The General Manager of Al-Arabiya Television-Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid-Says Bad Idea


JihadWatch h/t:

The General Manager of Al-Arabiya television, Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, didn’t get the memo about how he should be crying victimization and bigotry. “A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?,” by Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid in Asharq Alawsat, August 16 (thanks to all who sent this in):

[…] I cannot imagine that Muslims want a mosque on this particular site, because it will be turned into an arena for promoters of hatred, and a symbol of those who committed the crime. At the same time, there are no practicing Muslims in the district who need a place of worship, because it is indeed a commercial district. Is there a side that is committed to this mosque? The fact is that in the news reports there are names linked to this project that costs 100 million dollars!

The sides enthusiastic for building the mosque might be building companies, architect houses, or politicized groups that want suitable investments?! I do not know whether the building applicant wants a mosque whose aim is reconciliation, or he is an investor who wants quick profits. This is because the idea of the mosque specifically next to the destruction is not at all a clever deed. The last thing Muslims want today is to build just a religious center out of defiance to the others, or a symbolic mosque that people visit as a museum next to a cemetery….

This Comparison Would Work-IF IT WERE TRUE! (Tomothy McVeigh and Christiantiy)

This is a myth that reverberates in the liberal community, never seeing the light of day. Here I will post what CNN’s Ali Velshi said, and then post a caller to the Michael Medved show and his repeating the same thing:

NewsBusters h/t:

He then launched into a short explanation of the 1st Amendment’s protection of religious liberty, echoing, in a way, his colleague Roland Martin’s constitutional defense of the mosque on Tuesday night:

VELSHI: Did you know that, as an American citizen, you have two freedoms granted by the First Amendment of the Constitution, when it comes to religion? The first part is known as the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause essentially says the government can’t pass laws that will establish an official religion. This is commonly interpreted as the separation of church and state. The second one is the Free Exercise Clause, and it prevents the government from interfering with or controlling a person’s practice of his or her religion. Religious freedom is an absolute right in this country, and it includes the right to practice any religion, or no religion at all, for all Americans.

After briefly touching on how many of the early American colonists came to North America for religious freedom, the CNN anchor moved on to his morally relativistic argument:

VELSHI: Suppose our government leaders or New York state leaders do step in, in some capacity, whether official or non-official, and assist in moving the mosque elsewhere. Then what? What kind of precedent does that set? Timothy McVeigh was raised Catholic. Do we then entertain petitions of moving Catholic churches away from the Oklahoma bombing site? I’m sure you’re thinking it sounds ridiculous, but ask yourself, is it ridiculous because Catholicism is familiar to you, or, is your argument that what he did was different, or is your argument that Timothy McVeigh didn’t kill in the name in Allah?

…(read more)…


Medved Shoots Down A Few Liberal Mantras from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

Human Events Shot This Down — again — many years ago in their article “Timothy McVeigh was not a ‘Christian’ terrorist,” (Human Events, May 6, 2002 by Lofton, John). But the Left likes to attack straw-men. That is they set up a false premise as if its true then they attack it… all the while their opponants are waiting on the sidelines for them to stop circular thinking and engage the world. Here are some of the past contributors to the Liberal Mantra:

  • Objecting to Muslims and Islam being blamed for terrorism, Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation Of Islam, has said, according to the,Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service (9/17/01): “Timothy McVeigh was from a Christian nation . . and nobody said the Christian Timothy McVeigh, they said Timothy McVeigh.”
  • The Boston Herald (10/07/01) quotes convicted rapist/boxer Mike Tyson as saying: “Religion can’t be defined from one single person’s action. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian.”
  • The Providence Journal-Bulletin (9/18/01) quotes Reem Alkurdi, a Muslim, as saying, Timothy McVeigh was a Christian-American.” But, nobody is blaming “all the Christian-Americans.”
  • The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (9/18/01) quotes Suleiman Badwan, a Muslim, as saying: “Don’t target me. . . . Tim McVeigh was a Christian … and he still blew up a federal building.”
  • The Denver Post (9/16/01) quotes Imam Tali Eid of the Islamic Center of New England in Quincy, Mass., as saying, “‘[A]t the time of McVeigh I haven’t seen any minister or priest’ having to defend his faith because McVeigh was a Christian.”
  • The Manchester Union Leader (9/12/01) quotes Shuja U. Saleem, who’s on the board of the Islamic Society of Greater Manchester, as saying that even though McVeigh was a Christian, “nobody points a finger at Christianity.”
  • The Minnesota Daily student newspaper (9/25/01) quotes Sarah Schadegg as saying, “Timothy McVeigh was a Christian but we didn’t label him the Christian bomber.”
  • The Canadian newspaper The Record (9/24/01), in Kitchner-Waterloo, quotes the mayor of Kitchner, Carl Zehr, as saying, “We don’t condemn Christianity because Timothy McVeigh was a Christian.”
  • The Los Angeles New Times newspaper (9/20/01) quotes Naji Harden, president of the Islamic Center of Hawthorne’s board of trustees, as saying, “The bomber of the Oklahoma federal building was a Christian, but we didn’t hear people singling out Christians.”
  • An article in USA Today (11/7/01) says, of many Muslims interviewed, that “several mentioned Timothy McVeigh. The media, they say, did not call McVeigh a Christian terrorist, but simply a terrorist.”
  • Nationally syndicated editorial cartoonist Mike Peters, whose cartoons appear in many newspapers, drew one cartoon labeling Timothy McVeigh as a Christian.

Dumb! Dumb dumb — dumb!



