Tuesday, September 14, 2010

3/2 Pune Terror, more lies & fabrications from the ATS & Government of Maharashtra.- By Feroze Mithiborwala

13/2 Pune Terror, more lies & fabrications from the ATS
& Government of Maharashtra.
By Feroze Mithiborwala

This is in continuation with our struggle to expose the truth about the Pune terror attack. Once again the Government, ATS & the Corporate Media have gone berserk with their planted stories & fictitious evidence. The ATS led by Rakesh Maria, claims to have finally cracked the case & apprehended the perpetrators.

But let us begin by raising certain facts, questions & inferences.

Firstly the facts:

Ex-ATS Chief Raghuvanshi had clearly named Sarang Kulkarni & Prashant Juvekar as possible suspects in the Pune attack (TOI, March 3, 2010).
Sarang Kulkarni is also a suspect in the Goa terror attacks & is wanted by the NIA (2009). Kulkarni is a resident of Pune & was seen frequenting the Shivaji Nagar area but was never arrested as “his mobile is switched off & it is difficult to establish his location”. Kulkarni was “also suspected to have transported the chemicals & ammunition for the Goa bomb”. Interestingly the Court is not willing to provide copies of the Goa Charge-sheet to the media.

After this episode, Raghuvanshi was transferred & Mr. Rakesh Maria was appointed in his stead.

CCTV footage: Rakesh Maria is basing is entire case on the footage from the CCTV camera from “within the German Bakery positioned over the cash counter”.

Therefore let us deal with this supposed clinching evidence.

The following statement was issued by Rashmi Shukla (Inspector General of Police, Law & Order): “The Bakery has no CCTV’s. The O Hotel which has CCTV’s is located opposite the bakery. The ATS is now analysing the footage”  (14/02/10).

I found this statement very astounding to say the least.

Then as per reports that were garnered by the Pune Mirror team, they said that “the investigators were handicapped as the CCTV footage was not providing any clues”.

If one were to vividly recall the statements by the ATS & the Police, which was widely reported in the media, was the fact that the investigation was totally handicapped as the CCTV footage was either not available or the footage was far too grainy to provide any semblance of clarity.

After Mr. Rakesh Maria was appointed as the new Chief of the Maharashtra ATS, he made the following remarks to Mateen Hafeez of the Times of India. He stated that the CCTV footage from the Cash counter was available, though it was of a highly damaged nature. And secondly he stated that he suspected Riyaz Bhatkal as the perpetrator.

We immediately organized a delegation of Punekar’s & Mumbaikar’s & met Mr. Rakesh Maria. He reaffirmed that they had CCTV footage from the cash counter, “but it was highly damaged & unclear”. He stated that there is a “special software” that can help with the process. Does such a software really exist?? Then I asked him as to why did he state the name of Riyaz Bhatkal without having seen the footage. To this, he retorted that he had been misquoted by the media. I called up Mateen Hafeez, who stands by his story. Thus Mr. Maria had decided as to who he was to finally “copy, cut & paste” into his special software.

The missing cache of 195 kilogram’s of explosives & RDX (Ahmednagar, September 2, 2006): The ATS is supposedly flummoxed about the origin of the RDX used in the Pune blast. But the point is that since the last four years, there has been the unsolved case about the missing RDX in Maharashtra. The point is that a large cache of explosives that included RDX, were found in Shankar Shelke’s scrap yard in Ahmednagar. The origin of this RDX is suspected to be the Ahmednagar Fort, which is Army Ordnance. It was the Malegaon investigations that pursued the involvement of Col. Purohit & Sadhvi Pragnya that led to Shelke, who was then interrogated by the police. He died in prison. The police say that he committed suicide, whilst his wife claims that the police murdered him.

This case is not being pursued by the ATS, NIA or IB or even by the Media for that matter. Thus yes, the RDX that was used in the Pune terror attack could have come from the Ahmednagar source.

The formula of terror used by the Abhinav Bharat & Sanatan Sanstha includes the use of a mix of Ammonium Nitrate & RDX as is being revealed now. Interestingly in all such cases, the CCTV cameras too were not functioning. This was certainly the common pattern of the terror attacks in Thane, Vashi, Panvel & Ajmer. Again in the Mumbai 26/11 terror attacks the 16 CCTV cameras were malfunctional.

There is clearly an influential & well protected terror network that is amassing large quantities of detonators, gelatine sticks, Ammonium Nitrate & RDX. The recent story from Madhya Pradesh, of more than 163 trucks carrying explosives having simply vanished is extremely dangerous & poses a grave threat to national security.(http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/madhya-pradesh-103-more-explosive-laden-trucks-missing-47427). The report also mentions "hundreds more", but this does not seem to attract the sustained coverage or investigation by the agencies or by the media.

A conspiracy of silence exists!!

To add to this outlandish story, the CM Mr. Ashok Chavan immediately announced an award of Rs 500,000/- to the ATS for having successfully nabbed the terrorists & thereby bringing an end to the investigations. With the highly notorious record that the Maharashtra ATS & Police have earned for themselves, could not the Mr. Chavan waited for the Court verdict??

More interestingly, this time the Home Minister Mr. Chidambaram seems to have learnt his lessons since the last time & has decided to keep quiet. As one would recall, Mr. Chidambaram went ballistic & had congratulated the ATS on having caught Abdus Samad the “prime suspect & master-mind” of the Pune attack. Chidambaram as we all know, fell flat on his face, as he does most of the time these days. His latest missive on Saffron terror was highly embarrassing.

Thus going by the facts as above, it clearly goes to prove that the investigation is “pre-determined & fixed” to ensure the outcome.

As we have always consistently maintained, there were three major reasons for the Pune terror attack: 

1) To cover up the murder of Advocate Shahid Amzi on 11 February 2010, just two days prior to the terror attack on the German Bakery.
2) To sabotage the Indo-Pakistan talks scheduled for the 25th of February '10.
3) To increase the strategic advantage for Israel by linking the Chabad House factor.

All of the above clearly point to elements of the right-wing RSS, Abhinav Bharat & Sanatan Sanstha to having perpetrated the terror attack. They clearly do have support within the present government of Maharashtra, both within the ruling political elite, bureaucracy, the ATS, State IB & the Police.

