Tag Archives: jihad

“The Reason is Religion, Mom”

Army Pvt. Naser Jason Abdo faced his mother during a visit in a Texas jail last July.

Abdo had been arrested for plotting an attack on a restaurant in Killeen popular with soldiers from nearby Fort Hood. He would set off a bomb inside the restaurant, then shoot and kill as many survivors as possible as they scrambled out to safety.

His mother asked the obvious question. Why?

Jurors convicted Abdo for attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and attempted murder after hearing and seeing the answer on video.

“The reason is religion, Mom.”

He had to act in response to American military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a Muslim, he considered those affected by such actions to be family. “When bad things are happening,” he said, “you have to do something about it.”

His mother couldn’t comprehend her son’s logic, to which he explained, “it may seem crazy from the outside, but it’s not.”

Abdo’s reasoning echoes the justification offered by a series of attempted homegrown jihadists. If America is killing Muslims, the logic goes, Muslims must do whatever they can to stop it.

Abdo chose Fort Hood as a target because that’s where Army psychologist Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire a year earlier, killing 13 people. Hasan reportedly shouted “Allahu Akhbar” as he opened fire, and had built a disturbing record of justifying suicide bombings and endorsing other radical ideas during his time in the service.

Hasan had been in direct contact with American-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki before the attack. Abdo carried copies of al-Qaida’s English-language magazine, Inspire, which included articles from Awlaki invoking theology in urging Muslims in America to wage attacks at home.

“We as Muslims should seek the wealth of the disbelievers as a form of jihad in the path of Allah,” Awlaki wrote in one issue. “That would necessitate that we spend the money on the cause of jihad and not on ourselves.”

Despite the self-professed motives, Islamist advocates argue that radical religious interpretations should not be discussed in assessing terrorist plots by Muslims. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) even conspired with a political scientist in 2010 to gin up sales of the professor’s book, which claimed that religious extremism was a minimal factor in suicide bombings.

The group tries to pressure people out of discussing Islamic radicalism in general.

In the wake of Hasan’s Fort Hood shooting spree, CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told a radio interviewer that Hasan’s religious beliefs shouldn’t be considered as a factor. “He could have just snapped from some kind of stress. The thing is when these things happen and the guy’s name is John Smith nobody says well what about his religious beliefs? But when it is a Muslim sounding name that automatically comes into it.”

A week after the massacre, when Hasan’s beliefs and contacts with Awlaki were well established, CAIR issued a press release arguing that those who did discuss religion were exploiting the tragedy to “promote hatred and intolerance.”

And military leaders have shied away from the issue, omitting any reference to it in a report on Hasan’s Fort Hood attack. That drew a strong rebuke last year in a report by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

“We are concerned that [Defense Department’s] failure to address violent Islamist extremism by its name signals to the bureaucracy as a whole that the subject is taboo,” the report said, “and raises the potential that DoD’s actions to confront radicalization to violent Islamist extremism will be inefficient and ineffective.”

It is just as odd to see the Obama administration take pains to avoid even uttering the phrase “radical Islam,” opting instead for a generic “violent extremism.” Continue reading

Mexican Jihad

By Raymond Ibrahim

As the United States considers the Islamic jihadi threats confronting it from all sides, it would do well to focus on its southern neighbor, Mexico, which has been targeted by Islamists and jihadists, who, through a number of tactics—from engaging in da’wa, converting Mexicans to Islam, to smuggling and the drug cartel, simple extortion, kidnappings and enslavement—have been subverting Mexico in order to empower Islam and sabotage the U.S.

According to a 2010 report, “Close to home: Hezbollah terrorists are plotting right on the U.S. border,” which appeared in the NY Daily News:

Mexican authorities have rolled up a Hezbollah network being built in Tijuana … closer to American homes than the terrorist hideouts in the Bekaa Valley are to Israel. Its goal, according to a Kuwaiti newspaper that reported on the investigation: to strike targets in Israel and the West. Over the years, Hezbollah—rich with Iranian oil money and narcocash—has generated revenue by cozying up with Mexican cartels to smuggle drugs and people into the U.S. In this, it has shadowed the terrorist-sponsoring regime in Tehran, which has been forging close ties with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who in turn supports the narcoterrorist organization FARC, which wreaks all kinds of havoc throughout the region.

