View Full Version : Islamic group to build mosque adjacent to ground zero
It is Charlie Brooker, when I saw the author after reading your quote, I thought instantly "That is the type of thing he would say."
But it was something I said near the very beginning was the distance.
I still wonder if Obama decide to hurt every family of 911 victims' feelings, this time, they done that in most painful way available. Speaking of distance, everytime those fundamentalist muslims sound the adzan, everytime a thousand blade stabs those hearts. As those sounds had a historical meaning of subduing a former enemy territory.
All muslims are not monsters, I think History has showed us that. There was a moment of team where the Sarrans (Medievil name for Muslims) were the beacon of intellectual enlightenment, bringing culture, classical works, maps, discovered worlds, etc. I think the Multicultural centre of Norman Sciliy is the shining beacon of that, showing the West how stuck in the mud they were during the Islamic Golden Age.
We should all focus on the future, instead of the past. We learn history to learn from it, not to be doomed to repeat it. As for those ignorant, on either sides of the coin, they need to pull out some sticks and get moving.
All muslims are not monsters
Who claims they are, all all all nobody says all. But A significant part does look at the future but that it isn't the future I have in mind for myself.
Cute Wolf
08-23-2010, 05:53
We should all focus on the future, instead of the past. We learn history to learn from it, not to be doomed to repeat it. As for those ignorant, on either sides of the coin, they need to pull out some sticks and get moving.
Past? Come on, right now, I have the bad things today, and I hope you westerners will never had it up to our ridiculous scale. Some of those left are too over-optimistic with peace, that even the "half-pagan muslims" here found threatening and annoying.
tibilicus
08-23-2010, 15:47
I think the Multicultural centre of Norman Sciliy is the shining beacon of that, showing the West how stuck in the mud they were during the Islamic Golden Age.
You must have watched the Normans last week. Fascinating documentary in my opinion. Some of the architecture produced when Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism and Islam met was breathtaking.
You must have watched the Normans last week. Fascinating documentary in my opinion. Some of the architecture produced when Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism and Islam met was breathtaking.
Indeed, I did, it was a great show. I loved how the patron saint of the Normans was basically Saint Michael, the Holy Warrior, plus the amount of investment they put in to build such magnificant temples/buildings. I only look at the political use of religion in history, but I have to admit, I still think "Wow" when they do such breath taking architecture.
I am guessing PVC might have watched it too, he is keen on History. (if not, (http://beta.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tcgkl/The_Normans_Men_from_the_North/) go and (http://beta.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tfdsk/The_Normans_Conquest/) watch it. (http://beta.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00thpzb/The_Normans_Normans_of_the_South/) :smash:)
Indeed, I did, it was a great show. I loved how the patron saint of the Normans was basically Saint Michael, the Holy Warrior, plus the amount of investment they put in to build such magnificant temples/buildings. I only look at the political use of religion in history, but I have to admit, I still think "Wow" when they do such breath taking architecture.
Bam. There you go. Norman Sicily was extraordinary. Probably the coolest state of all Europe during the Middle Ages.
As those sounds had a historical meaning of subduing a former enemy territory.
Ringing church bells in Germany Germania is a stab in the heart to all Asatrú followers in the world. That must be it.
Strike For The South
08-24-2010, 17:19
It's a mosuqe, a house of worship and it is perfectly legal for them to build it on there land...that they bought....with private monies....
I lol now that the debate is trying to be framed in "Well they have the right, but should they?" I guess freedom and tolerance trully only extends to what you feel comfortable with
I'm not tolerant, neither are the people behind this mosk
Strike For The South
08-24-2010, 17:34
I'm not tolerant, neither are the people behind this mosk
um ok. It doesn't change the fact it's private land bought with private money.
As long as they don't start arming terrorists they can do what they like
Not my words just linking the text, but know what you are getting into
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/from-an-actual-moderate-muslim-a-memo-to-the-msm-on-imam-rauf/?singlepage=true
Your tolerance is wasted
Fragony, are you going to keep linking to pajamasmedia? I don't know how long Lemur wants to discuss with you about that site.
Rhyfelwyr
08-24-2010, 18:13
I guess freedom and tolerance trully only extends to what you feel comfortable with
Tolerance of different beliefs does not mean we all have to adopt pluralism.
But for some reason people nowadays think it does. First we began to allow people to practice their beliefs, next we need to all agree with them.
Fragony, are you going to keep linking to pajamasmedia? I don't know how long Lemur wants to discuss with you about that site.
What does it matter who hosts the text? They will naturally host it given the nature of the blog
This moderate muslim pretty much sums up eveything I pointed out, so wut
Had to remain in the blogosphere with the Flotilla as well, I was right wasn't I. Mainstraim media doesn't report news they make it.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/cryingwoman.jpg
A little sadder plz
Fragony, are you going to keep linking to pajamasmedia? I don't know how long Lemur wants to discuss with you about that site.
Don't worry on my account; this conversation is over as far as I'm concerned. The Cordoba Initiative doesn't have even a fraction of the funding needed, the mosque is not going to happen, and the entire issue is a fantasy of outrage and posturing. Anyone still puffing and huffing over this issue is willfully denying reality.
If Fragony wants to keep linking to fringe-right unsubstantiated ranting, that's his privilege. Maybe some enterprising soul will cross-reference with some fringe-left bloggers (http://www.dailykos.com/) and we can call it a hoe-down.
Personally, I have some better ways to amuse myself, and I haven't even been around for the last three days. Cheers. Carry on.
Awwwwwwww Lemur doesn't want to play, but what do you make of this guy Hax. Personally I think they made him up, I don't think he really exists
Abdur-Rahman Muhammad is a Washington, D.C.-based writer who was once the Imam of a mosque where he taught radical Muslim ideology. He has since renounced those views and works to combat Islamic extremism in the American Muslim community. He is a senior writer for the Association for the Study of African American Life and History (ASALH) and his work has appeared in numerous publications such as the Washington Afro American, the Philadelphia New Observer, and others. His work can be read at his popular blog A Singular Voice. He holds a BA degree in Philosophy from Howard University.
tibilicus
08-24-2010, 22:05
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwaNRWMN-F4&feature=player_embedded
So when a large group of people stand around, chanting Anti-Muslim slogans, it's still about the vicinity of the Mosque, right? My favourite part is when the crowd mistakes a dark-skinned coloured man for a Muslim and confront him. I wonder what would of happened if the cameras weren't there and it was a more secluded venue..
Perhaps we can return to those days where if you didn't like the person who looked different, you could simply hang them from a tree. Where did that American dream go? I think it's about time America started talking about its underlying racism/ religious intolerance towards Muslims. After all, they're a growing demography, right?
The sad thing is, the example of that dark-skinned guy being mistaken for a Muslim shows how uneducated many Americans actually are. Brown skinned person doesn't= Muslim, the majority of American Muslims are actually white. Sometimes America just needs to turn off the cameras, it makes me sad to see a country which thinks so much of itself descend into hate and intolerance when an issue it doesn't understand comes its way.
The sad thing is, the example of that dark-skinned guy being mistaken for a Muslim shows how uneducated many Americans actually are. Brown skinned person doesn't= Muslim, the majority of American Muslims are actually white. Sometimes America just needs to turn off the cameras, it makes me sad to see a country which thinks so much of itself descend into hate and intolerance when an issue it doesn't understand comes its way.
I think they have the same source of information as the bananasinpajama's blog.
