FACT CHECK: Islam already lives near ground zero

[Jarod]

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!

liar

 

[christiefan915]

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!

What exactly is it that you want?

Do you want Obama, Congress, the SC or somebody to forbid the project?

This is a local issue and it passed muster in NYC. RWs are constantly bemoaning "big government" but I guess in this instance you'd be happy for "big government" to step in and put the kibosh on Park51.

 

[NOVA]

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.

You post it yourself and still don't freakin' understand what you've posted...?
Thats amazing...

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.

Have some 6 year old explain that simple phrase to you, you unAmerican moron....

Thats in addition to concealing one’s faith and totally different in meaning...


Don';t ask Christiefan....she a pinhead moron too, that just doesn't comprehend plain English.

 

[Canceled2]

Once again stringy you have proven nothing.

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.



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.

 

[christiefan915]

You post it yourself and still don't freakin' understand what you've posted...?
Thats amazing...
Have some 6 year old explain that simple phrase to you, you unAmerican moron....

Thats in addition to concealing one’s faith and totally different in meaning...


Don';t ask Christiefan....she a pinhead moron too, that just doesn't comprehend plain English.

Okay, Mr. Muslim Scholar, why don't you explain it to us... in detail, illustrated with examples. Obviously your studies have made you more knowledgeable that the imams, so how about setting all of us straight.

 

[Cypress]

edited for accuracy and completeness.

You post it yourself and still don't freakin' understand what you've posted...?
Thats amazing...
Have some 6 year old explain that simple phrase to you, you unAmerican moron....

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...and refers to the practice of precautionary dissimulation whereby believers may conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion....(or, those who are under threat of) physical duress and torture.[2]

Thats in addition to concealing one’s faith and totally different in meaning...


Don';t ask Christiefan....she a pinhead moron too, that just doesn't comprehend plain English.

A religion that holds blameless people who hide or disguise their religion when under threat of persecution, physical threats, and torture, seems eminently reasonable to me. Didn't a lot of jews pretend they weren't jews during the holocaust, to avoid death and torture?

It doesn't say american muslims can hide their religion in a fantastical plot to overthrow the United States government.


If it doesn't sound reasonable to you, that's fine. I know republicans salivate at the prospect of torture.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Okay, Mr. Muslim Scholar, why don't you explain it to us... in detail, illustrated with examples. Obviously your studies have made you more knowledgeable that the imams, so how about setting all of us straight.

Yeah, it would take "illustrated examples" for you fucktards! Hell, break out the damn coloring books and crayons! We need to go back to kindergarten and start over with you people!

This is really beyond pathetic, there are many moderate Muslims in America, who have condemned this mosque, and confirmed what has been said about it being a trophy of conquest. Why Prissy and the rest of you want to just continue to IGNORE that fact, I do not know? Are these paranoid right-wing intolerant racist Muslims? WTF??

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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...and refers to the practice of precautionary dissimulation whereby believers may conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion....(or, those who are under threat of) physical duress and torture.[2]

Of course, Prissy fails to continue reading beyond this point, and misses this...

Similarly, Q 3:28 enjoins believers not to take the company of doubters unless as a means of safeguarding themselves. “Let not the believers take those who deny the truth for their allies in preference to the believers – since he who does this cuts himself off from God in everything – unless it be to protect yourself against them in this way…”[5] Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir, a prominent authority writes, "Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil may protect himself through outward show." As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad's companion, al-Hassan, who said, “taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity].”

Or this...

Shi'i Uses

As a minority living under the political dominance of Sunni Muslims, it was often necessary for Shi’i communities to employ prudence and cautions in order to protect themselves. In Shi’i legal literature, there are a range of situations in which taqiyya may be used and in some cases, even required. For Shi’i Muslims, taqiyya has two aspects: to conceal their association with the Imams when revealing it would result in danger, and protecting the esoteric teachings of the Imams from those who lack the capacity to grasp them.

Or this...

One Twelver Shi’i authority, Ayatollah Sistani describes the concept of taqiyya as follows:

1) Taqiyya is done for safety reasons. For example, a person fears that he might be killed or harmed, if he does not observe taqiyya. In this case, it is obligatory to observe taqiyya.
2) Reconciliatory taqiyya. This type of taqiyya is done when a person intends to reconcile with the other side or when he intends to soften their hearts. This kind of taqiyya is permissible but not obligatory.
3) Sometimes, taqiyya may cause a more important obligation to be lost or missed, if so it is forbidden. For example, when I know that silence would cause oppression and infidelity to spread and will make people go astray, in such a situation it is not permissible to be silent and to dissimulate.
4) Sometimes, taqiyya may lead to the death of an innocent person. If so, it is not permissible. It is therefore haram (forbidden) to kill a human being to save your own life.[7]

When I said you need to research Taqiyya, I didn't mean run off over to Wikipedia and look for a paragraph to support your ignorant view, and run back here to post it. I meant, go look at various sources, do some background research of history, and how Taqiyya has been applied before, and contrast that with what is happening today.

