FACT CHECK: Islam already lives near ground zero

I don't care if you have heard of them or not. They are a big part of why this became an issue.

This became an issue when the President of the United States made an astonishing statement endorsing something that a vast majority of Americans feels is insensitive and inappropriate, and shouldn't be done. And you fuckwits grabbed the ball and ran with it, trying to paint those opposed as intolerant bigots. Well, now the chickens are going to come home to roost. Now, you will pay the political price for making this a political issue. See you in November, asswipes!
 
Really?

Just the location?

Then why all the fuss in Murfreesboro, Tennessee?

Racists there are trying to keep a Mosque from being built.

What about Sheboygan, Wisconsin?

Residents there are upset Muslims want to build a Mosque.

So again I ask, what's REALLY the problem with all you people?

Good God (or do I mean Inshallah), these people are hilarious. The entire controversy was manufactured by the RW. Even conservative pundits were for the building before they were against it. Somebody posted a link to the time line for building this community center and here's the article.

A viciously anti-Muslim blogger, the New York Post and the right-wing media machine: How it all went down.

* Dec. 8, 2009: The Times publishes a lengthy front-page look at the Cordoba project. "We want to push back against the extremists," Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the lead organizer, is quoted as saying. Two Jewish leaders and two city officials, including the mayor's office, say they support the idea, as does the mother of a man killed on 9/11. An FBI spokesman says the imam has worked with the bureau. Besides a few third-tier right-wing blogs, including Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs site, no one much notices the Times story.
* Dec. 21, 2009: Conservative media personality Laura Ingraham interviews Abdul Rauf's wife, Daisy Khan, while guest-hosting "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox. In hindsight, the segment is remarkable for its cordiality. "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it," Ingraham says of the Cordoba project, adding at the end of the interview, "I like what you're trying to do." (This segment also includes onscreen the first use that we've seen of the misnomer "ground zero mosque.")

After the segment — and despite the front-page Times story — there were no news articles on the mosque for five and a half months, according to a search of the Nexis newspaper archive.


*May 6, 2010: After a unanimous vote by a New York City community board committee to approve the project, the AP runs a story. It quotes relatives of 9/11 victims (called by the reporter), who offer differing opinions. The New York Post, meanwhile, runs a story under the inaccurate headline, "Panel Approves 'WTC' Mosque." Geller is less subtle, titling her post that day, "Monster Mosque Pushes Ahead in Shadow of World Trade Center Islamic Death and Destruction." She writes on her Atlas Shrugs blog, "This is Islamic domination and expansionism. The location is no accident. Just as Al-Aqsa was built on top of the Temple in Jerusalem." (To get an idea of where Geller is coming from, she once suggested that Malcolm X was Obama's real father. Seriously.)

*May 7, 2010: Geller's group, Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), launches "Campaign Offensive: Stop the 911 Mosque!" (SIOA 's associate director is Robert Spencer, who makes his living writing and speaking about the evils of Islam.) Geller posts the names and contact information for the mayor and members of the community board, encouraging people to write. The board chair later reports getting "hundreds and hundreds" of calls and e-mails from around the world.

*May 8, 2010: Geller announces SIOA's first protest against what she calls the "911 monster mosque" for May 29. She and Spencer and several other members of the professional anti-Islam industry will attend. (She also says that the protest will mark the dark day of "May 29, 1453, [when] the Ottoman forces led by the Sultan Mehmet II broke through the Byzantine defenses against the Muslim siege of Constantinople." The outrage-peddling New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser argues in a note at the end of her column a couple of days later that "there are better places to put a mosque."

*May 13, 2010: Peyser follows up with an entire column devoted to "Mosque Madness at Ground Zero." This is a significant moment in the development of the "ground zero mosque" narrative: It's the first newspaper article that frames the project as inherently wrong and suspect, in the way that Geller has been framing it for months. Peyser in fact quotes Geller at length and promotes the anti-mosque protest of Stop Islamization of America, which Peyser describes as a "human-rights group." Peyser also reports — falsely — that Cordoba House's opening date will be Sept. 11, 2011.

Lots of opinion makers on the right read the Post, so it's not surprising that, starting that very day, the mosque story spread through the conservative — and then mainstream — media like fire through dry grass. Geller appeared on Sean Hannity's radio show. The Washington Examiner ran an outraged column about honoring the 9/11 dead. So did Investor's Business Daily. Smelling blood, the Post assigned news reporters to cover the ins and outs of the Cordoba House development daily. Fox News, the Post's television sibling, went all out.