Post Nanded & Malegaon, we are fully aware of the fact that the government of Maharashtra at all levels has been trying to shield the true perpetrators. Even though the CM Ashok Chavan is an MLA from Nanded, he has never pushed for the Nanded investigation & has very good relations with the RSS. Even RR Patil (Home Minister, Maharashtra) tried his best to delay the investigations into the Nanded blasts, as was also the case with the Malegaon investigation. If it was not for Hemank Karkare's role, we would have never known the truth. And undoubtedly Hemank Karkare was sacrificed as pawn in this entire sordid affair. (http://www.countercurrents.org/hansa130510.htm).

It is this very government & it’s ATS that is covering up the very murder of Hemank Karkare. They are trying to bury the case of the missing bullet proof jacket, as well as the true nature of the bullets that led to his death.  (http://www.tehelka.com/story_main42.asp?filename=Ne130609coverstory.asp) (http://www.twocircles.net/2010jun03/26_11_court_s_observation_karkare_s_death_buried_media.html)

It is the same duo of RR Patil & Rakesh Maria, who stands thoroughly discredited in their role during the 26/11 terror attack, the Fahim Ansari case, where the supposed prime local mastermind of 26/11 was let off by the Court for fabrication of evidence (http://www.india-server.com/news/fahim-ansari-and-sabauddin-ahmed-25659.html). Again recently in the case of the Mulund blasts, Rakesh Maria even failed to file the charge-sheet’s against the accused, leave alone the case even reaching the Courts (http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/times-of-india-the/mi_8012/is_20100822/mulund-blast-accused-bail-cops/ai_n54896841/).

Such is their dismal & dishonest track record.

Now for the prime suspect & latest mastermind Mirza Baig who is also the chief of the Maharashtra LeT (how many times have we heard that before?? I've run out of count!!). As is always the case with supposed IM operatives, he has a criminal record & that is what has made it very easy to entrap him. In the various cases of entrapment or false terror cases, it is Muslim's with a criminal background, who are then entrapped as terrorists. Mirza Baig clearly fits the pattern.  He has been linked to criminal cases in Pune ('07) & Bombay ('08), for supplying weapons to criminal gangs. 
 
He is also sort to be linked to the Aurangabad arms haul case of 2006. Interestingly, "Though Baig knew about the arms haul, he was neither questioned nor arrested in the case," said an ATS officer. Which basically means that the ATS had decided to use Mirza Baig in some other terror case & thus Pune . . .

Though the entire media refers to the Aurangabad Arms Haul Case (2006), not a single writer mentions the fact that even the trial for the same has not yet started after 4 years, leave alone any convictions. Here the ATS has entrapped a number of innocent Muslim youth & that will be proved by the Courts in good time.

It was after this false case that the year 2006 witnessed a series of terror attacks in Bombay, Malegaon, Beed, Jalna, Parbhani & the rest that followed, which are now being exposed & traced to the Abhinav Bharat & Sanatan Sanstha.

The Chidambaram led NIA has been covering & protecting Indresh Kumar (RSS National Executive Committee member), Pravin Togadia (VHP) & Col. Purohit (Abhinav Bharat) for their links to the Samhjauta blast. The NIA conveniently & shamelessly uses HEADLEY to counter the charge-sheet filed by Hemant Karkare. Sadhvi Pragnya walks around free in a hospital. Whilst Muslim youth continue to be tortured & languish in jails for the Ajmer, Malegaon & Hyderabad blasts now being traced to the RSS, Abhinav Bharat & Sanatan Sanstha. And David Headley who was also used by Chidambaram’s NIA to target Ishrat Jehan to safeguard Modi’s killers, is as we all know – a CIA agent. http://host185.billdawson.net/story/44/083/MUMBAI_26_11_TERROR_DAVID_COLEMAN_HEADLEY_IS_A_CIA-FBI_AGENT.html

Within a few days after R. Maria took over, he basically said that the CCTV footage was of extremely poor quality & yet mentioned Riyaz Bhatkal. So he clearly had set up his prey. He now needed to create & fix the evidence as per the political direction that was given to him by P. Chidambaram, Ashok Chavan & RR Patil. He needs to, if he wants the coveted job of Mumbai's next Police Commissioner.

The point is that since the first day after the Pune 13/2 terror attack, the ATS had clearly stated that there was no CCTV footage whatsoever, or even if available, was highly damaged & grainy. That is why both the ATS & the government at times alluded to the possible hand of right-wing Hindutva terror organizations as a distinct possibility. But yet only Muslim youth were detained & interrogated, even though Pune is the capital of the Abhinav Bharat. Thus there was never any clinching CCTV footage. The evidence is a total fabrication.

Again, even though Bilal Sheikh is supposed to have supplied the RDX, he has not been booked for the terror attack, but has been booked under another case. He too has a criminal record in Nasik. Moshin Chawdhary needs to be further investigated, as he has been missing for over 5 years. As for Yaseen or Riyaz, or which ever of the Bhatkal's who are always the fall guys, we wonder if they are even alive. Their parents (who are under constant surveillance) have not been in contact with them for over 10 years & have expressed their fears & doubts in this matter.

According to Mr. Maria, Mirza Baig was on the run. But it is clear that Baig was employed in an internet cafe & regularly met his parents on a monthly basis. Maria also states that there is a large module active across Maharashtra, but yet these cells were not active during 26/11!! And for all these hundreds if not thousands of terror operatives on the loose, he could only entrap the innocent Fahim Ansari.

Also according to ATS Chief Maria, now there is a confluence of SIMI & IM activists. He is trying to create a scary scenario. But the reality is that there is a more devious game at play. (http://ghulammuhammed.blogspot.com/2009/08/fwd-manmohan-singh-conspiracy-theorist.html)

After the Supreme Court appointed Special Tribunal gave the SIMI a clean chit as it could not find evidence against SIMI to sustain the ban, the security apparatus was in a state of deep crisis, as they had built up the entire terror bogey on SIMI cells.(http://www.tehelka.com/story_main40.asp?filename=Ne160808simihere_simithere.asp).The work of the Special Tribunal was stalled. Then a few days ago the Special Tribunal received 5 threatening emails from the IM. This, they said proved the link between SIMI & IM & then extended the ban on SIMI. So where the entire investigation agencies & the Special Tribunal failed, the emails of the IM succeeded!! How very convenient & banal.

We have time & again proved that the Indian Mujahedeen (IM) is a covert operation of the IB & ATS, whereby they entrap Muslim youth, mainly criminals & informers & use them as fodder during encounter killings & to “conclude” their investigations.

