Mosque at 51 Park Place, NY, NY

[Urbane Guerrilla]

So, who's building the 51 Park Place Islamic Community Center with Mosque and, they say, a swimming pool, and what are their connections with that faction of Islam we have come to know and loathe? There is one Sharif El-Gamal who became suddenly and mysteriously very rich and is buying properties such as 45 Park Place. The mystery is like unto Hillary's $100,000,000 success in cattle futures.

Where does El-Gamal's money come from? He won't say. But the money trail is growing.

What does he do for fun?

“. . . there is a video of Ground Zero Mosque developer Sharif El-Gamal at an Anti-Israeli rally in NYC yelling inflammatory statements over a bullhorn. This video supposedly will be made available in the following weeks leading up to the 9/11 anniversary on September 11th, 2010.”

Sounds revealing. From further down in the same article:

“There is word of a[n] investigation that is ongoing into Sharif El-Gamal of the SOHO Properties real estate business by the NYS Division of Licensing Real Estate*in Manhattan for non-payment of apartment rental deposits to customers that were supposed to be in escrow…The NYS Division of Licensing Real Estate in Manhattan will neither confirm or deny that there is a investigation*into Sharif El-Gamal*and SOHO Properties that started in May of 2010.Sharif el-Gamal’s guarantor’s (co-signer)*on a $39 million mortgage, Hisham Elzanaty, is evidently the same person listed as having contributed $1,000 to Obama’s campaign, as well as numerous other donations to other politicians, including recently to Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a mosque supporter.”

Mmhmm. From here.

Bit of blog-swatting about it over here. My my.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – such a peach:

"'The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets.'

This is outrageously specious, but it depends on the ignorance of the listeners. The bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima were not justified by the bombers on the basis of Christian theology. The bombings by terrorists -- 9/11, 3/11, etc. -- are justified on the basis of Islamic theology. By claiming that they are equivalent, Abdul Rauf obscures the Islamic roots of modern-day terrorism, thus hindering the prospects for the reform within Islam that is so desperately needed if jihad terrorism is ever going to cease.
Imam Feisal said the bombing in Madrid had made his message more urgent. He said there was an endless supply of angry young Muslim rebels prepared to die for their cause and there was no sign of the attacks ending unless there was a fundamental change in the world.

Yes indeed. But displaying a lack of the self-critical faculty that he shares with radical Muslims, he makes no mention, at least according to this report, of the Islamic roots of terror, and of the need for Muslims who truly (rather than deceptively) oppose terror to address this problem."

That's from AtlasShrugs2000. Paints the picture of the imam who will, with no regard to fairness, himself displease when it comes to us, meaning thee and me. Like he needs to do this crap, and like we need to put up with it. I mean, we could bomb his car. Look what it did for the Corleones.

There's more. This fellow may charitably be described as "part of the precipitate."

And Imam Rauf's funding comes from whom and where, again?

But meanwhile, Yossi Klein Halevi. He's a “gentleman crying, 'Peace, peace,' yet there is no peace.”
Stupid, stupid, because there is no smart!

“The proposed site was close enough to have been hit by a landing-gear assembly from one of the crashed airliners on 9/11 -- and that's way too close.

They're also nervous about the project's backers -- even before Elzanaty popped up -- deciding that, with those folks involved, anywhere might be too close.

As The Post reported yesterday, Rauf has been catching iffy tax breaks since 1998 for an organization run from his wife's Upper West Side apartment.

How'd he do it? By telling the IRS the one-bedroom digs were actually a mosque where 500 people prayed daily.

These are only the latest revelations about the mosque's backers, who've run up a cumulative record of petty crime, slumlording and tax-scamming.

And that's being generous.

Rauf, who's due back in New York this weekend after a long trip abroad, has plenty of explaining to do to the people he's been thumbing in the eye for weeks.

First there is Elzanaty's role, of course.
Then there's the elephant in the room: Whence the $100 million needed for the mosque?”

From The New York Post.

Really, the contention that Imam Rauf is not a terrorism practitioner seems unduly disingenuous. He's an orchestrator, and manifestly thinks himself an armed Soldier Of God.

And is Rauf the moderate, as these people go? Shouldn't we send such “moderation” straight to hell? Is this sort of thing acceptable to free, adult mankind?

