Hamas-linked ISNA holding "interfaith" meeting to complain of "intolerance" over Islamic supremacist Ground Zero mega-mosque

Mahoundianism is the epitome of intolerance... And, too bad for CAIR and the rest of the gang of inbred bedouin pedophile- and black-cube-worshipping savages and assorted arab-wannabes (i.e., non-arab mahoundians) more and more people are becoming aware of it and not falling for their "oh-my-allah-why-are-you-infidels-so-intolerant" nonsense.

People are learning about sharia.

People are reading Mein Qurampf.

People can't ignore the daily gorefest, bombathons, gang-rapes, sharia-ghetto-building and all sorts of crimes committed in the name of mahound's imaginary alter-ego the "most merciful", taking place all over the globe, save for islam-free countries.

People know that women are treated by penis-possessing mahoundians worse than they treat their goats.

And more and more people can't ignore the fact that, as Pat Condell noted on his latest video on the victory mosque at Ground Zero, tolerance in mahoundianism only goes one way: through mahoundian use and abuse of infidel tolerance of islam's inherent disgusting intolerance.

My, how the Barbarians have become emboldened.

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." -- CAIR cofounder and longtime Board chairman Omar Ahmad, 1998

Oh yeah, the above has been denied, but the Muslim said it, no doubt.

Go to hell, CAIR. Get out of our country.

'Opponents of the New York Islamic center are "trying to tell the world and tell Americans that Muslims do not belong here. '
Islam doesn't belong here, and its horrid ideology is clearly incompatible with Western democracies, esp. American freedoms & values.

"That Muslims are the others"

That's it!, Muslims are the others, as their ideology insists - the superior others according to it while we unrepentant infidels are the worst of creatures and bound for hellfire (Quran 98:6). Islam is also the other great destructive menace besides Hitler's Nazism and Soviet Communism which took a lot to get rid of. I hope we are being clear.

Here it is, 9 years after 9/11, and people are finally saying to our leaders (so-called, given the “leadership” they’re providing) and to Muslim supremacy, ENOUGH. And for their trouble and well-justified fears they are called Islamophobes. Touche!

We should look upon the GZ mosque proposal as a much-welcomed catalyst, a provoking last straw. Look at how many people are both animated about this issue in particular and about Islam in general, and who have become knowledgeable about Islam, its practices, and its insidious methods of undermining our form of government, including leveling the false charge of Islamophobia.

We should all be cheered and encouraged that the true nature and knowledge about Islam is spreading. No longer are people willing to believe our odious pols and the devious Muslim advocates instructing us, “Who are ya gonna believe, us or your lyin’ eyes?”

Fortunately people are now choosing to believe with their lying eyes and are ignoring these so-called Interfaith Gatherings. They see with those eyes exactly what Islam is all about. Jihadwatch, atlasshugged, religionofpeace, and others are laying out for all to see what Islam is all about. We have Europe as our mine canary. Islam is entrenched in Europe, and it ain’t pretty. This is in store for us.

Fewer and fewer Americans are willing to let themselves be MSM patsies,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/have_you_ever_noticed.html
(Tag line: “So, to the Left: Have you ever noticed that those really dumb people in flyover country aren't so stupid after all?”)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142133/confidence-newspapers-news-remains-rarity.aspx
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/narrative_overview_publicattitudes.php?media=1

And fortunately there is some common sense among some state legislators who are trying to head Sharia’h off at the pass.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4342-states-take-preemptive-strike-against-shariah
To us who do not accept or want Islam the ideology of Islam does not cause hate, a favorite word of the pro-GZ mosque proponents to belittle their opposition. Rather, the ideology of Islam inspires FEAR. And we have 1400 years of historical evidence to justify that fear.

The resentment level being generated by this GZ mosque will not ebb with time. Predictably it will increase. This story broke on a wider scale sometime in the Spring, and it has received more and more traction as more and more Americans have found out what's going on. And they don't like it one bit. Americans are not about to let this one go. Muslims attacked us based on an ideology, their ideology. For their successful surprise attack on innocents the Muslims now want to gloat over us, celebrating their "victory." We may have piss-poor leaders, for which the people themselves can be rightly blamed, but at heart Americans are decent people who don't like being played for fools.

If this mosque is ever built it will be one painful experience. Already the unions are pledging not to work on the building, and this is a certain sign that anyone foolish enough to work as a non-union laborer is going to have a hard go of it.

And even if it’s ever completed, Americans are not going to forget the provocation represented by this monstrous building. There will be constant protests. If nothing else, September 11 will come around every year. The Muslims and their ritualistic ceremonies, Ramadan, Eid Al-Fitr, Eid Al-Adha, the Friday-lets-kill-the-Kuffir sermons, will all be reminders of what the Muslims, inspired by Islam’s core texts, did on 9/11 and how Islam continues to rub our faces in it.

interfaith dialogue??? tolerance???
don t make me laugh.
Cair...council for muslim advancement...M.public affairs cmtee...in britain the M.C.B, all chest inflating nonsense names, that are there to only create division.
To drive a wedge, to differentiate, to create a protected class, (for what the vast majority find abhorrent, and retrograde cultural/religious practices), pretend they speak for all muslims, create an enclave and prevent islamic advancement & enlightenment
when the plain fact is, muslims ADAPT to brit way of life, or the US, or any other European country..thats it, or stay away, yes stay in their muslim holes.

