Moderate Muslims’ Fight Against White Multi-Culti Liberals

There’s nothing like a sanctimonious liberal bent on proving his open-mindedness to make things difficult for people actually trying to affect a cultural change. In this specific case, moderate Muslims want a voice at the table and help in changing public perception, but liberals will have none of it.

On the one hand, we have the 9/11 bombers, husbands who rape wives (in America, mind you):

Charles’ ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey’s Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband’s religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, “was mistaken.”

The woman’s lawyer, Jennifer Donnelly of New Jersey Legal Services, told that Charles’ ruling should add to the case for a proposed Oklahoma law, which will be on the ballot in November, which would ban judges from considering “international law or Shariah Law” in their rulings.

“Those who don’t want the bill to pass say, ‘there’s really no need for it because why would a judge walk down that road of religion?'” Donnelly said.

“Clearly here, this judge did walk down that road. He may not have said ‘Shariah law.’ But I think it’s indicative that, in trying to be respectful of religion, judges venture into a very slippery slope.”

Donnelly said she was surprised when Charles refused to issue a restraining order, adding that the only tipoffs that it might happen were questions he put to the husband’s imam when he testified in the case.

The Appeals Court ruling notes, “The imam testified regarding Islamic law as it relates to sexual behavior. The imam confirmed that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands, because the husband is prohibited from obtaining sexual satisfaction elsewhere.

And then, there’s the Taliban who murdered a pregnant woman, Iranians who hang gays, and of course, the non-stop bombings and suicide bombings in Israel…and that’s just to name a few of the extremist acts.

And on the other hand, there are those who fight against this evil from within. And yet, they are unsupported by leftists because to acknowledge the extreme would be to admit the evil under their noses. So, liberals excuse the inexcusable and ignore the pleas of the true moderates wishing to transform their own religion and the perception of it.

Raheel Raza speaks eloquently of this abandonment by “white liberals”:

And on the heels of this concise and moving truth, Raza goes on with Tareek Fatah to explain the problem with the Ground Zero Mosque in a piece titled Mischief in Manhattan:

The man has a very valid point, which leads to the ongoing debate about building a Mosque at Ground Zero in New York. When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S., we wonder why its proponents don’t build a monument to those who died in the attack?

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it’s not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna”

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?

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.

Almost at the same moment I read the above, Christopher Hitchens, who has written eloquently against the totalitarian ideology of the Islamists says that those who don’t want the Mosque at Ground Zero are going about it all wrong, but he seems to undermine his own point with this:

I don’t like anything much about the Cordoba Initiative or the people who run it. The supposed imam of the place, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is on record as saying various shady and creepy things about the original atrocity. Shortly after 9/11, he told 60 Minutes, “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” He added, “In the most direct sense, Osama Bin Laden is made in the USA.” More recently, he has declined to identify the racist and totalitarian Hamas party as being guilty of the much less severe designation of terrorist. We are all familiar by now with the peddlers of such distortions and euphemisms and evasions, many of them repeated by half-baked secular and Christian spokesmen. A widespread cultural cringe impels many people to the half-belief that it’s better to accommodate “moderates” like Rauf as a means of diluting the challenge of the real thing. So for the sake of peace and quiet, why not have Comedy Central censor itself or the entire U.S. press refuse to show the Danish cartoons?

So, what precisely is the proper way to fight the extremist words and actions if not to protest the house and enabler of such ideology when the express purpose is to signify a battle won? An intellectual argumentation and rhetorical flourish defending freedom of religion means little before a group intent on “making mischief” as Raheel Raza says. Muslims know what this Mosque is about. Shall we, bathed in Judeo-Christian ideology, be so inwardly focused that we don’t acknowledge the meaning of the Mosque to those of another religion? Shall we stand by, silent, as an extremist ideology marches forward as moderate Muslims look helplessly on, wanting support for a more reformed religion but getting none because liberals do not wish to appear intolerant or bigoted when all sense pushes the other way?

To illustrate the absurdity of the situation, Greg Gutfeld, the host of Fox’s Redeye came up with an interesting solution: open a gay Islamic bar next to the mosque. Celebrating diversity and cultural outreach and education, right? No one should be offended–just a free exercise of speech and property rights, right?

The irony of this mosque defense: It undermines the very thing the left claims to want–bridges between cultures and religion. Moderate Muslims, horrified by the specter of a Mosque built at the scene of the crime are people desiring peace but are put in the position of defending something they don’t even want. They ask for restraint. They ask for this to be stopped–for the sake of the dead, for the memory of those lost, for the families who suffer, for their faith, for the sake of a moderate version of their religion. For peace.

And liberals who claim to know better than them, explain why they know more and harm the cause for religious and cultural amity.


Just to illustrate that the freedom of expression only goes one way, the city of NY approved the mosque but turned down advertising on city buses that protests that decision. A decision they overturned when they were sued.

Here’s the ad:

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!