How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Mosque near WTC site   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Mosque near WTC site

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


25 posted 05-20-2010 07:28 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I'm not sure that any form of Sharia should escape our scrutiny, Ess. Some adherents may be more radical than others, but its texts do seem to overwhelmingly encourage intolerance, violence, subjugation of women, the slaughter of 'infidels' and the supremecy of Islam.

Here are portions of an article by someone who lived under Sharia Law about the significance, to Muslims, of the building of a mosque at Ground Zero.

quote:
A new mosque is now being planned in New York near "Ground Zero," two blocks from where the World Trade Center used to be. This mosque is headed by an Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of the Cordoba Initiative, who proposes to convert the now-shuttered Burlington Coat Factory on Park Place into an Islamic Cultural Center which would contain a mosque.

It is crucial to study the supremacist ideology of Islam and to recognize, for example, that the building of a mosque especially at Ground Zero is viewed by Muslims as a decisive victory over the infidels in Islam's march to establish its ultimate goal: the submission of all others to Islam and to Sharia Law.

According to the Center of the study of Political Islam (www.politicalislam.com), over the last 1400 years, Muslims have murdered roughly 270 million kafirs [non-Muslims]; 60 million Christians, 80 million Hindus, 10 million Buddhists and around 120 million African slaves. Until today, as far as we know, there has not been any official acknowledgement or official apology by any official Islamic organization for these atrocities. This calamity is not a modern day phenomenon. It has been taking place since Islam's inception 1400 years ago.

This is what Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a few years ago, said at the Chautauqua Institution in New York:

"Seven centuries before the Declaration of Independence was written Shari'a Law was intended to protect life, religion, property, family and mental well being. This is why I assert that America is in fact a Shari'a compliant state".

The Imam avoids mentioning that Islamic Sharia allows, among other ruthless practices, to beat women to discipline them, and that Sharia also still sanctions slavery. Is that not a bit different from American set of laws? Does the Imam recommend that the US implement the previous two practices into our system to be a more "Sharia compliant state"?

Now we have a Muslim Imam, who aspires to implement Sharia in the West, and who is a slick and eloquent speaker disguised as a "moderate" Muslim. He uses Taqiyya, the Islamic concept which calls for Muslims to lie to the enemy and deceive him based on Quran 3:28, to fool non-Muslims and those who are gullible or ignorant, and who play right into his hands.

While Feisal Rauf opposes Faisal Shahzas's terror strategy, both share the same objective of subjugating the West under Islam and under Sharia Law - both Faisals are two sides of the same coin.

Further, we all know that while Muslims can build mosques and practice their religion freely in the West, non-Muslims are forbidden to do the same in Islamic countries. How harmful to them is that?

This Imam also stated:

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."

As for women, the Imam says that, with regard to the role of women, and the education of women in most Muslim countries, that women are very active and involved, and that misogyny exists primarily in the tribal countries of the Arabian Peninsula.

This is a shameful and deceitful portrayal. The status of women in the Muslim countries is a misfortune that the world has overlooked for centuries, and for which it is now paying a high price for having ignored.

"A God Who Hates," the book I wrote last year, is dedicated to the memory of my niece Mayyada, who cut her life short by committing suicide to escape the hellish marriage imposed upon her under Islamic Sharia Law. There are currently millions of women who experience similar unimaginable suffering, all sanctioned under the tacit approval of Sharia. Their accounts are untold stories of unthinkable oppression and misery.

Dr. Wafa Sultan is a Syrian-certified psychiatrist and author of the book, "A God Who Hates."

http://www.hudsonny.org/2010/05/mosque-at-ground-zero-equals-victory.php
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


26 posted 05-22-2010 10:34 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Here is some information that I found very enlightening to this discussion excerpted from Islam 101 by Gregory M. Davis:

quote:

Dar al-Islam and dar al-harb: the House of Islam and the House of War

The violent injunctions of the Quran and the violent precedents set by Muhammad set the tone for the Islamic view of politics and of world history. Islamic scholarship divides the world into two spheres of influence, the House of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the House of War (dar al-harb). Islam means submission, and so the House of Islam includes those nations that have submitted to Islamic rule, which is to say those nations ruled by Sharia law. The rest of the world, which has not accepted Sharia law and so is not in a state of submission, exists in a state of rebellion or war with the will of Allah. It is incumbent on dar al-Islam to make war upon dar al-harb until such time that all nations submit to the will of Allah and accept Sharia law. Islam's message to the non-Muslim world is the same now as it was in the time of Muhammad and throughout history: submit or be conquered. The only times since Muhammad when dar al-Islam was not actively at war with dar al-harb were when the Muslim world was too weak or divided to make war effectively.

