Guardian

“Fitna” from the Guardian to Ground Zero


This is co-written by Armaros and Medusa

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, seen here attending a conference in Indonesia in 2007 which included members of Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Party of Liberation) - a radical terrorist movement that seeks 'implementation of pure Islamic doctrine' and the creation of an Islamic caliphate in Central Asia

Once again Chris McGreal (who we exposed previously here) puts out the Guardian’s message to its blind faithful when he unquestioningly accepts that Faisal Abdul Rauf, the prime mover behind the drive to construct an Islamic “cultural centre” and mosque within sight and sound of Ground Zero in New York, was being honest and open with his audience at the Council for Foreign Affairs in New York.

True, McGreal admits that Faisal Rauf’s plan is “controversial”, (although the 30,000 people who gathered at the site to protest against it on 9/11 would almost certainly call that an understatement of their feelings and opinions) but everything about McGreal’s article, from the smiling, apparently benign face of Rauf at the top of it to the unquestioning repetition of Rauf’s blatant lies within it screams “al-taqiyya” to any knowledgeable person who reads it.

Does McGreal give us any indication that Faisal Rauf is being economical with the actualité?   Not at all and we explore his article further below.  This may be because McGreal is a Guardianista to the marrow of his bones, who is primed to ignore anything which jars with the Guardian World View.   For him to admit in print that Faisal Rauf has been dishonest in his dealings about the mosque with the people of New York and has been callous and heartless in his resolute pursuit of his plan – in light of the protests of the grieving families and friends of the dead of 9/11 – would certainly mean that he would then have to question almost everything the Guardian now stands for, if, that is, he didn’t lose his job.

McGreal has a long record in writing biased rubbish about Israel, but he is first among equals in regard to the mosque controversy with Michael Tomasky, who appears to be leading the Guardian’s efforts to demonise the opponents of the Ground Zero mosque as “racists”, “Islamophobes”, “right wingers” and other sundry terms of endearment which the Guardian reserves for those who oppose its radical ideology.

Before we enter the distorted world of Guardian reportage, let’s recall several salient facts about Faisal Rauf and the developers of the Ground Zero Mosque which McGreal, Tomasky et al choose not to share with their readership:

Faisal Rauf is on record as blaming America for the carnage of 9/11 .

Rauf has said, We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.”

Rauf has also has suggested that the use of terrorism and suicide bombings is understandable.

Rauf is also on record as praising the Iranian regime during the brutal crackdown in the summer of 2009.

Rauf has stated his wish for the U.S. to become a Sharia Compliant” country that is “Islamic” in nature – adding that, in his mind, the U.S. is already more or less “compliant”. This is no spiritual idealism as some may put it on the left. This is part of a plan on the part of radical Islam to subvert the West as noted by high level security and intelligence officials from both political parties.

The mosque developer Sharif Al Gamal has a criminal record for assault and battery. He is known for issuing open threats (rather than the smooth veiled ones to the American people about what will happen to them if they refuse to allow his project to go ahead), has been seen even exalting the virtues of violence on Twitter a few weeks ago . He is also said to have made a threatening phone call to Raheel Raza, a Canadian Muslim women’s rights advocate who spoke out against the Mosque project.

The funder behind the developer, SOHO Properties Hisham Elzanaty was a donor to the Hamas-linked Holy Land Foundation in 1999.  He is under investigation for insurance fraud and has been found guilty of Medicaid fraud

Rauf is also a slum landlord and tax evader who was supposed to appear in court today in New Jersey to answer for the squalid and unhealthy conditions in his rental properties. He also declared on his IRS form that his NYC apartment was a Mosque seating 500 thus claiming “house of worship” status.

Today we learn that Sharif Al Gamal has been evicted from his office space.  SOHO Properties owed months of back rent.

