Muslims in NYC Planning to Build Second Mosque Near Ground Zero (1 Viewer)

[Shtaym Syek]

Stat, you know that "Smaller Government" is a nonsense political phrase like "Death Panels," right? What would people who call for small government cut? Nothing important to them, that's for sure.

The governments size and scope has increased, and up until the Obama administration it had done so rather slowly.

 

[Mario Kart]

Not sure if posted, buy Yahoo! story:

The opponents of the so-called Ground Zero Mosque tried to get New York City to use its landmark preservation powers to prevent the project from getting off the ground. But precisely the same groups — including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) — have a history of arguing in court that local governments can't use laws like that to prevent houses of worship from being built. The ADL still acknowledges that the builders of the facility have the right to construct — but ADL leaders are essentially endorsing the positions of the local officials they've fought in the past by questioning the Muslim group's choice of a venue close to the site of the September 11 terror attacks.New York City's Landmark Preservation Commission ruled Tuesday that the building at the site of the planned community center and mosque is not a historical landmark, and that its demolition can go forward. A coalition of groups who oppose the construction of the religious center had requested the landmark classification because they say its proximity to the site of the 9/11 attacks is offensive. The center is called Cordoba House; its sponsoring body, the Cordoba Institute, says it opposes radical Islamic groups and that it hopes the space will create interfaith community and understanding.Oddly, many of the groups leading and supporting the campaign against the so-called mosque have a history of arguing in favor of religious freedom on similar cases.The American Center for Law and Justice, the legal advocacy group leading the charge, has argued repeatedly and forcefully in federal court on at least three occasions that local land-use laws such as historical landmark designations don't trump the religious and property rights of religious groups to build houses of worship. So has the Anti-Defamation League, which controversially came out in opposition to the mosque last week. The group has filed no less than five amicus briefs in federal court arguing that local governments can't use zoning laws to prevent the building of churches and synagogues.Indeed, these groups all compose part of a large ecosystem of religious-rights organizations; members of such groups have made frequent use of a federal law that erects significant barriers for local governments seeking to interfere with religious buildings. With few exceptions, in the case of Cordoba House, these groups have either been silent or directly contradicted their own history of statements and action.Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000 at the urging of religious-rights groups. The law creates strong protections for churches and other houses of worship from local governments using zoning and other land-use laws to restrict them, essentially saying that if local municipalities interfere with religious institutions, they'd better have a very good reason for doing it.The American Center for Law and JusticeThe ACLJ has made abundant use of RLUIPA to argue that local governments can't prevent houses of worship from being built wherever and whenever the worshipers like. In 2000, the ACLJ sued Elizabeth City, N.C., under RLUIPA for what its leader called "the city's discriminatory actions in refusing to grant [church and rehab center] Teen Challenge zoning approval to operate its ministry." The group's website says it "remains committed to the principle that the use of zoning laws to curtail the religious freedoms of churches is unconstitutional."The group's shift on Cordoba House indicates it may not believe the same rights should be afforded to mosques as "churches." ACLJ wrote a letter to the New York City Planning Commission [pdf] urging it to confer landmark status on the building and Wednesday, after the Planning Commission unanimously voted not to interfere with the construction of the mosque, ACLJ vowed to pursue the matter in state court, and today filed suit seeking to stop construction of Cordoba House.The Anti Defamation LeagueThe Anti-Defamation League's opposition to Cordoba House similarly contradicts the group's past work. The group came out last week in opposition to the religious center's location, saying it believed that the Cordoba House flap would be best resolved "if an alternative location could be found." However, in each of the five federal cases in which the ADL filed amicus briefs in RLUIPA cases on behalf of religious buildings, the religious group faced a city making that same argument. And in each of those cases, the ADL argued that the city had no right to use zoning laws to interfere with houses of worship.In a brief filed by the ADL in 2004 in support of ACLJ's lawsuit in New Milford, attorney Mitchell Karlan put the RLUIPA in context by citing "overwhelming evidence that local governments, through their power to regulate land use, were discriminating against both mainstream and non-mainstream religions." Karlan argued that "municipalities, cities, and towns have demonstrated a consistent hostility towards the free exercise of religion with respect to land use."The ADL's position on the rights of Cordoba House is less clear. In a statement, ADL leaders said simply that their counterparts at the Cordoba Institute "may have every right" to build where they please, but shouldn't.The ADL did not respond to a request for comment. But Mitchell Karlan, though cautioning that he's not authorized to speak for the organization, defended the ADL's position."Any time a government takes an official action for the purpose of interfering with the free exercise of religion," he told The Upshot, "that's problematic. But the issue at ground zero is more about the religious community being politically sensitive to the needs of its neighbors."Asked to explain the difference between the ADL's position in the New Milford case, in which the group defended a man's right to hold religious ceremonies in his home over the objections of his neighbors, and the Cordoba House, Karlan said, "It's not helpful to think about 9/11 as analogous to more mundane issues like, is a church going to create traffic problems? September 11 was the greatest domestic attack in U.S. history, and for better or for worse, those who led the attack claimed to have religious reasons for doing so."Silent organizationsAlthough New York City's Landmark Preservation Commission decided not to block the construction of Cordoba House, the campaign to stop its construction by the ACLJ, with rhetorical support from the ADL and conservative politicians like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, continues. Not all the advocates who normally fight on behalf of religious organizations are contradicting themselves as the ACLJ and the ADL are; many, instead, have simply stayed silent.The Becket Fund, which describes itself as a "public interest law firm protecting the free expression of all religious traditions," has been notably silent considering how outspoken it has been in the past. In addition to helping the Third Church of Christ, Scientist in Washington, D.C., sue the city using RLUIPA in 2008, the fund represented a New Jersey mosque in 2006 in a RLIUPA case claiming that the city of Wayne, N.J., was "improperly and arbitrarily delaying the mosque's land development application" due to "community anti-Moslem hostility." The group is normally not shy about wading into public debates, and recently caused a minor furor by reading nefarious intent into President Obama's use of the phrase "freedom of worship" instead of "freedom of religion." Its silence may be related to its conservative political backers. For instance, Newt Gingrich, who has loudly opposed Cordoba House, served as honorary vice chair of one of its annual black-tie dinners.The Alliance Defense Fund, another conservative religious-rights group that has made frequent use of RLUIPA cases, has also stayed out of the debate. "We've been asked by a few outlets," a spokesperson told The Upshot. "We're not commenting."The Upshot spoke with just one person within this ecosystem of religious-rights organizations who was neither silent nor contradicting past actions: Matthew Staver, the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a religious-rights law firm associated with Jerry Falwell's Liberty University."The Constitution cuts both ways," Staver said. "I think you have to be principled from a legal perspective, because the First Amendment is a double-edged sword."

