Islamic group to build mosque adjacent to ground zero [Archive] - Page 2

Sasaki Kojiro

08-12-2010, 18:20

Fool me for thinking we had a clue what we are talking about here... never mind.

With respect to FGM (and only FGM), this is certainly not an "Islamic" -in the sense of appearing in the Qu'ran or Hadith - concept. It is popular in East African cultures, of which Hirsa Ali is descended, being Somali. I've never heard of Asian or Middle Eastern Muslims practicing FGM. My understanding is that FGM is an east African cultural concept, not directly related to Islam as it is also present in non Islamic East-African cultures.

But that is only FGM.

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v9n3/spencer93_text.html#ii%29%20Who_T

# An estimated 135 million of the world's girls and women have undergone genital mutilation and 2 million girls a year, approximately 6 000 a day, are at risk of FGM.[26]

# FGM is practised in more than 40 countries; this number is rising because of increasing migration to Western countries from traditionally practising countries.[27] It has been reported in Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, UK and USA.[28]

# FGM is practised extensively in Africa, is common in the Middle East and has been reported among Muslim populations in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and among the indigenous peoples of Columbia, Mexico and Peru.[29]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJU/is_1_10/ai_102025141/

The incidence of FGM in women worldwide is unknown; however, rough estimates range from 114 to 130 million women. FGM is most commonly practiced in African countries where up to 90% of women in Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Sudan (North) have been circumcised. Other African countries such as Benin, Burkina, Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Egypt, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, and Togo have reported a 50% incidence (WHO, 1998). This practice can also be found in the Middle East countries including the Oman, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and Asian countries including Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and India. Some cultures are strictly forbidden to disclose information about their practices so data collection is inadequate.

http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/fgm-prov-p.htm

SRI LANKA

* Current status: Female genital mutilation is practiced among the Muslim population in Sri Lanka. The share of Muslims is 7.6 per cent. However, the majority of Muslims do not practice FGM. Precise details and figures are not available, as this is practiced in utmost secrecy.
* Legislation: No legislation has been enacted to curb it.

http://www.pri.org/business/nonprofits/fighting-fgm-in-northern-iraq2052.html

The emotionally, physically and psychologically disturbing practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) is surprisingly common in Northern Iraq. A recent survey found that more than 40 percent of women in the Chamchamal district had undergone the risky procedure that involves the removal of the clitoris and sometimes other genital parts.

The issue is complicated by inaccurate or nonexistant data, african immigrant populations, and differing types of fgm.

But the main issue we've been talking about here--when millions of people believe that a religion justifies a certain action, how much sense does it make to point to original texts? Religion and culture are intertwined--the developments that take place in the centuries after the original texts are written seem to me to be a part of the religion.

Basically, claiming a practice is not religious, when millions of the people of that religion would disagree with you, seems bizarre. If I knew more about christianity...aren't their some basic things that are considered christian (or catholic maybe) that aren't based on original texts?

Fragony

08-12-2010, 18:25

Yeah and that is where you are willing to make an exception, can be anything but, good job .

al Roumi

08-12-2010, 18:53

But the main issue we've been talking about here--when millions of people believe that a religion justifies a certain action, how much sense does it make to point to original texts? Religion and culture are intertwined--the developments that take place in the centuries after the original texts are written seem to me to be a part of the religion.

As my earlier post, the reason for saying it is not a part of religion is because the interpretation of faith and religion is not the same for everyone. Hence Reenk's point about the need to be specific in terminology and scope. Lumping a whole load of factors under a single heading is easy, but quickly gets one into hot water when faced with the subtleties of reality.

Some Somali's may think FGM is religious, others do not.

If you'd like an example from Christianity; people could, looking at the KKK or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, acuse all Christians of violently persecuting black people or of practicing extreme forms of polygamy.

Sasaki Kojiro

08-12-2010, 19:26

As my earlier post, the reason for saying it is not a part of religion is because the interpretation of faith and religion is not the same for everyone.
...
If you'd like an example from Christianity; people could, looking at the KKK or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, acuse all Christians of violently persecuting black people or of practicing extreme forms of polygamy.

I'm thinking of things like the sacrament, baptism, priest celibacy...aka many of the things that have caused division in christianity. It's generally agreed that these are religious customs. They have a cultural basis, aren't practiced by all christians, are practiced in some other cultures etc. You wouldn't say that they "aren't a part of religion" because the interpretation of faith and religion is not the same for everyone.

Reenk Roink

08-12-2010, 20:27

I'm thinking of things like the sacrament, baptism, priest celibacy...aka many of the things that have caused division in christianity. It's generally agreed that these are religious customs. They have a cultural basis, aren't practiced by all christians, are practiced in some other cultures etc. You wouldn't say that they "aren't a part of religion" because the interpretation of faith and religion is not the same for everyone.

Well the thing is, people might be more willing to accept things as "an islamic problem" if it's pretty clearly shown that it has a strong basis in the religion and, like say, fasting in Ramadan. Sure there are probably groups out there who don't fast and have different views, but in this case it's pretty obvious that this custom is uniquely Islamic.

Take a look at your second article you posted to see why exactly people reject such simplistic associations Sasaki. On the very first page with the quote you reproduced, the article said:

The origins of female circumcision and female genital mutilation are unknown. It is believed that female genital mutilation originated in Africa as far back as the fifth century B.C. and has taken place in ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, Arabia, and Tsarist Russia. Ancient female Egyptian mummies were found to be circumcised, "suggesting that it was practiced as a sign of distinction" (Nour, 2000, para. 5). It was used in England during the Victorian period to treat psychological disorders and to prevent masturbation in women (Hopkins, 1999). In Europe and in the United States as late as the 1930's, "removal of the clitoris or prepuce was performed to treat clitoral enlargement, redundancy, hysteria, lesbianism, and erotomania" (Nour, para. 5).

J. Marion Sims, the "Father of Gynecology" (in the U.S.) endorsed the practice of clitorectomies well into the twentieth century. The practice of clitorectomy for psychiatric disorders became popular with Freudian psychoanalysis. Oophorectomy, or removal of the ovaries, also known as female castration, and hysterectomies were widespread as a cure for psychological disorders and continued in the U.S. until the mid-1940's.

ESPECIALLY if the intent is to actually do something about these problems, the first step is understanding very clearly where they come from, and how exactly they relate to religion. And my major point: having a nuanced view is going to be a lot more effective in combating it it, not to mention you avoid unnecessarily pissing a lot of people off with factually and politically incorrect statements.

Rahwana

08-12-2010, 20:35

That sucks, you get fined for eating?

yeah, all non muslims are supposed to "honour" the muslim rituals, one month of boredness and hunger for him...

With respect to FGM (and only FGM), this is certainly not an "Islamic" -in the sense of appearing in the Qu'ran or Hadith - concept. It is popular in East African cultures, of which Hirsa Ali is descended, being Somali. I've never heard of Asian or Middle Eastern Muslims practicing FGM. My understanding is that FGM is an east African cultural concept, not directly related to Islam as it is also present in non Islamic East-African cultures.

But that is only FGM.

FGM is still present in some muslim communities in hinterland Malaysia though, oh wait, Malaysia is east african country :clown:

Sasaki Kojiro

08-12-2010, 20:51

Well the thing is, people might be more willing to accept things as "an islamic problem" if it's pretty clearly shown that it has a strong basis in the religion and, like say, fasting in Ramadan. Sure there are probably groups out there who don't fast and have different views, but in this case it's pretty obvious that this custom is uniquely Islamic.

Take a look at your second article you posted to see why exactly people reject such simplistic associations Sasaki. On the very first page with the quote you reproduced, the article said:

It's the simplistic rejection of it that I'm arguing against, I think I've said many times (probably in many of the threads we've had on the subject) that the association can be simplistic. But "fgm is an african tradition, and other cultures have done it as well" is a simplistic rejection of the fact that it is justified by islam in these countries.

ESPECIALLY if the intent is to actually do something about these problems, the first step is understanding very clearly where they come from, and how exactly they relate to religion. And my major point: having a nuanced view is going to be a lot more effective in combating it it, not to mention you avoid unnecessarily pissing a lot of people off with factually and politically incorrect statements.

I mean, the nuanced and accurate view is the best. Agreed. And that's your view, which is why it annoyed you when I didn't make it clear enough that I was talking about the debate as a whole and not your views specifically. But that is what I came into to thread talking about remember.

If you see how damaging it is to the debate to over-generalize, you can see how bad it is to make simplistic statements in the opposite way--for one thing it kills the credibility of someone supporting the more nuanced view. If you try and separate fgm from islam completely, people who believe it is enshrined in the koran and done by all muslims will largely ignore you.

al Roumi

08-12-2010, 21:36

FGM is still present in some muslim communities in hinterland Malaysia though, oh wait, Malaysia is east african country :clown:

Thanks, I read the same in one of Sasaki's links. It was news to me. My understanding is still that it's not prevalant accross the Islamic world, but present in certain minorities?

It's the simplistic rejection of it that I'm arguing against, I think I've said many times (probably in many of the threads we've had on the subject) that the association can be simplistic. But "fgm is an african tradition, and other cultures have done it as well" is a simplistic rejection of the fact that it is justified by islam in these countries.

I mean, the nuanced and accurate view is the best. Agreed. And that's your view, which is why it annoyed you when I didn't make it clear enough that I was talking about the debate as a whole and not your views specifically. But that is what I came into to thread talking about remember.

If you see how damaging it is to the debate to over-generalize, you can see how bad it is to make simplistic statements in the opposite way--for one thing it kills the credibility of someone supporting the more nuanced view. If you try and separate fgm from islam completely, people who believe it is enshrined in the koran and done by all muslims will largely ignore you.

Well if you are trully interested in a nuanced view, the reality is that Islam is used by some to justify FGM and others to counter it -as is the case with the general treatment of women in Muslim cultures.

Sasaki Kojiro

08-12-2010, 22:08

Well if you are trully interested in a nuanced view, the reality is that Islam is used by some to justify FGM and others to counter it -as is the case with the general treatment of women in Muslim cultures.

Yeah like it says in the links I posted.

Crazed Rabbit

08-12-2010, 22:37

As Lemur said, I think the gar bar plan is definitely the best response to this.

And congrats on fourteen thousand and one posts, Sasaki.

CR

Sasaki Kojiro

08-12-2010, 22:47

As Lemur said, I think the gar bar plan is definitely the best response to this.

Nah, that just seems like sniggering.

And congrats on fourteen thousand and one posts, Sasaki.

CR

:balloon2:

Fragony

08-14-2010, 04:08

Owwww the Tariq Ramadan look/think-aliking culturally blackmailing site hijjacking honey-talking time-bomb that is the imam of the roflgotya-mosque who wants nothing but dialogue publishes some very weird stuff in Indonesia, it kinda doesn't really sound like dialogue, not at all.

taqiyyayayaya yessir

Beskar

08-14-2010, 04:49

Tellos Athenaios

08-14-2010, 05:10

It's a bit of a shock: one moment I'm reading a thread about elephants on LSD, the next I'm reading that. All on the same ORG. And it's 6:09 in the morning. :dizzy2:

Fragony

08-14-2010, 05:11

:laugh4:

I liked the posting style, though, it wasn't really constructive or productive.

No building a mosque named after Cordoba (very significant event in islamist ideoligy, more so than the fall of Constantinoble as Turks don't really count no arab bloodline) near ground zero is constructive.

This guy is not what he pretends to be, he's a hardliner practising taqiyya, which means no other than hiding your true convictions when it suits you. The muslim brotherhood changed it's strategy but the goal remains the same, jihad holy war.

Sasaki Kojiro

08-14-2010, 05:29

Are they really spending $100 million on this thing? That should be considered more objectionable than the location by far. Surely they could put it to better use.

Fragony

08-14-2010, 05:44

Are they really spending $100 million on this thing? That should be considered more objectionable than the location by far. Surely they could put it to better use.

At least 99, 1 million comes from our development-aid budget which really meant for puppy-eyed bloated black bellies, naturally sanctioned by the labour party. But yeah maybe it would be better spend in Pakistan.

Beskar

08-14-2010, 07:27

Hey Fragony, just a quick question.

Which would you prefer?
Total Secularisation (Complete Seperation of State and Religion, No input from State or Religion in eachothers matters)
State-sponsered-Athiesm (Banning Churches, Removal of Religion Overtly.)

I am curious, since I know you have a low opinion of Religion anyway, which one you would take. I am currently falling under "Total Secularisation" myself, with some instances of Athiesm to combat the more aggressive intrusions (Like 'Intelligent Design'/Creationism), etc.

Fragony

08-14-2010, 08:04

I don't care as long as I don't have to care. What I prefer right know is that they trace back the money, draw their conclusions, and send this imam and his wife of tarred and feathered.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/terror-ties-ground-zero-imam-attended-hizb-ut-tahrir-conference/

Nice friends

Also behind the Flotillas by the way

we con the world, we con the people lalala

Lemur

08-14-2010, 14:21

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/terror-ties-ground-zero-imam-attended-hizb-ut-tahrir-conference/
Ooooh, he attended a conference in Indonesia. And the people who sponsored the conference, your correspondent breathlessly tells us, are avowed opponents of the governments of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. And some of the speakers said unkind things about Israel and the United States. HE'S EVIL! Then, of course, there is paragraph after paragraph of innuendo, unsourced allegations, straw men, and every tool of the demagogue on display.

Really, Fragony, you need to cast a wider net with your reading. If you do nothing but read and regurgitate what you find in paranoid rightwing blogs, well, you're gonna sound like a loon if you aren't careful.

I've been advised that I'm not supposed to take your posts "literally." Don't know where to go with that bit of advice; I have no doubt that Muslim Orgahs will see your relentless conflation of every Imam with Osama Bin Laden and take appropriate offense. And how should I read your rapturous desire for a religious war of civilizations if not literally? Your positions are, quite obviously, exactly what Al Qaeda wants in westerners. They could not ask for a better ally. I'll say it a third time: You are in grave danger of being a useful idiot.

If I'm supposed to read your rants as some sort of poetry, allegory or code, it's all a bit abstruse and postmodern for this lemur.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-14-2010, 14:32

"The Fragony Code"

.....two "snaps" up for that idea!

Now, who should we get to play the lead? What say you Frags, which of the Hollywood leading hunks do you most resemble?

Fragony

08-14-2010, 15:05

[QUOTE=Lemur;2053197381]
I've been advised that I'm not supposed to take your posts "literally." Don't know where to go with that bit of advice; I have no doubt that Muslim Orgahs will see your relentless conflation of every Imam with Osama Bin Laden and take appropriate offense. And how should I read your rapturous desire for a religious war of civilizations if not literally?

Well because I never said such a thing for starters. Somehow 'this imam' became 'all imams', just because it's pretty normal doesn't mean it isn't fascinating. And lol@rapturous desire for a religious war of civilizations.

I back up my claims with sources and these sources also have sources. Why don't you play the ball instead of the person.

What do you want me to read? This is widely regarded as the most complete work on the subject http://www.amazon.com/Jihad-Political-Professor-Gilles-Kepel/dp/0674008774 how self-assured must you be that you pressume everybody wants the exact same things as you, they don't share your values.

And did I already mention the 'shariah index'?

Lemur

08-14-2010, 15:25

I back up my claims with sources and these sources also have sources.
Meaning you post quick, unformatted links to assorted paranoid demagogues at Pajamas Media. Well done, sir, well done.

I've already deconstructed (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?129873-Islamic-group-to-build-mosque-adjacent-to-ground-zero&p=2053196018&viewfull=1#post2053196018) a representative sample from one of their authors, and made it clear that I am not willing to go through page after page of lying, misrepresenting, bad-faith propoganda every time you choose to post a link. If you want to debate a specific point, well and good, but for you to keep thinking that your'e sourcing your agument with tripe like this (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/terror-ties-ground-zero-imam-attended-hizb-ut-tahrir-conference/) is as asonishing as it is ill-considered.

Lastly, pointing out that your sources are (in the most literal sense of the word) incredible does not constitute "playing the man"; ask your friendly neighborhood Backroom mod for the correct definition of that aphorism.

Fragony

08-14-2010, 15:39

Meaning you post quick, unformatted links to assorted paranoid demagogues at Pajamas Media. Well done, sir, well done.

Yeah about time someone sues the hell out of them for damaging beardneck's reputation, he means so very very well how could they do that to him.

But ok fine, so you this man has no ties with extremist organisations?

Let's do this in baby-steps

Lemur

08-14-2010, 15:43

But ok fine, so you this man has no ties with extremist organisations?
No one credible has shown any. (Note that it is logically impossible to prove a negative (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI).) And given the scrutiny we put Islamic extremists under (the surveillance we have available) I find it hard to believe it wouldn't have come out by now. And no, attending an Islamic conference in Indonesia does not qualify.

Furthermore, the people who actually know the guy, rather than those who hope to use him to score political points, all say that he's mellow, thoughtful and moderate. Which would you be more inclined to believe: Partisan hacks who work for Pajamas Media, or folks who actually interact in real life with the Imam? Put aside whom you would rather believe, and ask yourself, firsthand empirical knowledge or thirdhand rumormongering?

Fragony

08-14-2010, 16:06

They aren't exactly making a secret out of being a wing of the muslim brotherhood youknow, banned in Egypt but not in the states. Ok no more sources, should take you at least a minute of your time.

And security means nothing, they are no longer violent they won't attack anyone, it comes from within.

edit, let's still help a little, 'legal jihad', to use the system against us. And there is no moderate muslim brotherhood if that's what you think.

This is about Europe but as you can/should understand you are a bigger target and all the more vulnerable http://www.amazon.com/While-Europe-Slept-Radical-Destroying/dp/0385514727

Same guys http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2515587181120245843#

Sasaki Kojiro

08-14-2010, 17:29

Furthermore, the people who actually know the guy, rather than those who hope to use him to score political points, all say that he's mellow, thoughtful and moderate.
Which would you be more inclined to believe: Partisan hacks who work for Pajamas Media, or folks who actually interact in real life with the Imam? Put aside whom you would rather believe, and ask yourself, firsthand empirical knowledge or thirdhand rumormongering?

I'm not sure what fragony is talking about, but this doesn't seem like any kind of trump card to me. The quotes that have been objected too "america was an accessory" or something like that, would qualify as empirical evidence as well, and the opinion of people who know him isn't particularly great evidence, "I never thought he'd do something like this" is what they always say when someone shoots up a post office, mind you I thought rauf was just being accused of being stupid or something like that and not a crazy.

Cute Wolf

08-14-2010, 17:32

@ Lemur : Fragony is right, believe me... many of those "moderate muslims" that most media claims here are actually no more religious than your average atheist guys, they just use muslim name and muslim religious ceremony of marriage and furneral, just like your western atheists use christian marriage and furneral ceremony... I was the one who mix with them everyday...

once the fundamentalists are ruled out, most of them will turn as atheists

ADD:

and pretty much contrary to what your average "peace activists" told you, those fundamentalists muslim's goals are pretty much made their ideology looks docile, and I could scan and prove (from local newspapers here), that the building of mosque on ground zero are treated as muslim victory here...

Fragony

08-14-2010, 18:23

Lemur

08-14-2010, 18:27

They aren't exactly making a secret out of being a wing of the muslim brotherhood youknow, banned in Egypt but not in the states.
Okay, this is something for which there should be a straight-up source. If Rauf is claiming to be affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, that would be extraordinary, since Rauf is a Sufi Muslim (http://www.suficircle.com/event-feisal.html), and the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as all other extremist Sunni groups, are sworn enemies of the Sufis. (Note the Sufi shrines are a preffered target (http://www.mahablog.com/2010/08/11/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-is-a-sufi/) for suicide bombers.) So your assertion, on the face of it, is utterly, provably false. Strange how that happens when we get down to specific points rather than sweeping hysteria.

And there is no moderate muslim brotherhood if that's what you think.
And the moment the Muslim Brotherhood becomes relevant to Rauf, this will be a great point to make.

This is about Europe but as you can/should understand you are a bigger target and all the more vulnerable http://www.amazon.com/While-Europe-Slept-Radical-Destroying/dp/0385514727

Same guys http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2515587181120245843#
So now you're citing entire books and hourlong videos as sources? Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that neither your book nor your video deal with Rauf? Let's be honest here, I am not going to buy a book based on your linking it in this discussion, and I'm not going to watch a 48-minute video unless you can confirm that it is directly relevant to our conversation.

I could scan and prove (from local newspapers here), that the building of mosque on ground zero are treated as muslim victory here...
The locals can treat it like the second coming of the Messiah for all I care; this is a whipped-up firestorm meant to delude Americans into selectively abandoning our freedom of religion, and all to hype up a few politicans. We're supposed to see an Islamic Cultural Center in the old Burlington Coat Factory two long city blocks away from the Trade Center as some sort of triumphalist Islamic supremacist plot to humiliate America. The fact that anyone is taking this seriously is quite disappointing.

-edit-

Using as much powerful Google-fu as I can muster on an over-hot Saturday afternoon, I find only two named analysts claiming a connection between Rauf and the Muslim Brotherhood. Both are specious.

First there's Andrew McCarthy of National Review, (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243536/raufs-dawa-world-trade-center-rubble-andrew-c-mccarthy) who finds that a free edition of the Imam's book, What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America (http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Right-Islam-Vision-Muslims/dp/0060750626), was paid for by the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought, who have also promoted authors connected with Hamas, which McCarthy rather simplistically calls "the Muslim Brotherhood’s ruthless Palestinian branch." Yah, I think Hamas is its own creature, and does not take orders from anybody in Egypt.

Furthermore, this is clearly guilt by association. Does McCarthy have anything of substance, or are we to damn Rauf for allowing one of his books to be published in free edition by a couple of Islamic groups who also support naughtier people? Thin stuff, thin stuff.

