| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Questions The Islamic Society Should Answer |
| 2006-01-01 |
| ...but won't, naturally. By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | January 1, 2006 Jacoby - Globe's token conservative. EVER SINCE 9/11, we learned last month, federal officials have been monitoring radiation levels around a number of American mosques. It is an understandable precaution, given Al Qaeda's interest in acquiring nuclear weapons, and its history of mass murder. Understandable -- but also troubling. In a nation as tolerant as this one, nobody can be happy about the need to focus self-defensive attention on mosques. Unfortunately, we are at war with violent Islamist radicals, and they are not above using mosques to incubate terrorism. If there is evidence of heightened radioactivity around a Muslim facility, the government should be aware of it, and should find out -- lawfully, of course -- whether it represents a threat. The federal monitors have been checking for physical radiation, but there are other ways in which mosques can be radioactive. Last year, for example, Freedom House issued a report on the extent to which Saudi publications in US mosques promote Wahhabism, the harsh, supremacist version of Islam that is the established creed in Saudi Arabia. Many of these publications, it turned out, were riddled with religious bigotry. They advocated contempt for ''infidels," portrayed America as alien territory, and urged Muslims to prepare for jihad. Considering the use of such teachings in recruiting terrorists, one might well view the presence of this literature in the library of an American mosque as ''radioactive," and a legitimate cause for concern. Which brings us to the roiling controversy over the mosque being built by the Islamic Society of Boston -- a controversy made all the worse by an abusive lawsuit the Islamic Society has filed against its critics. When completed, the $24 million mosque will be the largest Muslim house of prayer in the Northeastern United States. The Islamic Society has pledged that it will also be a center for moderation, peace, and dialogue among different religious communities. It was in part on the strength of that pledge that the Islamic Society was allowed to buy the land for the mosque from the city for a fraction of its fair market value. But lying to infidels is OK... But for more than two years, questions have been raised about just how committed the Islamic Society really is to moderation and interfaith understanding. Beginning with reports in the Boston Herald, news outlets, citizen groups, political officials, and private citizens have been pointing out disturbing signs of extremist ''radioactivity" around the Islamic Society and its leadership. To mention only a few: The society's original founder, Abdurahman Alamoudi, is now serving a 23-year prison term for his role in an assassination plot. The Treasury Department identified him as a fund-raiser for Al Qaeda, and he has publicly proclaimed his support for two notorious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Yusef al Qaradawi, who for several years was listed as a trustee in Islamic Society of Boston tax filings and on the Islamic Society website -- the Islamic Society now claims that was due to an ''administrative oversight" -- is a radical Islamist cleric who has endorsed suicide bombings and the killing of Americans in Iraq. In 2002, he was invited to address an Islamic Society fund-raiser, but had to do so by video from Qatar -- he has been barred since 1999 from entering the United States. Another Islamic Society trustee, Walid Fitaihi, is the author of writings that denounce Jews as ''murderers of the prophets" who ''brought the worst corruption to the earth" and should be punished for their ''oppression, murder, and rape of the worshipers of Allah." After Fitaihi's words were reported in the Boston press, the Islamic Society was urged to unequivocally repudiate them. It took seven months before it finally did so. I'm surprised they did it at all. When Ahmed Mansour, an Egyptian-born Muslim scholar, examined the Islamic Society's library in 2003, he found books and videotapes promoting hostility toward the United States and insulting other religions. Among the publications on hand were several of those listed in the Freedom House report. Individually, none of these points proves that there is anything amiss with the Islamic Society. Taken together, they give rise to obvious questions and concerns. Surely the Islamic Society, which emphasizes its commitment to moderation, tolerance, and dialogue (riiiight), should be at pains to answer those questions and allay those concerns. Instead it accuses its critics of defamation, and has sued many of them for -- of all things -- conspiring to deprive Boston-area Muslims of their religious freedom. But the last thing Muslims in Boston or anywhere else need is a leadership that treats legitimate public misgivings as an anti-Muslim ''conspiracy," or that launches specious lawsuits in order to intimidate those looking into its record. The Islamic Society's overreaction does rank-and-file Muslims no favors -- and gives all of us, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, another reason to wonder about its motives. An infection that will grow and get worse over time... |