My favorite part is the anti-anti movement protesting against the jews personally
Full text, see this is the typ of guy I can have a drink with
As I write, nearly two thousand protesters are gathered outside the location of the future mosque — some having stood in the rain for hours — providing a clear indication that the campaign to stop this project is intensifying. The pollsters tell us that nearly 70 percent of all Americans oppose the structure, yet its sponsors say the edifice will somehow promote “interfaith dialogue” and “mutual understanding.” They must certainly realize at this stage in the process that the mosque will do no such thing, but will instead act as a permanent provocation to a huge segment of Americans who deem it completely inappropriate — if not outright sacrilege.
Let us remember that the project organizers themselves created this controversy by announcing that the groundbreaking would take place on the ten-year anniversary of the attack, and that the exact site was selected because of its proximity to Ground Zero. Given that fact, the current media meme that this is not a “Ground Zero mosque” is dishonest spin.
Even more dishonest — and dangerous to this country — is the outrageously biased work in Time, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Newsweek, and on NPR, PBS, MSNBC and CNN that has consistently portrayed popular opposition to this mosque and several other mosques around the country as evidence of bigotry and so-called “Islamophobia.” This is mass libel by these media institutions.
The mainstream media has deliberately ignored the fact that there is legitimate basis for fear of mosques — as it is a demonstrable fact that mosques and Muslims have been disproportionately connected to terrorism in this country and around the world, a fact that the media won’t report. Moreover, in the examples of opposition to specific mosques chosen by the media as evidence of popular “bigotry,” the media has selectively ignored the openly available evidence showing unambiguously that these mosques or their officials are connected to or supportive of the radical Muslim Brotherhood (the parent of al-Qaeda), Hamas, and other radical Islamic fundamentalist organizations.
Why have these media institutions not investigated these ties? Why does the media investigate American charities that support settlements in the West Bank, but refuse to investigate the militant and terrorist ties to mosques and Islamic groups here at home?
The imam heading up this $100 million project, Faisal Abdul Rauf, enjoys the full support of the sympathizing left-leaning media, and together they have attempted to frame this fight as a First Amendment issue. They’ve worked to cast the opponents of the project — including the 9/11 families — as bigots bent on denying “peaceful Muslims” the “right” to build a facility on their own property. All of this is sheer nonsense, because as many commentators already noted this week, the right to build the mosque was never in question — only the appropriateness of putting it near Ground Zero. It is simply not possible, and indeed quite dishonest, to characterize 70 percent of the population as bigots and “Islamophobes,” despite what the media would have us believe.
As an American Muslim, I can say with confidence that most folks have no desire to trample our First Amendment rights, and have said so repeatedly. It is not even entirely clear to me that, were the Muslim developers of the mosque genuinely moderate, it would be so bitterly opposed. But then again, they probably would never have proposed such a thing in the first place.
But how can anyone believe that Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf and his followers are moderates when they very deliberately refuse to condemn Hamas, a sworn enemy of this country and a major center of terror in the world? When asked directly to repudiate the group, all he could say was: “I am not a politician.”
This is typical of the double-speak and evasive tactics employed by the prominent Muslim groups in America, an unmistakable red flag that something is wrong here.
He’s also called this country an “accessory” to the 9/11 attacks, and has written that America is shariah (Muslim law) compliant. Forget all the rubbish about “interfaith dialogue” and “mutual understanding.” The ongoing battle over this site has already belied that charade. Abdul Rauf and his Islamic supporters — most of whom are affiliated with Muslim Brotherhood front groups — will never give this project up because there is too much at stake for him. If he manages to get the thing built, he will be one of the most powerful personalities in the Muslim world — radical, moderate, or otherwise. More importantly, the mosque will come to symbolize in the radical Muslim world the triumph of Bin Laden’s attack, and provide a kind of heavenly validation for his approach to spreading radical ideology. For what other reason could the tenth anniversary have been chosen for the groundbreaking?.
It is not hard to see that this will only inspire more attacks. The logic will be: “If Allah gave us one miracle, maybe He’ll give us more.”
If some Americans are suspicious and fearful of Muslims, it’s not without good reason, and nothing their self-appointed leadership has done or said in the nine years following 9/11 has allayed those fears. Non-Muslim Americans have yet to see any clean line of demarcation between radical and moderate Muslims. Everywhere around the globe Muslims are the cause of so much bloodshed and turmoil, making life on this planet a living hell.
What are people to think when they see a group of World Cup fans blown up in Uganda by Somali Muslim psychopaths? Closer to home, a U.S. Army Major shoots his fellow soldiers! What are they to make of a Pakistani national given U.S. citizenship just last year attempting to set off a car bomb in Times Square? And the self-taught “American” sheikh, Anwar al-Awlaki, who from his cave somewhere in Yemen calls on Muslims to murder Americans, and they listen?
The underlying problem in this bitter controversy is that Muslims in America suffer a deserved trust deficit, wherein they are seen as a foreign and dangerous element. Perhaps if the $100 million being spent on this mosque were used to build, say, a hospital, this perception would begin to change.
Good news no, moderate muslims, they exist, thought you guys would be happy
I'm not tolerant, neither are the people behind this mosk
Fox News?... I have to say I agree :P
If I or CW link to real extremist website (then you should translate it first), you'll said "that wasn't the opinion of whole"
aww, man... please... everything is opinion... and you should knew how to differentiate between "truth" and "fabricated"
Skullheadhq
08-26-2010, 09:04
I thought I'd not withhold you all of this:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap
If I or CW link to real extremist website (then you should translate it first), you'll said "that wasn't the opinion of whole"
aww, man... please... everything is opinion... and you should knew how to differentiate between "truth" and "fabricated"
The European sickness, they are so sure they are 100% correct that they simply can't imagine that not everybody thinks exactly like they do, armchair world-travelers.
I thought I'd not withhold you all of this:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap
that was what I was making reference to before...
Fox News tells us this guy is evil.
but this guy is a part owner of Fox News.
Therefore for news is Evil, and can we trust what they say?
I´m dizzy now... :P
I guess this makes Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity terrorist supporters. No wonder they bash the president daily.
al Roumi
08-26-2010, 14:39
The European sickness, they are so sure they are 100% correct that they simply can't imagine that not everybody thinks exactly like they do, armchair world-travelers.
Oh please, this discussion lost any semblance of credibility when it was stated that muslim women in a hijab means terrorists are about.
Oh please, this discussion lost any semblance of credibility when it was stated that muslim women in a hijab means terrorists are about.
Must be a leftist reflex as I never said such a thing
al Roumi
08-26-2010, 15:18
Must be a leftist reflex as I never said such a thing
You aren't the only person posting here...
I see this thread continues to be content- and calorie-free. How's that mosque coming? Anybody seen the blueprints? The plans? The engineering reports? Hmmmm? How about a concept drawing? Anything?
Here's one of them "leftists" Frag keeps going on about. Strangely, he's publishing in American Conservative (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/08/25/douthat-and-anti-jihadism-ii/). Must be yet another example of taqiyya, yes indeedy.
[W]hat I find remarkable about this mosque controversy is how blatantly, narrowly political the opposition to this particular construction project has been. It has been an exercise in manipulating public anger and using it for the purpose of waging an ostensibly anti-Islamist political campaign by organizing against harmless Muslims and their organizations. A distinctive American culture isn’t under threat from this mosque, the Cordoba Initiative or Imam Abdul Rauf. Rauf and those like him do represent a threat to lazy conservative anti-jihadism that treats every Muslim to “the right” of Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a potential fifth columnist and would-be enforcer of creeping shari’a. [...]
It isn’t enough if Muslims peacefully practice their religion, reject violence and embrace their new countries, but they must also become pro-government loyalists.