As for the utter lack of forensic evidence, do note that the Fire Brigade had sprayed the entire German Bakery Area with water & they say that they never had any forensic evidence as all the clues were washed away. How very convenient!! Mr. Satyapal Singh the then Police Commissioner of Pune, must be held responsible for this wilful criminal act of destruction of the evidence.

Thus now the ATS says that they have caught the perpetrators by using "human intelligence" (another name for khabris or informers & false-witnesses) & on the basis of a "tip-off" by "some people" & lastly the (non-existent) "highly damaged" CCTV footage for cracking the case.

Baig is supposed to have revealed all "under sustained interrogation" - we all know that that means. And for those that do not - it means 3rd degree torture!! But one would have thought that the alleged LeT Chief of Maharashtra would have withstood the torture for more than the 24 hours, during which he was singing like a canary.

Thus the investigation is not even bothering to summon the victims & witnesses who could play a vital role in identifying the terrorists.

As for the evidence that they found at one of Baig’s houses, that included 1200 mg of RDX, soldering iron, 2 mobile sets, SIM cards & fake identities - our ATS is amongst the best at creating & planting false evidence & staging false encounters. There is none better than the Maharashtra ATS & their record is only second to that of Gujarat.

Another point that is common to supposed LeT commanders on the record of the ATS, they always have families that are very poor, survive on their daily earnings & none of these LeT operatives seem to care for their families in terms of providing them the lucre that is showered upon them. In that, our cricketers are far better.

And lastly, since we have last heard, the Pune Bar Association has threatened to boycott any lawyer who will defend the accussed.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Rejoinder to MINT/wsj article: 9/11: REQUIEM FOR AN IDEA GONE AWRY? - By Anil Padmanabhan

Monday, September 13, 2010


An open letter to Mr. Anil Padmanabhan, deputy managing editor of MINT, Mumbai (Exclusive Partner with The Wall Street Journal).


Dear Mr. Anil Padmanabhan,

This refers to your article: 9/11- Requiem for an idea gone awry?

In an excellent raconteur piece, you have very judiciously covered a host of issues around 9/11; though I feel while you succeeded in narrating the historical events spread over the 9 year period, you did not attempt to analyze the cause and effect scenario and did not propose any solution. That is a gross failure of your attempt. It fails short of what you could have achieved by boldly posing the question: Why terrorism.

You came to touch a modicum of answer to the question – why terrorism? – when you wrote: “ Now, a slew of intellectuals in the West are voicing the view that the onus is on countries such as India and China to pick up the slack. While the latter (China) has flatly declined to be involved in any policing or stabilizing efforts and continues to play to achieve its own material ends in conflict situations, India does not have the capacity.”

If China is not bothered by world terrorism that has wrecked western nations’ peace and stability, what are its reasons to feel safe and secure. In comparison, why India feels threatened by terrorism? A deeper study of this question would have been worthwhile in chalking up future responses that India would be called upon to come up with.

I will try to write out my thoughts in an order of my choice.

Why after half a century, India is more prone to terrorism or even war and serious internal strife that is more destabilizing to India, than any comparable threat, internal or external to China. My comparison of events attending the history of the two nations will not be hundred percent comparable, but salient features will bring out the differences in the present status of both nations vis a vis terrorism and wars.

I feel India at its birth, chose to carve out a compatible nation fully in consonance with its Brahmin Idea of India. Though it would have tried to keep India intact, it agreed to partition as its Brahmin leaders wanted an India, like Israel, to have a clear Hindu (non-Muslim) majority so that they can rule the nation according to their own ethos and aspirations, unhindered by any Muslim minority demands on the nation. Like Israel, India had to struggle to get the ‘other’ out from its borders. They failed where Israel succeeded; as India’s Muslim population was too large and too scattered to be banished from its boundaries. It rid itself of some northern and western states with Muslim majorities, after British could not wait any longer to get an approval from India’s Brahmin leaders for some future strategic tie-ups and decided to enroll Jinnah to carve out a Pakistan in the name of Islam, though in fact, a proxy and a military outpost for US and UK, in their future strategic need in the great game that they feared they will be forced to play with the emerging post war Communist Russia.

Brahmins thought this was the best way to get rid of Muslims who could not have given them a free hand in fashioning India to their cherished designs.

While at one hand, India was willing to shed territories to make India a more Hindu viable state, some of its leaders like Vallabhbhai Patel, were more ambitious and wished to follow the western mode of colonial rule for territories that tried to slip away from India’s too strict centralized Idea of India. India moved into Junagadh, Hyderabad, Goa and Kashmir. Junagadh, Hyderabad and Goa posed no problem, but Kashmir stuck out like a sore thumb, and that is still simmering.

The two pronged approach from within the top Congress leadership, did not see any conflict/contradiction in trying to fashion a Hindu state, and at the same time to try to colonize a Muslim state. It is exact replica of Israel’s dilemma, which wants its nation as a Jewish state, but wishes to hold on to occupied territories as a colony to be ruled with iron hand. India like Israel had in a way chewed more than it could absorb and kept itself open to insecurities on that count. It had to keep heavy army presence in Kashmir that would be an anachronism for a democratic state which claims Kashmir its own territory.

The Brahmin India fixation had muddled its leadership’s thinking on global interactions. Its deep communal underpinning impacting all its moves in foreign relations has by default made it an ‘other’ in a Muslim neighborhood. Its reluctance to engage Muslim nations in the North and West has seriously jeopardized its security paradigm. Even its belated efforts to befriend Muslim world with mutual interest considerations, does not overcome its image as an anti-Muslim nation. Nine years after 9/11, even US and Israel find it absolutely essential to come to terms with Muslim world. India has yet to make any meaningful commitment to any such ‘wild’ idea and prefers to build up its security with armed might that is increasingly becoming irrelevant at grass roots levels. India therefore should rise up to the modern day challenges and not subject its people to grave challenges for the sake of a minority-led Idea of India.  

China is not been wrecked by such existential problems since Communists have come to power. Their economic development has an essential component of being all things to all people. They do not have any ideological hangovers that could restrict their moves overseas from Africa, Latin America, South East Asia and even Muslim world. They have kept their status at low key and not tried to project their country as a colonizing power. India has yet to overcome its innermost diffidence to humanize its approach to the world and it is still gripped by the notions of conquering the horizons that open up.