| Posted by:Raj |
| #6 The ACLU isn't against religion - just Christianity and Judism. The cult of Islam is ok with them. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-01-01 13:10 |
| #5 so how did they get a sweetheart deal on public property? Sounds like the ACLU et al would be all over that.Oh, I forgot, they only protest when something's good for America |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-01 12:55 |
| #4 the WSJ news pages are slanted liberal, the editorial page is conservative (except on immigration) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-01 12:47 |
| #3 2b: all the media in America is owned by only a few individuals who sponsor "different" newspapers, radio, television (which are not really in competition with each other) . . . follow the money. There are very few true competing sources now. And all media is a for-profit business venture, and reflects the values/belief of the business owners. The idea that journalists somehow "protect" our right to know, or that they offer objective information is another "selling point" made popular during the Vietnam war, and before that, if you got straight info it was more a reflection of the culture of the times. News is here to make money. For the owners, the ability to manipulate world affairs and public opinion is the "bright spot" in an otherwise dull news day. The fact that we get reliable information at all is due to the work of some journalists that haven't had to sell out to the directives of the editors/publishers. About this: "When completed, the $24 million mosque will be the largest Muslim house of prayer in the Northeastern United States . . ." Does this strike anyone as a bit odd? That's a lot of dough for a poor, oppressed bunch of people. What the Islamics are doing in Europe, they're doing here. The author is correct: " . . . we are at war with violent Islamist radicals, and they are not above using mosques to incubate terrorism." That's pretty much an understatement. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2006-01-01 12:20 |
| #2 Soon there will be more moskkkks and more bigotry and treason. It all started by letting Edward Said preach hate to the "intelectuall Left" at the Universities. After the Mosssskkkkk density exceeds 3 per neighborhood in Urban areas, they will start civil disorder type actions like they did in France. First they will burn your cars, then they will sue the hell out of anyone who dares complain and then they will declare Boston as "Dar El Islam" All you have to do is read the Quran, its all in there black on white, you got to be stupid to listen to their pacifying talk. They are from an alien culture which does not recognize civil liberties and the rights of individual citizens. They will drag you with them, kicking and screaming, back to the 12th century Islamic Challifat. I predict a great future to prayer carpet dealers in Boston. |
| Posted by: 2X4 2006-01-01 11:33 |
| #1 I think a bigger question is why the major media outlets - almost all of them - refuse, distort and lie concerning matters detrimental to the interests of our freedom and democracy. Why is it that there is not one paper that I can order to be sent to my doorstep that I can rely on as being fair and factual? I suppose the WSJ still has reasonable reporting, yet their editorial page is reportedly one of the most liberal to be found. Why is this? Who owns major stock in these companies? What percentage of them are owned by foreign interests? Not one paper. Not one. Even papers in smaller markets in conservative areas have been gobbled up by papers like Knight Ridder and their editorial direction has shifted to the same lies and distortions. And this even as their stock and circulation is spiraling downward beyond control. Why is it that the same lies and distortions I read in the NYT, WAPO, LA Times and other major papers are exactly the same stories that I can read in any paper across America? American news outlets have become as dishonest as rags such as the Enquirer. Sensational headlines that distort the facts contained within the text. Ommission of facts that don't support inconvenient points of view. The headlines of NYT and WAPO are no more meaningful or honest than stories of Brad and Jen and Jonbenet's murder we read at the checkstands. Why is it that I can't read a paper in a small town in Kansas or Idaho or Wyoming that will present views that can only be found on blogs? I used to think that this was perhaps just because they simply reprinted the garbage from the wires. But with the advent of the internet - this can not be the case. It's time someone looked at the ownership of these papers - and looked deep into the connections that make every newspaper in America almost idential copies of each other. How can it be possible that not ONE paper has an editorial staff willing to tell the truth on the Plame/Wilson, Nancy Pelosi and Murtha family connections, the islamist connections behind CAIR, and the zillions of other distortions that we are subjected to? Such blanket uniformity is downright strange in a country as large and diverse as America. I hope that in 2006 - someone will discover the reasons why this is the case. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-01-01 10:43 |