No Compromise When You’re Right!

ISNA crescent atop Flight 93 minaret

September 5, 2008 · 17 Comments

UPDATE:  Alec was interviewed today by Frontpage Mag which you can read here and I have interviewed Alec twice on my show which you can listen to here and here

by Alec Rawls

Blogburst logo, petition

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is a Saudi funded Wahabbist group. Its logo is in the shape of a mosque with a crescent topped minaret and a crescent topped dome. Here is the ISNA logo juxtaposed to a similarly shaped mosque from Uppsala Sweden:

ISNA and Uppsala 40%

Both configurations have upturned crescents. The difference is that the arms of the ISNA crescents are lifted symmetrically, while the Uppsala crescents have one arm above the other.

On actual minarets, the Uppsala configuration is the norm, seen also in this photo of the Abdul Gaffoor mosque in Singapore:

AbdulGaffoor50%

There seems to be only one example of an actual minaret that is to be built in the ISNA configuration. That is the Tower of Voices minaret from the planned Flight 93 memorial:

TowerShapeComposite50%

Two views of the Tower of Voices minaret, showing an Islamic-shaped crescent at the top, with its arms reaching symmetrically up into the sky. (Source images here and here, originally from the Memorial Project’s design competition website.)

The up-tower view shows the symbolic Islamic heavens projected against the sky while the symbolic lives of the 40 heroes literally dangle down below. Murdoch had to do this in order for his Crescent of Embrace design (centered around a giant Mecca-oriented crescent) to be a proper mosque. The 40 infidels could not actually be honored in the design. They had to be depicted as symbolically damned.

Murdoch actually repeats this theme in the central crescent, where the 4 extra translucent blocks (one for each hijacker) are all placed in the symbolic Islamic heavens (the crescent and star parts of the structure), while the 40 translucent blocks inscribed with the names of the 40 heroes are all placed outside of the symbolic Islamic heavens.

Do Wahabbists recognize the crescent as a symbol of Islam?

One of the two Muslim scholars who the Park Service tapped for expert opinion on whether claims of Islamic symbolism in the Flight 93 memorial should be taken seriously was a Paul Murdoch classmate named Nasser Rabbat. (Both recieved Masters degrees in architecture from UCLA in 1984.)

One of the excuses Rabbat offered the Park Service for not being concerned about all the Islamic-shaped crescents was to question whether the crescent really should be seen as a Muslim symbol at all:

The Crescent is a debatable Islamic universal symbol. Many groups do not use it. I know in fact of no militant group that uses it. [AHEM.] Islamic modern states have opted to use it, sometimes with the star, which is a modern symbol with no Islamic connotation. 

He is right here that the most fanatical Islamic fundamentalists, the Salafists (who model themselves on the first three generations of violent Islamic conquest), are not keen on the crescent, since it was adopted as a Muslim symbol by the Ottomans, long after the time of Muhammad.

The official Saudi state religion of Wahabbism is Salafist. That is why the Saudi Arabian flag is one of the only Islamic flags not to feature the Ottoman crescent and star:

Saudi and Turkish 60%

Saudi flag, left, features the Muslim profession of faith, and a sword. Turkish flag, right, features the Ottoman crescent and star.

But the ISNA is a primary vehicle for the Saudi funded building of Wahabbist mosques in North America. How can this be? Is the crescent actually a universal enough Islamic symbol that even the Salafist Saudi Wahabbists acknowledge it?

Indeed, and for a very simple reason. The crescent is not just the shape of the Ottoman flag. It is also a reference to the Islamic lunar calendar, and it is the shape of the archetypical Islamic mihrab: the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built. Here are the two most famous mihrabs in the world, the mihrab at the Prophet’s mosque in Medina, and the mihrab of the Great Mosque in Cordoba, seen here in sequence with Barack Hussein Obama’s campaign logo:

Obama logo animation with mihrabs

Face into the crescent to face Mecca. For the contrast between Murdoch’s intentional use of Islamic symbol shapes and Obama’s unintentional use of Islamic symbol shapes, see our earlier blogburst on Obama’s crescent-topped logo.