 

[Statorama]

Stat, you know that "Smaller Government" is a nonsense political phrase like "Death Panels," right? What would people who call for small government cut? Nothing important to them, that's for sure.

The governments size and scope has increased, and up until the Obama administration it had done so rather slowly.

The government owning an auto company? The government forcing you to buy a product you don't want? Those are pretty huge leaps of government scope.

 

[Go DC Yourself]

Stat, you know that "Smaller Government" is a nonsense political phrase like "Death Panels," right? What would people who call for small government cut? Nothing important to them, that's for sure.

The governments size and scope has increased, and up until the Obama administration it had done so rather slowly.

The government owning an auto company? The government forcing you to buy a product you don't want? Those are pretty huge leaps of government scope.

For those of us old enough to have lived through Lockheed, Chrysler, and Conrail in the 70's and 80's, not to mention the S&L crisis, your use of the term "leap" is hilarious.

 

[Statorama]

Those are just some slight examples. Heck, check out what's being reported today

In the past, when the Civil Rights Division filed suit against, say, a bank or a landlord, alleging discrimination in lending or rentals, the cases were often settled by the defendant paying a fine to the U.S. Treasury and agreeing to put aside a sum of money to compensate the alleged discrimination victims. There was then a search for those victims — people who were actually denied a loan or an apartment — who stood to be compensated. After everyone who could be found was paid, there was often money left over. That money was returned to the defendant.

Now, Attorney General Eric Holder and Civil Rights Division chief Thomas Perez have a new plan. Any unspent money will not go back to the defendant but will instead go to a “qualified organization” approved by the Justice Department. And if there is not enough unspent money — that will be determined by the Department — then the defendant might be required to come up with more money to give to the “qualified organization.”

Don't try and argue that the Obama administration isn't the biggest government power grab in the history of the office. Everyday there are stories like this.

 

[Go DC Yourself]

Those are just some slight examples. Heck, check out what's being reported today

In the past, when the Civil Rights Division filed suit against, say, a bank or a landlord, alleging discrimination in lending or rentals, the cases were often settled by the defendant paying a fine to the U.S. Treasury and agreeing to put aside a sum of money to compensate the alleged discrimination victims. There was then a search for those victims — people who were actually denied a loan or an apartment — who stood to be compensated. After everyone who could be found was paid, there was often money left over. That money was returned to the defendant.

Now, Attorney General Eric Holder and Civil Rights Division chief Thomas Perez have a new plan. Any unspent money will not go back to the defendant but will instead go to a “qualified organization” approved by the Justice Department. And if there is not enough unspent money — that will be determined by the Department — then the defendant might be required to come up with more money to give to the “qualified organization.”

Don't try and argue that the Obama administration isn't the biggest government power grab in the history of the office. Everyday there are stories like this.

Someone needs to tell Senator Grassley then, because in that same opinion piece he said the arrangement very well may be reasonable. And anyway I'm sure Andrew Breitbart will eventually come sniffing around, and "produce" a video that will put these uppity community activist organizations in their proper place.