The threat of terrorism that India has faced much earlier to what the world has finally come to face, has to be tackled by analyzing if India is stepping on other people’s foot. If so, India should be prepared to lift its foot and let others go free.

As for the West, it had a deliberate plan to invade Muslim countries to secure its oil supplies. It had at one stage, promoted terrorism and came to now become victim of its own mistakes. The way the entire world focused on the apparent calamity of the 9/11 Quran burning threat, showed the strength of the unity of Muslim world at least at some level. As a show of force, it came cheap as the Muslim world has not invested any sizeable fortunes to build up armies and navies and air force. Nobody, even the so-called Al Qaida had in their wildest dream, would have thought that the world would stand still for fear of reprisals around the globe. ( A Kennedy/Khrushchev moment in history?). But it did happen. Even a mighty super-power had to yield to the demands of the world Ummah, even without any declared threat. The turn of event were so logically patterned that US and other nations had to keep aside their differences with Muslim world and sue for peace. There is a lesson in this for India too.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai


P.S.: A contrarian view on 9/11: http://www2.ae911truth.org/11rfa911.php

That opens the possibilities of all terror being organized by the same forces that would like the world to believe they are fighting terrorism.



9/11: REQUIEM FOR AN IDEA GONE AWRY?

By Anil Padmanabhan

It has been nine years since the 11 September attacks by terrorists on the World Trade Center in New York that left nearly 3,000 people dead. It was the trigger for an incredible transformation—a process that still seems to be a work in progress; something even the terrorists who masterminded the spectacular attack using commercial aircraft could not have imagined—beginning with a massive military offensive, first in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, led by the US.

But a year ahead of the 10th anniversary of the attacks next year, the situation, it seems, has come full circle. While this does not mean status quo, it has caused the emergence of new state of disequilibrium undesirable for a host of reasons.

For one, controversially at that, the attack was a hugely successful effort from the point of view of the terrorists. They grabbed attention for their cause, unjust or otherwise, in a dramatic manner and also raised the bar, as it were, for copycats (such as those who so brazenly unleashed the 26/11 mayhem in Mumbai in 2008).

Second, it demonstrated to the US in particular and the world in general that every country was vulnerable to terrorist attacks—some more so than others.

Thirdly, it showed up the follies of American foreign policy that revolves around a one-size-fits-all strategy and one that lacks flexibility; particularly exposing the fact that a superior military force is not sufficient to curb terror—something that is painfully apparent as the US withdraws from Iraq, having committed to also pull out of Afghanistan.

Finally, together with the global economic crisis that originated in the US, it accelerated the change in global polity that had been under way from the previous decade following the emphatic economic emergence of China.

It is not that the American hegemony has been completely set aside; instead, it is that the world has become a far more democratic place as the relative decline of the Western powers has coincided with the emergence of developing economies such as China, Brazil, India and South Africa.

The sum total of these factors is that the US has failed in its self-defined role as the global sheriff. Now, a slew of intellectuals in the West are voicing the view that the onus is on countries such as India and China to pick up the slack. While the latter has flatly declined to be involved in any policing or stabilization efforts and continues to play to achieve its own material ends in conflict situations, India does not have the capacity.

A further point of concern is that terrorism is nowhere close to being exterminated. If anything, terrorist forces have gathered fresh wind, having found a fertile haven in dysfunctional Asian countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan.

From India’s point of view, it is a disaster because this ascendancy comes at a time when the country would rather have focused on fostering its economic emergence than being distracted by the perennial fear of suffering a fresh terrorist attack.

These adverse developments are ironic for India, as almost exactly a year preceding the attack in New York, the government had gone public with its warnings about terror networks spawned from within Pakistan.
Prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had in his address to the United Nations General Assembly in 2000 cautioned the world against ignoring India’s repeated warnings and calls for action against terrorists/terror networks fostered from within Pakistan, arguing that it was potentially harmful to other countries too.

And this was not a random observation, but based on an assessment by the then foreign policy establishment. I recall that Brajesh Mishra, the national security adviser at the time, responding to a query from a colleague, identified the Taliban as the biggest threat facing India—this was in early 2000 when the anarchist doings (including terrorizing a nation in the name of religion and the unprovoked destruction of the Bamyan Buddha statues) of this grouping in Afghanistan were largely ignored.

As things stand, it may well be that by the time the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks comes around, some elements of the Taliban (with the seemingly innocuous nomenclature of “good” Taliban) may be part of the ruling establishment in Aghanistan. This was the same political grouping that had been outlawed for its association with Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda.

What is more worrying is that the terrorists are also winning the battle for the political mindspace. Not only has their message gained a dangerous legitimacy following the failure of the allied doctrine over the last decade, the right-wing opposition of the kind that threatened to burn the Koran to mark the anniversary of 9/11 on Saturday (the plan was eventually called off) has also become more bellicose. For the terrorists, this is perfect fodder to stoke more collective hatred, portray themselves as victims and provide a communal spin to their cause.

The simple fact is that the battle is—and has always been—political. You know politicians are completely off the message (till after a pastor threatened to burn a holy book) when people protesting the construction of a mosque near the World Trade Center hold up posters saying: “Islam builds mosques at the sites of their conquests and victories.”

Two years after his historic election, it is evident that the time has come for President Barack Obama to walk the talk: Yes, we can!

Anil Padmanabhan is a deputy managing editor of Mint and writes every week on the intersection of politics and economics. Comments are welcome at capitalcalculus@livemint.com

Sunday, September 12, 2010

On Sept. 11 Anniversary, Rifts Amid Mourning - By ANNE BARNARD and MANNY FERNANDEZ - The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/nyregion/12sept11.html?pagewanted=all


On Sept. 11 Anniversary, Rifts Amid Mourning

Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
 
Relatives of the victims of 9/11 gathered at a reflecting pool near ground zero on Saturday to mourn their lost loved ones. More Photos »
The ninth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was marked on Saturday by the memorials and prayer services of the past, but also by events hard to envision just a year ago — heated demonstrations blocks from ground zero, political and religious tensions and an unmistakable sense that a once-unifying day was now replete with division.
The names of nearly 3,000 victims were read under crisp blue skies in Lower Manhattan after the bells of the city’s houses of worship tolled at the exact moment — 8:46 a.m. — that the first plane struck the north tower of the World Trade Center. At the Pentagon, President Obama called for tolerance and said, “As Americans we are not — and never will be — at war with Islam.”