You aren't the only person posting here...
Then be more specific plz, I take it is either Cute Wolf or Sonic as they march with me. These two know their stuff, Sonic is an ex-muslim of Indo/Arab descent and Cute Wolf a minority in a muslim country, I would be careful with dismissing their input.
al Roumi
08-26-2010, 16:05
Then be more specific plz, I take it is either Cute Wolf or Sonic as they march with me. These two know their stuff, Sonic is an ex-muslim of Indo/Arab descent and Cute Wolf a minority in a muslim country, I would be careful with dismissing their input.
Indeed, and I would castigate myself had I been doing so on matters of which they have experience -i.e. in Indonesia. However, when it comes to Muslims in the UK or Europe, I don't think they have a clue -and I'm still waiting for any kind of substantiation of the outrageous claim that:
"You allready knew that your average european muslims is wahhabi one, the one who called themself as sunnah wal jammaah."
And then (admitedly in a different thread):
is there any muslim women who didn't worn hijab on that flotilla? if that gals present, then Israel had more to be blamed (moderate muslims really exist there, and they shouldnt be shot)
...where the implication is that 1) (again) you can tell an extremist group by whether the women in it wear Hijabs, 2) it might be ok to shoot a group of Muslims when the women in the group do wear Hijabs.
It is ramadan now. Many more muslim women where I live are wearing Hijabs on the streets than usual. Does this mean there has been a rise in extremists?
It certainly isn't true for the Netherlands, most wear it out of piety, the custom has it's roots in Arab islam though. But let's turn it around, why are you so sure that it simply isn't true.
al Roumi
08-26-2010, 16:39
It certainly isn't true for the Netherlands, most wear it out of piety, the custom has it's roots in Arab islam though. But let's turn it around, why are you so sure that it simply isn't true.
Because those who I know that wear it, do so out of choice (modesty) and are most certainly not Salafist or fundamentalist. Some are "strict" (e.g. by my definition that means not marrying a non-muslim), but that is still a long way from fundamentalist, never mind extremist. They also insist that everyone they know who wears the Hijab also does so out of choice. They don't deny that there will be some who are forced to wear the Hijab, but they consider them to be a minority. They consider it arrogant that people assume muslim women must be oppressed to wear it.
Al Qaida are terrorists with a clear political agenda which they back up with select bits of scripture. That does not make all muslims terrorists.
Because those who I know that wear it, do so out of choice (modesty) and are most certainly not Salafist or fundamentalist. Some are "strict" (e.g. by my definition that means not marrying a non-muslim), but that is still a long way from fundamentalist, never mind extremist. They also insist that everyone they know who wears the Hijab also does so out of choice. They don't deny that there will be some who are forced to wear the Hijab, but they consider them to be a minority. They consider it arrogant that people assume muslim women must be oppressed to wear it.
Some do some don't, but that wasn't my point, you seem to naturally assume they share your values, some do and some don't, the latter may be a bit more represented than you might expect from your experiences.
al Roumi
08-26-2010, 17:08
Some do some don't, but that wasn't my point, you seem to naturally assume they share your values, some do and some don't, the latter may be a bit more represented than you might expect from your experiences.
I do? Where do I say that?
Some have very different values to me, they might be hard to understand but I have to respect them. Personaly I'd rather women played as full and complete a part in society as men (rather than shutting themselves off through modesty), but if it's a personal choice, I have to respect it. It doesn't make them bad people, let alone terrorists or extremists.
My "line in the sand" is about having a positive desire to coexist and not force things on other people, which is exactly what the UK is meant to be all about.
This isn't about headscarves, it's about potential terrorism. You slammed Cute Wolf's post, so why are you so sure that not every veiled muslima is a potential terrorist, purely theoratical because it's naturally not true.
al Roumi
08-26-2010, 18:06
This isn't about headscarves, it's about potential terrorism. You slammed Cute Wolf's post, so why are you so sure that not every veiled muslima is a potential terrorist, purely theoratical because it's naturally not true.
If it's naturaly not true, why are you even asking me to try and answer? You are asking me to prove a negative...
Why not ask me to explain how I "know" you or any other person isn't a murderer? The answer, in its simplest form is that you don't know, but the chances that they are murderers are slim, as murderers are rare. Terorrists are even rarer.
A slightly more sophisticated answer might be, well, talking to those I know: they aren't terrorists and abhor Al Qaida's acts, politics and what they have done to the western perception of Islam.
If it's naturaly not true, why are you even asking me to try and answer?
Getting there, so why are you so sure muslims aren't potential terrorists, or rather, hostile towards the west. The European (or western) disease, the assumption that everybody thinks like we do. Some really don't, that brings back at this mosk, why are people so sure that this isn't a big screw you and that this isn't seen as a major victory of Islam?
Getting there, so why are you so sure muslims aren't potential terrorists, or rather, hostile towards the west. The European (or western) disease, the assumption that everybody thinks like we do. Some really don't, that brings back at this mosk, why are people so sure that this isn't a big screw you and that this isn't seen as a major victory of Islam?
and he dismiss advice from someone who understood how "they" thik... as rubbish...
we allready see who was the ignorant one
and he dismiss advice from someone who understood how "they" thik... as rubbish...
we allready see who was the ignorant one
Welcome to my nightmare, trying to make sense to lefties. Why don't you try to explain to these sweethearts how this mosk is percieved in the Islamic world, an ex-muslim's view might hold some more weight than the fantasies of a foaming rightwing nutjob such as myself.
Ser Clegane
08-27-2010, 10:35
So, just to understand this better - US muslims should not build a "mosque" (using this trem as everybody refers to it this way although it actually isn't one) because there are muslim extrements in Indonesia and muslims in Indonesia might also consider this to be a victory for Islam.
This certainly makes a lot of sense.
I actually thought it was commnon in the US (especially with regard to intrenal issues) to be more concerned with upholding the rights of its own citizens than about what some people in another country might think...
al Roumi
08-27-2010, 10:51
Perhaps I'm expecting to much in being honest and open with you, either way you don't seem to read or understand what I write.
Getting there, so why are you so sure muslims aren't potential terrorists, or rather, hostile towards the west. The European (or western) disease, the assumption that everybody thinks like we do. Some really don't, that brings back at this mosk, why are people so sure that this isn't a big screw you and that this isn't seen as a major victory of Islam?
Er, no. As I said, the people I KNOW don't think like me, but are not ~?<>ing extremists, let alone terrorists.
A slightly more sophisticated answer might be, well, talking to those I know: they aren't terrorists and abhor Al Qaida's acts, politics and what they have done to the western perception of Islam.
and he dismiss advice from someone who understood how "they" thik... as rubbish...
we allready see who was the ignorant one
Whatever. I don't pretend to know how an extremist or agitator thinks. If you'd care to enlighten me/us rather than posture as to your former rebeliousness, then that might be interesting. I'm only speaking from my experience and that of the people I KNOW, who are not Salafist and don't support AQ.
So if I get this straight, this discussion lost all credibility because you know a few people
al Roumi
08-27-2010, 11:52
So if I get this straight, this discussion lost all credibility because you know a few people
Perhaps more accurately: when you became more interested in winning an argument on teh internet than engaging in a sensible discussion.
As Ser Clegane said, why exactly is the opinion of some terrorist so important to us all of a sudden?
If he deludes himself to think of this as a victory that doesn't make it a victory, if a neonazi claimed that Germany won WW2, would that make it true?
The discussion is even worse in light of what Lemur said, you could almost say the guy trolled you and you fell for it, Fragony, he held you for a fool and you jumped right into his trap, a much bigger victory than building some community center, he conquered your mind...
