Americans tend to view this entire debate over the proposed Ground Zero Mosque as another example where Muslims are being pitted against non-Muslims. However, the truth suggests the exact opposite. There have been many voices from within the Muslim community that think building the mosque is actually a terrible idea. Obviously, Muslims are not a monolithic community; they speak with many voices that differ from one another. There is no one person or group that can truly speak for “all” Muslims. It behooves the media to portray–the other side of the story . . . In the interest of our blog, I will present a number of opinions that you will seldom ever hear from the mainstream media outlets.

As Jews, we tend to make the issue an extension of our own egoic selves; rather than respecting the diversity that exists within the Muslim community, liberal Jews especially love to portray the entire issue in black and white terms, and in the process they marginalize the Muslim viewpoints that differ from their own. Anyone believing in true interfaith dialogue with Muslims needs to be mindful that no imam can possibly speak on behalf of an entire community–much like no rabbi can claim to speak in the name of “all” Jews.

Neda Bolourchi, whose mother was murdered during the 9/11 attacks, wrote in the Washington Post over the weekend:

I was born in pre-revolutionary Iran. My family led a largely secular existence — I did not attend a religious school, I never wore a headscarf — but for us, as for anyone there, Islam was part of our heritage, our culture, and our entire lives. Though I have nothing but contempt for the fanaticism that propelled the terrorists to carry out their murderous attacks on Sept. 11, I still have great respect for the faith. Yet, I worry that the construction of the Cordoba House Islamic cultural center near the World Trade Center site would not promote tolerance or understanding; I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world.

Another Muslim Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, writing in the Ottowa Citizen (hat tip to Andy McCarthy):

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the “Cordoba Initiative” and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case? Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered? …

As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.   Continue Reading

As I mentioned in the previous postings, symbolism is very important to the proponents of the Ground Zero Mosque.  Although many Jewish Americans see this as a constitutional issue regarding religious freedom, they should not lose sight what this mosque means to those who regard it as the beginning of a cultural and religious conquest of the “Great Satan” — America.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4225.htm 
May 27, 2010  Special Dispatch No.2981
 
Iraqi Columnist in Arab Liberal Online Daily Elaph: The Hostile and Provocative Name Chosen for the Planned Ground Zero Cordoba Mosque Symbolizes Dreams of Expansion and Invasion of the Territory of the Other
 
Iraqi-American columnist Khudhayr Taher published an article in the Arab online liberal daily Elaph.com on May 18, 2010 in which he warns against the desire to turn the U.S. into a Muslim country. Taher called upon the American administration to ban the building of mosques, and especially the Cordoba Mosque, planned for construction near Ground Zero in New York, because, he says, these mosques pose a danger to the security of the U.S. as they are centers for spreading extremist and terrorist ideas.

Following is a translation of excerpts from the article:

“In these days, the issue of the Muslim decision to build a mosque near the place where the crime of the cowardly September 11 terrorist attacks took place has come up. We must note that a hostile and provocative name [Cordoba] has been chosen for this mosque. It is well known that the first Cordoba Mosque was built by Muslims in a city in Spain, after they occupied this Christian country, killing its men and capturing its women to bring them to Arab countries as slaves and servants to serve their sexual pleasure. The Arabs and Muslims have never ceased to take pride and bask in the glory of this imperialist history, which they consider to be a symbol of their strength and power, and they are unashamed of the fact that the annals [of their history] are full of shameful crimes.

“Today, it seems as though some Muslims in America are enamored of the dream of bringing back this ugly imperialist Muslim history, which is based on occupying peaceful peoples, on trying to force them to change their religious beliefs by the sword, on killing the men, and on abducting the women from their homes and bringing them to their own countries. Choosing the name ‘Cordoba House’ for the mosque to be constructed in New York was not coincidental or random and innocent. It bears within it significance and dreams of expansion and invasion [into the territory] of the other, [while] striving to change his religion and to subjugate him… Continue Reading

It is difficult to understand the terror of September 11, 2001, without taking into serious consideration the fundamentalist theology and ideology of Wahhabi Islam.  The origin of this sect goes back to the 18^th century’s founder, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1792). Like other fundamentalists, Wahhab’s reformation stressed that every idea that Islam subsequently after the time of the third century (ca. 950 CE), must be considered false and expunged from Muslim doctrine.  To be a “true” Muslim, one must simply follow the original teachings of Muhammad.  

Wahhabi viewed the Muslims of his time as retrogressing to a pre-Islamic polytheism where its followers prayed to saints, made pilgrimages to the tombs of pious people, and numerous other practices that seemed to threaten the absolute monotheism of Islam.

Today, the chief foe of Wahhabism are the forces of modernity, secularism, and the idealism of the Enlightenment. (Curiously, the Wahhabis have no difficulty accepting the benefits of Western military technology!) In battling these modernistic adversaries, they are prepared to utilize even violence to eliminate the pagan competition.

Wahhabi believed that ritual laxity undermined the spirit of Islam and that only a return to true Islam held the key to a Muslim revitalization and renewal. However, those Muslims who did not adhere to the true fundamentals of Islam were not really considered, “authentic Muslims,” and ergo, then killing them is a licit act since they do not really follow the principles of Islam like they do.  

When we read about the terrorist attack on the sacred Sufi shrine in the Pakistani mosque in Lahore on July 2, 2010, killed 42 and injured 175. This mosque was built by Sufi mystics, who happen to be the most peaceful and tolerant of all Islamic sects.

Most Americans and Western countries oppose the 19th and 20th century Muslim reform movements which reinterpreted aspects of Islamic law in order to bring it closer to standards set by the West, particularly with regards to topics like gender relations, family law, personal autonomy, and participatory democracy.

When we look at the supporters of the proposed Ground Zero mosque, we must ask ourselves whether this project is being financially underwritten by followers of the Wahhabi or not. Despite its small size, and despite Islam’s great ethnic religious diversity, the Wahhabi claim that their path  is the only path of true Islam — and anyone who defies this teaching is an infidel. Continue Reading

Sacrilege at Ground Zero

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER 
08/15/2010 22:46

No German of good will would think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).

When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there – and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.

That’s why Disney’s early ‘90s proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition fearing vulgarization of the Civil War (and wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It’s why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It’s why while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place, it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.

Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers “to show some special sensitivity to the situation.”

Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message, or show “special sensitivity” to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely, that Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.

Bloomberg’s implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by “insensitive” Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.

BUT THEN, why not? By the mayor’s own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there’s no guarantee this couldn’t happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won’t one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi – spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and one-time imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?

An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege.

Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history – perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi – yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of good will would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

Which makes you wonder about the good will behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s proposal. This is a man who has called US policy “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, “I’m not a politician….The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.”

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want – but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz – and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Build it anywhere but there.

The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf’s ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.

– The Washington Post

Towers have long captured the collected imagination of human kind. Whether it is the Tower of Babel in the Bible, or the Eiffel Tower in Paris, or the Chicago Water Tower, or especially the Twin Towers of Manhattan prior to its destruction, towers characterize technology, political power, and even sexual potency. The 2001 terrorist attack on the Twin Towers was not a happenstance assault.  The terrorists chose those two buildings in particular because these structures were in the heart of the world’s greatest economic center.

In Freudian terms, destroying the towers represented a symbolic castration of the United States. From the terrorist perspective, attacking these centers sent a most auspicious message to the world of Islamic jihadists: The United States’ days of being the Number One Superpower are finished. Now that they have been castrated by the forces of radical Islam, it is only a matter of time before the armies of Islam eventually conquer all of the United States and the Western world.

Over one decade later, most of our country has barely come to terms with the greater implications of September 11, 2001 and its symbolic significance. As a seminal event, the terrorists revealed just how vulnerable we were–and still are–to those forces poised to strike at her again. As the beacon and vanguard of democracy and liberty in the Western world, Radical Islam views the attack on September 11 as the opening salvo of a new kind of jihad against the United States precisely because it champions freedom, liberty, and the right for self-determination—anathemas that threaten the feudalistic mentality of Radical Islam.

With this thought in mind, the Jewish community has found itself divided as to how we ought to respond to the proposed Mosque that Mayor Bloomberg is attempting to build near Ground Zero. On August 3^rd, Bloomberg argued that denying the Muslim community to build its center would, “. . . betray our values and play into our enemies’ hands—if we treat Muslims differently than anyone else . . . In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.” Continue Reading

NBA superstar reportedly pays kabbalist Rabbi Yishayahu Yosef Pinto a six-figure to attend a business meeting.

Who would believe it? For the past 20 years we have seen Rabbi Shmuel Boteach cozy up with the Hollywood celebrities, along with the rabbis of the Kabbalah Institute in LA. Just this past week, on prime time television we see another Kabbalah-esque rabbi signing a million dollar contract with basketball superstar, LeBron James. Who is this lucky rabbi? He is none other than Rabbi Yishayahu Yosef Pinto … a man known around New York as the “Rabbi to the Business Stars.”

Adding to his mystique is the fact that Pinto is considered to be a “spiritual guide” to  all sorts of business moguls. Well, if I were LeBron, I would sooner consult the Iching or the Tarot, which would certainly cost him considerably less! Most of these celebrity rabbis, in my opinion, exploit the gullible world of superstars who are too dazzled by the light of their newly acquired stardom. Rabbis are not rock stars; nor are the Kabbalists who cater to the vanity and insecurities of their clients.

Theologian Paul Tillich defined religion as “man’s ultimate concern.” Americans are a strange but religious people who love inscribing God’s Name  even on their money! (On a comical note, “In God we trust” — all others pay cash !) On a more serious note, we need to ask ourselves, “In what kind of God are we placing our trust in? Is it the God Who created the universe and humankind, or is it the God of mammon? No hokey Kabbalistic raz-mitva-taz will prevent an objective observer from seeing what this contract with LeBron really is: the banalization of Kabbalah, and I would add–this is the kind of consumerist mentality one would expect to find in the religion of McMysticism. Beyond that, the exploitation of religion itself really fits the classical definition of idolatry–”the adoration of images,” which derives from  two Greek words, eidolon, “image,” and latreia, “adoration.” Hence, idolatry means “adoration of images.” We might just as easily add, ” the adoration of celebrities too.” Continue Reading

The Rabbis for Israel provides important information to other rabbis wishing to defend Israel in a hate-filled media that seldom mentions anything positive about Israel. Here is another case in point that is similar to the article that Thomas Friedman wrote for the NY Times.

Several weeks ago, a group of terrorists murdered a Jerusalem police officer named Shuki Sofer was murdered by terrorists. The incident would hardly have been mentioned in the news were it not for the rest of the story . . . To the best of my knowledge, the mother did not dedicate the child to become a suicide-bomber.

One of the terrorists involved has a 6 year old daughter suffering from a tumor in her eye. Of all the medical facilities she could have gone to, guess where she went? Jerusalem’s Hadassah Hospital! Did her terrorist family pay for the procedure? Of course not. Israeli non-profit organizations paid for the operation.

If, as the “Rabbis against Israel” crowd argues, Israel is an “apartheid society,” why would border authorities and officials allow for the operation to take place?

Surely in the days of South African apartheid, many people stricken with similar ailments would never have access to such advanced medical help, but no such policies exist in Israel! had the Hadassah Hospital refused to take this young girl in, you can be sure that the international media would use this case to illustrate the shabby treatment of a poor Palestinian girl. This incident is not the exception, it is the norm. Hadassah Hospital routinely helps heal not just the children of her enemies, but even the terrorists themselves.

Maybe this is why we need the “Rabbis for Israel,” in order to stress the good that Israel does in bettering the world. When you compare what everyday Israelis are doing to better the world, it is no wonder why anti-Semitism exists–it is because of jealousy. what have the forces of terrorism done to better our world? What has been their unique contribution?

Americans by and large do not realize how Israel’s existence benefits all people on our planet. An Israeli company developed a computerized system for ensuring proper administration of medications, thus removing human error from medical treatment. Every year in U. S. hospitals 7,000 patients die from treatment mistakes. Continue Reading

The story is a peculiar one. The Haredi members of the Israeli Kenesset celebrated over passing a new legislation that would deport the children of foreign workers.  One Haredi editor named Streimel, claimed, “History teaches us that foreign elements that come to countries offering them work are destined to destroy the absorbing country, or to take it over.” Among Streimel’s other complaints, he blasted the Conservative and Reform movements, and expressed exasperation about the growth of anti-Haredism in Israel and abroad.

When I read the article, I found myself wondering: “Where have I heard these words before?” Let me cite you the famous biblical passage that pretty much says it all:  ”Then a new king, who knew nothing of Joseph , came to power in Egypt. ^He said to his subjects, “Look how numerous and powerful the Israelite people are growing, more so than we ourselves! Come, let us deal shrewdly with them to stop their increase; otherwise, in time of war they too may join our enemies to fight against us, and so leave our country” (Exod 1:8-10).

Wait a minute, since when are frum Jews supposed to act like Pharaoh? The answer ought to be obviou for in Deuteronomy 16, we discover a different kind of attitude that the Torah expects us to model:

“If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, sells himself to you, he is to serve you for six years, but in the seventh year you shall dismiss him from your service, a free man. When you do so, you shall not send him away empty-handed, but shall weight him down with gifts from your flock and threshing floor and wine press, in proportion to the blessing the LORD, your God, has bestowed on you. For remember that you too were once slaves in the land of Egypt, and the LORD, your God, ransomed you. That is why I am giving you this command today . . . Remember that you too were once slaves in Egypt, and carry out these statutes carefully.”

Memory of the Exodus must be the ethical foundation of any kind of future Israelite society. Without a memory of our past, we  risk becoming like  Pharaoh of Egypt, who showed no compassion to the resident alien population that was living among them.

One Haredi spokesman, A. Yitzhaki, added that the government now fears the growth of the ultra-Orthodox population more than it does the growth of the non-Jewish population. “The Haredim,” he wrote, “are the ones against whom a battle needs to be waged in order to stop growth in any way possible, especially by starving their children.” Continue Reading

Today’s tale begins with an interesting conversation I had with my good friend and colleague, Rabbi Henry Karp of Temple Emanuel in Davenport, IA. Rabbi Henry is a Reform rabbi who personifies of Reform Judaism’s  ethical sensibilities. Despite being liberal, he is fairly conservative when it comes to the matter of defending Israel against foes determined to demonize her in the media.

At any rate, he emailed me an interesting letter. “Michael, why haven’t you signed up for the “Rabbis for Israel”?  “Frankly,” I replied, “I never heard of the organization before . . .” The name seems almost ludicrous, for what rabbi isn’t for Israel?

“Rabbis for Israel” sounds almost like “Wives Against Wife-Beating,” or “Anti-abortionists for Suicide” for the very name suggests something comical—even absurd. However, we live in absurd times. Now, some Jewish leaders speak about East Jerusalem as “Occupied territories . . .” Really.

Despite the public scorn heaped on Israel, she sacrifices land for peace like she did in Lebanon and Gaza. In return, what does Israel receive in return? Only missiles—over 4000 of them shot at Sederot and Bae’r Sheva. Israel was prepare to give 98% of the West Bank, but as most of you ought to know, Arafat walked and started a new Intifada.

Yes, “Rabbis for Israel” is unfortunately necessary given the ideological era we are living in; multi-cultural beliefs assert that all cultures are of equal value–even those that subsist on the doctrines of sexism,  political/religious-purity and ethnic cleansing. It is no accident that these atavistic forces are posed against Israel precisely because she stands for the voices of hope, freedom and especially—democracy. It is no wonder why these sexist and racist regimes find Israel so threatening as their followers pray to Allah for Israel’s imminent destruction?

Anyone looking at a map of Palestine in Abbas’s office, or for that matter in most of the Arab world, will discover that Israel is not even on the map. How can J Street liberals promote a “Two-State Solution,” when the Palestinians prefer a “One State Solution”–a Middle East without Israel? Yes, the problem is not merely political, it is ontological. J Street and liberal-minded rabbis just do not grasp this truth. They see what they want to see.

Rabbis like Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun Magazine, is one reason why some rabbis take a very hard-line approach to Israel when it comes to the issue of the Palestinians. J-Street is another example of a liberal consortium that frequently blasts Israel for allegedly not giving the Palestinians complete equal rights. Incidentally, Tikkun Magazine advocates divestment from Israel. When liberal churches see Jewish organizations take a strident view toward Israel, why shouldn’t they too? Of course, one would never hear about threats to divest funds from Iran or the Sudan, or even Syria. Only Israel is singled out . . .  What is wrong with this picture?

The liberal failure to challenge this sickness is tantamount to condoning such immoral behavior, for I would argue that the followers of Hamas and their supporters have revealed a kind of evil that dwarfs Hitler and his Nazis. As evil as the Nazis were, they did not transform their children into human bombs to destroy Jews. J-Street along with their well-meaning rabbinic supporters would be wise to take this kind of corporate and pedagogical evil into consideration. There can be no moral equivalence between Israel and her foes, which routinely hide behind children and women’s skirts after unleashing their mayhem on innocent Israeli citizens. If a government refuses to defend her people against an enemy, it might as well disband.

Some rabbis encourage Palestinians to follow the example of M. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mendela, but such individuals are an endangered species in the streets of Hamas, and even in the West Bank. Most Israelis would prefer that foes wage peaceful demonstrations, but they won’t. Believe me, I wish there were powerful voices like that in the Palestinian community, but religious inspired violence renders these potential leaders either impotent or dead. Continue Reading