 

[Statorama]

61% of New Yorkers oppose "ground zero mosque"

By a margin of 61 to 26 percent, New Yorkers oppose the proposal to build the Cordoba House, a multi-story Muslim Cultural Center in lower Manhattan two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center according to a new survey released today from the Siena College Research Institute (SRI). New Yorkers have been following the new Arizona immigration law very closely and 52 percent support passing a similar law here in the Empire State. Seventy percent of New York residents say that the presence of 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants poses a somewhat (30%) or very significant (40%) problem to the U.S., and large majorities call for comprehensive immigration reform that would include enhanced border security (79%), the creation of a process for admitting legal temporary workers (70%), and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here (65%).

 

[MongoL3]

I love Millers take on it

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/inde...aylist_id=86923

 

[El Floppo]

61% of New Yorkers oppose "ground zero mosque"

By a margin of 61 to 26 percent, New Yorkers oppose the proposal to build the Cordoba House, a multi-story Muslim Cultural Center in lower Manhattan two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center according to a new survey released today from the Siena College Research Institute (SRI). New Yorkers have been following the new Arizona immigration law very closely and 52 percent support passing a similar law here in the Empire State. Seventy percent of New York residents say that the presence of 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants poses a somewhat (30%) or very significant (40%) problem to the U.S., and large majorities call for comprehensive immigration reform that would include enhanced border security (79%), the creation of a process for admitting legal temporary workers (70%), and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here (65%).

oh... right.

 

[BobbyLayne]

61% of New Yorkers oppose "ground zero mosque"

By a margin of 61 to 26 percent, New Yorkers oppose the proposal to build the Cordoba House, a multi-story Muslim Cultural Center in lower Manhattan two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center according to a new survey released today from the Siena College Research Institute (SRI). New Yorkers have been following the new Arizona immigration law very closely and 52 percent support passing a similar law here in the Empire State. Seventy percent of New York residents say that the presence of 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants poses a somewhat (30%) or very significant (40%) problem to the U.S., and large majorities call for comprehensive immigration reform that would include enhanced border security (79%), the creation of a process for admitting legal temporary workers (70%), and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here (65%).

 

[Statorama]

What do you guys have against Siena College? They've won me a lot of dough in basketball over the years.

 

[timschochet]

Let's assume that the survey Stat quotes is correct, and a majority of New Yorkers are against this.

Just as a majority of Arizonans are in favor of SB 1070.

Just as a majority of Californians are in favor of keeping gay marriage illegal.

In each of these three cases, the majority sides with the "conservative" position (generally speaking.) But in each of these three cases, that doesn't matter. Because in each case the "conservative" position involves the infringement of individual rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Therefore, it is correct for the judicial branch in each case to defy the will of the majority. That is what defines us as a constitutional republic, and not a democracy.

 

[MongoL3]

Let's assume that the survey Stat quotes is correct, and a majority of New Yorkers are against this.Just as a majority of Arizonans are in favor of SB 1070.Just as a majority of Californians are in favor of keeping gay marriage illegal.In each of these three cases, the majority sides with the "conservative" position (generally speaking.) But in each of these three cases, that doesn't matter. Because in each case the "conservative" position involves the infringement of individual rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Therefore, it is correct for the judicial branch in each case to defy the will of the majority. That is what defines us as a constitutional republic, and not a democracy.

I agree, lets not even let the people decide anything. Just a few judges is all we need.

 

[jamny]

Let's assume that the survey Stat quotes is correct, and a majority of New Yorkers are against this.Just as a majority of Arizonans are in favor of SB 1070.Just as a majority of Californians are in favor of keeping gay marriage illegal.In each of these three cases, the majority sides with the "conservative" position (generally speaking.) But in each of these three cases, that doesn't matter. Because in each case the "conservative" position involves the infringement of individual rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Therefore, it is correct for the judicial branch in each case to defy the will of the majority. That is what defines us as a constitutional republic, and not a democracy.

I agree, lets not even let the people decide anything. Just a few judges is all we need.

Screw "the people"

 

[Josie Maran]

Let's assume that the survey Stat quotes is correct, and a majority of New Yorkers are against this.Just as a majority of Arizonans are in favor of SB 1070.Just as a majority of Californians are in favor of keeping gay marriage illegal.In each of these three cases, the majority sides with the "conservative" position (generally speaking.) But in each of these three cases, that doesn't matter. Because in each case the "conservative" position involves the infringement of individual rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Therefore, it is correct for the judicial branch in each case to defy the will of the majority. That is what defines us as a constitutional republic, and not a democracy.

I agree, lets not even let the people decide anything. Just a few judges is all we need.

Screw "the people"

Yeah, screw the people that wrote the Constitution!

 

[Josie Maran]

This whole "controversy" would be hilarious if it wasn't so f###ing sad.

Why did no one object to the "Pentagon mosque"?

By Justin Elliott

*

Navy imam Chaplain Abuhena M. Saifulislam lifted his voice to God as he called to prayer more than 100 Department of Defense employees Monday at a celebration of Ramadan at the Pentagon.

