitist plan to redistribute America's wealth abroad. In other words, this legislation will purposefully execute the loss of well-paying domestic jobs, so that those in third world and underdeveloped nations have a chance to improve their standard of living -- at our expense.

Proving my point is the House version of this bill. If your manufacturing job is shipped overseas, you are eligible for three years of unemployment compensation at 70% of your pay, plus retraining and relocation expenses. The intent is to pacify your anger with a three-year paid vacation.

And another dirty little secret about the Democrats' need to pass cap-and-trade: It's a revenue-builder. According the Wall Street Journal, the cap-and-trade system could actually generate between roughly $1.3 trillion and $1.9 trillion between fiscal years 2012 and 2019.

This so-called energy bill is a punch to the gut that American does not need. And keep in mind, as I have conclusively proven through past missives at American Thinker, as well as in my book Climategate, that the temperature of the earth is not warming, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and without the greenhouse effect, planet Earth would be a big ball of ice.

To pass, cap-and-trade will need bipartisan support. Thus far only Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have spoken out in favor of supporting a mandatory cap on greenhouse gases.

However, other Senate Republicans who could cross over and support this bill are Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, George LeMieux of Florida, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, and the retiring George Voinovich of Ohio.

Brian Sussman is author of the new bestseller, "Climategate: a veteran meteorologist exposes the global warming scam," and host of the Morning Show on KSFO radio in San Francisco.