Another revelation surfaced about the mosque planners two days ago, one which, in a normal honest environment would have been the coup de grace to this contentious project:

A close associate and co-founder of ASMA with Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan has been found to be a 911 Troother.  Imam Khan was actually ministering at the temporary mosque currently operating out of the property.

Yet to read McGreal’s account of  Rauf’s speech to the (no doubt open-mouthed and adoring) Council for Foreign Affairs, you could be forgiven for believing that Rauf and his motives are as pure as the driven snow and that McGreal is among his admiring supporters:

McGreal reports that Rauf is “exploring all options” and that “everything is on the table” in the face of the protests.  Readers should hang on to that thought which is returned to below.  McGreal tells us about Rauf’s “frustration” that radical extremists had hijacked the pro-mosque group’s discourse, and reports (presumably without batting an eyelid) that no doubt as a result of that “frustration” Rauf’s statement that moving the mosque to a less contentious location could prompt a “violent backlash” from some Muslims abroad. Never once does McGreal raise questions about Rauf’s contradictory claims that his intentions are peaceful while simultaneously warning that if the Mosque isn’t built Muslims around the world may commit acts of violence in protest.  So, let’s summarize this argument:  Folks against the Mosque are bigots because they’re concerned that the Islamic center may promote violent, radical Islam.  But, unless we build the Mosque, Muslims may launch terrorist attacks in response.

McGreal goes on to tell us that Rauf gave the council “his pledge” that he really is focused on solving it.   Anyone used to dealing with Islamists would know this to be bare-faced al-taqiyya, but apparently not McGreal.

He reports Rauf as saying that there is “a need” for a mosque within sight of Ground Zero, but, again, there are no pearls of wisdom – conjecture even – from McGreal as to why that might be.

Indeed, per a new report by MEMRI, prominent progressive Arab Muslims have contradicted Rauf on the necessity of building the Mosque:

Saudi journalist ‘Adel Al-Tarifi stated that it is unwise to build an Islamic center near Ground Zero, because it is an affront to American sentiment and it generates tension between Muslims and non-Muslims in the U.S. He called upon Muslims living in the U.S. to shake off the hostility that their countries of origin bear towards the U.S.:

“It becomes a question of wisdom… and social sensitivity. We must ask Imam Feisal [Abdul Rauf] and his friends: Why do you want to build an Islamic center that will cost $100 million if it hurts the feelings of the Americans?… “I am not denigrating the efforts of the imam and his friends to correct the distorted image of Islam. But when the project creates tension in the relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in America, it is the opposite effect [that is achieved].”

Kuwaiti liberal Khalil ‘Ali Haidar criticized the Muslims living in the West for being hostile to their host societies, for espousing ideological and political Islam, for saying one thing while believing another, and for speaking in two voices, saying one thing to the Westerners and another to their fellow Muslims – which causes the Westerners to fear the Cordoba House project and Islam in general:

“The Americans’ apprehensions regarding Cordoba Mosque… stem from their re-emerging fear of political, organized, jihadist, and takfiri Islam, which is still very strong in the Arab world. They fear that what the American Muslims are concealing in their hearts may be different from what they are saying out loud, especially considering that Muslim men and women in Europe, no less than their co-religionists in the Arab world, are sympathetic to ideological Islam and extremist sheikhs, [and tend towards] hostility to the West and anti-democratic notions. “It is rare to find even one American or European Muslim who engages in self-criticism or defends freedom of religion and thought in the Muslim and Arab world, who supports a persecuted author or intellectual facing trial in some Muslim country, or who defends a new and modern perception of Islam. The Arab preachers, writers and academics who [address the Western Muslims] in their writings, or visit the Western countries, [only] intensify the extremism of the Western and American Muslims, and speak of nothing but the ‘Zionist lobby,’ ‘the Palestinian problem,’ ‘Neo-Christians,’ and ‘the American failure in Iraq and Afghanistan’!