Another 2010 article appearing in the Washington Times asserts that, “with fresh evidence of Hezbollah activity just south of the border [in Mexico], and numerous reports of Muslims from various countries posing as Mexicans and crossing into the United States from Mexico, our porous southern border is a national security nightmare waiting to happen.” This is in keeping with a recent study done by Georgetown University, which revealed that the number of immigrants from Lebanon and Syria living in Mexico exceeds 200,000. Syria, along with Iran, is one of Hezbollah’s strongest financial and political supporters, and Lebanon is the immigrants’ country of origin. Just like only 19 jihadists were necessary to cause the devastation of September 11, 2001, only a handful of these 200,000 are necessary to wreak havoc north of the border.

A jihadist cell in Mexico was recently found to have a weapons cache of 100 M-16 assault rifles, 100 AR-15 rifles, 2,500 hand grenades, C4 explosives and antitank munitions. The weapons, it turned out, had been smuggled by Muslims from Iraq. According to this report, “obvious concerns have arisen concerning Hezbollah’s presence in Mexico and possible ties to Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTO’s) operating along the U.S.-Mexico border.”

As far back as 2005, an article entitled “Islam is gaining a Foothold in Chiapas” showcased the inroads of Islam in Mexico:

Long a bastion of Catholicism, southern Mexico is quickly turning into a battleground for soul-savers. Islam, too, is gaining a foothold and the indigenous Mayans are converting by the hundreds. The Mexican government is worried about a culture clash in their own backyard… Muslim women in headscarves have become a common sight….

To appreciate the significance of the fact that Muslim headscarves “have become a common sight” in Mexico, consider the words of former jihadist Tawfik Hamid, who personally knew al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri. In his book, Inside Jihad, he writes: “The proliferation of the hijab [Muslim headscarves] is strongly correlated with increased terrorism…. Terrorism became much more frequent in such societies as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, and the U.K. after the hijab became prevalent among Muslim women living in those communities.”

After discussing an increase in converts to Islam, the article continues by saying: “It’s a development that is beginning to worry the Mexican government. Indeed, the government even suspects the new converts of subversive activity and has already set the secret service onto the track of the Mayan Muslims. Mexican President Vincente Fox has even gone so far as to say he fears the influence of the radical fundamentalists of al-Qaida” [emphasis added].

Kidnappings, as part of a drug cartel or as part of a jihadist operation, which legitimizes crimes such as kidnapping and child slavery, have become increasingly common. To convert non-Muslims to their cause, Islamists also whip up—and then exploit—a sense of “grievance” against the “white man.”

In addition, according to counterterrorism experts in this report, Islamic terrorists blend in better with Mexicans than with Europeans, thereby enabling them to sneak into the U.S. across the southwest border. This Muslim cleric, for example, discusses how easy it is to smuggle a briefcase containing anthrax from Mexico into America, thereby killing at least some 330,000 Americans in a single hour.

Similarly, Michael Braun, formerly assistant administrator and chief of operations at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), said that the Iran-backed Lebanese group has long been involved in narcotics and human trafficking in South America; however, it is relying on Mexican narcotics syndicates that control access to transit routes into the U.S. Hezbollah relies on “the same criminal weapons smugglers, document traffickers and transportation experts as the drug cartels.”

Only a few months ago, Washington announced that FBI and DEA agents disrupted a plot to commit a “significant terrorist act in the United States,” tied to Iran with roots in Mexico. The increased violence—including beheadings, Islam’s signature trademark—is even more indicative that Islamists are well ensconced in Mexico’s drug cartel.

The threat is not limited to Hezbollah; back in 2006, according to ISN, “Mexican authorities investigated the activities of the Murabitun [a da’wa, or missionary-outreach, organization named after historic jihadists along Spain’s borders] due to reports of alleged immigration and visa abuses involving the group’s European members and possible radicals, including al-Qaeda.”

Even innocuous reports, such as this Muslim article, are cause for concern: “Today, most Mexican Islamic organizations focus on grassroots da’wa. These small organizations are most effective at the community level, going from village to village and speaking directly to the people.” Although this may not sound problematic, the strain of Islam being spread by many of these da’wa organizations is the radical, “Salafist,” anti-American variety. Here, for instance, is a popular Egyptian TV cleric saying that while Muslims must never smile to non-Muslims—who, as “infidels,” are by nature the enemy—they are free to do so if the Muslim is engaged in da’wa, trying to win over the infidel into the fold of Islam, especially if the potential convert can help empower Islam in any way.