~;)
Perhaps more accurately: when you became more interested in winning an argument on teh internet than engaging in a sensible discussion.
It's pretty clear where I stand, no radical Islam in Europe and apoligists be damned. Very sensible. You dismiss Sonic's input as youthfull rebellion, not quite so sensible. You didn't know most euro muslims are suni, you probably don't even know the difference between the various branches. You know a few people.
@ it isn't just the opinion of a terrorist it's a powerful political entity of which terrorism is a very small part, the political islam.
Rhyfelwyr
08-27-2010, 17:41
You didn't know most euro muslims are suni.
Sunni Islam covers everything from the most liberal to the most extreme forms of the religion. Only a very small (but rising) percentage of Euro Muslims are Salafists/Wahhabists, usually young, second-generation immigrants from an Arab background. And even then, only a fraction of Wahhabists are affiliated with extremist organisations.
Another good one; if nothing else, the idea of a mosque two blocks away from the WTC site is generating plenty of political ads and (consequently) local TV/cable revenue. So it's kind of like a stimulus. A very small, very targeted stimulus. For local cable and broadcast. And nobody else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouDgM9NfNVA
-edit-
Report from a guy who actually reads the Islamist websites (http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/25/us_anti_islam_movement_angering_mainstream_arabs_not_extremists) (not that I expect any fact-based reporting to have the slightest impact on this "debate"):
Meanwhile, the mosque has barely registered on the major jihadist forums which I frequent -- yesterday, on the leading al-Shamoukh forum, it was not mentioned in the headline of a single one of the first ten pages of posts (more than 500 in all). There have been a few threads, as Evan Kohlmann has claimed, but it's a fairly minor theme within the forum debates ("Burn a Quran Day" has actually had more traction than the NY mosque thus far, actually). Certainly no triumphalism about how they'll soon have a monument to victory, as you hear so often out there on the American lunatic fringe. I have no doubt that al-Qaeda and like-minded extremists will eventually use the anti-mosque movement in their propaganda, since it so perfectly fits their narrative of a West at war with Islam --- the very narrative which both the Bush administration and the Obama administration worked so hard to combat over the last few years. I suspect that the participants in the forums aren't talking about it much is that it simply confirms what they already believe about America. They'll use it, but don't see much to argue about.
That's the opposite of the Arab mainstream, which is vigorously arguing about what it means for the future of America's relationship with Muslims --- both in America and in the world. Where the anti-mosque movement and escalating anti-Islam rhetoric is really resonating is with the Arab mainstream --- that vast middle ground which had hoped that the election of Barack Obama would mark a real change from the Bush administration but have grown increasingly disappointed. The mosque issue has been covered heavily on Arab satellite TV stations such as al-Jazeera, and the images of angry Americans chanting slogans and waving signs against Islam have resonated much like the images of angry Arabs burning American flags and denouncing U.S. policy did with American viewers after 9/11. The recent public opinion surveys showing widespread hostility towards Islam among Americans have also gotten a lot of attention.
Again, see useful idiot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot). Screaming and protesting the fictional mosque at the Burlington Coat Factory building helps two groups of people: Islamic extremists who preach to the "narrative" and opportunist politicos in tight mid-term elections in the USA. Find me another group that stands to benefit. Please.
And suddenly the personal experience/opinion of one man counts, confusing then it does then it doesnt
Sunni Islam covers everything from the most liberal to the most extreme forms of the religion.
I know that but Al_p didn't but knew it was bull anyway, forgot the arab name CW used but that is what sunni's call themselves.
Cute Wolf
08-27-2010, 22:01
I know that but Al_p didn't but knew it was bull anyway, forgot the arab name CW used but that is what sunni's call themselves.
they called themself "As Sunnah Wal Jamaah"....
Meneldil
08-27-2010, 23:04
Because those who I know that wear it, do so out of choice (modesty) and are most certainly not Salafist or fundamentalist. Some are "strict" (e.g. by my definition that means not marrying a non-muslim), but that is still a long way from fundamentalist, never mind extremist.
Sorry for the one liner, but this deserves nothing but a 'lol'.
If refusing to marry a non-muslim and wearing a hijab doesn't make one a fundamentalist, I don't know what does...
Well, it doesn't seem unlike the christians who strongly advise their children to marry other christians, maybe it makes them extremists but it certainly doesn't make them dangerous, in the christian case anyway. :shrug:
Goes too far for meas well, that is just tradition, no need for integration they don't have to. A fundamentalist muslim rejects manmade law and wants to live under strict shariah law. That is still an opinion and perfectly fine with me, but when it becomes actively sabotaging the system and preaching hate we have a problem.
Megas Methuselah
08-28-2010, 08:12
Sorry for the one liner, but this deserves nothing but a 'lol'.
If refusing to marry a non-muslim and wearing a hijab doesn't make one a fundamentalist, I don't know what does...
Eh? So a Christian who refuses to marry a non-Christian and who wears modest clothes (long sleeves or something) is a fundamentalist, by your argument.
What was it again? Oh, yeah: lol.
Eh? So a Christian who refuses to marry a non-Christian and who wears modest clothes (long sleeves or something) is a fundamentalist, by your argument.
What was it again? Oh, yeah: lol.
Oh, I know plenty of those. There are some which even go to churches on Sundays. :O
Meneldil
08-28-2010, 08:55
Eh? So a Christian who refuses to marry a non-Christian and who wears modest clothes (long sleeves or something) is a fundamentalist, by your argument.
What was it again? Oh, yeah: lol.
Yes, he is. Don't know where you got the idea I was more forgiving of christian nutjobs than of muslim ones. *shrugs*
Refusing to marry someone who's not following your religion makes you an idiot and an extremist. Period. That's without even taking into account the hijab.
Edit : And before one of you comes with up, yes, I'm a die hard atheist, and yes, I've dated religious girls.
Edit2 : And if you're comparing the hijab to "longue sleeves" than it's my turn to "lol" at you.
tibilicus
08-28-2010, 13:31
I haven't really read too much of this thread since Frag started his rantings against the "lefties" and their conspiracy to turn the world into an Islamic superstate, but we have established at this point that even the title of this thread is incorrect, right? It isn't a Mosque, it's in a backstreet two blocks away from Ground Zero and it isn't even called Cordoba House any more.
Anyway, I'll be on my way now, I'll leave Frag to continue his wild conspiracy theories and his bizarre rantings.
Yeah it's more of an islamic six-flags with a mosk. And leftists are too clueless for conpiracies, too busy congratulating themselves on their superior ethical standards and clawing out the eyeballs of anybody questioning the indisputable fact that they are 100% correct. :balloon2:
"Leftists" meaning anyone who disagrees with you, correct?
"Leftists" meaning anyone who disagrees with you, correct?
Nope that's my ammo, everybody who is against the roflgotya-mosk is a bigot no?
Rhyfelwyr
08-28-2010, 15:11
Refusing to marry someone who's not following your religion makes you an idiot and an extremist. Period. That's without even taking into account the hijab.
What you consider to be extreme is relative, it's not very helpful that you've suddenly decided that following a dress code makes you an extremist, when everyone else considers an extremist to be someone that does something well, y'know, extreme... like flying a plane into a building or something.
As for not marrying outside your religion, I suspect its as largely a cultural thing as anything. I know a lot of people who don't bother going to church who still say you should never marry a Catholic because it wouldn't work out.