Also of note, from the same MEMRI report:

Dr. ‘Omar Al-Zant, a columnist for the Egyptian daily Al-Masri Al-Yawm, compared the religious tolerance in New York to the intolerance in Saudi Arabia, where immigrants live in isolated communities and feel no sense of belonging:

“The [New York City] Council has unanimously approved the construction of the mosque, thereby proving that New York is indeed the capital of pluralism and tolerance… It is the city that hosts the largest number of people of various nationalities, religions, sects and creeds, who live together in relative harmony and accord… The pluralism and openness that prevail there generate a state of creative chaos: views meet, merge, and interact, the ultimate result being original and creative thinking.

“The importance of such interaction becomes clearer when you compare [the situation in New York] to the situation in the country that was the origin of most of the 9/11 terrorists, namely Saudi Arabia. This country [too] has a large population [of foreigners] from all over the world, but unlike many of the immigrants in the U.S., [the members of] this population can never see themselves as a part of their host country. They never develop a sense of belonging to the society in which they work, because the communities of exiles live in almost complete isolation. Pluralistic thinking is all but forbidden by law, whereas religious pluralism is non-existent. It is impossible to build a church anywhere, let alone a synagogue or a Buddhist or Hindu temple.”

Rauf seems to have resorted to the usual persecution narrative when he told ABC News on 12th September 2010 that the controversy had been used “for political purposes” and complained about the “growing Islamophobia” in the USA.    He probably smiled as he told the interviewer that the discourse had been “to a certain extent” hijacked by the radicals of both sides who had aggravated the problem.   I would lay odds that he did not include himself among them.

Let us now return to the main point which jars, and which shows Rauf’s alleged willingness to “explore all options” to be so much hot air and, yes, al-taqiyya.

McGreal tells us that when Rauf was asked why, when more than two-thirds of New Yorkers say that they want the mosque/Islamic centre to be built elsewhere, he would not do that, he professed to be worried about the headlines in the Muslim world, that Islam is under attack in America, that it would strengthen the radicals, etc, etc… and lead to violence.     This transparent and weak excuse is a colossal faux pas on Rauf’s part – and on the part of McGreal because again he makes no critical comment about it – for the following reasons:

Firstly because it is another veiled threat of violence against kufar unless Rauf gets his mosque/centre.  He is open about it and is apparently either unaware or does not care that it does not show his coreligionists in a good light;

Secondly, Rauf’s refusal to move the project elsewhere makes a complete nonsense of his “pledge” above – that “everything is on the table”, or that he really is “focused on solving it.”   A move to a less contentious location is the best solution for both sides, which a more sensitive person would realise.  Rauf, however, will not budge, although the millionaire Donald Trump offered Elzanaty a price for the land which is far above its worth. No doubt the Council was so hypnotised that it failed to ask him for precise details of what exactly is on the table and exactly how he intended to “solve it” – McGreal certainly does not mention such things – but perhaps readers here can square this circle.

Does Rauf care about the grief of the relatives and friends of those murdered by Islamists on 9/11 or is he more interested in making a name for himself among Muslims in America and elsewhere?   It seems that he is trying to rewrite the truth about this tragedy of 9/11 and claim it as a “victory” for Islamists/Muslims.

That this is blatantly the case is underscored by his case choice of name for the project – the Cordoba Initiative – which is chilling.   If Rauf is really interested in “solving it” (fully, and not only to the advantage of Muslims whilst riding roughshod over the citizens of New York) why has he chosen such a contentious name?    Again, McGreal ignores this, no doubt because it would open dozens of cans of worms for the Guardian.

Rauf is also on record (CNN interview) as saying that space may be made available in the centre for the use of other faith groups.   This is yet more al-taqiyya but of a different order because it would seem like a lie rather than mere twisting of facts, as The Koran forbids Muslims from making common cause with or befriending kufar (see 005.051 at the link).