God is most great, sang the lieutenant commander and Islamic leader, in Arabic, as iftar — the end of the daily fast began.

Uniformed military personnel, civilians and family members faced Mecca and knelt on adorned prayer rugs chanting their prayers in quiet invocation to Allah.

The "ground zero mosque" story seems to be dying down, but nothing lays bare the absurdity of what we've just lived through quite so much as this Washington Times story, quoted above, from 2007.

Yes, Muslims have infiltrated the Pentagon for their nefarious, prayerful purposes -- daring to practice their religion inside the building where 184 people died on Sept. 11, 2001. They haven't even had the sensitivity to move two blocks, let alone a mile, away from that sacred site.

The "desecration" began shockingly soon after the attacks. Cox reported in October 2001:

Army Chaplain Abdul-Rasheed Muhammad, the first Muslim chaplain to serve in the military, read a verse from the Koran at the memorial service at the Pentagon on Thursday, exactly one month after the attack. Muhammad, who became a chaplain eight years ago and works at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, ministered to rescuers in front of the smoldering Pentagon after the attack.

Any guesses as to why no one has ever heard about Muslims praying at the Pentagon -- let alone cared? It's almost as if the entire "ground zero mosque" controversy was whipped up out of nothing by a right-wing tabloid and politicians in search of a wedge issue ...

Link with links.

 

[Christo]

This whole "controversy" would be hilarious if it wasn't so f###ing sad.

Why did no one object to the "Pentagon mosque"?

Probably because, like me, they never heard about it until now.The outrage over NYC is silly enough. No need to make up reasons to try to make it look sillier.

 

[badmojo1006]

Fareed Zakaria returns Anti-Defamation League award because of the ADL opposition to the Community Center being built near Ground Zero

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Fareed Zakaria returns Anti-Defamation League award because of the ADL opposition to the Community Center being built near Ground Zero

I hate it when he gets all logical and rational and stuff.

 

[jon_mx]

Fareed Zakaria returns Anti-Defamation League award because of the ADL opposition to the Community Center being built near Ground Zero

I hate it when he gets all logical and rational and stuff.

Why can't leftist just disagree on some issues. They go all drama queen all the time.

 

[Fennis]

Fareed Zakaria returns Anti-Defamation League award because of the ADL opposition to the Community Center being built near Ground Zero

I hate it when he gets all logical and rational and stuff.

Why can't leftist just disagree on some issues. They go all drama queen all the time.

Neither Zakaria nor the ADL is "leftist". HTH

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

HTH

It won't.

 

[jon_mx]

Fareed Zakaria returns Anti-Defamation League award because of the ADL opposition to the Community Center being built near Ground Zero

I hate it when he gets all logical and rational and stuff.

Why can't leftist just disagree on some issues. They go all drama queen all the time.

Neither Zakaria nor the ADL is "leftist". HTH

The guy is a staple on CNN and editor of Newsweek.....he is a leftist and pretty far left. Maybe go back a decade he may have had a few conservative bones, but those are long gone. ADL...not leftist? oh my. Here is an article on ADL leftist leanings...

 

[McJose]

2nd mosque?How many towel heads live in that neighborhood?

 

[MongoL3]

2nd mosque?How many towel heads live in that neighborhood?

Liberals all over are falling out of their chairs in horror with that comment lolI know better than to post stuff like that. :(

 

[McJose]

2nd mosque?How many towel heads live in that neighborhood?

Liberals all over are falling out of their chairs in horror with that comment lolI know better than to post stuff like that. :(

= 'falling out of their chairs in horror "

 

[dundeeslugger]

2nd mosque?How many towel heads live in that neighborhood?

Liberals all over are falling out of their chairs in horror with that comment lolI know better than to post stuff like that. :(

Freedom of speech. You can interpret it which ever way you want

 

[otello]

more great stuff in here

 

[MongoL3]

2nd mosque?How many towel heads live in that neighborhood?

Liberals all over are falling out of their chairs in horror with that comment lolI know better than to post stuff like that. :(

Freedom of speech. You can interpret it which ever way you want

Make sure you tell that to Joe, I'll tip a 40 in your name tho

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Fareed Zakaria returns Anti-Defamation League award because of the ADL opposition to the Community Center being built near Ground Zero

I hate it when he gets all logical and rational and stuff.

Why can't leftist just disagree on some issues. They go all drama queen all the time.

Neither Zakaria nor the ADL is "leftist". HTH

The guy is a staple on CNN and editor of Newsweek.....he is a leftist and pretty far left. Maybe go back a decade he may have had a few conservative bones, but those are long gone. ADL...not leftist? oh my. Here is an article on ADL leftist leanings...

This would be a great time for another one of those jokes.

 

[McJose]

2nd mosque?

How many towel heads live in that neighborhood?

Liberals all over are falling out of their chairs in horror with that comment lolI know better than to post stuff like that.

Freedom of speech. You can interpret it which ever way you want

I think you're lost.