We are not intolerant unlike muslims and :-
their intolerance of freedom of conscience,
their intolerance of apostates,
their intolerance of freedom of expression
their intolerance of freedom of speech,
their intolerance of minorities,
other religious minorities,
sexual minorities,
their intolerance of gays, until Muslims are willing to provide for others...what they so arrogantly demand for themselves in here in the West, the answer is simple NO THANKS, and theres more
their dislike and distrust of ,(unbiased/advanced) education,
of half of the population; women
...and of dogs
....and of pigs, is there anything else to this endless list.
And many, many other things, we do not need more blasphemy law,
more freedom of speech law,
more initiatives curtailing freedom of expression, or any more of this bereft intellectual backwardness, we do not need any of it.
We are sick of that adage that every muslim answer comes round to more islam, and less of everything else
Those who foolishly advocate the need to better understand Islam need to drastically rethink the problem.
They should direct their efforts instead to attempting to firmly teach fundamentalist Muslims the concept of tolerance of others first, since it is they who are the source of the problem.

Going back to Mohammed Islam was founded on lies, fortunately for intelligent thinking people they are not very good ones.

We have had several studies showing that there has been a decrease in crimes against muslims in this country. We have had numerous incidents of faked hate crimes perpetrated by muslims themselves.

So now Cair gets up and tries to announce a wave of antimuslim bigotry that simply does not exist.

And were it to be in fact real Islam would be to blame for thier own predicament. The Islam that preaches hatred, oppression, violence against women, rape, etc. The Islam that produces terrorist a dime a dozen and commits heinous acts of intolerance world wide, that celebrated 9-11 in the streets of it's cities, and is yet inccensed to the point of violence at the slightest afront to thier own sensibilities.

But Cair would say many Muslims were silent on these issues. But to justify his relations with a 9 year old girl did not Mohammed say that silence means consent. The very silence expressed by the majority is as damning as the dancing in the streets.

It is the dog of islam that made it's own figurative bed in which it must lie. Fortunately for them we are in reality more civilized and humane, than we are in thier imaginations.

How does one reconcile the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the Islamic version, that is the so-called Cairo Declaration of Human Rights? One cannot, for the most important guarantees, those involving freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, as those are understood in the West, are not part of the Islamic version.

Similarly, whatever it means to be an American, it must irreducibly mean a willingness to accept -- and not merely temporarily abide by, while biding one's time so as to become strong enough to change it -- the Constitution of the United States, and above all, the Bill of Rights.

How can someone who believes in the Holy Law of Islam, the Shari'a, as the ideal which should be steadily worked towards, possibly offer loyalty to the American Constitution? How can it be done? No matter how many times one says it is possible, and becomes angry that others should question the transparent assertions, how can one reconcile what is the position of non-Muslims under the Shari'a (so much for the First and Fourtheenth Amendments as to group rights and legal eqaultiy), about freedom of speech (the Danish cartoon controversy showed clearly the Muslim attitude toward Western ideas of freedom of speech), about freedom of conscience (the Shari'a requires severe punishment, even death, for those who leave Islam, while it encourages every means to persuade or pressure non-Muslims to convert -- "revert" -- to Islam).
Opponents of the New York Islamic center are "trying to tell the world and tell Americans that Muslims do not belong here. That Muslims are the others, when we are in fact, all Americans," said Nahad [sic] Awad, executive director of CAIR." -- from the article above

Opponents of the mosque near the World Trade Center site are trying only to express their awareness of the history of Muslims marking their triumphs over non-Muslims by putting mosques right at the center of things, as on top of the Temple Mount, in Jerusalem, or appropriationg the Church of St. John the Baptist, even incorporating parts of it, into the Umayyad Mosque in d

"They're trying to portray Muslims as foreigners. This is a dangerous repeat of history. If it's allowed, it's going to hurt all of us," he said....
The Constitution and the Shari'a are incompatible. Muslims are taught that their sole loyalty must be to Islam. Many of them believe this, and act accordingly, whenever they can. Why should we take a chance that somehow Islam doesn't inculcate what it does inculcate, or somehow we can, if only we pretend otherwise, get Muslims to stop taking Islam fully to heart? We can't. They won't. Plan accordingly. And don't be apologetic about it. It's simply common sense, undiluted by any political parti-pris or naive and slavish worship of such Idols of the Age as "Tolerance" (a suicidal tolerance of the terminally intolerant) and "Diversity" (held to be a Good Thing when there is more and more evidence that people's loyalties and sense of belonging diminish the more undesired "diversity" -- that is, the kind that is forced upon them -- they are required helplessly to endure.

