THE LATEST IN THE ANNALS OF DHIMMITUDE. The American Society for Muslim Advancement (very literally) plans to erect a “Mega-Mosque” at Ground Zero. They say (taqiyya anyone?) that this is a peace offering—a center intended to foster Muslim tolerance and temperance.
I agree with the apoplectic activists: this amounts to lording it over the dhimmis-in-training. It is a triumphant act of supremacy, as the erection of minarets and the mosques has been throughout the annals of Islam. This is a bitch slap to the subjugated population.
However, as much as I approve of the activists (and I do not mean to be cynical), theirs is nothing more than frenetic cry-baby Brownian motion. There is no intellectual force, much less real force, behind a demand for sensitivity from those you believe to be worse than insensitive.
Such activism reminds me of the victim impact statement in our Courts. How humiliating and futile is it to plead for contrition and kindness from entities incapable of such sentiment.
When you’re reduced to asking a cunning conqueror to be nice; you’ve been bitch slapped good. Besides, ask yourself, “Why the distrust of fellow Muslims?” The Muslims in question say they are sincere in their endeavor; why doubt them?
Activists are acting out of emotion and have failed to examine what they’re really saying and, then, say it out loud.
Restricting acquisitive property rights in a free society should never be entertained. I’ll fight you if you try! But what other course of action are these emotion-driven protests hoping for? Again: what the activists are ludicrously requesting is kindness and consideration from those they regard as conquistadors—for they refuse to go straight to the heart of the matter and address the only legitimate, if incremental, course of action:
I hope I don’t have to spell it out for you. See:
And much more (use the search facility on this site, and on IlanaMercer.com, please).
Update (May 17): Myron’s interesting comment down here seems to imply that unless the Ground-Zero controversy passes the Israel-parallels test, it is deserving of no more than a dismissive shrug. Well, I’m an American commentator, first; making sure that every American dilemma passes the fairness-to-Israel test is not the mandate I’ve accepted or will ever pursue. I’ll leave that “yente,” “boba,” neocon kvetching to others (my “Holocaustism” comment applies here).
The Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque examples Myron brings support the point of historical conquest, plonked as they were on Jewish sacred sites. But because Americans don’t know or care about them, Myron dismisses the concerns expressed by misguided, hysterical activists, to which “Begging For Muslim Sensitivity” gives voice (but slams).
Again: We disagree about the Israel Test.
Moreover, building the Mosque on the site of an Islamic victory against the West is symbolic—and a harbinger of things dhimmi to come. There is something nihilistic, atomistic, and effete in dismissing, even accepting, what I believe is a bitch slap from Islam’s messengers. It is the hallmark of the liberal, Western man. Muslims are too macho to dismiss insults and one-upmanship from “our side.”
I more than approve of Myron’s refusal to turn “the Towers into the Beit Hamikdash (Temple of Jerusalem).” It fits right in with my anti-hysteria, anti- 9/12 projects sentiments—these are designed to sustain the state of heightened emotional arousal that arose in the aftermath of 9/11.
And emotional arousal does nothing for clear thinking (although it helps in bed).