These are all the Blogs posted on Monday, 16, 2010.
Monday, 16 August 2010
Hamas Endorses Ground Zero Mosque
From the NYPost:
A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero -- insisting Muslims "have to build" it there.
"We have to build everywhere," said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization's chief on the Gaza Strip.
"In every area we have, [as] Muslim[s], we have to pray, and this mosque is the only site of prayer," he said on "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on WABC.
"We have to build the mosque, as you are allowed to build the church and Israelis are building their holy places."
Hamas, he added, "is representing the vast majority of the Arabic and Islamic world -- especially the Islamic side."
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who so far has not taken a position on the mosque, dismissed the endorsement.
"Hamas is a terrorist organization, and their views don't deserve any weight on anything," his spokesman said.
Zahar said Muslims around the world, including those who live in this country, are united in a common cause.
"First of all, we have to address that we are different as people, as a nation, totally different," he said.
"We already are living under the tradition of Islam.
"Islam is controlling every source of our life as regard to marriage, divorce, our commercial relationships," Zahar said.
"Even the Islamic people or the Muslims in your country, they are living now in the tradition of Islam. They are fasting; they are praying."
Politicians who previously had lots to say on the matter were not nearly as eager to discuss the latest development.
Despite his outspoken opposition to the building of a mosque so close to Ground Zero, Rep. Peter King (R-LI) said only, "I don't respond to Hamas."
Mayor Bloomberg, a strong supporter of the plan, declined comment through a spokesman.
Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the proposed mosque, and two other leaders of the plan who previously had commented extensively, were silent yesterday.
They did not respond to The Post's phone calls or e-mails about the Hamas endorsement.
Hamas first came up in the mosque debate earlier this summer when Abdul Rauf refused to describe the group as a terrorist organization -- despite the State Department listing that identifies it as such.
Tom Brown, a chief opponent of the mosque, said: "This is what we've been saying . . . Imam Rauf is a radical Muslim who will not call Hamas a terror group."
A retired firefighter who was a first responder on 9/11, Brown lost 100 of his FDNY friends at the Twin Towers.
"How much evidence do we need that this guy is a radical Muslim?" he asked.
"If Rauf really were a bridge builder and an interfaith guy and all the things he professes to be, he wouldn't be doing this to people."
Abdul Rauf raised eyebrows last week when he departed on a State Department-sponsored goodwill mission to the Middle East, despite concerns that the trip may be helping him with the mosque's $100 million fund-raising goal.
The Obama administration insisted the trip, reportedly with stops in Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Qatar, was strictly to improve understanding about Muslim communities in the United States.
But a London-based Arabic-language newspaper that interviewed Abdul Rauf reported that he said he would also collect money from Muslim and Arab nations around the world -- raising the possibility that the American government is helping him build contacts in oil-rich states.
Posted on 08/16/2010 7:01 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 16 August 2010
US Muslim Brotherhood Support Obama Remarks On Ground Zero Mosque
From the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report:
The US Muslim Brotherhood is strong supporting President Obama’s statement in support of of the right of Muslims to build the controversial Islamic center near the site of the 911 attacks. For example, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) issued the following statement:
Friday evening, at an iftar hosted at the White House, President Obama issued a clear statement that the rights of Muslims to practice their religion in America must be protected. President Obama spoke for the first time on the controversy surrounding the construction of “Cordoba House,” a proposed mosque and Islamic Center in New York City, New York. Some are calling this one of the most courageous acts taken by a president lately. …More than 100 Muslim leaders from around the world joined President Obama at Friday’s White House iftar, including ISNA President Dr. Ingrid Mattson and ISNA Vice President Imam Mohamed Magid. Muslim diplomats from around the world, political, religious, and community leaders were also in attendance at the dinner.ISNA President Dr. Ingrid Mattson states, “ISNA thanks the President for his strong and articulate support of the Muslim community and our rights here tonight. It was made clear that the right to religious freedom for all, including Muslim Americans, is supported by our President”…”ISNA is proud of the positive leadership shown by President Obama and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. There is more work to be done to protect the civil rights of Muslim Americans, and ISNA hopes elected officials across the country will join the President and Mayor to bravely protect those rights as well,” said Dr. Mattson.
