Islamic group to build mosque adjacent to ground zero

[Megas Methuselah]

I like Paul.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I like fiction as well.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're not allowed to do that when we debate on Christianity.

Of course I am, I have free will!

But you can't, because you don't, unless God lets you.

[Fragony]

Ah, so what now http://www.greekboston.com/wordpress...e-ground-zero/ Maybe it's time to investigate why mr Bloomberg doesn't want the finances to be investigated. I know that a considerable part was funded by the Dutch government, naturally the labour party.

kewl Geertje is going to speak his mind, be ready for some harsh words you appeasement monkeys he tends to do that.

edit: found even more http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-...ious-dialogue/

Hell is simply waking up in my reality

Taqiyya Lemur, told you so

[Lemur]

Taqiyya Lemur, told you so

Yup, according to Pajamas Media the Imam said, "I do not believe in religious dialogue." He's EVIL! Full quote:

Religious dialogue as customarily understood is a set of events with discussions in large hotels that result in nothing. Religions do not dialogue and dialogue is not present in the attitudes of the followers, regardless of being Muslim or Christian. The image of Muslims in the West is complex which needs to be remedied.

Send him to Guantanamo immediately! And further in the article they quote him talking about how the U.S. is not "responsible" for the 9/11 attacks, but that our policies were an accessory! EVIL! The blowback theory can ony be held by vile, subhuman monsters!

You were right all along, Frag. It's an invasion!



-edit-

In slightly more sober analysis, Fareed Zakaria has a few things to say. I expect he's a lying Taqiyya-person as well, eh Frags?

Build the Ground Zero Mosque

Ever since 9/11, liberals and conservatives have agreed that the lasting solution to the problem of Islamic terror is to prevail in the battle of ideas and to discredit radical Islam, the ideology that motivates young men to kill and be killed. Victory in the war on terror will be won when a moderate, mainstream version of Islam—one that is compatible with modernity—fully triumphs over the world view of Osama bin Laden.

As the conservative Middle Eastern expert Daniel Pipes put it, “The U.S. role [in this struggle] is less to offer its own views than to help those Muslims with compatible views, especially on such issues as relations with non-Muslims, modernization, and the rights of women and minorities.” To that end, early in its tenure the Bush administration began a serious effort to seek out and support moderate Islam. Since then, Washington has funded mosques, schools, institutes, and community centers that are trying to modernize Islam around the world. Except, apparently, in New York City.

The debate over whether an Islamic center should be built a few blocks from the World Trade Center has ignored a fundamental point. If there is going to be a reformist movement in Islam, it is going to emerge from places like the proposed institute. We should be encouraging groups like the one behind this project, not demonizing them. Were this mosque being built in a foreign city, chances are that the U.S. government would be funding it.

The man spearheading the center, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a moderate Muslim clergyman. He has said one or two things about American foreign policy that strike me as overly critical —but it’s stuff you could read on The Huffington Post any day. On Islam, his main subject, Rauf’s views are clear: he routinely denounces all terrorism—as he did again last week, publicly. He speaks of the need for Muslims to live peacefully with all other religions. He emphasizes the commonalities among all faiths. He advocates equal rights for women, and argues against laws that in any way punish non-Muslims. His last book, What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America, argues that the United States is actually the ideal Islamic society because it encourages diversity and promotes freedom for individuals and for all religions. His vision of Islam is bin Laden’s nightmare.

Rauf often makes his arguments using interpretations of the Quran and other texts. Now, I am not a religious person, and this method strikes me as convoluted and Jesuitical. But for the vast majority of believing Muslims, only an argument that is compatible with their faith is going to sway them. The Somali-born “ex-Muslim” writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s advice to Muslims is to convert to Christianity. That may create buzz, but it is unlikely to have any effect on the 1.2 billion devout Muslims in the world.

The much larger issue that this center raises is, of course, of freedom of religion in America. Much has been written about this, and I would only urge people to read Michael Bloomberg’s speech on the subject last week. Bloomberg’s eloquent, brave, and carefully reasoned address should become required reading in every civics classroom in America. It probably will.

Bloomberg’s speech stands in stark contrast to the bizarre decision of the Anti-Defamation League to publicly side with those urging that the center be moved. The ADL’s mission statement says it seeks “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” But Abraham Foxman, the head of the ADL, explained that we must all respect the feelings of the 9/11 families, even if they are prejudiced feelings. “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted,” he said. First, the 9/11 families have mixed views on this mosque. There were, after all, dozens of Muslims killed at the World Trade Center. Do their feelings count? But more important, does Foxman believe that bigotry is OK if people think they’re victims? Does the anguish of Palestinians, then, entitle them to be anti-Semitic?

Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. I was thrilled to get the award from an organization that I had long admired. But I cannot in good conscience keep it anymore. I have returned both the handsome plaque and the $10,000 honorarium that came with it. I urge the ADL to reverse its decision. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain a reputation.

[Fragony]

Or maybe you were wrong all the time, it's normal that people try to rediculise inconveniences, it's a shield. You probably read it by now. It's really that bad. You are free to discredit it.

edit: and AdrianII where the hell are you you were right this is much more dangerous than I thought.

[Lemur]

I only rediculise the rediculous, never fear.

It's worth noting that all of your "clincher" posts are from Pajamas Media, and they're all from a single author, Alyssa A. Lappen. Lappen's work is exclusively published in right-wing sites such as WND and Pajamas Media. The focus of her work, according to SourceWatch, is Jewish and Israeli advocacy. So, while this doesn't invalidate what she has to say, it is worth noting that she has a particular perspective that colors her work.

Moving on, the first link you provided is a pretty horrible piece of advocacy journalism. Going through sentence-by-sentence, pulling apart all of the logical fallacies would take the rest of my morning, but take it as a given that I do not find it compelling. Example of how bad it is:

"Rauf’s early UK education and familiarization with American popular culture and values made him an acutely adept practitioner of Islamic taqiyya — deceptive speech and action to advance the interests and supremacy of Islam (8). To further that Islamic advancement, Rauf in 1997 established the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA)." This is a real classic bit of BS. Note that her definition of taqiyya is unusual, to say the least, since every version I have seen involves lying under duress or threat, not "to advance the interests and supremacy of Islam." Note that the author asserts that Rauf is an "adept practitioner" of lying, but does not provide any example, quote or evidence to back the assertion up. We're just supposed to take it on the author's good will that the man is a habitual liar. Given how hard journalists normally have to work to prove a single lie, this is astonishing.

Then she elides that whole mess of illogic into the next sentence: Somehow the (not established) lying informs his "ASMA" group, which is not meant merely to "advance" Islam, but to advance its "supremacy." Note that the subject has not said anything about supremacy, and that the author is inserting this bit of alarmism without getting quotes, or combing the man's record, or any of the other things journalists call "work." She just gets to declare that he is this or he is that without needing any real substantiation.

Her financial reporting is an unfunny joke. She breathlessly tells us that ASMA received $576,312 million from Qatar, "That Persian Gulf nation has long harbored terror financiers, and even the government stands accused of funding international terrorism." And that's it. That's all she's got. Guilt by association, anyone? Has this woman done any real reporting, or does she just like to string vaguely related facts together as a sort of drinking game? Let's turn the tables: Alyssa Lappen publishes in Pajamas Media, which is often read and cited by white supremacists at Stormfront! So clearly Alyssa Lappen is a nazi sympathizer. See? Guilt by association is a game for the whole family.

All of her work is on this level. Keep quoting her if you like, but given the scale of her sloppiness and misrepresentation of "facts," don't ask me to disprove entire articles of this fecal matter again. I have neither the time nor the patience. If what she's saying is true, it will be reported again elsewhere. Seriously, learn to find facts in real media from respectable practitioners of journalism, like Adrian II. Hell, most political blogs operate on a higher factual standard than Pajamas Media.

If you want something "disproven," then pull a specific quote or point. I can't go wading in meters-deep every time you stumble across a bit of demagoguery that's in sync with your monomania.

-edit-

I provided an entire essay from Fareed Zakaria. Feel free to "disprove" everything he has to say.

[Husar]

edit: and AdrianII where the hell are you you were right this is much more dangerous than I thought.

Now you sound like someone who is really into conspiracy theories. It's kinda cute actually, if I weren't hetero, I'd date you.

[Fragony]

Now you sound like someone who is really into conspiracy theories. It's kinda cute actually, if I weren't hetero, I'd date you.

It's actually Adrian II that warned me against it

I never saw it as a direcr threat, and I was wrong.

[Lemur]

I'll happily agree that wahabbist and salafist jerkwads are a real and present danger, no argument here. But you debase the struggle and humiliate yourself by casting an over-broad definition and accusing moderates of being extremists.