Within a month, Rudy Giuliani had called the mosque a "desecration." Within another month, Sarah Palin had tweeted her famous "peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate" tweet. Peter King and Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty followed suit — with political reporters and television news programs dutifully covering "both sides" of the controversy.

Geller had succeeded beyond her wildest dreams.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins
 
SIOA is the primary group that has made Park-51 an issue. They have ties to most of these other protests, that have nothing to do with being near "Ground Zero." Gingrich and others quote and praise these nuts and rely on them for their talking points.

The people holding the signs in your picture have nothing to do with this issue and those emulating them are nothing but anti-American bigots.

Those pictures were taken four years ago in London, and have nothing to do with America or the Park51 project.

They were demonstrating against the Danish cartoon controversy.
 
This became an issue when the President of the United States made an astonishing statement endorsing something that a vast majority of Americans feels is insensitive and inappropriate, and shouldn't be done. And you fuckwits grabbed the ball and ran with it, trying to paint those opposed as intolerant bigots. Well, now the chickens are going to come home to roost. Now, you will pay the political price for making this a political issue. See you in November, asswipes!

Republicans are likely to gain seats either way. I don't think this will help them though.
 
Founders of SIOA have advocated violence and genocide against Muslims. You need the quote from Jay again?

I don't care if you have heard of them or not. They are a big part of why this became an issue.

He wants to encourage justice and protection of minorities in Muslim nations. What an evil bastard.

Yeah provide the quotes and their context again.

I first heard of the Mosque because of the 9/11 families against it MONTHS ago as threads here on this board prove.

He fully supports shariah' law which is misogynistic, brutal, and breaks with any kind of human rights. This IS worth talking about!
 
SIOA Action Alert: Rally to protect the Christians of Nigeria against Islamic jihad

SIOA (Stop the Islamization of America) is proud to join the Jubilee Campaign in support and solidarity for the Christians in Jos, Nigeria, who are threatened and murdered by jihad. Numerous incidents have occurred in recent years when Christians were mindlessly slaughtered in religiously motivated violence. Read more here.

If you live in or near New York City, a rally will be held for Nigeria's Christians on April 7 at the Permanent Mission of Nigeria, 2nd Avenue and 44th Street.

On Wednesday, April 7th from 4:45 pm on, religious, civic and human rights leaders of many faiths and backgrounds will gather in front of the Nigerian Consulate in New York City to raise their voices of conscience about the continuing massacres of Christians as well as the ongoing barbaric persecution of non-Muslim minorities by jihadists in Nigeria and elsewhere across the globe.

While there are no official figures yet to confirm the numbers killed in the March 7th Massacre of Christians in Nigeria, we do know that many of the victims were children, women and the elderly. They were hacked to death, beheaded, and set on fire. Those arrested reportedly belong to the Muslim Fulani terror group.

A press conference is expected to take place from 4:30-5:00 PM.The rally, sponsored by members of Action Alliance, First Things, and the Institute for Religion and Democracy, begins directly after the press conference and will run until 7:00 PM.

Please join us and fight Islamic jihad.
 
I didn't call her stupid....I asked if she thought "these people stupid and below her".....
Its time you learn a little reading comprehension, so you don't keep accusing others of things they didn't say in the first place.
and please stop apoligizing for the barbarians we call Muslims...
They behead their captives, stone, enslave, disfigure, and murder their women at will, taught to lie to the infidels and idiots like you, and murder innocents for the sake of terrorizing and to further their religious goals....they are throwbacks to the dark ages that make no contribution to civilization.....is that too melodramatic or an exaggeration?

I re-read your post and stand corrected about the "stupid" part. But the rest of my comments stand.

You seem to imply that the above actions are representative of all Muslims and my view is that it's the extremists who do this, and also that it's being done by non-Muslim tribal groups who have the same extremist viewpoints. Nothing in the Qur'an promotes and endorses stoning as punishment.
 
Republicans are likely to gain seats either way. I don't think this will help them though.

LMAO@likely to gain seats!

Uhm, yeah, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet they will gain seats. They may actually take back the majority in both houses, which would be monumentally extraordinary, given the bulletproof majority the Dems had.

I doubt that any voters out there have been sitting on the fence, not knowing which side they're on, contemplating whether they want to vote democrat or republican, and all of a sudden, this issue just happened to make their mind up for them. BUT...

