Another Hoax?

CNN’s Belief Blog: Feds Investigate Fire at Site of Future Tennessee Mosque

A fire at the future site of a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, is under investigation but “you can reasonably make the assumption” that it was arson, an FBI spokesman told CNN Sunday.

“The evidence is being analyzed to see what the origin of the fire was,” Keith Moses, an assistant special agent with the FBI in Nashville, told CNN Sunday. “We have to follow the facts.”

The fire, which struck early Saturday morning at the future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, is under investigation by the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Office.

The fire consumed an earth mover and damaged three other vehicles, according to Camie Ayash, a spokesperson for the mosque. Ayash said that the Mufreesboro Fire Department told her that the vehicles had been doused with an accelerant.

My guess?  This will go the way of the nooses found on various college campuses, as well as the vandalism to a Colorado Democrat’s campaign headquarters, and we’ll soon find out that this fire was caused by lefties taking advantage of the increased fervor over the Ground Zero Mosque and looking to advance their own cause.

At least, I hope so.  I don’t know many people who feel that the Muslim group in New York does NOT have the right to build the mosque.  I’m sure they’re out there — I just hope that this was indeed another hoax.  Otherwise, as the best argument against the Ground Zero Mosque is their freedom to build it elsewhere without complaint, those who felt it necessary to burn construction vehicles at another site sure didn’t help us any.



  1. MichaelP says:


    You can’t say you are for a mosque being built and then say that the location you would like it to be is not acceptable. Just like I would tell you to take a hike if I had a piece of private property and wanted to put a church on it, assuming I met all the local zoning laws. Just because we may be offended by something doesn’t make it illegal. Now, I say “no mosque”. Yes I am one of those “out there” that thinks this way. Why? Well, I am not anti-religious in any way and would never prevent someone from practicing their “religion” in the way they desire as long as it does not cause others harm. I say “no mosque” because a mosque is an Islamic center of worship and planning. Islam is NOT simply a religion and I can easily make the argument that it is less of a religion and more of a political system designed to conquer all other ways of life. Islam is more in line with Communism than Catholicism. Would and/or should our country allow a known communist group to set up shop here on our soil while pledging to overthrow our political system and way of life via jihad or infiltration? Surely you would not support that? Shariah Law is embedded in Islam and keeps Islam what it is. Without a legal system, Shariah, Islam would no longer exist. The problem is that Shariah Law is in direct conflict with our constitution and is not compatible. Islam, via Shariah, must spread it’s agenda throughout the world either by word or sword. Typically the word doesn’t work very well and that is why the sword is most often used. This sword is funded by ALL Muslims whether they ever pick up a sword themselves or not. They fund the calamities and never disparage them. They should never be allowed to build another mosque in our country as long as Shariah Law is what it currently is.


  2. whats_up says:

    I have been waiting to see the outcome of this investigation. It doesnt matter who has done this, it is wrong and a crime, those involved should be punished to the full extent of the law.

  3. John Buyon says:

    wait Jeff you believe the Muslims should NOT have the RIGHT to build their mosque?
    or do you believe it is inappropriate for them to build it…

    @ Michael

    read up on Abraham laws or the rules of the covenant/ and the teachings and laws of Leviticus then come back and tell me Judeo-christianity is devoid of a political system of social domination.

    all religions have a political-social system predisposed to world conquest. you really think Christianity was spread by monks and missionaries alone?

    the same is true for all normal political philosophies.
    communism wants a global workers revolution
    fascism wants imperialistic wars of global domination
    even Liberalism tries to spread itself aggressively ie. Iraq, Wilsonianism

    the difference between normal political ideologies conquering the world and religious ideologies conquering the world is that religions are inherently illogical and much more dangerous because they make claims of the supernatural. something the fascists communists and liberals never do.

  4. Jeff Schreiber says:

    John — they have the right. No question. It’s a matter of “should.”