 

[jon_mx]

This would be a great time for another one of those jokes.

I would, but the ADL is notoriously a leftist organization. Well, outside of their support for Israel, which lately is not much of a leftist cause. Pro-abortion...check....Pro-gay rights...check... Extemist position on separation of church and state....check......anti-Glen Beck/Limbaugh/Culter.....check....Pro Global Warming....check.....against school vouchers.....check....the only person on the ADL board who was conservative quit over their leftwing agenda....

 

[otello]

You could add the 2nd amendment to that list:

ADL: Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Rights "A Setback In The Fight Against Extremism"

New York, NY, June 28, 2010 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today expressed disappointment in the narrow 5-4 Supreme Court decision limiting the rights of states to regulate firearms.

The case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, focused on whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits most regulation of firearms by cities and states.

Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director issued the following statement:

Today's Supreme Court decision limiting the rights of states to regulate firearms is a disappointing setback in the fight against extremism and violence. We deeply regret that the Court has restricted the latitude that cities and states retain to keep guns out of the hands of extremists, terrorists and violent bigots. The decision makes America a less safe place for law enforcement officers and the communities they protect.

Extremists and those who commit hate crimes pose a serious threat to law enforcement, the general public and, more specifically, to members of the discrete racial, ethnic and religious groups who are often their targets. Unfortunately, we have seen armed extremists take targeted violent action with unsettling frequency and profoundly tragic results.

ADL has long supported the reasonable regulation of firearms, particularly when it comes to the possession of weapons by extremists. The League will continue to support common sense restrictions aimed at thwarting the violent intentions of international and domestic extremist organizations.

 

[Courtjester]

So this left are starting to eat their own now??

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Freedom of speech.

 

[jon_mx]

So this left are starting to eat their own now??

Yes, ADL stepped off the liberal plantation and they were given a shot across their bow. Typical leftist group think.

 

[badmojo1006]

So this left are starting to eat their own now??

Yes, ADL stepped off the liberal plantation and they were given a shot across their bow. Typical leftist group think.

now who is spewing the Hyperboles...

 

[jonessed]

Fareed Zakaria returns Anti-Defamation League award because of the ADL opposition to the Community Center being built near Ground Zero

That's rather petty. Very rarely do people/organizations see individual cases in lockstep. If that's Zakaria's standard he might as well stop accepting awards altogether.I imagine it's possible he is just attention whoring this one incident though.

 

[Statorama]

Muslims admit Mosque is a deliberate provocation

The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna[.]“

Full Article

Last week, a journalist who writes for the North Country Times, a small newspaper in Southern California, sent us an e-mail titled "Help." He couldn't understand why an Islamic Centre in an area where Adam Gadahn, Osama bin Laden's American spokesman came from, and that was home to three of the 911 terrorists, was looking to expand.

The man has a very valid point, which leads to the ongoing debate about building a Mosque at Ground Zero in New York. When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S., we wonder why its proponents don't build a monument to those who died in the attack?

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.

It's a repugnant thought that $100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan.

Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.

The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.

If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America's Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.

 

[MongoL3]

Muslims admit Mosque is a deliberate provocation

The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna[.]“

Full Article

Last week, a journalist who writes for the North Country Times, a small newspaper in Southern California, sent us an e-mail titled "Help." He couldn't understand why an Islamic Centre in an area where Adam Gadahn, Osama bin Laden's American spokesman came from, and that was home to three of the 911 terrorists, was looking to expand.

The man has a very valid point, which leads to the ongoing debate about building a Mosque at Ground Zero in New York. When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S., we wonder why its proponents don't build a monument to those who died in the attack?

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.

It's a repugnant thought that $100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan.

Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.

The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.

If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America's Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.

Thanks for posting the article. Not that i needed to confirm what I already believed....

 

[jamny]

Oh c'mon. No one can know how this mosque will be perceived among the radical Muslims worldwide.

 

[urbanhack]

Muslims admit Mosque is a deliberate provocation

The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna[.]“

Full Article

Last week, a journalist who writes for the North Country Times, a small newspaper in Southern California, sent us an e-mail titled "Help." He couldn't understand why an Islamic Centre in an area where Adam Gadahn, Osama bin Laden's American spokesman came from, and that was home to three of the 911 terrorists, was looking to expand.

The man has a very valid point, which leads to the ongoing debate about building a Mosque at Ground Zero in New York. When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S., we wonder why its proponents don't build a monument to those who died in the attack?

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.

It's a repugnant thought that $100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan.

Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.

The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.

If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America's Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.

Thanks for posting the article. Not that i needed to confirm what I already believed....

Did you read the article? It was the opinion of two conservative muslims who live in Canada.

 

[jon_mx]

So this left are starting to eat their own now??

Yes, ADL stepped off the liberal plantation and they were given a shot across their bow. Typical leftist group think.

now who is spewing the Hyperboles...

I think it accurately summed up the situation.

 

[Statorama]

What is a mosque?

Interesting interview with someone on the inside.