The familiar rituals at ground zero — the reciting of names, the occasionally cracking voice of a reader, the silences — had a new element. The posters and photographs that victims’ relatives held aloft bluntly injected politics into New York City’s annual ceremony, addressing the debate over plans to build a Muslim community center and mosque near ground zero.

Two posters commemorated the victims James V. DeBlase and Joon Koo Kang. One read, “Where are OUR rights?” The other: “We love you!! Islam mosque right next to ground zero??? We should stop this!!”

Differences were evident at the outset. About 7:25 a.m., as a choir finished up “The Star-Spangled Banner” at Zuccotti Park, just southeast of ground zero, Alyson Low, 39, a children’s librarian from Fayetteville, Ark., faced the media bleachers and held up a photo of her sister, Sara Low.

“Today is ONLY about my sister and the other innocents killed nine years ago,” read the text beside the photograph.

Nick Chiarchiaro, 67, a fire-alarm designer, gave her a hug. Ms. Low’s sister was a flight attendant on the plane that crashed into the north tower, where Mr. Chiarchiaro’s wife and niece were working and were killed.

“I’m tired of talking about everything else, tired of the politics,” she said. “Today is only about loss.”

But for Mr. Chiarchiaro, it was not. “A mosque is built on the site of a winning battle,” he said. “They are symbols of conquest. Hence we have a symbol of conquest here? I don’t think so.”

Thousands filled the makeshift plaza beside a construction site sprouting cranes and American flags on a crystal-clear morning a few degrees cooler than the one nine years ago. They carried cups of coffee and wore T-shirts emblazoned with the symbols of the response agencies that had paid so dearly. Until midday, they placed flowers at ground zero.

During the ceremony, knots of protesters wandered the area, sometimes arguing. In the afternoon, a few blocks away, police officers and barricades separated demonstrations, both for and against the Muslim center, that each drew about 2,000 people.

Around the country, people debated the meaning of 9/11 and the appropriateness of political rallies and protests on its anniversary. The day drew an array of national and international figures. John R. Bolton, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations, addressed the New York rally against the proposed Muslim center via video, and Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician who tried to ban the Koran in his country, described Islam as an intolerant “power of darkness,” saying, “We must draw the line, so that New York, rooted in Dutch tolerance, will never become New Mecca.”

Thousands were expected to gather later in Anchorage, paying $74 to $225 to hear speeches by Glenn Beck, the conservative broadcaster, and Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska.
At the Pentagon, in a memorial honoring the nearly 200 victims of the attack there, Mr. Obama said that those responsible had sought to divide the country.

“They may seek to spark conflict between different faiths, but as Americans we are not — and never will be — at war with Islam,” Mr. Obama said. “It was not a religion that attacked us that September day; it was Al Qaeda, a sorry band of men which perverts religion. And just as we condemn intolerance and extremism abroad, so will we stay true to our traditions here at home as a diverse and tolerant nation.”

In Shanksville, Pa., where United Airlines Flight 93 crashed after passengers rebelled against the plane’s hijackers, the focus remained on the victims, with speeches by the first lady, Michelle Obama, and her predecessor, Laura Bush.

Mrs. Obama celebrated the bravery of the passengers. “They called the people they loved — many of them giving comfort instead of seeking it, explaining they were taking action, and that everything would be O.K.,” she said. “And then they rose as one, they acted as one, and together they changed history’s course.”
 
Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who had announced, and then suspended, plans to burn copies of the Koran, arrived in New York on Friday seeking a meeting with Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the proposed Muslim center. The pastor’s presence in the city, under police protection, only added to the day’s drama.

On NBC’s “Today” show, Mr. Jones said that neither he nor his congregants would burn the Koran, whether or not he met with the imam. “We feel that God is telling us to stop,” he said.
Yet scattered imitators adopted his idea. Near the White House, 10 members of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue tore pages from the Koran that they said showed Islam’s intolerance. 

Near ground zero, a man burned what appeared to be a page of the Koran. Behind him, someone held a sign: “Real Americans don’t burn Korans.”

In Afghanistan, five people were wounded when demonstrators protesting the proposed Koran-burning tried to storm a provincial governor’s house.

At the New York demonstrations, there were no arrests, the police said, and the few clashes were verbal. Priscilla Lynch, 58, a Massachusetts social worker who supported the center and was wearing a T-shirt with Arabic writing, crossed a street near the opposing protesters. Some yelled: “Go back to Mecca!”

Supporters of the center rallied at City Hall Park, two blocks from the proposed center. The group was organized by left-wing and pro-Palestinian groups, following a separate vigil Friday by Christian, Jewish, Muslim, interfaith and neighborhood organizations.

Stephen Northmore, 24, an emergency medical worker who attended both, wore an American flag as a cape. Three friends from his native Staten Island served in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said. One lost a leg; another was the sole survivor when a Humvee hit a roadside bomb.

“I think it’s offensive that my friends are ordered to go to Muslim countries and defend Muslims there against the same radicals that attacked us,” he said, “but peaceful Muslims can’t build a community center in New York City in their own country."

Sharif Chowdhury did not attend the rally after honoring his daughter and her husband, both Muslims who died in the World Trade Center, at the ceremony. But he said that objecting to the Islamic center implied that all Muslims were terrorists and violated religious freedom. “If you want to stop this,” he said, “you have to change the Constitution.”

Opponents of the Muslim center gathered on West Broadway for a protest organized by the Freedom Defense Initiative and Stop Islamization of America, both led by the conservative blogger Pamela Geller.

Jan Loght, 58, a pharmacist from Arizona, said she was “insulted” by the planned center and troubled by Islam. “If we allow them to build this, then that’s saying we gave in, and Americans don’t give in.”

Most of the crowd chanted “No Mosque” or “U.S.A.” When Ilario Pantano, an Iraq war veteran running for Congress in North Carolina, mentioned Muslims, some shouted, “Kill them all!”

It was a Sept. 11 starkly different in tone and emotion from those past. For the first time, the anniversary of the worst attack on American soil and New York’s deadliest disaster served almost as a backdrop to politics. The rancor of a ground zero riven by clashing views on Islam and the United States contrasted with the heartbreak of the place.

