Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero

[joepistole]

It is a mere 600 feet from the site of impact. And there is a mosque in the building.

Can we have an interdict on the rehashing of the latter argument? If everyone wants to run around saying it's not just a mosque: great. But saying that it isn't a mosque is just not true.

I suppose you have some fact to support your claims? If so, now would be the time to produce them. You have already seen some of my facts/evidence.

Two, a mosque, using the traditional definition, is a place where Muslims come to worship. There is nothing I have read that says Muslims will come to the community center to worship. The center is open to all Muslim and non Muslim alike...sort of like a YMCA.

Using the standard definition of a mosque, there is a mosque in the Pentago...just a few feet away from where the 9/11 plane struck the Pentagon. So why is no one up in arms about the mosque in the Pentagon?

Three, using your post as a reference, you say that the site of the Muslim center is 600 feet. Now let's put that into perspective. The length of a footballl field is 300 feet. So the proposed Islamic center is 2 football fields from ground zero.

So how far away from ground zero is far enough away from ground zero, a mile...two miles...a hundred miles....a thousand miles?

One of the things that really scares me is the willingness of Americans to surrender hard won rights and principals before the God of terror.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Euro...-Zero-mosque-bolster-the-thing-opponents-fear

 

[GeoffP]

I suppose you have some fact to support your claims? If so, now would be the time to produce them. You have already seen some of my facts/evidence.

Indeed I have: you will find mine on this thread. You are free to peruse it at your will, but I will not re-collate its contents as I have found it makes little difference in these debates.

Here, first you imply that there is no mosque (when every report indicates there will be, a fact simply impossible to miss):

Two, a mosque, using the traditional definition, is a place where Muslims come to worship. There is nothing I have read that says Muslims will come to the community center to worship. The center is open to all Muslim and non Muslim alike...sort of like a YMCA.

But below you're off about definitions of mosques, as though the centre will contain a mosque, contradicting the above. Which is your perspective? It seems unlikely to be both.

Using the standard definition of a mosque, there is a mosque in the Pentago...just a few feet away from where the 9/11 plane struck the Pentagon. So why is no one up in arms about the mosque in the Pentagon?

Again: read the thread. It's a multi-faith centre, not a mosque explicitly.

Three, using your post as a reference, you say that the site of the Muslim center is 600 feet [away from the impact site of Ground Zero]. Now let's put that into perspective. The length of a footballl field is 300 feet. So the proposed Islamic center is 2 football fields from ground zero.

So, not very far, and particularly so given the breadth of damage at the site. And being proposed by a questionable fellow. The positioning strikes me, many Muslims, and President Obama as somewhat insensitive: moreso the sources of funding may well be from Saudi Arabia. Reason enough to wonder, and to investigate.

(Or you could just take Panda's road and imply that I mean to convey a pitchfork-and-torch lynching. )

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Does crack make Muslims call the Temple they destroyed a Zionist myth?

Really? Could have sworn it was the Romans.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

He makes a salient point here: it's an old habit to build on the ruins of your enemies as a triumphal statement.

That isn't what's happening here. To suggest that a group named after a period in Islamic history that Christians, Jews, and Muslims lived in harmony and tolerance and blatantly so as stated on their organizations official website, who infact opposes the naughtiness of bin Laden, that sole aim is to build an Islamic Centre is comparable to any of that is silly and absurd and highly sensational. I have also not seen any evidence to suggest that his funding is suspect and linked to naughty nations in the naughty desert whom are naughty. I have seen no evidence to suggest he is a "radical," or any of this crap. I also don't think the other Islamic Centres and masjids that's construction is being opposed to are linked to those bloody Saudis or any of that either.

The argument over this keeps shifting. First, the area of the site was to sacred aside from the strip clubs and gambling parlors. Now it's because of the alleged funding of CI and Imam Rauf. What is the next excuse going to be?

 

[IamJoseph]

Really? Could have sworn it was the Romans.

Rome recruited 200,000 Arabs in this destruction. Titus caught the Arabs tearing the torsos of Jewish corpses looking for gold and called them the greatrest of savages.

Then the Arabs made a mish mash of the Hebrew bible with their own version and dumped a mosque on the temple site - the same Arabs who call that temple a Zionist myth today.

I don't imagine the Flavius Josephus writings are part of Islamic teachings.

 

[joepistole]

Indeed I have: you will find mine on this thread. You are free to peruse it at your will, but I will not re-collate its contents as I have found it makes little difference in these debates.