Yes, he is. Don't know where you got the idea I was more forgiving of christian nutjobs than of muslim ones. *shrugs*
Refusing to marry someone who's not following your religion makes you an idiot and an extremist. Period. That's without even taking into account the hijab.
Edit : And before one of you comes with up, yes, I'm a die hard atheist, and yes, I've dated religious girls.
Die hard atheist sounds like just another name for atheist extremist. ~;)
And if I had to choose between a christian extremist who preaches love and sin, is generally very nice and friendly but thinks women should only wear long skirts and an atheist who keeps calling others idiots and nutjobs, then I'd go with the christian for sure... :shrug:
Hosakawa Tito
08-28-2010, 23:37
A Muslim Reformer on the Mosque (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703632304575451433090488678.html?KEYWORDS=muslim+reformist). An excellent article by a muslim female NYU professor. She makes a lot of sense. Just what type of civic values will be taught at this site? Good question indeed.
So far, the imam has rebuffed accusations of insensitivity. Yet he made those very accusations about the Danish cartoons of Prophet Muhammad. In a February 2006 press release, Imam Rauf announced that he was "appalled" by the drawings. He called it "willful fomentation" and "gratuitous" to republish them throughout Europe. In the following weeks, almost no U.S. newspaper printed the caricatures.
Three years later, it is the imam who the majority of Americans believe is engaging in "willful fomentation." Yet his retinue has not publicly acknowledged that the feelings of these "appalled" Americans parallel how moderate Muslims such as Imam Rauf felt during the cartoon debacle.
That means setting aside bombast and asking the imam questions born of the highest American ideals: individual dignity and pluralism of ideas.
• Will the swimming pool at Park51 be segregated between men and women at any time of the day or night?
• May women lead congregational prayers any day of the week?
• Will Jews and Christians, fellow People of the Book, be able to use the prayer sanctuary for their services just as Muslims share prayer space with Christians and Jews in the Pentagon? (Spare me the technocratic argument that the Pentagon is a governmental, not private, building. Park51 may be private in the legal sense but is a public symbol par excellence.)
• What will be taught about homosexuals? About agnostics? About atheists? About apostasy?
• Where does one sign up for advance tickets to Salman Rushdie's lecture at Park51?
Anyone else like to hear the answers to these questions?
PanzerJaeger
08-29-2010, 05:32
So, just to understand this better - US muslims should not build a "mosque" (using this trem as everybody refers to it this way although it actually isn't one) because there are muslim extrements in Indonesia and muslims in Indonesia might also consider this to be a victory for Islam.
This certainly makes a lot of sense.
No. US Muslims should not build this specific mosque because it is distasteful and offensive to many Americans, including many of those who lost loved one's in the 9/11 attacks - which were carried out by Islamic fundamentalists who share a similar world view as the Imam sponsoring the mosque. It's as simple as propriety, or a distinct lack there of.
The construction of hundreds of mosques around the country since the 9/11 attacks certainly discounts any 'civil rights' argument.
A Muslim Reformer on the Mosque. An excellent article by a muslim female NYU professor. She makes a lot of sense. Just what type of civic values will be taught at this site? Good question indeed.
Anyone else like to hear the answers to these questions?
Yes.
Well he praised the islamic priciples of Iran.
Only thing I know from the comparison between this and the danish cartoons is that extremists on both side overreacted to something which wasn't even that extreme.
Only thing I know from the comparison between this and the danish cartoons is that extremists on both side overreacted to something which wasn't even that extreme.
Meh, mr 'dawa on the rubbles of ground zero' apparently understood the sensitivities of the cartoons he was APPALED, but he really doesn't understand the grievances of 70% of the American population. Gutmensch knows he wants dialogue.
Meneldil
08-29-2010, 11:25
What you consider to be extreme is relative, it's not very helpful that you've suddenly decided that following a dress code makes you an extremist, when everyone else considers an extremist to be someone that does something well, y'know, extreme... like flying a plane into a building or something.
A dress code? The Hijab certainly isn't a dress code. It's a political tool, nothing else. It's got nothing to do with being modest. Quite the contrary actually, since the purpose is obviously to show the rest of the world your "islamtitude".
As for not marrying outside your religion, I suspect its as largely a cultural thing as anything. I know a lot of people who don't bother going to church who still say you should never marry a Catholic because it wouldn't work out.
Well, we all know UK as a whole is still part of the third world on many aspects. Religious bickering being one of them.
Die hard atheist sounds like just another name for atheist extremist. ~;)
My ''extremism'', if you want to call it that way, doesn't influence who I hang out with, who I date, how I live, what dress I wear, what I can eat or not. I don't try to enforce atheism onto other people, despite what Rhyfelwyr might think about the "OMG EVIL FRENCH SECULARISM".
Even though I loath Islam as a whole, I still hang out with muslims who do the ramadan. I get to put up with their tale stories while they get to put up with my facepalms when they talk about their religion.
And if I had to choose between a christian extremist who preaches love and sin, is generally very nice and friendly but thinks women should only wear long skirts and an atheist who keeps calling others idiots and nutjobs, then I'd go with the christian for sure... :shrug:
On that we can agree. As long as the christian is willing to marry someone who doesn't share his faith. Which is unlikely in the first place...
Hijabs don't bother me, very modern muslimas wear them, it's not a political tool per se. The niqaab which only leaves the eyes visible is a clear statement though and only extremists wear them, not going to pretend to feel sorry for them if someone picks up the glove and attacks them. No different from neo-nazis wearing swaztika's or white power symbols, if they get hurt I can only smile even if antifa's are just as bad or worse. Ah well as long as somebody gets hurt it's all fine, neo-nazis attacking antifa's calls for a celebration as well.
Rhyfelwyr
08-29-2010, 12:20
A dress code? The Hijab certainly isn't a dress code. It's a political tool, nothing else. It's got nothing to do with being modest. Quite the contrary actually, since the purpose is obviously to show the rest of the world your "islamtitude".
I would definitely agree the bolded bit is true for the burka, but most types of hijab are just a cultural thing. Also, I doubt most women set out to prove what badass Islamists they are. Intersting bit from wiki:
"According to journalist Jane Kramer, in France, veiling among school girls became increasingly common following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, due to coercion by "fathers and uncles and brothers and even their male classmates" of the school girls. "Girls who did not conform were excoriated, or chased, or beaten by fanatical young men meting out Islamic justice."[32] According to the American magazine The Weekly Standard, a survey conducted in France in May 2003 reportedly "found that 77% of girls wearing the hijab said they did so because of physical threats from Islamist groups.""
Which suggests coercion by a fanatical minority is the real problem. Also the fact that this all started after 9/11 is interesting, could it possibly be that Muslims have acted this way because of the demonisation they keep facing from people in the west? Things like banning the burka make the Muslim community feel under siege, so they go on the defensive and get all reactionary, and surprise, surprise, start wearing the burka more.
If church was banned tomorrow you could be certain there would be a surge in church attendance the following Sunday...
I don't try to enforce atheism onto other people, despite what Rhyfelwyr might think about the "OMG EVIL FRENCH SECULARISM".
For **** sake can we get by this habit of mis-characterising other peoples' positions with ridiculous block capital "OMG EVIL BRITISH THEOCRACY" type statements?
On that we can agree. As long as the christian is willing to marry someone who doesn't share his faith. Which is unlikely in the first place...
I don't think these situations are so malicious as you describe, usually the religious one just wants their partner to go along to church with them, it's not like they demand they repent of their sins in front of them then recite the Wesminster Confession.
Meneldil
08-29-2010, 12:50
Hijabs don't bother me, very modern muslimas wear them, it's not a political tool per se.
You're wrong. 15 years ago, there was a debate regarding the hijab that was very similar to the one we have regarding the burka nowadays. Muslims and a part of the population said "Well, they should be allowed to wear it, for the sake of freedom of religion"*, while other people said that this was directly opposed to laïcité and would be the first step of a radicalization of a fringe of the muslim population. Looks like they were right, since we now have the very same debate about the burka. And banned porc from school restaurants since then.
I honestly expect that in 15 years, we'll be told that stonning women should be allowed according to freedom of religion. We should have said "NO" right at the beginning, to avoid this.
* while french jews had abandonned the kippa decades ago.
For **** sake can we get by this habit of mis-characterising other peoples' positions with ridiculous block capital "OMG EVIL BRITISH THEOCRACY" type statements?
Come on, isn't it exactly your sentiment regarding laïcité? You called it dictatorial earlier, and described it as "state-enforced atheism". As for my remark regarding the UK, it's - mostly - a joke. I don't really care that the UK is still a theocracy, but I find it laughable that catholics and protestants still occasionally throw stones at eachothers nowadays.
I don't think these situations are so malicious as you describe, usually the religious one just wants their partner to go along to church with them, it's not like they demand they repent of their sins in front of them then recite the Wesminster Confession.
I don't know about catholics because those are hopefully (and I don't mean to be offending here) a rare sight in my country. I know that one of my muslim friend, who's pretty open minded, don't wear veil, never talk about her religion and is a member of the socialist party, broke with her last boyfriend because he refused to convert to Islam, as her parents were asking. I personnally find this disgusting and ridiculous.
One case doesn't make it a valid argument, but if it happened with her, even though she's fairly liberal and progressive, how many time does it happen within uneducated and conservative families?
The situation is much more grim in France, yeah it could have been prevented, I saw this coming for quite some time if you don't mind me congratulating myself, gotten me quite some hissing from the multicultists. But as it is now the hijab is kinda'muslim light', religious but not fanatically so.
Rhyfelwyr
08-29-2010, 13:42
You're wrong. 15 years ago, there was a debate regarding the hijab that was very similar to the one we have regarding the burka nowadays. Muslims and a part of the population said "Well, they should be allowed to wear it, for the sake of freedom of religion"*, while other people said that this was directly opposed to laïcité and would be the first step of a radicalization of a fringe of the muslim population. Looks like they were right, since we now have the very same debate about the burka. And banned porc from school restaurants since then.
I honestly expect that in 15 years, we'll be told that stonning women should be allowed according to freedom of religion. We should have said "NO" right at the beginning, to avoid this.
So you're using a slippery slope argument? I would argue against that by pointing out that there is a very clear and logical place to draw the line, and that line is where one person's freedom of religion infringes the freedoms of another person.
Does wearing certain items of clothing infringe other people's rights? No, it doesnt. Does stoning another person? Obviously, yes it does.
For what it's worth, I think it's ridiculous they banned pork in (presumably) state-run schools, and certainly violates my idea of secularism.
Come on, isn't it exactly your sentiment regarding laïcité? You called it dictatorial earlier, and described it as "state-enforced atheism". As for my remark regarding the UK, it's - mostly - a joke. I don't really care that the UK is still a theocracy, but I find it laughable that catholics and protestants still occasionally throw stones at eachothers nowadays.
Well it's as I said above, just make sure you draw the line at the same place for religious matters as you do for anything else. If a fan of some fantasy book series wants to cover himself in a strange garment that covers his body apart from his face, I would think you would be OK with that. But when a woman wants to do it because her holy book said you, you shout "No, laicitie!".
I don't know about catholics because those are hopefully (and I don't mean to be offending here) a rare sight in my country. I know that one of my muslim friend, who's pretty open minded, don't wear veil, never talk about her religion and is a member of the socialist party, broke with her last boyfriend because he refused to convert to Islam, as her parents were asking. I personnally find this disgusting and ridiculous.
One case doesn't make it a valid argument, but if it happened with her, even though she's fairly liberal and progressive, how many time does it happen within uneducated and conservative families?
I'm not sure but are you saying her parents were concerned that her partner was not a Muslim? If so then surely that is a cultural thing, with Asian families being tight nit and kids respecting their parents etc.
Meneldil
08-30-2010, 10:52
So you're using a slippery slope argument? I would argue against that by pointing out that there is a very clear and logical place to draw the line, and that line is where one person's freedom of religion infringes the freedoms of another person.
The line was already drawn: no display of religion in public areas. Whether you're catholic, jew, protestant, or muslim. Until the muslims bitched so much that their case became special.
Does wearing certain items of clothing infringe other people's rights? No, it doesnt. Does stoning another person? Obviously, yes it does.
For what it's worth, I think it's ridiculous they banned pork in (presumably) state-run schools, and certainly violates my idea of secularism.
It infringes on people's right to stone women. How is that different from infringing on people's right to wear some piece of cloth over their body? The main argument of people who support the right to wear a burka is "freedom of religion". They all agree that Burka is archaic and a shame for western civilization, but think that women should be allowed to wear it. The same argument can apply to the stoning of women. Stoning women is bad, but you know, it's part of their religion.
Well it's as I said above, just make sure you draw the line at the same place for religious matters as you do for anything else. If a fan of some fantasy book series wants to cover himself in a strange garment that covers his body apart from his face, I would think you would be OK with that. But when a woman wants to do it because her holy book said you, you shout "No, laicitie!".
As long as the fantasy book fan doesn't have an history of trying to enforce his views onto other persons, and as long as his book doesn't carry strong political and sociological meanings, yes, he can do as he wants. You saddly seem to be unable to grasp the concept of laïcité.
Walking around in a burka is a political gesture. Praying in the street is a political gesture, aimed not only at the muslim community, but also at the rest of the population. A way to say "look, we're doing it even though it's contrary to the principles of your state, even though we're not allowed to. Even though all other religions came to accept laicité, we dont". F*** them. This is exactly what laicité was about: preventing this kind of "holier than thou" attitude.
I'm not sure but are you saying her parents were concerned that her partner was not a Muslim? If so then surely that is a cultural thing, with Asian families being tight nit and kids respecting their parents etc.
She's of tunisian descent. Her parents are socialists too, pretty open-minded, but don't want their daughter to marry a non-muslim. Can you find a not-completely-stupid way to excuse this kind of behavior?
Well it's as I said above, just make sure you draw the line at the same place for religious matters as you do for anything else. If a fan of some fantasy book series wants to cover himself in a strange garment that covers his body apart from his face, I would think you would be OK with that. But when a woman wants to do it because her holy book said you, you shout "No, laicitie!".
I wish we had scores of females painted purple with false elf ears (http://unrealitymag.com/index.php/2009/08/20/a-terrifyingly-sexy-gallery-of-night-elf-cosplay/) right now because of this comment, so it actually became an issue.
"It should be our right to be Night Elfs and worship the Moon Goddess!"
Cute Wolf
08-30-2010, 12:43
You're wrong. 15 years ago, there was a debate regarding the hijab that was very similar to the one we have regarding the burka nowadays. Muslims and a part of the population said "Well, they should be allowed to wear it, for the sake of freedom of religion"*, while other people said that this was directly opposed to laïcité and would be the first step of a radicalization of a fringe of the muslim population. Looks like they were right, since we now have the very same debate about the burka. And banned porc from school restaurants since then. (1)
I honestly expect that in 15 years, we'll be told that stonning women should be allowed according to freedom of religion. We should have said "NO" right at the beginning, to avoid this.
* while french jews had abandonned the kippa decades ago.