McCarthy then draws a tenuous line between Rauf and Yusuf Qaradawi, a somewhat complex figure who has a popular show on Al Jazeera, and who has repeatedly turned down any official role in the Muslim Brotherhood. Apparently Rauf said that Qaradawi is the pre-eminent Islamic Law scholar alive. Who knows, maybe he is. Anyway, this rather slim connection is enough to send McCarthy into a six-paragraph tub-thumping about Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood and how they're all Terribly Bad. Which is as may be, but not relevant to Rauf. (Who, as a Sufi, would be intolerable to the MB anyway.)

The other named source who claims a connection between Rauf and the MB is your standby Alyssa A. Lappen, who really puts the "hysteria" back into hysterical. Her chain of evidence? Try not to laugh (http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3453):

Rauf’s father, Dr. Muhammad Abdul Rauf (1917-2004) — an Egyptian contemporary of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna — conveyed to Feisal his family’s long tradition of radicalism, which he acquired at Islam’s closest equivalent to the Vatican, Al-Azhar University. The elder Dr. Rauf studied and taught there before fleeing Egypt in 1948. That year, Feisal Abdul Rauf was born in Kuwait.

Did you follow that? Rauf's father was a student at a university where one of the founders of the MB taught. And that's it. To call that connection "thin" is an insult to slender objects everywhere. Oh, and Rauf was friends with a nun who praised the MB's charitable work.

Feel free to provide any further linkage or evidence of Rauf's involvement with the MB. It looks pretty damn shaky from here.

Beskar

08-14-2010, 18:52

"The Fragony Code"

.....two "snaps" up for that idea!

Now, who should we get to play the lead? What say you Frags, which of the Hollywood leading hunks do you most resemble?

I would go for a short haired Josh Holloway, I think with a new haircut and a bit of hair colour, he could look like our Fragony.

Fragony

08-14-2010, 18:53

Your religious freedom is nothing more to them than a way to culturally blackmail you, and aren't you put to the test, could it be any more provocative, yet your own laws make it possible. You are expecting something rational because you are being rational, try the maelstrom that is the opposite instead. If you want to hurt, how would you do it.

Watch the video by the way, just about all your (well mine really) arguments are adressed.

edit: you really aren't on the same level if you mention the soeffi's, they are spriritual-only muslims. Being a muslim doesn't mean you are islam. All I can say is that you are wrong.

Lemur

08-14-2010, 19:13

could it be any more provocative
Sure, they could propose buildin a mosque at ground zero, rather than in the Burlington Coat Factory building two blocks away. By the way, how many blocks away would their little YMCA ripoff have to be to not be a provocation? Give me an actual number, either in blocks, kilometers or miles, please.

Watch the video by the way, just about all your (well mine really) arguments are adressed.
I'm not going to spend 48 minutes watching propoganda unless you can confirm that it directly addresses Rauf.

you really aren't on the same level if you mention the soeffi's, they are spriritual-only muslims. Being a muslim doesn't mean you are islam. All I can say is that you are wrong.
You don't appear to have even a cursory, Wikipedia-level knowledge of Sufism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism).

Please feel free to provide linkage between Rauf and the Muslim Brotherhood. I've taken the two most prominent supporters of that theory and ripped them into little quivering hunks of rhetorical bullhockey. The ball is in your court, even if you choose not to play.

ajaxfetish

08-14-2010, 19:19

Your religious freedom is nothing more to them than a way to culturally blackmail you, and aren't you put to the test, could it be any more provocative, yet your own laws make it possible.
I really don't care what our religious freedom is to 'them,' whoever 'they' may be. I care more about what it means to me. They're free to build their center on their property, cause this is America, and that's how we do.

Ajax

Fragony

08-14-2010, 19:37

Sure, they could propose buildin a mosque at ground zero, rather than in the Burlington Coat Factory building two blocks away. By the way, how many blocks away would their little YMCA ripoff have to be to not be a provocation? Give me an actual number, either in blocks, kilometers or miles, please.

I'm not going to spend 48 minutes watching propoganda unless you can confirm that it directly addresses Rauf.

It's BBC so 100% perfectly acceptable, even in the most religious parts of America like New York.

Rhyfelwyr

08-14-2010, 19:37

Lemur

08-14-2010, 19:44

It's BBC so 100% perfectly acceptable, even in the most religious parts of America like New York.
I have asked, twice, if the 48-minute video is directly related to Rauf and the Cordoba House (or whatever it's being called now). You have dodged and hemmed and hawwed, and now you make a nonsensical statement about the "most religious parts of America."

It's okay, I brought enough rational argument for both of us. Looking it up, I see it's a BBc channel 4 documentary from, 2007 called Undercover Mosque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Mosque), and that it deals with the Saudi attempt to redicalize mosques in Britain. It has nothing about Rauf, nothing about this controversy and nothing about the Cordoba House.

I'll watch it as time permits, but once again you have introduced a completely tangential and unrelated bit of linkage. Are you trying to say that the same Saudi forces are behind Rauf? Then make that argument, and provide some sort of evidence.

The fact is it is going to upset a lot of the familes of 9/11 victims, why don't they seem to care?
"Upset" is not a legal standard in the U.S.A. The confederate flag is an symbol of secession, rebellion and the enslavement of human beings, but every idiot in America has the right to fly one. If it "upsets" someone, that's between them, nothing to do with the law. And the converse side of that equation is that the rest of us have the right to say what knuckleheads we think the offensive people are. It's freedom v. freedom, which is how things should work here.

Again: The YMCA wanna-be cultural thing-ma-bob is going to be two blocks away in the Burlington Coat Factory building. Allow me to illustrate this for people who aren't familiar with NYC:

Ground zero in 2010:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/2010_03_01-East-Bathtub.jpg

The Burlington Coat Factory in 2010:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/ap_burlington_coat_factory_100525_mn.jpg

These are two different places.

Fragony

08-14-2010, 19:45

I really don't care what our religious freedom is to 'them,' whoever 'they' may be. I care more about what it means to me. They're free to build their center on their property, cause this is America, and that's how we do.

Ajax

As I said, using your system against you. You can't do anything without betraying it.

Sasaki Kojiro

08-14-2010, 19:51

Lemur, this seems to be what the video is about:

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

nevermind, I see you found that.

Well, what Fragony is suggesting is that this documentary found evidence of extremist statements at islamic cultural centers, like this new mosque is supposed to be, and is comparing rauf to tariq ramadan, who is supported by many and heavily criticized by many. I don't know whether it's accurate or not, but it's a fairly basic and clear suggestion.

Sasaki Kojiro

08-14-2010, 19:54

I think we all agree they have the legal right to do it, the point is whether or not it is the morally right thing to do.

The fact is it is going to upset a lot of the familes of 9/11 victims, why don't they seem to care?

"Upset" is not a legal standard in the U.S.A. The confederate flag is an symbol of secession, rebellion and the enslavement of human beings, but every idiot in America has the right to fly one. If it "upsets" someone, that's between them, nothing to do with the law. And the converse side of that equation is that the rest of us have the right to say what knuckleheads we think the offensive people are. It's freedom v. freedom, which is how things should work here.

:shrug:

I'll watch it as time permits, but once again you have introduced a completely tangential and unrelated bit of linkage.

Well the reason this is being trumped up and called the ground zero mosque and all this talk about american and freedom of religion is that it happened to be the spark that set off another round of debate regarding islam. So we might as well go with the flow rather than worrying about whether something is tangential and unrelated.

Rhyfelwyr

08-14-2010, 19:57

"Upset" is not a legal standard in the U.S.A. The confederate flag is an symbol of secession, rebellion and the enslavement of human beings, but every idiot in America has the right to fly one. If it "upsets" someone, that's between them, nothing to do with the law. And the converse side of that equation is that the rest of us have the right to say what knuckleheads we think the offensive people are. It's freedom v. freedom, which is how things should work here.

T'was a little bit sneaky of you to only show the second line from my post, since I made it very clear in the first that they have all the legal rights you are talking about here.

What I was asking was whether it was still the 'right' thing to do. IMO they should build it elsewhere. As you've pointed out there's no formula to work out an exact distance from Ground Zero where it becomes OK, but does it really have to be just a couple of blocks away?

Lemur

08-14-2010, 19:58

Well, what Fragony is suggesting is that this documentary found evidence of extremist statements at islamic cultural centers, like this new mosque is supposed to be, and is comparing rauf to tariq ramadan, who is supported by many and heavily criticized by many. I don't know whether it's accurate or not, but it's a fairly basic and clear suggestion.
That's a long chain of assertions, none of which were actually, you know, articulated by Fragony. The comparison between Rauf and Ramadan? That's news to me. Does someone want to make, I dunno, something resembling an argument out of that? And the main point of the documentary seems to be Saudi funding (and hence radicalization) of British mosques. Anybody want to make the argument that Rauf is Saudi funded?

-edit-

Rhyfelwyr, I wasn't trying to misrepresent you, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. As for the right thing, I haven't the foggiest. Last I heard, the 9/11 victim families were not exactly united in opposition, and I don't see how we can forbid the cultural center without violating some core American principles.

Fragony

08-14-2010, 20:07

As I said mia muca, we are taking baby-steps, this it's just about his buddies, it gets much worse.

Sasaki Kojiro

08-14-2010, 20:09

and I don't see how we can forbid the cultural center without violating some core American principles.

Can it be objected to on non-legal grounds and criticized without violating some core american principles?

Lemur

08-14-2010, 20:09

As I said mia muca, we are taking baby-steps, this it's just about his buddies, it gets much worse.
Put up or shut up. His "buddies"? Do you substantiate anything when discussing beards, or is that beneath you?

Heck, just gimme something of substance about this much-claimed link between Rauf and the Muslim Brotherhood. Just give me that, and we won't call this a rain game.

Can it be objected to on non-legal grounds and criticized without violating some core american principles?
Is "forbid" synonymous with "objected to"?

Sasaki Kojiro

08-14-2010, 20:18

Lemur I'm confused, Rhyf was talking about whether it could be objected to on moral grounds, and you said it couldn't be made illegal, and he pointed out that he said it should be legal, and you said you didn't want to misrepresent him but that you didn't see any way to make it illegal, and then I asked you if it could be objected to, and you ask if objected to is the same thing as forbid, basically what do you think about the mosque aside from legality, don't you think that's an interesting question?

Put up or shut up. His "buddies"? Do you substantiate anything when discussing beards, or is that beneath you?

for example you would probably argue that we can't forbid people from making unsubstantiated arguments without violating some core .org principles, but you certainly object to it.

Fragony

08-14-2010, 20:21

lol Lemur could it just be possible that not everybody craves that new lawmower. Start adressing, your personal dismissal isn't an argument except for fans.

Lemur

08-14-2010, 20:22

Fragony

08-14-2010, 20:36

Nope not going to do that,

Rhyfelwyr

08-14-2010, 20:36

As for me a Rhyf., fear not, we'll be okay. I believe he's arguing in good faith, and I think he knows the same about me.

Yes! I'm getting in with the mods... :beam:

But yeah, I was trying put the legal issue to one side, in order to discuss whether building the mosque where it is planned will be... well a nice thing to do. It was more a question I wanted to throw out there, as opposed to something I have a strong opinon on, although as I said at first glance the choice of location seems somewhat insensetive.

I know the 'well you don't want to upset people' approach seems really lame, but we are talking about one of the most traumatic events in recent history.

I know Islam has as broad a spectrum of beliefs as Christianity, possibly moresoe since it lacked a strong unifying force like the Vatican. But to many Americans Islam is the ideology that caused 9/11. On the one hand this mosque could be used to show all Muslims aren't like that, but on the other hand, with this choice of location many people will more likely see it as triumphalism.

And if that is how they see it, how could the mosque achieve anything useful?

Sasaki Kojiro

08-14-2010, 20:49

In the interest of pulling you off your meta-conversational perch, Sasaki, why don't you tell us what you think? You have a tendency to float above a debate, telling us who's in bounds and who's out; I'd rather see you formulate and defend an actual position.

Deferring judgment is a legitimate position. I'm feeling confused and ignorant right now (often the case). I watched the first 5 minutes of frag's video and read a few wiki links, I find that:

The green lane mosque billed itself as an interfaith community
That "Imam Abu Usaamah, one of the preachers featured in the documentary, is acknowledged by a significant portion of his congregation and the wider interfaith community "to be a peaceful man and is known to promote peace to his congregation", and that he has denounced terrorism."
That the Green Lane Mosque is not known to promote extremism, and the founders and committee of the mosque have always distanced themselves from such extremism
That Abu Usamah was known to have openly and consistently opposed terrorist and extreme takfiri thought from as early as the early 1990s
that the extremist preacher Abdullah el-Faisal had called for the assassination of Abu Usamah.

These all parallel arguments made about the cordoba house.

But the imam is quoted in wiki and shown in the video saying:

On January 14, 2007, a documentary by Channel 4 entitled Undercover Mosque was aired attributing to him various comments, such as stating that Osama bin Laden was better than a "million George Bushes and a thousand Tony Blairs" because he was a Muslim, and that non-Muslims were "pathological liars" and that Jews and Christians were "enemies" to Muslims.[2] He was also filmed saying: "If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered, that's my freedom of speech, isn't it?"

That he claimed the comments were taken out of context, but that:

On 15 May 2008 when the matter came to the High Court, West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service apologised to the makers of the documentary for accusing them of distortion and agreed to a payment of £100,000.

None of this is directly related to the cordoba house however so I don't see why you'd ask me to take make a claim regarding it. Why would I assume that just because one mosque has imam's like Abu at it, that this new mosque is? All it really says to me is that the instant backlash against criticism of the mosque ignores why the critics are concerned. That's still a meta-conversation position as you put it. But my first step is to try and understand the conversation, that's seems reasonable to me :inquisitive:

Lemur

08-14-2010, 20:50

But yeah, I was trying put the legal issue to one side, in order to discuss whether building the mosque where it is planned will be... well a nice thing to do. It was more a question I wanted to throw out there, as opposed to something I have a strong opinon on, although as I said at first glance the choice of location seems somewhat insensetive.
I completely see what you're saying here, but ... (you knew there would be a "but," right?)

On the one hand this mosque could be used to show all Muslims aren't like that, but on the other hand, with this choice of location many people will more likely see it as triumphalism.

And if that is how they see it, how could the mosque achieve anything useful?
First of all, this building ,from what I have read, is going to be a mosque in exactly the same sense that a YMCA is a church. My understanding is that it is primarily meant to be a cultural center-type-thing, explicitly modeled on the YMCA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9OO0S5w2k). So calling it a "mosque" over and over again isn't really helpful to understanding what they're about.

Second thought would be that the World Trade Center was staffed by Jews, Muslims, atheists and the odd Buddhist (in addition to Christians). This is New York, after all. So even though the idiot jerk bastiches who committed the attacks of 9/11 wanted it to be perceived as Islam versus Christianity, it was neither. They didn't represent Islam, and the World Trade Center didn't represent Christianity.

So let's look long and hard at that fact: Accepting 9/11 as Islam versus Christianity is explicitly playing along with Al Qaeda. If we accept that definition of the attacks, we are aiding and abetting our worst enemies. And when we tell Muslims that they're insensitive or wrong to build a YMCAA knockoff two blocks away from Ground Zero, are we not buying into that line of illogic, that this is a conflict between Muslims and Christians?

To answer one of Sasaki's many rhetorical questions, there's no wrong in criticizing and objecting to the center. But if Rauf really is the moderate that normal people say he is (rather than the over-heated bloggists claiming he's the second coming of the Muslim Brotherhood) then maybe his little cultural center might do some good.

Also, if you've spent time in NYC, you know that the neighborhood around the WTC site is dead. I mean, really, really dead. No New Yorker spends time down there if they don't have to. It was just as dead long before the 9/11 attacks.

Nope not going to do that,
You're the one saying that Rauf "makes no secret" about being associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Back it up, or admit you got a handful of nothing.

-edit-

All it really says to me is that the instant backlash against criticism of the mosque ignores why the critics are concerned.
There's the meat. And that's your real argument. You appear to feel that I have committed the dual sins of "instant backlash" and not understanding the concern of critics, but that was obscured by your meta-conversational position.

If you think that I am misrepresenting Fragony or failing to understand concern about the mosque, feel free to call me on it. 'Cause from my perspective, I've been digging hard into details and sources, and getting as specific as possible.

Fragony

08-14-2010, 21:07

No I am just saying that I can't see you as someone who is equiped with the minimal requirement to even pretend to have an opinion. You don't know anything about it.

Louis VI the Fat

08-14-2010, 21:13

the building of mosque on ground zero are treated as muslim victory here...Whatever the intention of the Ground Zero Mosque may be, by many it is gleefully hailed as a great triumph for Islam. A little arc of triumph to celebrate the turning of the tide, the day Islam managed to bring down America.

It all reminds me of the plans in Tours. Many Algerians could hardly control their gleeful excitement when the building of the big mosque of Tours commenced last year. (Near where Charles Martel stopped the Islam in the 732). The cultural centre / mosque looks rather large and monumental for the modestly sized Islamic communities of this medium sized city, I thought. I guess there is an element of triumphalism about it, a segment that loves their victory monuments.

As in NY, it is not 'just a cultural centre' as it is presented, but a giant mosque. Many mosques serve as cultural centres, Islam is a totalitarian ideology, so a mosque functions as a civic centre too.

Maybe America's model is sufficiently strong to assimilate Islam. All sorts of fruitcake ideologies can build whatever they please, and do so in profligate numbers in America. Most end up as part of mainstream American society. Islam is more violent and dangerous than most, but otherwise not more loopy.

I do wish that, like bars, these places would be forbidden for people under 21.

Fragony

08-14-2010, 21:52

In short, you understand it's meaning.

gaelic cowboy

08-14-2010, 21:54

I do wish that, like bars, these places would be forbidden for people under 21.

Why don't they give planning permission for a Gay cultural centre across the street from it the backers wont be able to engage in any triumphalism if they end up beside it

Sasaki Kojiro

08-14-2010, 22:15

There's the meat. And that's your real argument. You appear to feel that I have committed the dual sins of "instant backlash" and not understanding the concern of critics, but that was obscured by your meta-conversational position.

How can something obscure itself? :/

Whatever the intention of the Ground Zero Mosque may be, by many it is gleefully hailed as a great triumph for Islam. A little arc of triumph to celebrate the turning of the tide, the day Islam managed to bring down America.

Yeah, you can talk about the mosque separate from the intentions of abdul rauf. And if I had to guess I'd say he's just kind of stupid, based on the quotes I've seen*. Reminds me of a couple people I've met. Frags theory is a bit too conspiratorial for me. Never attribute to malice, etc.

*like this one:

The specific location of the planned mosque, so close to the World Trade Center “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” was a primary selling point for the Muslims who bought the building.[25] Abdul Rauf said it “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” and “We want to push back against the extremists”

This pushes back how? I'm sure the extremists hate it when the 9/11 victims families are outraged :dizzy2:

This guy has a nice comment and makes a nice contrast:

Jasser reminisced last week about his family’s history of building mosques in the heartland communities where they lived. His parents, Syrian immigrants to the United States, helped create the Fox Valley Islamic Center in Neenah, Wis., in 1980. “This was during the Iranian hostage crisis,’’ he recalled, “and some of the local residents wanted the Zoning Commission to prevent the mosque from going forward.’’ But the commissioners gave their blessing to the project, and the modest mosque — the construction budget was just $80,000 — became part of the neighborhood. Later the family later moved to western Arkansas, where they joined with others to create the Islamic Center of Fort Smith. As recently as March, Jasser came out in support of Muslims in Sheboygan, Wis., whose plans for a new place of worship were meeting with vocal resistance.

But he adamantly opposes the ground zero mosque.

“For us, a mosque was always a place to pray, to be together on holidays — not a way to make an ostentatious architectural statement,’’ Jasser said. “Ground zero shouldn’t be about promoting Islam. It’s the place where war was declared on us as Americans.’’ To use that space for Muslim outreach, he argues, is “the worst form of misjudgment.’’

If the desire was simply to send the opposite statement, it would have been smarter to make the building a simple memorial, without the other features.

Besides the Muslim prayer room or mosque, the Initiative's plan includes a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare services, art exhibitions, bookstore, culinary school, and a food court serving halal dishes.

In short, you understand it's meaning.

http://www.ted.com/talks/imam_feisal_abdul_rauf.html

Don't you think he sounds vastly different than the imam's in your video?

Beskar

08-14-2010, 22:31

Why don't they give planning permission for a Gay cultural centre across the street from it the backers wont be able to engage in any triumphalism if they end up beside it

Now that is an amusing thing.

Victory for Homosexuality, or Victory for Islam?

Which is the lesser of these American Evils?

http://www.ted.com/talks/imam_feisal_abdul_rauf.html

Don't you think he sounds vastly different than the imam's in your video?

I like TED, some great opinions on there.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-14-2010, 23:01

Fragony:

How can we disprove your point regarding Islamists?

I say that because you have brought up, in support of your argument that they seek to undercut Western culture in favor of Islam so as to make all of us subservient to Allah, the idea that it is doctrinal among Muslims to be able to lie to the infidel in order to promote the growth of Islam.

You have created an argument that suggests that: A) Islamists are the cultural enemy of the West, and B) if any Muslim claims to be a moderate we must assume that he or she is lying and that A applies regardless of the "smokescreen" they're spouting at the moment. By extenstion, we would never be able to trust any Muslim ever -- any might be lying for the faith and working against us -- and would need to rigorously oppose any and all of that faith.

So, how can we disprove your argument? What evidence or point can we make that might persuade you to shift your thinking?