You admit, that it is not a mosque just a few sentences from here.

Here, first you imply that there is no mosque (when every report indicates there will be, a fact simply impossible to miss.

I do more than imply, I say there is no evidence that this is a mosque. And I repeat the challenge to you to show proof of same. You have done nothing more than repeat the nonsense coming from right wing extremists.

OH, and what reports are those? The building permits do not say a mosque. It went through the building permits process as a community center...not a mosque. I know Fox News is reporting it as a Mosque along with limbaugh and all of the other right wing whackos...but they have been known to frequently lie.

Again, why are you not protesting the mosque at the Pentagon? Why is New York special?

But below you're off about definitions of mosques, as though the centre will contain a mosque, contradicting the above. Which is your perspective? It seems unlikely to be both.

Again: read the thread. It's a multi-faith centre, not a mosque explicitly.

A multifaith center with a pool and recreaction center is not a place of worship. And again, if this bothers you so much, why are you not equally outraged by the mosque in the Pentagon just feed away from where the plane struck the building on 9/11? Muslims do pray at the mosque in the Pentagon on a daily basis.

So, not very far, and particularly so given the breadth of damage at the site. And being proposed by a questionable fellow. The positioning strikes me, many Muslims, and President Obama as somewhat insensitive: moreso the sources of funding may well be from Saudi Arabia. Reason enough to wonder, and to investigate.

(Or you could just take Panda's road and imply that I mean to convey a pitchfork-and-torch lynching. )

LOL, again please explain how this is different from the mosque in the Pentagon? And please explain how this fellow is so questionable? He was used by the george II administration as a roving ambassador to the Islamic world...similar to how the Obama administration is using him. So how is he good under a Republcian adiminstration but bad under a Democratic administration?

And as I said previously, the proposed site is more than 2 football fields away from ground zero and not even visible to ground zero. So if two football ffields is not far enough away, how far is far enough?

 

[Bells]

And so it is not the same scenario as that at the Ground Zero mosque.



This last comment didn't make any sense. Can you explain?



Well, if there were any reason to think they'd be using the site explicitly for that, or soliciting funds from other paedophiles, you'd have a point. Of course, you'd also have to have an attack of paedophiles at the site on, say, 3,000 or more children.

I suppose I don't have to remind you that calling all Catholics or even all Catholic clergy paedophiles is inaccurate and offensive.



Rather, this is where the argument strengthens: Rauf has a checkered history ("Dawah from the rubble of the Twin Towers" being onesuch), and appears to be no real Sufi at all. Many, many Muslims and non-Muslims have the same questions.

Why?



Personally? I've witnessed some anti-Semitism by Islamists, or an Islamist working in a related department. My son was transiently the victim of a presumed Islamist's bigotry, although nothing serious. I've never been attacked by Nazis other than verbally, but I have reason enough to despise and interfere with their doings.



Islamists? Utterly, of course.



Islamists? Utterly, of course. :shrug: And?



For the same reason that people anywhere are likely to be swayed by slick, bigoted outreach campaigns. It happens. Why would I let it do so, without appropriate vetting?



The same issue here: don't I think people are smart enough to ignore the KKK? Don't I think Australians are kind enough to demand that the Aborigines with respect? Don't I think men are good enough that we don't need to raise awareness of women's rights and social equality, or even to run abused women's shelters? Surely I think that men are good enough to learn from their mistakes, admit guilt and change? Etc.



Really?

Your "side" supports the execution of homosexuals, the virtual imprisonment of women, and the suppression of other religions and races. Not so? :shrug:

In short, you have no proof that it will be preaching Islamist ideology or extremism.

Mumbling 'something something' about the funding of this building really is a moot point. They are allowed to build it there. There is no proof that there will even be any preaching going on in this building. I guess they could be preaching in the calls for the water aerobics.. "God is great.. now lift your left knee.. and pump.. pump.. feel the burn.. Must kill infidels.. Do you feel the burn ladies?"..

All I am seeing from you is a bunch of bigotted conspiracy theory arguments.

 

[GeoffP]

That isn't what's happening here. To suggest that a group named after a period in Islamic history that Christians, Jews, and Muslims lived in harmony and tolerance and blatantly so as stated on their organizations official website

Or, named for the first major European conquest by Islamists. :shrug: Can you demonstrate any differently? (Without resorting to their website, please.)