However, the offer is further undermined because the centre is envisaged to contain a mosque and therefore it will become holy ground for Muslims, and other faiths are not allowed to use it for prayer or other activities.  (Jews and others are not allowed to visit their holiest place in Jerusalem because the Al Aqsa mosque was built there, over the site of the temple, although they do now have access to the Western wall).   Typical of the furious reaction even to the offer of sharing space with Christians and other faiths until their own prayer room could be completed, was that of the Islamic Society at City University, in London.

Rauf has woven a web of deceit, half-truths, and promises he has no intention of keeping about his project near Ground Zero.   This is why this mosque project is a perfect example of fitna, “stirring up trouble” for the cause of Islamism so that it can make advances in the fog of the chaos its silver-tongued spokesmen have themselves created.

This mosque, if it goes ahead will be the tallest in the USA today and will tower over the Ground Zero memorial.  It will also be the biggest on the East Coast with a prayer room slated to be seating between 1000-2000 worshippers, and yet Rauf would have us believe that this is not a mosque!

McGreal’s article, with its total lack of critical appraisal of the issues, is yet more proof that the Guardian is a tool of fitna and nothing illustrates this better in the Guardian’s recent article history than its coverage of the NYC Ground Zero Mosque controversy.

20 replies »

  1. A tour de force, Armaros and Medusa! Great detail.

    It was mentioned on the BBC – Radio 4 – that the building was damaged when the landing gear of one of the 9/11 planes landed on it. I imagine that it is, or should be, therefore fully part of “Ground Zero”.

    “Our” serial murderers Fred and Rose West had their house demolished because of the atrocities committed within it. I don’t think they murdered (even!) 30 people. I believe the site is now a park or garden.

    The following, I hope, could be read in conjunction with your great article:

    The Role of Da’wah in the Islamic Onslaught against Civilization by David Bukay

  2. Bravo, both of you, for this well-researched and insightful piece.

    Rauf wants the US to become “sharia-compliant” (weasel words, when he really means that he wants the US to become a sharia state) and he is not alone in wanting the country in which he lives to give up its own values and pluralistic way of life to return to the Dark Ages so that he can make a name for himself for having begun the disintegration. The UK’s main Muslim spokesman would agree with him:

    Mohamed Abdul Bari, the chair of the Muslim Council of Britain, is on record as not wanting Muslims to adopt too many British practices; Britain should espouse many more Muslim traditions, he says.

    His aim, he said when he took up his job, will be to encourage Britain to adopt more Muslim ways, as well as to encourage Muslims to be good British citizens. He thinks that non-Muslim Britons would benefit from having arranged marriages and espousing stronger family values; they would also do well to stop drinking and gambling and to follow many of the teachings of Islam.

    “Arranged marriages are a good idea. These are not forced on children but it is a way of parents helping to guide their children to make the right choices. In youth, you are very emotional; you just go on instinct. Elders can look at compatibility, background, intentions. It is a wonderful system….”

    Really? Would Dr Humayra Abedin agree with him? Her story can be found at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/forced-marriage-i-cant-forgive-or-forget-what-they-did-to-me-1732170.html

    And if marriages are not forced on children (and note the weasel words here – at what age is a Muslim not a child?) why does there have to be a Forced Marriage Unit to help Asian men and women at risk at the Foreign and Colonial Office.

    According to their web page at http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/when-things-go-wrong/forced-marriage/ the unit gave advice or support to 1682 cases in 2009. 86 percent of these cases involved females and 14 percent involved males.

    So Bari is either totally out of touch when he says that Muslims are not forced into marriage (in which case he shouldn’t be a spokesman for his people) or he is deliberately trying to mislead us. My money is on the latter, given the statistics.

  3. Isn’t it a sign of mental illness when a person persists in lies even when he/she has been shown to be lying?

    Sceptic that I am I take even the statements of the detractors of the slimy Faisal Rauf with sacks full of salt – I believe them to be making the best of a bad job – America spoke and she is more powerful than they so they had to listen.