Come on, isn't it exactly your sentiment regarding laïcité? You called it dictatorial earlier, and described it as "state-enforced atheism". As for my remark regarding the UK, it's - mostly - a joke. I don't really care that the UK is still a theocracy, but I find it laughable that catholics and protestants still occasionally throw stones at eachothers nowadays.
I don't know about catholics because those are hopefully (and I don't mean to be offending here) a rare sight in my country. I know that one of my muslim friend, who's pretty open minded, don't wear veil, never talk about her religion and is a member of the socialist party, broke with her last boyfriend because he refused to convert to Islam, as her parents were asking. I personnally find this disgusting and ridiculous.
One case doesn't make it a valid argument, but if it happened with her, even though she's fairly liberal and progressive, how many time does it happen within uneducated and conservative families? (2)
1) Pretty much right, I'm glad you've come to this conclusion. :wink: now, you know what should you do...
2) That case was exactly like my case, you guys may still remember about one year ago, while I said I have a muslim as girlfriend (not my current girl). I've been together with her for 3 years, and those days, I was pretty much the opposite of what I've become today. Well, everything runs fine until November, last year... she said she want to stop all those sins she made (no, not that kind of things you filthy minded... the most nasty things I've done with her is merely french kiss) because she was finally "enlightened" by those fanatical group, and that she said she can't maintain our relationship because some fanatical jerks complaining about my faithlessness (I was a diehard atheist that time), and she said I must convert to be with her or we should be separated for "god's will", furthermore she said "god" will eventually open my heart, and so... those fanatic friends finally suceed in separating her from me... Man... that hurts a lot...
Rhyfelwyr
08-30-2010, 14:24
The line was already drawn: no display of religion in public areas. Whether you're catholic, jew, protestant, or muslim. Until the muslims bitched so much that their case became special.
Yes but my problem is that this is where you have chosen to draw your line. Presumably you believe you should be allowed to express your political views in public (the phrygian cap of the Revolution springs to mind). I bet you have kids that walk around with those t-shirts with Che Guevara on them that shows their socialist principles and that is OK. But as soon as someone wants to wear one showing Jesus suddenly its a no-no? Religion is just another belief that an individual may hold, why can they express any belief except one involving the guy in the sky?
It infringes on people's right to stone women. How is that different from infringing on people's right to wear some piece of cloth over their body? The main argument of people who support the right to wear a burka is "freedom of religion". They all agree that Burka is archaic and a shame for western civilization, but think that women should be allowed to wear it. The same argument can apply to the stoning of women. Stoning women is bad, but you know, it's part of their religion.
Do I really need to point out the difference in the bolded bit? Once again, wearing a piece of clothing in no way violates someone elses rights, whereas stoning blatantly does. Your rights only go so far as they do not infringe on those of others.
As long as the fantasy book fan doesn't have an history of trying to enforce his views onto other persons, and as long as his book doesn't carry strong political and sociological meanings, yes, he can do as he wants. You saddly seem to be unable to grasp the concept of laïcité.
I can grasp the concept OK, I just don't like it, and don't see how it can be compatible with western values of individual freedom etc. As for the bolded bit, are you saying we should ban the expression of religion because of guilt by association? So just because in Saudi Arabia they force women to wear the niqab, we can't allow women to wear them here? That seems pretty bizarre logic.
Walking around in a burka is a political gesture. Praying in the street is a political gesture, aimed not only at the muslim community, but also at the rest of the population. A way to say "look, we're doing it even though it's contrary to the principles of your state, even though we're not allowed to. Even though all other religions came to accept laicité, we dont". F*** them. This is exactly what laicité was about: preventing this kind of "holier than thou" attitude.
So what if other religions accepted laicitie? I guess Jews would have been more likely to accept it simply because they were always better educated and wealthy than the current wave of Muslim immigrants from the third world, and so Jews found it easier to integrate and never held onto their religion as much. Religion tends to thrive in poverty etc.
And I really doubt Muslims make a point of expressing their religion just to annoy everyone else. They seem to me to just be going about their business and living their lives, but some people can't help but take issue with that.
And you know I'm not one of those people that is all pc and loves Muslims, I'm well aware of the problems with them running suburbs with their kalashnikovs and forcing women into following Islamic principles etc. But fighting fire with fire doesn't work, it's like when people say we shouldn't have mosques here till they have churches in Saudi Arabia, it's a ridiculous argument.
She's of tunisian descent. Her parents are socialists too, pretty open-minded, but don't want their daughter to marry a non-muslim. Can you find a not-completely-stupid way to excuse this kind of behavior?
Well I guess it is pretty stupid if they do not take their faith seriously themselves. But parents rarely are rational with these things, a lot of people that say they are open-minded turn out not to be so much when the time comes to put it into practice.
The street praying is a pretty agressive affair. They literally take over the street, cars aren't allowed to drive through and they have youngsters patrolling who intimidate people passing by.
Pat Condel on the roflgotya-mosk and the imam who wants nothing but dialogue and the mayor who has re$pect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJQ4bwGPRuk&feature=player_embedded
but of course
LittleGrizzly
08-30-2010, 22:30
Well that was a long read... quite irratating at some points it just felt like one person asking for sources and the other person saying no basically for a few pages
As soon as my friends told me of a GZM (ground zero mosque) I called bull and assumed it was sensiationalist media, Im glad that even though I have been paying less attention to politics these days i can spot propaganda when I see it...
Anyway if I can make a little summary about this rauf (sp?) guy first. apologies if I miss anything but I have read 20 odd pages over 2 days so something could have been lost along the way. The main substaniated claim (or one that isn't doubted) Is that his father went to a university where a member of the muslim brotherhood also went (teaching or attending I can't remember) Then the claims moved onto the fact that this guy practises or is using tariqya (or something spelt similarly) to advance an extremist agenda whilst pertending to stupid westeners that he is a good guy and a moderate muslim there seems to be absolutely no proof of this, which I guess shows how talented this guy is at advancing extremism without getting caught out.
That seems to be pretty much the case against this guy, if this is the standard of evidence you need then you should check out conspiracy theorys like the bilderberg group and the new world order, they are also groups of people who on the outside pertend to be moderate friendly people you could get along with, but secretly and without leaving barely a trace of evidence plan to take over and subjucate the world. If anything at least the pushers of the NWO order and bilderberg conspiracys can argue that among these people the mass media is controlled so they could push any unwanted attention away leaving those who now thier true goals looking like nuts on backwater radio stations and youtube conspiracy videos. This guy and people like him seem to be able to push thier secret agenda without getting caught and with no control over the media to be able to push away and rubbish any accusations as conspiracies...
Islam and all other religions hold the world back when people adhere strictly to them (ok maybe not all other religions but a fair number) but people like hanging onto thier superstitions so we need to encourage them to be like most citizens in the modern world where if they mantain religion they cherry pick the parts that work and ignore the parts that don't, ill be honest I can appreciate (in a way) the all or of nothing approach some more extreme members of religion promote, it seems much truer to thier religion, the cherry pickers are those that realised religion is unworkable in the modern world but couldn't let go of thier old superstitions.
Umm that will do for the moment I guess...
Megas Methuselah
08-31-2010, 07:37
We caught three Muslim terrorists in Ontario who tried to blow something up. I was like, "Heeeeeey, this ain't Amerika." You see, terrorists are much more likely to appear amongst my own people than the immigrants.
When things like this happen, you gotta be grateful for living in an enlightened state. I don't know what's going on with you guys in Europe, but I think you were always like this.