The argument over this keeps shifting. First, the area of the site was to sacred aside from the strip clubs and gambling parlors.

I'm sorry: what in hell are you talking about?

Now it's because of the alleged funding of CI and Imam Rauf. What is the next excuse going to be?

Rauf is the central figure in this drama, and always has been. It's also true that the choice itself is insensitive. It smacks of something other than Sufism.

You admit, that it is not a mosque just a few sentences from here.

I'm going to repost my question from above here: what in hell are you talking about? I don't suppose you've confused my description of the "mosque" in the Pentagon with the Ground Zero Mosque? Mind those sentences, mon ami.

I do more than imply, I say there is no evidence that this is a mosque. And I repeat the challenge to you to show proof of same. You have done nothing more than repeat the nonsense coming from right wing extremists.

Really? Associated Press, the bastion of Islamic extremists, eh? News to me.

The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at ground zero, but two blocks away in a busy commercial area. We should continue to say it’s “near” ground zero, or two blocks away.

http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_081910b.html

Although one does wonder what a 'free press' is doing canalizing the terms of discussion and reporting. I'd be interested to see where you've seen the building permits; I don't frequent Fox News so I'm not familiar with their emissions.

Again, why are you not protesting the mosque at the Pentagon? Why is New York special?

:facepalm: Because the Pentagon mosque is a multi-faith centre, not a mosque. This means that all faiths are allowed to use it. Amusingly, if you check the AP link above, they got it wrong too. I think this fact gives the lie to the thought that opponents of the Ground Zero mosque are attempting to obstruct Islamic worship or whatever other nonsensical supposition is being proposed this week.

LOL, again please explain how this is different from the mosque in the Pentagon? And please explain how this fellow is so questionable? He was used by the george II administration as a roving ambassador to the Islamic world...similar to how the Obama administration is using him. So how is he good under a Republcian adiminstration but bad under a Democratic administration?

LOL indeed!

This is one of the classic - and I do mean classic - failings of Democrats; the constant black-and-white worldview involving Boosh! "If you don't like A now, why did you like A when Bush was around? Eh? Eh?" And so forth. You've collectively - well, not all of you, I suppose - got this astounding binary contrast on the brain. Let me be plain: I'm neither Republican (/duhr) nor Democrat (/snicker). I have given no approbation to Rauf in either of these very, very critical Administrations.

I do not like Rauf in Bush's boat
I do not like Rauf with a Saudi goat
I do not like his Grand Mosque plan
I want him properly vetted, Sam-I-Am.

I mean, honestly: to make this argument work, you'd have to A) illustrate some kind of pandering of Bush to Rauf, B) demonstrate equivalent Democrat pandering to him now, and C) explain why I should give a flying fuck about any of that; in essence - why it matters to my argument. I will pass on a truth to you here, and I hope that you will take it to heart: there is a wider world beyond Bush, the Republicans, the Democrats, Obama, Pelosi, whatever that senator was who diddled someone, Cap-and-Trade, Medicare, and so forth ad nauseam. Administration, administration, administration. God.

And as I said previously, the proposed site is more than 2 football fields away from ground zero and not even visible to ground zero. So if two football ffields is not far enough away, how far is far enough?

I'm not sure: a reasonable distance, I suppose. Debris from the aircraft fell on the spot; I'm reasonable sure it was covered with the wreckage. This seems to me a justifiable 'zone'. But I think you misunderstand this issue: ultimately, the choice of site is the province of the sensitivities of the builders to the tragedy of 9/11. Just how close they'd like to be to the site reflects their intent and their real interest in 'outreach' and healing old wounds.

In short, you have no proof that it will be preaching Islamist ideology or extremism.

I have a fair deal of suspicious connections. These will suffice as a rationale for further exploration of the issue.

All I am seeing from you is a bunch of bigotted conspiracy theory arguments.

You spelled "bigoted" wrong.

 

[pjdude1219]

Why is that mosque being compared with this one? It's origination, support, financing, apparent purpose, and actual role seem quite different.
So I'm not allowed to even raise an objection, express a doubt, no matter what "brand of Islam" this thing is intended to spread? No matter what means its supporters are intending to employ, no matter what ends they envision?

the problem isn't your objection it your lack of evidence.

They get to talk, and I don't, apparently. They get to wrap themselves in the banners of peace and understanding and mutual comity while building an international symbol of the triumph of Wahabi fundamentalism, naming it the Cordoba House, and thanking Allah for the "divine hand" that provided its location; I'm a hypocrite for thinking there is something wrong with that, because I'm not similarly objecting to all of Islam?