I don't really understand why liberals are having a such hard time understanding Taqiyya, you people practice it daily, to protect your liberal ideology! It's not because you're being threatened, or find yourselves in danger, it's just to protect liberalism from being criticized, or to demonize the opposition. Seems like you'd understand this concept!

 

[christiefan915]

Yeah, it would take "illustrated examples" for you fucktards! Hell, break out the damn coloring books and crayons! We need to go back to kindergarten and start over with you people!

This is really beyond pathetic, there are many moderate Muslims in America, who have condemned this mosque, and confirmed what has been said about it being a trophy of conquest. Why Prissy and the rest of you want to just continue to IGNORE that fact, I do not know? Are these paranoid right-wing intolerant racist Muslims? WTF??

Exactly why I asked for details. Why don't you jump in and save his tush? I responded to you several posts before this one.

"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."

And:

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


There are more moderate Muslims in America who see religious tolerance and rule of law as something to celebrate. How many of those you claim are against the project have taken that position because they see an upsurge in Muslim bigotry and are tired of fighting that fight. People like you would give terrorists just what they want, a club to beat us with over our intolerance.

 

[christiefan915]

Of course, Prissy fails to continue reading beyond this point, and misses this...



Or this...



Or this...



When I said you need to research Taqiyya, I didn't mean run off over to Wikipedia and look for a paragraph to support your ignorant view, and run back here to post it. I meant, go look at various sources, do some background research of history, and how Taqiyya has been applied before, and contrast that with what is happening today.

I don't really understand why liberals are having a such hard time understanding Taqiyya, you people practice it daily, to protect your liberal ideology! It's not because you're being threatened, or find yourselves in danger, it's just to protect liberalism from being criticized, or to demonize the opposition. Seems like you'd understand this concept!

According to your own examples, Taqiyya was traditionally used among the different Muslim sects. There's nothing in the Qur'an that drops Christianity or Judaism into the mix. You need to read up on the history of Sunni, Shi'a and Sufi political differences to put Taqiyya in context.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Exactly why I asked for details. Why don't you jump in and save his tush? I responded to you several posts before this one.

"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."

You seem to "get" a lot from me that I simply don't say. I never said they were guilty, just that it raised cause for concern. If your boyfriend had told you, before you were married, that he believed it was okay to lie to you about an affair, in order to protect the marriage, then somewhere down the road, after you're married, you find lipstick on his collar, and he tells you it's because his secretary stumbled and fell into him, would you just accept his story, or would you be concerned that maybe he was practicing what he said he believed in?

What I have said is, we can't just accept what they claim at face value, they have the belief in the practice of Taqiyya, lying to conceal the truth in order to advance their cause. So we have to be cautious, we have to look beyond their statements, and examine their actions. This Imam Rauf has had some fairly dubious actions! That's all I'm saying!

There are more moderate Muslims in America who see religious tolerance and rule of law as something to celebrate. How many of those you claim are against the project have taken that position because they see an upsurge in Muslim bigotry and are tired of fighting that fight. People like you would give terrorists just what they want, a club to beat us with over our intolerance.

Well, I've listened to these moderate Muslims speak out against the mosque, and that's not at all what they have indicated. They agree completely with what I have stated, that radicals in their religion will view this as a trophy of conquest, regardless of whether that is how it is intended. I find it hard to believe this is a sincere gesture of outreach, because of the divisiveness it is causing. IF that were TRULY the intent, the Imam would say... You know what, you are right, it was insensitive of us to plan this so close to ground zero, and we would like some input from non-Muslims on where we could work together on this project in a more appropriate location. That is what someone would do, if the REAL intent were honestly "outreach."

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

According to your own examples, Taqiyya was traditionally used among the different Muslim sects. There's nothing in the Qur'an that drops Christianity or Judaism into the mix. You need to read up on the history of Sunni, Shi'a and Sufi political differences to put Taqiyya in context.

WTF are you yammering about now? What do Christians and Jews have to do with the practice of Taqiyya by Muslims? The Qur'an specifically states Taqiyya can be used in times of war... Radical Islam declared war on us in 1992! Hello?