But the lulls in the ongoing war that the House of Islam has declared against the House of War do not indicate a forsaking of jihad as a principle but reflect a change in strategic factors. It is acceptable for Muslim nations to declare hudna, or truce, at times when the infidel nations are too powerful for open warfare to make sense. Jihad is not a collective suicide pact even while "killing and being killed" (Sura 9:111) is encouraged on an individual level. For the past few hundred years, the Muslim world has been too politically fragmented and technologically inferior to pose a major threat to the West. But that is changing.

Taqiyya -- Religious Deception

Due to the state of war between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb, reuses de guerre, i.e., systematic lying to the infidel, must be considered part and parcel of Islamic tactics. The parroting by Muslim organizations throughout dar al-harb that "Islam is a religion of peace," or that the origins of Muslim violence lie in the unbalanced psyches of particular individual "fanatics," must be considered as disinformation intended to induce the infidel world to let down its guard. Of course, individual Muslims may genuinely regard their religion as "peaceful" -- but only insofar as they are ignorant of its true teachings, or in the sense of the Egyptian theorist Sayyid Qutb, who posited in his Islam and Universal Peace that true peace would prevail in the world just as soon as Islam had conquered it.

{A} problem concerning law and order {with respect to Muslims in dar al-harb} arises from an ancient Islamic legal principle -- that of taqiyya, a word the root meaning of which is "to remain faithful" but which in effect means "dissimulation." It has full Quranic authority (3:28 and 16:106) and allows the Muslim to conform outwardly to the requirements of unislamic or non-Islamic government, while inwardly "remaining faithful" to whatever he conceives to be proper Islam, while waiting for the tide to turn. (Hiskett, Some to Mecca Turn to Pray, 101.)
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269; Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "War is deceit."

Historically, examples of taqiyya include permission to renounce Islam itself in order to save one's neck or ingratiate oneself with an enemy. It is not hard to see that the implications of taqiyya are insidious in the extreme: they essentially render negotiated settlement -- and, indeed, all veracious communication between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb -- impossible. It should not, however, be surprising that a party to a war should seek to mislead the other about its means and intentions. Jihad Watch's own Hugh Fitzgerald sums up taqiyya and kitman, a related form of deception.

"Taqiyya" is the religiously-sanctioned doctrine, with its origins in Shi'a Islam but now practiced by non-Shi'a as well, of deliberate dissimulation about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers. A related term, of broader application, is "kitman," which is defined as "mental reservation." An example of "Taqiyya" would be the insistence of a Muslim apologist that "of course" there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Qur'anic verse -- "There shall be no compulsion in religion." {2:256} But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about "no compulsion in religion" has been cancelled out by later, far more intolerant and malevolent verses. In any case, history shows that within Islam there is, and always has been, "compulsion in religion" for Muslims, and for non-Muslims.

"Kitman" is close to "taqiyya," but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with "mental reservation" justifying the omission of the rest. One example may suffice. When a Muslim maintains that "jihad" really means "a spiritual struggle," and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing "kitman."

In times when the greater strength of dar al-harb necessitates that the jihad take an indirect approach, the natural attitude of a Muslim to the infidel world must be one of deception and omission. Revealing frankly the ultimate goal of dar al-Islam to conquer and plunder dar al-harb when the latter holds the military trump cards would be strategic idiocy. Fortunately for the jihadists, most infidels do not understand how one is to read the Quran, nor do they trouble themselves to find out what Muhammad actually did and taught, which makes it easy to give the impression through selective quotations and omissions that "Islam is a religion of peace." Any infidel who wants to believe such fiction will happily persist in his mistake having been cited a handful of Meccan verses and told that Muhammad was a man of great piety and charity. Digging only slightly deeper is sufficient to dispel the falsehood.

Is it fair to paint all Islamic schools of thought as violent?

Islamic apologists often point out that Islam is not a monolith and that there are differences of opinion among the different Islamic schools of thought. That is true, but, while there are differences, there are also common elements. Just as Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant Christians differ on many aspects of Christianity, still they accept important common elements. So it is with Islam. One of the common elements to all Islamic schools of thought is jihad, understood as the obligation of the Ummah to conquer and subdue the world in the name of Allah and rule it under Sharia law. The four Sunni Madhhabs (schools of fiqh [Islamic religious jurisprudence]) -- Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali -- all agree that there is a collective obligation on Muslims to make war on the rest of the world. Furthermore, even the schools of thought outside Sunni orthodoxy, including Sufism and the Jafari (Shia) school, agree on the necessity of jihad. When it comes to matters of jihad, the different schools disagree on such questions as whether infidels must first be asked to convert to Islam before hostilities may begin (Osama bin Laden asked America to convert before Al-Qaeda's attacks); how plunder should be distributed among victorious jihadists; whether a long-term Fabian strategy against dar al-harb is preferable to an all-out frontal attack; etc.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html  

And this transcript from the Hannity Show about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf:

quote:

HANNITY: You — I wanted to point this out. You brought this — this is in this book. This is the imam that is — is spearheading the effort to build the mosque. These are his words. He's the one that has argued that Sharia Law could be used in the U.S., because they can have their own courts and religious leaders, correct?