Prove its Wahabi that's right you don't need evidence right they just look shifty.

My problem is with them, their support, apparent purpose, and chosen means.

no your problem is their muslims building in new york if your motives what you claim they are they are you would provide proof.

Because you don't know who is actually supporting and financing this thing, and why. You are ascribing all kinds of laudable purposes and noble motives, without information and in the face of some disturbing indications.

the cordoba intiative and the ASMA

You are lumping all Muslims together, and assuming this thing represents the best of their religion as interpreted by you.

I'm doing nothing of the such. I merely believe iun giving the benefit of doubt until there is reason not to. please don't attack me since I am not echoing your blind fear and hate because no matter the elquounce of your protests that all you have going for your comments.

 

[pjdude1219]

Does crack make Muslims call the Temple they destroyed a Zionist myth? Or is my analogy not related to 9/11?! I suspect that is the reason for your evasion.

"I SHALL MAKE JERUSALEM AS A BURDEN UNTO THE NATIONS"

the Romans destroyed the second temple of Solomon

 

[joepistole]

I'm going to repost my question from above here: what in hell are you talking about? I don't suppose you've confused my description of the "mosque" in the Pentagon with the Ground Zero Mosque? Mind those sentences, mon ami.

And I quote, "Again: read the thread. It's a multi-faith centre, not a mosque explicitly." - Geoffp post number 442

Really? Associated Press, the bastion of Islamic extremists, eh? News to me.

Although one does wonder what a 'free press' is doing canalizing the terms of discussion and reporting. I'd be interested to see where you've seen the building permits; I don't frequent Fox News so I'm not familiar with their emissions.

Because the Pentagon mosque is a multi-faith centre, not a mosque. This means that all faiths are allowed to use it. Amusingly, if you check the AP link above, they got it wrong too. I think this fact gives the lie to the thought that opponents of the Ground Zero mosque are attempting to obstruct Islamic worship or whatever other nonsensical supposition is being proposed this week.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new_york/jewish_leaders_back_ground_zero_islamic_center

"Known as Cordoba House, the proposed center would rise as high as 15 stories and include a swimming pool, a performing arts center, a culinary school and child-care facilities. Opponents call the proposed center a mosque, but the project’s sponsors, the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement, describe it as a community center modeled after the 92nd Street Y and the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan.

The prayer space wouldn’t constitute a mosque, which has some very specific parameters, said Daisy Khan, ASMA’s executive director. A mosque, she added, would forbid eating or the playing of music, two activities that would take place at the center."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51

And you by your own admission, post number 442 and quoted just a couple of paragraphs earlier, site in question is a multifaith center. So again, my question to you is what is different between the multifaith center near ground zero different from the "multifaith center" in the Pentagon?

This is one of the classic - and I do mean classic - failings of Democrats; the constant black-and-white worldview involving Boosh! "If you don't like A now, why did you like A when Bush was around? Eh? Eh?" And so forth. You've collectively - well, not all of you, I suppose - got this astounding binary contrast on the brain. Let me be plain: I'm neither Republican (/duhr) nor Democrat (/snicker). I have given no approbation to Rauf in either of these very, very critical Administrations.

OH, I find the hypocrisy just amazing. For some reason Republicans, Tea Partiers, conservatives or whatever else you want to call yourselves these days, can see so clearly when Democrats do something and totally ignore it when their people do it. The truth should be the truth no matter party involved. Principals should hold equally regardless of the party.

My point being, Rauf did not suddenly become evil because a Democrat administration is using him like the preceeding Republican administration used him. And more importantly, there is no evidence that Rauf is anything but a moderate Islamist and an interfaith bridge builder. If you have evidence to the contrary, now is the time to show it.

People didn't complain about the governments relationship to Rauf before Democrats took over government. Rauf did not change. So why should the change in administration matter? Whay is Rauf now an evil doer?

I'm not sure: a reasonable distance, I suppose. Debris from the aircraft fell on the spot; I'm reasonable sure it was covered with the wreckage. This seems to me a justifiable 'zone'. But I think you misunderstand this issue: ultimately, the choice of site is the province of the sensitivities of the builders to the tragedy of 9/11. Just how close they'd like to be to the site reflects their intent and their real interest in 'outreach' and healing old wounds.