Gordon: Greetings Mr. Solomon and thank you for consenting to this interview. Let us start with the simple question, what is a mosque and what is its basic function in the Muslim community?

Solomon: A mosque, totally unlike a church or a synagogue, serves the function of orchestrating and mandating every aspect of “life” in a Muslim community from the religious, to the political, to the economic, to the social, to the military. In Islam, religion and life are not separate. They are indivisible. In Islam religion is not just a part of life, but “life” is absorbed and regulated to the tiniest detail by religion (See Figure 1). In other words every aspect of a man or woman’s life must be defined and governed by religion. So there is no concept of personal choice whatsoever, or in theological terms, there is no “free will,” but only limited preferences between prescribed courses of action. In addition, there is no concept of a personal relationship between the person and the entity being worshiped, so “worship” itself, is of a different nature than that performed in a church or synagogue.

So we see that a mosque is a seat of government. A mosque is a school. A mosque is a court. A mosque is a training center. A mosque is a gathering place, or social center. It is not a place of “worship” per se as understood and as practiced in Western societies.

Specifically, how is a mosque a threat to the community within which it is built?

Every single mosque in the world, by definition, is modeled on the mosque of Muhammad in Medina in accordance with the Sunnah. The Sunnah interprets the Qur’an by reporting exhaustively on everything that Muhammad said, did, or consented to. Therefore, his Medina mosque, the first mosque, was a place where he gave judgments, where he decided who would be executed, where he instituted policy—domestic and military— where Jihad war strategies were designed. Consequently, it was a storage place for arms, a military training base, and was where troops were blessed and dispatched. Literally they were sent to conquer - first the whole of Arabia, and then the rest of the known world. Therefore if the present-day mosque is modeled as per the Sunnah of Muhammad then there should be very serious concern. As is well-known, Muslims are required to follow the example (Sunnah) of Muhammad—and according to Sura 33:36 it is not an option or a matter of opinion: “It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.” This explains and establishes beyond doubt why arms have been found in mosques in various countries, and in different capital cities.

In addition to the undisputed significance of the Medina mosque as the role model for all Mosques, there is also the Islamic policy of establishing strategic Mosques as beachheads with interconnected networks. Taken together, these two policies do constitute a clear and present danger—and a need for concern.

For example, when Abu Hamza[1] was the Imam of the Finsbury Park mosque in the United Kingdom, he trained people, he sent out terrorists and British authorities found arms stored there. He was well within his Islamic mandate as these activities were sanctioned by Islam. He didn’t find it wrong because it is in the Islamic manuals. Another prime example of a mosque being found to have engaged in high-level political, military and intelligence activities is the Munich Mosque, which is now considered by Islamists to be on a par with some of highest-ranked Mosques in Muslim countries.[2]

What comment do you have on the significance of the Ground Zero Mosque set to open on 9/11, 2011?

First of all, the sponsors and supporters of the Ground Zero Mosque insist that the significance of the building of this mosque is that it constitutes a refutation of the radical “fringe” within Islam, and as such, is a gesture of peace and reconciliation toward America and the victims of 9/11.

But, it is ludicrous for anybody to accept that this is a gesture of peace in the Western sense—rather it is a different definition of “peace.” It is the Islamic definition of “peace” as a suspension of “struggle” which is ultimately said to emerge once opposition ceases, and Islam reigns supreme as Muhammad has stated, “Islam rises and nothing rises above it.”

The rationale of the sponsors is that acts of terrorism are being carried out by misguided “radicals” rather than true Muslims and that as a consequence, Islam itself has been victimized and defamed and needs to be defended. Their solution is to appear to decry all “radicalism”, and to take the bold symbolic act of erecting a 13 to 15-story Mosque—ostensibly representing true Islam—on the site itself, in their words, to “bridge and heal this divide.” [3]

So, if allowed to be built, this mosque would consolidate, solidify, and embody a fallacious and pernicious interpretation of what really happened at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.[4]

In one fell swoop, it will be a re-writing of American history with American cooperation, and will achieve another major Islamic goal of setting a high profile beachhead at a strategic location in the seat of American economic power.

When you speak of setting a “beachhead,” is building this mosque tactically similar to Muslims building the Al Aqsa Mosque adjacent to the Western Wall in Jerusalem?

Most Westerners do not realize that there are two Mosques on the Temple Mount. One is called Masjid Al-Aqsa, the Mosque of Ascension, and the other is called “Qubbat Al-Sakhra”, the Dome of the Rock.

To provide the groundwork for answering your question more specifically, the basic principle is, that a mosque, totally unlike a church or synagogue, is a “sign” and a “symbol” of the establishment of “authority”—both religious and political—not just a place of worship for its adherents.

A mosque is the symbol of the establishment of an Islamic authority, and an announcement of the beginning of the “rightful restoration” of the land according to Islamic claims that the “whole world is a mosque,” and is echoed in Muhammad’s words, “the whole earth has been declared unto me a mosque.” Therefore it is a matter of “restoring” rather than “claiming” the land to Islam, as any land not in current submission is at virtual war with Islam, and must be brought “back” according to the Qur’anic version of history.