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), also in attendance at the White House iftar dinner, concurred in its statement of support:
During his remarks at the White House’s annual iftar held last night, President Barack Obama stressed the central value of religious freedom, saying America should “treat everyone equal regardless” of religion. MPAC President Salam Al-Marayati along with intern Saaliha Khan were honored to be guests at the event. WATCH: President’s Speech at White House iftar READ: President’s Full Remarks at White House Ramadan Dinner President Obama pointed out that Thomas Jefferson was the first American President to host a White House iftar, in honor of Tunisian dignitaries over 200 years ago. He noted that Americans of various faiths – including Jews and Catholics – seeking to build their houses of worship have faced discrimination in the past, they were able to overcome those challenges and enriched our nation’s pluralism in the process. “The President’s made a historic speech in favor of religious freedom. He and Mayor Bloomberg have set the standard for other political leaders to preserve America’s open society,” said MPAC President Salam Al-Marayati. “The President landed a major blow against Al-Qaeda’s false narrative that America is at war with Islam. We hope that other religious and civic groups will stand behind the President’s commitment for openness and tolerance.” President Obama also mentioned that Muslim religious leaders have condemned violent extremism and that thousands of American Muslims proudly and bravely serve in our Armed Forces. MPAC intern Saaliha Khan, a student at Georgetown University, had the privilege of sitting at the President’s table. Al-Marayati and Khan thanked the President for his stand, reaffirmed the Muslim American community’s commitment to civic engagement, and committed to empowering more young Muslim American leaders to engage in public service in our nation’s capitol and around the country.
US media is also reporting that Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) director Nihad Awad expressed the hope that Obama’s remarks “will serve as encouragement to those who are challenging the rising level of Islamophobia in our society.”
A Hudson Institute report identifies all three organizations as important parts of the US Muslim Brotherhood.
Posted on 08/16/2010 8:22 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 16 August 2010
Harvard University fund sells all Israel holdings
In another blow to Israeli shares, the Harvard Management Company notified the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Friday that it had sold all its holdings in Israeli companies during the second quarter of 2010. No reason for the sale was mentioned. The Harvard Management Company manages Harvard University's endowment.
Posted on 08/16/2010 8:48 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 16 August 2010
Ground Zero Mosque is Part of Ideological War
Alternative history is a popular genre in American fiction and film. What if Lee had won at Gettysburg? What if Hitler got the Bomb before we did? What if the American Revolution had failed? These kinds of speculative, leading questions can also help us understand current events.
What if, during the height of the Cold War, President Eisenhower had been found to be a Communist? What if President Kennedy was a Stalinist? The answer to these questions is obvious: impeachment.
The United States fought a protracted decades-long ideological war against Communism. The entire population of the country was involved in this effort; the horrors, injustice, and brutality of Communism were commonly known as was the obvious superiority of our own democratic system in comparison to it.
Those few who publicly discuss the threat of Islam are often described as bigots or paranoids even after 9/11, Fort Hood, and thousands of successful and interdicted jihad attacks. The jihad forces fight a growing ideological war against the United States and the West but we do not respond in kind.
“Paranoid” is the word often used to describe such bell-ringers and critics but, as the saying goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they’re not out to get you.
Ignorance about Islam is far more prevalent and the fact that it should be so even ten years on from 9/11 is a devastating indictment of our culture, political and religious leadership, education system, and our connection with what we hold dear and true.
In the third Lord of the Rings movie Gandalf asks the steward of Gondor, “As steward, you are charged with the defense of this city. Where are Gondor’s armies?” We should ask the same question, where are the armies of the United States?
They fight two wars to prop up two Islamic states whose foundational legal code is Islam itself. The constitutions of Iraq (Article 2) and Afghanistan (Articles 1 and 2) affirm this. This means that the United States supports two Sharia law countries with the blood of our best and extraordinary amounts of national treasure even as our own economy falls.