I think the issue does play into a consistent theme of how this president and congress are out of touch with mainstream Americans. Health care, illegal immigration, and now this... all issues the public was vocal about, and the administration in power, ignored the will of the people in arrogant fashion. I do believe that WILL have an effect on voters in November. But the MAIN issue, is going to be the economy! This was just another lame attempt for Democrats to try and pull some supporters away from the Tea Party. I think it fails miserably to do that, and instead, tends to galvanize the support already there. We'll have to wait and see.
 
You seem to imply that the above actions are representative of all Muslims

You all keep saying this, but how the fuck are we implying any such thing? How many fucking times do we have to post, we are not opposed to Muslims peacefully practicing their religion? It's like that with the illegal immigration issue as well, you just keep wanting to say we are against immigrants and immigration! That has never been implied or stated in any way, in fact, people have done everything but cartwheels to make sure you understand that is NOT what is being objected to! Still, you somehow hear us "infer" these things that we just aren't saying!
 
You all keep saying this, but how the fuck are we implying any such thing? How many fucking times do we have to post, we are not opposed to Muslims peacefully practicing their religion? It's like that with the illegal immigration issue as well, you just keep wanting to say we are against immigrants and immigration! That has never been implied or stated in any way, in fact, people have done everything but cartwheels to make sure you understand that is NOT what is being objected to! Still, you somehow hear us "infer" these things that we just aren't saying!

Surely you jest. Read this thread again, these quotes don't single out extremists. People are painting the entire group with the broad brush.

"Yes, but Mormons, some Evangelical Christians, as well as the Jehovah Witness, don't want to kill me."

"...and you and Obama want to do everything in your power to allow these thugs and monsters to continue keeping their people enslaved. After all, it's no skin off our nose if they cut the noses off their women! Who are we to tell them who to stone to death?"

"If you're a non convert, muslims want to kill you christiefan915."

"...wait until you're door is busted down and you are drug out into the street for a good stoning! Of course, then, it is going to be too late to help you, there is no one who can help you, because you've enabled them to destroy America."

"I am castigating Muslims and condemning them for treating women like dogs..."

"...please stop apoligizing for the barbarians we call Muslims...
They behead their captives, stone, enslave, disfigure, and murder their women at will, taught to lie to the infidels and idiots like you, and murder innocents for the sake of terrorizing and to further their religious goals..."
 
Surely you jest. Read this thread again, these quotes don't single out extremists. People are painting the entire group with the broad brush.

"Yes, but Mormons, some Evangelical Christians, as well as the Jehovah Witness, don't want to kill me."

"...and you and Obama want to do everything in your power to allow these thugs and monsters to continue keeping their people enslaved. After all, it's no skin off our nose if they cut the noses off their women! Who are we to tell them who to stone to death?"

"If you're a non convert, muslims want to kill you christiefan915."

"...wait until you're door is busted down and you are drug out into the street for a good stoning! Of course, then, it is going to be too late to help you, there is no one who can help you, because you've enabled them to destroy America."

"I am castigating Muslims and condemning them for treating women like dogs..."

"...please stop apoligizing for the barbarians we call Muslims...
They behead their captives, stone, enslave, disfigure, and murder their women at will, taught to lie to the infidels and idiots like you, and murder innocents for the sake of terrorizing and to further their religious goals..."

Funny, in not one single line you've posted is "ALL Muslims" indicated. So where is that being "implied" by anyone besides YOU? Clearly, no one is talking about Muslims who don't treat their women like shit or wage jihad on Americans. Those Muslims are not being addressed in ANY of the examples you posted! I do think those type Muslims need to speak out more against the radical elements in their religion, and I commend the ones who have spoken out against this mosque, we need MORE of that, and we should be ENCOURAGING that, instead of finding some political advantage to side with enemies of America to basically just be in opposition to the right!
 
Funny, in not one single line you've posted is "ALL Muslims" indicated. So where is that being "implied" by anyone besides YOU? Clearly, no one is talking about Muslims who don't treat their women like shit or wage jihad on Americans. Those Muslims are not being addressed in ANY of the examples you posted! I do think those type Muslims need to speak out more against the radical elements in their religion, and I commend the ones who have spoken out against this mosque, we need MORE of that, and we should be ENCOURAGING that, instead of finding some political advantage to side with enemies of America to basically just be in opposition to the right!

If that were the case, the writers would use the words "extremist" or "radical", not just "Muslim".

It's like saying "Americans" wear white sheets and burn crosses instead of saying "Klan members" wear white sheets and burn crosses.
 
If that were the case, the writers would use the words "extremist" or "radical", not just "Muslim".