BURLINGAME: Yes. But — but when he published this in 2007 in the Muslim world, he didn't call it "What's Right With Islam" and a later title, "What's Right with America." He called it "A Call to Prayer From the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Da'wah From the Heart of America..."

HANNITY: Meaning?

BURLINGAME: "... Post-9/11." Robert, tell him what da'wah means.

SPENCER: 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.

HANNITY: What about the controversy — controversy involving his father?

SPENCER: The controversy involving his father involves the Muslim Brotherhood and the fact that this guy has ties to this group that is, in its own words, "dedicated to eliminating and destroying western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,593329,00.html
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


27 posted 05-23-2010 05:50 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


You seem to be building a case that Muslims are inherently bad Denise.

If that’s the case America has a far bigger problem than a proposed Mosque in New York.

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


28 posted 05-23-2010 12:12 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Not at all, Grinch. I'm just providing background iformation that I found that may help to answer your initial question in this thread.

And given that the imam in question has stated that the intent of this site for his center is an "Islamic Da'wah From the Heart of America", da'wah meaning the offer of conversion and submission to Islam prior to Jihad, I'd say it's a very bad idea for this project to go forward.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


29 posted 05-23-2010 12:40 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

And many of the 'faithful' are currently calling on the ummah (all Muslims throughout the world) to ''...break the jaws of Satan's USA", courtesy of YouTube.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=156961


Our southern border with Mexico is extremely vulnerable to infiltration:

quote:
According to the Department of Homeland Security's 2008 Yearbook of Immigration Studies, from the Office of Immigration Statistics, federal law enforcement agencies detained 791,568 deportable aliens in fiscal year 2008 – and 5,506 of them were from 14 "special-interest countries."

A 2009 academic study by the Society for Risk Analysis, titled "Analyzing the Homeland Security of the U.S.-Mexico Border," used a mathematical model to predict the likelihood of terrorist infiltration across the border with Mexico.

Two researchers from Stanford University and a third from George Mason University concluded that chances of OTM terrorists entering the U.S. across the southern border are quite high.

According to one calculation, based on assumptions about the extent of border screening and other aspects of domestic interior enforcement, the probability of an OTM terrorist crossing into the United States was 97.3 percent.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=156441
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


30 posted 05-23-2010 01:59 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
da'wah meaning the offer of conversion and submission to Islam prior to Jihad


Sounds ominous – unfortunately, or fortunately depending on how you look at it, that isn’t what Dawah means. It simply means ‘mission’ or ‘missionary’. There are lots of Dawah centres in the UK Denise, in fact there’s one about a mile and a half down the road from where I’m sitting, there are also lots in the US too apparently with at least two in New York.

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


31 posted 05-23-2010 03:29 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

It must be one of those words with multiple layers of meaning, Grinch.

quote:
Da‘wah (Arabic: ÏÚæÉý) usually denotes preaching of Islam. Da‘wah means literally "issuing a summons" or "making an invitation", being the active participle of a verb meaning variously "to summon, to invite"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawah
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


32 posted 05-23-2010 03:55 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

It doesn't seem all that different from the literal meaning of the word ecclesia:

"[Latin ecclesia, from Greek ekklesia, from ekkalein, to summon forth : ek-, out; see ecto- + kalein, kle-, to call; see kelə-2 in Indo-European roots.]"

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


33 posted 05-23-2010 05:05 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Just as Jihad has several layers of meaning, so does Da'wah, just as the relationship of each activity to the other has various understandings to different sects of Islam. Some see no relation, some see them as synonymous, some view them as consectuvie activities, some view them as peaceful activities, and some see da'wah as a peaceful invitation followed by violent armed struggle if the invitation is rejected, and some believe that the violent armed struggle should come first followed by proselytizing. For many the theological aspect of Islam is merged with the political, hence the many Islamic governments and countries that we see in the world.

With such varied understandings of the words and the concepts depicted by those words, even by the adherents of the religion, it can't be assumed that 'infidels' have nothing to fear concerning Islam.

quote:

This makes Islam a missionary religion. And, of course, it is a universalist religion – in the end the whole world is to become Muslim, through da‘wa or other means (namely, conquests, forced conversion, and extermination of enemies of Islam, which is all found in the Quran and the Hadith collections).