There can be no more obviously antithetical system of laws than Islamic Sharia to that of our Constitution. American support of Sharia law is nothing short of tragic and self-destructive.
President Obama’s announcement of support for the Ground Zero mosque should come as no surprise. His fawning speech last year in Cairo, his bowing to the Saudi King, and his comments regarding “Arab and Pakistani Americans” in his autohagiography “Audacity of Hope” (p.261), “that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” “Them” in the quote refers to Arab and Pakistani Americans (adherents of Islam). Obama’s support of the Ground Zero mosque is in keeping with his previous statements and actions.
9/11 and Fort Hood, subsequent jihad attacks, ongoing jihad against Israel and other democracies is the context in which we live. The motivator for jihad is Islamic doctrine.
The mosque at Ground Zero has nothing whatever to do with religious tolerance or religious freedoms as the president suggested in his recent Ramadan White House remarks. The mosque at Ground Zero is the newest phase in an endless ideological war against the United States and non-Muslims everywhere.
Where do we go from here now that our Commander in Chief publicly supports an oppositional and hostile ideology whose purpose is our destruction?
Had Eisenhower or JFK publicly supported Communism during the Cold War the result would have been impeachment. We are now engaged in an ideological war more important than the Cold War, and we are not fighting.
First posted at Big Peace.
Posted on 08/16/2010 10:34 AM by DL Adams
Monday, 16 August 2010
A Musical Interlude: Riptide (Al Bowlly)
Posted on 08/16/2010 10:47 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Monday, 16 August 2010
An Apostate Explains Why A Mosque Is Not Only A "House of Worship"
Posted by an apostate at Pedestrian Infidel in 2006:
Even though I am an apostate, in secret, I still have to pretend I am a Moslem by going to the mosque, praying and reading the Koran. I am still living with my intensely Moslem family and they, of course, don’t know I have converted out of Islam. So I have to keep up the appearance of being devoutly Moslem myself, no matter how much I hate it.
So, during the last Ramadan, I was reading the Koran, in the mosque, pretending as usual--since it was the Ramadan so there was no escaping for me anyway. Now, I love to chew Extra—it’s my favorite gum. And I always chew it during the day, no matter where I am, even in the mosque. I wasn’t even aware of my gum-chewing, but someone else close by apparently was. An Arab approached me, and told me, "reading the Koran while chewing gum is sinful, you might not be able to pronounce the words in the Koran perfectly." I replied, "I am not reading it out loud anyway, so it doesn’t matter." Not backing down one bit, the arrogant Arab said, "it does." And the other Moslems around me, including my father, quickly ganged up on me and supported my opponent; they even wanted me to throw away my precious gum …
At that point, I promptly stopped 'reading' the Koran and walked out of the mosque.
You might be able to guess what happened after I walked out. My father was infuriated with me, and he lectured me angrily, at length, on how important it was for me to avoid doing something like that ever again. I got his point.
Many out there in the blogosphere might not know what goes on inside the mosque, what the environment is like in such places and what do people do in there, apart from praying.
Well, to start off, mosques were actually not just places of worship but also the places for Moslems to gather for any reason deemed necessary. Mosques are the place where Moslems used to gather not just to pray, but to listen to Mohammed (or another appropriately devout follower of Muhammed) harangue the faithful, prepare for battles/wars, and most importantly, to store weapons and captured booty.
If in the event a Moslem-controlled settlement or town was ever assaulted by a non Moslem force, the mosque would be the location most important for the infidels to capture. The mosques of yesteryear (and this is still true to this day in many places) are literally strongholds, fortresses designed to resist attack. Whoever controls the mosque controls in fact the surrounding area-- something the coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq hopefully are already aware of. Thusly, mosques are typically a stoutly-built complex of rooms, which are used for housing any required jihadists to defend the structure, as well as any required supplies to resist/endure a siege. During less violent times, this space was given over to the local mullah, his wives, children, slaves and concubines, and other booty captured from the infidels in past battles.