For many, the politics were cause for a new kind of mourning — for the setting aside of differences that many Americans felt on previous anniversaries.

“We need to get back to that commonality and spirit that we had after 9/11,” said Julie Menin, the chairwoman of the local community board, who supports the Muslim center.

Many 9/11 rituals went on unchanged. In the East Village, former workers from Windows on the World — the restaurant atop the trade center that lost 73 workers — shared a brunch at Colors, a restaurant some surviving workers opened after the attacks.

People of many faiths, born in places from Egypt and Yugoslavia to Brooklyn, passed around babies and pictures. Zlatko Mundjer, 38, who had tended bar at Windows on the World, said no one was talking politics. “We are all family here — we are neutral.”

Steve Harewood, 45, who had worked as a bartender, received a marriage proposal from Paula Sternitzky, 46. They set their wedding date on the spot: Sept. 11, 2011.


Reporting was contributed by Damien Cave, Helene Cooper, Adam B. Ellick, Angela Macropoulos, Colin Moynihan, Andy Newman, Sharon Otterman, Ashley Parker and Rebecca White.

My Nine Years as a Middle-Eastern American - By Porochista Khakpour - The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/opinion/12khakpour.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all



Op-Ed Contributor

My Nine Years as a Middle-Eastern American

IN the late ’90s and early ’00s, I used to frequent a boutique in the East Village called Michael and Hushi. Hushi Mortezaie, an impish club kid born in Iran and raised in the Bay Area, made outlandish, psychedelic, robot-chic clothing and was getting the coolest of the East Village cool kids to wear his strategically slashed and torn Farsi-graffitied shirts, though none of them had any idea that in some cases they were bearing post-Iranian Revolution political slogans.
Anna Bhushan

I — born in Iran, raised in the Los Angeles area — used to go to downtown parties in a skimpy halter top that featured newsprint-emblazoned mujahideen women brandishing machine guns, their bullets bedazzled in gold next to the words “Long Live Iran.” It was the first time I had worn anything having to do with my homeland; I loved that feeling of for once being able to both be Iranian and a play on it.

In one of the last days of August 2001, I remember being at the boutique again, and Hushi was giddy preparing for Fashion Week. His store windows were freshly adorned with his “Persian collection,” a new line of hijab-and-harem-pant Iranophilia. “Girl, get ready!” he said, “Iran is going to be the new black.”

Days later, there we were, two Middle Eastern 20-somethings who now had some explaining to do. Friends started speaking in roundabout inquiries: What exactly was the status of my green card? 

How were my father and brother faring? Were they Muslim, by the way?

Hushi’s stylists, meanwhile, were calling him to ask how he was — and when he was going to be getting rid of that window display. But somehow we really were fine, even under the heavy air of everyone’s condescending concern.

Little did we know that it would take almost a full decade for the proverbial 9/11 fallout to fall out, for anti-Muslim xenophobia to emerge, fully formed and fever-pitched, ostensibly over plans to build an interfaith cultural center near ground zero. Even in New York, stronghold of progressive ethics and cultural diversity, my former home of 12 years, August 2010 became the evil twin of that still-innocent August 2001.

In addition to the mosque, of course, there was the Florida pastor who wanted to burn Korans on the Sept. 11 anniversary, and who has yes-no-maybe-so reconsidered, after a hearty load of negative press and a dab of executive-branch headshaking. And, hey, what do you get when you put a drunk white college student, who had actually been to Afghanistan, into the cab of a Bangladeshi Muslim? The wrong answer and a stabbing, allegedly.

It’s one test I would have passed. For the record: I am not Muslim. My immediate family ultimately kept us as agnostic as possible; religion went only as far as my mother praying to the American concept of a guardian angel and my dad “studying” Zoroastrianism. But most of the extended Khakpours are Muslim and, culturally, it’s a part of me insofar as I am a Middle Easterner.

I am also a New Yorker, a deal that was sealed forever nine years ago. I had just moved from Brooklyn to downtown Manhattan to shack up with a boyfriend. The studio was 25 floors up, with a nearly all-glass wall that framed a perfect view of the World Trade Center.

Now, when I look back on ages 23 to 32, every aspect of my life is shadowed by what I saw through the glass that blue-and-gold Tuesday morning: two towers, each gashed and stunningly hazed in the glitter of exploding windows, falling, one after the other, over and over again. But what was once simple apprehension and mortification and trepidation has become increasingly entangled with feelings of exhaustion and marginalization and even indignation.

•
A deep dark admission: lately — and by lately I mean this era I worked so hard for, when a liberal person of color, a man who resembles my own father, would be our president — I’ve found myself thinking secretly, were certain things better in the George W. Bush era? Was it easier to be Middle Eastern then?

Just six days after 9/11, at the Islamic Center of Washington, President Bush said, “Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don’t represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind.” He added: “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.” Did that assurance mean more to white Americans coming from someone who looked like them?

Xenophobia and racism still abounded, but the lid stayed on the pot. Perhaps when Republicans held both the White House and Congress, conservatives weren’t sweating a thing; for them, people of color, along with all our white liberal friends, were lumped together in one misery-loves-company fringe. But now that the tables have turned, conservatives have positioned themselves as aggrieved victims. (I recall the advice of an older female relative: Always let men you’re in relationships with have all the power; it’s when they lose power and get insecure that your problems start.)

Indeed, has the most irrational breed of 9/11 payback emerged precisely because we elected an African-American president whose middle name — the name of cousins of mine — has turned into an H-word slur? A commander in chief whom the most misled and confused perceive in cartoon cahoots with terrorists, or at least as their religion-mate? As if that weren’t enough, take last year’s Fort Hood gunman, add a helping of the would-be Times Square bomber and top it off with “ground zero mosque” — and voilà, a boiling hot summer of anti-Islamic assault. Suddenly, anyone with skin as dark as President Obama’s could be a “secret Muslim,” and any Muslim must surely be a not-so-secret terrorist.

The world Hushi and I were in, before 9/11 and just after, was not a picnic for brown people. And there’s no need to cast 2001 to 2008 in an ideal light. None of us breathed easy. It’s just that we expected to breathe easier as time went on.

•
My brother, who lives in Brooklyn, recently discovered that many of his Muslim friends in New York felt that the Islamic cultural center was a bad idea to begin with, for this sole reason: it was going to put them in danger. He and his friends feel a fear that they haven’t in ages, or ever.

