The Mosque Should Be Built!

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by coadie

bigots play the bigot card. One is bigoted if they establish bigot criteria.

From an accounting standpoint, fund raising for terrorist activity is done by very complex electronic transfer.
Muslims like praxes says are a political and religious enterprise.

They are two more enterprises, They are military and criminal. Sheltering fraudulent business transactions and mlitary training is done very carefully.

The Muslims are slick and play the bigot card and the liberals join them. My landlord is a bank with a high rise office buuilding. We have with the patriot act requirements to report cash transactions over 10,000 if cash. Just anothe loophole to get around. Mosques and related enterprises are used to launder money.
If we had a religion that brought in cockfights for fundraising instead of car washes and bake sales, the liberals could do nothing for fear of being politically incorrect. Jesus would be a bigot if he was in NYC.
The strongest weapon of moderno Pharisees is the bigot accusation.

Today is friday.



See anything wrong here?

You are indicting the character of an entire religion based on your dislike of a few. I'm not sure what could be more bigoted.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Sorry, but it IS apples and oranges. You're not gonna see it that way because you need to present it that way in order to have a point. But Phelps doesn't compare to this situation. Phelps is a very polarizing figure and nothing in this Muslim group's history seems polarizing.

I'm not trying to divert attention from your point because you don't seem to have one.

This is an example of blindness.

This is of course a standard 2 faced Imam.

Since you are unable to understand the nasty rants he makes in arabic you are gullible.

Phelps is a staunch Democrat. he gets a pass for that.

The original Malaysian title for Imam Rauf’s book was ‘A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Da’wah From the Heart of America Post-9/11′. Robert Spencer explains:

“Da’wah is Islamic proselytizing. And in the Islamic law, da’wah precedes jihad. You call the nonbelievers to Islam. And if they refuse to accept it, then you initiate the jihad against them. But the whole goal of both da’wah and jihad is to impose Islamic law or Sharia upon the nonbelievers as a political system, not as a religious one.”

He puts on a call to submit face. The next step is Jihad.

Jihad means blow out the brains of the infidels.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I will mildly note that you are engaging in incoherent babbling, mixing factual and non-factual information to make some point that is lost somewhere in the middle of the post.

What know you of western life in Saudi Arabia? Or Kuala Lumpur?

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=churc...526d12389e3c08

Here are some churches on a random search for your perusal. Malaysia actually has many large churches and it amuses me to see this very enjoyable country lumped with the (lazy, arrogant, bigoted) and flush with (unearned) US dollars Saudis/Kuwaitis. Life in Malaysia is good for Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

AND: Malaysia at the same time has more Muslims than Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined yet Malaysians are treated like slaves in these two countries.

Thanks Wii. I appreciate your comments about Malaysia. In the brevity of my own post I did end up lumping them together in a way that comes across a bit unfairly. I have friends in Malaysia.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...uBdQ1alAqX3jWA
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Catho...ure-19208.html
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/2-...h-feud/565575/
http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/malaysi...curity-3326286

Despite the Federal Government's denial that Malaysia is an Islamic state, the present Badawi Administration have gradually furthered the agenda of Islamic supremacy at the expense of other religions. The spread of Christianity is a particular sore point for the Muslim majority, and as such, the Government (despite being of a plural composition, but the Malay component, UMNO, always has the final say) typically drags its feet when it comes to approving Churches, and often they will disapprove the setting up of Churches outright. In some cases, they have even resorted to demolishing churches in Muslim-majority areas, and setting up mosques in Muslim-minority areas. The Malaysian government has also persecuted Christian groups who were perceived to be attempting to proselytize to Muslim audiences.

In 2004 and 2005, the government caused an uproar within the Chinese community by closing down and demolishing some ancient Chinese temples in Chinese-majority areas. In as recent as June 2006[18], the government has demolished more than 30 Hindu temples (in Hindu majority areas) that it said were built illegally. Indian leaders pointed out, however, that many of the temples dated back to British colonial rule, and the Malay government failed to legalize those temples after independence in 1957. While the non-Muslim public suspects that there is a behind the scene systematic elimination of non-Muslim religious rights in Malaysia by Islamic supremacists within the Government, the Government itself has repeatedly denied this. In 2007, the Malyasian government, in a move to ease ethnic tensions, unveiled an initiative to protect the remaining Hindu temples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_i...icial_religion

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Dawa is not a "call to submit". Dawa is what you call "witnessing". Dawa is no more a "call to submit" than an "alter call" is a "call to submit".

