Dr. Syed Zaidi: Investigate 9/11, THEN Build Ground Zero Mosque

August 18, 2010
veteranstoday.com

Re: 'No Islamic Community Center at Ground Zero'

Dear Jewish War Veterans of America

Here is my response to your statement opposing a mosque at Ground Zero:

I am from a Muslim family, and I humbly agree with these Jewish veterans. It would be inappropriate to have a Muslim centre near Ground Zero under the present circumstances.

Let there be an open inquiry, under the auspices of the General Assembly of the United Nations, to go into the official US government story about 9/11, with free and open examination of the claims of experts such as Prof David Ray Griffin, Prof Steven Jones, Christopher Bollyn, Richard Gage and others in the so-called 9/11 truth movement; and from the other side, any witnesses that the US government, the government of Israel or any of their friends and supporters would wish to put forward.

If the evidence clearly supports the US government claim, the world Muslim community should agree, as atonement, to knock down all mosques within one hundred miles of Ground Zero.

If, however, it turns out that 9/11 was clearly an inside job, under the leadership of Zionists and globalists, for the expansion of the American empire and for the destruction of Israels enemies, then it would be most appropriate, as Dr Kevin Barrett has proposed to President Obama, for a giant mosque to be constructed at Ground Zero itself.

Syed Zaidi
(retired professor of philosophy, University of Delhi, Delhi, India)

The Ground Zero Mosque Controversy: An Open Letter to Feisal Rauf and Daisy Khan

from Anab Whitehouse (originally posted here)

The intention with which I write this letter is as a friend – although I realize that you may not consider me to be a friend. After all, I have been publically critical of Feisal’s book: What’s Right With Islam (e.g., in my: Unveiling Terrorism, Fundamentalism and Spiritual Abuse). However, if friends can’t be honest with one another, then, I’m not really sure what friendship means.

Moreover, we previously have sat down face-to-face on a number of occasions to break bread and discuss issues of importance. I may not always have said what you liked or stated that with which you agreed, but I have always interacted with you both in a sincere fashion.

I once asked you, Daisy, to look in on a friend and her two children because I was concerned about their physical and spiritual welfare given that they seemed to be inextricably entangled with a fraudulent Sufi teacher. I asked you to do this because, among other reasons, you were relatively proximate to, and a friend of, the family in question while I was living more than ten hours travel-time away from them, and because -- for reasons about which you were cognizant -- a phone call from me might not have been well received.

You expressed mystification about what I believed you could do concerning those three individuals, and I said: “Be a Friend”. In response you said during our phone conversation that you were planning to meet with the mother in the near future, and you indicated to me you would try to gauge what was going on. I assume this was done – I have to assume this since I never heard back from you on the matter.

I also have tried to get in touch with Feisal on several occasions – both by e-mail and phone. On one of these occasions, I spoke with you and asked you to pass on a message to Feisal that I wanted to talk with him about an issue of some importance to me.

Once again, I never heard back. So, I have to assume that neither of you consider me to be a friend despite our past relatively, friendly interactions.

I can’t do anything about your side of the situation. All I can try to do is look after my own spiritual condition.

I have never written either of you off. I did not do this despite my disappointment in some of the things you were saying and doing – such as Feisal’s support for the fatwa which tried to justify Muslims killing other Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan … a fatwa that Feisal sent to the New York Times encouraging them to publish it and which was included in Feisal’s book (What’s Right With Islam) – a position which I criticized in my aforementioned book.

On the other hand, you both have been giving me some fairly clear signals for quite some time that you did not wish to have anything to do with me. Consequently, I consider our relationship to be one of estrangement – that is, something which is, in a sense, still open, in however a tenuous manner, but fraught with tension of one kind or another and something that might never get resolved.

In any case, despite the turbulent waters that have flowed beneath the existential bridge so elusively connecting us, I am currently writing to you both as a friend. Moreover, what I have to say now is from nowhere but my heart and soul with a deep concern for your spiritual welfare, as well as the welfare of all Americans and people throughout the world.

