GROUND ZERO MOSQUE: THE REAL ISSUE

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann

08.18.2010

The proposed mosque near to ground zero is not really a

religious institution. It would be — as many mosques
throughout the nation are — a terrorist recruitment,
indoctrination and training center. It is not the worship
of Islam that is the problem. It is the efforts to advance
Sharia Law with its requirement of Jihad and violence
that is the nub of the issue.

There is a global effort to advance Sharia Law and

make it the legal system of the world. Most major banks
and financial institutions offer Sharia Compliant Funds
which have their investments vetted by the most
fundamentalist and reactionary of clerics to assure that
they advance Sharia Law. Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf, the
founder of the proposed Mosque, helps to prepare a
Sharia Index which rates countries on their degree of
compliance with Sharia Law. In the United Kingdom,
many courts have recognized Sharia as the governing
law on matters between two Muslims.

Not only is Sharia Law a vicious anti-female code which

orders death by stoning, promotes child marriage,
decriminalizes abuse of women, and gives wives no
rights in divorce, but it also explicitly recognizes the
duty of all Muslims to wage Jihad against non-believers
and promotes violence to achieve its goals. In this
respect, violent Jihad is as inherent in Sharia Law as
revolution is in Communist doctrine.
But there are non-Sharia mosques where peaceful and
spiritual Muslims worship God in their own way without
promoting violence. A soon-to-be published study
funded by Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy,
found that 20% of the mosques in the United States
have no taint of Sharia and simply promote peaceful
worship. But 80% are filled with violent literature,
Sharia teachings, and promotion of Jihad and its
inevitable concomitant — terrorism.

Which brings us to the ground zero mosque. There can

be no doubt that any mosque organized and run by Iman
Feisal Abdul Rauf will be based on Sharia Law and will
serve as local branch office of the pan-Islamic terrorist
offensive against the west. That such a facility should
be located right next to the place where Jihad achieved
its most hideous triumph is unspeakably inappropriate.

President Obama is confusing the issue when he

describes it as one of religious freedom. There is broad
latitude to worship God as one chooses. But there is
none to promote violence and terrorism. The record of
involvement of Sharia mosques with the 9-11 attackers
and the Ft. Hood massacre shooter is so deep and
extensive that it vividly underscores the difference
between a religious institution and an organization that
promotes terrorism.

Politically, President Obama’s defense of the mosque

and his efforts to make it a First Amendment issue are
incredibly self-destructive. They raise questions about
his political sanity. It is hard to believe how tone deaf
he must have become to take such a position. He has
now embraced two positions that are anathema to two-
thirds of all Americans — the mosque and opposition to
Arizona’s immigration law. Neither was a controversy
that sought him out. He waded into each one voluntarily
with flags flying. He had no role in the Arizona law but
his lawsuit to invalidate it made it his fight. He does not
sit on the New York City Planning Commission, but his
endorsement of the mosque puts him squarely in the
center of controversy. What is he using for brains these
days?

To continue the efforts to battle Sharia Law and the

attempts of radical Muslims to use it to destroy our
values and the gains of feminism, please follow the
work funded by the Center for Security Policy and
conducted by David Yerushalmi. To help to fund their
efforts, go to centerforsecuritypolicy.org.