Sasaki Kojiro

08-14-2010, 23:08

I don't think falsifiability is particularly important here (pretty sure frags isn't claiming 'never able to trust any muslim ever', except maybe in the theoretical sense that anyone could be lying to you no matter their religion, we could all be living in the matrix, etc). It's a question of "reason to believe". In the video he posted it contrasted statements by several imams and organizations that WERE directly contradicted by their preaching. In other words it's a legitimate trend. Personally I think the ted video is a reason to believe that isn't the case for abdul rauf, he sounds genuine.

@frags: in your video they are interviewing sufi muslims (like rauf) as voices critical of extremism.

Rhyfelwyr

08-14-2010, 23:40

I completely see what you're saying here, but ... (you knew there would be a "but," right?)

*various resonable points on why the mosque/interfaith-centre shouldn't offend people*

First off, I do agree this building shouldn't really offend people if we look at things rationally. Presuming the project is being run by moderate Muslims, people should not associate it with radical Islamism. Indeed, moderate Muslims and people of many faiths and none were victims of 9/11. A centre where people can go and learn that not all Muslims are jihadists should in theory be a good idea that will help Muslims integrate and cut off the source of recruitment for the nutjobs.

The problem is that this is all looking at things rationally. The reality is that most people will not see things this way. This idea of a clash of civilizations with Christianity v Islam is too well rooted in many peoples' minds. The families of victims in particular could be forgiven for not being rational about the matter. And the reaction of these sorts of people should, IMO, be one of the primary concerns of the people planning this building, if, as they say, their aim is to promote understanding and moderate Islam.

They have to realise that their choice of location for the building will cause offence, and will be seen as triumphalism by many. While the gesture with building an interfaith centre near Ground Zero might appear good, the problem is it probably won't go down so well in reality.

I think given the shock factor images of 9/11 still conjure up, and the view many people have of Islam as a 'radical' religion, I do not think such grand gestures are the best way to go about things. The fact people are even having this debate shows that the building is only going to have limited success in getting across the sort of message it's aiming for.

Husar

08-15-2010, 00:19

Nope not going to do that,

What was your point again? Oh wait, you have none, so you're just spamming in this thread, right?
It's somewhat painful to read the back and forth between you and Lemur and in the end you refuse to show anything that could make or prove some sort of point, you just keep accusing that guy of being some super secret muslim spy who wants to humiliate the USA without letting them know it and you show ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prove that claim, nada, just some material about Britain and other events that have nothing to do with this Rauf guy. Oh yes, he was at a conference, a muslim conference, what a horrible thought, they have conferences, just like, you know, companies, those evil beasts.
The quote you gave doesn't prove anything except perhaps that he seems to think building that center where actual people can meet and get to know eachother is more useful than some intellectual lefties talking about people meeting eachother (I thought you'd agree with him on that, considering your hatred for lefties).

It appears that building the mosque there is entirely legal and I don't see why anyone should be upset about it or are churches in Lebanon and Israel secretly symbols of our triumph in the first crusade? I'm not sure how it could be insensitive either unless the families of the victims all turned into islamophobes but in that case the problem would be largely on their side, wouldn't it?
Unless of course someone can actually show something that makes me think Rauf is actually connected to islamic extremists...
You'd think he'd be on the radar of the CIA etc. in that case but it seems that bananas in pajamas blog has the better intel, eh?

Fragony

08-15-2010, 02:38

Nothing, is that so? Posted plenty. But my sources are wrong, it just isn't true, and I :daisy:

@Seamus, there is no reason to make me switch thinking, I am perfectly fine with muslims, I wonder how many of you actually have muslim friends, you would understand much more if you do. See it as the rise of the rise of the extreme right/left in a western society, not welcome as people just want to do their thing. Understand that there is strict social control, the so-called 'uncles' will want to know why someone doesn't let his daughter wear a tent, why he doesn't go to the mosque. It can get really ugly, it's not just intimidation they mean it. I have no idea what to do about it because we are trapped in our own values, but it exists and it's ugly.

Beskar

08-15-2010, 02:43

Unless of course someone can actually show something that makes me think Rauf is actually connected to islamic extremists...
You'd think he'd be on the radar of the CIA etc. in that case but it seems that bananas in pajamas blog (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJkPWMaNaIM) has the better intel, eh?

:laugh4:, that brought back memories.

Tellos Athenaios

08-15-2010, 03:28

Good pun, too.

PanzerJaeger

08-15-2010, 06:13

or are we to damn Rauf for allowing one of his books to be published in free edition by a couple of Islamic groups who also support naughtier people?

Umm, yes?

If a group of neo-Nazis wanted to publish something you wrote, would you allow it?

If this is the most sanitized, 'moderate' Muslim leader that could be dredged up to be the face of this monstrosity, I fear I've misjudged the American Muslim community.

In other news, the President, inexplicably, has waded into what for weeks he has been able to sidestep as a local issue (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41069.html).

The White House on Saturday struggled to tamp down the controversy over President Barack Obama’s statements about a mosque near Ground Zero — insisting Obama wasn’t backing off remarks Friday night where he offered support for a project that has infuriated some families whose loved ones died in the Sept. 11 attacks.

And Democrats — at least some who were willing to comment — could barely contain their frustration over Obama’s remarks, saying he had potentially placed every one of their candidates into the middle of the debate by giving GOP candidates a chance to ask them point-blank: Do you agree with Obama on the mosque, or not?

That could be particularly damaging to moderate Democrats in conservative-leaning districts, already 2010’s most vulnerable contenders.

Sarah Palin actually makes a valid point - the one I made 5 pages ago, and Ry has given new life. :beam:

At least one Republican, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, seized on the confusion. “Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3,000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade,” Palin wrote on Facebook.

The Friday statement and Saturday clarification were consistent in a literal sense, but they sent sharply different signals that may have called into question how clearly the president thought through his intervention in the controversy or how his words would echo.

The legal right to build the mosque is one even many critics of the mosque have not contested — claiming mainly that the project was inappropriate on grounds of taste and local sensitivities and therefore should be strongly discouraged.

The two statements, rather than clarifying Obama's views, may raise more questions: Had he unintentionally spoken too strongly the night before, or had he lost his nerve after the vehement early reactions? What is his real aim in wading into a controversy he had quite purposefully avoided for weeks?

For most Democrats, the muddled messaging wasn’t the problem as much as the substance of Obama’s remarks — putting himself on the record backing the construction of a mosque near the site where the Twin Towers fell, which Obama himself called “hallowed ground.”

Sensible people on both sides know that building the Mosque is their right. That doesn't mean we have to support it, or the idea of it. Can we not voice strong opposition to the project while still acknowledging their right to carry it out?

Do we have to support the building of this Mosque to preserve freedom of religion? Do we have to agree with what the Westboro Baptists say to preserve freedom of speech? Of course not.

In contrast, the President apparently supports building it - which is a step beyond supporting their right to build it.

Beskar

08-15-2010, 09:52

If a group of neo-Nazis wanted to publish something you wrote, would you allow it?

That statement is quite ironic when your name is PanzerJaeger. :beam:

Though, you should know that because some group claimed something as their own, doesn't mean that it is used solely by that group or members of that group.

Fragony

08-15-2010, 09:58

That statement is quite ironic when your name is PanzerJaeger. :beam:

It's only ironic if you can't see the difference between the Germans and the nazi's. How ironic is that.

In the same way muslims aren't islamists

Beskar

08-15-2010, 10:03

It's only ironic if you can't see the difference between the Germans and the nazi's. How ironic is that.

Speaking of irony about unable to see differences between groups of people... :wink:

Fragony

08-15-2010, 10:35

Speaking of irony about unable to see differences between groups of people... :wink:

I do. Again, muslims and islamists are not the same thing. If you defend them all you are also defending ideas that are just as bad as the nazi's had, worse in fact because the nazi's wanted Europe for themselves not the world. You are not doing muslims a favour.

Husar

08-15-2010, 12:59

That statement is quite ironic when your name is PanzerJaeger. :beam:
Absolutely not relevant, Panzerjäger means tank hunter, there is almost no connection to Nazis or neo-nazis in that name itself.

I do. Again, muslims and islamists are not the same thing. If you defend them all you are also defending ideas that are just as bad as the nazi's had, worse in fact because the nazi's wanted Europe for themselves not the world. You are not doing muslims a favour.
Yes, who here is defending extremitst? I only see people who think Rauf is not an extremist and some who think he is, neither of them are defending extremists.
If he isn't, why should he not build the mosque/center?

Cute Wolf

08-15-2010, 13:56

Whatever the intention of the Ground Zero Mosque may be, by many it is gleefully hailed as a great triumph for Islam. A little arc of triumph to celebrate the turning of the tide, the day Islam managed to bring down America.

well, if some people still insist on this project, I shall see what they'll do 10 years again when this one grows into great disaster..... most of the Indonesians try to get rid of this pest, but you welcomed them....

a good muslims drank beer, ate pork, and never worn daily veils, just like normal Indonesians do here (treat religion as nothing more than just spiritual guidance and should't translated literally)... creating cultural center that made them leave their good alcoholic beverages, bacons, and forced their women to worn such monstrous things is disaster in the making.

Fragony

08-15-2010, 14:22

Yes, who here is defending extremitst
I constantly have to defend myself when bringing up that they exist. Goes like this;

SO YOU SAY THAT ALL

errrr no I said

SO YOU SAY THAT ALL

errrr no I said

SO YOU SAY THAT ALL

encore

Lemur

08-15-2010, 14:33

If a group of neo-Nazis wanted to publish something you wrote, would you allow it?
First of all, I'd like to present you with the Godwin Award for this thread. Next, I'd like to ask if Hamas is a meaningful cognate with the Third Reich. Is it helpful to drag the stinking corpse of Hitler out for this occasion?

Lastly, given how painful, protracted and unbelievably stupid the Israeli/Palestinian situation has been for the last forty years or so, I think it's pretty obvious that there are many people who are willing to absolve and excuse the atrocities and excesses of both sides. That doesn't make anyone meaningfully comparable to a proponent of National Socialism.

So no, sharing a publisher with another author who supports Hamas does not even begin to cut it for this prosimian. You're engaging in guilt by association (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html), a crude and ineffective bit of theater. Example: HarperCollins publishes Sarah Palin's books, and they also publish Che Guaverra's non-fiction Remeniscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War (http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/Titles/41279/reminiscences-of-the-cuban-revolutionary-war-ernesto-%E2%80%98che-guevara-9780007277216). Therefore, by your loose standard, Sarah Palin must endorse Che Guaverra, which makes her a commie murderer. It's even worse, since Rauf took no money for the free version of his book, whereas Sarah Palin took several million dollars. So Rauf is a silent co-conspirator of Hamas, but, by your reasoning, Sarah Palin is a well-paid whore for Che Guaverra. See how much fun this is?

If this is the most sanitized, 'moderate' Muslim leader that could be dredged up to be the face of this monstrosity, I fear I've misjudged the American Muslim community.
As with Fragony, put your cards where we can see 'em. Show that Rauf is a radical, and please do a better job than Andy McCarthy.

-edit-

I constantly have to defend myself when bringing up that they exist. Goes like this;
Nobody has said that extremists don't exist. What I have taken specific issue with is you asserting that Rauf is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a lying, deceptive extremist. I have challenged you on a factual basis over and over again, and you have not really responded, seemingly unable to source your assertions past the angry blogger level. Now you're whingeing that your overall point isn't understood and you're mistreated? In the words of the Wu-tang Clan, Dutchman please.

Find me any quote -- ANY quote -- where an Orgah has argued that there are no muslim extremists.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-15-2010, 14:51

Lemur

08-15-2010, 15:10

This got no traction the first two times; a leaked report from Quilliam, the Oxford Think Tank, says that many "peaceful" Islamic organisations share Islamist goals and outlook with terrorists, they differ only in the means by which they seak to advance their goals. The "Cordoba Foundation" is listed - which I initially thought to be the same as "Cordoba House", apparently not - I do think the common use of the name reamins telling, and the basic point is powerful.
Doing a bit of Googling of the Quilliam Foundation, the situation seems to be a little bit more complex (http://uppompeii1.uppompeii.com/2010/08/05/quilliam-foundation--wolves-in-sheeps-clothing.aspx?ref=rss) than you're making it out to be:

The government pays the Quilliam foundation about £1 million per year [...]

This group has not achieved much in the past two or three years it has been in existence, but they have recieved a lot of money for basically sitting around and saying "I think this" or I think that," hence the term "think tank".

It would appear that this foundation has in fact now "produced" something, that thing being a list of Muslim organizations in the UK what are either linked to "extremist" Muslim groups - or are extremist Muslim groups.

This list has cost the taxpayer millions and it is presented as if it was only the Quilliam foundation that could expose such groups and organizations for what they are. [...]

The document sent to Farr is entitled "Preventing terrorism; where next for Britain?" It lists alleged extremist sympathisers, including the Muslim Council of Britain, the main umbrella group in Britain for Islamic organisations. It also claims that a Scotland Yard counter-terrorism squad called the Muslim Contact Unit is dominated by extremist ideology.

Dodgy. Here's the full text of the report (http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834977/Secret-Quilliam-Memo-to-government), if you're interested.

Sasaki Kojiro

08-15-2010, 15:11

First of all, I'd like to present you with the Godwin Award for this thread. Next, I'd like to ask if Hamas is a meaningful cognate with the Third Reich. Is it helpful to drag the stinking corpse of Hitler out for this occasion?

neo-nazi's...meaning anti-Semitic in this case, hardly a ridiculous comparison.

So no, sharing a publisher with another author who supports Hamas does not even begin to cut it for this prosimian. You're engaging in guilt by association (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html), a crude and ineffective bit of theater. Example: HarperCollins publishes Sarah Palin's books, and they also publish Che Guaverra's non-fiction Remeniscences of the Cubarn Revolutionary War (http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/Titles/41279/reminiscences-of-the-cuban-revolutionary-war-ernesto-%E2%80%98che-guevara-9780007277216). Therefore, by your loose standard, Sarah Palin must endorse Che Guaverra, which makes her a commie murderer. It's even worse, since Rauf took no money for the free version of his book, whereas Sarah Palin took several million dollars. So Rauf is a silent co-conspirator of Hamas, but, by your reasoning, Sarah Palin is a well-paid whore for Che Guaverra. See how much fun this is?

:inquisitive: Linking to a website defining guilt by association is condescending...or rather condescending (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condescending)

How is harpercollins comparable with a special interest group publisher?

In his testimony before the US Senate in October 2003, foreign propaganda expert Dr. Michael Waller told Senators:
The Islamic Society of North America is an influential front for the promotion of the Wahhabi political, ideological and theological infrastructure in the United States and Canada."[14][15]

Similarly, Muslim convert and terrorism expert Stephen Schwartz described ISNA in Senate hearing testimony as one of the chief conduits through which the radical Saudi form of Islam passes through to the US.[16] Professor Ali Assani of Harvard University has made the same assertions.[17]

n addition, the American Muslim Congress, the Aafaq Foundation, the Center for Islamic Pluralism, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, and the International Quranic Center charged in a letter in 2008 that ISNA:

"has a long history of association with extremist trends in Islam. ISNA has served as a front group for Wahhabism, the official sect in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia; the jihadist ideologies originating in Pakistan with the writings of a certain Mawdudi and the Deoband schools in that country – the latter of which produced the Afghan Taliban, and the Ikhwan al-Muslimun, or Muslim Brotherhood."

As with Fragony, put your cards where we can see 'em. Show that Rauf is a radical, and please do a better job than Andy McCarthy.

Well, you know I agree with you that he isn't, but in truth I haven't read his books and don't know much about him. The backroom isn't a "put up or shut up" place, speculation is legitimate. The theory is that "soft wing" organizations in the west are engaged in spreading the more radical forms of islam. Rauf is accused of being either one of those or naively complicit, not a "secret muslim spy" a la husar's strawman. Do you agree with the theory about the "soft wing" organizations? If so then at least in theory he could be a radical, speculation is legitimate, and we can hash out the meager evidence we can find, without demanding "proof or go home"

Nobody has said that extremists don't exist.

Find me any quote -- ANY quote -- where an Orgah has argued that there are no muslim extremists.

He clearly acknowledged that orgah's aren't arguing there are not muslim extremists. He said that their defense consisted of suppression of criticism by accusations of paranoia/islamaphobia.

folded up like a cheap tent. Now you're whingeing

:no:

Lemur

08-15-2010, 15:20

neo-nazi's...meaning anti-Semitic in this case, hardly a ridiculous comparison.
Actually, comparing Hamas sympathizers with neo-nazis is an even more inaccurate comparison. At least the Third Reich was a legitimate political power in its day; the sad, deluded folks who call themselves neo-nazis today are truly out on the fringe, supporting a defeated, discredited ideology that nobody in their right mind would endorse. So no, your defense of Panzer's Nazi reference just makes it more absurd, not less.

How is harpercollins comparable with a special interest group publisher?
How is the type of publisher more important than what they publish? Are you now arguing that the type of publisher is the problem which makes Rauf an unacceptable land developer? Could you perhaps make that argument, rather than throwing out irrelevant rhetorical questions?

RDo you agree with the theory about the "soft wing" organizations? If so then at least in theory he could be a radical, speculation is legitimate, and we can hash out the meager evidence we can find, without demanding "proof or go home"
Sure, obviously "soft wing" elements may exist. However, we're not debating the general existence of such front groups; we're talking about a public figure who stands accused of some very specific Bad Things. I'd be happy to "hash out the meager evidence," but even that appears to be a troublesome task.

He clearly acknowledged that orgah's aren't arguing there are not muslim extremists. He said that their defense consisted of suppression of criticism by accusations of paranoia/islamaphobia.
No, that's what's happening inside your head, not in text on this board. Exactly one Orgah accused Frag of Islamophobia, and he got roundly shouted down by just about everybody. This is what Frags actually wrote a few posts above this one:

I constantly have to defend myself when bringing up that they [extremists] exist.
The obvious corollary being that others do not accept that extremists exist, that this is some sort of privileged knowledge that he must defend. It's quite silly, and nowhere, ever, has he stated that "orgah's aren't arguing there are not muslim extremists." That's all you.

Sasaki Kojiro

08-15-2010, 16:00

Actually, comparing Hamas sympathizers with neo-nazis is an even more inaccurate comparison. At least the Third Reich was a legitimate political power in its day; the sad, deluded folks who call themselves neo-nazis today are truly out on the fringe, supporting a defeated, discredited ideology that nobody in their right mind would endorse. So no, your defense of Panzer's Nazi reference just makes it more absurd, not less.

I think your confusing comparing with equating. Comparing only requires that the relevant components are similar. I suggested that it could be anti-antisemitism that was being compared, since neo-nazi's are mostly a hate group today (right?). But really, the bare bones relevancy required is that neo-nazi's are objectionable. If you don't agree with the ideas of a certain group, you usually avoid association with them--regardless of fallacies, this is how people usually operate. I attribute his publishing with them to a certain brand of stupidity though.

How is the type of publisher more important than what they publish? Are you now arguing that the type of publisher is the problem which makes Rauf an unacceptable land developer? Could you perhaps make that argument, rather than throwing out irrelevant rhetorical questions?

HarperCollins is a large publishing company, they publish many many books, and they aren't involved in any controversies like the ISNA. So pj's argument doesn't extend in the way you suggested.

Sure, obviously "soft wing" elements may exist. However, we're not debating the general existence of such front groups; we're talking about a public figure who stands accused of some very specific Bad Things. I'd be happy to "hash out the meager evidence," but even that appears to be a troublesome task.

I'm pretty sure we got derailed somewhere.

He said that their defense consisted of suppression of criticism by accusations of paranoia/islamaphobia.No, that's what's happening inside your head, not in text on this board. Exactly one Orgah accused Frag of Islamophobia, and he got roundly shouted down by just about everybody. This is what Frags actually wrote a few posts above this one:

We're talking about the meaning of frags post which I don't think I misunderstood:

I constantly have to defend myself when bringing up that they exist. Goes like this;

SO YOU SAY THAT ALL

errrr no I said

SO YOU SAY THAT ALL

errrr no I said

SO YOU SAY THAT ALL

encore

The obvious corollary being that others do not accept that extremists exist, that this is some sort of privileged knowledge that he must defend. It's quite silly, and nowhere, ever, has he stated that "orgah's aren't arguing there are not muslim extremists." That's all you.

Didn't he say that when he makes accusations of extremism, some people jump in and accuse him of referring to all muslims?

Fragony

08-15-2010, 16:20

Stop banging that drum Lemur, I already did it.

Lemur

08-15-2010, 16:22

I think your confusing comparing with equating. Comparing only requires that the relevant components are similar.
I think you're getting lost in a thicket of semantic relativisim. If I equate Sasaki Kojiro with, say, Charles Manson, is it enough that you are both white males who live in the U.S.A.? By your stated standard, that is plenty. Oh, is there something to do with him being a mass murderer? Never mind, we're comparing, not equating.

HarperCollins is a large publishing company, they publish many many books, and they aren't involved in any controversies like the ISNA. So pj's argument doesn't extend in the way you suggested.
PJ's argument, as such, is simple guilt by association. It's awfully neighborly of you to swoop in to defend his argument for him, but the fact of the matter is that if we are going to roundly condemn an author for other authors published by his label, the comparison with HarperCollins is apt. Rather more apt than your strained neo-nazi/Hamas analogy. I suppose if we want to make the comparison more exact, we could take a look at some explicitly Christian publishers and pull out some of the more outrageous things they have published over time. If you need me to go there, let me know, and I'll get some nice outrageous stuff for you. But as another Orgah said, "I think [you're] confusing comparing with equating."