You, Feisal, have been criticized by, among others, Newt Gingrich for claiming that the United States was, in a sense, partially responsible,for what happened on 9/11. Your position is the ‘blowback’ theory championed by a variety of people – including Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Amy Goodman, and Howard Zinn – that through the oppressive and destructive policies conducted by the United States government in relation to many Muslim countries over the last six decades (starting, perhaps, with the CIA’s over-throw of the legally elected Mossadegh’s government in Iran in 1953), the United States incited various elements in the Muslim world to get revenge against the United States … revenge which allegedly came home to roost on 9/11.

Your ‘blowback’ position is in need of revision, for it is inconsistent with the actual facts of 9/11. You should revise your understanding in the light of testimony from, among others: Sibel Edmonds, Indira Singh, Mike Ruppert, Barry Jennings, David Chandler, William Rodriquez, Richard Grove, Robin Wright, Colleen Rowley, April Gallop, David Schippers, Pierre Henry-Brunel, Judy Wood, Kevin Ryan, A.K. Dewdney, Steven Jones, Anthony Shaffer, Richard Gage, William Lagasse and Chadwick Brooks (both of whom are Pentagon Police Officers), as well as hundreds of architects, engineers, scientists, pilots (both commercial and military), fire-fighters (including the first responders whose testimony was finally released under a Freedom of Information suit by the New York Times against the City of New York), ex-CIA officers, and workers at both Arlington Cemetery and the Naval Annex who have come forth with evidence that collectively demonstrates that the “official” conspiracy theory concerning 9/11 cannot withstand critical scrutiny – in other words, that what is alleged to have happened, among other places, at the Twin Towers and the Pentagon did not occur in the way that has been claimed in: The 9/11 Commission Report; the various NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) reports concerning the Twin Towers and Building 7; or, the Pentagon Performance Report.

John Farmer, who headed up one of the 9/11 Commission research teams, has indicated that there were many dynamics taking place behind the scenes of the Commission that ensured Philip Zelikow -- a person with deep ties and conflicts of interest concerning the Bush Administration, conflicts of interest about which he remained silent when he was being interviewed for the position of: ‘Director of the 9/11 Commission’ -- had complete control over what did and did not see the light of day during the investigation. Not only is there evidence to indicate that Zelikow had already written a first draft of the Commission’s Report prior to any witnesses being deposed, but there is overwhelming evidence to indicate that Zelikow actively sought to exclude important testimony from the process by preventing many, if not all, of the testimony from the foregoing listed names to be properly considered or openly discussed through the 9/11 Commission process.

I believe you are honorable people who are seeking to do good as best you currently are able to understand what that might mean and involve. I believe your Cordoba initiative is done with such an intention.

I do not believe you are willfully holding an opinion concerning the events of 9/11 that is contrary to the facts. Rather, I believe you hold the opinion you do because you are ignorant of the actual facts – because you have not had the time or taken the time to do due diligence with respect to conducting rigorous research concerning 9/11.

I believe your situation vis-à-vis 9/11 is that of many Americans and even that of many people in the media. I do not believe any of you are part of some vast conspiracy to cover up the truth about 9/11.

I believe you have made the same mistake that many people have committed in this matter. You have let other people provide you with many of your opinions and ideas about 9/11 without bothering to properly verify or vet those sources.

Based solely on your public statements (such as, among other places, your book: What’s Right With Islam), I know that you have not carefully, if at all, gone through The 9/11 Commission Report, The FEMA Report, the NIST reports, or the Pentagon Performance Report. I know with even more certainty that you have not taken the time to listen to the testimony or read the testimony of most, if not all, of the witnesses who I mentioned earlier.

I know this because if you had done such due diligence you would have come to a much different conclusion than you have concerning the events of 9/11. I know this because you have had a good education and, at one point in your life, were heading toward a career in science and, therefore, are capable of looking at empirical data or experimental results and, then, being able to critically analyze such material in order to evaluate its credibility and viability. I know this because I have had discussions with you previously about technical issues.

