What is a Moderate Muslim?

Ben Shapiro at Townhall has had enough of Michael Moore's support for radical Islam and he executes a nice smackdown using both humor and logic. In the course of his entertaining rant of a post, however, he states clearly just exactly what needs to be emphasized in this whole debate.

Western societies don't need to worry only about actual terrorists - the people who strap on bombs and blow themselves up. We also need to worry about those who teach the religious doctrines which inspire the terrorists, those who provide the financing for the terrorists networks and those who give the terrorist cause legitimacy by repeating their anti-Western rhetoric and rubbing shoulders with terrorist organizations like Hamas.

But what is a moderate Muslim anyway? Shapiro gets it exactly right.

Liberals simply don't understand the Muslim world. They're under the bizarre misimpression that if a Muslim isn't actively strapping a bomb to his chest, he's a "moderate." By that standard, Imam Rauf -- the man behind the ground zero mosque -- is moderate, despite the fact that he refuses to condemn Hamas, associates with terrorist funders and anti-Semites, and believes that United States foreign policy was responsible for 9/11.

The truth is that there are three groups of Muslims: those who are terrorists; those who agree with terrorists and support them with money, rhetoric or time; and those who are truly moderate. Only group three is worth cultivating. And group three would never have the gall to build a mosque at ground zero, let alone preach to the American public about their supposed racism for opposing such a mosque.

Once we accept that there are three groups of Muslims instead of two and that the second group is in many ways as dangerous as the first, we are ready to have an serious, adult debate about the Ground Zero Mosque. The issue is whether Imam Rauf and his mysterious backers belong to the third group or to the second.

If it turns out (as a great deal of factual evidence seems to indicate) that Rauf is clearly in the second group, it should be a no brainer that he should be ostracized, hounded, opposed and shamed into retreating. In fact, if Rauf really is in the second category, building the mosque (or whatever they are calling it this week) would be a second victory for Islamism at the same site.

Tolerance, Bridge-Building, Dialogue: OK, Let's Have Some!

Imam Rauf claims he is a "moderate" and wants to "build bridges." But so far his project has polarized America, stirred up antipathy to Islam and made enemies out of neighbors. It doesn't exactly sound like a smashing success so far, does it? Maybe he needs a little advice on what Americans would consider "moderate" when it comes to religion.

Camie Davis at American Thinker shows what a real moderate Muslim would look like.

Now that Imam Rauf is back from his goodwill tour across the Middle East, I have a quick question for him. Is the bridge he's building a one-way street or a two-way street?

If it's a two-way street promoting religious tolerance, then I can only assume he'll be packing soon for a goodwill tour part II. After all, there are a few other places to extend that ever-talked-about bridge in order to further spread his message of religious tolerance.

Stop one: Gaza. Perhaps Imam Rauf could tell the women in Gaza that it's not a good idea for them to celebrate and pass out candy to children upon hearing that Hamas murdered four Jews. And while he's at it perhaps he could tell Hamas to become a little more tolerant of the Jews' existence.

Stop two: Jerusalem. The Imam could set-up a charity for the eight Jewish children who were orphaned after their parents were murdered by Hamas. It's likely the Imam has many oil-rich, moderate Muslim friends who would jump at the chance of making a statement against terrorism by supporting the victims of terror.

While in Jerusalem, the Imam could also check on the status of the planned Jewish "community center," that Jews want to build on the Temple Mount. After all, there can never be too many places of worship or community centers. However, until Park Project 5771 in Jerusalem is complete, the Imam could at least go to bat for Jews who are not allowed to pray on the Temple Mount.

Stop three: Iraq. I feel certain that the Christian women and young girls in Iraq, who are being systematically raped by Muslims, would welcome the Imam speaking about religious tolerance on their behalf.

Read the rest here. Instead of blaming America for 9/11 and hanging out with people who claim that 9/11 was an inside job by the US government, maybe Imam Rauf could focus on promoting tolerance among violent, extremist, terrorist types and their theological advisers and enablers.

Update:
Now Rauf is blaming Sarah Palin for stirring up hatred of Muslims. He is obviously going to the mat for liberal support. What is next? Channel Saudi oil money to Democratic candidates? Facilitate a terrorist attack on an Alaska pipeline?