I'm pretty sure we got derailed somewhere.
A fact which you have referred to previously, declaring that we mustn't concern ourselves with what is or is not relevant to Rauf and the Cordoba House. If we are not specifically discussing Rauf, what are we discussing? Folks keep bringing up Great Britain, both in video form and news items. Has this morphed into an Islam in England thread?

We're talking about the meaning of frags post which I don't think I misunderstood: [...] Didn't he say that when he makes accusations of extremism, some people jump in and accuse him of referring to all muslims?
Yeah, you misunderstood. (Or perhaps you read it in the "non-literal" manner which you advocate.) His statement is that when he says Islamic extremism exists people accuse him of paranoia or phobia. In other words, by merely articulating the existence of Islamists, he is set upon by ruffians. Which, as I said previously, is clearly, objectively false. As is your generous reading of it.

-edit-

Stop banging that drum Lemur, I already did it.
Dare I ask what "it" is?

Fragony

08-15-2010, 16:39

lol Lemur find me the post where I say all imams are teh evil, the post where you say I do, 2 pages back. Fight that reflex you might say something you don't remember.

and 'it' is of course what you demanded me to do. Did it.

Sasaki Kojiro

08-15-2010, 16:43

I think you're getting lost in a thicket of semantic relativisim. If I equate Sasaki Kojiro with, say, Charles Manson, is it enough that you are both white males who live in the U.S.A.? By your stated standard, that is plenty. Oh, is there something to do with him being a mass murderer? Never mind, we're comparing, not equating.

Well, both of us being white wouldn't be enough to equate, but it would to compare, if white males was the relevant category. But this is becoming off topic.

PJ's argument, as such, is simple guilt by association. It's awfully neighborly of you to swoop in defend his argument for him, but the fact of the matter is that if we are going to roundly condemn an author for other authors published by his label, the comparison with HarperCollins is apt. Rather more apt than your strained neo-nazi/Hamas analogy.

The label itself is suggested to be objectionable, while harper collins is not.

A fact which you have referred to previously, declaring that we mustn't concern ourselves with what is or is not relevant to Rauf and the Cordoba House. If we are not specifically discussing Rauf, what are we discussing? Folks keep bringing up Great Britain, both in video form and news items. Has this morphed into an Islam in England thread?

We can discuss rauf if you like. But I've already said what I think about him.

Yeah, you misunderstood. (Or perhaps you read it in the "non-literal" manner which you advocate.) His statement is that when he says Islamic extremism exists people accuse him of paranoia or phobia. In other words, by merely articulating the existence of Islamists, he is set upon by ruffians. Which, as I said previously, is clearly, objectively false. As is your generous reading of it.

Well, I would argue but it's someone elses post after all.

Lemur

08-15-2010, 16:44

lol Lemur find me the post where I say all imams are teh evil, the post where you say I do, 2 pages back.
I remember that exchange. I apologize for that charictarization of your position, and I have not repeated it since.* I have, however, asked you to back up your increasingly hysterical assertions.

and 'it' is of course what you demanded me to do. Did it.
Self-reference is self-referential.

We can discuss rauf if you like.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

*And in fairness, I have debated you not because you stated that extremists exist, as you claimed in your "I Am The Victim" post. My objections to your arguments have been a little more detailed and reality-based than that. This does not excuse my mis-characterization of your position, but it is relevant.

Fragony

08-15-2010, 17:04

That's ok I am very used to it. and what hysteria specify please

Lemur

08-15-2010, 17:08

and what hysteria specify please
How about when you said that it was "no secret" that Rauf was connected to the Muslim Brotherhood? I've been asking for some backup for that assertion for two pages or so. Can you help a brutha out here?

Fragony

08-15-2010, 17:14

How about when you said that it was "no secret" that Rauf was connected to the Muslim Brotherhood? I've been asking for some backup for that assertion for two pages or so. Can you help a brutha out here?

And I already posted it, secondary sources on page 5 kthxbye

Lemur

08-15-2010, 17:24

And I already posted it, secondary sources on page 5 kthxbye
Looking at page 5 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?129873-Islamic-group-to-build-mosque-adjacent-to-ground-zero/page5) of the thread ... not seeing anything. I'm sorry Frags, I don't mean to be dense, but could you link to the post where you "already posted it"?

Fragony

08-15-2010, 17:31

Looking at page 5 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?129873-Islamic-group-to-build-mosque-adjacent-to-ground-zero/page5) of the thread ... not seeing anything. I'm sorry Frags, I don't mean to be dense, but could you link to the post where you "already posted it"?

Not page 5 of here my bad, page 5 of the first article I linked, also try page 1 2 3 and 4 for reference.

Lemur

08-15-2010, 17:36

Not page 5 of here my bad, page 5 of the first article I linked, also try page 1 2 3 and 4 for reference.
Look, Fragony, I'm not trying to be difficult, and I don't mean to be frustrating, but what are you referring to? The first article in this thread that you linked specifically for me was a one-pager (http://www.greekboston.com/wordpress/2010/08/greek-orthodox-church-or-mosque-ground-zero/). The second article you posted as a link for me was a two-pager (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/). If you could just, you know, post a direct link to whatever you're referencing, that would save everybody a metric ton of frustration.

Fragony

08-15-2010, 17:45

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero-mosque-developer-muslim-brotherhood-roots-radical-dreams/4/

Lemur

08-15-2010, 17:52

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero-mosque-developer-muslim-brotherhood-roots-radical-dreams/4/
Ah, the Alyssa Lappen article. The only place where she makes a connection between Rauf and the MB is in the second paragraph of the first page (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero-mosque-developer-muslim-brotherhood-roots-radical-dreams/), where she notes that Rauf's father attended a university at the same time as a founder of the MB. Before Rauf was born. Oh, and Rauf is friends with a Christian nun who said some nice things about the MB's charitable work.

That's it. Already went over this article in detail, twice.

The endnotes and references on page four (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero-mosque-developer-muslim-brotherhood-roots-radical-dreams/4/) contain nothing connecting Rauf to the MB. Literally, nothing.

So while we all appreciate Ms. Lappen's magical realism, there is nothing in this article or its references that links Rauf to the Muslim Brotherhood. Nothing.

Fragony

08-15-2010, 18:02

Can't help it that you don't like it

pick one you do http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=cordoba+mosk+muslim+brotherhood&btnG=Zoeken&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Lemur

08-15-2010, 18:05

Fragony, it's not that I "don't like it," it's that there's nothing there. An indirect association from before he was born? A Christian nun who says (accurately) that the MB did charity work at one point in its 82-year history? This is the connection between Rauf and the Muslim Brotherhood?

pick one you do http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=cordoba+mosk+muslim+brotherhood&btnG=Zoeken&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Nothing there. Many, many reprints of the Lappen article, and one which hilariously extends her non-association into pure fiction (http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-new-york/the-cordoba-initiative-mosque-near-ground-zero): "Faisal Rauf’s father Dr. Muhammad Abdul Rauf (1917-2004) was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood." His source for that? The Lappen article. Which says no such thing. When a conspiracy theory eats its own tail, does it become infinite?

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/6007.jpg

Husar

08-15-2010, 18:10

Rauf is accused of being either one of those or naively complicit, not a "secret muslim spy" a la husar's strawman.

That wasn't a strawman, that was a loose interpretation of what Fragony had been saying because I didn't want to go to his posts again to look up the exact words he used. :juggle2:

If he is some sort of soft radical who secretly endorses extremist islamic views, then he must be really good at it because the US President seems to support his project and I'd guess the president has better info about him than some random blogger.
It's just that to me the accusations are about as solid as accusing Fragony of being a neo-nazi. FYI, Tribesman left the .org over that issue, and even I, his self-proclaimed greatest fanboy, do not agree with that. But maybe I'm too naive and Fragony is a filthy neo-nazi and Rauf is the right hand of Obama bin Laden the great terrorist leader, I just don't see any evidence for either case at the moment, so since when are people guilty until proven innocent? Well, according to Fragony such principles will be our downfall anyway... :shrug:

Lemur

08-15-2010, 18:16

I just found an American politician who appears to be articulating some of the same lines of argument (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41076_Page2.html) as Fragony. I'd dig it if you would take a look at her quotes and let us know if this is congruent with what you've been expressing:

"I do ascribe to the 'clash of civilizations' theory now," said [Debra] Burlingame, who has been among the main voices questioning the funding behind the proposed mosque, and the intents of Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind it. She said, as she did after Obama's speech, that many Muslims have practiced peacefully in the U.S. before and after the attacks, but that Rauf has made statements supporting radical elements of Islam, and that the location was chosen to be provocative.

She criticized those, mostly led by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who are defending the project under freedom of religion, saying, "That's a Western concept."

"This is a different model," she said, arguing that in the United States people "for generations had been raised on this concept of separation of church and state, and that you don't trash someone because of their religion ... but that's not what we're dealing with here."

"I think the challenge for us is enlisting the Muslims who have already bought into the American program and not adjusting" to Muslim culture, she added. For Burlingame, the issue is not political — she said she objects to the content as well as the form of efforts by Bloomberg and others to push back because the goal is "to shut you up."

Fragony

08-15-2010, 18:45

I think it's pretty obvious that it's provocation, if it wasn't they would take the fact that most Americans are against it into consideration, or at least pick a different date.

And ASMA by the way, that is the organisation I am talking about, it's never going to leave the bloggosphere so I am going to stop trying.

Little addition, the ultimate goal of a lie is not for it to be believed, a lie is meant to humiliate, to make people live in the lie, to make them part of it despite of them knowing that it's a lie, so the more grotesque the better it is.

Lemur

08-15-2010, 19:24

And ASMA by the way, that is the organisation I am talking about, it's never going to leave the bloggosphere so I am going to stop trying.
Doing a Google search with the terms ASMA Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.google.com/search?q=ASMA+muslim+brotherhood), I find a big steaming cup of nothing. The blogs that make the claim of a connection between the ASMA and the MB all reference the same source: The Alyssa Lappen article (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero-mosque-developer-muslim-brotherhood-roots-radical-dreams/). Which is no source at all. Do you see how recursive this is getting? Every blog that asserts a link references Lappen, and her article is so easy to discredit that it wouldn't qualify for extra credit in a fact-checking 101 class.

The only other (semi) primary source that I've found (meaning someone who did their own reporting, rather than surfing off Ms. Lappen's claims) has been Andy McCarthy, and his article ain't great shakes either.

Fragony

08-15-2010, 21:09

See this is why I was reluctant. Uphill battle, it's just a speech at a certain conference, it's just a few remarks made, it's always just not enough. No different for Tariq Ramadan, you won't dig up anything that really proves anything. Shady connections, few remarks. I'l gladly accept defeat in not being able to provide acceptable sources NYT-technically speaking.

http://www.islamist-watch.org/4592/raufs-dawa-from-the-world-trade-center-rubble <- more easily checkable

You should really read Gilles Keppel's Trial of political Jihad

Lemur

08-15-2010, 22:27

http://www.islamist-watch.org/4592/raufs-dawa-from-the-world-trade-center-rubble <- more easily checkable
This is a reprint of Andy McCarthy's article, which I addressed earlier (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?129873-Islamic-group-to-build-mosque-adjacent-to-ground-zero&p=2053197434&viewfull=1#post2053197434).

First there's Andrew McCarthy of National Review, (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243536/raufs-dawa-world-trade-center-rubble-andrew-c-mccarthy) who finds that a free edition of the Imam's book, What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America (http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Right-Islam-Vision-Muslims/dp/0060750626), was paid for by the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought, who have also promoted authors connected with Hamas, which McCarthy rather simplistically calls "the Muslim Brotherhood’s ruthless Palestinian branch." Yah, I think Hamas is its own creature, and does not take orders from anybody in Egypt.

Furthermore, this is clearly guilt by association. Does McCarthy have anything of substance, or are we to damn Rauf for allowing one of his books to be published in free edition by a couple of Islamic groups who also support naughtier people? Thin stuff, thin stuff.

McCarthy then draws a tenuous line between Rauf and Yusuf Qaradawi, a somewhat complex figure who has a popular show on Al Jazeera, and who has repeatedly turned down any official role in the Muslim Brotherhood. Apparently Rauf said that Qaradawi is the pre-eminent Islamic Law scholar alive. Who knows, maybe he is. Anyway, this rather slim connection is enough to send McCarthy into a six-paragraph tub-thumping about Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood and how they're all Terribly Bad. Which is as may be, but not relevant to Rauf. (Who, as a Sufi, would be intolerable to the MB anyway.)
It really does look as though there are exactly two people in two articles who attempt to link Rauf and the Muslim Brotherhood; neither does a very good job.

No different for Tariq Ramadan, you won't dig up anything that really proves anything. Shady connections, few remarks.
On the contrary, Ramadan was banned from the U.S.A., has been captured on tape saying very aggressive things, and is not only the grandson of one of the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood, he is apparently quite proud of his connection to the MB and makes no secret of it. In exactly two seconds of Googling I find an article from mainstream newspaper titled Tariq Ramadan and the Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Tariq+Ramadan+Muslim+Brotherhood/2906604/story.html).

Finding extremist connections with Ramadan is easy-peasy. It's Rauf where you and I disagree; I say the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. You seem to be saying that it's evidence of lying, deception, deceit and the cowardice of liberals all over the world, who are incapable of understanding that Islamists have a different worldview than theirs. About right?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-15-2010, 22:31

Doing a bit of Googling of the Quilliam Foundation, the situation seems to be a little bit more complex (http://uppompeii1.uppompeii.com/2010/08/05/quilliam-foundation--wolves-in-sheeps-clothing.aspx?ref=rss) than you're making it out to be:

The government pays the Quilliam foundation about £1 million per year [...]

This group has not achieved much in the past two or three years it has been in existence, but they have recieved a lot of money for basically sitting around and saying "I think this" or I think that," hence the term "think tank".

It would appear that this foundation has in fact now "produced" something, that thing being a list of Muslim organizations in the UK what are either linked to "extremist" Muslim groups - or are extremist Muslim groups.

This list has cost the taxpayer millions and it is presented as if it was only the Quilliam foundation that could expose such groups and organizations for what they are. [...]

The document sent to Farr is entitled "Preventing terrorism; where next for Britain?" It lists alleged extremist sympathisers, including the Muslim Council of Britain, the main umbrella group in Britain for Islamic organisations. It also claims that a Scotland Yard counter-terrorism squad called the Muslim Contact Unit is dominated by extremist ideology.

Dodgy. Here's the full text of the report (http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834977/Secret-Quilliam-Memo-to-government), if you're interested.

I will get around to reading the whole report, but you should know (as in I feel it behoves me to inform you) that the Muslim Council for Great Britain has been viewed ascance for several years now - and that Quilliam is the only Islamic Think Tank to advocate NOT accomodating Islamists, i.e. supporting groups who claim Islam and Western democracy are irreconsilable.

This may be a case of Frag being genuinely right, in so far as the Liberal Left is unwilling to turn away from large organisations that are essentially extremist and largeley anti-Western. In Britain these organisations are quite powerful, probably not least because a large portion of our Muslim population is part of the poor underclass.

Lemur

08-15-2010, 22:41

Quilliam is the only Islamic Think Tank to advocate NOT accomodating Islamists, i.e. supporting groups who claim Islam and Western democracy are irreconsilable.
Well, this is all news to me. I claim no expertise or insight into Islam in Britain.

This may be a case of Frag being genuinely right
Fragony is absolutely right when he contends that there are dangerous Islamists who hate the west and want us subjugated to a new Caliphate. No argument here. However, this thread was originally about Imam Rauf, and whether or not his Cordoba House and so forth was a front for dangerous militants. In that respect I believe that the burden of evidence is on those making the accusations, and I think they have failed. Maybe not as spectacularly as the defenders of Prop 8 in the California trial, but we've had some moments that were pretty damn close to, "I read it on the internets."

a completely inoffensive name

08-15-2010, 22:54

I stopped reading this thread for 5 days and now I return and I have no idea what is going on here.

Sasaki Kojiro

08-15-2010, 22:55

Well, this is all news to me. I claim no expertise or insight into Islam in Britain.

frags video was pretty good, did you see this 60 minutes one though?

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6711907n&tag=mg;60minutes

"A former member of a Muslim extremist group tells Lesley Stahl the reason for the increase in home-grown jihadists like the U.S. Army major accused of shooting 13 at Ft. Hood is an ideology called "the Narrative," which states America is at war with Islam."

The difficulty with rauf is that it's hard to conceive why he thought opening a mosque/resort on a spot because wreckage fell there was a good idea. This leaves the door open as it were. "Never attribute to malice..." and "absence of evidence..." are good, I still find the ted video showing him talking to be solid evidence that he isn't a tariq clone.

PanzerJaeger

08-16-2010, 06:11

First of all, I'd like to present you with the Godwin Award for this thread.

While appreciated, I'm going to have to return the Godwin Award. As much as they would like to be, neo-Nazis are not Nazis - not even close.

Next, I'd like to ask if Hamas is a meaningful cognate with the Third Reich.Is it helpful to drag the stinking corpse of Hitler out for this occasion?

As mentioned above, neo-Nazis are not Nazis. However, they are actually quite comparable to Hamas in tactics and vision, which is why I mentioned the group.

Lastly, given how painful, protracted and unbelievably stupid the Israeli/Palestinian situation has been for the last forty years or so, I think it's pretty obvious that there are many people who are willing to absolve and excuse the atrocities and excesses of both sides. That doesn't make anyone meaningfully comparable to a proponent of National Socialism.

To National Socialism, no. To neo-Nazis, yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Nations).

Aryan Nations (AN) is a white nationalist neo-Nazi organization founded in the 1970s by Richard Girnt Butler as an arm of the Christian Identity group known as the Church of Jesus Christ-Christian. As of December 2007 there were two main factions that claimed descent from Butler's group. The Aryan Nations has been called a "terrorist threat" by the FBI,[1] and the RAND Corporation has called it the "first truly nationwide terrorist network" in the USA.

So no, sharing a publisher with another author who supports Hamas does not even begin to cut it for this prosimian. You're engaging in guilt by association, a crude and ineffective bit of theater.

There is no need to be condescending. One of the first rules of journalism is to examine associations. You can learn a lot about a person from the company he or she keeps.

Example: HarperCollins publishes Sarah Palin's books, and they also publish Che Guaverra's non-fiction Remeniscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War. Therefore, by your loose standard, Sarah Palin must endorse Che Guaverra, which makes her a commie murderer. It's even worse, since Rauf took no money for the free version of his book, whereas Sarah Palin took several million dollars. So Rauf is a silent co-conspirator of Hamas, but, by your reasoning, Sarah Palin is a well-paid whore for Che Guaverra. See how much fun this is?

Seriously? How long has Che Guaverra been dead? At that rate, how long has Communism been dead?! :laugh4:

Che's writings are historical record. On the other hand, Hamas is still firing missiles into population centers and is still on the United States' list of designated terrorist groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_organizations).

Also, I don't really understand how not taking money for the book makes it better. To me, it seems worse - like he is supporting the cause rather than just trying to sell the book to whoever will publish it.

As with Fragony, put your cards where we can see 'em. Show that Rauf is a radical, and please do a better job than Andy McCarthy.

I did not say he was a radical. As I said earlier in the thread, I'd like to see the context of his statements, particularly about where exactly he wants to build a Muslim state, before passing judgement. All I said was:

If this is the most sanitized, 'moderate' Muslim leader that could be dredged up to be the face of this monstrosity, I fear I've misjudged the American Muslim community.

I don't know if this guy is a radical or not, but I do know that he is a bit of douche. He certainly wouldn't be my first choice for 'Muslim-American of the Year' award. Blaming the US for 9/11 19 days after the attack shows a strikingly similar level of inappropriateness and lack of respect that this Mosque does. I think even Mr. Paul waited a bit longer than that.

Beskar

08-16-2010, 07:26

I don't know if this guy is a radical or not, but I do know that he is a bit of douche. He certainly wouldn't be my first choice for 'Muslim-American of the Year' award. Blaming the US for 9/11 19 days after the attack shows a strikingly similar level of inappropriateness and lack of respect that this Mosque does. I think even Mr. Paul waited a bit longer than that.

He didn't 'blame' America, he just made an observation which wasn't even false. Obviously tensions in the area and meddling on the foriegn affairs setting is obviously going to ruffle some feathers. Infact, it wasn't even the first attempt by Osama on the World Trade Centre (the failed car bombing).

Doesn't really make him a douche for stating it. He would be a douche if he promoted or support the attacks, or expressed any ill-will, which he didn't do.

Reenk Roink

08-16-2010, 07:55

I stopped reading this thread for 5 days and now I return and I have no idea what is going on here.

I just got caught up on the 100 or so posts made in the last 3 days myself, it seems to be mostly about more heat, or more appropriately, lack thereof, on Rauf. God if this guy had just not retardedly chosen September 11 as the day to begin construction there would be almost no case on him...

If he is some sort of soft radical who secretly endorses extremist islamic views, then he must be really good at it because the US President seems to support his project and I'd guess the president has better info about him than some random blogger.
It's just that to me the accusations are about as solid as accusing Fragony of being a neo-nazi. FYI, Tribesman left the .org over that issue, and even I, his self-proclaimed greatest fanboy, do not agree with that. But maybe I'm too naive and Fragony is a filthy neo-nazi and Rauf is the right hand of Obama bin Laden the great terrorist leader, I just don't see any evidence for either case at the moment, so since when are people guilty until proven innocent? Well, according to Fragony such principles will be our downfall anyway... :shrug:

Oh please, I was a much bigger Tribesman fanboy than you, but aside from that, EXTREMELY well said. :bow:

PanzerJaeger

08-16-2010, 09:22

He didn't 'blame' America, he just made an observation which wasn't even false. Obviously tensions in the area and meddling on the foriegn affairs setting is obviously going to ruffle some feathers. Infact, it wasn't even the first attempt by Osama on the World Trade Centre (the failed car bombing).

Doesn't really make him a douche for stating it. He would be a douche if he promoted or support the attacks, or expressed any ill-will, which he didn't do.

The United States was not an 'accessory' to 9/11. Either the man did not understand the term or he was taking a position a step beyond the 'blowback' theory.

In any event, the reason I have used crude language to describe this guy (I think I called him a dick earlier in the thread) is because I am having a hard time defining my feelings towards him. I generally side with Lemur that this guy most likely isn't a secret jihadist, but he isn't someone that I would want to sit down to dinner with either. His statements and actions have been either incredibly stupid or highly disrespectful - and I don't think he is a stupid man.

He's just a douche who would rather see 9/11 family members so upset that they collapse of heart attacks on the street than move his monument to his own arrogance somewhere else.

al Roumi

08-16-2010, 12:11

Cute Wolf

08-16-2010, 13:31

Fragony, am I right in understanding that you don't think all Muslims are terrorists, but dislike fundamentalist Muslims because of their lack of desire to come to a compromise with western values? That your dislike of fundamentalists and concern that they might subvert non-fundamentalists and end up as violent fundamentalists leads you to conlude that all muslims should be actively discouraged or prevented from living in the west?

Is that why you are against this particular mosque, or any other?

actually, in my humble day to day opinion, every muslims who had their wife worn hijab is a fundamentalist muslims, every muslims who refuse to drunk beer together with me is fundamentalist muslims, and every muslims who insist seggregation of sexes is fundamentalist muslims, why I said that? because everyday, I have many muslim friends who didn't worn hijab, drunk beer together with me, and generally very nice persons, FAR nicer than those who follows their holy book strictly, and these men are majority here...

sorry, but your "hijab maniac" muslims of europe is not a good peaceful muslims, but potential-to-be-terrorist fundamentalists

al Roumi

08-16-2010, 14:10

sorry, but your "hijab maniac" muslims of europe is not a good peaceful muslims, but potential-to-be-terrorist fundamentalists

I shouldn't even bother asking you to back that up. How many terrorists do you count among Indonesia's Muslims?

Cute Wolf

08-16-2010, 14:45

I shouldn't even bother asking you to back that up. How many terrorists do you count among Indonesia's Muslims?

a little fewer than half, most growth because of fundmentalist's campaigning on their "victory" in western world.... the ammount of Hijab wearer before 2001 are very very few, but since your "islam is peace" campaign commenced, their numbers grow, and non muslims got more and more oppresion because their flawed logic (if the west permit us to worn hijab there, we should enforce that here, etc...)

*. Thankfully, most of our politicians loathe fundamentalist muslims....
did you see most of our leader and military's wife? they never ever worn hijab except when they marry or go to furneral, that's it...

al Roumi

08-16-2010, 15:29

a little fewer than half,

So is that a little over 40% of Indonesia's 243 million population (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/id.html), say 97.2 million people, are terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism)?

Really?

Oh ok then.

Cute Wolf

08-16-2010, 15:37

So is that a little over 40% of Indonesia's 243 million population (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/id.html), say 97.2 million people, are terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism)?

Really?

Oh ok then.

potential to be terrorist, that's it... ok?
and muslims are actially just a bit less than 80% of total population

al Roumi

08-16-2010, 16:03

potential to be terrorist, that's it... ok?
and muslims are actially just a bit less than 80% of total population

Well, the 2000 census, as reported here (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/id.html), says that 86.1% of the population are Muslim. Either way, I'm happy to go with a conservative estimate and say that only 90 million people in Indonesia are terrorists.

Oh no wait, now you said potential terrorists. Why only potential? I thought your point was that half/all the Muslim population were terrorists?

Anyway, this is ridiculous. Simply being Muslim does not make one a terrorist, that is complete nonsense. Thankfully, you only went half that far.

A nation that even pretends to respect human rights cannot censure an entire (or roughly less than half!) religious or ethnic group because a fractional minority of them are violent or engage in terrorism. That the discussion here (never mind in the mainstream US media!) even centres around this dichotomy proves Al-Qaida is well ahead in the ideological battle.

Cute Wolf

08-16-2010, 16:22

Well, the 2000 census, as reported here (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/id.html), says that 86.1% of the population are Muslim. Either way, I'm happy to go with a conservative estimate and say that only 90 million people in Indonesia are terrorists.

the census for muslim population are bloated, extremely bloated in some regions...

Oh no wait, now you said potential terrorists. Why only potential? I thought your point was that half/all the Muslim population were terrorists?

Anyway, this is ridiculous. Simply being Muslim does not make one a terrorist, that is complete nonsense. Thankfully, you only went half that far.

You never knew, every muslims who interpret quran in literal sense is potential terrorists, since they insist a practice of desert warfare and political cunningness being done on literal basis, this time, they only stress on the fashional sense, just wait until they start to want "more"...

I know, not every muslims are terrorists, yes, there are a big happy community of muslims who fully understood that quran is meant to be interpreted methaporically, and those rules their god sent 1400 years ago are not meant to be followed letter per letter. But you should know that these are not your average muslims on the western world. If you see a women who insist to worn her hijab covering her head all times, shw should knew that 500 years ago, muslim women have much better freedom in their sultanates (that more or less equal to largely secularized european today), poetry praising wine and beauty of women are abundant, and they worn tanktop and revealing skirt instead of today's extremely closed attires. Yes, she was the victims of today's fundamentalist campaigns, but in turns, she could become an element who push to the death of democracy as well, because she had fear of hell.

A nation that even pretends to respect human rights cannot censure an entire (or roughly less than half!) religious or ethnic group because a fractional minority of them are violent or engage in terrorism. That the discussion here (never mind in the mainstream US media!) even centres around this dichotomy proves Al-Qaida is well ahead in the ideological battle.

Nah, that was simple reason, if they insist worn their hijab, they are terrorist since if they could interpret hijab law literally, they will interpret the law to conquer and systematically enslave people with another system of belief literally.

==================

if you study "Islamic Civilizations" in depth, especially that one who goes in South Asia and South East Asia, you'll found that most of them are nowhere as extreme as today's fundamentalist muslims, and they never try to interpret the quranic law literally...

*EDITED*

Lemur

08-16-2010, 18:06

Going back to Rauf, two mosque-related bits of news: Hamas has endorsed the site of the Cordoba whatever (http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/hamas-leader-zahar-muslims-must-build-mosque-near-ground-zero-1.308387?localLinksEnabled=false), which makes everyone involved go "Ewwww."

Secondly, I finally found the full Rauf quote (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=168797) about Hamas where he "refused" to condemn them:

I'm not a politician. I try to avoid the issues. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question...I'm a bridge builder. I define my work as a bridge builder. I do not want to be placed, nor do I accept to be placed in a position of being put in a position where I am the target of one side or another...

The targeting of civilians is wrong. It is a sin in our religion. Whoever does it, targeting civilians is wrong. I am a supporter of the state of Israel. ... I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary.

-edit-

In the same interview, Rauf states his relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood pretty starkly: ""I have nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood. My father was never a member of the Muslim Brotherhood."

Reenk Roink

08-16-2010, 18:30

Lemur

08-16-2010, 18:38

Lemur: You do realize that you have just spurred another 100 posts of wafer thin accusations on Rauf and his misleading the public. :juggle2:
I dunno, I think the preponderance of evidence is pretty clear. Imam Rauf may be insensitive and PR-unsavvy, but he ain't a fifth columnist.

In point of fact, here's a chronological history of media and blogosphere coverage (http://www.salon.com/news/ground_zero_mosque/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins) of Rauf and the mosque. Note that until it was the Worst Thing Ever it was deemed a pretty good idea. In December of last year, Fox News's Laura Ingraham declared on The O'Reilly Factor, "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it [...] I like what you're trying to do." This while talking about the Cordoba House to the (un-veiled) wife of Imam Rauf.

Looks like there wasn't much outrage rustled up until the New York Post's Andrea Peyser falsely reported that the opening would be on Sept. 11, 2011, a lie which I have seen repeated in this thread. Once that numerological silliness was out there, the outrage machine revved up. Read the whole chronology, it's quite instructive.

Cute Wolf

08-16-2010, 18:41

Cute Wolf: Nonwithstanding your extremely nebulous definition of terrorism/terrorist and the even looser way in which you associate to it, your entire point is laughable. The religiosity levels (as according to Pew surveys) in Muslim majority countries is among the highest in the world with even the lowest like Lebanon still hovering around American religiosity levels of 60% and yet the support for terrorism (as defined in reality of course) seems quite low. Furthermore, you are aware that the most expansionist eras of Islamic history, the Ummayad and Ottoman periods were the ones in which the wine drinking elite existed (yeah I took a intro to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam class in college as well as a couple of classes on Byzantine history)? Not to mention wearing tanktops 500 years ago is not even false because it is anachronistic...

you should knew that belief in god and attending religious ceremonies aren't the standard of religiousity, plus you should know that in most muslim countries (asia, africa, etc), the value of social pressures was far higher than in the west. If you are muslim man, you will be ridiculed by almost everyone if you don't pray at friday.

In fact, there is not only wine drinking elites that I told, muslims in Indonesia regularly drunk beer and ate pork since 500 years ago, these trend are only recently halted because the rise of fundamentalism. And I must inform you that a lot of good muslims here drunk beer and ate pork rather regularly, and the still call themself muslim.

ADD:
my concept of terrorism may be nebulous, but it was some of my univ allumnus, who support terrorism and being captured recently with baasyir, that was among the one who first start "the islamic revival" here... and some of those muslim student organizations did systematically brainwash their cadre

Reenk Roink

08-16-2010, 18:54

you should knew that belief in god and attending religious ceremonies aren't the standard of religiousity, plus you should know that in most muslim countries (asia, africa, etc), the value of social pressures was far higher than in the west. If you are muslim man, you will be ridiculed by almost everyone if you don't pray at friday.

In fact, there is not only wine drinking elites that I told, muslims in Indonesia regularly drunk beer and ate pork since 500 years ago, these trend are only recently halted because the rise of fundamentalism. And I must inform you that a lot of good muslims here drunk beer and ate pork rather regularly, and the still call themself muslim.

So what is your concept of religiosity then? Because a survey that flat out asks how important religion is in your life seems the best to me. I saw you gave an examples of drinking beer and wearing the hijab. Fine let's go by your standards for the sake of argument and judge by adherence to religious law and custom. But the same point is made. You see a large number of Muslim clerics condemn all kinds of terrorist attacks though they not only live by Sharia law but support it. I know that when Iraq's new constitution was being drafted, there was great popular support for "Islam being the/a source of law" there.

ADD:
my concept of terrorism may be nebulous, but it was some of my univ allumnus, who support terrorism and being captured recently with baasyir, that was among the one who first start "the islamic revival" here... and some of those muslim student organizations did systematically brainwash their cadre

OK?

Seamus Fermanagh

08-16-2010, 19:02

....my concept of terrorism may be nebulous, but it was some of my univ allumnus, who support terrorism and being captured recently with baasyir, that was among the one who first start "the islamic revival" here... and some of those muslim student organizations did systematically brainwash their cadre

Bog standard recruitment and indoctrination behavior for virtually all groups -- AQ or USMC. It is an impressionable age frame, most of whose members are desperately seeking to define their own identities.

Beskar

08-16-2010, 19:42

In point of fact, here's a chronological history of media and blogosphere coverage (http://www.salon.com/news/ground_zero_mosque/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins) of Rauf and the mosque. Note that until it was the Worst Thing Ever it was deemed a pretty good idea. In December of last year, Fox News's Laura Ingraham declared on The O'Reilly Factor, "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it [...] I like what you're trying to do." This while talking about the Cordoba House to the (un-veiled) wife of Imam Rauf.

Funny thing is, this supports pretty much all my posts where it is just conservative media trying to kick up a storm in a tea cup, which people follow blindly like sheep. Though, the most surprising thing is, that near the start, Foxnews supported the idea. Before the racists and islamophobes got near the story, main-stream.

Hax

08-16-2010, 21:13

If you are muslim man, you will be ridiculed by almost everyone if you don't pray at friday.

Not true, personal experience.

Cute Wolf

08-16-2010, 22:36

Not true, personal experience.

I think you are buddhist? allready convert to muslim?

Lemur

08-16-2010, 23:21

Once again, good to see politicians making hay as quickly as they can move their pitchforks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BXxsrpW_24

Beskar

08-17-2010, 00:29

Once again, good to see politicians making hay as quickly as they can move their pitchforks:
[video]

What are mozlem fanatics and moslum extremists?

Do they possess nucular weapons?

HoreTore

08-17-2010, 00:38

This used to be one of those areas in america that I could point to in a discussion and say "people, this is one area where the yanks are superior to us; no matter what your beliefs are, you will have every freedom to go about building it aa you please. The americans will let YOU decide what you want to build, how you want to spend your OWN money, there wont be any bureaucrats to tell you how you can spend it or what you can building."

It noe appears that I won't be able to do that anymore. You have now adopted one of the worst aspects of our european nanny-state.

America, I am disappoint.

HoreTore

08-17-2010, 00:42

Nvm

Sasaki Kojiro

08-17-2010, 01:24

Apparently there was another building nearby that was canceled that I hadn't even heard of:

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

However, opponents reacted against the IFC's mission, saying that plans to promote international freedom through exhibits and displays about various genocides and crimes against humanity through history, including genocide of Native American genocide and the slave trade in the United States, were inappropriate at a site that many people consider to be sacred. On September 28, 2005, New York Governor George E. Pataki barred the IFC from the World Trade Center site.."

Jeff Jarvis, a journalist and 9/11 survivor, noted that the IFC's proponents stated they "will tangibly link September 11 and the lives of its victims to humanity’s greatest idea: freedom", but objected:

“ But what is that link? Nothing about September 11 was about liberating people. The people who were killed that day were free. They were not struggling to be free. The murderers, too, were free and exploited that freedom to commit this act. Of course, I support the celebration of freedom; who but a tyrant or a terrorist would not? But the struggle here is not against or for freedom. The struggle here is for civilization against extremism, fanaticism, and criminality. So make your center, elsewhere, about terrorism, then. Have your seminars and events and debates about extremism. Study religious fanaticism. This actually is not about freedom.

This building seems similar in some ways, though less blatant. Rauf has latched the message he wishes to spread onto a big name event when it doesn't make sense to do so. I don't see the logic in using 9/11 to spread an extremism combating message. "Here, at the site of your greatest success, let me remind you why you shouldn't be extremists?".

It reminds me also of how michael moore got in some trouble for exploiting a sympathy shot of an amputated (but pro-war) soldier to make his case in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Lemur

08-17-2010, 03:55

The americans will let YOU decide what you want to build, how you want to spend your OWN money, there wont be any bureaucrats to tell you how you can spend it or what you can building.
Well .. I mean, we have aleays had zoning, and building codes, and local codes, and all sorts of rules and regulations. Heck, that's what keeps my brother wealthy; he negotiates leases for cell phone towers. It's complicated.

So I don't understand how the very public huffing and puffing over the Cordoba House changes the equation for America as a whole. We're more free than most places, but we don't bathe in absoulte freedom. For total, unfettered do-as-you-please, you pretty much have to exist in anarchy.

Xiahou

08-17-2010, 03:56

"Here, at the site of your greatest success, let me remind you why you shouldn't be extremists?".I really don't think that's the argument. You're again making the leap that muslims=terrorists. I think his message could be more like "Here is a site of horrible devastation and death. This is what radical ideology leads to."

The message wouldn't be directed at the Taliban or Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It would be directed at American muslims- you know, like the ones living in Manhattan for example.

Sasaki Kojiro

08-17-2010, 04:09

I think his message could be more like "Here is a site of horrible devastation and death. This is what radical ideology leads to."

But it is an interfaith center, a place where he can "show off [his] hospitality, my culture, my background".

The message wouldn't be directed at the Taliban or Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It would be directed at American muslims- you know, like the ones living in Manhattan for example.

It doesn't seem to be directed at muslims.

Xiahou

08-17-2010, 06:00

It doesn't seem to be directed at muslims.Uh-huh. Then who is this directed at?

"Here, at the site of your greatest success, let me remind you why you shouldn't be extremists?"

Sasaki Kojiro

08-17-2010, 06:14

Uh-huh. Then who is this directed at?

I wrote that. Not directed at anyone :beam:

It wouldn't make much sense for him to say it, would it?

Fragony

08-17-2010, 07:58

Funny thing is, this supports pretty much all my posts where it is just conservative media trying to kick up a storm in a tea cup, which people follow blindly like sheep. Though, the most surprising thing is, that near the start, Foxnews supported the idea. Before the racists and islamophobes got near the story, main-stream.

Hardly surpring as Fox is partially Saudi owned

Meneldil

08-17-2010, 09:44

Though I don't know whether or not the Mosque should be built (I find it stupid, but if the law allows it, then meh), despite what Lemur says, this Rauf dude seems like your cliché 'pretending to be assimilated and open-minded muslim'. Reminds me of Tariq Ramadan. On the first hand he'll say that he's all for dialogue and what not, but on the other hand he'll aknowledge that, you know, fundamentalist muslims aren't completely wrong.

I'm now deeply convinced that Islam has no place in the western world, and this man is only a further proof.

al Roumi

08-17-2010, 10:48

This building seems similar in some ways, though less blatant. Rauf has latched the message he wishes to spread onto a big name event when it doesn't make sense to do so. I don't see the logic in using 9/11 to spread an extremism combating message. "Here, at the site of your greatest success, let me remind you why you shouldn't be extremists?".

I really don't think that's the argument. You're again making the leap that muslims=terrorists. I think his message could be more like "Here is a site of horrible devastation and death. This is what radical ideology leads to."

The message wouldn't be directed at the Taliban or Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It would be directed at American muslims- you know, like the ones living in Manhattan for example.

Moreover, 9/11 is not a Muslim "achievement". It is Al-Qaida's achievement. It is deeply concerning that after 9 years of history and 13 pages of this godforsaken thread you can't appreciate that.

Fragony

08-17-2010, 11:10

Moreover, 9/11 is not a Muslim "achievement". It is Al-Qaida's achievement. It is deeply concerning that after 9 years of history and 13 pages of this godforsaken thread you can't appreciate that.

Not so straightforward as you like to think, ask them yourself scratch the surface a little. Ask Cute Wolf how this mosque is looked upon in his country, also as a victory. Just being able tro pray in the streets of Paris or on Capital Hill is seen as a victory. You are looking at this with western glasses, the Islam is a religion with a mission, so even something as harmless as praying on the street is a victory, however small it may be.

HoreTore

08-17-2010, 11:10

Well .. I mean, we have aleays had zoning, and building codes, and local codes, and all sorts of rules and regulations. Heck, that's what keeps my brother wealthy; he negotiates leases for cell phone towers. It's complicated.

So I don't understand how the very public huffing and puffing over the Cordoba House changes the equation for America as a whole. We're more free than most places, but we don't bathe in absoulte freedom. For total, unfettered do-as-you-please, you pretty much have to exist in anarchy.

But this case isn't violating the building codes, is it? This is a simple case of one group of people deciding that they don't want another group of people around. Something that only we euros used to do.

Fragony

08-17-2010, 11:39

But this case isn't violating the building codes, is it? This is a simple case of one group of people deciding that they don't want another group of people around. Something that only we euros used to do.

Well don't they have point, nobody so far has disputed the right to build it, but only communicated why it's inconsiderate (which people who want nothing but dialogue ignore), or why they think that it is a crown jewel (it is)

rory_20_uk

08-17-2010, 11:41

Banquo's Ghost

08-17-2010, 12:02

rory_20_uk

08-17-2010, 12:16

Or Irishmen and Catholics in the USA of course.

~:smoking:

Fragony

08-17-2010, 12:33

A lot of the arguments in this thread remind me of how Irishmen were treated on the streets of Britain back in the Seventies. Or the characterisation of Roman Catholics in the same country over four centuries. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. :no:

Do muslims get attacked or surpressed here? Nope. They have nothing to complain about. We do though. Meet a fundie http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=0861ff3eabea1ceb73e4&

And no that's not just there. I don't understand these people, but they have no business here.

If a neo-nazi said the same the shrieking would be clawing out your ears, but on this the silence is deafening.

Meneldil

08-17-2010, 13:26

Do muslims get attacked or surpressed here? Nope. They have nothing to complain about. We do though. Meet a fundie http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=0861ff3eabea1ceb73e4&

And no that's not just there. I don't understand these people, but they have no business here.

If a neo-nazi said the same the shrieking would be clawing out your ears, but on this the silence is deafening.

Honestly, though I hate Islam as much as you do, what's the point of this video? Some looney is having a conference in some **** hole and talks to other looneys? Good for him.

Much less threatening than the constant attacks on secularity we have to face in Europe.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-17-2010, 13:27

Horetore:

Almost all parties are now acknowledging that this center can be built and that no law, ordinance, or regulation is being broken thereby. Efforts to legislate or zone change to stop it will probably not be attempted and would fail in court if attempted (as they should). Current efforts are to lobby public opinion etc. so as to persuade the builder NOT to complete the project. Such an effort at persuasion is perfectly within the bounds of our republic.

All of us are in an ongoing quest to define our identities; to answer the question 'who am I?' Part of that definition arises by comparison, noting that we are NOT such-and-such. All too often, this is conflated with we are better than such-and-such. Some of that sentiment is at play here.

HoreTore

08-17-2010, 13:42

Horetore:

Almost all parties are now acknowledging that this center can be built and that no law, ordinance, or regulation is being broken thereby. Efforts to legislate or zone change to stop it will probably not be attempted and would fail in court if attempted (as they should). Current efforts are to lobby public opinion etc. so as to persuade the builder NOT to complete the project. Such an effort at persuasion is perfectly within the bounds of our republic.

Ah, wonderful! My faith in america is restored.

All that remains noe then, is for you guys to spread that undeerstanding over here, where every time someone wants to build a mosque the oublic goes insane and actually has to power to stop the construction...

Hax

08-17-2010, 14:17

I think you are buddhist? allready convert to muslim?

Hurr durr hax has muslim family he will convurt durr.

No, my father and his brothers didn't use to pray before they reached age fifty, ever. They weren't "mocked" at all.

al Roumi

08-17-2010, 14:43

Not so straightforward as you like to think, ask them yourself scratch the surface a little. Ask Cute Wolf how this mosque is looked upon in his country, also as a victory. Just being able tro pray in the streets of Paris or on Capital Hill is seen as a victory. You are looking at this with western glasses, the Islam is a religion with a mission, so even something as harmless as praying on the street is a victory, however small it may be.

I don't think we have covered this particular point this time round in these circular discussions we have here on Islam. I have some very good muslim friends, some quite devout, others not so much. And I certainly do "scratch the surface" of issues with them, kind of hard not to these days right?

I don't think 9/11 is seen as a vitory for Islam. The only Muslims I know to have said that are Al-Qaida or another violent extremist Muslim group.

I do however know alot of people who'se opinions, whilst abhoring the loss of life in 9/11 and other attacks, might align more or less with the "blowback" theory. E.g. that one way or another, the US had something coming.

Lemur

08-17-2010, 14:51

Fun factoid for the morning: There is already a functioning strip club (http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/22/ground-zero-mosque-religion-terrorism-opinions-columnists-conor-friedersdorf.html) within two blocks of Ground Zero. Thus proving Lemur's law, that boobies are always going to be more acceptable than religion.

Internet reviewers seem to like New York Dolls best, due to its sexy, disproportionately Russian staff, mirrored stage and purportedly high-quality lap dances.

HoreTore

08-17-2010, 15:01

Lemur

08-17-2010, 15:13

Not sure I'm getting ya there, Hore.

Some good, intelligent commentary coming out this morning. It's as though a squadron of smart people woke up and noticed the hubub. Samples (http://www.newcriterion.com/posts.cfm/The-9-11-mosque-debate-6332):

By couching the present debate in terms of “sensitivity,” “symbolism” and “offensiveness,” certain elements on the right have taken up the uncharacteristic mantle of political correctness and, in effect, given a free hand to a subject worthy of more discriminating scrutiny. All I want to do, Rauf has been able to say, with high backing, is build a house of worship in the one country that takes confessional pluralism for granted. What could be more American than that? [...]

More troubling to me are two episodes in Rauf’s career that suggest, if not a practical alliance with Islamism, then at least a strong eagerness to earn the trust of Islamists, whether out of financial or face-saving motive. The first is Rauf’s participation in the Perdana Global Peace Organisation, which bills itself as a pacifist lobby group seeking to “criminalize war” but is really the brainchild of former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, a man whose greatest compliment to the Jewish people was to credit them with a methodology for world domination that he thought instructive for the forthcoming Islamic attempt at same. [...]

The second troubling spot on Rauf’s c.v. is his certification of Iran’s theocracy. [...] Rauf published this paean to the captive mind just as many hundreds of peaceful democratic activists were being clubbed and shot on the streets of Tehran. According to the Iranian “rule of law,” torture and rape are also permissible forms of punishment for people who exercise their right to be incensed at a pantomime of self-determination.

(For the record, I find this the most damning thing found yet. All of the various "he associates with" arguments have been kinda thin, but him endorsing the mullahs in the middle of the Green Revolution shows a pro-totalitarian side to Rauf that I had not previously seen.)

Another good commentary (http://www.ricochet.com/conversations/Arguments-Good-and-Bad-The-GMZ-Zoning-Law-and-the-Bush-Doctrine):

Those smiling photos of the good Imam at a Hizb ut-Tahrir conference at the very least suggest that the man is naive to the point of lunacy about what that organization represents and the likelihood of spreading moderation among its members through any form of outreach short of a Hellfire missile. [...]

I am all for pointing out good reasons to be offended by Imam Feisal's political opinions, but one argument that keeps coming up is actually not compelling at all. Feisal has been roundly criticized for saying the the September 11 attacks were a "reaction against the U.S. government politically, where we [the U.S.] espouse principles of democracy and human rights, and [yet] where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.” Feisal has said many stupid things, but these words can hardly be numbered among them by any enthusiast of the Bush Doctrine, given that they're indistinguishable from the standard neoconservative critique of American foreign policy prior to September 11. This point is explained approvingly by none other than William Kristol:

Bush decided that, for reasons both good and bad, we had made too many accommodations with dictators; we had turned a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s export of Wahabbi Islam; we had made deals with dictators who seemed to be pro-American for various reasons and who seemed to be keeping the peace with Israel in some cases, and for various reasons. The price we were paying was too great; too many of these dictators were in bed with terrorists; too many of these dictators were exporting terror and extremism as a way of keeping themselves safe at home. The reaction to these dictators was, in many cases, leading to greater anti-Americanism, greater extremism and greater terrorism. Bush decided fundamentally that this cycle had to be broken. As he said recently, this was a break from 60 years ago – six decades of US policy in the Middle East.

Now, whether Imam Feisal intended with these words to express full-throated support for the Bush Doctrine, I do not know and rather doubt, but let's not pretend that we are strangers to the idea he expressed; we are not.

Ronin

08-17-2010, 15:37

Ronin

08-17-2010, 15:40

HoreTore

08-17-2010, 15:48

Lemur: i doubt a priest at the superior bowl would've caused as much trouble as mrs. Jackson's exposed boobie...

The Celtic Viking

08-17-2010, 15:58

Ah, wonderful! My faith in america is restored.

All that remains noe then, is for you guys to spread that undeerstanding over here, where every time someone wants to build a mosque the oublic goes insane and actually has to power to stop the construction...

Yeah, because we really need more of these guys. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB3QdpJonb4)

HoreTore

08-17-2010, 16:01

Yeah, because we really need more of these guys. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB3QdpJonb4)

Uhm... What does punk kids have to do with this?

The Celtic Viking

08-17-2010, 16:09

Uhm... What does punk kids have to do with this?

Punk kids? Punk kids?!

...

I'm speechless. Would you have said the same if it instead of muslims were neo-nazis shooting rockets and throwing pipebombs at jews?

Hax

08-17-2010, 16:28

Punk kids? Punk kids?!

...

I'm speechless. Would you have said the same if it instead of muslims were neo-nazis shooting rockets and throwing pipebombs at jews?

Can we please get back to seperating religion and politics? By equating Muslims to all being convinced of the same political ideology, we are playing right into the hand of Muslim extremists.

Beskar

08-17-2010, 16:43

Can we please get back to seperating religion and politics? By equating Muslims to all being convinced of the same political ideology, we are playing right into the hand of Muslim extremists.

and the Islamophobes too. Completely opposite sides which want the same goal, to destroy the moderators and remove reason from any debates.

The Celtic Viking

08-17-2010, 17:09

Can we please get back to seperating religion and politics?

What do you mean, "get back to"? I don't think we've ever been there, and I don't think it's even possible.

By equating Muslims to all being convinced of the same political ideology, we are playing right into the hand of Muslim extremists.

So we should just ignore these things because not all muslims do this? See what I mean when I say that religious moderates are the ones giving the extremists something to hide behind?

I never ever said that all muslims believe this, nor did I imply it, so all you did was ignore and strawman.

and the Islamophobes too.

Islamophobia is a word made up for the sole intent of quelling criticism of islam. If someone criticizes islam, he's an islamophobe. I wonder why no one ever talks about "christianophobes", or "judaismphobes"...

Hax

08-17-2010, 17:11

I never ever said that all muslims believe this, nor did I imply it, so all you did was ignore and strawman.

I'm sorry, was I mentioning you?

The Celtic Viking

08-17-2010, 17:12

I'm sorry, was I mentioning you?

You kind of quoted my post, you know.

Ser Clegane

08-17-2010, 17:18

I wonder why no one ever talks about "christianophobes", or "judaismphobes"...

I think the popular term for the latter is "antisemite"...

The Celtic Viking

08-17-2010, 17:19

I think the popular term for the latter is "antisemite"...

No, because "anti-semite" is against the people known as jews, not against the jewish religion. Nice try, though.

al Roumi

08-17-2010, 17:23

What do you mean, "get back to"? I don't think we've ever been there, and I don't think it's even possible.

So we should just ignore these things because not all muslims do this? See what I mean when I say that religious moderates are the ones giving the extremists something to hide behind?

Yes, I see where you are going with this... What a good idea, persecute the lot to get at the awful fraction within their population.

Ser Clegane

08-17-2010, 17:26

No, because "anti-semite" is against the people known as jews, not against the jewish religion. Nice try, though.

Perhaps you should look up some definitions on what the term "islamophobia" is commonly* used for?

* and please do not start any semantic discussions as it is currently done with the term anti-semite - the common usage of a term is relevant.

Beskar

08-17-2010, 17:28

Islamophobia is a word made up for the sole intent of quelling criticism of islam. If someone criticizes islam, he's an islamophobe. I wonder why no one ever talks about "christianophobes", or "judaismphobes"...

I think the popular term for the latter is "antisemite"...

Ser Clegana beat me to it, also, there are homophobes and other issues, so it isn't just islam at all.

Islamophobe experienced its main rise after 11/9. Especially due to the propaganda and war-mongering of serveral western nations. This has lead to an irrational hatred and fear of islam. So people are scared of a woman in a burka walking down the street, as she might be packing C4 underneath, etc.

It isn't to silence criticism, it is simply a real issue of people with serious issues.

The Celtic Viking

08-17-2010, 17:32

Yes, I see where you are going with this... What a good idea, persecute the lot to get at the awful fraction within their population.

Would you please tell me where I say we should persecute them?

What I'm saying is this: the quran teaches anti-semitism, and we shouldn't be surprised to see all the anti-semitic attacks that we are seeing from muslims today. More importantly, we shouldn't sweep them under the rug and pretend like these attacks have nothing to do with islam... like you seem so eager to do.

Oh, and since Hax says he wasn't responding to me, I'll just use your post as an example of how moderates are giving the extremists something to hide behind.

Sasaki Kojiro

08-17-2010, 17:32

This building seems similar in some ways, though less blatant. Rauf has latched the message he wishes to spread onto a big name event when it doesn't make sense to do so. I don't see the logic in using 9/11 to spread an extremism combating message. "Here, at the site of your greatest success, let me remind you why you shouldn't be extremists?".Moreover, 9/11 is not a Muslim "achievement". It is Al-Qaida's achievement. It is deeply concerning that after 9 years of history and 13 pages of this godforsaken thread you can't appreciate that.

You're again making the leap that muslims=terrorists.

Well, reenk, do you see more what I was talking about? I say that I don't see how using 9/11 to combat extremism works. That is dismissed with the criticism that I am equating muslims to terrorists, and then I'm told that 9/11 is not a muslim achievement (he is "deeply concerned" that I can't appreciate that). Now see, when I think of an extremism combating message, I assume that the message is intended for extremists. You don't send an extremism combating message to non extremists do you? Xiahou and alh assume the message is intended for muslims...and then say that I am equating muslims with extremists. Xiahou is also worried about the regular muslims in nyc, and thinks that this is what the extremism combating message is about.

The Celtic Viking

08-17-2010, 17:53

Perhaps you should look up some definitions on what the term "islamophobia" is commonly* used for?

* and please do not start any semantic discussions as it is currently done with the term anti-semite - the common usage of a term is relevant.

I've bolded my point. Whenever someone criticizes islam, they're called an islamophobe. That's the common usage I've been seeing. I point to Beskar: "This has lead to an irrational hatred and fear of islam". Emphasis added.

Ser Clegana beat me to it, also, there are homophobes and other issues, so it isn't just islam at all.

Since when is homosexuality a religion?

So people are scared of a woman in a burka walking down the street, as she might be packing C4 underneath, etc.

If you ever meet someone who really thinks that, tell me about it, because I have never seen one. I must ask you though, do you know why these women wear burkas? If you do, you should share my feelings of revulsion every time I see them, if you value womens rights at all.

al Roumi

08-17-2010, 18:01

Well, reenk, do you see more what I was talking about? I say that I don't see how using 9/11 to combat extremism works. That is dismissed with the criticism that I am equating muslims to terrorists, and then I'm told that 9/11 is not a muslim achievement (he is "deeply concerned" that I can't appreciate that). Now see, when I think of an extremism combating message, I assume that the message is intended for extremists. You don't send an extremism combating message to non extremists do you? Xiahou and alh assume the message is intended for muslims...and then say that I am equating muslims with extremists. Xiahou is also worried about the regular muslims in nyc, and thinks that this is what the extremism combating message is about.

LOL, do you honestly suggest engaging in rational dialoguwe with Al-Qaida? That's a good one, but do yourself the favour of more than a cursory consideration of the practicalities and politics -never mind likelihood of positive outcomes.

Of course any anti-extremism engagement is going to be with non-extremists. The horse has quite literaly bolted if they are violent extremists. The debate here should be about the vast majority of Muslims and how to aid them to resist and address extremism.

Ronin

08-17-2010, 18:19

There is a difference between what you can do and what you should do. For instance, you can build a Catholic church next to a playground. Should you?" - John Oliver on the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy

TDS nails it again :D

Beskar

08-17-2010, 18:19

I've bolded my point. Whenever someone criticizes islam, they're called an islamophobe. That's the common usage I've been seeing. I point to Beskar: "This has lead to an irrational hatred and fear of islam". Emphasis added.

Islamophobia is prejudice against Islam or Muslims.[1] The term seems to date back to the "late" 1980s,[2] but came into common usage after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.[3] In 1997, the British Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as the "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims,".

Professor Anne Sophie Roald writes that steps were taken toward official acceptance of the term in January 2001 at the "Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance", where Islamophobia was recognized as a form of intolerance alongside Xenophobia and Antisemitism.[5]

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

HoreTore

08-17-2010, 18:36

Punk kids? Punk kids?!

...

I'm speechless. Would you have said the same if it instead of muslims were neo-nazis shooting rockets and throwing pipebombs at jews?

No, because then it wouldn't have been a demonstration by the Blitz/Christinia groups. Hence no punk kids.

The Celtic Viking

08-17-2010, 18:39

In 1997, the British Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as the "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims,".

That's exactly the problem: they're trying to make hatred of islam equal to hatred of muslims. They're trying to transform criticism of a religion into criticism of people. You don't see the same thing with any other religion (and there shouldn't be for any).

Since both Muslim and Jew both refer to the religion and to the people, in that strange interconnected way. So man from Saudia Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, etc who comes from an Islamic background is always called a Muslim.
:daisy: Being a muslim means you're following the religion of islam. That is the definition of the word. Being a jew doesn't mean the same thing, which is why you'll find that the majority of jews are atheists, but no muslim is anything but an adherent of islam.

Sasaki Kojiro

08-17-2010, 19:05

LOL, do you honestly suggest engaging in rational dialoguwe with Al-Qaida? That's a good one, but do yourself the favour of more than a cursory consideration of the practicalities and politics -never mind likelihood of positive outcomes.

Who is talking about al-queda? Well, extremists is a vague word. But you don't need to send a message to the non-extremists (people without any radical beliefs). Because they don't have the radical beliefs.

Of course any anti-extremism engagement is going to be with non-extremists. The horse has quite literaly bolted if they are violent extremists. The debate here should be about the vast majority of Muslims and how to aid them to resist and address extremism.

You are acting as if there is al-queda, and regular muslims. You say that the al-queda can't be talked to and the vast majority of muslims need help "resisting" extremism. I disagree with that. You are skipping the group of people who have radical beliefs, but are not violent. They are the ones who need to targeted in the war of ideas.

Watch the 60 minutes video I posted a few pages back. That guy is doing just that. He travels around the world giving talks and holding seminars where he tries to talk people out of the belief (and show them how to talk others out of the belief) that america hates muslims, or that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy by the americans to give them an excuse to go to iraq and wipe out all the muslims there. He isn't building a $100 million dollar interfaith cultural center and hoping that people with radical beliefs stop by so he can convince them.

The Celtic Viking

08-17-2010, 19:38

No, because then it wouldn't have been a demonstration by the Blitz/Christinia groups. Hence no punk kids.

So the fact that these people are clearly shouting "long live Hamas" doesn't mean anything to you?

Oh, and just out of interest, what's your source for claiming that Blitz/Christinia has anything to do with this? I've searched for any source even mentioning them in relation to this, but no luck.

Then we have them doing the same thing two weeks earlier. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqZtJlG3zso)

I guess here they are shouting "Allahu akbar" to make people think their motivation has something to do with islam, when in fact it's really just "punk kids"?

Fragony

08-17-2010, 20:41

Honestly, though I hate Islam as much as you do, what's the point of this video? Some looney is having a conference in some **** hole and talks to other looneys? Good for him.

Much less threatening than the constant attacks on secularity we have to face in Europe.

Posted it as an example nothing more. I am not as harsh as you on islam, they are welcome but not these loonies they are stirring up things here as well. Not so much here in the Netherlands but absolutely in the UK and Belgium.

HoreTore

08-17-2010, 20:46

So the fact that these people are clearly shouting "long live Hamas" doesn't mean anything to you?

Oh, and just out of interest, what's your source for claiming that Blitz/Christinia has anything to do with this? I've searched for any source even mentioning them in relation to this, but no luck.

Then we have them doing the same thing two weeks earlier. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqZtJlG3zso)

I guess here they are shouting "Allahu akbar" to make people think their motivation has something to do with islam, when in fact it's really just "punk kids"?

I don't know about this particular one. But i assume this one is from the gaza war, and i attended the demonstrations that took place in Oslo.

And yes, I was one of the punk kids. And I am no fundie.

Fragony

08-17-2010, 21:05

This particular one is how they all go, angry muslims plus bored rich kids desperate for a cause means broken windows.

Meneldil

08-17-2010, 22:33

Ser Clegana beat me to it, also, there are homophobes and other issues, so it isn't just islam at all.

Islamophobe experienced its main rise after 11/9. Especially due to the propaganda and war-mongering of serveral western nations. This has lead to an irrational hatred and fear of islam. So people are scared of a woman in a burka walking down the street, as she might be packing C4 underneath, etc.

It isn't to silence criticism, it is simply a real issue of people with serious issues.

Gibberish. Islam has never been popular among westerners. It started long before 9/11. Things got worse after this event because the US and Europe suddenly realized they were hosting a bunch of snakes.

Rhyfelwyr

08-17-2010, 22:42

Islamophobia is a word made up for the sole intent of quelling criticism of islam. If someone criticizes islam, he's an islamophobe. I wonder why no one ever talks about "christianophobes", or "judaismphobes"...

You're looking for the link in the wrong place. Islamophobia and homophobia are the two best known 'phobias'. Why? Because they are both the favourites of the liberal left. The very idea of calling them a 'phobia' is clearly stupid and non-sensical, and is just meant to slander anyone that criticises Islam/homosexuality.

Because not liking something is INTOLERANT didn't you know, and you're not allowed to be intolerant nowadays. And yeah as Fragony pointed out it's just rich kids wanting a cause that go and join these Muslim demonstrators, and then these rich kids go on to be the champagne socialists that pass legistlation against hate speech because you're not allowed to not like people or their beliefs any more.

Rhyfelwyr

08-17-2010, 22:44

Gibberish. Islam has never been popular among westerners. It started long before 9/11. Things got worse after this event because the US and Europe suddenly realized they were hosting a bunch of snakes.

It's more complicated than just looking at Muslims though. Pakistani/Bangladeshi immigrants have tended to integrate very well, a lot are small business owners and vote Conservative etc.

Arabs don't seem to do as well though...

HoreTore

08-17-2010, 23:10

Because not liking something is INTOLERANT didn't you know, and you're not allowed to be intolerant nowadays. And yeah as Fragony pointed out it's just rich kids wanting a cause that go and join these Muslim demonstrators, and then these rich kids go on to be the champagne socialists that pass legistlation against hate speech because you're not allowed to not like people or their beliefs any more.

Wrong.

The gaza riots was started by the anti-war movement, as a counter-protest to the pro-war demonstration. No muslim organizations that I am aware of is listed as present at the counter-demonstration.

To say that the anti-war movement is made up of "rich kids wanting a cause" is both ignorant and highly flammable, something I would expect of frags, but not you, rhyfelwyr.

Rhyfelwyr

08-18-2010, 00:05

Wrong.

The gaza riots was started by the anti-war movement, as a counter-protest to the pro-war demonstration. No muslim organizations that I am aware of is listed as present at the counter-demonstration.

To say that the anti-war movement is made up of "rich kids wanting a cause" is both ignorant and highly flammable, something I would expect of frags, but not you, rhyfelwyr.

I still think there is a lot of truth in what I said. Maybe it is different in Norway, but here in the UK we have regular standoffs between the English/Scottish Defence Leages (largely islamophobes and football hooligans) that have regular standoffs with protestors that are composed entirely of Muslim organisations (extremists and moderate) and a group by the name of Unite Against Fascism (Labour's rent-a-mob that is organised very much around universities and, well, angry rich kids).

