I haven’t made any comments on the proposed Mosque in New York. I have been sitting back watching everything unfold as everyone else I am sure, but I thought people might be interested in my thoughts since I worked with Muslims for 2 years, had a Muslim on my team in Iraq, and even helped one of my interpreters get to America.
First, I would say this is more of a local issue. The federal government should not be telling the states and local governments what churches can and cannot be built. The first amendment was more of a federalism issue anyways as six states had official churches at the time it was written. On the local level, people should have a say and they should be educated on the dangers that exist. This is a sensitive issue and the Muslims involved in this project know very well what they are doing by trying to put the Mosque near ground zero. Muslims are hyper sensitive to any reference to Muhammad so it is hypocritical of them to try to put a Mosque near the scene of a terrorist attack (done in the name of Islam) and expect everyone to be ok with it. Their excuses only reveal their true motives. Trying to say that was the only real estate they could get does not fly when you have the Governor of New York involved saying they can work out a deal to move it elsewhere. As Robert Spencer has stated on his website Jihad Watch, “it will be understood all over the Islamic world as a victory mosque marking that heinous mass-murder nine years ago.” I am no expert on Islam, but he is. You should really check out his site and look at his articles on the people involved with this project. It might open your eyes. Open your eyes like President Jefferson’s were at the outset of The Barbary Wars. He and Adams asked Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman by what right he was waging piracy against the US and other European countries (stealing money, turning captives into slaves). Here was Jefferson’s report to Congress
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
All of this unless the countries paid a fee for protection. Sounds like a Dhimma tax to me. The US and other countries paid it for a while…that is until Jefferson sent the Navy.
People that read my blog a lot know that I think Islam is a very dangerous thing to ignore. There are other people in our government that do not hold this view though. I have written about Obama and Islam before so it would be redundant to tackle his lack of comprehension again. There are those on the right that hold the same views though. Ron Paul is certainly one of those. I am sorry if I offend anyone, but I often think of Mathew 15:10-20 when I hear Ron Paul speak. Comes to mind with many of his devout followers as well. This was certainly the case with his recent comments on Islam and the Mosque. They were highlighted in this article.
Some of these statements are disappointing coming from someone who calls himself a Christian. Other parts are frightening because he is a representative in Congress who must make decisions on our behalf. The only real way to come to the conclusions that Mr. Paul comes to is to ignore just about all of current trouble spots around the world as well as most of the history of Muhammad and Islam. Just to make some points I would like to go through some of the statements he made.
“Al Qaeda was responsible. Several hundred al Qaeda existed at that time. Maybe there are still several hundred more. That doesn’t mean the whole Muslim religion should be indicted. That was my complaint. McVeigh probably was a Christian, and he bombed the Oklahoma Federal building. Does that mean a Christian church can’t be built near there, and Christianity is to blame? I don’t like that broad brush. That doesn’t mean we should destroy the whole concept of the Muslim religion, if they can bring this out, whether the Mosque is stopped or not, the implication here is that Islam caused 9/11, not a narrow branch of the al Qaeda. To me, that is crucial, because it deals with our foreign policy, it deals with – even in that clip earlier on, Madeleine Albright admitted, she said, well, 500,000 people are killed so be it. If that’s what it takes. So is the Muslim have justification for their worries and concerns.”
First, McVeigh was not a Christian. He was an agnostic who actually fell in the line of thinking of Alex Jones (think Waco), who Ron Paul is a huge fan of. Alex Jones is a radio host / conspiracy theorist / truther. Ron Paul is a guest on his show quite often. Religious beliefs aside though, McVeigh did not commit his act of terrorism in the name of God or the Bible; Muslims do. And even if he had, he could not justify it with the Bible. Once again Muslims can justify their actions with the Qur’an (and do I might add). It is disappointing that Mr. Paul would try to use such a false argument.
“In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.”
This next comment is odd considering he has used an argument of not stereotyping people and then stereotypes people in a very ugly way. Demanding continual war…come on Mr. Paul. You have to be a better person than that. The majority of the people who support Iraq and Afghanistan want defense against a threat, not war for the sake of war.
“They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.”
He avoids the reality of why there are so many chances for people to bring up the aggression of people of Muslim faith. He also uses his own form of hateful speech saying that we use events to rally support for war. This is not really true. We are simply identifying a threat that has existed since the times of Muhammad. And, I for one do not see freedom of speech displayed by some of our soldiers as an affront to their bravery and sacrifice. Sounds a lot like what liberals were saying about the tea parties when they started up. Interesting if you think about it.
“The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.”
Ron Paul often pushes the unconstitutional wars comment and I hardly ever see anyone call him on it. I have covered this argument as well as the just war argument in this post if you are interested in my response. It covers a lot of information on the threats that existed. The bottom line is they are not unconstitutional and there was an abundance of threats in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.”
Some of Mr. Pauls arguments I would call soft, but this one is simply untrue. There is plenty of information that outlines Iraq’s ties to al Qaeda, but also to numerous other terrorist organizations. If you read the legislation that authorized the use of force, you will find that it references these organizations as well. There is a very good presentation on Iraq’s ties to terrorism by Deroy Murdock. Murdock is a Media Fellow at the Hoover Institute and a regular contributor to several papers. He is also a Libertarian so I guess it will be harder to call him an enemy of liberty. I certainly do not agree with some of his other views, but I thought this reference was good. It certainly puts a damper on Mr. Paul’s argument. There are other references as well. This article discusses Sen Bond and his statements on the relationship between Saddam and Zarqawi. This article from The Weekly Standard shows information from the Senate Intelligence report that describes Iraq’s role in harboring al Qaeda. Here is even an article from CNN reporting on the death of Abu Nidal (one of the terrorists Iraq gave safe haven to). There is a lot more, you just have to look for it. We can have discussions on the level of danger all of this posed to us, but to make statements like the one Ron Paul made is just irresponsible.
“Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction. This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.”
“There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?”
“If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.”
“It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society-protecting liberty.”
“The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives’ aggressive wars.”
The rest of the comments just show a lack of knowledge. It is surprising from someone who thinks we should learn from our past mistakes (financially speaking) would fail to look at the history of Islam to find his answers. If Mr. Paul and those like him really want to better understand the motivation of terrorists, perhaps he should just pay attention to what they are telling him…or rather the passages they are quoting. That was enough for me to read a little more on the history of Islam and I think it should intrigue others as well. You do not even have to go buy a book. Check out Islam 101 and then make a decision on how much of a threat Islam is to our way of life. Perhaps then you will want to learn more. If so, here is a good book list. One addition to that list I would add is The Mosque Exposed. This book shows the purpose of Mosques and so is extremely relevant to the current events in New York City. Important enough I would say that if you do not want to buy the book, you should at least read this article.
I, of all people, understand that not all Muslims are evil people. Few follow Islam to the letter. They do not all carry out Jihad and want to lay waste to the West. Those who simply follow the 5 pillars of Islam are not much different than me and you. It is those who follow Islam as Muhammad taught, and as Muhammad lived that are dangerous. That is why it is important for Muslims and Non-Muslims alike to learn about its origins and make the decision for themselves. The same holds true for those in New York City.
Comments on this entry are closed.