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

[tommyboy]

i think you guys are outlawyering each other here. Americans see Muslims flying airplanes, not Osama bin Laden. Therefore it would follow that Americans of our generation, having suffered a shock, would have a negative image of Muslims/Islam. Gallup backs that up http://www.gallup.com/poll/125312/Religiou...st-Muslims.aspx

Doesn't mean it's right.

itd be like telling Americans they needed to put up a Shinto shrine near Pearl Harbor around Dec of 1951.

Nowhere near the same. The nation of Japan officially attacked us. Not some extremists perverting their nation, the entire nation on the orders of their Emperor. Blaming the Japanese for the actions of their armed forces is justified and proper and correct. Blaming Muslims for the actions of a few extremists is just not the same thing.

would you agree that Americans after that attack had an unfavorable view of Japanese people?

 

[mad sweeney]

i think you guys are outlawyering each other here. Americans see Muslims flying airplanes, not Osama bin Laden. Therefore it would follow that Americans of our generation, having suffered a shock, would have a negative image of Muslims/Islam. Gallup backs that up http://www.gallup.com/poll/125312/Religiou...st-Muslims.aspx

Doesn't mean it's right.

itd be like telling Americans they needed to put up a Shinto shrine near Pearl Harbor around Dec of 1951.

Nowhere near the same. The nation of Japan officially attacked us. Not some extremists perverting their nation, the entire nation on the orders of their Emperor. Blaming the Japanese for the actions of their armed forces is justified and proper and correct. Blaming Muslims for the actions of a few extremists is just not the same thing.

would you agree that Americans after that attack had an unfavorable view of Japanese people?

Yes, because the Japanese attacked us. Americans should have unfavorable views now of extremist Muslims and Al Qaeda, not all Muslims. Just because they do, doesn't make it right.

 

[tommyboy]

[quote name='mad sweeney' post='12216359' date='Aug 30 2010, 08:10 would you agree that Americans after that attack had an unfavorable view of Japanese people?

Yes, because the Japanese attacked us. Americans should have unfavorable views now of extremist Muslims and Al Qaeda, not all Muslims. Just because they do, doesn't make it right.

And yet the man behind this mosque cannot find it in himself to call Hamas a terrorist organization. Americans aren't stupid, they see a puppet that doesn't want to divulge where the money's coming from, can't call Hamas what the State Dept calls it...they see a group that wants to build in a sensitive place and say "no".

And you dismiss emotion by pointing out the difference between a country and a group. Yet the leaders of Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah say the represent the supremacy of Islam, and Islam itself calls it followers to conquer the infidel through acts such as jihad, taqqiyah, dhimmitude and sharia law. Many Americans are uneasy with this particular Imam and this particular site. Based on the Imams inability to find his wallet or call Hamas a terrorist organization I would say Americans have strong suspicion and reason to not want this built.

 

[Offa]

No, sorry, I'm wrong.

 

[mad sweeney]

[quote name='mad sweeney' post='12216359' date='Aug 30 2010, 08:10 would you agree that Americans after that attack had an unfavorable view of Japanese people?

Yes, because the Japanese attacked us. Americans should have unfavorable views now of extremist Muslims and Al Qaeda, not all Muslims. Just because they do, doesn't make it right.

And yet the man behind this mosque cannot find it in himself to call Hamas a terrorist organization. Americans aren't stupid, they see a puppet that doesn't want to divulge where the money's coming from, can't call Hamas what the State Dept calls it...they see a group that wants to build in a sensitive place and say "no".

And you dismiss emotion by pointing out the difference between a country and a group. Yet the leaders of Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah say the represent the supremacy of Islam, and Islam itself calls it followers to conquer the infidel through acts such as jihad, taqqiyah, dhimmitude and sharia law. Many Americans are uneasy with this particular Imam and this particular site. Based on the Imams inability to find his wallet or call Hamas a terrorist organization I would say Americans have strong suspicion and reason to not want this built.

What a fanciful tale you tell. If rogue Japanese soldiers attacked the US and called themselves the Supremecy of Japan then your comparison might be effective but the situations are nowhere near the same. He hasn't divulged his investors? Other than the guy that owns part of Fox of course (unless I got that part wrong, I've been short on time the last week). So what, he's not required to. And based on the emotional (ie: irrational) response I'd be pretty sure that no matter what Muslim group is on his donor list a majority of the people protesting it now would still oppose it just as they're opposing mosques in other states. Your "many Americans" will oppose any mosque put anywhere on Manhattan US soil.