    And once again the UK could take leaf after leaf out of America’s book in standing up to Islamic supremacist demands. We are gagged and bound by our laws (which Islamists use to their advantage since the courts, the government and the police melt into their collective boots at the mere threat of a backlash from them) so anything like the 9/11 Ground Zero protest (say in honour of 7/7) could never happen here in the UK.

    Islamists are like bullies anywhere, stand up to them and they quail. They may make a lot of noise, but I believe that the 9/11 protest will fatally undermine Rauf’s little scam.

    But the UK and the rest of Europe are still in grave danger from Islamism.

  4. I have heard that City University, in London, has finally made a stand against the Islamist thugs at its establishment, see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/rosie-waterhouse-will-the-voice-of-moderate-muslims-be-heard-at-city-2014822.html

    If City University was brave enough to deregister its Islamic society for all sorts of infringements of university rules, but mainly because it continued to contravene university regulations about inclusiveness and it behaved threateningly towards one of the lecturers on the MA programme, why on earth cannot University College London, University of East London, London Metropolitan and others?

    I am told that City refused to allow the Islamic Society to hold social functions which resulted in the enforced segregation of men from women, except for prayer and I know that this meant that Eidh celebrations last year were held off-campus.

    Three rousing cheers for City University. The government and the police could do with following their example in dealing with extremism.

  5. “racists”, “Islamophobes”, “right wingers”

    The casual and frequent application of these three words to describe anyone who disagrees to even a small extent is beginning to render them meaningless.

    When some can’t tell the difference between an opinion and racism, we’re in very murky waters.

  6. Update:

    Russian chess tycoon offers $10M for Park 51 site

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/09/checkmate.html

    MOSCOW – The eccentric Russian head of the World Chess Federation (FIDE) on Thursday announced a 10-million-dollar bid to buy the site of a controversial mosque project near Ground Zero in New York.

    Kirsan Ilyumzhinov said he had sent a letter on FIDE’s behalf to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg “with an offer to buy this land for 10 million dollars,” the RIA Novosti news agency reported.

    The land near the site of the September 11, 2001, attacks, would be used for an international chess centre and academy, Ilyumzhinov said.

  7. “..When some can’t tell the difference between an opinion and racism, we’re in very murky waters…”

    Penny most of these knuckleheads are in a continuous emotional state, rather than a reasoning state. That being the case, it’s impossible to expect anything different from them.

    armaros, I hope the Russian has made this wretch an offer he can’t refuse. If he backed down it’d be really fitting, too, given what Denis MacEoin has written in his paper “Music, Chess and Other Sins” (see http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/MusicChessAndOtherSins.pdf ) about the influence of Islamism in British education. MacEoin writes:

    “…Superficialities like what sort of headscarf should be worn by girls or whether or not it is permitted to play chess have been allowed to camouflage much greater dissonance between Muslim schools and society at large… and

    ” ..When a fatwa bank linked from a school tells a boy that dreaming of playing cricket for Pakistan is forbidden because it is a sacrilegious waste of time, or stipulates that reading Harry Potter books is prohibited; or another argues that pupils must not read ‘shameless novels and fiction books’, that Ludo, Monopoly, draughts and chess are forbidden because ‘the Holy Prophet… stated the person who plays chess, is like the one who dips his hands in the blood of a swine (pig)’, and condemns ‘the evil system of the Western culture’; or when a site run by an educational institution writes an article (among many) stating: ‘We find that the whole world is obsessed with the kufr [unbelieving] idea of freedom, i.e. freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc. In modern schools and universities, we observe independence, free expression and secular thinking being encouraged. This idea of freedom, “It’s my life, I’ll do what I want” is a predominant, underlying theme of today’s music. It is being used as a means for drilling those modern ideologies that are totally contrary to Islamic Shariah and values, into the minds of Muslims. One should abstain from evil audacities such as listening to music’; and when a graduate of the last institution speaks of the ‘evils of music’, calls the Royal College of Music ‘satanic’, and claims that music is the way in which Jews spread ‘the Satanic web’ to corrupt young Muslims—how are we to respond? Do we just take this on the chin and praise Islamic cultural variance?”