Remember 9/11

Remember The Alamo
Remember The Lusitania
Remember Pearl Harbor
Remember USS Cole
Remember.... Remember!

It's all coming together now, isn't it?

They had their say, we listened. Now we remember.

Many Muslims suffer from such a phobia towards Infidels they can't even bear touching them. Female Muslims dress it up as some religious tenet that demands our tolerance when they won't shake hands, their food must be untainted by Infidels, always interfering with the cultures they have chosen to immigrate to, always that distinction between them and us. And they have the impudence to accuse us of a phobia????

But it is so typical: they are always the victims, always it is something being done to them. By and by I have discovered the explanation and the solution: whenever a Muslim accuses the West of an attitude I automatically assume it's his own that he is projecting.

It stems from the first years of Muhammad as a warlord and raider: the reason given to this day that the Infidels rejected and persecuted him ....you know, a bit of ridicule and a bucket of filth, too much for his tender sensibilities. And so they learned to regret their obstinacy.

I wonder if the expansion of Islam wasn't caused by the fact that so many Arabs had caught on to the promise of plundering rich and foreign countries - instead of plundering each other like they used to do, and it wasn't much fun anymore - that the only solution was to continue, on and on until stopped. What kind of beastly religion is that, come to think of it, presenting the outside world as a legitimate target?

Words of wisdom from a recent essay entitled THE MUSLIM MOSQUE: A STATE WITHIN A STATE by Vijay Kumar

Mosques and Treason and Sedition Against the U.S.

Islam’s political documents and law call for the overthrow of our Constitution and our man-made laws, and therefore for the overthrow of our government, which by definition constitutes sedition and treason. The Islamic documents call for the overthrow of our government—a protector of religious freedom and human rights—through violence:

“I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘there is no god but Allah.’” —Muhammad’s farewell address, 632

“I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:196 Narrated Abu Huraira

“He who fights so that Allah’s Word (Islam) should be superior, then he fights in Allah’s cause.” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 1:3:125 Narrated Abu Musa

“I asked the Prophet [Muhammad], ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and to fight for His Cause.’” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 3:46:694 Narrated Abu Dhar

“And fight them till there is no more affliction (i.e. no more worshiping of others along with Allah)”. —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 6:60:40 Narrated Nafi’

“Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers.” —Quran 3.151

“I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” —Quran 8:12

“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.” —Quran 8:60

The Quran, as the constitution of Islam and Muslims, is diametrically opposite to the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. According to Islam and Muslims, the Quran is divine law, uncorrupted and incorruptible, whereas the United States Constitution is man-made and is not infallible, and therefore is corrupt. The U.S. Constitution is the antithesis of the Quran; therefore Muslims have no obligation to obey it.

A mosque in the United States is a command and control center of a foreign political and military state that seeks the overthrow of our government, and an Imam in a mosque is a political and military representative of a foreign state that calls for the overthrow of the United States.

The laws of the United States provide specific criminal penalties for sedition and treason. These laws are not only applicable to those advocating and calling for the overthrow of our Constitution and our government; they are applicable to anyone who gives “aid or comfort” to such declared enemies of the United States, or who “organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons” so engaged. The terms “organizes” and “organize” extend to “the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.”

Mosques are just such units.

Vijay Kumar
Republican candidate for U.S. Congress from Tennessee's 5th District
www.kumarforcongress.com

This is such a frustrating time. The majority of the country realizes that Islam is not a good thing, yet the truth about the religion is being stifled by political correctness and leftist media.

I hope the catalyst isn't a massive terror attack, but I fear that it will take a much bigger attack than 9/11 to really open people's eyes.

I think there should be a hard look at how leftist, Hamas, PLO, and PA are able to manipulate the media to their ends. Virtually creating facts in-order to demonize Israel as an aggressor every time they are attacked by these Fascists; to understand how CAIR and other associated groups will engage in a similar PR campaign in the US, against people who criticized Islamic Extremist.

Hugh's comment, and Robert Smith's comment quoting Congressional candidate Vijay Kumar, seem a fitting introduction for a new initiative.

It's called the Ground Zero Declaration, which everyone should sign. This could turn out to be the seed of something very important in time.

By signing the Ground Zero Declaration, you join in its request of four things from the Ground Zero Imam (Rauf) and his associates:

1. Rauf and his associates should go through a questionnaire titled "The Qur'an vs. the Constitution: Questionnaire for Muslims seeking free practice of their religion in America". The questionnaire asks ten questions (each of which highlights an aspect of Islamic doctrine that conflicts with U.S. law, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights) and then asks Muslims to answer yes or no, as to whether they repudiate each aspect of Islamic doctrine that conflicts with American law and values.