 

[christiefan915]

You seem to "get" a lot from me that I simply don't say. I never said they were guilty, just that it raised cause for concern. If your boyfriend had told you, before you were married, that he believed it was okay to lie to you about an affair, in order to protect the marriage, then somewhere down the road, after you're married, you find lipstick on his collar, and he tells you it's because his secretary stumbled and fell into him, would you just accept his story, or would you be concerned that maybe he was practicing what he said he believed in?

Well, here's the deal. There is no proof that the people connected with Park51 are anything other than moderate. They've been using the building for over a year, after it stood abandoned for eight years, and nobody was complaining back in July 2009 when they first moved in. NYers were happy that the eyesore was going to be renovated, when they heard that the new building would have "Besides the Muslim prayer space, ... a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare services, art exhibitions, bookstore, culinary school, and a food court serving halal dishes."

Here's Laura Ingraham supporting the building before she was against it:

INGRAHAM: I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it. [Mayor] Bloomberg is for it. Rabbis are saying they don’t have a problem with it. [...] I like what you’re trying to do and Ms. Khan we appreciate it and come on my radio show some time.

So what changed? Why did this only become an issue in May 2010?

What I have said is, we can't just accept what they claim at face value, they have the belief in the practice of Taqiyya, lying to conceal the truth in order to advance their cause. So we have to be cautious, we have to look beyond their statements, and examine their actions. This Imam Rauf has had some fairly dubious actions! That's all I'm saying!

And I'm saying that unless somebody can come up pretty strong proof (proof, not supposition) that there's a nefarious purpose behind this project, I intend to accept it at face value rather than to think the worst based on no evidence.

Well, I've listened to these moderate Muslims speak out against the mosque, and that's not at all what they have indicated. They agree completely with what I have stated, that radicals in their religion will view this as a trophy of conquest, regardless of whether that is how it is intended.

Even if this is true, how do their opinions translate into action? They should be aware by now that Muslims were also killed on 9/11.

I find it hard to believe this is a sincere gesture of outreach, because of the divisiveness it is causing. IF that were TRULY the intent, the Imam would say... You know what, you are right, it was insensitive of us to plan this so close to ground zero, and we would like some input from non-Muslims on where we could work together on this project in a more appropriate location. That is what someone would do, if the REAL intent were honestly "outreach."

There was no problem when they bought the building a year ago. The plans were a matter of public record. The imam and his wife went on TV and talked about the building with no outcry. Then ten months later the s*it hit the fan. This happened only because of the bigotry of people like gingrich, Palin, Geller, McCain, Romney and their supporters who went to the media and whipped up a frenzy. Now people are starting to protest building mosques in TN, CT and CA, hundreds of miles from Ground Zero.

You all can argue till doomsday about insensitivity, trophy mosque, taqiyya, etc. but it's just putting lipstick on the pig, to quote your heroine. The bigotry still shines through. Maybe you guys should take a tip from this writer:

It is hard not to conclude that the reason conservatives are so upset by the proposed mosque is that they don't have much faith in their own culture, and it is too bad they don't have Voltaire's confidence in liberalism. Imagine a society that could not just permit, but actually encourage Muslims to build a mosque a few blocks from Ground Zero. How fearsome would that be?

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/monument+modernity/3420572/story.html#ixzz0xGt6fd1T

 

[christiefan915]

WTF are you yammering about now? What do Christians and Jews have to do with the practice of Taqiyya by Muslims? The Qur'an specifically states Taqiyya can be used in times of war... Radical Islam declared war on us in 1992! Hello?

The Qur'an was written 1400 years ago and the teachings were directed to the people and events of the time. Context is everything.

Do you believe everything in the OT is supposed to apply today?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The Qur'an was written 1400 years ago and the teachings were directed to the people and events of the time. Context is everything.

Do you believe everything in the OT is supposed to apply today?

A New Testament was written and is part of the Bible.
Where's the New Testament for the Koran, or are you saying that the teachings of the Koran should be ignored??

Let's see you sell that idea to the Muslims.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well, here's the deal. There is no proof that the people connected with Park51 are anything other than moderate.

Uh, yes, there is proof they are not moderate Muslims. Rauf says he believes the US should be Sharia compliant. Doesn't get much more radical than Sharia. He will not condemn Hammas as a terror organization... dosen't get much more supporting of radicalism than that. He has said they will accept funding for the mosque, from Saudi Arabia and Iran, and there are no "moderate" Muslims in those places, who still have their heads. I think there are at least a dozen or so, red flags here, and if you don't see them, you are willfully suspending disbelief, or blind.