These are but a few of the many reports on Islam in Mexico. The evidence that many Islamists in Mexico are plotting against the U.S., using all means—such as drug trafficking, which is not forbidden in Sharia law if it serves to empower Islam—is overwhelming.

Under various methods—from the violent to the subversive to the exploitative—Islam allows Muslims to lie and commit other duplicitous acts in the furtherance of Islam. Taqiyya [dissimulation] permits Hezbollah and other Islamists to engage in Mexico’s drug cartel, just as “pious” members of the Taliban in Afghanistan pursued the heroin trade. Aside from sheer violence, justified as “jihad,” or holy war, tactics pursued by Mexico’s Islamists include:

Kidnappings and enslavement, for which Mexico is already notorious. Sharia permits kidnapping, and even enslaving the infidel, in this situation, any non-Muslim in Mexico. The Quran not only approves of this, but allows male jihadists to have sex with female captives of war (Sura 4, verse 3). Here, for example, is a Muslim politician trying to legalize the institution of “sex-slavery.”

Extortion and blackmail, features of the Mexican landscape, are also permissible in Islam. According to Sharia, during jihad, Muslims are permitted to hold for ransom infidels to be sold back for large amounts of money. Here, for instance, is a popular Egyptian sheikh saying that the Islamic world’s problem is that it has stopped plundering and enslaving its infidel neighbors. He even boasts that under true Sharia, he could go to the local market and “buy” a female “sex-slave.”

In using subversive elements for da’wa, Muslims might comfortably use false arguments to turn Mexicans against their northern neighbors. For instance, they often argue that Islam is a religion of “racial equality,” whereas Christianity is the “white man’s” religion, imposed on their ancestors by racist whites who sought to keep them “impoverished” beyond the border. Islamist strategies in Mexico amount to trying to win the unbelievers over to their side, whether through conversion or just cooperation. For those who refuse to cooperate, they are infidels to be used in any way that seems appropriate.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. His article was first published by the Gatestone Institute on May 11, 2012

The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests

By Raymond Ibrahim

Because it is now almost axiomatic for American school textbooks to whitewash all things Islamic (see here for example), it may be useful to examine one of those aspects that are regularly distorted: the Muslim conquests.

Few events of history are so well documented and attested to as are these conquests, which commenced soon after the death of the Muslim prophet Muhammad (632) and tapered off circa 750. Large swathes of the Old World—from the India in the east, to Spain in the west—were conquered and consolidated by the sword of Islam during this time.

By the standards of history, the reality of these conquests is unassailable, for history proper concerns itself with primary sources; and the Islamic conquests are thoroughly documented. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of primary source materials we rely on do not come from non-Muslims, who might be accused of bias. Rather, the foremost historians bequeathing to posterity thousands of pages of source materials documenting the Islamic conquests were not only Muslims themselves; they were—and still are—regarded by today’s Muslims as pious and trustworthy scholars (generically, the ulema).

Among the most authoritative books devoted to recounting the conquests are: Ibn Ishaq’s (d. 767) Sira (“Life of Muhammad”), the oldest biography of Muhammad; Waqidi’s (d. circa. 820) Maghazi (“Military Campaigns [of the Prophet]”); Baladhuri’s (d. 892) Futuh al-Buldan (“Conquests of the Nations”); and Tabari’s (d.923) multi-volume Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk, (“History of Prophets and Kings”), which is 40 volumes in the English translation.

Taken together, these accounts (which are primarily based on older accounts—oral and written—tracing back to Muhammad and his successors) provide what was once, and in the Muslim world still is, a famous story: that Allah had perfected religion (Islam) for all humanity; that he commanded his final prophet (Muhammad) and community (Muslims) to spread Islam to the world; and that the latter was/is to accept it either willingly or unwillingly (jihad).

It should be noted that contemporary non-Muslim accounts further validate the facts of the conquests. The writings of the Christian bishop of Jerusalem Sophronius (d.638), for instance, or the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes (d.758), to name a couple, make clear that Muslims conquered much of what is today called the “Muslim world.”

According to the Muslim historical tradition, the majority of non-Muslim peoples of the Old World, not desiring to submit to Islam or its laws (Sharia), fought back, though most were eventually defeated and subsumed.

