UPDAED: Wahhabi Mosque At Ground Zero

BAB's A List, Fascism, Foreign Policy, Freedom of Religion, History, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Jihad, Religion, The West, War

My guest today on BAB is Jihad scholar Andrew G. Bostom, MD, MS. Dr. Bostom is an Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University Medical School, and a contributor to many publications.

The NYP piece informs about the background of the Muslims involved in erecting the Mega-Mosque at ground zero. Although I am not an historian, I do, however, believe Andrew’s Sharia-Shintoism analogy is utterly erroneous. I am unaware that the Japanese wished to enforce their faith on the world; or that they have the pedigree of bloody conquest in the name of the faith to match Islam’s. Of course, that depends how you view America’s incinerating antipathy toward the Japanese. (Most Americans love this particular mass murder.)

Be mindful too that, as I wrote in “Dhimmis At Ground Zero?,” “restricting acquisitive property rights in a free society should never be entertained, as much as I approve of actions wishing to peacefully prevent this religious monstrosity from replacing a statist one.” It is, moreover, worse than futile to “request kindness and consideration from those they regard as conquistadors.” That’s plain dhimmi.

As I see it, fans of the heroic Geert Wilders refuse to adopt his immigration restrictionism, and prefer to concentrate on tiresome, futile talk against the evils of honor killings and genital infibulation, which no one sanctions.


BEHIND THE MOSQUE
By ANDREW G. BOSTOM
New York Post

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 against 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.”

UPDATE: In “Who’s paying for the ground zero Islamic center?” Rick Lazio raises similar concerns. Lazio, a super statist, has found a cause he can run on. I like the idea I’ve heard floated of “landmarking” the targeted “historic 150-year-old building that was seriously damaged by the landing gear of one of the hijacked jetliners that flew into the World Trade Center.”

Meet Saint Shirley Sherrod

Affirmative Action, Ethics, History, Human Accomplishment, Journalism, Media, Political Correctness, Race, Racism

The following is an excerpt from my new WND.com column, “Meet Saint Shirley Sherrod”:

“‘Expectations tend to be self-fulfilling,’ said an anonymous wag. Expect nothing and you’ll get nothing. Except very little and that’s all you’ll get. In modern-day USA, a kid so much as dials 911 in an emergency, and he is decorated for bravery. And if an African-American rejects her birthright, and demonstrates less prejudice toward whites—she is up for beatification.

Repudiate this elevated ethical standard, and a deranged, fulminating Keith Olbermann will pelt you with a panegyric on the imagined martyrdom of one Shirley Sherrod, now the most celebrated public servant in the United States, and perhaps the world. …

… Keith Olbermann is a crude pamphleteer who imagines himself a modern-day Emile Zola. Most recently, the anchor has sunk to the level of fraud and falsehood in comparing Ms. Sherrod—a contemporary black woman, who has, hitherto, enjoyed safe and secure sinecure in liberal, post-Civil-Rights-Act America—to Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a nineteenth-century Jew living in illiberal France, falsely accused of the worst military breach possible.

The similarities are as startling as Olbermann’s leveling logic.

In 1894, this patriotic Frenchman was charged with spying for the Germans. Dreyfus was tried and convicted of treason with no due process of the law. He was sentenced to a lifetime on Devil’s Island, a penal colony in South America. There, Dreyfus languished until 1899. Outraged at the miscarriage of justice, French writer Emile Zola penned a stirring tract, ‘J’Accuse,’ in defense of Dreyfus, who was eventually exonerated twelve years after his ordeal began.

Dreyfus’s fate clearly mirrors that of Sherrod. Especially glaring are the parallels between Sherrod’s 48-hour, celebratory ride on the cable news merry-go-round, and Dreyfus’s four-year romp around Treasure Island, in French Guiana.” …

Read the complete column, “Meet Saint Shirley Sherrod.”

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

David (Brooks) Discovers The Managerial State

Economy, Fascism, Old Right, Political Economy, Pseudoscience, Regulation, Socialism, The State

David Brooks, via Vox Day, makes a welcome discovery: The technocratic or Managerial State, a foundational concept among Old Right thinkers, Paul Gottfried, most recently. In my review of Gottfried’s superb After Liberalism, I explained:

The present managerial state certainly is not an instantiation of the liberalism of the American Founding Fathers. The post-revolution federal government was not to levy any taxes, and an expansion of its power required the consent of every sovereign state. “The American Revolution,” writes economist Murray Rothbard, “was against empire, taxation, trade monopoly, regulations, militarism and executive power,” all now implicitly embraced by the US and its Western allies.
Undergirding our public administration is an unyielding ideology bolstered by a monolith of toadying journalists and intellectuals. The dubious precepts of social psychology and the enforced “public philosophy” of pluralism have become means through which bureaucrats, educators and state-anointed experts embark on crusades against “prejudice”. Together with official multiculturalism they form an instrument of control, designed to privilege a certain position and to stigmatize those who think differently. By extension, speech codes, human rights legislation, employment quotas and other infringements, contradict the classical liberal espousal of rights to property and freedom of association.
“Unlike the communist garrison state or the Italian fascist “total state,” the managerial state succeeds by denying that it exercises power. It conceals its operation in the language of caring. But “behind the mission to sensitize and teach “human rights” lies the largely unacknowledged right to shape and reshape people’s lives. Any serious appraisal of the managerial regime,” cautions Gottfried, “must consider first and foremost the extent of its control—and the relative powerless of its critics.”

AFTER summarizing the Republican and Democratic expansion of “a vast national security bureaucracy,” and the latter’s bureaucracy accreting health care and financial reform laws, BROOKS concludes:

When historians look back on this period, they will see it as another progressive era. It is not a liberal era — when government intervenes to seize wealth and power and distribute it to the have-nots. It’s not a conservative era, when the governing class concedes that the world is too complicated to be managed from the center. It’s a progressive era, based on the faith in government experts and their ability to use social science analysis to manage complex systems.
This progressive era is being promulgated without much popular support. It’s being led by a large class of educated professionals, who have been trained to do technocratic analysis, who believe that more analysis and rule-writing is the solution to social breakdowns, and who have constructed ever-expanding networks of offices, schools and contracts.

Vox adds by alluding to the impossibility of economic calculation in a socialist system:

“The Misean [sic] concept of central information deprivation – not to be confused with F.A. von Hayek’s later refinement – first foresaw and explained this certain failure not long after the Progressive era began, in a monograph entitled Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth, published in 1920.”

UPDATED: Gold Is Bad For Government Health (Remember Executive Order 6102)

Business, Debt, Economy, History, Individual Rights, Inflation, John McCain, Regulation, Rights, Socialism, The State

The health scare bill is the gift that just keeps giving—giving-up individual freedoms to government. From a “TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE” to a “SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS” to “STUDENT LOAN REFORM”; it’s all there, designed to leave little room for voluntary, peaceful exchanges. But we missed another provision among the thousands of sections the H.R.4872 Reconciliation Act of 2010 sports:

A “tack-on provision to the law that puts gold coin buyers and sellers under closer government scrutiny.”

Gold is a necessary financial hedge in the survival on the road to serfdom.

UPDATE (July 24): Gold Confiscation coming? FDR, idolized by BHO and McMussolini alike—by almost all offshoots of the duopoly, in fact—forbade “the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates” at pains of punishment: a fine of “not more than $10,000, or “imprisoned for not more than ten years or both.”