2. Rauf and his associates should sign the "Freedom Pledge". A group of former Muslims is sending The Freedom Pledge to American Muslim leaders and challenging them to sign it. Signing the Freedom Pledge means rejecting Muhammad's statement, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." The Freedom Pledge opposes any physical intimidation or worldly or corporal punishment for apostates from Islam.

3. Rauf and associates should demand that Muslim nations grant non-Muslim religions the same freedom to build houses of worship that America grants Muslims.

4. Rauf and associates should move their planned Islamic Center farther from Ground Zero.

The Declaration then ends by saying that

These simple steps would demonstrate their goodwill, and open the door to a productive dialogue with and about Islam. It would establish a clear distinction between a Reformed Islam that is compatible with American values and a jihadist Islam that seeks to destroy them.

Apart from these steps, we have no reason to believe that the Cordoba House [the Ground Zero Mosque] will in any way be beneficial to American society or inter-faith dialogue. In the shadow of 9/11, the burden of proof is on Imam Rauf to help us understand why we should tolerate an ideology that, at first glance, seems intolerant of everything America stands for.

If he refuses to supply such proof [for example, by carrying out the four actions listed above], then we ask our city, state and federal leaders to judge them by their own standards and give them no more freedom than they are willing to give others. We do not believe a commitment to freedom means giving our enemies the freedom to destroy us.

The choice is theirs.

(my bolding) I like the bolded paragraph a lot, especially since I've read the three documents: the Ground Zero Declaration, "Freedom Pledge", and the Questionnaire: Qur'an vs. the Constitution. The three documents seem to me to be very much in the spirit of suggestions made by Robert Spencer to require some kind of pledge from Muslims who want to become citizens.

It should be noted that even if a Muslim lied in answering documents like these, s/he could be held accountable for those lies if exposed. At some point in the future, documents like these could perhaps be given legal force, so that lying in one's answers could be made a crime, leading in some circumstances to loss of citizenship and deportation.

The other value of these documents is that they often compel Muslims to reveal themselves. For example, a number of "moderate" American Muslim leaders have refused to sign the Freedom Pledge, and that reveals that the "moderate" Muslims in question are not willing to condemn Islam's death-to-apostates law. That rips off the "moderate" mask and reveals the ugly face beneath for all to see.

And as for the Questionnaire, even if no Muslim ever answers it, it's a powerful educational tool for non-Muslims, because the Questionnaire makes crystal clear a dozen specific ways in which Islamic law and culture are in direct conflict with the most basic American laws and values. I think the Questionnaire could use some more refinement, by experts like Spencer, but it's already a powerful beginning.

I saw the video posted on CNN today of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim religious and social leaders all talking about the rise in so-called "bigotry" and the fact that "America wasn't built on hate."

The ONLY way to respond to them is to get the facts about Islam out as fast as possible, and as widely as possible. Sympathy seeking and patriotism by themselves just won't do it. Flag-waving is seen as a political move, not as a thoughtful response to claims of religious intolerance. (Remember all the flags that waved during every political convention, and how every candidate was trying to "claim" 9/11. Giuliani became a national joke for working 9/11 into every other sentence.)

I will post below a copy of the comments from "Egghead" who agrees with my analysis. (By the way, this posting is not from me under a different name.) His posting was on the Atlas Shrugs site:

Egghead said...
Pamela and Robert, I greatly appreciate all of the great work that you do. You are absolutely amazing. Hats off to both of you!

I realize that you and Robert are PERSONALLY in a difficult situation with the issue of rally signs. I realize that if agitators appear with "unfortunate" signs, you two will be held responsible by the press and Muslim organizations because you are the rally organizers. I realize that you two and your various organizations and donors are financially subsidizing the rally so you feel as if you have a right to make reasonable requests of rally attendees.

However, I believe that you should seriously re-consider your prohibition of rally signs for the following reasons:

1. Prohibiting signs essentially imposes soft Sharia Law upon rally attendees. Sharia Law considers any criticism of Islam to be blasphemy with an attendant ummah-wide death sentence. If you prohibit signs, you are acting in accordance with Islam's blasphemy laws.

2. Prohibiting signs is NOT going to keep agitators from appearing with "unfortunate" signs, but it will prevent rally attendees from expressing an articulated point of view. Although you live where it is convenient for you to attend multiple rallies (some of which may allow signs), many attendees will only be able to attend this specific rally.

3. As some lawyer probably told you by now, confiscating signs is probably illegal. If rally attendees are standing on a public street corner, they may hold any signs that they like. Isn't that the point of the First Amendment?

4. As important as respect for the 9-11 families may be, respect and ACKNOWLEDGMENT of the over 270 million non-Muslims violently murdered victims of Islam is even more important - and RECOGNITION of current foreign non-Muslim victims of dhimmitude is even more important. The best signs from your June rally were the signs that showed the various non-Muslim genocides being conducted TODAY in the name of Islam.