Something I've said before on these boards, is that I've always noticed a big difference in young people of middle-class that I see at Uni (not exactly rich kids but many are) and the young, working-class people I hang out with. At Uni they are all (or at least the vocal ones that protest and assault you with leaflets etc) very liberal and from the talk I hear even in classes they are pretty anti-Israel and pro-Islam/immigration etc. The people I hang out with though tend to be more in line with the BNP, even if not so extreme (except for the republicans of course).

Aside from the republicans I know (who hate the British in general), the only anti-war sentiment comes from the "bored rich kids". I know many people have real and fair concerns about the war and the treatment of Muslims in the UK etc, but bored rich kids still make up a large part of their ranks (especially with this Unite Against Fascism group). I'll readily admit though that with the groups on the other side (eg English Defence League) a lot of the young poor kids (which is what a lof of them are) are basically hooligans.

While I stand by what I said on the rich kids, I hope you at least know I am really not 'islamophobic'.

Fragony

08-18-2010, 05:46

Anti-war movementlol at least be honest and call it anti-Israel. The anti-warmovementlol is dead silent over conflicts that aren't 100% fashionable in the leftist church. Bored rich kids.

And islamphobe is a stupid word, nothing irrational about it, should be replaced with non-islamphile.

Here in Dutchland 'Islamphobia' replaced 'underbelly-feelings', outstayed it's welcome I suppose. But message is clear, if you don't agree with mamma duck there is something wrong with you. Multiculturalism is opium for the elite.

Cute Wolf

08-18-2010, 05:50

Hurr durr hax has muslim family he will convurt durr.

No, my father and his brothers didn't use to pray before they reached age fifty, ever. They weren't "mocked" at all.

They lived in Western world, and North African country that was de facto controlled heavily influenced by western world, now I kindly ask your family to start move in either Pakistan, Arab, Indonesia, Malaysia, Somalia, etc... or maybe you alone could start move in here, and when someone ask about your family, just said they are muslims but you are buddhist... well... uh, you don't understand Indonesian gossip, so that won't meant much for you.

Islamophobia is a word made up for the sole intent of quelling criticism of islam. If someone criticizes islam, he's an islamophobe. I wonder why no one ever talks about "christianophobes", or "judaismphobes"...

You must add "Atheismphobia", almost every country that have large percentage of muslim ban atheism, because most of those "muslim" are actually atheists.

Would you please tell me where I say we should persecute them?

What I'm saying is this: the quran teaches anti-semitism, and we shouldn't be surprised to see all the anti-semitic attacks that we are seeing from muslims today. More importantly, we shouldn't sweep them under the rug and pretend like these attacks have nothing to do with islam... like you seem so eager to do.

Oh, and since Hax says he wasn't responding to me, I'll just use your post as an example of how moderates are giving the extremists something to hide behind.

Pretty much true.

If you ever meet someone who really thinks that, tell me about it, because I have never seen one. I must ask you though, do you know why these women wear burkas? If you do, you should share my feelings of revulsion every time I see them, if you value womens rights at all.

Most women who worn Hijab here, actually hate it, they are often ridiculed to the point of intimmidation by some fanatics that said repeatedly about hell, hell, hell, and Alloh is angry with muslimah who don't adhere syariat law. And outside of that, there is some brain washed women who literally gossip every non hijabi women and spread bad news about them. That was commonplace in the university life.

As far as my concious observation goes, no women don their hijab voluntarily, at least in the beginning before they are brainwashed by their social religious group, they are often forced by their peer pressures, parents, or religious mentor.

That's exactly the problem: they're trying to make hatred of islam equal to hatred of muslims. They're trying to transform criticism of a religion into criticism of people. You don't see the same thing with any other religion (and there shouldn't be for any).

:daisy: Being a muslim means you're following the religion of islam. That is the definition of the word. Being a jew doesn't mean the same thing, which is why you'll find that the majority of jews are atheists, but no muslim is anything but an adherent of islam.

well, I repeat my points, there is a lot of good muslims out of there, who drunk beer and ate pork, and generally seen quran as mere "spiritual guidance" to be taken metaphorically. These men are good muslims, who believe God's words are meant to be translated not in literal sense, and these men are the one who support democracy and equality here.

Gibberish. Islam has never been popular among westerners. It started long before 9/11. Things got worse after this event because the US and Europe suddenly realized they were hosting a bunch of snakes.

for worse, your bunch of snakes are actually some men who was thrown to junkyard by their parent country, as a starter, ONE OF YOUR PROMINENT "MODERATE MUSLIM CLERICS IN EUROPE" WAS ACTUALLY AN EX POLITICAL PRISONERS OF INDONESIA, BEFORE HE RUN TO EUROPE, HE PREACH AND LED CHURCH BURNING HERE!!! I ALLREADY SAID HE WAS AN INDONESIAN, YOU COULD GUESS WHO HE WAS... Frenchies

HoreTore

08-18-2010, 06:10

I still think there is a lot of truth in what I said. Maybe it is different in Norway, but here in the UK we have regular standoffs between the English/Scottish Defence Leages (largely islamophobes and football hooligans) that have regular standoffs with protestors that are composed entirely of Muslim organisations (extremists and moderate) and a group by the name of Unite Against Fascism (Labour's rent-a-mob that is organised very much around universities and, well, angry rich kids).

Something I've said before on these boards, is that I've always noticed a big difference in young people of middle-class that I see at Uni (not exactly rich kids but many are) and the young, working-class people I hang out with. At Uni they are all (or at least the vocal ones that protest and assault you with leaflets etc) very liberal and from the talk I hear even in classes they are pretty anti-Israel and pro-Islam/immigration etc. The people I hang out with though tend to be more in line with the BNP, even if not so extreme (except for the republicans of course).

Aside from the republicans I know (who hate the British in general), the only anti-war sentiment comes from the "bored rich kids". I know many people have real and fair concerns about the war and the treatment of Muslims in the UK etc, but bored rich kids still make up a large part of their ranks (especially with this Unite Against Fascism group). I'll readily admit though that with the groups on the other side (eg English Defence League) a lot of the young poor kids (which is what a lof of them are) are basically hooligans.

While I stand by what I said on the rich kids, I hope you at least know I am really not 'islamophobic'.

I am a working class kid myself and so are my friends, so....

Fragony

08-18-2010, 06:21

I am a working class kid myself and so are my friends, so....

So you live in Norway, comfortable bliss floating on oil. Where are you and your working class buddies when Turkey massacres Kurds, too busy cheering on the floittas MUHAHAHA Israel take that.

Sasaki Kojiro

08-18-2010, 06:28

I still think there is a lot of truth in what I said.

they are all (or at least the vocal ones that protest and assault you with leaflets etc) very liberal

The people I hang out with though tend to be more in line with the BNP,

but bored rich kids still make up a large part of their ranks

I am a working class kid myself and so are my friends, so....

You can't argue against a claimed tendency like Rhyf's with an example.

The Celtic Viking

08-18-2010, 09:22

I don't know about this particular one. But i assume this one is from the gaza war, and i attended the demonstrations that took place in Oslo.

And yes, I was one of the punk kids. And I am no fundie.

Err, both my videos are from demonstrations in Malmö. Did you even bother watching those videos?

Oh, and no... that one wasn't from the Gaza war, which you might almost think. It's Jews having a peaceful, pro-israeli, pro-peace demonstration, as is their constitutional right, and anti-semite muslims coming to crash the party with firework and thrown bottles.

Fragony

08-18-2010, 09:40

What does demonstrations in Oslo have to do with this? Both my videos are from demonstrations in Malmö. Did you even bother watching those videos?

Don't bother leftists can't see that video. Leftists need the world to spin their way, and if it doesn't they ignore that the earth spins at all or even shriek that it's flat. We call it the 'flat hand theory' over here, HOWDAREYOU *slap*

The Celtic Viking

08-18-2010, 09:48

You're looking for the link in the wrong place. Islamophobia and homophobia are the two best known 'phobias'. Why? Because they are both the favourites of the liberal left. The very idea of calling them a 'phobia' is clearly stupid and non-sensical, and is just meant to slander anyone that criticises Islam/homosexuality.

No, homophobia is a legitimate word, because there is no rational reason two men or two women having sex with eachother could scare you. It's as rational as someone worrying about heterosexual sex - it's nonsense.

Islam, however, is a religion, and thus a completely different subject. No criticism of any other religion has ever been branded a "phobia" before AFAIK, so not only is it unwarranted, it's so obviously fabricated I'd laugh if I was ignorant of the reason.

Because not liking something is INTOLERANT didn't you know, and you're not allowed to be intolerant nowadays.

Irritating, isn't it?

And yeah as Fragony pointed out it's just rich kids wanting a cause that go and join these Muslim demonstrators, and then these rich kids go on to be the champagne socialists that pass legistlation against hate speech because you're not allowed to not like people or their beliefs any more.

So you're saying they don't really believe what they're demonstrating about? I think that people who just wants a cause and picks the israel/palestine conflict wouldn't just start shooting rockets, throwing pipebombs, shouting "Hitler! Hitler! Hitler!", "allahu akbar" and call the jews "******* swine". I'm sorry about reiterating the rockets and all, but I really need to drive home that these are not peaceful protests I'm talking about at all, but acts of violence and anti-semitism. I wouldn't call that "people looking for a cause". I'd call that "violent anti-semites being violent anti-semites".

Cute Wolf

08-18-2010, 09:53

Not to mention anti Israeli sentiments run rampart on muslim dominated world.

The Celtic Viking

08-18-2010, 10:08

You must add "Atheismphobia", almost every country that have large percentage of muslim ban atheism, because most of those "muslim" are actually atheists.

I've never heard the word "atheismphobia" before, ever, but humouring the term, it still wouldn't be the same thing because atheism isn't a religion, it isn't an ideology, it isn't even a world view, as many seem to think. So not the same thing.

Most women who worn Hijab here, actually hate it, they are often ridiculed to the point of intimmidation by some fanatics that said repeatedly about hell, hell, hell, and Alloh is angry with muslimah who don't adhere syariat law. And outside of that, there is some brain washed women who literally gossip every non hijabi women and spread bad news about them. That was commonplace in the university life.

As far as my concious observation goes, no women don their hijab voluntarily, at least in the beginning before they are brainwashed by their social religious group, they are often forced by their peer pressures, parents, or religious mentor.

Yeah, I heartily agree with this. Thumbs up for saying it, because in these days, one must apparently only be against misogynistic devices like this if they're used against western women by western men. And then they turn around and call us racists. Funny.

well, I repeat my points, there is a lot of good muslims out of there, who drunk beer and ate pork, and generally seen quran as mere "spiritual guidance" to be taken metaphorically. These men are good muslims, who believe God's words are meant to be translated not in literal sense, and these men are the one who support democracy and equality here.

I've never claimed these people don't exist, so I hardly see how relevant this is as a response to me. But sure.

Not to mention anti Israeli sentiments run rampart on muslim dominated world.

I'd say the rampant anti-semitism there is more relevant. It's fine being anti-Israel, so long as the objections are actually against the state, and not the people.

Meneldil

08-18-2010, 10:23

for worse, your bunch of snakes are actually some men who was thrown to junkyard by their parent country, as a starter, ONE OF YOUR PROMINENT "MODERATE MUSLIM CLERICS IN EUROPE" WAS ACTUALLY AN EX POLITICAL PRISONERS OF INDONESIA, BEFORE HE RUN TO EUROPE, HE PREACH AND LED CHURCH BURNING HERE!!! I ALLREADY SAID HE WAS AN INDONESIAN, YOU COULD GUESS WHO HE WAS... Frenchies

Nicolas Sarkozy ?

It's more complicated than just looking at Muslims though. Pakistani/Bangladeshi immigrants have tended to integrate very well, a lot are small business owners and vote Conservative etc.

Arabs don't seem to do as well though...

We all know this. All muslims aren't nutjobs bent on destroying our way of life. But Beskar's idea that everything was alright with muslims living in Europe before 9/11 or even before the late 80's is - as I said - pure gibberish.

I'd like to remind him that muslim terrorist groups targeted France way before 9/11. I'd like to remind him that the whole arguing about the veil (since back then, nobody wore burkas and niqabs) started in the early 80's here. I'd like to remind him that racist attacks against muslims and north africans were common stuff in the 60's and the 70's. And I'd like to remind him that, back then, muslims generally were more assimilated and less militant than they are nowadays.

This whole "ISLAMOPHOBIA IS A TOOL OF WESTERN GOVERNMENTS" idea is laughable. Islamophobia was much more prevalent in the 60's/70's than it is nowadays. It is only rising again as a reaction to the increased militancy and outlawness of local muslims.

al Roumi

08-18-2010, 12:07

Who is talking about al-queda? Well, extremists is a vague word. But you don't need to send a message to the non-extremists (people without any radical beliefs). Because they don't have the radical beliefs.

I disagree, AQ's propaganda is intended to win it more support from the majority of Muslims - who are not extremists. AQ's narrative of a global oppression and exploitation of Muslims is intended to convince Muslims that the West is out to get them. If you don't counter that message, and engage with the majority who are not "radicalisaed" or "extremist" then you basicaly give AQ the run of the green.

You are acting as if there is al-queda, and regular muslims. You say that the al-queda can't be talked to and the vast majority of muslims need help "resisting" extremism. I disagree with that. You are skipping the group of people who have radical beliefs, but are not violent. They are the ones who need to targeted in the war of ideas.

You are on to something here, but it's also very tricky. For starters, how do you define a non-violent extremist? I guess the non-violent bit is the simplest, but some opinions in this thread would have any Muslim not eating pork and drinking beer as an extremist, or indeed wearing a hijab! Secondly, on exactly what would you engage with these "extremists"? Their grievances against the west, Palestine/Israel? Honestly, it would have to be of that order. Or maybe the focus should be on non-violent resolution of conflicts? i.e. finding a way to reconcile the west with morw hardline Islamic principles -I don't mean adopting them ourselves, but learning to live alongside each other. Again, resolution of this type would imply a measure of compromise on both sides, hardly an easy sell with Org patrons either I fear!

Watch the 60 minutes video I posted a few pages back. That guy is doing just that. He travels around the world giving talks and holding seminars where he tries to talk people out of the belief (and show them how to talk others out of the belief) that america hates muslims, or that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy by the americans to give them an excuse to go to iraq and wipe out all the muslims there. He isn't building a $100 million dollar interfaith cultural center and hoping that people with radical beliefs stop by so he can convince them.

Different strokes for different folks. Maybe this centre for cultural exchange isn't just about "educating muslims in how to live in the west", but also about educating westerners in how to live with muslims? Surely exchange is a two way process, not just a dictation of terms...

Cute Wolf

08-18-2010, 12:18

Fragony

08-18-2010, 12:41

leftie is actually create a big discrimination towards religions:

When a Christian said "GOD HATES FAGS", they will ridicule Christianity as a whole...
When a Muslim said "ALLOH HATES CHRISTIANS, JEWS, NON -MUSLIMS". they will suggest to "tolerate" them...

Man are you being narrow minded.

Yeah everything leftist loath in christianity they will turn a blind eye to when it comes to islam. Muslims hate the west they always have, and today the lefties have too much time they will support anyone if they get some excitement and feel like revolutionaries, unlike the people of Iran they know they will get away with it. They know they won't get raped and hanged, daddy is a judge after all, smashing windows is soooo much fun if you know that daddy&mommy protects it's offspring. Bored rich kids.

Cute Wolf

08-18-2010, 12:50

Man are you being narrow minded.

Yeah everything leftist loath in christianity they will turn a blind eye to when it comes to islam. Muslims hate the west they always have, and today the lefties have too much time they will support anyone if they get some excitement and feel like revolutionaries, unlike the people of Iran they know they will get away with it. They know they won't get raped and hanged, daddy is a judge after all, smashing windows is soooo much fun if you know that daddy&mommy protects it's offspring. Bored rich kids.

yeah, all tolerance "supporters" here experience Islamic society better than those who lived in Asia, Africa, and every country that had muslim majority populance because they are the true supporters of democracy, yeah, fundamentalist muslims are a small fraction and they won't cause any bad things.... having your offsprings and future generations endure some "nasty" pranks and "funny" rules is not a factor of consideration, muslims breed slowly and never try to takeover the community...

Lemur

08-18-2010, 12:56

Muslims hate the west they always have
And you wonder why you keep getting accused of being against Islam generally. You kinda do it to yourself, friend.

Fragony

08-18-2010, 13:09

And you wonder why you keep getting accused of being against Islam generally. You kinda do it to yourself, friend.

I don't walk eggs mia muca, it is. A good muslim in our eyes is a bad one in theirs. There is no moderate islam, just as there is no moderate nazism, just good people.

Lemur

08-18-2010, 13:30

There is no moderate islam, just as there is no moderate nazism
So by this logic, moderate muslims are either not muslims or not moderate. They are either fake or lying; they can never operate in good faith.

And a gratuitous comparison to Nazism. Lovely.

-edit-

P.S.: This is the fifth or sixth time you've called me "mia muca." "Mia" is obvious, but "muca"?

Cute Wolf

08-18-2010, 13:36

So by this logic, moderate muslims are either not muslims or not moderate. They are either fake or lying; they can never operate in good faith.

And a gratuitous comparison to Nazism. Lovely.

-edit-

P.S.: This is the fifth or sixth time you've called me "mia muca." "Mia" is obvious, but "muca"?

moderate muslim have an obvious sign, they won't refuse when you gave them beer and ate pork just like anything else. They understand quranic law are meant to be interpreted metaphorically, and they don't wear hijab.

Fragony

08-18-2010, 13:41

So by this logic, moderate muslims are either not muslims or not moderate.
yes, that is what I mean

Rhyfelwyr

08-18-2010, 14:06

moderate muslim have an obvious sign, they won't refuse when you gave them beer and ate pork just like anything else. They understand quranic law are meant to be interpreted metaphorically, and they don't wear hijab.

Surely a Muslim that doesn't drink or eat pork could still be considered moderate? They are hardly radical things to do.

Also, with the quranic law, the argument against following it literally that I usually hear is not that it is metaphorical, but that it reflects the social customs of 7th century Arabia, and has to be read in that context. For example with the prohibition on pork, the reason desert religions (Judaism/Islam) have that is because pork is particularly prone to becoming disease-ridden in the hot climates. So a Muslim living in a cooler climate like Britain would then realise pork is not unclean and could eat it, without following the quran literally.

Cute Wolf

08-18-2010, 14:20

Surely a Muslim that doesn't drink or eat pork could still be considered moderate? They are hardly radical things to do.

Also, with the quranic law, the argument against following it literally that I usually hear is not that it is metaphorical, but that it reflects the social customs of 7th century Arabia, and has to be read in that context. For example with the prohibition on pork, the reason desert religions (Judaism/Islam) have that is because pork is particularly prone to becoming disease-ridden in the hot climates. So a Muslim living in a cooler climate like Britain would then realise pork is not unclean and could eat it, without following the quran literally.

Indonesian (and typical south-east asian) muslims drunk alcoholic beverages and ate pork and boars for more than 600 years in history, this cultural tradition however, are dying because some stupid saudi wahhabists start preach their fundamentalist views...

Beskar

08-18-2010, 14:42

Rhyfelwyr

08-18-2010, 14:48

Indonesian (and typical south-east asian) muslims drunk alcoholic beverages and ate pork and boars for more than 600 years in history, this cultural tradition however, are dying because some stupid saudi wahhabists start preach their fundamentalist views...

Indonesia is quite unique in the Muslim world though, IIRC most of the Muslims there are 'Abangan' Muslims which means they follow a mix of Islam and local pagan beliefs. In which case, adopting ideas like refusing to drink alcohol could be seen as a sign of a literal intepretation of the quran.

But in most of the Muslim world not drinking alcohol is as much a cultural thing as it is religious. In the UK, only the most liberal Muslims would drink alcohol, but they are still far from being extreme, they otherwise are fully integrated, listen to western music, have their western clothes, have western friends etc. They just don't drink or eat pork, beacuse it is their culture if they come from the Arab world or Pakistan etc.

Sasaki Kojiro

08-18-2010, 18:15

I disagree, AQ's propaganda is intended to win it more support from the majority of Muslims - who are not extremists. AQ's narrative of a global oppression and exploitation of Muslims is intended to convince Muslims that the West is out to get them. If you don't counter that message, and engage with the majority who are not "radicalisaed" or "extremist" then you basicaly give AQ the run of the green.

I agree that countering the message is the important thing...

You are on to something here, but it's also very tricky. For starters, how do you define a non-violent extremist? I guess the non-violent bit is the simplest, but some opinions in this thread would have any Muslim not eating pork and drinking beer as an extremist, or indeed wearing a hijab! Secondly, on exactly what would you engage with these "extremists"? Their grievances against the west, Palestine/Israel? Honestly, it would have to be of that order. Or maybe the focus should be on non-violent resolution of conflicts? i.e. finding a way to reconcile the west with morw hardline Islamic principles -I don't mean adopting them ourselves, but learning to live alongside each other. Again, resolution of this type would imply a measure of compromise on both sides, hardly an easy sell with Org patrons either I fear!

They guy on 60 minutes (who I'm basing all this on since it's the best source I've seen--he was at oxford and was recruited into one of the non-violent radical groups) said what needed to be done was to combat the narrative, the idea that the west wants to destroy islam and wipe it from the face of the earth. He goes around arguing against the narrative.

Different strokes for different folks. Maybe this centre for cultural exchange isn't just about "educating muslims in how to live in the west", but also about educating westerners in how to live with muslims? Surely exchange is a two way process, not just a dictation of terms...

Well, this kind of false equivalency is tempting. But we aren't talking about ordinary muslims or ordinary americans. I agree that the center isn't about educating muslims how to live in the west, it seems more about explaining islamic culture to muslims and americans. But attaching a "here, let's make sure you guys understand islamic culture" to 9/11 is awkward and insensitive.