It's like saying "Americans" wear white sheets and burn crosses instead of saying "Klan members" wear white sheets and burn crosses.

But Americans hold protest rallies against the Klan and openly voice their disatisfaction with the group.
Where are the Muslim protest rallies and their openly voiced oppostion to the "extremists" or "radicals" within their own faith?
 
Yeah provide the quotes and their context again.


islam, in arguing that the west has no moral and ethical right to exist, has rather stripped itself of its own ethical and moral posture as the innocent victim. it has exposed itself as a heinous, vicious, cruel implacable aggressor, and it has lost its moral authority, if it ever had any.

http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.co...s-sown-it-shall-ride-the-wild-whirlwind-.html

islam has killed itself, with its own savagery, with its blood thirst without slake.
my point is that in killing innocence, in making such an eloquent argument that there are no innocents, that no person bears the mantle of innocence, that all who are not muslims are combatants and liable to death in the most debase way, … , islam has rather compelling made the point that we are all exposed to the combat brought to us by islam, that we are all combatants.

that combatants are not entitled to pity, nor exemption from the random fate of the bomber, nor their throats protected from the cold hard zeal of the muslim scimitar.

and, that every person in islam, from man to woman to child may be our executioner.

in short, that there are no innocents in islam.

in short, that there is no innocence in islam.

that all of islam is at war with us, and that all of islam is/are [a] combatant[s.]

islam has sealed its doom. the jihad has pronounced its own death sentence. by giving us the knowledge of its message. in destroying ethical and moral and religious concepts such as innocence, and exemption from battle, islam has destroyed the last great restraints and inhibitions for the west to strike back in the full fury of its retribution and revenge.

islam, in arguing that the west has no moral and ethical right to exist, has rather stripped itself of its own ethical and moral posture as the innocent victim. it has exposed itself as a heinous, vicious, cruel implacable aggressor, and it has lost its moral authority, if it ever had any.

and, more tellingly.--

islam has established without intellectual doubt that there are no innocent muslims, that the myth of the "moderate muslem" is precisely that, and that muslims are no more entitled to exemption or protection from retaliation that any of the other "non-innocent" combatants in the world.

islam has no pretension to "innocence," no more than the victims of islam. there is no innocence. there are no innocent muslims. islam is subject to killing on grounds of political expediency on the same basis as islam kills its victims, and islam cannot ethically and morally claim otherwise.

i contend that we should have destroyed islam as a force of terror when leon klinghoffer, wheel chair bound, went over the side of the achille lauro to drown on october 7, 1985 still alive after being shot in the head and chest by his attackers.

I first heard of the Mosque because of the 9/11 families against it MONTHS ago as threads here on this board prove.

He fully supports shariah' law which is misogynistic, brutal, and breaks with any kind of human rights. This IS worth talking about!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages//fron...+Notes)&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner

In what ways do Western values, morals, and cultural practices, intrude upon, and [in what ways] are they at variance with Islamic ideals?

I think there are two aspects to this question, in the broader sense of the word. There is Western values regarding governance; Western values regarding separation of powers; Western notions regarding what the role of government is in society; Western notion in terms of democratic institutions and principles and ideas. And to a large extent, Muslims are very enamored of these systems, and would like to implement them in their own societies ... because these principles and norms are completely in sync with the principles of the Quran and the teachings of the prophet. Muslims would like very much to implement these norms within their societies.

When you come to speak about things like behavioral norms, gender relationships, or the kind of things that people will do, this is a separate issue. And there is another aspect of the West, and that is the attitude of the West towards the non-Western countries, in terms of trying to be presumptuous in telling them how they should even live their lives in ways that they are not accustomed to -- like modes of dress, for instance. In the 1930s, when the first shah of Iran forced his soldiers at bayonet point to force Iranian women to take off the chador, for instance.

People don't like to be told how to dress. This is a matter of personal individual conscience. Even we here in the West do not insist that our students in public schools wear uniforms. We give them that level of freedom. People do not like to be told how to do certain things in their personal lives.

What are the key differences between being a Muslim in America and being a Muslim in the Muslim world?

There are many aspects to that. There is the political aspect, the sociological aspect, the social and family aspect, the economic aspect. So there are many aspects to the to the difference between living in a Muslim country as a native especially, and living in this country. ...

If I were to look at maybe the broadest difference: there is a sense of freedom in the United States. So one practices one's faith in the United States as an act of deliberate choice. If you are not [doing so, it's] not so much because of social pressure. There may be a certain amount of social pressure. But at a certain point in one's life, one is relatively free to live one's life as one chooses in this country.