Also crucial is ACKNOWLEDGMENT that the majority of Muslim girls worldwide are victims of female genital mutilation - and ACKNOWLEDGMENT that 51 million child brides are enslaved in loveless forced marriages - mostly in Islamic countries - and ACKNOWLEDGMENT that Sharia Law refuses to accept any women's testimony in the matters of rape and child molestation.

I believe that you need to ask yourself: What is the purpose of the 9-11 rally?

You have stated that the purpose is to mourn. I disagree.

I believe that the purpose MUST be: To inform non-Muslims about the seriousness of the Muslim threat to establish a worldwide caliphate ruled by Sharia Law.

As sad as it is, the dead are too late to be saved from Islam - and may be remembered but NOT helped.

BUT, the living are here and MUST be warned of the suffering imposed by Islam and Sharia Law.

My sincere advice to you is for you to ask rally attendees to submit their ideas for signs and sign slogans for pre-approval by you. You could even publish sample sign slogans on your websites. You could even choose specific areas for educational focus such as past and present Islamic genocides of non-Muslims and Islamic abuse of women and children.

If "unfortunate" signs appear at the rally, you can say that those signs were NOT pre-approved by you.

I believe that your commenter Arthur is correct, and the window of opportunity is fast closing on any chance for legitimate public education and criticism of Islam. This highly publicized rally may be one of the last chances for large scale public education before the Muslim-dominated United Nations adopts Islamic anti-blasphemy laws that will affect us all - especially anti-Islam bloggers.

The above comment by "Egghead" was in support of my detailed analysis that I posted yesterday. It seems that only a few saw that, so I will repost it here:

Arthur said...

In the final days of August, I had posted a number of comments on JihadWatch.org suggesting that people who oppose the Ground Zero mosque might bring large banners to the rally on September 11 stating some of the important facts about Islam. I provided many arguments in support of my suggestions.

In response, Mr. Spencer posted a note on September 1 entitled "Please bring flags, not signs, to the 9/11 rally against the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero." In that posting, Mr. Spencer had initially said that signs would be confiscated, but that part of his posting has now apparently been removed. There were a large number of comments (over 130) in response to Mr. Spencer's posting. I requested that Mr. Spencer respond to some of the points I had made.

Mr. Spencer did post a very short response early in the morning of September 2, which stated "It is a solemn day. It is not a day for inflammatory rhetoric." Although I agree with Mr. Spencer that it will be a solemn day, I do not find that fact to be a sufficient justification to allow only a few people to express themselves.

Many people who attend the rally will conform with the others in deference to Mr. Spencer's wishes. He deserves a great deal of credit for organizing the event. But some of the people reading these comments may have their own ideas. They may feel that their voices should be heard as well, and not just the voices of those who have the microphone. The great thing about living in America is that it provides opportunities for all voices to be heard who wish to speak.

THE REMAINDER OF THESE COMMENTS ARE FOR THOSE READERS WHO FEEL AN URGE TO SPEAK AND WHO WANT THEIR VOICES TO BE HEARD ALSO.

I THINK THAT THE BEST WAY TO HONOR THE 3000 PEOPLE WHO WERE KILLED THAT DAY IS TO PUBLICLY IDENTIFY, FOR THE FIRST TIME, WHO THEIR REAL KILLER WAS. See if you agree with me on this. I say the 19 hijackers were merely hired hit men. I SAY THAT THE REAL KILLER WAS THE PROPHET OF ISLAM. That prophet made an offer of eternal paradise, limitless pleasure, and glory to people who would kill the unbelievers for the sake of Allah. His offer has been in place for 14 centuries. The hijackers merely accepted his offer. It was a contract killing on a massive scale, and not really much more. (I think that the hijackers have found out that they got cheated in that contract.)

If this point of view makes sense to you, or if you have other thoughts you want to express, I am offering the following suggestions for your consideration as to how to make your speech the most effective.

BENEFITS OF SIGNS AND BANNERS

If a lot of people appear at the rally, wave flags, and express sympathy for the victims, that will merely demonstrate that the organizers are able to assemble some sizable gathering. The number of people who actually appear will depend upon the weather, how many have been notified, and how easy it is for them to attend. After it is over, they will be labeled as flag-waving right wingers (particularly if they applaud Mr. Wilders) who are trying to capitalize upon the natural sympathy evoked by the victims of the terrorist attacks. There will be minor arguments about the estimate of how many people attended. The media will trot out Muslims who suffered in the same terrorist attacks, as well as families of the victims who are now supporting the Ground Zero mosque as a gesture of forgiveness. Muslims and mosque supporters, if they are determined to do so, will organize a counter-rally at some point which will probably have a larger number of people present. The whole affair will be seen as a competition for sympathy, and the net result will likely be no change in anybody's behavior or decision-making. Since 70% of the population is already against the mosque, if a very large number of people don't show up then the media will conclude that people do not feel strongly on this issue.

