OUTRAGE at the NYC Monster Mosque

An article on Atlas Shrugs is reproduce in full below.

SIOA LAWSUIT AGAINST NYC: BLOOMBERG’S MTA REFUSES TO ALLOW 911 IMAGES: BANS GROUND ZERO BUS CAMPAIGN

Today we filed a lawsuit against the city of New York. Here is the complaint: Download Complaint–FDIvMTA–Filed_Stamped

The city has refused to run my SIOA “Preservation of Ground Zero” bus campaign.

It seems that Mayor Bloomberg invokes certain freedoms when it serves his 2012 agenda. Doing away with term limits wasn’t enough (which is why we are still suffering under his no-salt, no-transfat regime). He  is now widening his ayatollah-like power grab to imposing blasphemy laws (Islamic sharia laws) on the secular marketplace. Bloomberg’s frenzied Ground Zero mosque push may have inspired Al-Azhar clerics to oppose the Ground Zero Mosque, calling it a “a zionist plot.”

Last month, I signed a contract with CBS Outdoor to run a “Preservation of Ground Zero” bus ad campaign. The campaign was paid for in full.

Here is the ad I submitted:

Ground zero bus

The ad was refused. I asked on what grounds. CBS Outdoor told me that the city said that “images of 911 were not allowed.” I was floored. I said, “It is American history. How can it be banned? What about Pearl Harbor? Is that censored too?” I said, “On what grounds is 911 images banned?” It is unconscionable. Will of CBS said, “You can’t run the plane.”

I asked CBS/MTA to provide me with the guidelines for these seventh-century censorship restrictions. They never did. And so, with the help of talented and singular Big Fur Hat, I removed the plane and submitted this ad with the following note:

Will, Still waiting for the MTA guidelines. Please respond to my previous queries. Here is the new art …… please know that I strenuously object to you changing my artwork and my message in the process. It’s American history. I am floored. However, since you and/or the MTA are unwilling to change your position, I have no choice but to run the advertisement with your edits.

Ground zero noplane

CBS refused this ad as well. They said I had to remove the smoke. “The smoke?”

When I spoke to CBS’s representative concerning the second rejection of my Ground Zero bus ad, he said that the MTA “doesn’t want toassociate the new building with Ground Zero.” The showing of the burning buildings “hurts people.” “Hurts people?” I find bus ads proselytizing for Islam hurts apostates, are you going to take those bus ads down?

I said, “Are you saying images of the largest attack on American soil are censored? Are Pearl Harbor images censored? Gettysburg,too?”

He said, “The people behind the new building say it has nothing to do with Ground Zero.” I said, “So what? That’s what they say. Others think differently. You are telling me they have said it has nothing to do with Ground Zero. But they are on record repeatedly as saying they want it there for Ground Zero ‘healing’ and ‘outreach.'”

I said, “Who cares what they say, what do they (Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan) have to do with running my ad? They dictate what can and cannot run?”

He said, “It’s controversial.” I said, “How? Where are the guidelines that point to this, where are the guidelines that I have been asking for over a month? Give me the guidelines and I will adhere to them.”

He said “I have been having a hard time getting the guidelines out of the MTA.” I said, “A hard time? Aren’t they written somewhere or posted somewhere? What are they?”

I said, “Andw hat’s controversial? The ad merely says, ‘Why there?'” He said, “You are implying………..” I said, “Implying what? You are now going to tell me what I am thinking? Who is making these decisions? Who at the MTA or CBS is making these decisions? The MTA is a government agency — and you can’t provide me with guidelines but I am being held hostage to the capricious whim of some flak at the MTA? I am an advertiser. I bought and paid for an ad a month ago and you cannot point me to any substance or set of rules for the basis of ad rejection.”

I said, “I took out the plane as requested — now what’s the problem?” He said, “the flames.”  I said, “What would be ok? Just the towers alone?” He said yes. I said “OK, I will create another ad with just the towers.” He said, “Before you do that, let me run down the hall and ask if that’s OK.” I said, “With who?” He said, with “his VP.”

And so I took out the smoke and submitted this ad:

Ground zero bus ad no smoke

CBS, on behalf of the MTA, said, “Remove the plane.”

Will of CBS said he was “meeting obstacles” but he was “trying to help me.” He said, “Get me an ad a/s/a/p without smoke, without any flames — just the towers.”