The problem, however, is that you really have not looked at the actual data and facts concerning 9/11. Indeed, as indicated, your problem is that of many individuals in America – individuals of good will and decency – who have accepted, without much critical investigation of their own, what other people have had to say about 9/11 … people who had positions of responsibility concerning the investigation of 9/11 but, unfortunately, betrayed the American people instead.

I don’t know what the motives of such people were. I am not interested in speculating about them.

What I do know is that they got pretty much everything wrong. They committed egregious errors of both commission and omission during their inquiries into such things as the collapse of the Twin Towers, the collapse of Building 7, the devastation at the Pentagon, and the jet crash in the field in Pennsylvania.

I have no theory about who or what is responsible for the events of 9/11. I have not formed any conclusions -- one way or the other -- whether the alleged 19-20 hijackers actually had anything to do (whether peripherally, indirectly, or directly) with 9/11.

People who demand to know who committed the terrorist acts of 9/11, if not the 19 or 20 Muslims in question, are getting the cart before the horse. First one needs to establish the facts, and, then, one needs to connect the dots to see where they lead with respect to the people who may be implicated by those facts.

No one in the government, academia, or the mainstream media have done any of their so-called fact-finding in a way that is capable of plausibly being able to demonstrate that the Twin Towers or Building 7 collapsed in the way alleged. No one in the government, academia, or the mainstream media have done any of their so-called fact-finding in a manner which is capable of accounting for what allegedly occurred at the Pentagon. No one in government, academia, or the mainstream media have done any of their so-called fact-finding in a way that plausibly accounts for what allegedly went on in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

None of the foregoing is about who is responsible for 9/11. It is entirely about what actually happened – and can be demonstrated – with respect to the physical facts of 9/11.

Why have I bothered to provide the foregoing overview concerning certain facets of 9/11? There are several reasons.

First, I am trying to induce you both to actually take the time to verify whether, or not, your beliefs concerning 9/11 are correct and viable. You cannot do this without going through the physical evidence alluded to before, and, to date, I am certain that you have not done this with much deliberation … if at all.

Secondly, as long as your opinions concerning 9/11 are critically and factually uninformed, you are not really in any position to make sound judgments concerning the present situation vis-à-vis Cordoba House aka Park51, or the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. Pressure is mounting for you and the other stakeholders of SoHo Properties to acquiesce to the demands of many Americans that you should be willing to move your project to another, less sensitive, less problematic location.

Unfortunately, almost everyone is arguing about the wrong principles with respect to the foregoing controversy. The central issue is not about First Amendment rights, nor is it about the right of Americans to have their sensitivities concerning 9/11 be given proper consideration, nor is it about the rights of 9/11 families to be saved from further insult and injury … although all of these principles are, in their own context, perfectly understandable and not unreasonable.

The real principle at the heart of the ‘Cordoba House’ controversy is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. The elephant is named “Truth and Justice”, and it is the visibly invisible ghost of 9/11. Three thousand innocents – both Americans and foreign nationals – were assassinated on 9/11. Then, when there was a rush to judgment by all too many people who should have known better, the tragedy of 9/11 led to the further slaughter of tens of thousands of more innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with tens of thousands more who have been maimed for life – both American and non-American and both Muslim and non-Muslim.

The families of 9/11 victims have been betrayed. The people of America have been betrayed. The soldiers of America have been betrayed. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan have been betrayed. Truth and justice have been betrayed.

How can you or the other stakeholders of SoHo Properties reach an equitable resolution with respect to the Cordoba House controversy when the whole brouhaha is predicated on misinformation and ignorance concerning the facts of the matter of 9/11? Your present controversy cannot be properly resolved, America’s 9/11 wounds cannot be adequately healed, and the tremendous injustices inflicted on Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be adequately addressed until the truth about 9/11 is established.

Mark Twain once said: “The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, it’s that they know so many things that aren’t so.” No truer words have ever been said about people’s ideas and opinions concerning 9/11.