You cannot answer the question. How far is far enough away from ground zero for you? If you object to it being more than two football fields away from ground zero, then how far is far enough? And again, how is the multifaith center being constructed near ground zero different from the multifaith center in the Pentagon?

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Or, named for the first major European conquest by Islamists. :shrug: Can you demonstrate any differently? (Without resorting to their website, please.)

This "argument," is irrelevant. They have stated how they are using this and more or less this is how most Muslims would interpret said period in Islamic history. Of course, you can have a differing opinion and so forth but it's irrelevant because this isn't how the name is beng used. This interpretation is coming from non-Muslims. Should I say about other groups that I am not apart of that they are really saying say X when they say Y? Come on.

Rauf is the central figure in this drama, and always has been. It's also true that the choice itself is insensitive. It smacks of something other than Sufism.

What proof do you have? What is your basis for being suspicious of him? It seems like these arguments are based on a lot of "seems like," and other such vague abstract phrases. I am sure to David Icke, Imam Rauf may seem like a reptilian humanoid. But what proof do you have? I mean, what else do they have to say or do to "prove," just how bloody "progressive," and "moderate," they are? This is absurd.

 

[GeoffP]

Now, now: let's not go that way

And I quote, "Again: read the thread. It's a multi-faith centre, not a mosque explicitly." - Geoffp post number 442

And you quote wrongly, Joe. I was referring to the Pentagon prayer space. Come on: honestly, now. Do you really suppose I would tread on my own argument in such a manner?

The prayer space wouldn’t constitute a mosque, which has some very specific parameters, said Daisy Khan, ASMA’s executive director. A mosque, she added, would forbid eating or the playing of music, two activities that would take place at the center."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51

This is a speciously-based refusal. Rauf himself does not deny that there will be a mosque on-site that I've ever heard. Connecting singing to it might reinforce his supposed character as a Sufi, if you wanted to take that road.

I add in the comments of the AP, who I suspect also know the purpose of the construction:

Q: Is it just a mosque?

A: The developers have planned a 13-story, $100 million Islamic community center, complete with a pool, gym and 500-seat auditorium, of which the mosque would be a part.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012638406_mosque17.html

The $100 million, 13-story project proposed by Rauf's Cordoba Initiative for the site some two blocks from ground zero is modeled after the YMCA and Jewish Community Center. It would include a mosque, a swimming pool, gym, auditorium and other facilities.

...

"American Muslims have the right to practice their religion in accordance with the Constitution of the United States," Rauf said. "I see the article of independence as more compliant with the principles of Islam than what is available in many of the current Muslim countries."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/7165887.html

Certainly can't disagree with Rauf there. Still, he's suspicious enough to me that I think further investigation - and the release of his funding sources - would be appropriate, particularly if he's interested in bridge-building.

And you by your own admission, post number 442 and quoted just a couple of paragraphs earlier, site in question is a multifaith center.

No, Joe: I was referring to the Pentagon prayer space, not the Ground Zero mosque, as should be apparent. If that was not clear before, it is clear now.

So again, my question to you is what is different between the multifaith center near ground zero different from the "multifaith center" in the Pentagon?

Hold on a moment: what evidence do you have that it's a "multifaith centre" at Ground Zero? I certainly haven't said that. You've requested that evidence be presented on this subject; now would be the time for that evidence. I've already described the problem with Rauf; now you should reciprocate, and with something more substantive than Daisy Khan.

As for answering your question, you'll find that I have done: the proposed Ground Zero mosque is new and inappropriate situated, very possibly funded by questionable sources and promoted by questionable individuals. The other - the Pentagon room - is a multifaith prayer centre.

OH, I find the hypocrisy just amazing. For some reason Republicans, Tea Partiers, conservatives or whatever else you want to call yourselves these days, can see so clearly when Democrats do something and totally ignore it when their people do it. The truth should be the truth no matter party involved. Principals should hold equally regardless of the party.

Don't call me a Republican, Tea Partier, or conservative, Joe. Thanks. You're blinding yourself again.

People didn't complain about the governments relationship to Rauf before Democrats took over government. Rauf did not change. So why should the change in administration matter? Whay is Rauf now an evil doer?

"People" - what people, Joe? Why do you feel the all-important administration should matter?

You cannot answer the question.

That's because the question as posed is meaningless. You could ask your head-of-party, Mr. Obama, or NYS Democrats the same question: how far is respectful for them, since they also don't agree with its position? I've already referred to somewhere a pinch outside the dust cloud of the Twin Towers' crumbling, but as I've pointed out it's a loaded question.