Moreover, if you were interested in having your voice heard, your voice will be limited to one tiny flag waving in a sea of several thousand.

Some people who attend such a rally try to have their voice heard by shouting slogans in a large group. While that approach may make you feel good because you have a lot of people on your side, to the media you will look like someone who is driven more by the emotion of a crowd rather than by knowledge and clear thinking. Also, Mr. Spencer's point would come into play -- namely that shouting slogans might appear to be inappropriate following a solemn ceremony. The slogans would only be heard for a short time, and the people shouting them would develop hoarse voices. There would undoubtedly be counter-demonstrators shouting opposing slogans.

People who use signs and banners will have substantial advantages. They will be communicating an idea that the media will not be able to ignore. It will be nearly impossible to distort that idea by selective editing or an inaccurate quotation. The communication will be quiet and will not interfere with the solemnity of the occasion. (You may want to not display your banner during the memorial itslef.) Furthermore, the idea will be communicated for hours as long as the sign or banner is on display.

It is possible to make gigantic banners by stitching together bedsheets and painting your message on the banner. The banners can be suspended from windows in nearby buildings, or they may be held up by walking sticks. (You might want to check with the NYPD regarding what types of poles they will not allow, but I doubt they would seize walking sticks. I don't know whether there are any laws or regulations pertaining to suspending banners from buildings.) If the NYPD were to take some action inhibiting your ability to express yourself, which I very much doubt that they would do, you would have a very strong case for violation of your First Amendment rights. In that situation, there would be lots of lawyers willing to represent you for free and you would become a national symbol for free speech. The bigger the banner is, the more likely that cameras will focus on it. Remember that a large number of the media representatives from around the world will probably be covering the event.

MAKING AN EFFECTIVE MESSAGE

If you decide to use a sign or banner, the first question that comes up is what your message should be. Some people think that strongly worded, emotionally charged messages such as "Mohammed was a pig!" or "Islam is like Naziism!" or "Send the Muslims back home!" are the most effective. But remember that your message is going to a wide audience, most of whom may not know much about Islam, and many of whom may be relatively neutral on the subject. They will have a very hard time understanding what rational basis, if any, you have for your message if it is of this type. You will be seen as an irrational hate monger if you use such a message, and it will actually work against your goal of opposing the mosque. You will be labeled as somebody who suffers from Islamophobia in that situation.

Many people who are formulating a message don't think about the difference between facts and conclusions. If your message consists of a conclusion, then you leave the viewer wondering about what the basis of your conclusion is and whether you are biased. You essentially deprive the viewer of the privilege of making up his or her own mind about the situation. You also do not communicate any useful information, other than the fact that you have come to a particular conclusion. Conclusions by themselves, even if they come from very influential people, are not very effective. They only have some influence upon people with a sheep-like mentality who have already decided that they will go along with whatever the influential person is saying. Most politicians speak in conclusions with relatively little facts behind them.

A powerful fact, on the other hand, is much more effective. It forces the viewer to draw his or her own conclusion based in part upon the fact that has been expressed. If the viewer refuses to accept the fact, he weakens his own position and appears to be dishonest or closed-minded. The person expressing a powerful fact always gets the upper hand.

I have been following the debate about the Ground Zero mosque, and it seems that the people involved have not understood this principle. I have not seen even one article in the mainstream media nor even one public presentation by any person in which the powerful facts relevant to this debate have been expressed. (I admit that I have not seen video of every public presentation given by every person on this issue.) Most of the facts expressed by people opposing the mosque are relatively weak facts, such as the historical architectural style of the building, the impact of the landing gear, the failure of the Imam to condemn a terrorist organization, the questionable background of the fund raiser, etc. The strongest fact mentioned is that various people will feel offended and hurt by the presence of the mosque. The people supporting the mosque cite practically no facts in their favor, only conclusions about tolerance and religious freedom. They also claim that various people will be offended and hurt if the mosque is not built.

As far as I am concerned, as soon as I am told that a mosque is being planned so close to Ground Zero, the most powerful facts have to do with the character of the prophet and the holy book that will be glorified in that mosque. The landing gear, the Imam involved, and the fund raising fellow are all practically irrelevant to me. It helps to know that many people will be offended by the construction of the mosque, because that means that many people will ultimately oppose the mosque.

If you agree with this thinking, you might want to decide for yourself what you believe to be the most important single fact about Islam that should be known to the public. I have thought hard about this question, and in my opinion the most important fact is that the prophet of Islam beheaded over 600 captive Jews and saw their heads fall into trenches that had been dug for this purpose. (The fact that they were captive means that they posed little threat, and the fact that trenches were dug means that the prophet of Islam may have been one of the first major historical figures to make an industrial activity out of killing people.) I think this historical fact is so important that no person in the world should be considered reasonably well educated if he or she does not know this fact. (I thank Mr. Spencer for making this fact widely accessible in Western countries.) This fact goes a long way to explaining why the 19 hijackers attacked on September 11, and why every person who says that the prophet of Islam is a divine messenger in fact directly or indirectly supports violence against unbelievers.

