Lead trustee of Virginia's notorious Dar al-Hijrah mosque has prominent role in Ground Zero mosque project

WOW! Looks like Rauf's in full-on jihad mode and he's going for broke, and damn the torpedos!

All Muslims support each other whether radical or pretend-moderate as Rauf is!!!Jihadists all over the world( which all Muslims are ) would contribute to build this mosque but the major part would come from Saudia, Qatar, Kuwait, may be even Iran.

Saudi Arabia has too much money for its own good. It's Saudi Government official this, Saudi embassy that, terrorist mosque paid by Saudi government, Saudi embassy staff helping Jihadist cross the Afghan-Pakistani border, Saudi clerics saying this and that, Wahhabi here and Wahhabi there, Saudis blowing up, Saudis blowing others up, Interfaith hypocrisy etc etc etc.
I wonder when will come the day Western governments wise up and confiscate the investments and assets of said Arab country to pay for all the destruction and disturbance caused by its government and citizens?

"Now, now, it's "Park 51" now, which is apparently meant less to sound like a triumphalist mega-mosque," ...

True, Marisol, just as "religion of peace" is meant to make islam sound less like a triumphalist religion as well. They're clever, but they aren't THAT clever ...

Here's Andrew McCarthy ("Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad", and "The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America") on Jamal Barzinji's International Institute of Islamic Thought and the Muslim Brotherhood:

http://sroblog.com/2010/07/24/andrew-c-mccarthy-international-institute-of-islamic-thought-and-the-muslim-brotherhood/

Here's Daniel Pipes, from 2004, on Jamal Barzinji's Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID):

http://www.danielpipes.org/1659/the-us-institute-of-peace-stumbles

One Kamran Bokhari is (or was—it's hard to get up-to-date info) a fellow at CSID—he also happens to have served for years as the North American spokesman for Al-Muhajiroun, perhaps the most extreme Islamist group operating in the West. For example, *it celebrated the first anniversary of 9/11 with a conference titled," Towering Day in History." It celebrated the second anniversary by hailing "The Magnificent 19.*" [emphasis mine—GI]

Al-Muhajiroun was banned in Britain earlier this year, along with Islam4UK. Omar Bakri Muhammad and Anjem Choudary are leaders of this group.

All these groups seem to laud Jihad terrorism and seek the imposition of Shari'ah in the West; in addition, one of the stated goals of Al-Muhajiroun is to re-establish the Caliphate.

From what I have been able to learn, it seems Jamal Barzinji is most heavily involved with funding Jihad terror—and likely that triumphalist mosque at Ground Zero.

Ugly, ugly stuff. I imagine what people will find most shocking here are the direct links to those who have openly celebrated the 9/11 attacks.

SL: "confiscate the investments and assets of said Arab country"

It has been working the other way around.

For example, Congress in 2008 transformed the private debt of the bankrupt for-profit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into de facto public debt, for 5 trillion dollars, of which 1.5 trillion was held by foreign sovereign governments, including the petro-dollar magic kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

I would blame Henry Paulson. I would call this government gifting (and more that followed), to foreign governments, an act of treason. It is fair to say that it is the US population that is funding the victory mosque, as we have already surrendered financially.
(see: http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=2178)

We need to respond to the provocative mosque, by reversing the treasonous gifting.

Even if the "moderate" supremacists delivered the head of Osama Bin Laden -- to prove their moderateness -- it would not be enough.

It is fair to say that Nancy Pelosi used your money to pay for the Islamic Supremacist Victory Mosque, and all the other mosques as well.

The mosque proposal's highest value is to unmask the absence of any distinction between the moderate imam and the wacko imam. None would dare offer Osama Bin Laden's head as a token. It would be far too provocative among any and all members of the violent Islamic Supremacist gang.

We can address the enemies within, the financial wizards who sold out the country, without declaring war on any foreign government or any "religion".

