Opposing the “Ground Zero Mosque”

by Guy Rodgers, Executive Director, ACT! for America

Opposition to the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” is increasing across America. ACT! for America President Brigitte Gabriel has conducted numerous radio interviews on the issue.  ACT! for America has sent out national emails, launched a national petition, and encouraged its members to attend a rally in New York and contact Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s office. 

Why are we doing this? 

The issue at hand is not the mosque per se, but the precise location of the mosque, and the numerous concerns and questions this entails.

First, there is the issue of sensitivity.  We in America are constantly being lectured to by Islamists, enablers and sympathizers that America needs to be more understanding of and sensitive to the culture and religion of Islam; that we need to tone down any discussion of “radical Islam;” that we need to be more tolerant so as to avoid offending the sensibilities of Muslims.

However, in most instances this demand for tolerance and sensitivity is a one-way street.  You will search in vain for “tolerance” for non-Muslims within Saudi Arabia, Iran, and even in more “moderate” countries like the UAE.  Consider how one-way tolerance is transforming Europe and the UK.  Here in the U.S., while Christian and Jewish leaders invite Muslims to speak in their churches and synagogues, how often do you think the reverse invitation is extended? 

Imagine for a moment that a crazed Christian or Jew had flown a jet into the super skyscraper in Dubai – and then nine years later a group of Christians asked to build a church right next to Dubai’s “ground zero.”  We don’t have to imagine, because it’s virtually impossible for the first event to happen and absolutely impossible that the second would happen.

The insensitivity to the families of the victims of the 9/11 act of jihad exhibited by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his supporters is enlightening.  Even if Imam Rauf is honestly sincere in his desire to make his Islamic center a place for “healing” and “interfaith dialogue”, his desire to put this center at ground zero belies his assertion.  Did it not occur to him that there would be many people who would be stung, hurt, put off, or offended?  Did it not occur to him that the sensibilities of thousands and thousands of people would be offended?  Does it not trouble him now that so many, when they hear about the plans for the “ground zero mosque,” recoil? 

Second, there is the issue of the supremacist symbolism.  When Mohammed conquered Mecca, the Ka’bah, which houses the black stone that predates Islam, was forcibly converted to what is now considered by Muslims to be the most sacred spot on earth.

When Muslims conquered Jerusalem, they built a mosque on the very spot where the temple of Israel stood.  They did the same in Damascus, destroying the Christian church of St. John the Baptist and building a mosque in its place. 

Indeed, the act of destroying Christian, Jewish and Hindu holy places and replacing them with mosques is an all-too-common, and unreported, fact of Islamic history.  To accurately report these thousands and thousands of acts of subjugation would, after all, be regarded as most politically incorrect, as well as a knife in the heart of the modern rewrite of history that falsely portrays the 14 century expansion of Islam either as “defensive” or as “tolerant” – or both. 

Thus, even if Imam Rauf doesn’t regard the building of a mosque at ground zero as an act of Islamic supremacy (which is questionable), it is a certainty that countless Muslims the world over will view the construction of a massive mosque at ground zero as a “victory shrine,” a powerful symbol of Allah’s victory over and advancing conquest of “infidel” America. 

The very fact that the proposed grand opening date for the mosque is the ten-year anniversary of the most horrific act of terrorism on American soil in history is instructive.  Anniversaries mean something.  Consider how America would have responded to a proposal by Japan to erect a shrine to Emperor Hirohito next to the sunken wreckage of the USS Arizona, with an unveiling date of December 7, 1951.

Third, there is the matter of Rauf’s beliefs.  He has on multiple occasions proclaimed his support for the supremacy of sharia law – the same law that motivated the 9/11 jihadists to act as they did.  That’s troubling enough.  But it’s clear that his Islamic center will operate according to sharia law, which, if implemented accordingly, will include among other things the grossly unequal treatment of women.

This begs the question: How will the practice of sharia in a so-called “cultural community center” improve interfaith dialogue?  Will Jewish and Christian women who want to come engage in such talks, who have to enter through different entrances from the men, feel more inclined to believe there is real interfaith dialogue possible under such circumstances?  And who has ever heard of a “sharia-compliant cultural community center?”

Fourth, which Imam Rauf is heading up this mosque?  The imam who tickles the ears of New York elites with his talk of “tolerance,” “multiculturalism,” and “multi-faith dialogue”?  Or the imam who, speaking to Arabic-speaking audiences, says “I do not believe in religious dialogue?”

In accordance with the very sharia law Imam Rauf supports, one of the tenets of the Muslim Brotherhood “Project” for Islamizing the West is using deception (“taqiyya”) to mask the real goals of Islamism.  Imam Rauf’s speaking out of both sides of his mouth (in different languages) certainly qualifies.  What more does he really believe that we do not know? 

Fifth, who will be financing this $100 million mega-mosque?  There’s an old expression, “follow the money.”  As the Mapping Sharia project discovered, mosques in America financed with Saudi money distribute educational and informational materials espousing radical Islam.  Imam Rauf has been less than forthcoming about the funding of the mosque, which of course raises serious concerns about who is behind it and what that money buys in terms of what will be promoted in the mosque.

When it comes to freedom of conscience, speech and religion, America takes a back seat to no other country in the world.  Muslims are free to practice their faith in this country in a way that Christians and Jews who live in Muslim countries can only dream of.  Indeed, it is this very freedom that radical Islamists exploit to advance their ideology and their commitment to jihad, be it violent or cultural. 

So it is not unreasonable for America to expect something in return from Muslims who desire to enjoy her freedoms.  That “something” includes allegiance to our Constitution over and above the totalitarian law system of sharia.  It includes a respect for our heritage and our traditions.  It includes actions that demonstrate a commitment to pluralism and the greater good, not just words. 

If Imam Rauf truly believed in the multi-faith dialogue and harmony he espouses, he would acknowledge that he misunderstood how his proposed mosque at “ground zero” would be perceived by so many of the families of 9/11 victims.  He would admit a mistake was made and that, in the interests of comity and in deference to the 9/11 families, he would change course.  He would demonstrate he understands that actions speak louder than words, by announcing he has reconsidered and that he is looking for another location for his mosque. 

Until that day, we will act.