And that sense of freedom makes one's religiosity or the defining lines of one's religiosity much sharper. Religion is a much more personal thing here. It is also a deeper experience within the personal envelope. One is forced to attach oneself to one's religion in a personally deeper way in terms of the existential issues -- it has to be anchored on a much deeper existential foundation.

Another aspect about living in the United States is that one experiences a lot of negative media attention to one's Islamicity. And that has resulted, and can result in a reaction one way or the other by many people. Many Muslims feel in this country like the Christians did in Rome when they were fed to the lions. And here the lions are the media. We hope that perhaps things will change in the United States, as they did in Rome, as well.

It seems there is a societal dimension to being a Muslim, in terms of the ways one would like one's society to be organized. Are there conflicts in that sense between how one would like society to be, and the realities of American society?

I would say that Muslims in America, especially those who come from other countries, experience both an attraction, a strong attraction, to the positive things that America offers: freedom, political freedom; economic mobility and well-being, the ability to live a materially comfortable life. These are all the things that draws people from all over the world, Muslim and non-Muslim, to this country.

However, there are certain things that people, even when they come from their own country, don't like to give up. They don't like to give up certain aspects of their cultural norms. Their practices of family relationships they try to maintain. Their cuisines they like to maintain. Those values, which they consider to be their ethics, they like to maintain.

And so Muslims who have come to this country generally believe that the democratic principles, the political principles, the economic structure of this country really resonates with the faith of Islam, and draw them to this country.

To the sense that, let's say, American social norms or values are not supportive of the families -- in those issues, Muslims may happen to have a different opinion. [On] those values which violate their sense of decency, they may have a different opinion.

In a certain sense, much of the ethical and moral issues which Muslims feel strongly about in this country is shared by what you might call the Christian majority in this country -- more of the moral mooring, or the sense of decency, which is commonly shared in other faith traditions.

... I also believe that, as the American Muslim community matures in this country, that the American Muslim community will be an interlocutor, and important intermediary between the West and the Muslim world. And more so today, because today, we have much more much easier communications between the immigrant Muslim population and their extended families in the Muslim world. ... Unlike those who immigrated a century ago from Europe, there is maintained contacts with the Old World and the New [World]. And this phenomenon will give rise to a much different sense of what it means to be a Muslim in the world.
 
If that were the case, the writers would use the words "extremist" or "radical", not just "Muslim".

It's like saying "Americans" wear white sheets and burn crosses instead of saying "Klan members" wear white sheets and burn crosses.

Well now you're saying that someone is implying something because they didn't specify something else. Then you are using a terrible analogical example to explain why you're doing this. Let's stick with religious analogies when discussing religion, okay?

Whenever you or some of your liberal colleagues discuss matters and issues involving Christian religious beliefs, people who believe our nation is founded on Christian principles, and people who just generally believe in Christian faiths, do you specify "radical" or "extremist" when you call them ignorant superstitious knuckle dragging Chr'shtuns who think the world is 6000 years old? I never see you guys use "extremist" or "radical" when you're having these debates, it's always just Christians, lumped in together as one. The Religious Right... Am I wrong?

As I pointed out before, it should not need to be clarified, that we are talking about Muslims who don't subscribe to the radical views of Islam, or the belief we should live under barbaric, sexist, and deplorable Sharia law. But these Muslims are not exactly coming out of the woodwork to condemn this radical view in their religion. Takiyya is the radical Islamic practice of lying, outright perpetrating fraud, to further the objectives of Sharia and Islam. So it becomes a very real and legitimate concern, that a person claiming to be a "moderate" Muslim, is deceiving us. Now, I didn't make this up, and it's not a lie I am spreading, it's legitimate fact you can research for yourself, I am merely bringing it to the table. ...FACT CHECK THAT!
 
As I pointed out before, it should not need to be clarified, that we are talking about Muslims who don't subscribe to the radical views of Islam, or the belief we should live under barbaric, sexist, and deplorable Sharia law. But these Muslims are not exactly coming out of the woodwork to condemn this radical view in their religion

This is a lie. You have routinely said that the respectable american muslims at 51 Park, are radicals, intent on destroying america, and who's intent is to build a trophy mosque "at ground zero" to celebrate victory on 9/11. None of which is remotely true. Furthermore, I linked you up to a plethora of statements from across the planet from the worlds most prominent and leading muslims and muslim-organizations condemning terrorist attacks, and holding them to be un-islamic.