If you are new to the site or new to the struggle against Islamic supremacy: There is no other group of people on the planet who need to be told NO, you cannot build a mosque near Ground Zero.

It's like dealing with sociopaths - they are totally obvious to anything but their own selfish goals.

Is Jihad Watch really interested in reducing Islamic extremism? Because it seems to me everything they do exacerbates the problem.

The Anti-Muslim Protests are Seen as a Lift for Extremists.

We know based on intelligence reports provided to George Bush prior to the invasion that the invasion of Iraq would result in a swelling of support for political Islam.

We know based on Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" wherein he examines every case of suicide terrorism from 1982 to today that foreign military occupation is the primary cause of suicide terrorism.

We know from an analysis of RAND data on the effect of the Iraqi invasion by Peter Bergen and Paul Cruikshank, research fellows at the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law, that the invasion of Iraq has had the effect of increasing terrorism seven fold.

These studies can be multiplied. Robert Spencer's actions have the effect of increasing radical Islamic extremism, and result that I very much do not like. He's right to be concerned about radical Islam. It's unfortunate that what he does exacerbates the problem.

jon says:

"These studies can be multiplied. Robert Spencer's actions have the effect of increasing radical Islamic extremism, and result that I very much do not like. He's right to be concerned about radical Islam. It's unfortunate that what he does exacerbates the problem."

This is like saying that Churchill's opposition to nazis had the effect of increasing radical nazi extremism!!!

note to jon et al:
nazis would be as radical and extreme if churchill had never said a word about them.

similarly, islamists would be as radical and extreme
- if spencer had never said a word about them
- if israel didn't exist
- if european colonialism didn't exist
- if had never happened.

its all based on muhammad's sayings and actions.

If the experts, commissioned studies, and intelligence estimates are to be believed, then what Jihad Watch does promotes Islamic extremism. If you are really interested in reducing Islamic extremism then tell me the strategies you advocate for accomplishing that.

The British had a terrorism problem. It was called the IRA. They tried violence for a long time, but it didn't work. What did work was sitting down and addressing the grievances, some of which were legitimate. When's the last time there was an IRA terrorist incident?

Now, that doesn't always work, but it is worth trying. Let's look at the facts. OBL was despised in the Arab and Muslim world prior to 9-11. He was violent towards Arab civilians as well. He was condemned and demonized by the Muslim world. In Tehran a candle light vigil was held on behalf of the victims of 9-11 on the following day. The whole world mourned that event, except the handful of Islamic extremists throughout the world.

Since then the US has used that as an excuse to invade 2 countries that weren't responsible for the incident. The US has blocked democracy, expanded it's occupying forces, and Robert Spencer runs around trying to prevent Muslims from building mosques. What is the consequence? A huge boon for Islamic extremism. OBL couldn't be more pleased. He went from being a despised murderer to a hero. Spencer keeps it going.

Fear mongering is very effective. An old control technique. How long will you continue to fall for it? OBL is a villain, but so are those that exploit him to to retain the public in a perpetual state of fear.

How am I against identifying the problem and reporting on it? That's what I'm doing. I'm relying on the most respectable sources available. I'm relying on the commissioned studies.

Lessons can be learned from the IRA even though no comparison is exactly the same. The experts say that Spencer's actions are increasing support for radical Islam. The fact that the IRA and Al Qaeda are not identical doesn't change that.

Jon;

Speaking for myself, islam is the enemy. To have effective counter to this death cult, one must see the fight is not about the proposed Ground Zero mosque, or the mosque in Virginia,nor OBL for that matter, but the ideals they find in the qur'an.

Again, islam is the enemy, that is what I believe. A effective fight will only begin when the focus in placed on the proper target.

The ban on the death cult of islam in this country, the outlawing of construction of all mosques, schools that teach islam, full rejection of islam's teachings that are in conflict with the laws and customs of our country, and deportation of those found to hold to, and stand with islam's word.