The first major conquest, renowned for its brutality, occurred in Arabia itself, immediately after Muhammad’s death in 632. Continue reading

Islamic Society of North America Comments On President Obama’s State of the Union & Commentary

Last Tuesday, President Barack Obama delivered his first 2011 State of the Union Address. Where democrats and republicans crossed the “party line” in Congress to sit with one another, the President also focused on inclusion, and stated his “conviction that American Muslims are a part of the American family.”

ISNA welcomes his remarks and shares some of them with you below:

“We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled. That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation…

And so we must defeat determined enemies wherever they are, and build coalitions that cut across lines of region and race and religion. America’s moral example must always shine for all who yearn for freedom, justice, and dignity.

And as extremists try to inspire acts of violence within our borders, we are responding with the strength of our communities, with respect for the rule of law, and with the conviction that American Muslims are a part of our American family.”

“We sincerely hope that President Obama’s message of a united American family resonates with the general public and that, as Congress enters the upcoming hearings on religious extremism, they do not take them as an opportunity to unfairly punish the entirety of a religion for the actions of a few misguided and wrongful individuals. We hope Congress will remember our President’s message, from last night, that American Muslims are united with all Americans in the war on terror, and the mis-guided actions of a few by no means represent the whole,” said ISNA Secretary General Safaa Zarzour.

Notes:

First Safaa Zarzour is an Illinois lawyer and educator who was appointed to the position of Secretary General in 2010. Second, ISNA and Zarzour have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and so-called terrorism, according to investigative research of The Hudson Institute and Time Magazine and reported by Islamic Jihad Watch. Third, although Zarzour is an effective inter-faith communicator and educator, his work for ISNA and CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) not only benefits Hamas and the global Muslim Brotherhood but also Muslim charity work and terrorism conducted by the same origanzations. That is the irony of so-called radical Islamic terrrorists; they function as community organizers and charities among Muslim communities (i.e., Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, etc.) and function as terrorist outside the community (i.e., Israel, Africa, London, Spain, New York City, etc.). Fourth, Zarzour appears to be an accomplished American, outstanding Muslim, and passoniate educator, and lawyer, but natural skepticism raises the question whether or not his inter-faith relations building is really an effort to convert all America’s infidels into faithful Muslims. That alone would be a good thing–the American way–if it were not for Islam’s ultimate Quranic justification of using the sword to make disciples and eliminate unbelievers. Fifth, the problem is that it can happen in America as it has elsewhere throughout history.

Do you remember the recent near genocide of Southern Christians in Sudan? It was carried out by the Muslim leaders of Sudan.

How about the Muslim League of Arab Nations attempt to exterminated the new nation of Israel in 1948?

Or, maybe, you remember the Jerusalem Muslim Mufti’s contributions leading to the Holocaust? The Mufti campaigned against Hitler’s legal and illegal attempts to force migrate German Jews to their ancient homeland.

Perhaps, you remember the history about the genocide of Armenians in 1915 by the Islamic Ottoman Imperialists? Some of their methods employed by the Nazis mimicked the Ottmans.

Most American Muslims and ISNA leaders may only want to live free under American rule-of-law. Zarzour may be seeking only to understand the faith of others while helping them understand Islam. But, it does not mean others will not come after who will seek to subjugate all infidels by force. Global reign is the goal of Islam.

This is what Americans must remember.

Why Ground Zero Mosque is Not Good for Islam or America

No wonder Muslims around the world claim the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center project is bad for Islam. First, the original name proposed by Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf for the mosque, Cordoba House, is a throw-back to its Middle Aged namesake famous as a launch pad for Islam’s militant efforts of global domination. The term used for it is Jihad, which is more than just a religious concept of self-rule. It also is a term depicting militant religious conversion of all infidels or non-Muslims.

If peace with the Western world were actually the Rauf’s goal, why then has he developed a Shariah Index? Not to be confused with some of financial indexes, the purpose of his index is to measure how well nations conform to the Sharia law. It is a Western tool to make governments and cultures compliant to policy goals. The Koran provides the principles and Sharia law provides enforceable sanctions. After Muslims conquered Spain over 1,300 years ago, they launched their camapign to conquer the Western world from Cordoba. The Shariah Index shows Rauf’s intention is to launch a similar campaign to again conquer the West. However, this time Jihad comes in the deceptive form of tolernace, education, and peace.