During our late-night calls, my brother and I talk about nothing but what’s on the news, and we laugh a lot, but we laugh nervously. My sense of humor, honed in my immigrant childhood, was always my ultimate disarming mechanism, a handy way to infuse the blues with some off color.

This was my modus operandi during a book tour in 2007, when 90 percent of my Q-and-A’s were about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s notorious president, as my publication date coincided with his infamous visit to Columbia University. It was annoying and even baffling, because it had nothing to do with me or the book. But I laughed and joked with the audience so that it was clear to them I was, like, totally un-Ahmadinejad, dudes.

The hilarity started to curdle at the moment I was also feeling the most euphoric: during Mr. Obama’s bid for the presidency. It was around then that I began murdering whole days on the Internet, and not just on the Internet but in its dirty basement, the comments sections of blogs. 

There, an angry tribe of fake names spoke in misspelled obscenities and declaimed the true, evil nature of Middle Easterners and their intentions in this country. This is silly, I’d tell myself, these trolls aren’t representative of my neighbors or of Americans.

Then I’d go on Facebook, and engage in more online warfare with friends of friends, real flesh-and-blood people with real-life names, who a bit more politely and grammatically stated the same. And there was me — a non-Muslim, who has publicly criticized certain Islamic practices — flaccidly battling for Muslims worldwide. It got to the point that I was telling people I didn’t even know that their opinions were making my life downright “unlivable.”

It reminds me of how I used to experience so many mixed emotions when I’d see women in full burqa in Brooklyn: alarm at the spectacle (no matter how many times I’d seen it), followed by a certain feminist irk, and finally discomfiture at our cultural kinship. And then it would all turn into one strong emotion — protective rage — when I’d see a group of teenagers laughing and pointing at them.

•
Every day, I lose America and America loses me, more and more. But I should still be in my honeymoon phase, since I’m actually just a 9-year-old American. And that’s my other association with autumn 2001. As luck would have it, my citizenship papers finally went through not long after the towers fell. That November, I was in a Brooklyn federal courtroom singing, along with a room full of immigrants, the national anthem that I hadn’t sung since K through 12.

I remember on that day, 9/11 leaving the foreground of my mind for the first time. I remember looking around that room and feeling, in spite of myself, a sense of optimism about the future. I remember feeling a part of something. I remember feeling thrilled at the official introduction of the hyphen that would from now on gracefully declare and demarcate my two worlds: Middle-Eastern American. The same hyphen that today feels like a dagger that coarsely divides had once, not too long ago at all, been a symbol of a most hallowed bond.


Porochista Khakpour, the author of the novel “Sons and Other Flammable Objects,” is a professor of literature at Santa Fe University of Art and Design.

Is This America? - By Nicholas D. Kristof - The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/opinion/12kristof.html?th&emc=th

Op-Ed Columnist

Is This America?

For a glimpse of how venomous and debased the discourse about Islam has become, consider a blog post in The New Republic this month. Written by Martin Peretz, the magazine’s editor in chief, it asserted: “Frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims.” 

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof

On the Ground

Share Your Comments About This Column
Nicholas Kristof addresses reader feedback and posts short takes from his travels.
Go to Columnist Page »
Mr. Peretz added: “I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment, which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.”

Thus a prominent American commentator, in a magazine long associated with tolerance, ponders whether Muslims should be afforded constitutional freedoms. Is it possible to imagine the same kind of casual slur tossed off about blacks or Jews? How do America’s nearly seven million American Muslims feel when their faith is denounced as barbaric?

This is one of those times that test our values, a bit like the shameful interning of Japanese-Americans during World War II, or the disgraceful refusal to accept Jewish refugees from Nazi Europe.

It would have been natural for this test to have come right after 9/11, but it was forestalled because President George W. Bush pushed back at his conservative ranks and repeatedly warned Americans not to confuse Al Qaeda with Islam.

Now that Mr. Bush is no longer in the White House, nativists are back on the warpath. Some opponents of President Obama are circulating bald-faced lies about him that are also scurrilous attacks on Islam itself. One e-mail bouncing around falsely accuses Mr. Obama of lying and adds, “His Muslim faith says it’s okay to lie.”

Or there’s the e-mail I received the other day from a relative, declaring: “President Obama has directed the United States Postal Service to remember and honor the Eid Muslim holiday season with a new commemorative 44 cent first class holiday postage stamp.” In fact, it was President Bush’s administration that first issued the Eid stamp in 2001 and that issued new versions after that.

Astonishingly, a Newsweek poll finds that 52 percent of Republicans believe that it is “definitely true” or “probably true” that “Barack Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world.” So a majority of Republicans think that our president wants to impose Islamic law worldwide.

That kind of extremism undermines our democracy, risks violence and empowers jihadis.
 
Newsweek quoted a Taliban operative, Zabihullah, about opposition to the mosque near ground zero: “By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor. It’s providing us with more recruits, donations and popular support.” Mr. Zabihullah added, “The more mosques you stop, the more jihadis we will get.”

In America, bigoted comments about Islam often seem to come from people who have never visited a mosque and know few if any Muslims. In their ignorance, they mirror the anti-Semitism that I hear in Muslim countries from people who have never met a Jew.

One American university professor wrote to me that “every Muslim in the world” believes that the proposed Manhattan Islamic center would symbolize triumph over America. That reminded me of Pakistanis who used to tell me that “every Jew” knew of 9/11 in advance, so that none died in the World Trade Center.

It is perfectly reasonable for critics to point to the shortcomings of Islam or any other religion. There should be more outrage, for example, about the mistreatment of women in many Islamic countries, or the oppression of religious minorities like Christians and Ahmadis in Pakistan.

Europe is alarmed that Muslim immigrants have not assimilated well, resulting in tolerance of intolerance, and pockets of wife-beating, forced marriage, homophobia and female genital mutilation. Those are legitimate concerns, but sweeping denunciations of any religious group constitute dangerous bigotry.

If this is a testing time, then some have passed with flying colors. Hats off to a rabbinical student in Massachusetts, Rachel Barenblat, who raised money to replace prayer rugs that a drunken intruder had urinated on at a mosque. She told me that she quickly raised more than $1,100 from Jews and Christians alike.

Above all, bravo to those Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders who jointly denounced what they called “the anti-Muslim frenzy.”