If 9/11 families and the people of America want their concerns and sensitivities properly taken into consideration with respect to the Cordoba House project, then, they need to reciprocate and take steps to ensure that what they believe to have happened on 9/11 actually took place in the way that the official story claims. For, if things concerning 9/11 are other than they are officially framed to be, the 9/11 families and the people of America will need to adopt an entirely different set of concerns and sensitivities with respect to 9/11.

If anyone would like to interject at this point that the facts of 9/11 already have been established, then, they haven’t been paying attention. Anyone who has not gone through: The 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST reports, The Pentagon Performance Report, as well as listened carefully to the testimony of all of the people I have listed earlier (and many others could be added to that list) and who were prevented (either actively or passively) from testifying before the 9/11 Commission – such a person really has no idea of what may, or may not, have taken place on 9/11.

The understanding of such an individual concerning the physical facts of 9/11 has been provided for them through something other than their own due diligence. Anyone who is honest about this issue will admit as much.

Feisal and Daisy, you, and others at SoHo Properties, have an unprecedented opportunity to do great service to both truth and justice, as well as to the 9/11 families, the rest of America, democracy, and the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan. Actually, there is no one else on the face of the earth at the present time who has the same chance as you now possess to ensure that the right thing is done with respect to so many principles and people.

This opportunity may never come again. You have a chance to do what no one else has been able to achieve with respect to 9/11 -- namely, seek a new investigation into 9/11 that is objective, rigorous, independent, thorough, and capable of generating results which are actually able to reflect the full set of existing data concerning 9/11 … something which has not, yet, happened through: the government, the media, academia, or any of the organizations which officially have been linked to the supposed official investigation into 9/11.

As an act of good faith, I feel you should be willing to move your Cordoba House project to another location. However, in exchange for your act of good faith you should require a reciprocal act of good faith – an agreement to establish (through state and/or federal grand juries) an exhaustive exploration into 9/11.

In fact, since David Patterson, the governor of New York, has graciously offered to help you find a suitable but alternative location for the Cordoba House project, I propose that David Patterson also has the authority to ensure that an appropriately unbiased grand jury of New Yorkers be convened for the purposes of investigating the murders of 9/11 – just like any other murders that have occurred, or will occur, on New York State soil. The Office of David Patterson would be a natural bridge through which both sides of the offered good faith might meet and reach a just and equitable resolution to the current controversy.

I have confidence in the American people. Moreover, the great work that state and federal grand juries do at least five days a week all across America in helping to protect democracy demonstrates that my faith in the American people is justified.

If a group of average Americans is permitted to investigate 9/11 via a grand jury format and follow the evidence wherever it takes them and subpoena power permits, I believe that the results of such an investigation will be fair and impartial. I believe that when they consider all the relevant evidence they will arrive at a judicious conclusion concerning 9/11.

However, this challenge must be under the full authority of the people of America, not the government. Let the people fulfill the purposes for which grand juries were originally established as the last bastion of defense against forces of tyranny and injustice that are capable of undermining democracy and freedom.

If you have the foresight to adopt and realize the proposal I am making concerning the exchange of location for a proper investigation into 9/11, the entire world will owe you a debt of gratitude. If you have the courage to adopt and realize the proposal I am making, the whole purpose of Cordoba House would have been fulfilled before it was even built.

I will end with some words from a Tracy Chapman song:

Don’t be tempted by the shiny apple;

Don’t you eat of the bitter fruit;

Hunger only for the taste of justice;

Hunger only for the word of truth,

For all that you have is your soul.

As a friend, I can think of no better counsel to give you.