So yes, the crescent actually is a universal Islamic symbol. The only people who even question it are the most extreme Salafists, which evidently includes Nasser Rabbat. How did this Paul Murdoch classmate ever get tapped by the Park Service in the first place, so that he could even be in a position to give them his blatantly dishonest excuses for not being concerned about the giant Mecca oriented crescent? Just one of the many things that Congress needs to investigate. (Petition here.)

ISNA big in Murdoch’s hometown of LA

Murdoch could be some kind of nihilistic leftist, but the most likely explanation for his attempt to stab a terrorist memorial mosque into the heartland of America is that he at some point converted to an aggressively hateful, violent and supremacist sect of Islam like Saudi Wahabbism and is acting today as a freelance jihadist.

Such a person would almost certainly be familiar with the ISNA. 80% of American mosques preach the Saudi poison, but often the Saudi funding is hidden. Not so in Los Angeles, where the city’s largest mosque, the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, is openly funded by the Saudi Government.

We won’t learn Murdoch’s actual associations without a Congressional investigation, but the fact that he used a minaret configuration that is elsewhere seen only in the ISNA logo is mildly suggestive of a Wahabbist connection. For now, the only reason to bring up the Murdoch/ISNA likeness is to clarify that even Salafists accept the crescent as a component of mosque design.

ISNA President Ingrid Matteson spoke at the interfaith convocation of the 2008 Democratic Presidential Convention

They picked a Wahabbist as their representative of Islam? Why not invite bin Laden himself, who is a perfectly orthodox Wahabbist?

The ISNA was founded by the Saudi funded Muslim Students Association (MAS), which has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the progenitor of all modern Sunni terrorist groups, including al Qaeda.

What else should we expect? After all, the mainstream left DID spend the last five years trying desperately to hand Iraq over to al Qaeda and Iran.

Democratic Party logo with ISNA minaret

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.

Categories: Wordpress Political Blogs
Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

17 responses so far ↓

  • ChenZhen // September 5, 2008 at 4:55 pm

    Um…wow…

    I have to ask, what memorial design would you be happy with?

  • No Compromises // September 5, 2008 at 7:03 pm

    I can’t believe you would even ask that question, Chen! Not one shaped liked a freakin’ crescent which is used by the very Islamonazis who want to kill YOU!

  • Alec Rawls // September 5, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    We are not calling for any particular memorial design. We are just trying to stop the planting of a deceptive memorial to the terrorists.

    We would be happy with any properly chosen design that sincerely attempts to honor our heroes. Obviously it should not contain gigantic Islamic symbol shapes, or anything that can reasonably be interpretted as honoring the terrorists.

    A great memorial would have been to simply leave in place the pair of huge drag-line cranes that were poised on the brow of the hill a half mile from the crash site. These were a “natural” monument: a testament to spirit and strength of those on the ground who were saved by the spirit and strength of the heroes of Flight 93.

    Architect Paul Murdoch insisted that the drag lines be removed. The larger drag line was hoisting a huge American flag up right behind the center of Murdoch’s giant Mecca-oriented crescent, tainting his Mecca-direction indicator with an infidel symbol. Murdoch got his way this Spring, when the drag-lines were dismantled.

    For a new memorial design, I would favor rebuilding the drag lines. There also needs to be a cemetary down by the crash site. Amazingly, there is no cemetary in the present design, despite the fact that this IS a cemetary. Many of the families have small bits of remains, dug out of the impact crater, that they would like to bury onsite, with the unrecoverable remains of their loved ones, but no provision has been made for this obvious need.

    Whatever design is ultimately chosen to replace Murdoch’s mosque, it must include a burial plot.

  • ChenZhen // September 5, 2008 at 9:16 pm

    We are not calling for any particular memorial design. We are just trying to stop the planting of a deceptive memorial to the terrorists.

    Its only a memorial to terrorists if you say so. I don’t see anything wrong with it.

  • No Compromises // September 5, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    of course you don’t Chen! That’s not surprising at all!

  • ChenZhen // September 6, 2008 at 12:31 am

    Maybe I’m just fatigued from all this whining over the 9/11 memorials.

  • No Compromises // September 6, 2008 at 1:18 am

    If you’re fatigued then don’t comment on these posts!