Again: don't get fixated on this absurd Democrat-Republican war that's been raging all these years. There's a much wider world beyond this absurd fratricidal fury.

 

[GeoffP]

Shifting shiftiness

This "argument," is irrelevant. They have stated how they are using this and more or less this is how most Muslims would interpret said period in Islamic history. Of course, you can have a differing opinion and so forth but it's irrelevant because this isn't how the name is beng used.

Oh? What proof do you have? (See your comments below.)

This interpretation is coming from non-Muslims.

...and? Non-Muslims should have no opinion on this matter? Is this generally true for the members of any group referring to the actions or beliefs of any other?

What proof do you have? What is your basis for being suspicious of him?

His connections, his contradictions, his deafness to reasonable concerns.

It seems like these arguments are based on a lot of "seems like,"

What? Nothing more concrete than it "seems like" these arguments are based on "seems like" statements? That seems like avoidance!

I am sure to David Icke, Imam Rauf may seem like a reptilian humanoid.

David Icke thinks Faisal Rauf is Jewish?

But what proof do you have? I mean, what else do they have to say or do to "prove," just how bloody "progressive," and "moderate," they are? This is absurd.

Maybe not build in such a controversial place, be frank about their funding sources, and explain some of the Imam's connections in a manner that makes sense. I quite agree that he has the right to do none of these; and I have the right to raise these questions, and take whatever legal actions are available to get answers.

 

[Bells]

I have a fair deal of suspicious connections. These will suffice as a rationale for further exploration of the issue.

I see.

So does George Bush and his father - you know.. providing only the Saudis to actually fly out of the country in the first 12 hours or so after the 9/11 attack? Does that mean we should ban him from the Ground Zero site as well?

You keep switching around here. First you say your objections are because of who is funding this, but when that is falling on its face, you switch to 'it's Ground Zero'. It is not on Ground Zero. It is 2 blocks away. So tell me Geoff, what is the Muslim or Islam exclusion zone around that area?

You spelled "bigoted" wrong.

It was a typo. But it is good to see that when all else fails, you switch to looking at typing mistakes. Typical bigot. Any distraction is a good distraction I suppose.

I wonder Geoff. Are you a great fan of the Patriot Act? Where people can be detained or arrested on mere suspicion without any proof whatsoever?

After all, you are all for denying a group/religion the right to practice their religion on their own land based on mere suspicion without any proof whatsoever that your suspicions will come to fruition, do you also avidly support the arrest or detention of individuals based on mere suspicion and paranoia?

 

[S.A.M.]

The prayer space wouldn’t constitute a mosque, which has some very specific parameters, said Daisy Khan, ASMA’s executive director. A mosque, she added, would forbid eating or the playing of music, two activities that would take place at the center

So there is no mosque?

Then this thread is done.

 

[GeoffP]

I see.

So does George Bush and his father - you know.. providing only the Saudis to actually fly out of the country in the first 12 hours or so after the 9/11 attack? Does that mean we should ban him from the Ground Zero site as well?

I'm not sure. Is he planning to build a massive mosque complex there, probably with funds from Saudi Arabia? But by all means. Those who have nothing to hide and all. It's not impossible at all.

You keep switching around here.

Riiight - I get this comment back every so often, usually because they interpret my response to some principal argument of theirs as my own major angle of argument. Forcibly keeping myself from reading the next part of this paragraph, we turn to it and see...

First you say your objections are because of who is funding this, but when that is falling on its face, you switch to 'it's Ground Zero'.

Yup. Look, I've made this clear previously. I've even outlined specific cases and circumstances that would be less insensitive: open, clear communication would be one. Perhaps that's too much to ask. How is the argument "falling on its face"? You mean that you want more links to refuse to read?

It was a typo. But it is good to see that when all else fails, you switch to looking at typing mistakes. Typical bigot. Any distraction is a good distraction I suppose.

No, it was just that your argument didn't really mean anything or matter.

But maybe that's just my perspective as a member of a different "species" or something. Or you could blame it on my being white, or Catholic, like the last time we clashed. Silly old typical bigoted me, huh? You know those white people! Am I right? And: "When all else fails" - great stuff. Because I was so losing the argument to this point that I had to reach into my bag of stupid and pull out a personal insult.