And honest-to-goodness medievalist goes to town on Newt Gingrich and the Cordoba meme. No summation can do good scholarship justice, so I suggest you read the entire thing.

-edit-

Bonus question: Where were you hyperventilating alarmists when they built the Islamic prayer room in the other 9/11 target, the Pentagon?

[Fragony]

huh, where when

Lemur stuff your bonus question, gave you plenty

[Megas Methuselah]

Bonus question: Where were you hyperventilating alarmists when they built the Islamic prayer room in the other 9/11 target, the Pentagon?

Wow, is that supposed to be controversial or something? Let's take it a step further and celebrate the Potlatch at the Pentagon, too.

[Fragony]

Wow, is that supposed to be controversial or something? Let's take it a step further and celebrate the Potlatch at the Pentagon, too.

Nope it's something entirely different, only makes sense as an argument if you don't get the point. Lemur I don't give a crap about ordinay muslims only about the extremists. They exist, also in America, what are the odds of that. These guys are as welcome as the inquisition for normal muslims, and you will notice that the behaviour of your friendly muslim neighbour will change when they settle down, suddely their kids don't want to play with yours. That is because of intimidation and strict social control, these guys are an abso lute pest

[Lemur]

Lemur I don't give a crap about ordinay muslims only about the extremists.

But by casting an over-broad definition of "extremists" you give hope, comfort and aid to the salafists. See my earlier note about "useful idiots"; you are in grave danger of being one. Just because a rightwing masturblog screams that someone is a secret terrorist doesn't make it so. Your sources suck.

Meanwhile, it's nice to see politicans making hay while the sun shines:

[Fragony]

You suck, you demand something, and dodge when you get it.

[Lemur]

You suck, you demand something, and dodge when you get it.

Excuse me? I responded. Perhaps you missed the post.

Again, most of your paranoid, rambling, poorly-sourced, ranting sources are from single author. The author is problematic. Her theories are not substantiated or repeated anywhere but on the paranoid rightwing blogs. Echo chamber much?

You are taking the rantings of a pro-Israeli rightwing extremist who only publishes in niche political tracts as gospel truth. Were a leftwinger doing the same in an argument with you, I have little doubt how dismissive you would be.

[Crazed Rabbit]

But by casting an over-broad definition of "extremists" you give hope, comfort and aid to the salafists. See my earlier note about "useful idiots"; you are in grave danger of being one. Just because a rightwing masturblog screams that someone is a secret terrorist doesn't make it so. Your sources suck.

Meanwhile, it's nice to see politicans making hay while the sun shines:

I hate eminent domain, especially it's abuse. I now want this man to lose the election.

CR

[Fragony]

Excuse me? I responded. Perhaps you missed the post.

Again, most of your paranoid, rambling, poorly-sourced, ranting sources are from single author. The author is problematic. Her theories are not substantiated or repeated anywhere but on the paranoid rightwing blogs. Echo chamber much?

You are taking the rantings of a pro-Israeli rightwing extremist who only publishes in niche political tracts as gospel truth. Were a leftwinger doing the same in an argument with you, I have little doubt how dismissive you would be.

I am wut lol, I thought asumptions were bad

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But by casting an over-broad definition of "extremists" you give hope, comfort and aid to the salafists. See my earlier note about "useful idiots"; you are in grave danger of being one. Just because a rightwing masturblog screams that someone is a secret terrorist doesn't make it so. Your sources suck.

Meanwhile, it's nice to see politicans making hay while the sun shines:

Did you see the article from the Telegraph where Quillian labled Cordoba House "Islamist"?

[Lemur]

Did you see the article from the Telegraph where Quillian labled Cordoba House "Islamist"?

Linky would be way cool.

[Fragony]

Linky cherrypicing so why do you want them, meanwhile a sound response from the people I supposedly condemn http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mi...303/story.html

Author doesn't know his religion very well, 'fitna' means 'cause' or 'struggle' in arab but message is clear, don't let him down.
Your reality doesn't exist, this is much worse than anything happening anywhere in Europe. With lightning speed you will lose everything. Your society doesn't have any ideological barricades, if you think you are being reasonable you are making a huge mistake.

[Lemur]

Linky cherrypicing so why do you want them

Well, when someone opens a post saying "did you see," it's natural to want to see.

As for the Ottowa Citizen essay, I think the authors are clearer on the definition of fitna than you. Further, while they disapprove of the mosque, they bring no hard evidence to the table. The contention that Feisal Abdul Rauf is an extremist/jihadist/salafist stands unfounded, especially given the people who actually know the main and say he is a moderate. The sources you have provided do nothing to support your vision of Rauf as a seditious invader.

As for how America will "lose everything," well, would you care to give a timeframe for that prediction? It's all very easy and fun to predict the end of civilization, but unless you're willing to give it a schedule it's just hot air.

[al Roumi]

Here's the economist's analysis:

Build that mosque: The campaign against the proposed Cordoba centre in New York is unjust and dangerous

And Lemur, were it not completely inappropriate to use a word like this in this context, i'd call you a crusader. Although I fear your heroic efforts may prove quixotic...

[al Roumi]

Hagia Sophia still became a Mosque, and the Mosque on the Temple Mount was built over a Christian Church (former Roman Temple) after it was demolished by the invaders. The use of both was a sign a Muslim domination, whatever else it was.

Standard practice my friend, as I tried to point out, many places of worship have been re-cycled throughout history. Most churches in central or southern Spain are converted mosques, which were converted churches, which where converted temples. In any case, it's irrelevant - the mosque 2 blocks away from ground zero is not replacing a church and not being built by a conqueror.

[Fragony]

As for how America will "lose everything," well, would you care to give a timeframe for that prediction? It's all very easy and fun to predict the end of civilization, but unless you're willing to give it a schedule it's just hot air.

Fast at least, you cannot rely on your government to protect you from it either way, they are already in your goverment. Look at England and their labour party, completely infiltrated.

Brussels Belgium, but any European city really. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-inob20I_Y0 France at least now realises the crap they are in, state of war

[PanzerJaeger]

Bonus question: Where were you hyperventilating alarmists when they built the Islamic prayer room in the other 9/11 target, the Pentagon?

I wonder if the Hassan incident has caused any critical reassessment of this. We've seen what happens when the military bends over to placate the Muslims. Real Americans get shot to death.

Here's the economist's analysis:

Build that mosque: The campaign against the proposed Cordoba centre in New York is unjust and dangerous

I don't appreciate the intellectual blackmail in which the authors are engaging. 'Build the Mosque or you'll radicalize your Muslims.' Our judgments on what is appropriate and what is not should not be held hostage to the ever-present threat of crazy Muslims waiting for a reason to radicalize.


Anyway, is there any truth to the accusation that this Imam Rauf refuses to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization?

[Lemur]

Anyway, is there any truth to the accusation that this Imam Rauf refuses to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization?

The damning quote that I have seen repeated from Rauf is that he talks about the Islamic Brotherhood doing charitable work. Which they have done, in addition to politics and terrorism. Likewise Hamas, but throw in that they're now the elected government of 1/2 of the Palestinians, which just makes life more complicated.

[PanzerJaeger]

The damning quote that I have seen repeated from Rauf is that he talks about the Islamic Brotherhood doing charitable work. Which they have done, in addition to politics and terrorism. Likewise Hamas, but throw in that they're now the elected government of 1/2 of the Palestinians, which just makes life more complicated.

Yea, I have read the same accusation in three different articles but without any quotes. Saying that they do charity work certainly suggests a relativist mindset, but is much different than ‘refusing to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist group’.

[Lemur]

Saying that they do charity work certainly suggests a relativist mindset, but is much different than ‘refusing to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist group’.

I don't understand how something that is factual can be "relativist." Hamas builds and runs hospitals and clinics; nobody contests this. They also blow innocent civilians up. The one does not invalidate the other.

Obviously, as Americans we see Hamas first and foremost as a terrorist organization, but the truth on the ground is a little more complicated. Likewise the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been several different things since 1928.

[Fragony]

I wonder if the Hassan incident has caused any critical reassessment of this. We've seen what happens when the military bends over to placate the Muslims. Real Americans get shot to death.



I don't appreciate the intellectual blackmail in which the authors are engaging. 'Build the Mosque or you'll radicalize your Muslims.' Our judgments on what is appropriate and what is not should not be held hostage to the ever-present threat of crazy Muslims waiting for a reason to radicalize.


Anyway, is there any truth to the accusation that this Imam Rauf refuses to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization?

Yes, among other things. What they say to you tends to be a little different than what they say abroad, I bet there was no 'hoisting the flag of islam over Manhattan'.

I still want to know why Dutch (naturally labour) minister Bert Koenders is using development aid money to fund this thing. Not that I don't know as he's from the 100% pro-islam labour party but still.