Reluctant to post blogs as sources as blogs make you vulnerable, but blogs is all you can go on sometimes. They were forced to rectify one article, but only one.
I say leave the extremists to the police who seem to be dealing with them rather successfully so far, what's a big no-no though are areas where the police do not dare to go, this has to be changed, with violence if necessary.
Otherwise politicians should care about other pressing matters that actually kill people, for example resistant bacteria killing ten-thousands of people here every year because our hospital hygiene lags behind quite a bit behind the Netherlands for example.
How many people did the extremists kill here every year again?
We caught three Muslim terrorists in Ontario who tried to blow something up.
Actually, alleged conspiracy to blow something up. There's quite a difference in stopping people who have placed a bomb inside some building and arresting people that have bombs in their house. Both kinds of people should be arrested, though.
How many people did the extremists kill here every year again?
Wrong question, how many people see their neighbourhoods change into shariah enclaves where women gays and jews and religious minorities can no longer rely on their government for protection. Casualties of rape and murder in Europe, thousands a year.
Wrong question, how many people see their neighbourhoods change into shariah enclaves where women gays and jews and religious minorities can no longer rely on their government for protection. Casualties of rape and murder in Europe, thousands a year.
Wrong answer, I already said the police should deal with that. It's not like rape and murder are currently legal if you're a muslim, or is it?
Megas Methuselah
08-31-2010, 16:41
Actually, alleged conspiracy to blow something up. There's quite a difference in stopping people who have placed a bomb inside some building and arresting people that have bombs in their house. Both kinds of people should be arrested, though.
Who cares about them, man? The streets are much more dangerous than a couple immigrants who wanna go Bin Laden on a garbage bin or whatever it was that was going on through their foreign minds.
Wrong answer, I already said the police should deal with that. It's not like rape and murder are currently legal if you're a muslim, or is it?
Not going to happen, look at the reactions Sarrazin gets for stating the obvious. Gutmensch doesn't care about reality, reality is just interpretation of perception, so gutmensch changes perception instead of reality. So they want him fired, want to change laws to make that possible, call for censorship, and most likely want the party-pooper dead because he suckingly tells how it is.
Who cares about them, man? The streets are much more dangerous than a couple immigrants who wanna go Bin Laden on a garbage bin or whatever it was that was going on through their foreign minds.
Ya the vicious streets of Canada, try a bad neighbourhood in current France and see how far you get, it's not a tiny little bit bad police gets shot at with AK's sometimes, in Brussels as well.
Megas Methuselah
08-31-2010, 20:49
Yeah, Europe was always that bad. This is why North America is called "Little Europe," with an emphasis on "little."
But heeeeey, don't look at me. I'm only an observer.
Yeah, Europe was always that bad. This is why North America is called "Little Europe," with an emphasis on "little."
But heeeeey, don't look at me. I'm only an observer.
No Europe was never that bad, if you told me 10 years ago that police is being shot at with AK's when they enter certain neighbourhoods I would call you an ambulance. Here in the Netherlands things are nice and cozy we must be doing something right, but in Belgium and France the situation is just grim.
Megas Methuselah
09-01-2010, 06:44
Yes. The continent where the world wars largely originated.
So what's actually new, then? Oh! Did you hear Eminem's new song? It's at the top of the charts right now. I don't usually listen to radio music, but it ain't thaaaaat bad.
Not going to happen, look at the reactions Sarrazin gets for stating the obvious. Gutmensch doesn't care about reality, reality is just interpretation of perception, so gutmensch changes perception instead of reality. So they want him fired, want to change laws to make that possible, call for censorship, and most likely want the party-pooper dead because he suckingly tells how it is.
I read something about that yesterday after being largely oblivious to what he said, apparently what he said wasn't so bad at all.
I agree that if we have immigration problems we should fix the immigration problems and not the people who say we have immigration problems.
It's an ugly issue apparently since the NPD really hopes this will make their "contributions" more tolerable as well, which it shouldn't.
Ya the vicious streets of Canada, try a bad neighbourhood in current France and see how far you get, it's not a tiny little bit bad police gets shot at with AK's sometimes, in Brussels as well.
That's absolutely intolerable and should be fixed in a violent way if necessary. I'm not sure that has to do anything with islam though, you get similar things in the USA from all sorts of gangs of all sorts of nationalities and religions, poverty seems to play a big role here, maybe we should close the borders until we can provide everybody with a job?
rory_20_uk
09-01-2010, 10:08
Many have jobs. It's called being in a gang. Pays a lot better and is a lot more glamorous than other options available.
~:smoking:
I read something about that yesterday after being largely oblivious to what he said, apparently what he said wasn't so bad at all.
I agree that if we have immigration problems we should fix the immigration problems and not the people who say we have immigration problems.
It's an ugly issue apparently since the NPD really hopes this will make their "contributions" more tolerable as well, which it shouldn't.
Better listen to the good man, it isn't because of him that the extreme right is gaining ground again, it's because of these policor-muppets who won't accept that everything isn't going as they thought it would and claw out the eyeballs of everybody who dares bringing it up. They are too daft to understand that sadly, cause and effect is a bit too challenging for the gutmensch. If even Merkel herself is trying to get this guy fired because he doesn't get the hymns right..
al Roumi
09-01-2010, 15:58
I know that but Al_p didn't but knew it was bull anyway, forgot the arab name CW used but that is what sunni's call themselves.
Eh? I only ever said that the Sunni or Shia distinction (as you kept pointing to for some reason) has little to do with terrorism, AlQaida, or Salsfists (who are ususally described by the word "fundamentalist"). Although, it should be noted that AlQaida have a strong dislike of Shia muslims, hence much of the sectarian violence in Iraq.
Salafists are fundamentalist Sunni muslims. Please correct that if it's wrong, I'd be grateful for a source on it though. I said previously that Sunni does not mean Salafist, which is also true.
Better listen to the good man, it isn't because of him that the extreme right is gaining ground again, it's because of these policor-muppets who won't accept that everything isn't going as they thought it would and claw out the eyeballs of everybody who dares bringing it up. They are too daft to understand that sadly, cause and effect is a bit too challenging for the gutmensch. If even Merkel herself is trying to get this guy fired because he doesn't get the hymns right..
I have a couple of spoons on the fire, should you ever come within arms reach. Don't know why you'd complain about it though, doesn't seem like you use your eyes for, you know, reading anything beyond bigot-o-matic blogs, let alone other people's posts.
I do read other peoples posts, I just can't always take them seriously. When someone just dismisses me I know he has zero knowledge and suffers from the European disease.
And no indeed it doesn't, has to do with people with an opinion on things they don't understand.
I do read other peoples posts, I just can't always take them seriously. When someone just dismisses me I know he has zero knowledge and suffers from the European disease.
And no indeed it doesn't, has to do with people with an opinion on things they don't understand.
I dismiss you because your name calling, your hyberbole and your rambling style more or less smother any point or argument that you might be making.
I dismiss you because your name calling, your hyberbole and your rambling style more or less smother any point or argument that you might be making.
Thx for taking the time to post that on page 20
Ser Clegane
09-02-2010, 10:32
Nothing new on the "mosque" on the last 1 1/2 pages. Apparently the actual topic has been exhausted and the thread is now evolving around some more generic points.
Long thread, many interesting points - but I think we can put it at rest now until we have some actual developments.
Closed
CountArach
09-02-2010, 10:32
Well this just seems to be arguing in circles and has well and truly run its course. If people want to start a new thread that's fine by me, but we have wandered a long way from the point of this thread.
Closed :bow:
EDIT: Damn you Ser Clegane...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.