DIXIE: "Takiyya is the radical Islamic practice of lying, outright perpetrating fraud to further the objectives of Sharia and Islam. So it becomes a very real and legitimate concern, that a person claiming to be a "moderate" Muslim, is deceiving us.

Now, I didn't make this up, and it's not a lie I am spreading, it's legitimate fact you can research for yourself, I am merely bringing it to the table. ...FACT CHECK THAT!"

Okay, I fact checked it, and you lied. You need to stop reading rightwing blogs.

Taqiyya is the Quranic principle that holds one blameless for concealing your faith if you are under physical threat of torture to renounce your beliefs.

Makes perfect sense to me.
Taqiyya: The practice of concealing one’s faith in dangerous circumstances originates in the Qur’an itself, which deems blameless those who disguise their beliefs in such cases [3]. The practice of taqiyya in difficult circumstances is considered legitimate by Muslims of various persuasions. Sunni and Shi’i commentators alike observe that Q 16:106 in particular refers to the case of ‘Ammar b. Yasir, who was forced to renounce his beliefs under physical duress and torture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
 
Last edited:
Well now you're saying that someone is implying something because they didn't specify something else. Then you are using a terrible analogical example to explain why you're doing this. Let's stick with religious analogies when discussing religion, okay?

You are correct in saying they're not a religion, but this is in their masthead:

Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!


And in their list of goals is stated: "The White Christian people have been betrayed by our nations political, economic, educational, and religious leaders...

Through the aggressive and combined effort of Knights' units (The core of the grassroots movement) to work within their community in all aspects of a political campaign, including but not limited to:

Getting literature into the hands of everyone in the community.

Keeping the name "The Knights Party" in continual high profile.

Sponsoring ads in local newspapers and on local radio and television networks.

Working on petition drives to achieve ballot access for Klansmen or Klanswomen who run for either local, state, or federal offices; such as school board, mayor, state representative, congress, senate, etc.

Conducting community goodwill projects.

Organizing and working on "get to the polls" campaigns, to insure that everyone who will vote in our favor can have the opportunity to do so.

Recruiting new associates and volunteers for The Knights Party who will work toward the election of Klansmen and Klanswomen to public office.

...We must take back control of OUR U.S. government. We intend to put Klansmen and Klanswomen in office all the way from the local school board to the White House!"


Whenever you or some of your liberal colleagues discuss matters and issues involving Christian religious beliefs, people who believe our nation is founded on Christian principles, and people who just generally believe in Christian faiths, do you specify "radical" or "extremist" when you call them ignorant superstitious knuckle dragging Chr'shtuns who think the world is 6000 years old?

I'm a liberal Christian and personally call those people "rabid righties". The kind of RWs I would support, you guys call "RINOs". It's today's GOP that's moved your party so far to the right, not liberals.

I never see you guys use "extremist" or "radical" when you're having these debates, it's always just Christians, lumped in together as one. The Religious Right... Am I wrong?

You must have skipped over all the posts using words like 'wingnut", "far-right". "lunatic fringe", etc. to describe them.

As I pointed out before, it should not need to be clarified, that we are talking about Muslims who don't subscribe to the radical views of Islam, or the belief we should live under barbaric, sexist, and deplorable Sharia law.

Maybe that's your opinion but it's not necessarily true of all others posting against them.

But these Muslims are not exactly coming out of the woodwork to condemn this radical view in their religion.
images


'Peace Does Not Make the News'
Muslim moderates promoting tolerance and dialogue struggle to be heard'


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,420662,00.html

Takiyya is the radical Islamic practice of lying, outright perpetrating fraud, to further the objectives of Sharia and Islam.

"Takiyya is a theological concept within Islam, it appears from Shiism . Taqiyya means "to protect". The doctrine is to allow Muslims to hide or deny their faith when threatened or prosecuted."

You're taking a pretty big leap in tying "threat and prosecution" to basic doctrine. How about connecting the dots that show this inevitability.

So it becomes a very real and legitimate concern, that a person claiming to be a "moderate" Muslim, is deceiving us.

It's only a concern if you're approaching them with the idea that they're lying and it's up to them to prove otherwise. What I'm getting from you is that they're guilty until proven innocent.

Now, I didn't make this up, and it's not a lie I am spreading, it's legitimate fact you can research for yourself, I am merely bringing it to the table. ...FACT CHECK THAT!

It seems like you get your "facts" from the likes of Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes and other anti-Muslim people or groups who come with an agenda and then cherry-pick info to support it.
 
Back
Top