But the inconvenient truth here is that Sarah Palin speaks for the majority of Americans (polls range between 63 an 71% of the country) and President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg speaks for a minority of radical, liberal elitists. My sense is that Muslims who are used to watching European elites roll over and play dead as they push the envelope are discovering that Americans are not so inclined to sit down and shut up while their country is occupied and humiliated.

Folks Who Cling to Their Liberalism and Antipathy to People Who Aren't Like Them

I've just read the second opinion piece in the mainstream media today that is critical of the Ground Zero Mosque Imam. Interesting . . . I predicted that a turning point may have been reached the other day when Imam Rauf implied that the mosque had better go ahead . . . or else. That may have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

But the reason I call attention to this piece is the way in which William McGurn, writing in the Wall Street Journal, skillfully draws the connection between Iman Rauf and American liberalism. His closing line is beautiful!

Here is an excerpt:

For American liberals, that two out of three Americans oppose the construction of an Islamic center on its current cite occasions no second thoughts. To the contrary, it likely confirms a view of the American people as dangerous yahoos. In fact, it probably confirms the liberal view that the war on terror is less a war against radical Islamists than a more general battle between moderates and extremists of all varieties.

Yesterday at the Council, Imam Rauf made this explicit. "The real battlefront, the real battle that we must wage together today," he said, "is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. It is between moderates of all faith traditions against the extremists of all faith traditions."

Now, the world has its share of Christian, Jewish, Hindu and other religious extremists. Sometimes that extremism leads to violence. At least in America, however, to compare this to the sustained, organized international war crimes planned and carried out by Islamic extremists beggars belief.

No one walks the streets of Manhattan fearing a Methodist may blow up his office, hijack his flight, or kill his son fighting in Afghanistan. Unless you are Angelina Jolie or the dean of Yale Law School, this is not only true but obvious. . . .

Yesterday at the Council, Imam Rauf made this explicit. "The real battlefront, the real battle that we must wage together today," he said, "is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. It is between moderates of all faith traditions against the extremists of all faith traditions."

So here we are, with the grievances on all sides more aggravated than assuaged by this latest experiment in liberal bridge-building. If the president and the mayor and the imam sound bitter about the 71% of New Yorkers who would like to see the Islamic Center moved, we shouldn't be surprised. It's what happens to folks who cling to their liberalism and their antipathy to people who aren't like them.

I don't know about you, but I'd say that McGurn has said it about as well as it can be said.

Geert Wilders' Speech at Ground Zero on 9/11

Geert Wilders is a leading Dutch politician and head of the Freedom Party. He lives his life under death threats from Muslims because he is leading a movement to oppose the take-over of Europe by Islam. He stands for Western ideals like free speech, religious freedom and liberal democracy. He opposes theocracy, sharia law and totalitarian rule by Muslim religious leaders. For this he is villified and hated by the secular, establishment Left in the Netherlands.

Nevertheless, the people increasingly vote for him in increasing numbers in every election.

Here is Wilders' speech at a rally held on 9/11 at Ground Zero.



He exposes the real agenda of the Ground Zero Mosque project as Islamic triumphalism. He asks the unanswerable question of why an inter-faith center promoting tolerance is not being built where it is really needed: in Mecca.

Islam, Free Speech and the Ground Zero Mosque

Further to the previous post, I want to call attention to Mark Tapson's timely reminder of recent Islamic attacks on free speech with his post "Top Ten Islamic Victories Against Free Speech." The Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not occurring in a vacuum. It is occurring in the context of a broad-based assault on Western freedom that takes many forms and uses many different strategies. It is difficult not to interpret opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque in the light of what has been happening in the past few years in the US and Canada and over the past 50 years in Europe.

If it were not for this context, the appeal to religious liberty for Muslims would make more sense. But if the goal of Islam is to abolish religious freedom, why should they be allowed to fight to conquer us under the cloak of religious freedom? Put bluntly, they don't deserve religious freedom until they are willing to extend it to apostates, women, minorities in Muslim countries etc.