The ultimate aim of Muslim clerics like Rauf is to convert the world to Islam. At Cordoba Spain, the victory was secured by militant Jihad. Peaceful co-existence came at the point of swords of Muslim rulers. Peaceful co-existence was the result of enforcing Shariah law upon predominately Christian Spain.

Amerincans and the West becoming aware of such relations between Muslim and Christians at Cordoba indeed would not be good for the Islamic cause.

Second, one of the primary financial backers of the Ground Zero mosque is Hisham Elzanaty, who has been a financial supporter of Hamas. Elzanty, an Egypian born New York medical supply dealer, also has gained noteriety for attempting to scam Medicaire. Don’t ask–don’t tell policy in Islamic circles may make it difficullt for fellow Muslims to distinguish between those who are committing “terrorism” and who are doing good social works, but to many Western onlookers their seems to be little difference. This is more than Islamaphobia or racism; it is just the proper kind of skepticism or maybe fear. (NY Post, September 3, 2010)

Third, and last, is the recent discovery that the U.S. government is funding the construction and renovation of mosques around the globe. Ancient Rome under Caesar did the same thing. Nicole Thompson, spokeswoman for the State Department’s U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation (AFCP), stated the purpose of these projects:

“It is helping to preserve our cultural heritage. It is not just to preserve religious structures. It is not to preserve a religion. It is to help us as global inhabitants preserve cultures.” (Newsmax, September 6, 2010)

Notice, the Obama administration justifies spending millions of taxpayer money to fund foreign “cultural preservation” projects as somehow preservering our cultural heritage. Islamic cultural is not our culture. It may be Obama’s and Hilary may have adopted her assistants religious culture, but is not America’s culture. Christian culture and law our heritage. The U.S. is not the United Nations, but apparently, globalists like Obama think otherwise.

Obama’s official support of the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center is a tell-tale sign of why it is not good for Americans either. Not only is federal tax dollars financing Imam Abdul-Rauf’s fundraising trips but state taxpayer money may also be given to underwrite the mosque. Obama’s diplomatic along with financial backing of the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center gives legitimacy to the ancient dream of a global and triumphant Islam. (NY Post, August 10, 2010 and Reuters, August 27, 2010)

The Two Faces of the Ground Zero Mosque

by Raymond Ibrahim, Associate Director of the Middle East Forum

Depending on whether Islamists address Americans or fellow Muslims, the same exact words they use often relay diametrically opposed meanings. One example: when Americans hear Muslims evoke “justice,” the former envision Western-style justice, whereas Muslims naturally have Sharia law justice in mind.

Islamists obviously use this to their advantage: when addressing the West, Osama bin Laden bemoans the “justice of our causes, particularly Palestine”; yet, when addressing Muslims, his notion of justice far transcends territorial disputes and becomes unintelligible from a Western perspective: “Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them. The West perceives fighting, enmity, and hatred all for the sake of the religion [i.e., Islam] as unjust, hostile, and evil. But who’s understanding is right—our notions of justice and righteousness, or theirs?” (Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).

Of course, that Osama bin Laden—slayer of 3,000 Americans and avowed enemy to the rest—exhibits two faces, one to Americans another to Muslims, is not surprising. Yet the reader may well be surprised to discover that the controversial Cordoba Initiative, which plans on manifesting itself as the largest American mosque, situated atop Ground Zero—that is, atop the carnage caused by none other than bin Laden—also has two faces, conveying one thing to Americans, quite another to Muslims.

The very name of the initiative itself, “Cordoba,” offers different connotations to different people: In the West, the Andalusian city of Cordoba is regularly touted as the model of medieval Muslim progressiveness and tolerance for Christians and Jews. To many Americans, then, the choice to name the mosque “Cordoba” is suggestive of rapprochement and interfaith dialogue; atop the rubble of 9/11, it implies “healing”—a new beginning between Muslims and Americans. The Cordoba Initiative’s mission statement certainly suggests as much:

Cordoba Initiative aims to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, bringing back the atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect that we have longed for since Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony and prosperity eight hundred years ago.