The vast majority of Muslims no doubt agree with you about this, however, how does Osama bin Laden view "Dawah?" Why did he always make it such a big point to "perform Dawah" before launching a terrorist strike against any target?

Why does he justify the 9/11 attacks by repeatedly saying that Dr. Zawahiri and Adam Gadahn had both already "done dawah" to the United States before the attack? I know that this is NOT "dawah" as you know it nor as it is practiced in much of the modern world, but can you see why Americans would be touchy about "Dawah in the rubble of the WTC?" Your next statement at least appears to indicate that you do understand.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

The reason that many Muslims do not support this project at this site is clearly stated above. A mosque built in controversy would not be the asset to the community that it is supposed to be.

As to your link:

http://masjidmanhattan.org/

What is the point? Are YOU celebrating the fact that these people were evicted from their building in Manhattan where they have worshipped since 1970 and they are forced now to pray in the street?

No. You have judged my statements too harshly here. Perhaps because you feel that I was too harsh in lumping Malaysians in with the wealthy Gulf States. If I owned suitable real estate on Manhattan I might even be moved to see if I could help.

I agree with these people and I sympathize with them. The fact that they desperately need a place to pray and yet they STILL don't support the Park51 development speaks volumes as to their character. They are sacrificing a lot just for principle. I admire them.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Sorry, but it IS apples and oranges. You're not gonna see it that way because you need to present it that way in order to have a point. But Phelps doesn't compare to this situation. Phelps is a very polarizing figure and nothing in this Muslim group's history seems polarizing.

I'm not trying to divert attention from your point because you don't seem to have one.

I wasn't comparing the situation. I was comparing people's feelings and emotions and oppositions vs legal opposition. They have a right to speak up and out and have an opinion

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Pelthais made false claims again?

Why are you such a zealous supporter of "the mosque in the rubble of the WTC?"

And, I challenge anyone to refute a single "claim" or assertion that I made. Not even Wii could do so. All he had to add was the fact that the Malaysians don't tend to be as bigoted as many of the Gulf Arabs are.

He then tried to soft peddle the oppression and persecution of other religions in Malaysia by the Muslim majority. Though he is correct, that despite the burnings and the destruction of temples and churches in Christian and Buddhist majority areas this is nothing like what you'd see if a Christian tried to worship publicly in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.

In fact, I'm still waiting for you to even attempt to disprove anything that I have ever said. Even my snarky "crack pipe" wise crack was a positive in that it caused you to sit up and pay a little attention to yourself. For all I can tell, you really did "put down the crack pipe."

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Why are you such a zealous supporter of "the mosque in the rubble of the WTC?"

And, I challenge anyone to refute a single "claim" or assertion that I made. Not even Wii could do so. All he had to add was the fact that the Malaysians don't tend to be as bigoted as many of the Gulf Arabs are.

He then tried to soft peddle the oppression and persecution of other religions in Malaysia by the Muslim majority. Though he is correct, that despite the burnings and the destruction of temples and churches in Christian and Buddhist majority areas this is nothing like what you'd see if a Christian tried to worship publicly in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.

In fact, I'm still waiting for you to even attempt to disprove anything that I have ever said. Even my snarky "crack pipe" wise crack was a positive in that it caused you to sit up and pay a little attention to yourself. For all I can tell, you really did "put down the crack pipe."

What he said!

[james34]

our founding fathers were battling the right to serve God as described inthe Holy Bible.They were not defending the country from muslims .

But for people to say that they would rather see a muslim mosque built, just goes to show that America today is not the America once known by those who first settled here.The USA our fathers knew would not put forth the proffession to be christians and welcome false religions.There are way to many scriptures to think that God would be pleased to have antichrists dwell
with christians.You may make a political stand for it but there are 2 people you wont find in downtown New York hangin around,one of them is me and the other one is Jesus.

[OneEyedFatMan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Excellent point and something we should consider. The damage that China could do to us financially, would pale in comparison to what radical muslims could ever do with violence. And it's subtle...no bombs, no noise. No one notices.