And so, I submitted another planeless ad, stating emphatically,

“I object to this censorship, which is effectively editing the viewpoint I am attempting to express in my message, but if this is the only choice you are giving me, then run the ad without the plane. It’s a plane in the sky, far removed. Planes do fly in the sky.”

Ground zero bus last art

Needless to say, I am still awaiting approval from the MTA.

Today my legal team of David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise filed suit on our behalf against NYC.

The complaint against the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority has now been filed. It alleges violation of FDI’s (and Pamela Geller’s and Robert Spencer’s) Free Speech rights under the First & Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

In essence, and it is laid out clearly in the complaint with clear illustrations in the exhibits, the MTA decided that it was going to accept the “viewpoint” of Imam Rauf and his Islamist co-conspirators – to wit, that their plan to develop the Ground Zero Mosque has nothing to do with marking the “victory” marked by the destruction of human life and property on 9-11. Literally, the MTA made it its business to decide which of many viewpoints it would deem politically correct speech for advertisements on its buses.

What makes this jihad against free speech so egregious is that the MTA has run any number of controversial religious andpolitical ads without batting an eyelid. But as soon as the Shariah-faithful cowed Mayor Bloomberg and the MTA into dhimmi-like submission, the First Amendment to the Constitution gave way to Shariah’s blasphemy laws. How long before the Mayor’s office begins issuing fatwas against those who dare counter the “noble and peaceful outreach” narrative?

Mr. Mayor and your colleagues at the MTA and the Landmark Commission: New Yorkers will not forget 9-11 and we will not be cowed into submission or silence. You might not want to hear our voices, but the federal courts will require you to listen. You claim the mantle of the Constitution as a basis for supporting a Shariah-Islamist mosque at Ground Zero, yet the MTA—a government agency of the City—cavalierly denies “infidels” freedom of speech. Enough is enough. (David Yerushalmi)

Watch Nihad Awad and Tim Brown Debate the NYC Mosque on FoxNews

Guy Rogers’ article, Opposing the Ground Zero Mosque, is quite informative.

ACT! for America reports:

Opposition to the “Ground Zero Mosque” reaching critical mass.  Public opinion against the construction of this mosque is on the rise according to a Rasmussen poll, showing that 58% of New Yorkers oppose building the mosque and only 20% in favor. Interestingly, 60% doubt that the motivation for the mosque is to showcase the peaceful side of Islam.If you haven’t already done so, please join the 72,600 people, who have signed our petition opposing the mosque..

Putting the Mega Mosque in the context of history:  This 60 second video was produced by our friends at The Center for Security Policy.

Behind the mosque By ANDREW G. BOSTOM

Imam Feisal Rauf, the central figure in the coterie planning a huge mosque just off Ground Zero, is a full-throated champion of the very same Muslim theologians and jurists identified in a landmark NYPD report as central to promoting the Islamic religious bigotry that fuels modern jihad terrorism.This fact alone should compel Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg to withdraw their support for the proposed mosque.

In August 2007, the NYPD released “Radicalization in the West — The Homegrown Threat.” This landmark 90-page report looked at the threat that had become apparent since 9/11, analyzing the roots of recent terror plots in the United States, from Lackawanna, NY, to Portland, Ore., to Fort Dix, NJ.

The report noted that Saudi “Wahhabi” scholars feed the jihadist ideology, legitimizing an “extreme intolerance” toward non-Muslims, especially Jews, Christians and Hindus. In particular, the analysts noted that the “journey” of radicalization that produces homegrown jihadis often begins in a Wahhabi mosque.

The term “Wahhabi” refers to the 18th century founder of this austere Islamic tradition, Muhammad bin Abdul al-Wahhab, who claimed inspiration from 14th century jurist Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah.

At least two of Imam Rauf’s books, a 2000 treatise on Islamic law and his 2004 “What’s Right with Islam,” laud the implementation of sharia — including within America — and the “rejuvenating” Islamic religious spirit of Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Wahhab.

He also lionizes as two ostensible “modernists” Jamal al-Dinal-Afghani (d. 1897), and his student Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905). In fact, both defended the Wahhabis, praised the salutary influence of Ibn Taymiyyah and promoted the pretense that sharia — despite its permanent advocacy of jihad and dehumanizing injunctions on non-Muslims and women — was somehow compatible with Western concepts of human rights, as in our own Bill of Rights.