    Whining??? People died on this site, Chen, fighting those who killed them!! Of course, the Marxists are convinced there is no terrorist threat in America! Since they were Americas who were murdered their lives aren’t worth being honored properly–right Chen? Is that how you think? Isn’t karl marx honored in a statue somewhere?

    If this “memorial” is created by an islamist, which it is, and celebrating islam, which it does, and not celebrating our heros, this doesn’t concern you? Just fatigue you? Are you serious?

    Do you libs ever believe that there could be a force out there trying to destroy what America stands for? Ever? Do you even care, or are you fatigued by what very smart people are discovering in their research and experience?

    Oh, I forgot, excuse me, only you Marxists are the smart ones.

    If I could just accept living behind rose colored glasses, and the 10 planks to the communist manifesto as my bible, and no standards by which to live by–oh what I life I would live right?

    Wait! No, I wouldn’t want to live that way! I like standards, I like to make judgements, I like to point out the difference between good and evil and right and wrong because there is an evil and a righteous and good and a bad! And this memorial is evil and it’s wrong!

    Please spare me any more of your ridiculous comments. You’re fatiguing me!

  • ChenZhen // September 6, 2008 at 2:01 am

    I’ll just ignore the barrage of straw men there and say that, yes, people died on the site, which is presumably why they’re erecting a memorial.

    So, what it boils down to is that you feel that the memorial isn’t good enough (or evil or wrong) because, if I’m reading you correctly, there are crescents in it. Now, even if you see them in there, its not like Islam has the monopoly on crescents, and I would presume that there was some sort of panel that approved the final design, and that the panel either included or consulted with family members of the victims. So, if its good enough for them, I would think that it would be good enough for me (or you).

    So, as I eluded to in my first comment, perhaps you should have submitted a design that would have satisfied YOU and your delicate sensibilities.

    But no, you instead attempt to smear the design (again, one that we should assume had been approved by victim’s families) along with the designer, and concoct wild conspiracy theories with nothing but circumstantial arguments about how the site is some big dedication to Islam. Now, if “Alla Ackbar” is spelled out in the terrain, well, you’d probably have a point, but with your giant leaps and interpretations I have to wonder if there would be anything that you wouldn’t have criticized.

    For me, I’m happy that they made a memorial and I’m not going to sit here on a high horse and pass judgement on the design that I had nothing to with, whether I see crescents or not (I don’t).

  • Alec Rawls // September 6, 2008 at 4:07 am

    My mistake. I thought ChenZhen was a sincere ignoramus. Turns out he’s a typical left-wing moron who doesn’t give a damn about the facts. Not worth the time of day.

  • ChenZhen // September 6, 2008 at 5:36 am

    My apologies. I was confused as to who actually wrote this post. By oversight, I missed the credit to Alec at the top (probably because I’m used to bloggers doing their own work), so I was mistakenly addressing NC.

    So, Alec, did families of the flight 93 victims get involved in the approval of this design or not? No need for the pejoratives, I am concerned about the facts. I want to know who sanctioned and funded this memorial.

  • No Compromises // September 6, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    This is a blog burst, Chen. There are several bloggers who post these articles as there are several bloggers who post my articles as well!

    Is it actually possible for you to say anything without being condescending, as if you are the only one who knows the truth about anything!?

    Or is that part of your left wing strategy of not listening to others when they talk because you think you know everything simply because you are a marxist?

    By the way, Chen, I have had Alec on my show twice and I am sure that you will find the answer to your questions if you listen. It does require listening though and not making judgements on things you know nothing about!

    Oh, gosh, did I say judgements? I’m sorry. I forgot you libs don’t judge. It requires you to listen, Chen and do some fact checking on your own if you must!

  • Alec Rawls // September 6, 2008 at 7:17 pm

    The families are divided on the memorial, but the fact that some family members were involved in choosing it is of no significance. When the design was chosen, no one knew about the specific Islamic and terrorist memorializing features, like the Mecca-orientation of the giant crescent, or the fact that the Tower of Voices turns out to be a year round accurate Islamic prayer-time sundial.

    We now KNOW that this is in fact an enemy plot. The idiots at the Memorial Project keep trying to pretend that this is about second guessing their judgment back before anyone knew about the dozen epic scale mosque features that, taken together, constitute Murdoch’s entire Crescent of Embrace design.