Today, in some places, mosques are not used for all these purposes. But in many parts of the world (namely the Middle East and other places in the Islamic world) the mosque still plays an important role. The mosque is not just a hall; it is ‘the Pentagon’ where Moslems plot and plan the ongoing jihad against the non Moslems. If it sounds strange and weird to non Moslems, it really is—you just have to step inside to feel it.
Most mosques are surrounded by high fences and/or walls, which may be topped off with spikes or barbed wire. Not exactly welcoming, is it? Passing through the gates of a typical mosque, you first enter a courtyard which is used whenever the prayer hall of the mosque is occupied. Moslems have to pray, so they don’t mind standing outside to pray if need be. After all, if Moslems don’t pray, Allah isn’t happy and Moslems believe that one must always follow Allah, no matter how much pain and trouble that involves. The more suffering undertaken for Allah, the happier he is with you.
When you enter the mosque's main hall (that’s the place you get to right after the courtyard, bathrooms, toilets and residential rooms are usually in the back or on the side) you see a lot of people in there. Some are standing, some are sitting, some are prostrating, some are bowing, a couple of people might be talking to each other (all this happens after they are done with the normal prayer procedures and the mullah isn’t leading anymore), but that’s not a normal practice.
Being in a mosque gives me an odd feeling inside that’s tough to put into words. Every mosque I've been in (and that's a fair number) has a feeling of submission about it. By submission, I mean that everyone in this place has had their identity essentially destroyed by the straitjacket that is Islam. It is all quiet, but it isn't the peaceful sort of quiet. There is no peace—there is, rather, a palpable sense of fear. Even today, it seems people are afraid of Mohammed, like he might come back from hell and punish anyone that doesn't follow his teachings. Muslims in a mosque don’t dare do anything that would make him mad--they’re still bowing down to his will and command. Mo still has authority and power over all these people, and a hold over his minions that is difficult for non Moslems to understand. But nevertheless, it is real and must be reckoned with.
It is only when you enter a mosque do you understand fully why they are so crazy about their religion, why they want it to dominate, why they’d do anything for it. Mohammed is still there in every mosque and the old memories are refreshed everyday. The only thing you can hear clearly is the words being recited from the Koran and nothing else. You look around, you see people focusing on just one thing, Islam. Their respect for Mohammed, their will to sacrifice for Islam, it multiplies many fold when they come together in the mosque, and they carry that feeling with them when they walk out back into the world.
If you ever get the chance of hearing a mullah, do listen to him closely, if you can understand. You will surely hear words like ‘May Allah destroy the infidels and give their possessions to us’, especially on Fridays. I've heard such things many times in a mosque, more times than I can count. In some parts of the world that prayer is actually written on the front wall of the mosque. There used to be a custom when the mullah used to give the sermon with a sword in his hand. Many carry that tradition till this day, but some have toned it down by holding a cane instead of a sword. Cane or sword, it still symbolizes the absolute jihadist nature of Islam.
The words ‘Islam is a religion of peace, harmony and tolerance’ immediately lose all meaning upon entering a mosque. In any mosque, there is no peace, there is no harmony and there is no tolerance for anything but Moslems and Islam. The Moslems whom you may have met an hour before and who said they are against the jihadis and what they’re doing, those very Moslems shout out loud, ‘death to infidels’ in their neighborhood mosques. Not just once or twice, but as a matter of course. The very Moslem who tells you, ‘you have a beautiful son, God bless him’ will go to the mosque and pray for the same ‘son’ to be killed so that the religion of his Allah can take over.
Understanding what goes on inside the mosque, and what a mosque is all about, is critical to understanding what Islam is all about. It's just as important as understanding the Koran and Hadiths. The typical mosque has a power over Moslems that Osama Bin Laden or Zarqawi could never hope to have, that no mullah could ever have. A mosque is the house of Allah, a sacred place, where hope of victory for Moslems is always reborn. It gives them power, and the delusion that their twisted version of 'paradise', with all the virgins and palaces, is real and will be realized by all who fight the unbelievers.
The mosque symbolizes the strength of Islam; the mosque is a physical and spiritual fortress that Moslems are sure no kuffir could ever conquer.