In short, Feisal Rauf’s public image as a devotee of the “contemplative” Sufi school of Islam cannot change the fact that his writings directed at Muslims are full of praise for the most noxious and dangerous Muslim thinkers.

Indeed, even the classical Sufi master that Rauf extols, the 12th-century jurist Abu Hamed Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali, issued opinions on jihad and the imposition of Islamic law on the vanquished non-Muslim populations that were as bellicose and bigoted as those of Ibn Taymiyyah.

Also relevant is the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow program run by the American Society for Muslim Advancement, an organization founded by Rauf and now run by his wife. Among the future leaders it has recognized are one of the co-authors of a “denunciation” of the NYPD report, a counter-report endorsed by all major Wahhabi-front organizations in America. Another “future leader” of interest to New Yorkers: Debbie Almontaser, the onetime head of the city’s Khalil Gibran Academy.

More revealing is the fact that Rauf himself has refused to sign a straightforward pledge to “repudiate the threat from authoritative sharia to the religious freedom and safety of former Muslims,” a pledge issued nine months ago by ex-Muslims under threat for their “apostasy.” That refusal is a tacit admission that Rauf believes that sharia trumps such fundamental Western principles as freedom of conscience.

Wahhabism — whether in the form promoted by Saudi money around the globe, or in the more openly nihilist brand embraced by terrorists — is a totalitarian ideology comparable to Nazism or, closer still, the “state Shintoism” of imperial Japan. We would never have allowed a Shinto shrine at the site of the Pearl Harbor carnage — especially one to serve as a recruiting station for Tokyo’s militarists while World War II was still on.

For the same reasons, we must say no to a Wahhabi mosque at Ground Zero.

Andrew G. Bostom is the author of “The Legacy of Jihad” and “The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism.”

A Shrine to Sharia by Frank Gaffney

The supremacist program authoritative Islam calls Shariah is big on symbols. Arguably, none is more effective than its practice of building mosques on its conquests’ most sacred sites.

In Jerusalem, triumphant Muslims built the Al-Aqsa mosque on top of the Jews’ revered Temple Mount. They transformed what had been for a thousand years the largest cathedral in Christendom, Constantinople’s magnificent St. Sophia basilica, into a sprawling mosque complex. And the Moorish Ummayad dynasty in Spain, made the city of Cordoba its capital, and installed an immense mosque on the site of an ancient Christian church there.

Now, an imam in New York, who has suddenly come into $100 million from undisclosed sources, wants to build a 13-story Islamic Cultural Center adjacent to the site of Shariah’s greatest triumph to date in America: Ground Zero, the place where the World Trade Center’s twin towers proudly stood until they were destroyed by Shariah-adherent jihadists on September 11, 2001. It is not a coincidence that the imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has called his project “the Cordoba House.”

Such a mosque on 9/11’s hallowed ground would not only constitute a durable, symbolic taunt by our enemies about their bloody victory. In accordance with Shariah, once ground has been taken for Islam, it can never revert to the non-Muslim Dar al-Harb, literally the House of War.

In other words, the Ground Zero mosque is designed to be a permanent, in-our-face beachhead for Shariah, a platform for inspiring the triumphalist ambitions of the faithful and eroding resistence to their demands for separate and (for the moment, at least) equal treatment in America.

Too few of our leaders understand the nature of Shariah and its implications. Even when an imam like Rauf explicitly says he favors bringing Shariah to America, officials at every level of government seem untroubled by the fact that such an agenda necessarily is anti-constitutional and incompatible with our freedoms.To be sure, Imam Rauf is a skilled practitioner of the Shariah tradition of taqqiya – deception for the faith. As researcher Alyssa Lappen has documented, Rauf has family and other longstanding ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Imam of Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero refuses to condemn Hamas by Robert Spencer

I’ve been trying to tell you about this guy. You wouldn’t listen.

The imam behind plans to build a controversial Ground Zero mosque yesterday refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization.According to the State Department’s assessment, “Hamas terrorists, especially those in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings, against Israeli civilian and military targets.”

Asked again for his opinion on Hamas, an exasperated Rauf wouldn’t budge.

“I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy,” Rauf said, insisting that he wants to see peace in Israel between Jews and Arabs.

Rauf also would not answer a question about Egypt’s outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.

“I have nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood. My father was never a member of the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said, disputing a rumor….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s