I speak for myself and not Jihad Watch, Robert and company are much more in a word and thought, moderate.

To get back on track. From the article:

"In December 2008, the Brotherhood's U.S. think tank -- the International Institute of Islamic Thought, or IIIT - hosted Rauf..."

JW readers will be aware of the very ugly discovery made by Swiss authorities in November 2001 in the very beautiful environs of Lake Lugano/Campione of a document now called "The Project". Dated December 1, 1982, this unsigned document was prepared by "Islamic researchers" associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, and laid out in detail the long-term plans for world Islamization.

In 1977 some of the most committed and concerned Muslim scholars (I'm quoting) from around the world were invited to attend a major seminar in Switzerland to address the crisis of thought faced by the Muslim Ummah.

Oh, where? Lugano.

From that, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) was incorporated in the United States as an Islamic academic and research institute to usher in a new era by serving and working for the sole purpose of achieving the goal of Islamizing knowledge.

What later became known as the Second International Conference on the Islamization of Knowledge was held in Pakistan in January 1982, and some seminal papers were delivered there. These and much much more are available at:

http://i-epistemology.net/e-books/toward-islamic-anthropology.html

and one in particular is worth careful study, by the highly influential Ismail al Faruqi:

http://i-epistemology.net/attachments/1120_iok%20-%2015%20-%2051%20-%20Faruqi%20-%20IOK%20-%20problems%20-%20principles%20and%20prospective.pdf

For example, from the section headed The Khilafah:

"...the requirement of peace and security, perhaps the most precious and the most sought-after prize in the Muslim World today. Every Muslim must feel secure in his life, property, personal honor, and place in society. To fulfill this requirement is a first Islamic societal imperative. To this end, Islam requires that every Muslim be politicized, i.e., awakened, organized, and mobilized to seek fulfillment of this objective in his own person as well as in the persons of his family members, neighbours, and all fellow-Muslims."

THAT level of organization and committment is what we are facing. THAT is the challenge.

Monday, August 23, 2010 ...

The Moslem Brotherhood, a Nazi organization that is banned in Egypt, is associated with some American mosques.

+++++++

According to FBI estimates, 10 % of the mosques in the United States are associated with radical Jihadist ideology. Others estimate that 80% of mosques are dominated by the extremist Wahhabi ideology promoted by Saudi Arabia. And they are allowed to practice, under American principles of freedom of religion.

Unlike houses of worship in America which are built and supported by the local population, most mosques receive funding from foreign countries, especially Saudi Arabia.

In a particularly disturbing case, the Islamic Development Bank also granted US$295,000 to the Masjid Bilal Islamic Center, for the construction of the Bilal Islamic Primary and Secondary School in California, in 1999. Hassan Akbar, an American Muslim presently charged with a fatal attack on his fellow soldiers in Kuwait during the Iraq intervention, was affiliated with this institution.

In addition, the previously mentioned official website of the Saudi government reported a donation in 1995 of $4 million for the construction of a mosque complex in Los Angeles, named for Ibn Taymiyyah, a historic Islamic figure considered the forerunner of Wahhabism

Excerpt:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/obama_was_wrong_to_make_the_mo.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

80% of mosques are dominated by the extremist Wahhabi ideology promoted by Saudi Arabia? ...that's a shocking and shameful statistic!

Read it all ...

jon thinks negotiating with terrorists might work...bwahahahahahahahahahahaha

Congress needs to amend 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. (Protection of land use as religious exercise)

The issue of dual motive (or mixed motive) is similar to employment discrimination cases.

If protected activity, as provided for in federal statutes, plays *any* part in a decision then a court will likely rule that there is a violation of the federal law.
See: http://google.com/search?q=mixed+motive+employment+discrimination

Imams routinely incite violent rage at things as minor as the now-infamous motoons. The network of Islamic organizations the world over engage in conduct that clearly fit the definition of a violent street gang, and thus could (and should) be banned.