The Bible calls on it's followers to do a lot of things that the followers don't do anymore and having a mosque near Ground Zero isn't going to all of a sudden give Muslims the power to change the laws of the city, state and country to their liking. Just ask the Christian abortion opponents (and the Christians have been here since the beginning!) They may believe in Sharia, but they won't be able to enforce it here because we are not a theistic Islamic country.

 

[El Floppo]

so..... .... what are you guys talking about?

 

[tommyboy]

funny that a Brit has a better take on this than anyone else here in America

 

[mad sweeney]

funny that a Brit has a better take on this than anyone else here in America

Which one of these European countries has our set of freedoms and laws? This guy sounds just like a bunch of you people here: all followers of Islam are the same. And then a bunch of maniacal ramblings, as if Christianity was a violence free evolution.

"their unattainable vision of an afterlife"

eta: Not sure why you think no one in America thinks like this guy, a bunch of them attended a rally in DC this weekend. I could name 10 posters here as crazy as this guy is.

 

[Offa]

And yet the man behind this mosque cannot find it in himself to call Hamas a terrorist organization. Americans aren't stupid, they see a puppet that doesn't want to divulge where the money's coming from, can't call Hamas what the State Dept calls it...they see a group that wants to build in a sensitive place and say "no".

So what? If the most radical quote is him not calling Hamas a terrorist organisation, then that doesn't exactly make him a radical. I'd sort of agree with him, and I certainly don't want to bring Shariah law to the US or some nonsense like that.

Yet the leaders of Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah say the represent the supremacy of Islam

And they're wrong. If the US Communist Party decided to call themselves the largest political party in the US, would that mean all Americans are communist?

and Islam itself calls it followers to conquer the infidel through acts such as jihad, taqqiyah, dhimmitude and sharia law

That's ridiculous. You're throwing around technical Islamic terms without understanding what they actually mean.Taqiyyah = It's OK not to openly display your faith when doing so would put you in dangerSharia = Islamic lawDhimmitude = You mean "dhimmia", that word refers to the legal status of non-muslims under ShariaJihad = A muslim's struggle against oneself and the worldNone of these doctrines "call followers to conquer the infidel". That's BS.

 

[Mark Davis]

And yet the man behind this mosque cannot find it in himself to call Hamas a terrorist organization. Americans aren't stupid, they see a puppet that doesn't want to divulge where the money's coming from, can't call Hamas what the State Dept calls it...they see a group that wants to build in a sensitive place and say "no".

So what? If the most radical quote is him not calling Hamas a terrorist organisation, then that doesn't exactly make him a radical. I'd sort of agree with him, and I certainly don't want to bring Shariah law to the US or some nonsense like that.

Yet the leaders of Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah say the represent the supremacy of Islam

And they're wrong. If the US Communist Party decided to call themselves the largest political party in the US, would that mean all Americans are communist?

and Islam itself calls it followers to conquer the infidel through acts such as jihad, taqqiyah, dhimmitude and sharia law

That's ridiculous. You're throwing around technical Islamic terms without understanding what they actually mean.Taqiyyah = It's OK not to openly display your faith when doing so would put you in dangerSharia = Islamic lawDhimmitude = You mean "dhimmia", that word refers to the legal status of non-muslims under ShariaJihad = A muslim's struggle against oneself and the worldNone of these doctrines "call followers to conquer the infidel". That's BS.

How do you view Hamas if not a terrorist organization?

 

[Offa]

How do you view Hamas if not a terrorist organization?

It's a political and social movement with a terrorist wing.

 

[tommyboy]

Your "many Americans" will oppose any mosque put anywhere on Manhattan US soil.

maybe, but I doubt that actually.

The Bible calls on it's followers to do a lot of things that the followers don't do anymore and having a mosque near Ground Zero isn't going to all of a sudden give Muslims the power to change the laws of the city, state and country to their liking. Just ask the Christian abortion opponents (and the Christians have been here since the beginning!) They may believe in Sharia, but they won't be able to enforce it here because we are not a theistic Islamic country.

funny you think that to be true...do a google search on shariah in europe.

 

[Mark Davis]

How do you view Hamas if not a terrorist organization?

It's a political and social movement with a terrorist wing.

One doesn't exist without the other, it's like overlookiing the criminal parts of the Bloods or Crips and looking at them as a social club.

 

[Offa]

funny you think that to be true...do a google search on shariah in europe.

Do a google search on "beth din in europe". Where is all the outrage about Jewish law?

 

[tommyboy]

And yet the man behind this mosque cannot find it in himself to call Hamas a terrorist organization. Americans aren't stupid, they see a puppet that doesn't want to divulge where the money's coming from, can't call Hamas what the State Dept calls it...they see a group that wants to build in a sensitive place and say "no".

So what? If the most radical quote is him not calling Hamas a terrorist organisation, then that doesn't exactly make him a radical. I'd sort of agree with him, and I certainly don't want to bring Shariah law to the US or some nonsense like that.

funny, because Imam Rauf claims the US Constitution is "sharia compliant". Guess you better have a chat with him, you're at odds on that issue. You two do agree on the hamas thing though...

 

[tommyboy]

How do you view Hamas if not a terrorist organization?

It's a political and social movement with a terrorist wing.

kind of like the Nazis.

 

[mad sweeney]

Your "many Americans" will oppose any mosque put anywhere on Manhattan US soil.

maybe, but I doubt that actually.

The Bible calls on it's followers to do a lot of things that the followers don't do anymore and having a mosque near Ground Zero isn't going to all of a sudden give Muslims the power to change the laws of the city, state and country to their liking. Just ask the Christian abortion opponents (and the Christians have been here since the beginning!) They may believe in Sharia, but they won't be able to enforce it here because we are not a theistic Islamic country.

funny you think that to be true...do a google search on shariah in europe.

Funny you should think that European countries have the same laws as the US. Not sure if you're aware of this but we sort of broke loose from them a few hundred years ago.

 

[Offa]

How do you view Hamas if not a terrorist organization?

It's a political and social movement with a terrorist wing.

One doesn't exist without the other, it's like overlookiing the criminal parts of the Bloods or Crips and looking at them as a social club.

I don't think that's an accurate comparison. Around 90% of Hamas' work is done in social and cultural areas. The armed struggle isn't the main part of Hamas' organisation anymore.

 

[mad sweeney]

So according to this emotional "logic"; If a couple of Mexican gardeners go nuts and kill the family they're working for, it would then be OK for the neighborhood to band together and deny a Mexican family from buying the house nine years later. Not only that, but in doing so they'd be "real" Americans. Hooray for the USA!!!!

 

[Mark Davis]

How do you view Hamas if not a terrorist organization?

It's a political and social movement with a terrorist wing.

One doesn't exist without the other, it's like overlookiing the criminal parts of the Bloods or Crips and looking at them as a social club.

I don't think that's an accurate comparison. Around 90% of Hamas' work is done in social and cultural areas. The armed struggle isn't the main part of Hamas' organisation anymore.

Let me make sure I get this straight, so if they only focus on killing people 10% of the time, or support the 10% of members engaging in terrorist activity, they aren't a terrorist organization (Not sure how 10% was chosen)?

 

[Offa]

And yet the man behind this mosque cannot find it in himself to call Hamas a terrorist organization. Americans aren't stupid, they see a puppet that doesn't want to divulge where the money's coming from, can't call Hamas what the State Dept calls it...they see a group that wants to build in a sensitive place and say "no".

So what? If the most radical quote is him not calling Hamas a terrorist organisation, then that doesn't exactly make him a radical. I'd sort of agree with him, and I certainly don't want to bring Shariah law to the US or some nonsense like that.

funny, because Imam Rauf claims the US Constitution is "sharia compliant". Guess you better have a chat with him, you're at odds on that issue. You two do agree on the hamas thing though...

Yeah, what he said was:

Rauf: Any system of rule that protects "God-given rights" "is therefore legally 'Islamic,' or Shariah compliant, in its substance." In his book, Rauf writes that "Muslim legal scholars have defined five areas of life that Islamic law must protect and further. These are life, mind (that is, mental well-being or sanity), religion, property (or wealth), and family (or lineage and progeny)." Rauf says that because the American political system "upholds, protects, and furthers these rights," it is "Shariah compliant, in its substance." From What's Right With Islam:

Is that really so scary? If he believes that Sharia upholds the same rights as the US constitution, then why is he such a "radical"?

 

[tommyboy]

That's ridiculous. You're throwing around technical Islamic terms without understanding what they actually mean.Taqiyyah = It's OK not to openly display your faith when doing so would put you in dangerSharia = Islamic lawDhimmitude = You mean "dhimmia", that word refers to the legal status of non-muslims under ShariaJihad = A muslim's struggle against oneself and the worldNone of these doctrines "call followers to conquer the infidel". That's BS.

I know full what these terms mean. I also know that you left a lot out of your definitions. Let me help you outTaqiyyah- lying/deception is ok under Islamic law if it helps in the act of jihad or to further the pursuit of Islamic supremacy.Sharia- Under Sharia, homosexuality is punishable by death, women half half or less rights as their husbands, forced child marriages are ok, female genital mutilation is fine, death for apostasy and death for those who insult or slander Islam.Dhimmitude- The wonderful Islamic law that gives inferior legal rights to all Non Muslims. Under this law the Dhimmi is required to pay a Jizya, or tax to their Muslim betters.Jihad- Holy War.

 

[tommyboy]

And yet the man behind this mosque cannot find it in himself to call Hamas a terrorist organization. Americans aren't stupid, they see a puppet that doesn't want to divulge where the money's coming from, can't call Hamas what the State Dept calls it...they see a group that wants to build in a sensitive place and say "no".

So what? If the most radical quote is him not calling Hamas a terrorist organisation, then that doesn't exactly make him a radical. I'd sort of agree with him, and I certainly don't want to bring Shariah law to the US or some nonsense like that.

funny, because Imam Rauf claims the US Constitution is "sharia compliant". Guess you better have a chat with him, you're at odds on that issue. You two do agree on the hamas thing though...

Yeah, what he said was:

Rauf: Any system of rule that protects "God-given rights" "is therefore legally 'Islamic,' or Shariah compliant, in its substance." In his book, Rauf writes that "Muslim legal scholars have defined five areas of life that Islamic law must protect and further. These are life, mind (that is, mental well-being or sanity), religion, property (or wealth), and family (or lineage and progeny)." Rauf says that because the American political system "upholds, protects, and furthers these rights," it is "Shariah compliant, in its substance." From What's Right With Islam:

Is that really so scary? If he believes that Sharia upholds the same rights as the US constitution, then why is he such a "radical"?

because Sharia doesn't uphold the same rights as the constitution. Clearly

 

[Offa]

Let me make sure I get this straight, so if they only focus on killing people 10% of the time, or support the 10% of members engaging in terrorist activity, they aren't a terrorist organization (Not sure how 10% was chosen)?

No, I don't think so. Not mainly at least. The problem is that there isn't a definition of the word terrorism, let alone what a terrorist organisation is.

(Not sure how 10% was chosen)?

I got it from the Israeli academic Reuven Paz, expert on the Islamist movement.

 

[tommyboy]

Your "many Americans" will oppose any mosque put anywhere on Manhattan US soil.

maybe, but I doubt that actually.

The Bible calls on it's followers to do a lot of things that the followers don't do anymore and having a mosque near Ground Zero isn't going to all of a sudden give Muslims the power to change the laws of the city, state and country to their liking. Just ask the Christian abortion opponents (and the Christians have been here since the beginning!) They may believe in Sharia, but they won't be able to enforce it here because we are not a theistic Islamic country.

funny you think that to be true...do a google search on shariah in europe.

Funny you should think that European countries have the same laws as the US. Not sure if you're aware of this but we sort of broke loose from them a few hundred years ago.

you made the point you didnt think Sharia would fly here in the US. There are many people in England that thought sharia wouldn't fly there either, yet it does.I agree with you on the basic idea that Sharia and the US are incompatible, but I disagree that we as a nation can just ignore it here. They won't stop trying to get parts of it creeping into our legal systems just because we're the good old USofA.

 

[Mark Davis]

Let me make sure I get this straight, so if they only focus on killing people 10% of the time, or support the 10% of members engaging in terrorist activity, they aren't a terrorist organization (Not sure how 10% was chosen)?

No, I don't think so. Not mainly at least. The problem is that there isn't a definition of the word terrorism, let alone what a terrorist organisation is.

(Not sure how 10% was chosen)?

I got it from the Israeli academic Reuven Paz, expert on the Islamist movement.

For these purposes, just off the top of my head I'd call someone a terrorist if they engaged in indiscriminately killing civilians in order to promote general fear or terror in an effort to promote their own ideology. I disagree on there being degrees of how much someone can be involved in terrorism and not being labeled a terrorist. To me, it's akin to committing murder and then objecting to the term "murderer" because you've only killed one person and the rest of the time you were a model citizen. What about Al-Qaeda? If their affiliates are helping fund/run madrassas for the people of say northern Waziristan are they now more social or are they a terrorist organization? I'm just trying to figure out where you see the line here.

 

[mad sweeney]

That's ridiculous. You're throwing around technical Islamic terms without understanding what they actually mean.

Taqiyyah = It's OK not to openly display your faith when doing so would put you in danger

Sharia = Islamic law

Dhimmitude = You mean "dhimmia", that word refers to the legal status of non-muslims under Sharia

Jihad = A muslim's struggle against oneself and the world

None of these doctrines "call followers to conquer the infidel". That's BS.

I know full what these terms mean. I also know that you left a lot out of your definitions. Let me help you outTaqiyyah- lying/deception is ok under Islamic law if it helps in the act of jihad or to further the pursuit of Islamic supremacy.

Sharia- Under Sharia, homosexuality is punishable by death, women half half or less rights as their husbands, forced child marriages are ok, female genital mutilation is fine, death for apostasy and death for those who insult or slander Islam.

Dhimmitude- The wonderful Islamic law that gives inferior legal rights to all Non Muslims. Under this law the Dhimmi is required to pay a Jizya, or tax to their Muslim betters.

Jihad- Holy War.

Can you tell me which of these are legal in the US? Which of these they'll be able to impose while here in the US? TIA

 

[Offa]

Taqiyyah- lying/deception is ok under Islamic law if it helps in the act of jihad or to further the pursuit of Islamic supremacy.

That's rubbish. Please cite.

Sharia- Under Sharia, homosexuality is punishable by death, women half half or less rights as their husbands, forced child marriages are ok, female genital mutilation is fine, death for apostasy and death for those who insult or slander Islam.

Depends on which scholars you listen to. Islam is an incredibly diverse religion, and it's impossible to make judgements about what Sharia says or doesn't say without years of studying Islamic law. Thousands of Islamic scholars have done that their entire lives and they disagree. The Qu'ran and especially the Hadith is subject to a loooot of interpretation, in fact for the Hadith interpretation is pretty much mandatory. For example, pretty much all Islamic scholars reject female circumcision, and most of them reject death for apostaty (though not apostates who then criticise Islam). Dhimma is subject to the same theological uncertainty.

Jihad- Holy War.

That's one meaning. There are a lot of others.

 

[Offa]

because Sharia doesn't uphold the same rights as the constitution. Clearly

Imam Rauf knows more about Islamic jurisprudence than both of us put together, who are we to say he's talking out of his ####?

 

[timschochet]

At first I too was troubled by Rauf's supposed "refusal" to call Hamas terrorists. But then I learned that Rauf, as a Sufi Muslim, unequivocally considers suicide bombing and other acts of terror to be evil and anti-Islamic. That's the important part. Rauf notes that Hamas was freely elected the government of Gaza, and therefore he argues that they are more than simply a terrorist organization. I don't see how any rational person could disagree with him.

 

[mad sweeney]

Your "many Americans" will oppose any mosque put anywhere on Manhattan US soil.

maybe, but I doubt that actually.

The Bible calls on it's followers to do a lot of things that the followers don't do anymore and having a mosque near Ground Zero isn't going to all of a sudden give Muslims the power to change the laws of the city, state and country to their liking. Just ask the Christian abortion opponents (and the Christians have been here since the beginning!) They may believe in Sharia, but they won't be able to enforce it here because we are not a theistic Islamic country.

funny you think that to be true...do a google search on shariah in europe.

Funny you should think that European countries have the same laws as the US. Not sure if you're aware of this but we sort of broke loose from them a few hundred years ago.

you made the point you didnt think Sharia would fly here in the US. There are many people in England that thought sharia wouldn't fly there either, yet it does.I agree with you on the basic idea that Sharia and the US are incompatible, but I disagree that we as a nation can just ignore it here. They won't stop trying to get parts of it creeping into our legal systems just because we're the good old USofA.

I'm pretty sure we showed what we thought of the English system of laws back in 1776. And they can try and creep anything they want in. Until they have a voting majority they're going to be SOL. And who knows, maybe their Sharia laws will lighten up just as the Christians did. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that someone was trying to open a center to do just that, re-interpret the Koran to modernize it a bit and pull the Muslims out of the "chopping off heads in the desert" motif a lot of them seem to be stuck in.

 

[Mark Davis]

At first I too was troubled by Rauf's supposed "refusal" to call Hamas terrorists. But then I learned that Rauf, as a Sufi Muslim, unequivocally considers suicide bombing and other acts of terror to be evil and anti-Islamic. That's the important part. Rauf notes that Hamas was freely elected the government of Gaza, and therefore he argues that they are more than simply a terrorist organization. I don't see how any rational person could disagree with him.

So you agree Hamas is a terrorist organization?

 

[Offa]

For these purposes, just off the top of my head I'd call someone a terrorist if they engaged in indiscriminately killing civilians in order to promote general fear or terror in an effort to promote their own ideology.

I don't think Hamas has ever committed acts of terror to promote their own ideology, no.

I disagree on there being degrees of how much someone can be involved in terrorism and not being labeled a terrorist. To me, it's akin to committing murder and then objecting to the term "murderer" because you've only killed one person and the rest of the time you were a model citizen. What about Al-Qaeda? If their affiliates are helping fund/run madrassas for the people of say northern Waziristan are they now more social or are they a terrorist organization? I'm just trying to figure out where you see the line here.

I think that's the key phrase. Al Qaeda isn't a social organisation, it's a terrorist one. Groups affilitaed to it can social organisations. With Hamas, it's pretty clear that the Qassam Brigades are a terrorist organisation, but that's only one branch of a wider Hamas movement. To call Hamas a terrorist organisation would be to ignore it's sociopolitical relevancy I think.BTW I think Lashkar-e-Taiba or another Pakistani terrorist group would be a better example. Al Qaeda really associate itself with social projects, unlike say, the Punjabi Taliban.

 

[Mark Davis]

For these purposes, just off the top of my head I'd call someone a terrorist if they engaged in indiscriminately killing civilians in order to promote general fear or terror in an effort to promote their own ideology.

I don't think Hamas has ever committed acts of terror to promote their own ideology, no.

I disagree on there being degrees of how much someone can be involved in terrorism and not being labeled a terrorist. To me, it's akin to committing murder and then objecting to the term "murderer" because you've only killed one person and the rest of the time you were a model citizen. What about Al-Qaeda? If their affiliates are helping fund/run madrassas for the people of say northern Waziristan are they now more social or are they a terrorist organization? I'm just trying to figure out where you see the line here.

I think that's the key phrase. Al Qaeda isn't a social organisation, it's a terrorist one. Groups affilitaed to it can social organisations. With Hamas, it's pretty clear that the Qassam Brigades are a terrorist organisation, but that's only one branch of a wider Hamas movement. To call Hamas a terrorist organisation would be to ignore it's sociopolitical relevancy I think.BTW I think Lashkar-e-Taiba or another Pakistani terrorist group would be a better example. Al Qaeda really associate itself with social projects, unlike say, the Punjabi Taliban.

Feel free to substitute ideology with goals, even use dreams, aspirations, it really doesn't matter. If we're saying Al Qaeda and the Qassam Brigades are terrorist organizations then we both can agree there is such a thing. The more confounding thing to me is the reluctance to label Hamas as such. They clearly have supported and committed these acts in the past, I don't know how else to label them. Should we label John Wayne Gacy an artist and shun the murderer tag because of his other exploits? I'm not denying Hamas has political and social relevance as well, but they have committed terrorist acts, just as Gacy committed murders, and each earned their respective label.

 

[Offa]

Feel free to substitute ideology with goals, even use dreams, aspirations, it really doesn't matter. If we're saying Al Qaeda and the Qassam Brigades are terrorist organizations then we both can agree there is such a thing. The more confounding thing to me is the reluctance to label Hamas as such.

I guess the reluctance comes from the fact that it's a favourite tactic of the Israeli goverment to dismiss Hamas as just a bunch of terrorists. This means they don't have to negotiate with half of Palestine, and are able to keep the peace process in stasis. To call Hamas a terrorist organisation really misses the point IMO.

 

[timschochet]

At first I too was troubled by Rauf's supposed "refusal" to call Hamas terrorists. But then I learned that Rauf, as a Sufi Muslim, unequivocally considers suicide bombing and other acts of terror to be evil and anti-Islamic. That's the important part. Rauf notes that Hamas was freely elected the government of Gaza, and therefore he argues that they are more than simply a terrorist organization. I don't see how any rational person could disagree with him.

So you agree Hamas is a terrorist organization?

Personally yes. I have no doubt, as a matter of fact. But if someone, particularly a Muslim, disagrees with me, then I have no problem with that so long as they believe that suicide bombing is evil. As I wrote, that's the important part, not how we define Hamas. If you were to say, "Hamas is not a terrorist organization; they are freedom fighters and their so-called acts of terror are heroic acts" then I would have a serious problem with that.

 

[flufhed]

i doubt this thing gets built

Probably not, which is kind of a shame. But the people it gets all foaming at the mouth and angry, crying about Fox News and throwing around derogatory labels almost makes it worth it.

saw some poll about 70% of americans don't want it built. Seems pretty straightforward

Yep, no doubt. From its inception, this has been a country set up so that majority opinion rules on all issues.

 

[the moops]

Dhimmitude- The wonderful Islamic law that gives inferior legal rights to all Non Muslims.

Sounds kind of like what you and your friends are supporting here, under US law, to Muslims.

 

[mad sweeney]

Dhimmitude- The wonderful Islamic law that gives inferior legal rights to all Non Muslims.

Sounds kind of like what you and your friends are supporting here, under US law, to Muslims.

Don't forget the gays.

 

[the moops]

Dhimmitude- The wonderful Islamic law that gives inferior legal rights to all Non Muslims.

Sounds kind of like what you and your friends are supporting here, under US law, to Muslims.

Don't forget the gays.

If they had to vote for one, which would it be? Allow gays to marry, or allow the mosque to be built two blocks from ground zero?

 

[tommyboy]

that argument fails at the point you realize the penalty for homosexuality under Islamic law is death.

 

[tommyboy]

Dhimmitude- The wonderful Islamic law that gives inferior legal rights to all Non Muslims.

Sounds kind of like what you and your friends are supporting here, under US law, to Muslims.

you are saying we would like to force muslims into secondary citizen status and force them to pay taxes we don't have to pay? Yeah, not wanting one mosque built in one place is kind of like applying the muslim law of dhimmi to all US Muslims. A lot like it, i like your logic

 

[EasyMorningRebel]

Dhimmitude- The wonderful Islamic law that gives inferior legal rights to all Non Muslims.

Sounds kind of like what you and your friends are supporting here, under US law, to Muslims.

Don't forget the gays.

If they had to vote for one, which would it be? Allow gays to marry, or allow the mosque to be built two blocks from ground zero?

I think we should combine the two - legalize gay marriage, but only for Muslim couples.

 

[mad sweeney]

that argument fails at the point you realize the penalty for homosexuality under Islamic law is death.

Not under US Islamic law. Thanks for playing.PS- It's also a death sentence in the Bible.

 

[timschochet]

that argument fails at the point you realize the penalty for homosexuality under Islamic law is death.

tommyboy, what do you suppose the penalty for homosexuality is under Judeo-Christian law, according to Leviticus?

 

[tommyboy]

that argument fails at the point you realize the penalty for homosexuality under Islamic law is death.

tommyboy, what do you suppose the penalty for homosexuality is under Judeo-Christian law, according to Leviticus?

and your point is?

 

[timschochet]

that argument fails at the point you realize the penalty for homosexuality under Islamic law is death.

tommyboy, what do you suppose the penalty for homosexuality is under Judeo-Christian law, according to Leviticus?

and your point is?

THat you have no understanding whatsoever of what Sharia law means. You think that all Muslims who say they believe in Sharia take all of it's instructions literally. But the actual truth is that only a very small, fanatic minority do. If you had ever studied Talmudic law (which can be just as extreme) you would know this. But since Christianity is a religion without as many strict laws written into it, it is easy for Christians to make this mistake. The sect that Imam Rauf belongs to, the Sufi, have a very liberal interpretation of the Sharia- the analogy I would give you is that the Sufi are like Reformed Jews, while you seem to want to group them in with Hasidic Jews.The error you are making is quite similar to the one made by the anti-Semites who wrote The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the 19th Century. That book took the most extreme language of the Talmud, gave it literal intepretations and attempted to apply it to all Jews who practiced their belief in "The Law." It is an error which leads to great prejudice. You are too smart a guy to make it.

 

[Bogeys]

that argument fails at the point you realize the penalty for homosexuality under Islamic law is death.

tommyboy, what do you suppose the penalty for homosexuality is under Judeo-Christian law, according to Leviticus?

and your point is?

THat you have no understanding whatsoever of what Sharia law means. You think that all Muslims who say they believe in Sharia take all of it's instructions literally. But the actual truth is that only a very small, fanatic minority do. If you had ever studied Talmudic law (which can be just as extreme) you would know this. But since Christianity is a religion without as many strict laws written into it, it is easy for Christians to make this mistake. The sect that Imam Rauf belongs to, the Sufi, have a very liberal interpretation of the Sharia- the analogy I would give you is that the Sufi are like Reformed Jews, while you seem to want to group them in with Hasidic Jews.The error you are making is quite similar to the one made by the anti-Semites who wrote The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the 19th Century. That book took the most extreme language of the Talmud, gave it literal intepretations and attempted to apply it to all Jews who practiced their belief in "The Law." It is an error which leads to great prejudice. You are too smart a guy to make it.

In what countries is Sharia law the law of the land? I hear about Iran and Saudi Arabia (Afghanistan under the Taliban), but not sure about the rest of the world. Seems to me that the countries that actually have sharia law actually impliment the more radical type that you are saying only a minority promote. Really don't know the answer and am curious what other countries have sharia as primary law. Seems we have actual current examples instead of going back to something that happened in the 19th century or what is written in the bible but not practiced (that I know of) currently.

 

[tommyboy]

that argument fails at the point you realize the penalty for homosexuality under Islamic law is death.

tommyboy, what do you suppose the penalty for homosexuality is under Judeo-Christian law, according to Leviticus?

and your point is?

THat you have no understanding whatsoever of what Sharia law means. You think that all Muslims who say they believe in Sharia take all of it's instructions literally. But the actual truth is that only a very small, fanatic minority do. If you had ever studied Talmudic law (which can be just as extreme) you would know this. But since Christianity is a religion without as many strict laws written into it, it is easy for Christians to make this mistake. The sect that Imam Rauf belongs to, the Sufi, have a very liberal interpretation of the Sharia- the analogy I would give you is that the Sufi are like Reformed Jews, while you seem to want to group them in with Hasidic Jews.The error you are making is quite similar to the one made by the anti-Semites who wrote The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the 19th Century. That book took the most extreme language of the Talmud, gave it literal intepretations and attempted to apply it to all Jews who practiced their belief in "The Law." It is an error which leads to great prejudice. You are too smart a guy to make it.

the problem you have is that entire nations currently practice Sharia law, large swaths of Islamic areas in the world practice Sharia law today, in all its barbaric glory. There are very few places on this planet where old Judaic law is practiced. An observer would conclude today that until all of Islam reforms to expel the "old" mindset, as it is practiced today it is incompatible with modern western democratic values.

 

[cubd8]

Is this guy a radical?

1) he said we are an accesssory to what happened on 9/11 (10 days after the attacks).

2) says Bin Laden was made in the USA.

3) says America is Sharia compliant state.

4) the financer of the Mosque was waiting tables 2 years ago and is now a millionaire and refuses to answer questions about how it happened or about how the mosque is being funded? they refuse to say where the money (what countries - Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example) is coming from?

Does any of this raise eye brows from those on the left?