I wonder Geoff. Are you a great fan of the Patriot Act? Where people can be detained or arrested on mere suspicion without any proof whatsoever?

Am I a great fan of the Patriot Act?

Interesting. Tiassa just commented on another thread about how, when gross instances of ignorance or miscommunication arise, he doesn't know whether to cry or just shrug and say "Oh well". I could amusingly relate that you're a great believer in strict application of law, Bells...sometimes. But why bother?

You also missed a comma there - after "wonder".

After all, you are all for denying a group/religion the right to practice their religion on their own land based on mere suspicion without any proof whatsoever that your suspicions will come to fruition

Actually, Rauf's connections and contradictions are reason enough to have a closer look at the man; or maybe he could just ante up in the interests of that outreach he keeps claiming. In the meantime I'll just keep being so "all for" that I dare to (shudder) question Rauf's funding source. Personally, I'd actually thought one could even be arrested on reasonable suspicion - much less a simple request for further investigation - but that's just silly old me.

Yet I'm pleased to see that you recognized the difference between intent and achievement, however; this was more than some posters could do some days. But make sure to drop the bigot bomb on ice, too; it'll mean so much more that way.

 

[joepistole]

So there is no mosque?

Then this thread is done.

I think you have it SAM. It is really laughable. So much fuss over nothing. It is ok for Muslims to pray at the Pentagon just a few feet from where the 9/11 airplane struck...by the way the Pentagon "multifaith center" is also new construction.

If Geoffp would recall, that part of the building was destroyed and rebuilt.

And two, the Islamic center is not even at ground zero...more than two football fields away.

It is really sad and silly. These folks cannot see the hypocrisy in their position on a number of fronts. They don't want government intervention in private affairs....except when they feel like it.

And the federal government, President Obama, have no say or authority in the construction of the Islamic center in New York. So to blame President Obama is even more absurd.

 

[IamJoseph]

Or, named for the first major European conquest by Islamists. :shrug: Can you demonstrate any differently? (Without resorting to their website, please.)

This is true, the Muslims initiated the crusader war by first invading Spain, after they invaded and robbed Jewish Palestine [Judea]. I say this because it is factual history, even though the crusaders were first and foremost targeting Jews. There is a candy coated false presentation of history by muslims, even in documentaries of the quran - it is falsely sqeeky clean.

Erecting mosques in the most prominent and iconic centers of other nations is an Islamic trademark, and a first step in the negation of the inhabitants, and Israel is a light unto the nations again: the desecration of Jerusalem with a huge mosque is starring at all the world's capitals today. The new kid on the block says death to the infidels.

The blame of Islam's actions can and must be seen as resultant from Christianity's deeds: the Muslims destroyed a church dumped on the Jewish site - a horrific deed of aspired genocide candy coated as a favor to Jews, and this was emulated by the Arabs. Its a repayment by a sign and omen.

But one cannot talk with Christians and Muslims over such attrocities - each will commit them and chant IN JC and ALLAH AKBAR while perpetrating humanity's greatest crimes. They forget who's hands did the dirty - it wasn't Jesus or Allah. Today, we see the consequences of Europe's creation of Islamic Regimes - it is coming back to haunt them and they never dreamed it would target anyone else but the Jews.

 

[IamJoseph]

The desecration of Jerusalem with a huge mosque and its subsequent population explosion by Muslims was soon seen in India. Today more Mosques are being built in Europe than Churches, and as with the changing of the skyline in London, a mosque which will dwarf the Vatican is on the cards. There is no other view here than it points to the world remaining silent what was and is being done in Jerusalem.

Christians and Muslims must see themselves as both guilty here, in their doctrines of enforcing their beliefs down other peoples' throats with rakes and swords:

History

Hindu account
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babri_Mosque#Hindu_account

When the Muslim emperor Babur came down from Ferghana in 1527, he defeated the Hindu King of Chittodgad, Rana Sangrama Singh at Sikri, using cannon and artillery. After this victory, Babur took over the region, leaving his general, Mir Baqi, in charge as viceroy.

