2010 September 04 Saturday
Imam Rauf's Motives For Cordoba House

Mark Silverberg casts a skeptical look at Imam Rauf's motivation for seeking to build the Cordoba House mosque so close to Ground Zero.

Noteworthy is Rauf's intention to raise funds for the $100M 13-story Islamic Center from the most authoritarian, least religiously tolerant Arab regimes in the Middle East. Does anyone actually believe that fostering "religious tolerance and pluralism" is a major selling-point in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Qatar and especially with the Saudis who have spent an estimated $100 billion in petro-dollars over the past thirty-five years to spread radical Islamic dawa (proselytizing) through mosques and madrasses worldwide?

Yes, the motive here isn't to promote general tolerance. The motive is to promote the spread of Islam. Should Muslims become a substantial minority in the United States they will seek to carve out their own legal system for themselves (as they already seek to do in Canada and other Western countries). Should they become a majority they will seek to make Islam legally privileged above Christianity, Judaism, and other religions in terms of tax treatment, ability to get permits to build religious centers, and what gets taught in schools. Why pretend this issue is all about the religious freedom of Muslims when Islam does not treat other religions as equal?

If the Saudis and the other Gulf Emirates are really prepared to put millions towards this project in the interests of promoting religious tolerance, wouldn't a better way be to allow a church, synagogue or multicultural center to be built in Mecca? But do no wait for that to happen any time soon: there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia, nor are visits by non-believers to the sacred sites of Mecca and Medina allowed; so the argument that the Saudis and the others might consider funding the Center as symbolic support for religious tolerance and pluralism in Islam defies credibility. It is more likely that any financial support emanating from these countries will be geared to promoting jihadi Salafist Islam and the acceptance of Sharia Law in America.. Consequently any financial support from these regimes for this project should be suspect.

The big clue in plain sight: Cordoba House. Why that name? Cordoba is a site of Muslim conquest over Christian Europeans. The mosque in Cordoba was built over the site of a great church. It symbolized Muslim victory over Christianity. Now Rauf wants to build a symbol of Muslim conquest 2 blocks from the site where Muslim Jihadists killed thousands of Americans. He's raising the money from Muslim states that do not allow religious freedom and pretending to do this in the name of tolerance. It is a bit rich for liberals to expect us to not object in the name of religious freedom.

My take on religious freedom for Muslims: they can go back to Muslim countries where they can practice their religion that seeks to force the rest of us to submit.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2010 September 04 11:44 AM  Civilizations Clash Of


Comments
Don't worry! said at September 4, 2010 2:20 PM:

Randall, come on! We all know that Muslim immigrants will discover the virtues of our liberty and tolerance, and our free love and our large automobiles (or hybrids, if you are an NPR type) and our MTV. And the economy will grow forever, and everyone can become a professor or an engineer or a lawyer, so there'll be plenty of stuff around to make us all happy.

Are these the thoughts going through the heads of liberals? Are any thoughts at all going through the heads of liberals? Does the future exist in the minds of liberals?

WJ Alden said at September 5, 2010 11:36 AM:

Ah, but once they drink the magic American water, breathe the magic American air, and walk on the magic American soil, you know they will!

As for the thought going through the heads of liberals, I think it's mostly (and appropriately) "my enemy's enemy is my friend."

Conservatism, Christianity, and traditional Western culture is the enemy. That makes Islam a friend.

The members of the Left today who aren't simply parasites and rent-seekers hold to a reactionary ideology. It is a reaction to people the Left finds repulsive: boring, dull, responsible people who have families, drive pickup trucks, shop at WalMart, eat at McDonald's, watch football ("American football"), join the military, attend church, work "non-creative" jobs, whatever. These people value a black welfare queen more than a white coal miner. They are the enemies of convention, because convention is dull. It is arrogance and snobbishness as an ideology. The most arrogant people I ever knew as a child all grew up to become far left liberals - thanks, Facebook! - and that is why the Left feels no obligation to engage conservatives in real debate. They are either incapable of doing so or presume conservatives to be idiots not worth bothering with.

And that is why the Left supports the Jihad Victory Mosque. Because conservatives oppose it. No other reason need be provided.

It is also why the post-60s Left has never been able to hold on to power for long. Two years with Clinton and a Democratic congress, two years with Obama and a Democratic congress. The more the 60s generation attitude has come to dominate the Democratic Party, the more repulsed Americans become by it. The Party of the Working Man is dead. Modern D Party leaders now despise such men. Clinton was able to recover his presidency only because he was more about his own ego than about ideology. Obama has a massive ego, too, but he's unable and unwilling to hide his ideology.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright