Worth Reading Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
The proposed mosque near to ground zero is not really a religious institution. It would be -- as many mosques throughout the nation are -- a terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and training center. It is not the worship of Islam that is the problem. It is the efforts to advance Sharia law, with its requirement of jihad and violence, that is the nub of the issue.
There is a global effort to advance Sharia law and make it the legal system of the world. Most major banks and financial institutions offer Sharia compliant funds, which have their investments vetted by the most fundamentalist and reactionary of clerics to assure that they advance Sharia law.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the founder of the proposed mosque, helps to prepare a Sharia index that rates countries on their degree of compliance with Sharia law. In the United Kingdom, many courts have recognized Sharia as the governing law on matters between two Muslims.
Not only is Sharia law a vicious anti-female code that orders death by stoning, promotes child marriage, decriminalizes abuse of women and gives wives no rights in divorce, but it also explicitly recognizes the duty of all Muslims to wage jihad against non-believers and promotes violence to achieve its goals. In this respect, violent jihad is as inherent in Sharia law as revolution is in communist doctrine.
But there are non-Sharia mosques where peaceful and spiritual Muslims worship God in their own way without promoting violence. A soon-to-be published study funded by Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy found that 20 percent of the mosques in the United States have no taint of Sharia and simply promote peaceful worship. But 80 percent are filled with violent literature, Sharia teachings, and promotion of jihad and its inevitable concomitant -- terrorism.
Which brings us to the ground zero mosque. There can be no doubt that any mosque organized and run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf will be based on Sharia law and will serve as local branch office of the pan-Islamic terrorist offensive against the west. That such a facility should be located right next to the place where jihad achieved its most hideous triumph is unspeakably inappropriate.
President Obama is confusing the issue when he describes it as one of religious freedom. There is broad latitude to worship God as one chooses. But there is none to promote violence and terrorism. The record of involvement of Sharia mosques with the 9-11 attackers and the Ft. Hood massacre shooter is so deep and extensive that it vividly underscores the difference between a religious institution and an organization that promotes terrorism.
Politically, President Obama's defense of the mosque and his efforts to make it a First Amendment issue are incredibly self-destructive. They raise questions about his political sanity. It is hard to believe how tone deaf he must have become to take such a position.
He has now embraced two positions that are anathema to two-thirds of all Americans -- the mosque and opposition to Arizona's immigration law. Neither was a controversy that sought him out. He waded into each one voluntarily with flags flying. He had no role in the Arizona law, but his lawsuit to invalidate it made it his fight. He does not sit on the New York City Planning Commission, but his endorsement of the mosque puts him squarely in the center of controversy. What is he using for brains these days?
To continue the efforts to battle Sharia law and the attempts of radical Muslims to use it to destroy our values and the gains of feminism, please follow the work funded by the Center for Security Policy and conducted by David Yerushalmi. To help to fund their efforts, go to centerforsecuritypolicy.org.