Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D-Brooklyn) is calling on Mayor Bloomberg to withdraw his support of the Ground Zero mosque in the wake of the revelation of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s anti-American and anti-Western rhetoric. Rauf has been quoted as saying, “We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands that al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims. . .the West has not been cognizant and has not addressed the issue of its own contribution to much injustice in the Arab and Muslim world.”
Hikind, who has been an outspoken critic of the proposed project, recently demanded that the Mayor apologize to all New Yorkers for his sanctimonious remarks chastising those who oppose the building of the mosque.
“The Mayor needs to publicly denounce this contemptuous Imam and withdraw his support for the project,” Hikind said. “It is unconscionable for this plan to move forward.”
Hikind also noted, “How can this mosque possibly promote tolerance and understanding when the very foundation will be built with blood money from our enemies in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries which despise us?
Hikind’s sentiments were echoed by the Rabbinical Alliance of America, an Orthodox rabbinic organization which boasts more than 800 members.
“Opposition to the building of the mosque is not an issue of religious intolerance or a matter of us versus them,” said Rabbi Gershon Tannenbaum, director of the Rabbinical Alliance of America. “People of all faiths should be appalled by the Imam’s remarks and very frightened at the possibility of terrorist monies funding this endeavor.”
Hikind added, “63% of New Yorkers oppose the building of this mosque. That’s a statistic that simply cannot be ignored.”
(YWN Desk – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
7 Responses
Maybe I’m missing something….
When did the evidence come about that:
a) The hundred-million Cordoba House project has already secured funding
b) Said funding is coming from terrorist countries?
c) The bill of rights exists to protect minorities from an oppressive majority. It doesn’t matter if 99% of New York doesn’t want a mosque, church, or synagogue – there is still freedom of religion.
Also, since when do we reject money from Saudi Arabia? Funny how that got lumped in there. If this is the case, we must force Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud of SA to sell his 2nd largest share of Newscorp (Fox News).
In an ideal world, I wish that the Cordoba House would NOT be built there. But I also wish that the church around the corner from my house would be in another location. On what grounds can I protest it, lest the neighborhood protest the multiple shuls nearby?
Poser.
No mosque would be acceptable, no Imam, no body.
say it loud and say it proud.
No tolerance is the new motto.
New Jews indeed.
“No tolerance”
Sure, go ahead and send American Jewry back 100 years.
Justajew:
Fortunately for us, freedom of religion is fundamental right in this country. However, like most rights protected by the Constitution, it is not an absolute right. Under extraordinary circumstances people should be limited in their ability to build a church, synagogue or mosque where they are otherwise legally entitled to.
This, in the belief of many, is such a case. Here, their freedom of religion will cause more pain, more animosity, and embolden America’s enemies. Thousands of Americans were slaughtered in the name of Islam by Muslim terrorists in that very location. This will add painful insult to the tragic sufferring of the victim’s families and may be perceived by at least some in the Muslim world as a symbol of conquest. Just because they could build a mosque there, doesn’t mean they should.
This is a very tough issue and those that brush off the protests as mere intolerance and bigotry (Obama and Bloomberg) are belittling the significane of 9/11 and the war against Muslim radicals that is far from over. There are deep wounds and real concerns involved here.
Ironically, Gov. Patterson has been most prudent and practical with this issue. The best solution for everybody would be for the mosque to be built at another location just a little further away from Ground Zero. There would be no valid reason to protest a mosque at a more distant location, and if the Imam really had good intentions in mind, he would have at least agreed to discuss such an option. So far he hasn’t considered moving, but is instead on a taxpayer funded trip around the Middle East…
My dear “justajew”,
This is not a freedom of religion issue. It is a historical fact that Muslims build a mosque upon the spoils of those they vanquish. America can not allow this “symbolic gesture” to take place. They can pray/prey (pun intended) anywhere else but not at the site of Ground Zero. That is the issue.
By the way, is there a vast Muslim population living in that neighborhood or do Muslims come from all over to attend prayers there? Does anybody know?
Another attempt by Dov Hikind to be in the media. His spotlight since calling for it’s reversal last week has ceased to shine, a new statement released. Will we now get daily press releases on this matter until another controversy brews?
that’s great. Hikind wants to deny monotheists in america in a liberal anti ol-queida anti – wahabi – anti jihad muslim organization the right to build a large activites center with a mosque in the psame place there is already a mosque which the group has outgrown.
Brilliant move , and to say it is becasue the iman said truths about america, so hikind’s interpreation of the truths ( or even if they were flasehoods) means that hatred of america should stand in the way of civil and religious rights.
The two things the iman said that are deemed controversial are both true.
[1] america was an accessory in 9-11 is so true – even if they were an uninetnational accessory– that it boggles the mind that someone would lower themselves to argue the point. Glen Beck =our beacon of light- ( kidding) said it over a year ago and his clip is on youtube
[2] second statement causing tantrems is that the american sanctions killed 1/2 million iraqi children – thats not even debatable unless one were to debate whether it was a hundred thousand less or a hundred thousand more.
The calculations were made prior to the date when the corruption of the oil for food program began and so if the deaths occurred before the oil for food program then the argument against the half million figure goes out the window.
Rarely covered by the American media, but readily available form pristine sources and you can fidn the UN reports online and the info about the UN workers who resigned their jobs on account of the childrens deaths