Each of these two definitions of any organization that ascribes to various Islamisms are equally applicable, under federal statutes, yet they are irreconcilable. How can we reconcile them?

A possible phrase might be: "Anyone who is a member of an organization, religious or otherwise, that holds as one of its tenants that any member who chooses to leave shall be killed shall be denied any protection from this statute." (Think apostasy, or the UN recognized right to change one's religion.) If congress has authority to enhance the first amendment right to exercise religion, or union formation, then congress surely has the authority to enhance the first amendment right of an individual not to associate with any private organization.

Imagine for instance if union membership was like that of Islam. You are automatically joined if your parent is a member. If you leave you must be killed. The freedom to associate with whom one chooses, or not associate, is protected by the first amendment. (See Communication Workers vs. Beck.) Not even the most obnoxious union practice rises to the level of embracing the notion of killing those who leave. At most it would be deemed a political betrayal or political suicide. Any "religion" must be confined to excommunication or expulsion, or the like, as the most extreme measure that it can take against a member.

Congress could also amend the "religion" aspect of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2 (Unlawful employment practices) for similar reasons.

Compelled membership in any gang is duress, and thus either void or voidable. As an exercise, compare void versus voidable. Given the threat of death for apostasy congress could make a finding of fact that all membership in Islamic organizations have been under the ever-present threat of death and thus void.

Every Imam (in my opinion) seems to think and act like they are the exclusive bargaining agent for all issues related to all muslims, in relation to all non-muslims. We do not have to recognize any Imams as the exclusive bargaining agent for anyone or anything.

Again, modify 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc as noted above.

I am getting tired of the repeated (and unjustified) concession that there is a first amendment right to erect any mosque, let alone the victory mosque.

jon says:

"How am I against identifying the problem and reporting on it?"

You don't want Jihad Watch to report on the problem. Jihad Watch is the most precise sources in explaining the problem based on authorized Islamic sources.

Jon: I challenge to find an inaccuracy in what Robert Spencer says. You probably can find inaccuracies in what i say but i bet it's going to be very difficult to find one inaccuracy in what Ibn Spencer says.

Jon says:"The experts say that Spencer's actions are increasing support for radical Islam. The fact that the IRA and Al Qaeda are not identical doesn't change that."

Ah the mythical experts that can explain to us Islamophobe zombies the reality of Islam based on their wishful thinking. I bet your experts somehow are on the Saudi's dime. Karen Armstrong? John Esposito? Feisal Abdul Rauf? Daisy Con? Puhleeeeze...

Check the real experts: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Bat Yeor, Ibn Waraq, Robert Spencer, who to great danger to their safety expose the unvarnished truth about Jihad.

I seriously doubt if Jihadwatch incites terrorism or pushes those 'moderate' muslims we hear so much about off the deep end, causing them to become maniacal radicals. Islam spawns terrorists and every devout muslim is a potential terrorist. Every 'moderate' muslim is a potential devout muslim, thus a potential terrorist. Of course, muslims don't consider themselves terrorists; they are pious jihadists. The qur'an does not foment terrorism just because it encourages muslims to kill for the sake of allah and to conquer the world for islam; again, that's righteous, obligatory jihad. The qur'an instructs muslims to engage in da'wa and if that does not work, the infidels are to be killed or enslaved. Muslims might not define that as terrorism, but I do.

We see muslims rioting in the streets somewhere every day, carrying threatening signs to intimidate the infidels. If Jon's theory is correct, why aren't the infidels going berserk and becoming terrorists? Why aren't infidels attacking muslims in the West, demanding that they convert to Christianity? Why must muslims be handled like ticking time bombs because they cannot control themselves and might explode if you make them mad? If muslims are that volatile and unpredictable, they have no business living in the civilized West and they certainly aren't deserving of special treatment because they are members of a predatory death cult.