If Countries had credit scores, Tuvalu is probably the only nation on earth that could buy a used car without a co-signer.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Liberal

And this is exactly my point. There are no "Direct" ties, as if the parentheses make a difference.

Those are "quote marks," Lib.

Originally Posted by Liberal

We all know if there were any ties this wouldn't have gone past the light conversation stage.

Imam Faud's father was a known and prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Faud himself has refused to publicly denounce the activities of this terrorist organization. He refuses to denounce or distance himself from any Muslim terrorist groups including Hamas and Hezbollah.

The MB morphed into Islamic Jihad led by bin Laden's second in command before he joined up with al Qaeda. Al Qaeda destroyed the WTC. That's actually "fairly direct."

By their very nature, these terrorist cells have no "Direct" connections to anyone. Remember how tricky it was just trying to prove to the Taliban that al Qaeda actually DID destroy the WTC?

Whether you realize it or not, there is a well funded and well connected movement to spread Islam through the United States. Whenever the Muslims become the majority in an area or when they get power they begin to persecute Christians and other "kufr." Give me one example where that has NOT happened.

Wii offered Malaysia, however the news from Malaysia is rather sad. Sudan? Somalia? Eritrea? Northern Nigeria? Bosnia? Anywhere?

Originally Posted by Liberal

Surely you're aware of all the sects that exist in Christianity. My goodness, there are dozens of sects just in pentecostalism alone, and several times that many in the Baptist world.

You've said that before, however I still admire the folks at Masjid Manhattan and I hope they get a place with a good lease.

Originally Posted by Liberal

How would you like it if your building project were rejected because of the radical stances of Kenneth Copeland, or the actions of Jimmy Swaggart?

You'd have to fill me in on Copeland, I know he's wacky but I was unaware that he had blown up any civilian jet liners. Similar thing with Swaggert. In the end, the person he hurt most was himself. Neither man has done violence to another human being, that I'm aware of.

You appear to be discounting the value the lives of the victims of Islamist terror by comparing people like Ayman Al-Zawahiri to Kenneth Copeland. There's a huge and fundamental difference.

Originally Posted by Liberal

You're doing a lot of assuming and supposing and for someone that seems to carry a lot of information, I'm surprised.

I said earlier that if one rejects a project by a particular group because of their religion, race, or gender, one is bigoted. I stand by that.

I stand by the implication of hypocrisy that I pointed out your comment carried. To follow your reasoning, Martin Luther King was a bigot because he had a dream that violated the deeply and sincerely held beliefs of some of his fellow Americans.

According to your reasoning, Andrew Goodman, James Earl Chaney, and Michael H. Schwerner were bigots because they tried to interfere with the social customs of people whose only crime was being "different" then they were.

According to your reasoning, anyone who stands up to a bully is a bully themselves and the real bully is just "misunderstood" and "persecuted." I'm actually not surprised. It's because of voices like yours 40 years ago that people felt justified in denouncing MLK, Goodman, Chaney, Schwerner and so many others.

I stand by freedom. Real freedom. Not the "cave in and let the Nazis win" kind of "freedom" espoused by Liberals like Charles Lindbergh in the 1930s and 1940s.

"Stalin had rights. He was just trying to make the world a better place... at least he tried!"

"Osama bin Laden wants peace. He's been trying to bring peace to the world his whole life. 'Islam' itself can be understood as 'peace.' You just have to submit."

[DaffyDuck]

Originally Posted by james34

our founding fathers were battling the right to serve God as described inthe Holy Bible.They were not defending the country from muslims .

But for people to say that they would rather see a muslim mosque built, just goes to show that America today is not the America once known by those who first settled here.The USA our fathers knew would not put forth the proffession to be christians and welcome false religions.There are way to many scriptures to think that God would be pleased to have antichrists dwell
with christians.You may make a political stand for it but there are 2 people you wont find in downtown New York hangin around,one of them is me and the other one is Jesus.

This simply isn't true. Go read the writings of some of our glorious founding fathers. True, there were a few that took their religion seriously, but mostly, these weren't God-fearing people. I know D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, and radical right-wing groups want to re-write history, but your assertion here is simply not true.