This process of “bringing back” has a name, it is called “Islamisation,” and is implemented progressively though immigrating segregating, gaining rights, and slowly asserting the supremacy of Islam politically, socially and even culturally. So, yes, the Ground Zero Mosque would be a beachhead—and an important one, but it is not exactly the same as in the case of the Al Aqsa Mosque.

The building of the Al Aqsa Mosque adjacent to the Western Wall was a necessary consolidation of prior Qur’anic claims to the Holy Land and the spiritual base of Judeo-Christian Monotheism,[5] whereas the building of the Ground Zero Mosque would be more in line with the tactical aspect of spreading the base. (See footnote 3)

Having said that, some “beachhead” mosques are more strategic than others. As we have seen earlier the Munich Mosque became the most influential of those built outside Muslim lands prior to the proposed Ground Zero Mosque.

If built, the Ground Zero Mosque will be the most influential sign and symbol of Islamic authority in the Western World.

Can you explain the significance of the ‘Hijra’ or migration?

You need to understand an important distinction: In Islam migration is a mental concept as well as a physical action.

To answer your question about the significance of the Hijra itself, it was the physical migration of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Yathrib [Medina] in 622 AD, making it the most important event in Islamic history and the reason for starting the Islamic calendar—while at the same time instituting it as the model for future expansion by immigration.[6]

However, the concept of migration in its broader sense is highly significant.

Conceptually, mental migration can be from one mode of operation to another, in other words from a non-Islamic mode to an Islamic mode.

The non-Islamic mode is known as Al-Jahiliyyah meaning “the age of ignorance,” which has nothing to do with the Western concept of ignorance. So Al-Jahiliyyah, is a broad title given to all sorts of practices which might be regarded as un-Islamic. For example a woman who used to dress in Western-style, (considered as Jahiliyyah practice), her “migration” toward Islamic practice would be that she now adorns herself with the Hijab (head scarf) or total Nikab (full face and body cover). This movement from Western dress to Islamic veil would constitute a migration in dress code and behaviour.

Examples of other conceptual migrations would be imposing Islamic values and systems within host countries, such as Shariah-complaint finance. It is all to achieve one purpose, the Islamisation first of the Muslim community by bringing it more and more in line with Islamic principles and, second to condition and transform the host society.

The foregoing was an explanation of a conceptual,spiritual, or mental transformation.

The physical migration of Muslim communities, from one country to another or from one area to another is just as important. It is to extend the rule of Islam. For instance, there would be no need for Islamic schools if there were no Muslim children. There would be no need for Halal meat if there were no Muslim consumers. There would be no debate about the Hijab if there were no Muslim women to wear it.

Therefore, any such demand by the Muslim community within a host country is an expression of their desire to be governed by Islam. Demanding Islamic banking is a direct imposition of the Shariah Law on non Muslims, even if there may not be any Muslims in the community.

Why does Islam celebrate Mohammad’s journey from Mecca to Yathrib (Medina) annually rather than his birthday?

The celebration of Muhammad’s birthday is controversial within the community of Islamic scholars, as it is considered as an innovation (a “Bid’a”)—though practically, it is recognized as a holiday in most Muslim countries. However, your point is well taken.

All Muslims do celebrate the Islamic New Year, based on the Islamic Calendar—which after deliberations regarding other dates in Muhammad’s life, was dated from the Hijra, his journey from Mecca to Medina, rather than from his birthday.

The Islamic calendar was established by Umar bin Al-Khattab, the second Khalifah in response to letters of concern from the various judges and governors in the new Islamic empire saying to him, your letters are undated. Thus he was confronted with a dilemma, as any dating system at that time was un-Islamic. So he called a committee to look into it and they initially decided not to start the Islamic calendar with the birth of Mohammed, and then considered various other important events that occurred in Muhammad’s life as the starting point of the new calendar.

However, Umar concluded that it would be appropriate to start the calendar from the day of Muhammad’s flight or Hijra, because from that day forward he was transformed from a haunted man to a victorious ruler.

Thus the Islamic calendar, called the “Anno Hijrah Calendar,” or “Immigration Calendar,” abbreviated as “A.H.” replaced all existing calendars and was established as a declaration of the victory of Islam over the rest of the World.

What is the most important thing for us to know about Islam?

The most important thing for a non-Muslim to understand about Islam is that Islam is not simply a religion. Islam is a social and political system, an indivisible melding of religion and state.

It is a socio-political, socio-religious, socio-economical, socio-educational, socio-judiciary, legislative militaristic system cloaked and garbed in religious terminology.