Oddly enough, the so-called “tolerant” era of Cordoba supposedly occurred during the caliphate of ‘Abd al-Rahman III (912-961)—well over a thousand years ago. “Eight hundred years ago,” i.e., around 1200, the fanatical Almohids—ideological predecessors of al-Qaeda—were ravaging Cordoba, where “Christians and Jews were given the choice of conversion, exile, or death.” A Freudian slip on the part of the Cordoba Initiative?

At any rate, the true history of Cordoba, not to mention the whole of Andalusia, is far less inspiring than what Western academics portray: the Christian city was conquered by Muslims around 711, its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. The original mosque of Cordoba—the namesake of the Ground Zero mosque—was built atop, and partly from the materials of, a Christian church. Modern day Muslims are well aware of all this. Such is the true—and ominous—legacy of Cordoba.

More pointedly, throughout Islam’s history, whenever a region was conquered, one of the first signs of consolidation was/is the erection of a mosque atop the sacred sites of the vanquished: the pagan Ka’ba temple in Arabia was converted into Islam’s holiest site, the mosque of Mecca; the al-Aqsa mosque, Islam’s third holiest site, was built atop Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem; the Umayyad mosque was built atop the Church of St. John the Baptist; and the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque upon the conquest of Constantinople.

(Speaking of, in 2006, when the Pope visited the Hagia Sophia in Turkey, there was a risk that the “Islamic world [would go] into paroxysms of fury” if there was “any perception that the pope is trying to re-appropriate a Christian center that fell to Muslims,” for example, if he had dared pray there—this even as Muslims today seek to build a mosque on the rubble of the Twin Towers.)

Such double-standards lead us back to the issue of double-meanings: As for the literal wording of the mosque project, “Cordoba House,” it too offers opposing paradigms of thought: to Westerners, the English word “house” suggests shelter, intimacy—coziness, even; in classical Arabic, however, the word for house, dar, can also mean “region,” and is regularly used in a divisive sense, as in Dar al-Harb, i.e., “infidel region of war.” Thus, to Muslim ears, while “Cordoba” offers allusions of conquest and domination, dar is further suggestive of division and separation (from infidels, a la the doctrine of al-Wala’ wa al-Bara’, for instance).

Words aside, even the mosque’s scheduled opening date—9/11/2011—has two aspects: to Americans, opening the mosque on 9/11 is to proclaim a new beginning with the Muslim world on the ten-year anniversary of the worst terror strikes on American soil; however, it just so happens that Koranic verse 9:111 is one of the loftiest calls for suicidal jihad—believers are exhorted to “kill and be killed”—and is probably the reason al-Qaeda originally chose that date to strike. So while Americans may think the mosque’s planned 9/11 opening is meant to commemorate that date, cryptically speaking, it is an evocation for all out war. A “new beginning,” indeed, but of a very different sort, namely, the propagation of more Islamists and jihadists—mosques are, after all, epicenters of radicalization—on, of all places, soil sacred to America.

Some final thoughts on the history of Cordoba and the ominous parallels it bodes for America: though many Christian regions were conquered by Islam prior to Cordoba, its conquest signified the first time a truly “Western” region was conquered by the sword of Islam. It was also used as a base to launch further attacks into the heart of Europe (until decisively beaten at the Battle of Tours), just as, perhaps, the largest mosque in America will be used as a base to subvert the rest of the United States. And, the sacking of the original Cordoba was facilitated by an insider traitor—a warning to the U.S., which seems to have no end of traitors and willing lackeys.

Such, then, is the dual significance of the Cordoba Initiative: What appears to many Americans as a gesture of peace and interfaith dialogue, is to Muslims allusive of Islamist conquest and consolidation; mosques, which Americans assume are Muslim counterparts to Christian churches—that is, places where altruistic Muslims congregate and pray for world peace and harmony—are symbols of domination and centers of radicalization; the numbers of the opening date, 9/11/11, appear to Americans as commemorative of a new beginning, whereas the Koranic significance of those numbers is suicidal jihad. Of course, the two faces of the Cordoba House should not be surprising considering that the man behind the initiative, Feisal Abdul Rauf, also has two faces.

Going along with the historic analogy, there is one bit of good news: As opposed to the vast majority of onetime Western/Christian nations annexed by Islam, Cordoba, Spain did ultimately manage to overthrow the Islamic yoke. Though only after some 700 years of occupation.

Source: Pajamas Media, June 22, 2010.