Posted on 08/16/2010 12:36 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Monday, 16 August 2010
Pakistan suffers – but our wallets remain closed
Alasdair Palmer can't imagine why the floods in Pakistan prompted only a sixteenth of the donations sent to Haiti. From The Telegraph:
The floods in Pakistan have killed 1,600 people and affected millions more, unleashing a dreadful cycle of hunger and disease. By any standards, this is an authentic disaster, and one of which anyone who reads a newspaper or watches television will be well aware. Yet the rich world has responded to Pakistan's suffering with a puzzling lack of generosity.
Just compare the amount of money given to relieve the damage caused by the floods with the donations that followed other recent catastrophes. In the first 10 days after the earthquake in Haiti, international organisations raised $742 million for the victims; this time, they received less than one 16th of that sum. In the first week after the tsunami hit South Asia in 2004, the British public alone donated £100 million. The amount we have given so far to alleviate the suffering in Pakistan? Less than £10 million.
One explanation for our relative stinginess may be the lack of evocative images on television. Flood damage simply doesn't look as disastrous as the aftermath of an earthquake. Pity and compassion are not primarily rational responses, and a dry argument that people need help is rarely sufficiently powerful to persuade anyone to donate. For that, your emotions have to be engaged – and few things generate pity like images of people in agony. Haiti's earthquake provided plenty of those, as did the Asian tsunami. The Pakistan floods have not.
Another obstacle may be the time of year ..
Palmer goes on to rack his brains, seeking here, there and everywhere that demmed elusive reason.
Then comes a tsunami of readers' comments - 576 and counting - many of them stating the obvious:
Alasdair Palmer asked the question and by heck has he received some honest answers. Politicians should be taking note, especially Labour and Liberal ones. The usually silent majority are telling you exactly how they feel about the "Religion of Peace". Years and years of attempting to brainwash the British People has failed miserably. How could Governments of the past, if they had had any regard for us, have allowed such an influx of tribal people, from backward villages in a third world country, to come here to our land, bringing with them their backward beliefs and loveless religion. These people do not want to be like us and we don't want them to become us anyway. We remember the less than luke warm condemnation by so called "moderate" Muslim community leaders to 9/11 and 7/7. We remember how politicians appeared to be more worried about a "backlash" against the Islamic community than anything else. What an insult against one of the most tolerant and put on people in the world! Our response is a delayed "backlash" and one which is far from being violent. It is the supression of sympathy and goodwill normally shown by our people to the victims of catastrophes. Your answer to the Pakistan question has been eloquently answered by the greater majority of posters on here.
In other words, the "rich" West has had enough. I gave money for Haiti, impatient as I am with its corrupt government and shiftless people - at least they are not our enemy.
Let the Ummah help Pakistan. Let the rich Saudis and Kuwaitis give - and they'll have less over to fund terrorism in Finsbury Park.
Update: one Telegraph reader kippled thus:
It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the English began to hate
They were not easily moved,
They were icy-willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the English began to hate.
Their voices were even and low,
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show,
When the English began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd,
It was not taught by the State.
No man spoke it aloud,
When the English began to hate.
It was not suddenly bred,
It will not swiftly abate,
Through the chill years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the English began to hate.
Posted on 08/16/2010 12:41 PM by Mary Jackson
Monday, 16 August 2010
Harry Reid Breaks With President Over Mosque
He says it should be built "someplace else."
Most of the politicians and pundits are amazed this is an issue at all and even more amazed that they have to take a stand on it. Stradling the fence is not a good place to be. The GOP is solidifying against it, following the Gingrich/Palin lead.
Posted on 08/16/2010 3:26 PM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 16 August 2010
Further to my post on the "stinginess" of the West in refusing to fund Jihad by relieving the Ummah of its obligations towards Pakistan's flood victims, here is a pertinent comment from a Telegraph reader (not the first, nor the last):
What has Pakistan got that Holland hasn't ?.
" Nuclear Weapons".
What has Holland got that Pakistan hasn't ?.
I rest my case.
Posted on 08/16/2010 5:35 PM by Mary Jackson