    I really do hope that it happens.

  8. I agree. It seems the issue is a win win for these creeps

    They will either build a mega mosque at Ground 0 and be celebrated as the greatest heroes since the “magnificent 19” or will make a killing flipping the property using the mosque as the extortion stick.

    Should the ladder occur, the loser will be the developer Sharif Al Gamal who invested his time and reputation in this.

    He will never build as much as a doghouse in NY or the East Coast.

    The NY real estate community hates him like the plague. He has caused a circus which is taking away attention from the market.

    Rauf is the agitator who caused this Fitna and again whether he succeeds or not, he can claim victory or “martyrdom” (in a political sense).

    He has overstepped every conceivable line with his CNN statements threatening violence which he surely be inciting himself if his plans fail.
    Like with the cartoons which did not “cause” riots until Danish clerics went on an agitprop tour in the ME inciting the riots by showing cartoons which were never part of the Danish list.

    These are very bad people and the mosque is the greatest test for America since 911. Few understand this as they are under the impression that the mosque will make muslims love America when the opposite its true. It will be seen as weakness and will invite more Sharia creep and other similar insults.

  9. I’ve taken a rather simple approach to this issue.

    It was, I believe, Imam Rauf who was the first to link his proposed mosque/centre to the tragedy of 9/11. This tells me that regardless of the fact that its site is two blocks away, the intention has been clarified by Rauf and is not, as I’ve read elsewhere, a bigted flight of fancy on the part of the protestors.

    As there are many mosques throughout the USA, the right to practice Islam as a religion cannot be under threat. As there are many mosques in New York, it cannot really be a desperately needed building either. Americans and New Yorkers have already demonstrated their tolerance towards Islam.

    Imam Rauf has said that his intentions are kindly; he wants to build bridges. However, his proposal is doing anything but – to my mind it is surprising that an intelligent man such as Rauf didn’t envisage opposition.
    It seems to me quite simple: Imam Rauf has a choice. Does he want to build bridges or build a mosque/centre? Whichever cause trumps the other is his overarching aim. What I feel is getting mixed up in the argument somewhere is that people aren’t seeing the distinction between ‘tolerance’ and ‘democracy’ or ‘rights’ and ‘is it right?’

    I also think the ‘muslim world will get angry’ comments are insightful. I have no idea how the ‘muslim world’ will react but amongst Rauf’s faux pas is this: in painting the ‘muslim world’ as a homogeonous blob of singular mindset and values he is, at a stroke, undoing the message of moderate muslims some of whom, even now, stand in opposition to his proposal. He has also undermined Obama and other leaders who have consistantly and publicly rejected the notion of a singular muslim world.

    In this statement, Rauf has rather painted himself as someone hostage to the ‘muslim world’, unable to stand up to their anger; unable to correct their perceptions or modify their responses with reason. As an Imam he should be able to make some attempt to temper the temper, not just sit back and behave as if he’s utterly helpfless. In short, he should set an example of ‘bridge building’.

    He’s making a right dog’s dinner of this!!

  10. Whichever way the decision goes, the Ground Zero Mosque has already dealt a nasty blow to the Islamist project in America.

    Ordinary Americans who were unaware of, or indifferent to, Islamocreep have now seen the contempt in which Islamists hold the West. The lack of respect for non-Muslim sensitivities and values has been exposed, and experienced up close and personal in all its arrogant ugliness.

    The witterings of Chris McGreal are the despairing cries of a man who knows he’s lost a major battle. Whether the mosque is built or not, the Muslim question is now front-page news, and fight against Isalmic fundamentalisn in the West has entered mainstream consciousness. This is the best thing that could have happened, and we should be grateful that Rauf has overreached himself.