Some Historical Connections To The Ground-Zero Mosque Issue

PJTV h/t:

Just One Minute has an excellent post in regards to the Ground-Zero Mosque, here is the end to his post:

We were attacked by Muslim extremists; this mosque would be a powerful symbol of victory for extremists, it may be financed by extremists, and it may be that, regardless of the motivations of the founder, it will be one day be run by extremists.

If the imam seriously wants reconciliation and bridge-building, he should relocate.  If he wants to give offense (as is his right), he should stay on his current course, and we will see how the debate unfolds.

Personally, I doubt he can raise the money.  Any investor will be calling attention to himself, his family, his business associates, and all past deals, all of which will go under a microscope.  If there is a hint of a whiff of a suggestion of a link to extremists, we will read about nothing else.  Who needs the publicity?

THE DEBATE SO FAR:  From the cacophony I hear my people from Jersey: “Yo, fool, reconcile yourself to this!”  Yeah, I got something for you to tolerate right here, buddy.”

My main man, Chris Christie, punted; I guess he doesn’t have the body to tap dance.

LET’S PUT ALL THE ‘PC’ EGGS IN ONE BASKET… Maybe they can complete the mosque quickly enough that it will be available to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during his NYC trial.

OUCH!

One should not miss my posts on this either:

Tearing Down That Which No One Believes-The Left and the Ground Zero Mosque

This line of defense for a building that was hit with debris and body parts is telling. The Left sets up non-sequiturs and straw-men and tears them down. Not to mention their seemingly un-liberal or feminist ways. NewsBusters h/t:

Charles Kruthammer and some Islamic columnists as well as Dennis Prager show this idea of hallowed ground in action Here are Muslim’s Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah:

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

Krauthammer:

That’s why Disney’s 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It’s why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It’s why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign…

…Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history — perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi — yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want — but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz — and no mosque at Ground Zero….

Prager:

However, even after these erudite ideas founded in common sense, logic, and history, you still have people responding like the video att he top and this response to me from a FaceBook friend:

The “hallowed ground” of which you speak is home to a strip club and an OTB…sounds like you’re full of…non-sequiturs.

http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

At this sites link you can see these pictures (and more):

I responded in two separate posts thusly:

Those were in place before 9/11, plus, 19 strippers didn’t fly planes into the Towers. (Non-sequitur: you proved my point, guys carrying Qur’ans not whips and chains or cherry flavored undies attacked us.) 3,000 people were killed by people doing it in the name of Islam. In fact, part of the reason they attacked was because of these gentlemen clubs, so I would rather have more of those and less of mosques to foment radical religion. So there should be — like other places where tragic events happen — a buffer zone for sensibilities. That building (besides being funded by “funny money” and being headed up by an Imam that said we were partly responsible for 9/11. There are other places for him to build a Mosque and for conservatives to bury Dems by their support of him as more quotes and radical positions come out. But a building where parts of human remains and pieces of jet were found, is unsupportable. Hell, even Howard Stern gets it. But I love it…. Dems are dying on this:

http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2010/08/good-news-in-the-bad-and-crazy/

and,

B[y] the way, two more moderate Muslim’s have come out against the Ground-Zero Mosque. I have posted a few of their comments here:

[I] recommend their entire article. You have a choice. Support moderate (reformational) Muslims like you did during the Iranian disputes, or support a more radical version thereof. NO ONE (not Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, or the like) has said Muslim’s do not have the right to practice there religion freely. To say any different is a red-herring. To say people are trying to restrict Constitutional rights is a non-sequitur. I suggest you and others here support these moderate Muslims. These are the voices of bridges and peace, not this mega-mosque Imam.

These pictures prove nothing in the face of such refined arguments. As I already said, 19 strippers didn’t perform these acts. The Hamburgler and Ronald McDonald didn’t plan these attacks in the name of burger wars. Nor did 19 drunk Irish-men kill 3,000 on 9/11. There are no connections with those pictures nor the argument at hand. There is no Constitutional premise under attack… whatsoever. You can see this play out between a Democrat and Bill O’Reilly (the entire exchange if you wish can be found HERE):

Clarity in thought should be the highest principle. As usual, it doesn’t come from across the fence (and as a fellow blogger aptly points out, a  few on our side as well).

Two More Truly Moderate Muslims Come Out About Intentions of the Mosque Site in NY

Two more Muslims have publicly come out against the project. I wish to hat tip Michael Medved on this find. Remember there was an interview done with another Muslim reformist, whom are under-supported by the Left.



Mischief in Manhattan: We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation

By Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, Citizen Special

….New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it’s not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. 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”

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the “Cordoba Initiative” and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

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.

[….]

As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.

[….]

The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.

If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America’s Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill….

…(read more)…

What is a Sacred Place Defined As?

In this article Charles Krauthammer tackles this idea and shows throughout ours and others cultural histories this is a well known “law.” Charles:

A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).

To say this is about religious freedom and Muslim’s have just as much right as anyone else to practice their religion are non-sequiturs.

Sacred Ground and History Combined with the Common Sense from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

Charles Krauthammer continues his position:

When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there — and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.

That’s why Disney’s 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It’s why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It’s why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign…

[….]

…Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history — perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi — yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

Which makes you wonder about the goodwill behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, “I’m not a politician. . . . The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.”

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want — but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz — and no mosque at Ground Zero….

…(read more)…

This post should be understood in the context as well that “part of the landing gear from the first plane to hit the Twin Towers rammed through the roof of the Burlington Coat factory, which is now going to be the ground-zero mosque.” Parts of people were found on the roof of the building as well.

Read more: RPT 600ft Away