“We know what it is like when people have attacked us physically, have attacked us verbally, and others have remained silent,” said Rabbi David Saperstein. “It cannot happen here in America in 2010.”

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick put it this way: “This is not America. America was not built on hate.”

“Shame on you,” the Rev. Richard Cizik, a leading evangelical Christian, said to those castigating Islam. “You bring dishonor to the name of Jesus Christ. You directly disobey his commandment to love your neighbor.”

Amen.

I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos videos and follow me on Twitter.

Muslims and Islam Were Part of Twin Towers’ Life - By Samuel G. Freedman - The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/nyregion/11religion.html?pagewanted=all#



On Religion

Muslims and Islam Were Part of Twin Towers’ Life

Michael McElroy for The New York Times
Sinclair Hejazi Abdus-Salaam, now retired in Boca Raton, Fla., prayed at the trade center.
Sometime in 1999, a construction electrician received a new work assignment from his union. The man, Sinclair Hejazi Abdus-Salaam, was told to report to 2 World Trade Center, the southern of the twin towers.
In the union locker room on the 51st floor, Mr. Abdus-Salaam went through a construction worker’s version of due diligence. In the case of an emergency in the building, he asked his foreman and crew, where was he supposed to reassemble? The answer was the corner of Broadway and Vesey.


Over the next few days, noticing some fellow Muslims on the job, Mr. Abdus-Salaam voiced an equally essential question: “So where do you pray at?” And so he learned about the Muslim prayer room on the 17th floor of the south tower.

He went there regularly in the months to come, first doing the ablution known as wudu in a washroom fitted for cleansing hands, face and feet, and then facing toward Mecca to intone the salat prayer.

On any given day, Mr. Abdus-Salaam’s companions in the prayer room might include financial analysts, carpenters, receptionists, secretaries and ironworkers. There were American natives, immigrants who had earned citizenship, visitors conducting international business — the whole Muslim spectrum of nationality and race.

Leaping down the stairs on Sept. 11, 2001, when he had been installing ceiling speakers for a reinsurance company on the 49th floor, Mr. Abdus-Salaam had a brief, panicked thought. He didn’t see any of the Muslims he recognized from the prayer room. Where were they? Had they managed to evacuate?

He staggered out to the gathering place at Broadway and Vesey. From that corner, he watched the south tower collapse, to be followed soon by the north one. Somewhere in the smoking, burning mountain of rubble lay whatever remained of the prayer room, and also of some of the Muslims who had used it.

Given the vitriolic opposition now to the proposal to build a Muslim community center two blocks from ground zero, one might say something else has been destroyed: the realization that Muslim people and the Muslim religion were part of the life of the World Trade Center.

Opponents of the Park51 project say the presence of a Muslim center dishonors the victims of the Islamic extremists who flew two jets into the towers. Yet not only were Muslims peacefully worshiping in the twin towers long before the attacks, but even after the 1993 bombing of one tower by a Muslim radical, Ramzi Yousef, their religious observance generated no opposition
“We weren’t aliens,” Mr. Abdus-Salaam, 60, said in a telephone interview from Florida, where he moved in retirement. “We had a foothold there. You’d walk into the elevator in the morning and say, ‘Salaam aleikum,’ to one construction worker and five more guys in suits would answer, ‘Aleikum salaam.’ ”

One of those men in suits could have been Zafar Sareshwala, a financial executive for the Parsoli Corporation, who went to the prayer room while on business trips from his London office. He was introduced to it, he recently recalled, by a Manhattan investment banker who happened to be Jewish.

“It was so freeing and so calm,” Mr. Sareshwala, 47, said in a phone conversation from Mumbai, where he is now based. “It had the feel of a real mosque. And the best part is that you are in the epicenter of capitalism — New York City, the World Trade Center — and you had this island of spiritualism. I don’t think you could have that combination anywhere in the world.”

How, when and by whom the prayer room was begun remains unclear. Interviews this week with historians and building executives of the trade center came up empty. Many of the Port Authority’s leasing records were destroyed in the towers’ collapse. The imams of several Manhattan mosques whose members sometimes went to the prayer room knew nothing of its origins.

Yet the room’s existence is etched in the memories of participants like Mr. Abdus-Salaam and Mr. Sareshwala. Prof. John L. Esposito of Georgetown University, an expert in Islamic studies, briefly mentions the prayer room in his recent book “The Future of Islam.”

Moreover, the prayer room was not the only example of Muslim religious practice in or near the trade center. About three dozen Muslim staff members of Windows on the World, the restaurant atop the north tower, used a stairwell between the 106th and 107th floors for their daily prayers.
Without enough time to walk to the closest mosque — Masjid Manhattan on Warren Street, about four blocks away — the waiters, chefs, banquet managers and others would lay a tablecloth atop the concrete landing in the stairwell and flatten cardboard boxes from food deliveries to serve as prayer mats.

During Ramadan, the Muslim employees brought their favorite foods from home, and at the end of the daylight fast shared their iftar meal in the restaurant’s employee cafeteria.

“Iftar was my best memory,” said Sekou Siby, 45, a chef originally from the Ivory Coast. “It was really special.”

Such memories have been overtaken, though, by others. Mr. Siby’s cousin and roommate, a chef named Abdoul-Karim Traoré, died at Windows on the World on Sept. 11, as did at least one other Muslim staff member, a banquet server named Shabir Ahmed from Bangladesh.

Fekkak Mamdouh, an immigrant from Morocco who was head waiter, attended a worship service just weeks after the attacks that honored the estimated 60 Muslims who died. Far from being viewed as objectionable, the service was conducted with formal support from city, state and federal authorities, who arranged for buses to transport imams and mourners to Warren Street.

There, within sight of the ruins, they chanted salat al-Ghaib, the funeral prayer when there is not an intact corpse.

“It is a shame, shame, shame,” Mr. Mamdouh, 49, said of the Park51 dispute. “Sometimes I wake up and think, this is not what I came to America for. I came here to build this country together. People are using this issue for their own agenda. It’s designed to keep the hate going.”


E-mail: sgf1@columbia.edu

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: September 10, 2010

An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of the proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero. It is Park51, not Parc51. It also misstated the name of a chef at the Windows on the World restaurant who died on Sept. 11. He was Abdoul-Karim Traoré, not Abdul Karim. And the article misstated the order in which the World Trade Center towers fell. The south tower fell first, not the north tower.