Tapson's Top Ten are:

1) Obama Sends an Envoy to the OIC

2) The Obama Administration Abolishes Any Discussion of Islam and Terrorism

3) Comedy Central Ridicules Every Religious Figure Except Muhammed

4) Publishing Houses Censor Themselves

5) Geert Wilders Goes on Trial for Speaking the Truth

6) The Danish Cartoon Riots

7) Hollywood Complicity

8) Bush Avoids Language Offensive to Our Enemy

9) The Invention of “Islamophobia”

10) Ayatollah Khomeini’s Death Fatwa Against Salman Rushdie

In the light of these capitulations to Islamic Supremacist by the Ruling Class, it is not surprising that the people are restless and upset. If it were not for Yale University Press bowing to Muslim threats of violence and not publishing the Danish cartoons in a book about the Danish cartoons or Hollywood changing the identity of the terrorists in the movie made of Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears from Islamic terrorists to Neo-Nazi terrorists, then people might be more willing to believe that the proposed mosque is really about tolerance and co-existence. The Ground Zero Mosque controversy is much more complicated than just a simple case of religious freedom.

Leftist Hypocrisy on Religious Liberty

Leftists who cry crocodile tears over the supposed lack of commitment to the First Amendment and the principle of religious freedom in the face of opposition to the building of a Muslim monument to a great victory of Jihad at Ground Zero do not impress me as sincere in any way.

Take Mayor Bloomberg for example. Here he is doing his best imitation of a liberal committed to religious liberty:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, while supporting Rep. Joe Sestak for Senate, tells Fox 29 News why he's supporting a mosque proposed for two block from Ground Zero.

Bloomberg told Fox 29, "I believe the government should stay out of religion. I think that the First Amendment protects all of us. We have a right to say what we want to say in this country, which you don't elsewheres in the world. We have a right to pray to whomever we want in anyways we want and I think anywheres we want. And I think that government should not dictate that a mosque or a temple or a church could be built in one place. And if you really care about your religion, you should want to keep the government out of it."

Now, when leftists like Bloomberg start fighting for religious freedom as a principle that applies to all, rather than just to certain trendy, leftist-approved victim groups such as Muslims, then I will be impressed.

At a time when students are being expelled from graduate programs in public universities because of their sincerely-held belief that homosexual behavior is morally wrong and faculty are being fired for teaching the true fact that the Roman Catholic Church believes that homosexuality is wrong, where is the leftist commitment to the principle of religious freedom when we need it? When Mayor Bloomberg begins to support the right of conservative Jews and Christians to exercise their freedom of religion - and not just Muslims - then and only then I will cease to call him a hypocrite. And, of course, it is not just Bloomberg. It is Obama, the Clintons, the liberal Protestants and the rest of the Ruling Class who meekly submit to Muslims terrorist demands not to print images of Mohammed while sternly enforcing Christian submission to secuarlist ideology by force.

People who have used the First Amendment to drive prayer out of public schools, justify abortion on demand, redefine marriage, and deny religious conservatives the same right as everyone else to speak in the public square have no business polluting the principle of religious liberty with their grubby hands.

It is ironic that the Ground Zero Inman, who appears to be a shake-down artist who specializes in milking the Federal Government for money, was on a State Department sponsored trip to the Middle East while the controversy raged. Leftists apparently see nothing wrong with the government funding Islam while persecuting Christians and Jews. This is the rank hypocrisy.

All Americans should be offended and scandalized when the precious and noble principles upon which the greatest free nation on earth was built are hijacked by leftists who don't believe in them for the purpose of practicing dhimmitude or submission to Islamic Supremacists.

Anti-Defamation League Comes Out Against the Ground Zero Mosque

John McCormack reports in the Weekly Standard that a leading group fighting anti-Semitism, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, has come out against the building of the mosque, Cordoba House, at Ground Zero.

The Anti-Defamation League, which describes itself as "the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry," released a statment this morning opposing the building of the 13-story mosque near Ground Zero.

"In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right," says the ADL. Full statement here:

We regard freedom of religion as a cornerstone of the American democracy, and that freedom must include the right of all Americans – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths – to build community centers and houses of worship.

We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry.

However, there are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center site. We are ever mindful of the tragedy which befell our nation there, the pain we all still feel – and especially the anguish of the families and friends of those who were killed on September 11, 2001.

The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.

The condemnation of the accusations of bigotry hurled at opponents of the mosque is especially helpful. The Jews can be said to be well-experienced at recognizing bigotry when they see it. This is more evidence of the growing rift between the Western Left and Jews.