We must never forget that Islam is an all-encompassing ideological system, and as such wherever there is a Muslim community there will be Sharia and wherever there is a Sharia there is an Islamisation of the territory and ultimately of the nation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Imprisoned as a terrorist, wanted by the U.S.A. as a terrorist, but at the moment entangled in legal maneuvers. He has taken his case to the European court to fight extradition to the United States. His son was caught in Yemen engaged in terrorist activities. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and...ticle433669.ece , and http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...aphy/Masri.html

[2] See http://www.amazon.com/Mosque-Munich-Nazis-...d/dp/0151014183

[3] See comment by the Imam in charge of the Ground Zero Mosque proposal, “The imam behind the center says it's designed to “bridge and heal a divide” and says fighting radicalism is his personal mission.” (http://www.newser.com/story/90422/right-goes-nuts-over-ground-zero-mosque.html

[4] See “The Mosque and Its Role in the Society,” (www.Pilcrowpress.com)

[5] See “Al-Yahud: Eternal Islamic Enmity and the Jews,” by Al-Maqdisi and Solomon for the status and purpose of Al-Aqsa Mosque (http://www.adnamis.org/ )

[6] See “Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam,” (http://www.adnamis.org/ )

 

[badmojo1006]

Muslims admit Mosque is a deliberate provocation

The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna[.]“

Full Article

Last week, a journalist who writes for the North Country Times, a small newspaper in Southern California, sent us an e-mail titled "Help." He couldn't understand why an Islamic Centre in an area where Adam Gadahn, Osama bin Laden's American spokesman came from, and that was home to three of the 911 terrorists, was looking to expand.

The man has a very valid point, which leads to the ongoing debate about building a Mosque at Ground Zero in New York. When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S., we wonder why its proponents don't build a monument to those who died in the attack?

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.

It's a repugnant thought that $100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan.

Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.

The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.

If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America's Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.

Are these the Muslims who are building the Mosque? Or is it just an opinion piece by some Conservative Canadian Muslims? I actually think this piece is attempting to fan the flames even further.

 

[MongoL3]

Muslims admit Mosque is a deliberate provocation

The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna[.]“

Full Article

Last week, a journalist who writes for the North Country Times, a small newspaper in Southern California, sent us an e-mail titled "Help." He couldn't understand why an Islamic Centre in an area where Adam Gadahn, Osama bin Laden's American spokesman came from, and that was home to three of the 911 terrorists, was looking to expand.

The man has a very valid point, which leads to the ongoing debate about building a Mosque at Ground Zero in New York. When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S., we wonder why its proponents don't build a monument to those who died in the attack?

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.

It's a repugnant thought that $100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan.

Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.

The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.

If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America's Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.

Are these the Muslims who are building the Mosque? Or is it just an opinion piece by some Conservative Canadian Muslims? I actually think this piece is attempting to fan the flames even further.

Do you really think the Muslims building the mosque would actually tell the truth and rat themselves out?

 

[badmojo1006]

Muslims admit Mosque is a deliberate provocation

The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna[.]“

Full Article

Last week, a journalist who writes for the North Country Times, a small newspaper in Southern California, sent us an e-mail titled "Help." He couldn't understand why an Islamic Centre in an area where Adam Gadahn, Osama bin Laden's American spokesman came from, and that was home to three of the 911 terrorists, was looking to expand.

The man has a very valid point, which leads to the ongoing debate about building a Mosque at Ground Zero in New York. When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S., we wonder why its proponents don't build a monument to those who died in the attack?

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.

It's a repugnant thought that $100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan.

Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.

The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.

If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America's Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.

Are these the Muslims who are building the Mosque? Or is it just an opinion piece by some Conservative Canadian Muslims? I actually think this piece is attempting to fan the flames even further.

Do you really think the Muslims building the mosque would actually tell the truth and rat themselves out?

So you agree that this piece is not by the group of people building the Mosque, and is no better than you putting an opinion piece in your local paper? And you agree it is not fact but an opinion written by people who have probably never been to NY to meet the people who are building and have no clue what they are thinking?

 

[MongoL3]

Lets say they are "conservative Muslims" (if there is such a thing) I would guess they have more insight to the Muslim mentality and know what they are talking about concerning the radical groups then your average, run of the mill white liberal who wants nothing more than to believe we all can hold hands and sing songs together once the Jews and american conservatives are extinct.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Lets say they are "conservative Muslims" (if there is such a thing) I would guess they have more insight to the Muslim mentality and know what they are talking about concerning the radical groups then your average, run of the mill white liberal who wants nothing more than to believe we all can hold hands and sing songs together once the Jews and american conservatives are extinct.

"Conservative" Muslims are exactly the ones that you hate the most, trust me.

 

[MongoL3]

Lets say they are "conservative Muslims" (if there is such a thing) I would guess they have more insight to the Muslim mentality and know what they are talking about concerning the radical groups then your average, run of the mill white liberal who wants nothing more than to believe we all can hold hands and sing songs together once the Jews and american conservatives are extinct.

"Conservative" Muslims are exactly the ones that you hate the most, trust me.

I dont know man, Im pretty much "equal opportunity" when it comes to that. Hey, are you stalking me?