Greg Gutfeld created quite a stir when he suggested building a bar catering to gay Muslim men next to the proposed Cordoba House (read: 9⁄11 victory mosque). But why? The simple answer is that criticizing Islam is incredibly taboo. But more paradoxically, criticizing Islam in a way that legitimately shows its intolerance and barbarous abuse of human rights around the world appears to be even more off-limits. In defiance of this mentality, here are 4 more operations we might want to consider building next to the Ground Zero mosque, for the sake of making Islamism a more tolerant, humanistic enterprise.
#1 “The Aisha House,” aka Child Protective Services(http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm)
A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3311)
In many countries in the “Muslim World,” the practice of child marriage is unconscionably widespread. In Yemen alone, well over one quarter of all marriages are with children, almost exclusively females (under the age of 15). Yet in these countries, who do you suppose fights the enactment of laws that would abolish this repulsive tradition? The Muslim clergy, of course. In fact, as the Associated Press reported:
Some of Yemen’s most influential Islamic leaders…have declared supporters of a ban on child brides to be apostates.
With the Koran being so crystal clear about Muhammad’s child-loving exploits, and since he is the Islamic paragon, it is no surprise that Muslim clerics would decry supporters of these laws as “apostates” of Islam. Forbidding the forced marriages of children to old lechers — what blasphemy!
Some readers at this juncture are no doubt thinking that, although child marriage in a third world country like Yemen is not breaking news, the practice couldn’t possibly find its way into enlightened society. If only that were true. In Canada, for instance, not only are child brides on the rise, but the Canadian government claims “there’s little they can do” about it. Via the Toronto Sun:
Federal immigration officials say there’s little they can do to stop “child brides” from being sponsored into Canada by much older husbands who wed them in arranged marriages abroad.
Muslim men, who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents return to their homeland to wed a “child bride” in an arranged marriage in which a dowry is given to the girl’s parents. Officials said some of the brides can be 14 years old or younger and are “forced” to marry.The practice occurs in a host of countries including: Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Lebanon.
Top immigration officials in Canada and Pakistan say all they can do is reject the sponsorships of husbands trying to bring their child-brides to Canada. The men have to reapply when the bride turns 16. The marriages are permitted under Sharia Law.
#2 Domestic Violence Center
The wretched abuse of women in the name of Islam is hardly a secret. Like child brides, the Koran is very clear about man’s supremacy over, and brutality toward, women.
Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Shakir’s version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
The abuse of women in Muslim countries is stunningly savage. The occurrence of acid attacks, mutilation, beatings, honor killings, stoning, rape (for which the woman is blamed and thrown in jail or killed), not to mention the severe psychological oppression of women in Islamic countries, is as heartbreaking as it is sickening.
In The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam, Robert Spencer and Dr. Phyllis Chesler discuss the trend of Islamic gender apartheid and its preservation by Muslim clerics:
Dominating their women by violence is a prerogative Muslim men cling to tenaciously. In spring 2005, when the East African nation of Chad tried to institute a new family law that would outlaw wife beating, Muslim clerics led resistance to the measure as un-Islamic.
For the most part, Muslim men successfully bring this religious sanctioned violence with them when they immigrate to the West, even to the United States. The prominent American Muslim leader Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), has said that “in some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife…The Koran is very clear on is issue.”
In 2004, an imam in Spain…was found guilty of “inciting violence on the basis of gender” for his book Women in Islam, which discussed the methods and limits of administering the physical punishment of women.
Indeed it is.
Keep in mind that, like in the case of child brides, Islamic violence against women is not a product merely of the desperate circumstances of third world countries. It is a religiously sanctioned practice which is upheld transnationally by independent clerical establishments; even by so-called Islamic intellectuals in the West.
Bearing all this in mind, let’s reflect for a moment on the Ground Zero mosque and what it is supposed to represent. Considering the information in the preceding examples, the premise of building cross-cultural tolerance becomes somewhat curious: Exactly who will be asked to show tolerance to whom? Will the Cordoba House imams repudiate the barbaric, cruel practices of pan-Islamic culture and forbid them from coming to our shores? Or will it be Westerns who are asked to demonstrate “tolerance” of the holy dictates of the Koran in the name of “mutual respect and understanding”? Where has the pattern already been established?
#3 Cosmetic Surgeon/Prosthetic Boutique
If there’s one thing peace-loving, tolerant Islamist societies are in no short supply of, it’s disfigured Muslims. This is especially true, again, for Muslim women. Women in Muslim dominated countries are subjected to unspeakable acts of retributive mutilation, including genital mutilation to ensure their sexual purity. Acid attacks are also common, as well as lopping off other body parts such as the nose, ears, hands and feet. These punishments may be applied for a range of crimes including illicit sex (under Sharia), theft, and drinking alcohol. Less severely, transgressors may be punished by lashing or flogging. Men are brutalized in this way as well.
#4 “The Crusader House” — A Catholic Community Center
Imagine, if you will, the Archdiocese in New York City one day implementing a wonderful idea to improve cross-cultural city relations: They decide to build a towering Catholic “community center” over the graves of say, 3,000 dead devout Muslims. The purpose of this venture is “really,” they claim, to alleviate misunderstandings on what Catholicism is and to bring an appreciation of the religion to the Muslim community. They decide the most appropriate name for the center ought to be something that casts Catholicism in a good light — something that evokes the greatness of the creed. The perfect name they decide on is the Crusader House! During the Crusades, Roman Catholic Christians, in the name of their savior Jesus Christ, fought valiantly for the sake of the Holy Land. Seems like a perfect choice, except — oh dear. The Crusades also involved killing hordes of Muslims. That might be a problem. The obvious solution would be to Latinize the name of The Crusader House — Casum Crusadum. The bet is that with the language obscurity, the Muslim community will be too stupid to figure out the insult.
The above sounds ridiculous. But how ridiculous can it be when so many Americans are eager to let the story play out with the roles reversed? The “Cordoba House,” the original name of the Ground Zero victory mosque, refers to a city in Spain, during a period when Muslim invaders dominated the land and subjugated indigenous Christian and Jewish populations. The upshot of all this is that a structure named after a period of Muslim hegemony and religious intolerance was chosen – by allegedly “moderate” Muslims – to best represented a Muslim community center supposedly predicated on interfaith respect and understanding! And atop the graves of nearly 3,000 Americans slaughtered in the name of Allah, no less!
This brings us back to the question we were left with in #2. Who shoulders the burden of “tolerance” and cultural sensitivity? Clearly, the Muslims who want to build this mega-mosque couldn’t care less about offending Americans with their endeavor, as they are most aggressively pursuing its success. Instead, we are expected to curb our outrage; to demonstrate our understanding in this process, despite the fact that we are the unmistakable victims of Islamist hostility. How ordinary Americans, furious over this effrontery, are somehow labeled the “intolerant,” “insensitive” nativists, is an upending of commonsense the likes of which one struggles to comprehend.