Anab Whitehouse

NYC Mosque Solution: Move It...In Exchange for a Real 9/11 Investigation

American Muslim author Anab Whitehouse writes:

I propose that Imam Rauf and the other stakeholders in the Burlington Coat Factory property should be willing to move the mosque in exchange for a fair, independent, and transparently rigorous investigation into the events of 9/11.

full article here

Ahmadinejad: 9/11 scenario dubious

Press TV 8/7/2010 (26 Shaaban 1431)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Western media hyped the September 11, 2001 attacks to pave the way for the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

"What was the story behind September 11? In the space of five to six days, and with the aid of the media, they swayed public opinion to the point of considering an attack on Afghanistan and Iraq permissible and a right [for themselves]," he said in a televised speech.

The president went on to add that while 3,000 deaths had been announced, no report containing the names of these victims had been released.

"Presently, more than 110,000 people [have been killed] in Afghanistan and over one million people have been killed across Iraq. But they will not allow [the figures to be made public]. How? [By] using media and fabricated news," he was quoted by IRIB as saying.

The Iranian president made the remarks on Saturday at a ceremony in Tehran marking the eve of the National Press Day.

Ahmadinejad said Western media had enabled the US to mount its campaign against Iran's nuclear program.

He said that the media had helped the US which has amassed thousands of Atomic bombs to claim another country might move towards building an A-bomb.

Tehran argues that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency it has the right to peaceful nuclear technology.

Dr. Salah Soltan Supports 9/11 Truth

"I share the view of many Americans, French, and Europeans, who say that 9/11 could not have been carried out entirely from outside [the U.S.] - by Muslims or others. The confessions by some people could have been edited. But even if they were not edited, I believe that these people were used in a marginal role. The entire thing was of a large scale and was planned within the U.S., in order to enable the U.S. to control and terrorize the entire world, and to get American society to agree to the war declared on terrorism - the definition of which has not yet been determined." -Dr. Salah Soltan, May 17, 2006 address on Al-Risala TV; cited by MEMRI, the "Zionist propaganda machine" run by former Mossad officers which is apparently hoping to scare Muslims away from supporting the 9/11 truth movement. Even MEMRI can't help being impressed by Dr. Sultan's credentials:

Dr. Salah Sultan is president of the American Center for Islamic Research (ACIR). On his website, he asserts that the main purpose of the ACIR is to "serve Allah (God) in the best way possible through the principles laid out in the Quran and Sunnah," to address misconceptions and extremism, to build bridges with non-Muslims, and to provide fatwas.

Dr. Sultan, who has been called "one of America's most noted Muslim scholars," is signatory to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) 2005 fatwa against terrorism, and is a former professor and president of the Islamic American University in Michigan. He is president of the American Institute for Religious and Cultural Studies, and active in the European Council for Fatwa and Research;the Fiqh Council of North America; and the International Association of Muslim Scholars. He previously served on the board of directors of Islamic American University, and on the Muslim American Society Board of Trustees. Dr. Sultan's resume states that he also serves on the board of trustees of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, and is a member of the Council of Indian Scholars and of the Association of Scholars in Germany.

CIA Admits Bin Laden Videos Are Fake!

By Steve Watson, PrisonPlanet.com

Two former CIA officials have admitted to creating a fake video in which intelligence officers dressed up as Osama Bin Laden and his cronies in an effort to defame the terrorist leader throughout the Middle East.

The details are outlined in a Washington Post article by investigative reporter and former Army Intelligence case officer Jeff Stein...

(full story at AscertainTheTruth blog)

Enver Masud: Fear Paralyzes U.S. Muslim 'Leaders'

Fear Paralyzes U.S. Muslim 'Leaders'

Citing the thoroughly debunked, official account of 9/11 as gospel, anti-Muslim bigots and opportunists rally around opposition to an Islamic Center near Ground Zero

August 3rd, 2010/22nd Shaaban 1431

by Enver Masud (http://www.twf.org/News/Y2010/0803-Fear.html)

Following the events of September 11, 2001, Muslims in the U.S. had reason to fear the U.S. government. Nine years on, the failure of Muslim leaders to make a concerted, united effort to expose the false account of 9/11 put forth by the U.S. government is inexcusable.