Now I submit that any institution that glorifies such a prophet has no rightful place anywhere near where 3000 people were murdered, and especially if they were murdered in the name of that prophet. What can any reasonable person think in the face of this fact? How can Mr. Bloomberg support a mosque that will necessarily glorify such a prophet? How can Jon Stewart make jokes about people who oppose the mosque if he is forced to confront this fact? Why has this fact never entered the public discussion about the Ground Zero mosque?

If you believe that this fact should be known to the public, you can make a large banner that says "THE PROPHET OF ISLAM BEHEADED 600 CAPTIVE JEWS AS THEIR HEADS FELL INTO TRENCHES!" In small print below this fact, you can give the source which is the Sirah Rasul Allah (the biography of the prophet of Islam).

Here are some additional facts that you might want to put into banners, along with their sources:

Koran 9:5. Allah ordered Muslims to kill the unbelievers wherever they find them.

Koran 8:39. Allah ordered Muslims to fight the unbelievers until the religion in the entire world is for Allah alone.

Koran 8:12. Allah revealed to the angels: I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

Koran 9:33. Allah has sent the prophet Mohammed to make Islam superior over all religions even though the disbelievers hate it.

There are about 150 other verses in the Koran that support violence against the unbelievers.

Sahih Al-Bukhari is universally recognized in the Islamic world as accurately describing the deeds of the prophet of Islam. Here are some of theose deeds:

Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88: The prophet of Islam married Aisha while she was six years old and started having sex with her while she was nine years old.

Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57: The prophet of Islam said, "If someone changes from his Islamic religion, then kill him."

Here is another interesting and important fact from June 2007:
2000 highly respected Islamic scholars and clerics of the Pakistani Ulema Council gave their highest honor to Osama Bin Laden.

There are many other similar facts to choose from, which you can find on this web site (JihadWatch) or on other web sites such as TheReligionOfPeace.com. I hope that in their speeches, either Mr. Spencer or Mr. Wilders will provide a detailed discussion of some of these points, and will refute the arguments offered by supporters of Islam in response to such points. Mr. Wilders is a particularly effective speaker regarding Islam, and I hope that in his speech he gives a slow and graphic description of what the prophet of Islam must have done when he beheaded 600 captive Jews, so the listener has a clear picture in his or her mind of exactly what must have happened.

I don't think the television cameras will be able to avoid such banners. If you have a large banner with such a message, there is a fairly good chance that some reporter will want to interview you. So it will be important to make sure you are knowledgeable about the source of the fact in your banner.

If you want to have some fun with the media, and you don't mind spending a little extra money, you can carry such a banner with a factual quotation while wearing a burqa. (Make sure that bushy eyebrows and hairy arms are not showing if you are male.) The politically correct spineless mainstream media will be very afraid to criticize the fact that is expressed in your banner, since you will appear to be a devout Muslim. Nobody will be able to accuse you of being an Islamophobe. Meanwhile, members of the general public will get an accurate idea of what Islam truly is.

WHY THE RIGHT TIME IS NOW

Some people think that September 11 should simply be a solemn day for remembering the victims and for showing patriotism. That is certainly a reasonable point of view. But that point of view is not consistent with having Mr. Wilders speak, since he is known for being forthright about the violence that is practically an essential ingredient in Islam. Moreover, as a general matter I don't think that people with one point of view should try to control people with a different point of view.

I think that there is a very short time window for having a public discussion of the facts about Islam, and this rally may be one of the last important opportunities. Here is my reasoning.

In Europe, because of political correctness and the large influx of Muslims, it is now practically impossible to have a rational public discussion of the key facts about Islam. Mr. Wilders is on trial for doing nothing more than making an accurate movie about Islam. In the United States, I have found that practically on a daily basis there is some article in the mainstream media about so-called "Islamophobia" and about how Muslims are allegedly being victimized. This includes all major newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, as well as the major networks such as CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. They are all taking the position that they must allegedly "educate" the public about tolerance, religious freedom, and the prevention of bigotry. They are refusing to publish any article in which the facts and the points of view of people who oppose the mosque are discussed in a rational fashion. (I have actually tested this with the New York Times for example. To show that they are open-minded, they will publish comments containing opinions and conclusions from people who oppose the mosque. But as soon as a comment contains devastating facts about Islam, they will censor that comment.)

I think that the reality is that the mainstream media is suffering from "Factophobia" about Islam, which they refuse to admit.

On top of the labels of "Islamophobia" and "bigotry" that are being applied, pressure is mounting from the government and military to not criticize Islam. Their arguments are that criticism of Islam in the United States makes it easier for terrorist organizations to recruit members (I doubt that is true), and that it makes it harder for American soldiers to operate in Muslim countries (which is likely true to some extent).