There will be no help to be found in Obama. Breaking the enemies of mankind and democracy is not what he wants to do. No wonder I voted for Bush twice – his is a much better character. No wonder I will vote against Obama next chance I get. However personable he can be, he believes in all the wrong things, and so does Michelle.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Add to that this from American Thinker. Something rather different.

Sure, there's the Time article anybody can find... but.

[Lamplighter]

Here's another view of Sharif el-Gamal link
He doesn't seem quite so sinister in this view.

(bold and quote formats are mine for readability)

He comes from the well-off family of a bank executive, but not from real estate billions.
His father, an Egyptian, was a managing director at Chemical Bank.
His parents divorced; he lived in Brooklyn until age 9, when his mother, a Polish Catholic, died.
He then followed his father to Liberia and to Egypt, where he attended the The Shultz American School:
(The Schutz American School founded in 1924, was originally a boarding school for children of missionaries)

Mr. Gamal returned to the United States for college, studying architecture and economics before dropping out.
He was not raised in a religious household, but Islam helped Mr. Gamal out of a troubled youth, Mr. Kopp said.
After a stint waiting tables, Mr. Gamal entered the close-knit New York real estate world, where he is better known as a broker than as a developer.

Sharif el-Gamal is a relative newcomer to the New York City real estate business.
He got his broker’s license in 2002.
He is developing two condominium projects:
turning a building in TriBeCa into six lofts, and
planning apartments on what is now a West Side parking lot.

He began buying buildings three years ago.
As an owner and developer, though, he is just getting started, by New York standards.
Public filings show Mr. Gamal bought, starting in 2007, a half-dozen apartment buildings
in Harlem and Washington Heights for $1.075 million to $2.8 million.Two have outstanding building violations and owe the city money.
He also manages properties in Chelsea and Harlem. He bought his first major office building, 31 West 27th Street, in 2009, for $45.7 million.

Mr. Gamal attended two Lower Manhattan mosques that were overflowing, and decided to build a mosque and community center, a Muslim version of the J.C.C.
In July 2009, Mr. Gamal paid $4.85 million, a bargain price, for the property on Park Place, two blocks from ground zero.

Mr. Gamal has told supporters that he will take no money linked to “un-American” values and that donations will be vetted by federal and state authorities and separate boards for the center and the mosque.
Comparable projects like the Jewish Community Center of Manhattan, on the Upper West Side — Mr. Gamal is a member; his daughters learned to swim there — have planned their programming before financing the construction, to show they will have revenue from, say, gym memberships or day care.
Mr. Gamal hopes to raise $70 million through tax-exempt bonds, which religiously affiliated nonprofit groups can obtain — but only if they prove that the facilities will benefit the general public, with religious functions separately financed.

[TheMercenary]

"Mr. Gamal has told supporters that he will take no money linked to “un-American” values and that donations will be vetted by federal and state authorities and separate boards for the center and the mosque."

Strange, and yet much of the controversy surrounds the fact that he intended not to tell everyone where his money came from, esp countries like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. So which is it?

[Lamplighter]

Well, within the link I gave above it also says...

Mr. Gamal has traveled to the Middle East, as have many New York developers. Gulf oil money is one of their few financing sources in the current market. But Mr. Gamal says his only current investors are from the United States and Israel.

[TheMercenary]

But since he is not required to expose where the money comes from that leaves an opening. Given the current climate, esp in a place like NYC, I suspect there is a low threshold of trust for the legitimacy of the sources of funding for the building of a mosque.

[Lamplighter]

Sorry, in copying from the link I had intended to include the following:

Mr. Gamal hopes to raise $70 million through tax-exempt bonds, which religiously affiliated nonprofit groups can obtain — but only if they prove that the facilities will benefit the general public, with religious functions separately financed.

Would such bonds be enough to gain the public trust ?

It seems to me that as much distrust as there is regarding this man and this project,
something more sinister would have been evident by now
given the amount of media and public scrutiny he has received.
Certainly the legal problems he had with the City of NY
was no different than a very large number of landlords have had
regarding rent deposits not being held in escrow,
and not nearly enough to warrant such distrust.

One could wonder if any major project like this community center could stand up to a similar level of scrutiny.

The question is....why should they?

I find it odd that, in large part, it is the conservative free marketeers who are the ones wanting to intervene in a private venture.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I find it odd that, in large part, it is the conservative free marketeers who are the ones wanting to intervene in a private venture.