Earlier this year, the Guardian (UK) reported:

in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the US government undertook the "preventative detention" of about 5,000 men on the basis of their birthplace and later sought a further 19,000 "voluntary interviews". Over the next year, more than 170,000 men from 24 predominantly Muslim countries and North Korea were fingerprinted and interviewed in a programme of "special registration". None of these produced a single terrorism conviction.

Muslims were hauled away by the government to places unknown. They were not informed of the charges against them, had no idea when they would be released, and were not given access to lawyers. Several Muslim charities were raided, their offices shut down, and officers imprisoned.

The Orwellian named Patriot Act had destroyed habeas corpus. U.S. District Judge John Gleeson had "ruled that it is constitutionally permissible to round up foreign nationals on immigration charges based solely on their race, religion or country of origin. What's more, he said they can be detained indefinitely, even after they have agreed to be removed to their home countries" wrote David Cole, law professor at Georgetown University.

While the George W. Bush administration was rounding up Muslims, and launching attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, president Bush, Jews and Christians spoke out against associating Islam with 9/11.

Since then, while the evidence against the official account of 9/11 has grown, so have attacks on Muslims and Islam, but Muslim "leaders" aren't using their trump card -- the false account of 9/11, to fight back.

Anti-Muslim bigots and political opportunists have rallied around opposition to the Islamic Center planned near Ground Zero -- the site of the World Trade Center attacks.

Former Republican candidate for vice president Sarah Palin, candidates for 2010 elections, right-wing news media, and the Anti-defamation League (ADL) have jumped on the bandwagon.

Mosques are being vandalized, and the construction of new mosques opposed.

If Muslim "leaders" were to fight back by denouncing the official account of 9/11 as patently false, they would find many Americans supporting their effort.

The number of Americans who do not believe the official account of 9/11 is increasing

Nine years on, there's overwhelming evidence that the official account of 9/11 is false, and a significant number of Americans do not believe "The 9/11 Commission Report".

These include 220 senior military, intelligence, law enforcement, and government personnel; 1200 architects and engineers; 250 pilots and aviation personnel; 400 professors; 300 survivors of 9/11; firefighters, and their numbers keep increasing.

"A poll taken by World Public Opinion, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, College Park, polled 16,063 people in 17 nations outside of the United States during the summer of 2008. They found that majorities in only 9 of the 17 countries believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks."

In November 2007 Scripps Howard survey found that 32% believed it was "very likely", and 30% believed that it was "somewhat likely" that "some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings."

On August 30, 2004, Zogby International, an independent U.S. polling company, reported half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International.

On May 24, 2006, Zogby reported that 42% believe "believe the government and 9/11 Commission are covering up", and 44% "believe President Bush exploited the 9/11 attacks (44%) or justified an attack on Iraq (44%). 43% were "not aware of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse", and 45% believe the "government should reinvestigate the attacks".

There are dozens of books exposing the false account of 9/11 -- books by Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, David Ray Griffin, are highly recommended to those who have the patience to digest the wealth of information he makes available.

Easier to digest is the 80-page "9/11 Unveiled" which is a free download -- for sources, photos, videos, referred to in "9/11 Unveiled" go to The Wisdom Fund website.

Paralyzed by fear, Muslim 'leaders' silent on 9/11

Despite the widespread skepticism voiced by non-Muslims, Muslim "leaders" remain silent about 9/11. They refuse even to examine the facts about 9/11, and silence discussion of those facts by members of their organization.

Their silence implies agreement with the official account of 9/11 -- now thoroughly debunked by engineers, architects, pilots, and others.

These silent Muslim "leaders" include officials of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) -- the organizations most often cited by establishment news media.

As far as we know, no Muslim "leader" who came with the Obama administration, or who has been funded by the Obama administration, or whose articles appear in establishment newspapers such as the Washington Post, has criticized the official account of 9/11.

Interfaith organizations in which Muslims participate have remained silent -- the truth about 9/11 would drastically change the tone and substance of their dialogue.

There are, however, exceptions. Kevin Barrett's radio show hosts outspoken critics of the official account of 9/11. Several African-American, Muslim leaders have criticized the official account.