The one thing that practically nobody talks about in full detail is the looming nuclear weapon threat from Iran. People are willing to admit that Iran is probably about one year away from developing a nuclear weapon, practically everybody argues against an attack on Iran, but nobody talks about the consequences when Iran has a nuclear weapon. What will happen almost certainly (and will be facilitated by the likely slow disintegration of Iraq as American forces decrease military activity) is that Iran will engage in more provocative and threatening rhetoric against the United States after it has a nuclear weapon. Right now, if a nuclear weapon is smuggled into the United States and detonated, we can be almost 100% certain that it was the work of rogue officers in the Pakistani military. This reality keeps Pakistani weapons under control. After Iran gets a bomb, and after Iranians begin making threatening comments, if a nuclear weapon is smuggled into the United States and detonated it will be very difficult to determine quickly whether it was Pakistani or Iranian. (The problem will be much worse if three Islamic countries have the bomb.) The US military will be morally paralyzed because it will not know who to retaliate against.

Because of the likely vociferous Iranian threat, and because of the irrational (and practically suicidal) state of mind of many military and government people in the Islamic countries, Americans will be under great pressure from the media and from government officials to avoid criticizing Islam for fear of provoking attack by a smuggled nuclear weapon or a smuggled dirty bomb.

Regarding the Ground Zero mosque, if there is not sufficiently effective opposition, the mosque supporters may actually be starting their construction work in one year. By that time, it may be too late to prevent the mosque from being built.

All of this means that we may have a window of only about one year in which to have a thorough public discussion about what Islam actually is. And I very much doubt that within the next year it will be possible to organize another large rally regarding the Ground Zero mosque, given that commemoration of September 11 is one of the important factors contributing to this rally.

Finally, to my knowledge there has never been a public demonstration recorded on camera in human history in which the basic facts of the incitement to violence in Islamic religious doctrine were on public display in the form of large banners. (Mr. Spencer can correct me if I am wrong.) Those of you who choose to make your voices heard may be doing something that has never been done before. To all such people, I say:

Make some history on September 11, 2010.

Notice that we are already getting indirect pressure from people like Petraeus to avoid offending Muslims.

That government pressure to remain silent will only increase as the American position around the mid-East steadily and inevitably gets more vulnerable.

The logic expressed by the Catholic priest today in the CNN video (to "welcome all Muslims") will lead to the devastation of the U.S. in the short term, just as India (the richest country in the world for most of recorded world history) was devastated because Indians 800 years ago practically welcomed in the Muslim invaders.

Of course, I don't believe that there is any chance that Islam will survive in the long term (meaning after a few hundred years) but the sooner that Americans take a firm stance, the less the overall damage will be until we get to the end result.

I wanted to add another point after seeing the CNN video today.

I don't think it is very effective to launch personal attacks on people like Ingrid Mattson or Rauf as the primary vehicle for opposing the GZ mosque and the expansion of Islam.

There is certainly plenty of factual basis to go after people such as Mattson and Rauf. But they stand next to powerful and influential people from all sides and religions in videos such as this (Mattson was next to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, and next to some prominent Jewish leader), and so a viewer who doesn't dig into the details may conclude that you must be distorting the facts if so many good people are on their side. The facts of the dirty backgrounds of these people are not widely known.

However, the facts about Islam itself are now widely accessible and can be easily verified by anybody who cares to look. Even these cardinals, ministers, rabbis, imams, etc. have no way to refute them if they are confronted.

SO THE REAL PROBLEM IS THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THE FACTS.

9-11-01 was the date of one of Islam's greatest victories over Christendom and the West: for the loss of a mere 19 Moslems, Islam killed some 3000 Westerners, and destroyed over a billion dollars worth of Western property.
Now Islam proposes to build a mosque as a victory monument at the site of their great victory and the PC-left sees no reason to oppose it or object to it, by reason of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
I wonder what the PC-left's reaction would be if some group of Minute-men or Posse Comitatus announced plans to build a monument to Lee Harvey Oswald, complete with a statue of Oswald holding a sniper's rifle, at Dealey Plaza?
Or what if some Aryan Nation type of outfit wanted to build a memorial, and statue, to James Earl Ray in Memphis opposite the motel where King was shot? If the NAACP and the Black Congressional Caucus objected, would the PC-leftists tell them THEY were the bigots, trying to trample on other people's freedom of expression?

Robert opined:

The "interfaith leaders" who are bamboozled by these groups have only themselves to blame. CNN likewise should be ashamed of itself for reporting this story without mentioning the unsavory aspects of either ISNA or CAIR -- but in that CNN is just like the rest of the mainstream media.

Exactly! For this very reason I cancelled my TV cable service and tossed my toxic box into the trash heap. I can no longer trust anything told me by the MSNM. One has to now search through multiple sources to get at the truth underlying the hype.

In actuality Muslims only do "interfaith" when they're in the minority. This is what happens to "interfaith"
when they gain power.