I am sick of being told that I must be tolerant of muslims because they are Constitutionally entitled to practice their vile religion. I am sick of being told that islam is a religion of peace when any deaf, dumb, and blind idiot knows that is a lie. I am sick of the moral/religious equivocations between islam and Christianity/Judaism. I am sick of ignorant people with no understanding of history pointing to the Crusades and Inquisition to justify abominable islam. I am sick of ignorant or mendacious 'journalists' seething with self-righteous indignation at the bigotry and islamophobia of those who oppose the GZ mosque. But more that anything else, I am sick of lying, deceitful, insidious muslims migrating to our country, telling us what America is all about, suing the people who give them jobs, demanding special rights and privileges, and trying to shove islam in our faces. That is the hardest to swallow and if this battle continues to escalate, I don't think it will 'radicalize' any more muslims but it will definitely produce some genuine muslim haters. Some people find it difficult to separate the person from the religion and islam is a despicable, ugly 'religion'.

Muslims don't need a special occasion to commit terrorism; NYC just had a close call and that was before the mosque controversy. But that was just one muslim in a billion; forget about the 15,000+ terror attacks since 9/11. Forget about the hundreds or thousands that failed or were stopped.
Muslims will continue to terrorize the world until they are forcibly stopped and it is evil to be tolerant of the intolerant.

I like some of the conclusions here:

gravenimage: If you even have the temerity to "draw attention" to the Jihad, you are only fostering more Jihad.
Conclusion: be very, very quiet, and offer no resistance...

Susanp: it is evil to be tolerant of the intolerant.

Why it should be in any way correct to tolerate intolerance is a concept I simply cannot understand. To ignore the effects of allowing one group the expression of intolerant attitudes really only is condescending superiority and ignorance.

"The ban on the death cult of islam in this country, the outlawing of construction of all mosques, schools that teach islam, full rejection of islam's teachings that are in conflict with the laws and customs of our country, and deportation of those found to hold to, and stand with islam's word."
This paragraph from Islofob IS-1 comments should form the basis of future action by those opposing the GZ Muslim victory mosque. Daisy Khow has thrown the gauntlet down by refusing Gov.Paterson's offer of an alternative site.
All sensible and patriotic Americans must join the fight to ban this death cult called Islam. It is not a religion. Ban all Muslim immigration and deport any Muslim who incites hatred for all peace-loving people.

There is a nice article by Andrew C. McCarthy in The National Review blending together the various points related to the victory mosque and the incompatibility of Islam with individual liberty.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/244545/inventing-moderate-islam-andrew-c-mccarthy

"no one who advocates sharia can be a moderate, no matter how well-meaning he may be, no matter how heartfelt may be his conviction that this is God’s will, and no matter how much higher on the food chain he may be than Osama bin Laden."

and

"As Qaradawi put it in the 2005 interview, public apostates are 'the gravest danger' to Islamic society; therefore, Muslims must snuff them out, lest their reforms 'spread like wildfire in a field of thorns.'"

I say:

We need to protect the individual right -- the individual right recognized in the first amendment of the US Constitution NOT to associate -- to leave or to refuse to join any private organization that holds as one of its tenets the punishment of death for leaving or refusing to join. This single feature of islam and the koran, the embrace of such punishment, is sufficient to refuse to recognize any such organizations as lawful. Any purported moderate could cobble together what remains of islam and the koran into some other ideology, where every word and deed rejects the element of sanctioned compulsion.

The caption of the The National Review article is fitting: "Inventing Moderate Islam"

"Today, 'moderate Islam' is an illusion."

We can open a doorway to moderate islam (if it is even possible) by blocking the doorway to the compulsion-filled islam of today.

I wish WND had provided a source or reference to indicate Barzinji involvement with the Cordoba Initiative. WND provided a lot of background on the notorious Barzinji, and the overlap between him and Rauf, but I can't pinpoint exactly what Barzinji's role is in the current GZM planning.