In stark contrast with U.S. Muslim "leaders", Muslims in South Africa invited me on a 3-week, 9/11 lecture tour where they arranged radio interviews, a television interview broadcast to 20 plus countries, and for me to speak to audiences of hundreds daily in 11 cities in South Africa, and in two cities in Malawi.

A similar effort by U.S. Muslim organizations in support of the "9/11 truth" movement may have quashed, or at least diminished, the anti-Islam hysteria prevalent today.

Ground Zero Islamic Center controversy -- a unique opportunity lost

The controversy over the $100 million Islamic Center being developed by the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement near "Ground Zero" in New York -- now called Park51 -- is a unique opportunity for Muslims to speak out on 9/11, but there's no evidence that Muslim "leaders" will do so.

Despite the repeated use of 9/11 by opponents of the Islamic Center, no leader of a major Muslim organization has argued that there's hard evidence to refute the official account -- 19 Arab hijackers led by Osama bin Laden did not carry out the attacks of 9/11.

The evidence against Bin Laden and al-Qaeda promised by then Secretary of State Colin Powell on NBC's Meet the Press, September 23, 2001, has yet to be made available to the public. The Osama bin Laden poster at the FBI website, does not claim that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.

The Cordoba Initiative (founded 2004) last filed an IRS Form 990 in 2008 showing revenues $0, expenses $2767, and net assets of $18,255. The American Society for Muslim Advancement (founded 1998) has apparently never filed an IRS Form 990.

Officials of the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement will need millions in donations to build the center. Their position on 9/11 is most likely to reflect the position of their donors.

Don't expect them to denounce the official account of 9/11.

ADAMS Center officials say they 'cannot legally provide a platform' for discussion of 9/11

The Washington DC area is home to the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS); its influence extends well outside the area.

A recent exchange of emails with officials at ADAMS is an example of the pervasive fear among Muslim "leaders" to speak out, or even be seen to provide a platform for others who speak out against the official account of 9/11.

Excerpts from the first email exchange:

EM: But isn't it also our duty to stand for truth and justice even when it may involve some personal risk? Unfortunately, when it comes to the biggest issue of our time (9/11), it appears that Muslim "leaders" are unwilling to speak out. They are unwilling to even discuss the facts with fellow Muslims.

ADAMS: . . . the time and place to discuss 9/11 is through political dialogues like these. While Virginia Delegates have little impact on U.S. national policy, they are responsible for legislation and regulation in Virginia that can and will affect our community . . . If you see our duty as being involved in these issues, why are you not signing up to attend this event?

Excerpts from the second email exchange:

EM: I've been trying to get ADAMS to discuss 9/11 for quite some time, and keep hitting a brick wall. I believe that the official account of 9/11 is false. I've been told that ADAMS does not permit political discussion, and I have stopped using the ADAMS list to try to express my views on the subject.

ADAMS: Thank you for clarifying what you meant. . . . As a 501(c)(3) organization, ADAMS can organize or implement only those kind of political discussions that are non-partisan, . . . programs that are patently partisan would violate our legal status. Your message makes clear your strong partisan views about 9/11. It is your right to hold and promote such views. But all religious organizations are legally obliged to remain non-partisan, and to mount political outreach events only for the education of our community. . . . ADAMS therefore cannot legally provide a platform to promote personal and politicized views.

Excerpts from the third email exchange:

EM: I believe ADAMS misunderstands the role of 501(c)(3) corporations. Non-partisan means not supporting a particular candidate. A 501(c)(3) corporation may hold and expound views on any issue. The Wisdom Fund is a 501(c)(3) corporation, established in 1995, . . . as examples of public expression: (1) our quarter page advertisement in the Obama inaugural issue of the Washington Times -- (bottom right), enlarged; (2) letter to the president, attorney general, etc. How can ADAMS claim to lead, and not take a position on the biggest issue of this decade -- 9/11?

