New Yorkers (and Americans) Don’t Need an Education on Islam, Muslim Nations Do
Great post by Jan LaRue at The American Thinker regarding the Islamic Mosque being built near the site of the worst Islamic terrorist attack on American soil, Ground Zero. Jan makes a great argument in “The Manhattan Mosque and Women” that this supposed “community center” for “understanding” has more of a need in every nation in the Muslim World (ie Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia) where the barbaric practice of Islamic shari’a law (‘honor’ killings, subjugation of women, murdering of homosexuals, etc) still takes place today.
Rauf insists that “[r]ather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is. Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam.”
Who really thinks that bin Laden and the Taliban are primed to receive an education in Islam from “the Great Satan”?
If Rauf is so captivated by America’s system of laws, he should take his education act on the road to the Islamic-controlled nations and terrorist states whose barbaric practices make him “cringe.” If he’s serious about “[a]dvocating for human rights, including higher standards for the treatment of women,” as he claims, he should open his mosque where women actually need “higher standards” of treatment. Take for example Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran — please.
Instead of wasting critical time “educating” Americans on the true teaching and values of Islam, he should educate those Muslims whom he says have “hijacked” its meaning in the name of terrorism and human rights abuses. How about focusing his efforts on those who are committing “honor” killings, which they believe is their duty under Islam?
How about Rauf having a face-to-face seminar for the Taliban wing of Shariah, educating them that sawing off a woman’s nose and ears is an extremist distortion of Islam? The face on Time is the face of Afghan women who fear that the U.S. with its Judeo-Christian based laws will abandon them.
And then there’s Iran, where Ashraf Kalhori has been imprisoned for two years, awaiting burial up to her neck and stoning to death for the preposterous crime of committing adultery all by herself. There’s no mention of the suffering of Kalhori on the imam’s website, much less any effort by him to help her.
Here’s a thought. Rauf could turn his fleet of lawyers loose from litigating on behalf of his Manhattan mosque to file a brief on behalf of Kalhori in the Iranian court. The last time we checked, there aren’t any American women or girls about to be stoned by Americans.
While he’s at it, he could implore our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to have the State Department do a tad more than just urge Iran to change its method of executing innocent women. Surely America’s self-proclaimed champion of women’s rights can take time from transporting the legalized slaughter of unborn women to other nations.
Since Rauf uses Jesus Christ to support the roots of “true” Islam, he ought to study the Master in action when He stopped a mob intent on stoning a woman allegedly “taken in adultery.” He did so by confronting them with the Mosaic Law they were perverting in their craven effort to trap Christ between a stone and a hard place. Christ stepped between the helpless woman and the mob. He didn’t waste His time and her life educating people far removed from the practice of stoning.
As a rejoinder to those who will no doubt point to non-Muslim men in America who’ve killed or maimed their wives and daughters, consider: The evil cowards may try to hide behind an insanity defense, but American law does not allow them to hide behind “honor” in the name of our God.
Jed Skillman brings up more great points in his American Thinker article “The Monument at Ground Zero“:
My point, rather, is this: Those who erected that statue intended the image of Columbus to reflect and honor the noble characteristics of Vision, Courage, and Resolve. They intended it to be viewed as symbol of the power of right idea and inspired enlightenment as a direct challenge to ignorance and superstition. And for quite a while, the statue of Columbus stood as a representation of those very things. But then we arrived at the era of postmodern Liberalism, and out of the classrooms and intellectual enclaves came political correctness, revisionist history, and the image of The Ugly American. Things changed, or were made to change. Immediately following World War II, there seemed to be a deep need in some to take a little of the shine off the U.S. The United States was no longer depicted as a beacon to mankind but as a plundering bully that needed to be cut down to size. To some in this country — and every year, hordes of them come out of the woodwork around October 12 — the image of Christopher Columbus was made to represent the exact opposite of Freedom, Enterprise, and the power of Mind.
Interesting, isn’t it, how a monument erected to noble ideals can be remade instead into a symbol of “genocide and oppression”?
Let us now consider another monument, recently approved by state and local leaders to be built in lower Manhattan, a block from the hole in the ground known as “Ground Zero.”
Less than nine years after the 9/11 attack — the “Day America Will Never Forget” — state and city officials in New York have cleared the way for a proposed fifteen-story mosque, or Islamic “culture center,” just paces away from the hole. While nothing has yet been built on the actual site of Ground Zero, the mosque zipped through zoning and landmark hearings untouched by city and state bureaucrats and unscathed by citizen protests. New York Mayor Richard Bloomberg and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo were both early supporters of the project. Much of official media sees nothing wrong or disrespectful about it. Words like “insensitive”, “tacky,” and “in poor taste” have had no place in the conversation, nor have words like “vile” and “obscene.” In the minds of our current officialdom, the issue is one of America’s lack of religious freedom and tolerance — and officialdom is all about tolerance of religion, don’t you know.
So, here it is: To the American Left, this mosque represents a gooey dose of feel-good inclusiveness. It provides a platform for them to lecture and talk down to the public on the subject of America’s perceived moral shortcomings while at the same time allowing them to act as enablers for a religion including many members who wish for the destruction of America. It’s a win/win.
Well, here’s what that mosque will truly represent: To Islamist fanatics, it will represent a victory over what they perceive as a corrupt and complacent America. To them, America is a “weak horse”; we can be had, and official approval of this mosque just nine years after the slaughter at this particular location serves as living proof.
But to us regular citizens, living in the burroughs, across the Hudson, or out here in flyover country, driving our seven-year-old cars and happy to have our families together, that mosque represents the dangerous fecklessness of the Left. It is another symptom of timidity when common sense is called for. It is the disease of the Arizona border issue spread to New York City. That mosque will stand as a testament for every modern liberal who never missed a chance to call Ronald Reagan a “warmonger” but finds Islam a “religion of peace.” Additionally, if actually built, it will be a testament to shortsighted Islamic overreach. Erected as a chip-on-the-shoulder challenge to the United States, it will sooner or later be knocked flat.
No one contemplating this building as they pass on their way to pay respects at Ground Zero will have to have lost loved ones that day to understand the meaning of that building. We all know that not just New York was attacked, but all of America. And we all will see this building as an insult to the three thousand people who were crushed or burned alive that September 11. This mosque, at fifteen stories tall, will memorialize two hundred souls per floor. And every brick, every stone will represent Progressive Liberalism’s astonishing preference to defend everyone else’s position, but not ours.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.