Elizabeth Borelli
College Libertarian
—
America, meet Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan. He is man in charge of the plans to build a 13-story mosque and Islamic center near ground zero, in the space that was a Burlington Coat Factory which was damaged in the 9/11 attacks. His wife is the Executive Director for the American Society for Muslim Advancement.
Now, as the site that is soon to be a mosque is not actually part of ground zero, but two city blocks away, some people are not having too many problems with it. However, other people, especially families of the victims of the attacks, find the plan to be insensitive and even insulting. You wouldn’t want the Japanese to build a temple right next to Pearl Harbor, and even this many years after the fact you wouldn’t want Germans to start a Bach choral group at Auschwitz. We’ve already been attacked physically…many people feel that this mosque not only adds insult to injury but is also an attack upon every other faith.
In a Fox News interview between Laura Ingraham and Daisy Kahn, Kahn stated that the purpose of the center is to send a new message about Muslims – that they should not be defined by extremist or jihadist actions. She said that they wish to spread a message of tolerance and love and emphasize the central part of all religions – a love of god. Well, no offense Kahn, but plenty of things are done with the best of intentions. It never makes the action any less insulting. If you want to build a mosque somewhere else, have at it. Spread your message from there. But don’t you think that building a mosque so close to ground zero is a bit counterproductive to your proclaimed purpose? Where are you going to want to build one next? The Pennsylvania field where 37 american passengers lost their lives fighting back to stop terrorist actions? How well would that one go over?
The fact is, Muslims have a history of doing this. It begins with the site of Solomon’s Temple, in Jerusalem. It is unclear exactly when the Al-Aqsa mosque was constructed, but it IS clear that it took the place of The Church of Our Lady, a Christian church that was built on the site of the temple and consecrated in the name of the Virgin Mary. That church was destroyed by the conquering Muslim emperor Khosrau II, in the 7th century. Next we have the Umayyad mosque, built on the site of a Christian basilica dedicated to St. John the Baptist. The mosque was completed in the year 715, after the Muslim CONQUEST of Damascus. Next, we have the Hagia Sophia Basilica in Istanbul, which became the Ayasofya Mosque immediately after the Muslims conquered Constantinople in 1453. What do all of these mosques have in common? They were built in place of Christian holy sites, after said holy sites had been conquered in the military fashion. And so last but not least, we have the 13 story mosque and Islamic Center, built on the site of a building in which people lost their lives during a Muslim military attack on September 11th, 2001.
Why exactly should we not be outraged by this? How would you like it if we conquered a mosque in Afghanistan and built an orthodox cathedral there?
Did you find this information helpful? If you did, consider donating.
Related posts:
nice article. Few are willing to admit the Koran contains some of the most extreme and violence-encouraging doctrine known to religion. While some Muslims are “moderates” they are also viewed by their ‘fundamentalist’ brethren as traitors. For the most part, our nation is being duped into believing Islam is a friendly religion and I believe this is being done by a closet muslim currently seated in the oval office who isn’t even really honoring our veterans ultimate sacrifices on Memorial Day-so much for the “Commander in Chief”. Carrying the title (by default) in no way earns the title.
What part of “I lie while I smile to your face and curse you in my heart because you are an infidel” do Americans not understand. It is in the Qu’ran, take your time and read it.
Tafsir al-Jalalayn
Let not the believers take the disbelievers as patrons, rather than, that is, instead of, the believers — for whoever does that, that is, [whoever] takes them as patrons, does not belong to, the religion of, God in anyway — unless you protect yourselves against them, as a safeguard (tuq?tan, ‘as a safeguard’, is the verbal noun from taqiyyatan), that is to say, [unless] you fear something, in which case you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts: this was before the hegemony of Islam and [the dispensation] applies to any individual residing in a land with no say in it. God warns you, He instills fear in you, of His Self, [warning] that He may be wrathful with you if you take them as patrons; and to God is the journey’s end, the return, and He will requite you.
Roger Ebert published an article recently attacking conservatives and republicans for shaming the Ground Zero Mosque idea. He also republished an article of his from 2001 – in it he recommended that a park be built there where children from around the world could grow food to share with one another. I tried to post this reply to his article but they are not taking comments anymore.
“Governor Quinn of IL suggested that no religious buildings be constructed at ground zero because it is sacred ground. I did not like Quinn’s comment. What about the Greek Orthodox Church that is trying to rebuild? Would there not be room available inside the new freedom tower for both a Mosque and a Greek Orthodox Church? Couldn’t this be done in the spirit of free trade? Who would dare destroy the building then?”
I would like to further propose that these houses of worship be stacked on top of one another. The bottom house of worship would be built for free. The higher the floor, the more expensive it becomes. First come first served. Limit it to 10 floors to honor the world’s base 10 numbering system and world financial trade.