They've been using the building for over a year, after it stood abandoned for eight years, and nobody was complaining back in July 2009 when they first moved in.

And you knew this talking point...err...information, how exactly? You routinely keep up with the whereabouts of these people? This sounds as if it might be information you've gleaned from a biased source somewhere, who is putting out propaganda to fuel the controversy. But nevertheless... You seem to be under some prejudiced and bigoted assumptions here, because it seems like you are asking me why people didn't complain that Muslims moved in the building. I would imagine they didn't complain because this is America, and Muslims have a right to move into the building. Just a guess there!

NYers were happy that the eyesore was going to be renovated, when they heard that the new building would have "Besides the Muslim prayer space, ... a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare services, art exhibitions, bookstore, culinary school, and a food court serving halal dishes."

Just exactly how many "average" New Yorkers live in lower Manhattan? I mean, these pictures we see of the congested sidewalks, for as far as the eye can see... that's all lower Manhattans? Isn't pretty much most of the district businesses and stuff? You're making it sound like some quaint little village, where the town folk were all happy and excited at something new coming to town... all this *breathless* stuff... oooooh... kewl...halal dishes!! We're talking about lower Manhattan.

Here's Laura Ingraham supporting the building before she was against it:

INGRAHAM: I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it. [Mayor] Bloomberg is for it. Rabbis are saying they don’t have a problem with it. [...] I like what you’re trying to do and Ms. Khan we appreciate it and come on my radio show some time.

So what changed? Why did this only become an issue in May 2010?

Well, I would say, people started looking in to this Imam and who has been associated with, what he has said on other occasions, and that sort of thing. Again, I think your little 'Ingraham' examples kind of blow your theory out of the water regarding intolerance of Muslims, doesn't it? Doesn't sound like LH is having a cow that a Muslim is in the neighborhood to me... does it appear that way to you? Does she seem to be an intolerant bigot who wants to deny ANY Muslim the right to worship?

And I'm saying that unless somebody can come up pretty strong proof (proof, not supposition) that there's a nefarious purpose behind this project, I intend to accept it at face value rather than to think the worst based on no evidence.

And this is exactly why Taqiyya works so well! You are just gullible and stupid enough to take people at face value, if you don't have some concrete proof. Well, there isn't going to be any concrete proof here, radical Muslims aren't going to announce they are building a trophy mosque at ground zero... that just isn't realistic to believe.

Even if this is true, how do their opinions translate into action? They should be aware by now that Muslims were also killed on 9/11.

I do not understand your response. I am sure you were trying to make some point, but it totally escapes me. Yes, Muslims were also killed on 9/11, but Muslims were not the target of the attack. In fact, a concrete and steel building was not even the target. The target was a symbol. Just as this mosque is a symbol of their conquest.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post, because you start back into the same thing again, how none of the villagers in lower Manhattan were opposed to the mosque, and were all excited about the prospects of something great and wonderful for their fledgling community.... These mosque people, they should hire you!

 

[christiefan915]

Uh, yes, there is proof they are not moderate Muslims. Rauf says he believes the US should be Sharia compliant.

Cite and context.

Doesn't get much more radical than Sharia. He will not condemn Hammas as a terror organization... dosen't get much more supporting of radicalism than that.

He said " “I’m not a politician. I try to avoid the issues. This issue of terrorism is a very complex question. …I’m a bridge builder…”, and you're condemning him for being diplomatic. Our State Dept. designates it as a terrorist organization but every country in the world doesn't see it that way. I'm sure your opinion of Park 51 would undergo a 180-degree change if he did condemn Hamas, right?

He has said they will accept funding for the mosque, from Saudi Arabia and Iran, and there are no "moderate" Muslims in those places, who still have their heads. I think there are at least a dozen or so, red flags here, and if you don't see them, you are willfully suspending disbelief, or blind.

Where did you get this info? I'm only finding second-hand references on RW blogs and they don't count. It's laughable that you would criticize a Saudi donation, given how tight bush and his corrupt cronies along with Harken, profited from Saudi investments in their businesses. And how about the U.S. helping the Saudis during the '80s in their huge military buildup of airfields, ports, and bases throughout the kingdom? If you have a bone to pick with the Saudis, you should focus your outrage on all the U.S.-Saudi deals and connections that've been going on for decades, instead of hyperventilating over any *possible* funding of Park51.

And you knew this talking point...err...information, how exactly? You routinely keep up with the whereabouts of these people? This sounds as if it might be information you've gleaned from a biased source somewhere, who is putting out propaganda to fuel the controversy.