Who are those. I don't see anyone who is protesting and wanting to intervene wearing such signs.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Who are those. I don't see anyone who is protesting and wanting to intervene wearing such signs.

Those are the ones who have vilified the private community center project by raising the specter of ties to terrorists organizations and by demanding an accounting of funding.

[TheMercenary]

Really? Where are these conservative free marketeers? I just see a lot of regular people.

Where is the contrary evidence that there are no ties to terrorist states? The money is hidden.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Really? Where are these conservative free marketeers? I just see a lot of regular people.

Where is the contrary evidence that there are no ties to terrorist states? The money is hidden.

There is no evidence of funds for the community center tied to terrorists states. Its called a witch hunt.

I suspect you would be outraged if a private entity you supported was subject to the same level of scrutiny....calling it leftist extremism and unAmerican.

Who are the regular people to whom you refer? Pamela Geller, the blogger leading the crusade against the Islamization of America? or the Dove Outreach Church and its "burn a Koran" day?

Or perhaps, just those who state that liberal tit suckers continually hammer Christians?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

There is no evidence of funds for the community center tied to terrorists states. Its called a witch hunt.

I suspect you would be outraged if a private entity you supported was subject to the same level of scrutiny....calling it leftist extremism and unAmerican.

Who are the regular people to whom you refer? Pamela Geller, the blogger leading the crusade against the Islamization of America? or the Dove Outreach Church and its "burn a Koran" day?

Or perhaps, just those who state that liberal tit suckers continually hammer Christians?

Then they have nothing to hide and can account for every dollar donated to build said mosque to the public.

Anything you suspect about me will be abjectly wrong and biased.

I never stated I supported a Koran burning wacko.

Yes, I believe liberal tit suckers are among those who continually hammer Christians. And under our Constitution I guess they have every right to do so, just as others want to hammer the rise of Islam in this country. Ain't it great!

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I never stated I supported a Koran burning wacko.

Yes, I believe liberal tit suckers are among those who continually hammer Christians. And under our Constitution I guess they have every right to do so, just as others want to hammer the rise of Islam in this country. Ain't it great!

From hammering the rise of Islam (and the witch hunt over a private project that you evidently support) to burning Korans is just a matter of extremes.

Neither supports the concept at the very foundation of our country to protect and respect the rights of the minority.

[TheMercenary]

Where did I say that I support "the witch hunt over a private project"?

Kitchens said it best...

Now to Islam. It is, first, a religion that makes very large claims for itself, purporting to be the last and final word of God and expressing an ambition to become the world's only religion. Some of its adherents follow or advocate the practice of plural marriage, forced marriage, female circumcision, compulsory veiling of women, and censorship of non-Muslim magazines and media. Islam's teachings generally exhibit suspicion of the very idea of church-state separation. Other teachings, depending on context, can be held to exhibit a very strong dislike of other religions, as well as of heretical forms of Islam. Muslims in America, including members of the armed forces, have already been found willing to respond to orders issued by foreign terrorist organizations. Most disturbingly, no authority within the faith appears to have the power to rule decisively that such practices, or such teachings, or such actions, are definitely and utterly in conflict with the precepts of the religion itself.
Reactions from even "moderate" Muslims to criticism are not uniformly reassuring. "Some of what people are saying in this mosque controversy is very similar to what German media was saying about Jews in the 1920s and 1930s," Imam Abdullah Antepli, Muslim chaplain at Duke University, told the New York Times. Yes, we all recall the Jewish suicide bombers of that period, as we recall the Jewish yells for holy war, the Jewish demands for the veiling of women and the stoning of homosexuals, and the Jewish burning of newspapers that published cartoons they did not like. What is needed from the supporters of this very confident faith is more self-criticism and less self-pity and self-righteousness.
Those who wish that there would be no mosques in America have already lost the argument: Globalization, no less than the promise of American liberty, mandates that the United States will have a Muslim population of some size. The only question, then, is what kind, or rather kinds, of Islam it will follow. There's an excellent chance of a healthy pluralist outcome, but it's very unlikely that this can happen unless, as with their predecessors on these shores, Muslims are compelled to abandon certain presumptions that are exclusive to themselves. The taming and domestication of religion is one of the unceasing chores of civilization. Those who pretend that we can skip this stage in the present case are deluding themselves and asking for trouble not just in the future but in the immediate present.

http://www.slate.com/id/2266154/?from=rss