Hax

08-19-2010, 00:48

They lived in Western world, and North African country that was de facto controlled heavily influenced by western world, now I kindly ask your family to start move in either Pakistan, Arab, Indonesia, Malaysia, Somalia, etc... or maybe you alone could start move in here, and when someone ask about your family, just said they are muslims but you are buddhist... well... uh, you don't understand Indonesian gossip, so that won't meant much for you.

I don't know whether you're trying to be sarcastic or not. So now Algeria isn't even a Muslim country anymore. Okay guys, so according to Cute Wolf, the only Muslim countries are countries where stabbing non-Muslims is totally cool. Let's stick with Saudi-Arabia and Iran, then. Libya? Muslim? Of course not.

or maybe you alone could start move in here, and when someone ask about your family, just said they are muslims but you are buddhist

What the hell do I care about what a few Indonesian idiots think about what my father believes. Who cares, seriously? Even my Muslim family doesn't care.

Lemur

08-19-2010, 00:58

A little fact-based angle (http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/17/the-american-muslim-success-st) on American and Islam. I'd say we're doing the integration thing substantially better than Europe. By Fragony's strange standard, this means our Muslims aren't Muslims.

In contrast to many of the minority Muslim populations in Europe, American Muslims embrace modernity, are better educated (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Special%20Reports/Different%20special%20reports/Snapshot%20of%20Moslims%20in%20America.htm), and earn more money (http://www.allied-media.com/AM/) than their non-Muslim fellow citizens. A 2007 Pew poll (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10330400) suggests American Muslims are also doing just fine when it comes to assimilating and viewing themselves as part of America. According to the poll, just 5 percent of American Muslims express any level of support for Al Qaeda, and strong majorities condemn suicide attacks for any reason (80+ percent), and have a generally positive image of America and its promise for Muslims.

According to the poll, the only subset of American Muslims where support for Al Qaeda and suicide attacks gets unccomfortably high is among native-born African-American converts, many of whom converted in prison. To the extent that this particular subset of American Muslims is more prone to radicalism and less optimistic about America, it has nothing to do with immigration/assimilation problems, and seems more likely to stem from lingering hostility about race. That is, it's an American problem, not a Muslim problem.

ajaxfetish

08-19-2010, 01:04

In contrast to many of the minority Muslim populations in Europe, American Muslims embrace modernity, are better educated (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Special%20Reports/Different%20special%20reports/Snapshot%20of%20Moslims%20in%20America.htm), and earn more money (http://www.allied-media.com/AM/) than their non-Muslim fellow citizens. [URL="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10330400"]
I'd imagine that's because of the shortage of majority-Muslim nations in our immediate neighborhood. If a Muslim wishes to immigrate to America, they have to be well motivated, have resources, and come a long distance. The huddled masses we have immigrating tend to be Roman Catholic rather than Muslim. I think poverty and oppression play a large role in fostering Muslim extremism, and the Muslim immigrants we get aren't as likely to have suffered these.

Ajax

Beskar

08-19-2010, 01:38

Yeah everything leftist loath in christianity they will turn a blind eye to when it comes to islam.

No they don't. They just dislike the Rightists who try to make out every Muslim is a mad-hatter extremist trying to bomb everyone.

Don't attempt to twist reality.

Lemur

08-19-2010, 01:42

Oh, sweet irony, it is definitely time to wind this thread down. It turns out the developers have no financing. This whole brouhaha, this tempest in a teacup, this manufactured outrage, this cable-news-friendly opinionfest, it's all for nothing.

They have no architect. They have no financing. They have no engineers. This is a big, steaming cup of vaporware. Of that estimated $100 million to develop their YMCA ripoff? Guess how much they have. Go ahead, guess. The Cordoba Initiative has a grand total of $18,255 available for the building. That won't get you a hot-swap bunk in a studio apartment in Manhattan. Details (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41238.html):

The [Cordoba Initiative] also lacks even the most basic real estate essentials: no blueprint, architect, lobbyist or engineer — and now operates amid crushing negative publicity. [...] “They could have obviously done a lot better in explaining who they are if they really wanted to get approval,” said publicist Ken Sunshine, a veteran of New York’s development wars. “There’s a real question as to whether there's money behind this."

“As I understand it there’s no money there,” said another prominent business official.

A prominent supporter of the project was blunt: “This is amateur hour,” he said.

“That’s why the idea that this is some big conspiracy is so silly,” said the supporter.

So the odds are highly against this thing ever getting built. To hear the conspiracists talking, I would have thought there were tens of millions of murky oil dollars sloshing around to fund this thing. Nope. The pre-tax salary of a burger-flipper would eclipse Cordoba Initiative's financing.

There's nothing left to discuss here, game over. If anybody wants to go on a long, relaxing ISLAM BAD post, I guess that's their privilege, but the subject Don C initially posted about is a mirage, an illusion, a daydream that somehow got to the zoning board.

Beskar

08-19-2010, 01:48

The Above Post

Lemur just won the thread.

Fragony

08-19-2010, 02:58

How does it change anything if funds were pulled? Still the same thing, the only difference being that it's probably not going to be built. They had the right to build it and now they can't. Saying wut.

How should financers calling it a day change my positon?

Seamus Fermanagh

08-19-2010, 04:24

Cute Wolf

08-19-2010, 06:04

@rhyfelwyr
that's why i have extremely low opinions of wahhabi muslims, as they reject socializing with non muslims, and ridicule everyone who not following syariat law. And these men try to strip every rights from us, the non muslim citizens in the parliment. You allready knew that your average european muslims is wahhabi one, the one who called themself as sunnah wal jammaah. Look at their mysterious fundings, pro syariat demo at britain, coordinated rape at sweden, hijab hysteria at french. Well, we allready undergone such events here, and when you granted them what they want, they will push for more. Not to mention that they use hypnotic and deception for getting new converts.

Lemur

08-19-2010, 06:30

How does it change anything if funds were pulled? [...] How should financers calling it a day change my positon?
You would need to have financiers in the first place to have funds pulled. Point of fact, if the Cordoba Initiative had ever had some real money, they would have blueprints, a model, engineering reports, etc., while in fact they have ... nothing.

Let's take it in "baby steps," as you kept saying earlier in the thread. No money means no plans. No money means no blueprints. No money means no PR firm to work the local politicos and stakeholders. No money means no down payment to secure the site. No money means nobody is your friend in Manhattan.

Are we quite clear on this? They don't have money. They never had money, not unless you count $18k and change, which won't secure reliable parking in that neighborhood, much less reserve the entire Burlington Coat Factory building. This entire thing has been an illusion.

Fragony

08-19-2010, 07:17

They received at least 1.000.000 from the Dutch goverment, so it's bull.

Is it so easy to get a permit to build a 15 story high building in Manhattan? I have 18.000. They can't account for 100 million dollar and that somehow is a good thing? Weird. I don't think that's a good thing.

Fragony

08-19-2010, 08:53

It renders the issue moot, Fragony, and suggests that the whole kerflaffle was outed and amped purely for summer "red meat" for right wing political junkies. Somewhere, someone knew this was a nothing but tossed it out there and hoped for the best -- and got it.

It does? No it really doesn't, where's the money to build a 15 high building. They aren't honest about who's funding it, I wonder why. Well I don't really, but still. Them having only 18andalittle is laughabble at best, I don't think my bank would agree to build a 15 story building if I don't even have any building plan whatsoever. Or even an architect. Neither would my city aprove and Amersfoort is hardly manhattan, but they still will want to know how I can realise a 15 story building before giving a permit. So where's the money.

al Roumi

08-19-2010, 10:01

You allready knew that your average european muslims is wahhabi one, the one who called themself as sunnah wal jammaah.

Rubbish. Absolute, steaming, rubbish. Substantiate this claim NOW.

Fragony

08-19-2010, 10:10

Rubbish. Absolute, steaming, rubbish. Substantiate this claim NOW.

I am no expert but it means sunni muslim simple as that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam

rory_20_uk

08-19-2010, 10:12

NO, it's just wrong. I'd estimate the numbers at easily less than 10%. There would be less of a problem if the 90+% did more to declaim this minority of nutters.

~:smoking:

al Roumi

08-19-2010, 10:35

I am no expert but it means sunni muslim simple as that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam

Sunni =/= Wahabi/salafist. Your statement is like claiming Christian protestant = baptist.

Salafism (Wahabi is apparently derogatory) is a fundamentalist form of Sunni Islam. Sufism is also Sunni.

Edit:
If you think all muslims are Wahabi/Salafist, its no bloody wonder you think all muslims are nutters. personal "dig" removed

Fragony

08-19-2010, 10:35

NO, it's just wrong. I'd estimate the numbers at easily less than 10%. There would be less of a problem if the 90+% did more to declaim this minority of nutters.

~:smoking:

It's just a branch of Islam, much less than 10% are nutters. Schizm thingie after the last good kalif Ali, the sunni/shi'ite breakup, Hax probably can tell you more.

edit wikipage is incorrect, there were 5 good kalifs not 4.

al Roumi

08-19-2010, 10:47

It's just a branch of Islam, much less than 10% are nutters. Schizm thingie after the last good kalif Ali, the sunni/shi'ite breakup, Hax probably can tell you more.

Naming controversy: Wahhabism and Salafism
Among those who criticize the use of the term Wahhabi is social scientist Quintan Wiktorowicz. In a footnote of his report, Anatomy of the Salafi Movement, he said:

Opponents of Salafism frequently affix the "Wahhabi" designator to denote foreign influence. It is intended to signify followers of Abd al-Wahhab and is most frequently used in countries where Salafis are a small minority of the Muslim community but have made recent inroads in "converting" the local population to the movement ideology. ... The Salafi movement itself, however, never uses this term. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find individuals who refer to themselves as Wahhabis or organizations that use "Wahhabi" in their title or refer to their ideology in this manner (unless they are speaking to a Western audience that is unfamiliar with Islamic terminology, and even then usage is limited and often appears as "Salafi/Wahhabi").

Indeed, to this day, the term is still used to stir up conflict between Muslims.

Other observers describe the term as "originally used derogatorily by opponents", but now commonplace and used even "by some Najdi scholars of the movement.".

Wikipedia can tell you more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

Fragony

08-19-2010, 10:59

I believe it's ethnic, the schizm was because the bloodline of Muhamed died with Ali, so the next rulers weren't accepted. Wahibi are hardcore arab supremacists, salafists are much more broadly defined.(sorry if I got it wrong it's very complicated stuff)

al Roumi

08-19-2010, 11:08

I believe it's ethnic, the schizm was because the bloodline of Muhamed died with Ali, so the next rulers weren't accepted.
That's the Sunni/Shia split.

[Edit:] which is analogous to the Catholic/Orthodox schism in the Christian faith.

Wahibi are hardcore arab supremacists, salafists are much more broadly defined.
No, Wahabi/Salafi is a question of perspective: no-one will self determine themselves as Wahabi, they would call themselves Salafist. Wahabi is a term for those who are not, to refer to those who call themselves Salafis.

The term Salafism is sometimes used interchangeably with "Wahhabism". Adherents usually reject this term because it is considered derogatory and because they believe that Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab did not establish a new school of thought but revived the original teachings of Muhammad as was practiced by his companions and the earliest generations of Muslims. Salafis will never self-describe themselves as "Wahabis." Nonetheless, modern-day Salafis do regard Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab as a great Islamic scholar and reformer, a fact that is confirmed by their close adherence to his doctrinal teachings. It is claimed that adherents of Salafi movements describe themselves as Muwahidoon, Ahl al-Hadith,[6] or Ahl at-Tawheed.[7] However, the most common appellation is for Salafis to simply refer to themselves as Salafis.

Sauce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi

(sorry if I got it wrong it's very complicated stuff)
The conclusions you draw are quite serious, so it would be better for all if you didn't say the first thing that came into your head.

Fragony

08-19-2010, 11:17

I know about the schism thankyouvermuch, didn't I bring it up, just because I'm an idiot doesn't mean I'm uneducated.

But you can't become a wahhibi if you aren't arab, it's a racial thing. Wiki isn't always right, there were 5 good kalif's for example, not 4 like wiki says.

al Roumi

08-19-2010, 11:28

I know about the schism thankyouvermuch, didn't I bring it up, just because I'm an idiot doesn't mean I'm uneducated.

Sorry but a) the schism isn't relevant, b) some of your views have rather serious consequences and I'd hope one wouldn't make statements without having a firm grasp of the subject matter. But then this is teh internet.

But you can't become a wahhibi if you aren't arab, it's a racial thing. Wiki isn't always right, there were 5 good kalif's for example, not 4 like wiki says.

Yes Wiki can be wrong all the time. I'm not aware that you have to be Arab to be a Salafist, there are plenty of converts to Islam who are not Arab and who become Salafists. (Many converts are more hard-line than people who have grown up with Islam, as is the case with Christianity) - as Lemur's post yesterday states.

Fragony

08-19-2010, 11:41

The schism IS relevant, because it's ethic in nature, bloodline. You will find plenty of salafists in dark Africa and Indonesia, hardore islamists but that's it. There is your mixup of definitions. And I said wahhibi, read.

And my views lol to that, who do you prefer, me or these EDL donkeys who understand nothing about what they are howling at.

al Roumi

08-19-2010, 13:16

The schism IS relevant, because it's ethic in nature, bloodline. You will find plenty of salafists in dark Africa and Indonesia, hardore islamists but that's it. There is your mixup of definitions. And I said wahhibi, read.
eh? I've just posted two things, including copypasted text, that says Salafism = Wahhabism, although no-one who is a salafi will call themselves a Wahabi, as they consider it a derogatory term.

Edit:

And the schism is between Sunni and Shia forms of Islam. Salafists are hardline Sunnis, so they have a dislike of Shia forms of the religion. AlQaida, hate Shias and most attacks in Iraq by AQ are along sectarian, sunni/shia divides.

Whether sunni/shia is also an ethnic division is possible, as certain tribes/ethnicity follow different religious practices.

And my views lol to that, who do you prefer, me or these EDL donkeys who understand nothing about what they are howling at.
With as much respect as I can muster, I don't feel you are doing a good job of distancing yourself from EDL types with respect to either howling or "understanding".

Fragony

08-19-2010, 13:50

No it's bloodline, Ali was the last of it, Ali was assasinated and the main capital became damascus, I am sure you can find a similar eventsomewhere.

And the suggestion that I like EDL is kinda offenive

al Roumi

08-19-2010, 14:02

No it's bloodline, Ali was the last of it, Ali was assasinated and the main capital became damascus, I am sure you can find a similar eventsomewhere.

Look, your points on the schism and khalifs are irrelevant! read the damn wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi) on Salafism!

"History of Salafism
From the perspective of Salafis, the history of salafism starts with Muhammad himself. They consider themselves direct followers of his teachings as outlined in the Qur'an and Sunnah (prophetic traditions), and wish to emulate the piety of the first three generations of Islam (the Salaf). All later scholars are merely revivers (not 'founders') of the original practices. Modern scholars may only come to teach (or remind) Muslims of the instructions of the original followers of Islam.
...
Many Salafis today point instead to Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab as the first figure in the modern era to push for a return to the religious practices of the salaf as-salih or "righteous predecessors".[17] His evangelizing in 18th century Saudi Arabia was a call to return to what were the practices of the early generations of Muslims.

His works, especially Kitab at-Tawhid, are still widely read by Salafis around the world today, and the majority of Salafi scholars still reference his works frequently.[18] After his death, his views flourished under the generous financing of the House of Saud and initiated the current worldwide Salafi movement."

Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab is widely seen as the first to preach Salafism, in the 18th century. From his surname "Abd-al-Wahhab" are his followers refered to as "Wahhabis".

And the suggestion that I like EDL is kinda offenive
Many of your posts are offensive.

Fragony

08-19-2010, 14:18

Only offensive to the offended, willingly or justified.

So how does that contradict? You are really awful at confusing me

Rhyfelwyr

08-19-2010, 14:23

I think people could be forgiven about getting confused with the terms, since the terms the people themselves used, and their opponents, are usually completely different. We have the same thing in Christianity.

'Christian' was a derogatory term for the early followers of Christ at Antioch, who preferred to term themselves followers of 'the way'. Yet the Christians use term themselves by the time Acts is written.

'Puritan' was a derogatory term for the English Calvinists, when they preferred to call themselves 'the elect/godly'. Yet within a few decades they adopted the term.

'Wahhabist' is a derogatory term for the followers of Abd-al-Wahhab, who prefer to call themselves 'Salafists'. Although as alh_p indicated, they seem to be adopting the term Salafist, just as the Christians did before.

At least I think that's how it goes. :dizzy2:

al Roumi

08-19-2010, 14:32

So how does that contradict? You are really awful at confusing me

I assume you mean the stuff on why I think the Khalifs etc are irrelevant?

1. Most muslims in the world are Sunni. Salafis are Sunni, but "strict" ones.
2. The Sunni and Shia Islam schism begain right after Muhamad died in 632 AD, over the choice of who should continue as leader of Islam.
3. Salafism/Wahhabism "began" in the 18th century.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/shia.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi'a%E2%80%93Sunni_relations

Perhaps it would be better for you to explain (with sources) how you think the schism has any effect on Salafis, or our present discussion, which is (correct me if i'm wrong) about why most muslims are not extremist terrorists/jihadis?

Rhyfelwyr

08-19-2010, 14:52

3. Salafism/Wahhabism "began" in the 18th century.

This is the point that the Salafists would contest, since the reason they don't like to call themselves 'Wahhabists' is that they don't want to make it seem like Mr. Wahhabi himself came up with a new idea they follow. Instead, they identify with the earlist form of Islam, and see modern non-Salafist Islam as the product of 'innovations' in the religion.

BTW, for those who keep associating Salafists with political extremism, this bit from wiki was intersting:

Current disagreements and division
All Salafi Scholars spoke against present so called jihad and they hold their opinion as ""No individual has the right to take the law into his own hands on any account. Even the closest of Muhammad's companions never killed a single of his opponents even when invectives were hurled at him day and night in the first thirteen years of his Da'wah at Makkah. Nor did they kill anyone in retaliation when he was pelted with stones at Ta'if"".

But in recent years they have been falsely associated with "jihadi" of Al-Qaeda, and related groups calling for the killing of civilians, and opposed by many Muslim groups and governments, including the Saudi government. Debate continues today over the appropriate method of reform, ranging from violent "Qutubi jihadism" to lesser politicized evangelism.[citation needed]

Despite some similarities, the different contemporary self-proclaimed Qutubi groups often strongly disapprove of each other and deny the others Islamic character

Rahwana

08-19-2010, 15:09

Let me speak something in this matter, I knew that Cute Wolf may be biased a bit since he was the one who endures discrimination the most from those wahhabists, but believe me, as I was the one you'll call as "abangan" (or secular muslims, in that matter - at least officially in my ID card, I myself is an atheist now), the Wahhabis are pretty much different than us, they forced their wifes to worn hijab, and forced everyone to accomodate their "needs", but when they come in power, they strip everyone out of their group (even secular muslim one), from their rights.

Cute Wolf is 90% Right, your average european muslims want the "rights" to worn those hijab, and that proves that they are "As sunnah wal jamaah", the Wahhabist movement. You may say I'm confused with that, you could speak as you please, especially alh_p (which never endure discrimination anyway, unless you're muslim yourself and want to undermine your country system delibrately), but I knew that those wahhabis did enforce their influence by systematically terrorizing the opposite group, and actively recruits criminals for their works (from prison converts, they allready done there).

As far as my own interpretation goes (as standard Indonesian muslim interpretation, oh yeah, Indonesian muslims are mostly, and historically adhere Sufism), those laws are meant to be act metaphorically:
- the law of halal-haram was meant to be hygenic law one, back there in ancient arab, pigs are unsuitable to desert cndition, and they are prone to contract worms and other type of parasites, and you must remember the context, Arabs that time rarely eat well-done meats, but most often eat them rare, you can't do that with pigs.
- as hijab law concerned, they are more about morality rather than actual dress code. The anshar women that worn black veils with only one of their eyes shown are meant to be taken as "they never tempt the passion of any other man rather than their own husbands" because eyes are regarded as the primary values of women's beauty, and "shown only one eye" are meant "faithful to their husbands (in one way)". You must remember that some decades ago, bar some isolated community in southren arabs, afghanistan, and some other isolated pockets, muslim women generally worn little to none head coverings, you could see examples from arts, photos, and literatures. Did they aren't as pious as today's standards? NO, they are even more pious and spiritual than today's muslimah that press for earthly appearances, but forgot that the essence of spirituality was spiritual one. It was ridiculous thing that today's muslimah press for hijab, when women at the early caliphates only worn that in religious occasions (did they want to be more pious than first generation? ridiculous! - read several literatures from that time, and you'll found that women are mentioned comb their hair in the open, have beautiful hair that waved harmoniously with the wind, and their dyed hair sparkle under the sun...)
- as beer and alcoholic beverages, the anti alcohol laws are specifically mention "Khamr" which was a version of extremely high content alcoholic drinks mixed with poppy sap... that was actually narcotic drinks and they are pretty harmful allready. the fermented milk, as well fermented fruits (that contains alcohols anyway) are still permitted to be drank.
- the law to not befriend christians and jews are meant to be translated as to avoid befriend harsh tax collectors (roman tax collectors), and miserly usurer (jews are often streotyped as such), not in literal sense.
- the law of no skin touch and sex seggregation meant to be translated as suggestion for "abstience", as "skin touch" have sexual connotations because that was the same thing as "flirt sexually" that time...

If you said that was my personal interpretation, ask yourself again, that was what great sufi imams teach back in medieval times, and I believe today's muslims are less pious compared with them.