No, I mined the web for all information pertaining to the purchase of the building. It's the same info that's available to anyone who cares to do the research.

But nevertheless... You seem to be under some prejudiced and bigoted assumptions here, because it seems like you are asking me why people didn't complain that Muslims moved in the building. I would imagine they didn't complain because this is America, and Muslims have a right to move into the building. Just a guess there!

Now you're being schizophrenic. They bought the building in 7/09 and began having prayer services there (i.e. using one room like a mosque) starting in 9/09. Nobody complained back then, at least not that it made national news. So why are you for them having the right to move in and hold prayer services in 2009, and against it in 2010?

Just exactly how many "average" New Yorkers live in lower Manhattan? I mean, these pictures we see of the congested sidewalks, for as far as the eye can see... that's all lower Manhattans? Isn't pretty much most of the district businesses and stuff? You're making it sound like some quaint little village, where the town folk were all happy and excited at something new coming to town... all this *breathless* stuff... oooooh... kewl...halal dishes!! We're talking about lower Manhattan.

Upgrading a building and increasing property values isn't a bad thing.

Well, I would say, people started looking in to this Imam and who has been associated with, what he has said on other occasions, and that sort of thing. Again, I think your little 'Ingraham' examples kind of blow your theory out of the water regarding intolerance of Muslims, doesn't it? Doesn't sound like LH is having a cow that a Muslim is in the neighborhood to me... does it appear that way to you? Does she seem to be an intolerant bigot who wants to deny ANY Muslim the right to worship?

Again. Ingraham was for the building before she was against it. In 12/09 she said "I like what you’re trying to do and Ms. Khan we appreciate it and come on my radio show some time." In 8/10 she said "Well, I say the terrorists have won with how this has gone down. 600 feet from where thousands of our fellow Americans were incinerated in the name of political Islam, and we’re supposed to be cheering this?!" Hypocrite much?

And this is exactly why Taqiyya works so well! You are just gullible and stupid enough to take people at face value, if you don't have some concrete proof.

Surely you jest, or else you have a really, really cynical view of human nature. You have no proof whatsoever that "radical Muslims" are building the mosque, yet you've been taking RW blogs at face value and pushing this theory like it's a done deal. The people involved are the same people who've been praying together with the imam for years, in another location. All they're doing now is rebuilding and renovating.

Well, there isn't going to be any concrete proof here, radical Muslims aren't going to announce they are building a trophy mosque at ground zero... that just isn't realistic to believe.

Your comment is fallacious, and if you weren't so invested in so-called Muslim evilness, you'd understand why. And why should I believe anything RWs say about this project? I just posted about their lie that the building would be dedicated on 9/11/11. That's what fear-mongers do, take a lie and run with it, and people like you eat it up with a spoon.

I do not understand your response. I am sure you were trying to make some point, but it totally escapes me. Yes, Muslims were also killed on 9/11, but Muslims were not the target of the attack. In fact, a concrete and steel building was not even the target. The target was a symbol. Just as this mosque is a symbol of their conquest.

Your comment was: "... radicals in their religion will view this as a trophy of conquest, regardless of whether that is how it is intended." My response was it doesn't matter how radical Muslims view it (if they view it at all), it's actions that count. And you have nothing to back your comment that the Muslims are radical, and that they're planning something evil in the community center.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post, because you start back into the same thing again, how none of the villagers in lower Manhattan were opposed to the mosque, and were all excited about the prospects of something great and wonderful for their fledgling community.... These mosque people, they should hire you!

Okay by me, but the rest of the post was to condemn those RWs who blew this real estate purchase into a national controversy. It's all just bigotry with a capital "B", and you're willfully blind not to admit it.

 

[NOVA]

it's actions that count. And you have nothing to back your comment that the Muslims are radical

This would be funny if ....(if you can call ignorance funny)...if it wasn't so sad.

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&...tle&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQsAQwAA&biw=1366&bih=582

 

[Canceled2]

Anyone who buys the BS that Rauf is not a politician is either blindly ignorant or frighteningly stupid!

The Imam is neck fucking deep in politics! He "fully" supports shariah' law and plans on continuing his shariah' project in the new mosque...bringing all sects of Muslims together...yeah mixing the so called radicals with the unproven moderates...good plan

What is the number one tenet of Islam? To bring all infidels under subjugation to Mohammad...this is true even for the so called moderates.

 

[christiefan915]

This would be funny if ....(if you can call ignorance funny)...if it wasn't so sad.

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&...tle&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQsAQwAA&biw=1366&bih=582

Try to keep up. This is about the Muslims who attend prayer at Park51.