ADAMS: I have tried to rationally explain our position; it is clear you are not open to any position but your own. I have greeted you as a brother but your responses make clear you do not reciprocate that approach. I pray that Allah (SWT) will bless and guide you to the right path, and grant you Wisdom. Please do not respond to this e-mail. I will delete any further messages from you unread.

To summarize, ADAMS invited me to attend their dialogue with "Virginia Delegates" scheduled for July 28, then they claimed that they could not "legally provide a platform" for my views on 9/11. When I informed them that a 501(c)(3) corporation may legally voice its views -- it may not support a candidate for office, ADAMS terminated the discussion.

ADAMS is not alone in shying away from 9/11.

Mosques across America have similar policies. Several invitations that I received to talk on 9/11 were cancelled after they were issued and accepted -- including two attended by officials and imams from majority Muslim countries.

America's foreign policy establishment created the Islamic threat to advance its interests

On August 27, 1992, Leon T. Hadar, a former bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post, and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute, wrote in "The 'Green Peril': Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat":

Now that the Cold War is becoming a memory, America's foreign policy establishment has begun searching for new enemies. . . . Topping the list of potential new global bogeymen, however, are the Yellow Peril, the alleged threat to American economic security emanating from East Asia, and the so-called Green Peril (green is the color of Islam). . . .

George Will even suggested that the 1,000-year battle between Christendom and Islam might be breaking out . . .

Indeed, "a new specter is haunting America, one that some Americans consider more sinister than Marxism-Leninism," according to Douglas E. Streusand. . . .

"Islamic fundamentalism is an aggressive revolutionary movement as militant and violent as the Bolshevik, Fascist, and Nazi movements of the past," according to Amos Perlmutter.

In 1997, former National Security Advisor to President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote in "The Grand Chessboard":

A power that dominates Eurasia [the territory east of Germany and Poland, stretching all the way through Russia and China to the Pacific Ocean -- including the Middle East and most of the Indian subcontinent] would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources.

The key to controlling Eurasia, said Brzezinski, is controlling the Central Asian Republics.

In the September 2000 report, Rebuilding America's Defenses, the neocon funded Project for the New American Century (PNAC) stated:

America's global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace, relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energy producing region, and East Asia . . .

A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor.

9/11, many now believe, was the new Pearl Harbor, the pretext for the U.S. "war on terror", a cover for advancing perceived American interests.

In fact the "war on terror", and the search for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, have brought the U.S. economy to the brink of collapse, and has caused a massive shift of wealth from poor and middle-class Americans to the wealthiest few.

The silence of Muslim 'leaders' is inexcusable, risks driving some to violence

The 9/11 Commission investigation (November 27, 2002 -- August 21, 2004) was flawed from the outset. It was set up despite strong resistance from the White House.

By March 2003, with the commission's staff barely in place, two men (Philip Zelikow, Executive Director, The 9/11 Commission, and Ernest R. May, a Harvard historian) had prepared a detailed outline, complete with "chapter headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings" of the final report according to New York Times reporter Philip Shenon.

Zelikow served on the National Security Council under George H. W. Bush, on the George W. Bush transition team, and President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. He coauthored a book with President Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice.

Zelikow controlled the 9/11 Commission's access to witnesses. Testimony that did not support the official account was excluded from "The 9/11 Commission Report".

For American Muslims, whose faith commands them to strive for social justice -- "the first pillar of Islam", and to "seek knowledge even unto China", blind acceptance of the official account of 9/11 is deplorable.

For Muslim "leaders", blind acceptance of the official account of 9/11, and their failure to denounce it, is inexcusable.

The renowned Indian, poet-philosopher Allama Iqbal (1877-1938), in his famous Shikwa & Jawab-i-Shikwa (Man's Complaint and God's Answer), wrote (translated from Urdu by Indian journalist-author Khushwant Singh):

With reason as your shield and
the sword of love in your hand,
Servant of God!
the leadership of the world
is at your command.

Excluding opposing views risks driving some to express themselves in a more violent manner.