Mir Baqi allegedly destroyed the temple at Ayodhya, built by the Hindus to commemorate Rama's birthplace, and built the Babri Masjid, naming it after Emperor Babur.[9] Although there is no reference to the new mosque in Babur's diary, the Baburnama, the pages of the relevant period are missing in the diary. The contemporary Tarikh-i-Babari records that Babur's troops "demolished many Hindu temples at Chanderi"[10]

Palaeographic evidence of an older Hindu temple on the site emerged from an inscription on a thick stone slab recovered from the debris of the demolished structure in 1992. Over 260 other artifacts were recovered on the day of demolition, and many point to being part of the ancient temple. The inscription on the slab has 20 lines, 30 shlokas (verses), and is composed in Sanskrit written in the Nagari script. The ‘Nagari Lipi’ script was prevalent in the eleventh and twelfth century. The crucial part of the message as deciphered by a team comprising epigraphists, Sanskrit scholars, historians and archaeologists including Prof. A.M. Shastri, Dr. K.V. Ramesh, Dr. T.P. Verma, Prof. B.R. Grover, Dr. A.K. Sinha, Dr. Sudha Malaiya, Dr. D.P. Dubey and Dr. G.C. Tripathi.

The first twenty verses are the praises of the king Govind Chandra Gharhwal (AD 1114 to 1154) and his dynasty. The twenty-first verse says the following; "For the salvation of his soul the King, after paying his obeisance at the little feet of Vamana Avatar (the incarnation of a god as a midget Brahmana) went about constructing a wondrous temple for Vishnu Hari (Shri Rama) with marvelous pillars and structure of stone reaching the skies and culminating in a superb top with a massive sphere of gold and projecting shafts in the sky - a temple so grand that no other King in the History of the nation had ever built before."

It further states that this temple (ati-adbhutam) was built in the temple-city of Ayodhya.

In another reference, the Faizabad District Judge on a plaint filed by Mahant Raghubar Das gave a judgment on 18 March 1886. Though the plaint was dismissed, the judgment brought out two relevant points;

"I found that Masjid built by Emperor Babur stands on the border of the town of Ayodhya…. It is most unfortunate that Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 358 years ago it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the parties in status quo. In such a case as the present one any innovation would cause more harm and derangement of order than benefit."

Archive for the ‘Ayatollah Khomeini’ Category

http://islamicterrorism.wordpress.com/category/ayatollah-khomeini/

Quranic verse ‘There shall be no compulsion in religion’ is simply not true
Posted by jagoindia on November 19, 2008

Read in full here

The Fate of Infidels and Apostates under Islam by Azam Kamguian
In a feeble attempt to disguise the Islamic attitude to apostasy, apologists often quote the Koranic verse: “There shall be no compulsion in religion”. For a Muslim wishing to leave Islam this is simply not true. In Yemen it’s punishable by death as it is in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan under the Taliban and other Islamic states. The most famous incidence of Apostasy was in 1989 when Ayatollah Khomeini announced a fatwa, or death sentence against Salman Rushdie for his alleged apostasy in writing “The Satanic Verses”. In a similar vein in Iran in July 1998 a man was executed for allegedly converting a Muslim woman to the Baha’i faith, this was even though the woman claimed that her mother was Baha’i and that she was raised according to that faith. Freedom House’s Centre for Religious Freedom recently protested the forthcoming trial, before a Sharia court of Islamic law, of Hamid Pourmand, the 47 year old lay leader of a small Assemblies of God church in the southern port city of Bandar-i-Bushehr. Pourmand, a convert from Islam, is facing charges of apostasy from Islam and proselytising Muslims, both capital offences in Iran. The government of Iran puts someone on trial for his life solely for his religious belief. The state’s criminalisation of apostasy is always subject to political manipulation and indicates an absolute negation of individual rights and freedom. Iran applies an extremist interpretation of Shiite Islamic law or Sharia, which harshly represses the free expression of belief, including religious conversion by Muslims. Iran’s Sharia courts view non-Muslims as second-class citizens, whose testimony is given less weight than Muslims, and sometimes even as non-persons, without any legal protections.

In countries ruled by Islamic law and where political Islam holds sway, writers, thinkers, philosophers, activists, and artists are frequently denied freedom of expression. Islamic regimes are notorious for the violent suppression of free thought. Often, as a government allies itself closely with Islam, any critics of the government will be accused of blasphemy or apostasy.

Non-believers – atheists under Islam do not have “the right to life “. They are to be killed. According to Islamic culture, sins are divided into great sins and little sins. Among the seventeen great sins, unbelief is the greatest, more heinous than murder, theft, adultery and so on. Courageous apostates aim to skewer the hypocrisies and inconsistencies of a faith that commands the allegiance of a billion people-as well as the hypocrisies of those Western defenders of Islam who would not tolerate its strictures in their own cultures.

Read in full here