In late August of this year, I posted “…but What is our Goal? (concerning the Ground Zero Mosque)”. In that post, I ‘thought out loud’ as regards differing viewpoints on this controversial issue. Knee-jerk reactions of outraged opposition pitted against the possibility of a genuine healing & restoration. Perhaps understanding could foster, ultimately, forgiveness.
Earlier today I participated in a brief ‘Ground Zero mosque’ survey. It forced me to be more definite in my own position. While not wanting to entrench myself in a hostile mindset…and wanting to be open to the mind of the Lord, if I could…I had to choose. I don’t want a mosque built on that particular piece of ground. I think President Obama should comment on the wisdom of such a move, not back away from it, leaving the American people with a sense of void. And I’m undecided on a couple of points, still…
…but taking the survey reminded me that I wanted to add a few more facts to my original article, facts recently learned. Facts which unsettled me.
I was not familiar with the concept of “hudna“. A “hudna” is a temporary peace, lasting up to ten years, entered into by an Islamic force when it is weaker than its enemy. Its purpose is to re-group, re-arm and build its strength for eventual re-attack. Once the ten year mark has passed, the Islamic side is required to resume the war with its enemy.
You realize, of course, that we just passed the nine-year anniversary of that day of national tragedy in New York city – September 11, 2001. But did you know that the date set for the completion and official opening of the Ground Zero mosque is September 11, 2011? Ten years later…
It is entirely possible that Imam Rauf’s motivation in setting that date is to – neutralize? – such precedent by beginning a venture of the very opposite nature. It’s possible. I say this without innuendo or sarcasm. As Daisy Khan has said,
“… it’s a symbol, a platform that will give voice to the silent majority of Muslims who suffer at the hands of extremists. A center will show that Muslims will be part of rebuilding lower Manhattan.” She added that the center would be open to everyone.
Conversely, it has been suggested that the triumphant symbol of a Muslim mosque on ‘conquered territory‘, explains in full the Imam’s rejection of Donald Trump’s offer to buy him out, so to speak. Backing up this much less savory version of intent is the argument that, if Rauf really means for this venture to be a humanitarian one, and if he truly wishes to improve Muslim well-being & standing in the community/area, couldn’t he do a lot along those lines with Trump’s money? That sounds a little crass, I guess… But Donald Trump is the man! and I am imagining the offer was a staggering amount of money. Small businesses, college & scholarship funds, housing needs, etc. could benefit greatly from those proceeds. The rejection of Trump’s proposal could indicate that the symbolism of conquest is more important. A commenter on ‘American Thinker‘, AdinaF, from Israel, affirms the symbolism aspect of Islam as being ‘all-important‘, and in this case, a sign that an even bigger jihad is being planned against the United States of America.
Speaking of symbolism, I have often wondered, why September 11th? Why was that particular date chosen for the 2001 attack? Another ’Thinker’ commenter offers insight on this matter.
“September 11 does have meaning for muslims. That was the day in 1683 when they were stopped in their expansion into Europe at the gates of Vienna. I’m sure it has been a thorn in their side for over 327 years.” – ked5 (see also)
I am not sure how to proceed, at this point.
Much mention is made of moderate Islam vs. extremist Islam. I’ve read repeatedly, and even referenced, that the majority of Muslims are non-violent and not ‘out to get us.’ (Though the ‘violent’ percentage may have increased over the past nine years). Still, it is in the minority, last I heard.
Yet…researching even a little bit into passages from the Qur’an, and Shari’ah law…I’m concerned. If a Muslim by definition is a believer in these two pillars of their ideological world, then, based on what I’ve read, I’m questioning how such a condition as ’moderate Islam’ could even, ultimately, exist.
I will be following-up this post with a Part 2, but ’til then, let me sum up my article with these two paragraphs from a piece by *Kelly O’Connell, in “Winds of Jihad” -
“The enormous difference between ideas of equality and fairness that separate the Islamic world and the West are so colossal it defies easy explanation. In fact, we must study Islam in pieces to really understand the whole. This matters, because—before long—each big US city will undoubtedly have Muslims similar to Rauf seeking to influence policies and get involved in political life, and put the imprint of Muhammad upon all they touch.”
Unless we understand the grave differences between the two world views, representing not just rules, but also principles and values, we will be at severe disadvantage in defending our ancestral freedoms against incursion of foreign belief. This matters because Islam has always been a missionary religion, propagated by force and invasion. If we don’t understand its virulence and fatalistic determination, and that there is no alternative peaceful view in traditional Islam, great and quick may be our fall.”