  5. MichaelP says:

    John Buyon, you seem to think that I have no knowledge of the history of Judaism or my own Christianity. I know that each faith has a moral law and a designated way of life but what you seem to not get is that Christianity does not have a legal system that treats non-Christians as second rate people. There is no legal system at all within Christianity that deals with how to punish or handle other faiths of people. Christians believe in the Golden Rule which treats all people equally because we all share the dignity of GOD. Islam does not have a golden rule and treats Muslims one way and all others a lesser way. It is in their doctrine. I could care less if Mohammad down the street does not believe that particular doctrine and thus does not follow it. A faith is defined by it’s doctrine, not by how people follow it. Just like, I don’t care if a Catholic goes into a mall and starts shooting people in the name of GOD. The doctrine of Catholicism would not support this person and the person is dead wrong. You are comparing two faiths that share almost nothing doctrinally. The Moral Laws of Christianity only deal with how a Christian should walk in their faith, follow the steps of Christ. This is in no way contrary to our Constitution. Also, there is no secular/legal system within Christianity that punishes you for violating a moral teaching via natural means. There is Canon Law but once again, that does not deal with how other people should be punished or treated for not being Christian. I think your straw-man argument is mush.

    and Jeff, you are a legal kind of guy. How do you conclude that Shariah Law is not in conflict with the laws of our land? How do you conclude that Islam, because of Shariah, is not in conflict with the laws of our land? Please explain this to me. You either know something I don’t or you are ignorant when it comes to Islam and Shariah Law.


  6. MichaelP says:

    I think this will help some.

    Religious Freedom and a Mosque
    By Bill Warner
    August 30, 2010, posted in FrontPage Magazine

    One of the most common arguments of the supporters of the Ground Zero mosque includes religious freedom as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Religion is seen as the framework to support building a mosque and community center near the site of the former World Trade Towers. Is this really about religion? Step back and look at the controversy. Do you feel like you are taking part in a religious exercise or a political fracas?

    There is a vast confusion about what a religion is and is not. Currently the operative rule is that anything associated with Islam is a religious affair where all of the freedom of religion is applied to the action or event. Islam’s actions are religious and if you oppose it, you are an un-American bigot.

    It is time to stop and take a look at what we mean by a religion. There are about as many Buddhists in America today as there are Muslims. When was the last time you remember a Buddhist demand of any kind? Do Buddhists set up councils to shape the textbooks and demand Buddhist finance? Does the government make a big announcement when Buddhists are appointed to high posts? Are there even any Buddhists in any White House appointments? Do Buddhists complain? Never, for these are political actions, and Buddhism has almost no political outreach. Buddhism in America is purely religious, not political at all.

    Yet the media and the Internet are consumed by talk and argument about Islam. The discussion is never about how many rounds of prayer to do or whether a certain food is halal (religiously proper). No, the focus is always on something that non-Muslims are to do to accommodate an Islamic religious practice.

    There is a practical working definition of religion as compared to politics. Religious practices are done by those who follow that religion and are motivated for achieving paradise and avoiding hell. Outsiders are not involved in those religious acts. If it is about going to heaven and avoiding hell, then it is religious. However, if the religion makes a demand on those outside of its own group, then that demand is political.

    Most people think that the Koran is a religious text. Instead, 64% of the text (by word count) is about non-Muslims, who are called Kafirs. The Koran is fixated on Kafirs and makes many demands on them. Not the least is that Kafirs submit to the rule of Islamic Sharia law. Ultimately Sharia law is the pure expression of Islamic politics and it completely contradicts our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Under Sharia there is no freedom of speech, wives may be beaten and apostates murdered.

    Mohammed had little success with Islam until he transformed it into a political system. He preached the religion of Islam in Mecca for 13 years and made about 150 converts. He left Mecca and moved to Medina. In Medina he turned to politics and jihad. In the last 9 years of his life, Mohammed was involved in an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks. The political method persuaded every Arab to convert to Islam. The religion did not succeed; it was politics that made Islam powerful.
    Bill Warner,
    Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
    copyright (c) CBSX, LLC Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

  7. John Buyon says:

    @ Jeff
    ok Im on the same page as you and the rest of NYC and NY state on this then.

    @ Michael
    if you have read my previous posts you would realize that I have already said Islam is a much less civilized religion than Christianity. but only barely. the reason I don’t want the mosque built is that it is called the cordova mosque that name is historically significant and very revealing of the intentions of the builders/financiers.

  8. Gail B. says:

    If those Muslims would DENOUNCE what the Islamic Muslims did on 9-11 as loudly as they are mouthing about their center at Ground Zero, it would make it a lot easier to swallow. So far, however, there has been nothing — not even from The One — about how Americans feel about it. I know of one Muslim–and I like him. He’s written for AR, and he’s not a radical Islamist.

Speak Your Mind