    The design jury’s original judgment was indeed insane, to pick a giant Islamic shaped crescent, but no where near as insane as defending the design when they do know that the crescent is actually a giant Mecca-direciton indicator (the central feature around which every mosque is built). They all know about the Mecca orientation, making excuses in private for why they think it HAS to be a coincidence, then lying about it in public, telling the press that the Mecca-orientation claim is wrong.

    Why don’t you go check the orientation of the crescent for yourself. It takes literally two minutes. Then come back and tell us what you find, and whether you think it is okay for the Memorial Project to decieve the public about such information.

    I don’t expect much, when you can deny that you see crescents, after the damned half-mile wide crescent was NAMED the Crescent of Embrace. But maybe that was just sincere ignorance. At least you link to your blog, so you are willing to put your reputation on the line.

    Does CZ have the integrity to check and report a fact? Given the chance, would he try to expose evidence of an enemy plot, or would he try to cover it up? Enter your data point for history to record. You SOUND like you are willing to be reasonable. Let’s find out.

  • letholdus // September 6, 2008 at 11:31 pm

    I for one prefer the memorial that depicts a mushroom cloud over Mecca and Medina.

  • ChenZhen // September 7, 2008 at 5:11 pm

    Does CZ have the integrity to check and report a fact?

    Yea, I do. And all I’ve got to say is….

    OUCH

  • Alec Rawls // September 7, 2008 at 8:18 pm

    Thanks for the data point CZ. Instead of checking the facts, you cited the cover-statement of those who know the facts, but refuse to tell the public about them. You have ZERO integrity. Given the choice, you have proved that you would rather cover up evidence of an enemy plot than expose it. We have many such data points. A fascinating and truly disgusting phenomenon.

  • ChenZhen // September 7, 2008 at 9:33 pm

    Oh for crying out loud…

    When the family members of the very people being memorialized approve of the design (even after seeing all the supposed “evidence” that you put forth), and are telling you to give up your wild conspiracy accusations, I think that pretty much ends the argument.

    In any case, I still don’t see the evidence of the “enemy plot” that you speak of. I’m not talking about a crescent, I’m talking about evidence that the “enemy” actually coordinated efforts with Murdoch, with the intent of creatively crafting a design that would serve their goal while simultaneously being impressive yet subtle enough to beat out all the other design proposals and get the stamp of approval from a panel of people. That kind of plot would appear to have a low probability of success and the concept of such a thing even being contemplated seems so remote that I have to wonder if ….

    …oh just forget it.

    But, hey, if you scream it from the mountaintops loud and long enough, perhaps the “enemy” would latch on to it and adopt the conspiracy as their own, in which case you could congratulate yourself for simultaneously emboldening them while causing grief for the families of the deceased.

  • No Compromises // September 7, 2008 at 9:54 pm

    Chen,

    Do you expect this much from the 9-11 conspiracy–BUSH/Cheney/Halliburton DID IT–freaks? I doubt it, for crying out loud!

    Can you tell me why Murdoch refuses to answer some questions? Why will he not come forward and talk about this? IF he is so innocent why will he not come out and talk about this to those family members who reject this design? Seems fair enough to me, Chen. But Murdoch chooses to not answer these people.

    All of these family members are in grief, and why would they think there was a conspiracy? They probably also believe Islam is a religion of peace, and these murderers were simply hijackers of the islamic faith.

    The fact IS Chen, that if ANY family member (even just one) objected to this design it should not have been approved.

    To repeat myself, IF ANY FAMILY MEMBER OBJECTED to this so called memorial the design should not have been approved! PERIOD!

    It should have been a memorial that ALL OF THEM APPROVED OF instead of some families being disappointed for crying out loud!

    That in and of itself is enough for me to demand that this design be scratched and done over until ALL APPROVE! That is the RIGHT thing to do! All of them MUST APPROVE because ALL of them had family members destroyed on that piece of ground!

    Why is it that only some of these families can get what they want, but not all of them?

    Oh, I forgot, this is about a democracy where the majority rules even though those who disagree had family members murdered too!

  • Like gas stations in rural Texas after 10 pm, comments are closed.