  11. I am, Andy Gill!

    I wish our craven government would stand up to Islamocreep and the British people were less apathetic about it. I can’t imagine 40,000 turning out to protest peacefully against an Islamic/ist project in the UK; and given the Islamists’ far too ready default to lawfare and our laws being sympathetic to it, the courts would be kept busy for years.

  12. PS: to armaros, re Sharif Al Gamal – what name and what reputation? This wretch is an utter and complete thug!

  13. The “honorable” Iman Rauf is a slum lord who failed to show up for his court date in Jersey City today. If he keeps it up there will be a bench warrant out for his arrest. There is a faction of Americans who are convinced that the rest of us are all intolerant racists—-they are becoming further marginalized. As time passes support against this mosque or muslim community center in a community without muslims is becoming more of a flash point. Apparently one of the Imans illustrious associates owes back rent on his offices in lower Manhattan to a tune of something like $30-40,0000….

    For a gesture which was supposed to build bridges Iman RauF is doing his best burning them. He has also drawn attention to himself and his less than “spiritual” real estate dealings.

    There is a famous line from from the movie Network that is beginning to seep into the equation for people I have contact with in re: to this matter (I will not generalize), to paraphrase….we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore…..

  14. The article makes an immediate reference to an Islamic “cultural centre” and mosque .

    Why the quotes around “cultural centre”? It says a lot about the authors’ attitude.

  15. No pretz it is proper usage of language.

    When you site a term used by someone else. For everybody who knows the story this is a mosque for those who want to hide than fact it is a “cultural center”.

  16. Pretzelberg, I can speak for my “attitude” alone – I cannot claim to speak for armaros’ Perhaps he will answer you himself if he can find the time:

    I believe that the 1000 seat mosque is the most important aspect of this perceived rabat, from which, Islam thinks it will declare its alleged supremacy by rubbing the noses of the bereaved of 9/11 in their “victory” and use it to spread the da’wah within sight and sound of the resting place of their dead. Being a mosque, it can never revert to anything else, and to call it a cultural centre is typical Islamist double-talk.

    According to Amir Taheri at http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/islam_center_eerie_echo_of_ancient_iRTMW6TprkULnaA1Nqi9xM

    “… The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word “raid”). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders.

    “After each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat — or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiders to eat and rest and facilities to train and prepare for future razzias. Later Muslim rulers used the tactic of ghazva to conquer territory in the Persian and Byzantine empires. After each raid, they built a rabat to prepare for the next razzia.

    “It is no coincidence that Islamists routinely use the term ghazva to describe the 9/11 attacks against New York and Washington. The terrorists who carried out the attack are referred to as ghazis or shahids (martyrs).

    “Thus, building a rabat close to Ground Zero would be in accordance with a tradition started by the Prophet. To all those who believe and hope that the 9/11 ghazva would lead to the destruction of the American “Great Satan,” this would be of great symbolic value…”

    This “cultural centre” has an area for prayer as well as other things. The modern day equivalent of “training for future raids” is probably a gym and having their brains melted by preachers of hatred.

    My “attitude” to this is admittedly rather more strident than it would be if a millionaire wanted to build a multi-storey casino and night club within sight and sound of Ground Zero. I would still be offended by that, but the owners and workers there would not be looking to force me to gamble there, would they? They would be a sight more honest than Faisal Rauf and far less threatening to my freedoms and would probably have given up their project long ago if it got the sort of reception I imagine it would.

    Rauf is trying far too hard to do this, which smacks of at least one hidden agenda, and he has overreached himself mightily.

    Jane Schlitz, I hope they throw him in jail.

  17. The building will comprise a mosque and an Islamic school, specializing in Sharia.

    Basically a sharia law school with a mosque on top of it 160m from GZ.

    From here Rauf will spread the “American Sharia”.