The fourth meaning of jihad, that of armed struggle (sword) against infidels and all those who oppose the Islamic principles and rule (shari‘a) – as well as against apostates or renegades – can also be taken for a form of da‘wa or even “post-da‘wa.”

As has been pointed to above, there are several hadiths that permit Muslims to engage in military assault against non-believers only after they have invited them to convert to Islam (al-Bukhari, 1981, II, 3: 207; also Muslim, 195–, II, 5: 139). This is why for a top contemporary Muslim propagandist, Ali Nadwi, jihad, the fighting, is what comes after da‘wa, the preaching, and only if the latter fails (Nadwi, 1983: 126).

On the other hand, the armed jihad is seen by some to precede da‘wa. Poston,drawing on analysis of several scholars, advances the idea that jihad of the early Muslim conquests was meant to set the stage for successful da‘wa: “The political conquests were designed to create a milieu, an environment in which the Muslim faith could be planted, tended and harvested,” since the “capture of executive, judicial, and legislative control by those with an interest in missionary activity ensures that such activity can go forward unhindered” (Poston, 1992: 14).

Another observation is that jihad and its relation to da‘wa have come to be seen through a political prism. This especially applies to non-state actors – individual Muslim activists and organizations. If in the earlier centuries it was ‘ulama who assumed the role of defining meanings of terms like jihad, this prerogative has been increasingly appropriated by Muslims with no formal education in religious sciences and for whom the driving principle is the political, in addition to theological,applicability of one or another term. This way, the same term comes to be applied to diverse socio-political activities. This is the case with “jihad.” Its conversion from a theologico-juridical concept into a purely political one (albeit with multiple shades and connotations) has been recorded and analyzed by a fare number of scholars. This,however, though less observed, has also happened to “da‘wa,” and not only because of its conceptual proximity to “jihad.”


http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/aasia/vk/racius/themulti.pdf

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


34 posted 05-23-2010 07:20 PM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

quote:
Radical muslims will see it as an incredible sign of weakness on our part to allow it.

Radical Muslims will see it as a reason to hate us and to destroy us if we don't allow it.

Final score:
We Lose... 'twas ever thus.

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


35 posted 05-23-2010 07:26 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ringo, my man! You're saying they need a reason? Surely you jest!

They have hated us and wanted to destroy us for a very long time now...or hadn't you noticed?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


36 posted 05-23-2010 09:20 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

It doesn't matter how radical "muslims" perceive it.   Their kind of mentality doesn't get to determine what other Muslims may do.   It is as simple as that.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


37 posted 05-23-2010 09:32 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Here are some excerpts from Amil Imani, an Iranian born American Citizen, regarding Islam:


quote:

Encroaching Islam with its rule of Sharia presents an imminent threat to subvert and replace the Constitution that governs our lives. Unlike Muslims who practice taqqyya --lying or dissimulation- I proudly speak the truth. Truth should never be sacrificed at the altar of any goal. I firmly believe that truthfulness is indeed the foundation of all virtues.

Islam, as a matter of belief, considers all non-Muslims, even the so-called “people of the book,” as infidels--people who are to be subjugated or cleansed from Allah’s earth. Islam, under the banner of religion of peace, is infringing blatantly on the rights of others, not only in Islamic countries, but also in much of the non-Muslim world. By their acts of dogmatic savagery, Muslims are finally awaking the non-Muslim democracies to the imminent threat of Islamofascism keen on destroying their free secular societies.

Presently, the Islamists, with their treasuries flush with petrodollars, are in a great position to realize their perennial dream of bringing the world under the rule of Muhammad’s Ummah. On the one hand Pakistan is already a nuclear power and the Islamic Republic of Iran aims to be one before very long. On the other hand, Muslim governments and wealthy Sheikhs are funding Islamic schools, centers and front organizations in the West to work from within at the unraveling of the non-Islamic democratic systems.

Some well-meaning, misguided people, advocate negotiating with the Islamist. Yet, the only form of negotiation Muslims accept is the eventual surrender of everything that free and democratic people cherish—freedom of expression, of worship, and all other personal privileges enshrined in the United States Constitution.

My mission is to raise the clarion call about the imminent and present danger of expansionistic theocratic Islam. I, my people and my native country, Iran, have been victimized by a primitive alien ideology for far too long. Having witnessed first-hand the horrors and indignity that Islamofascism visits on people it subjugates, I have taken it upon myself to do my part in defeating this ideology of oppression, hate and violence.

http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=42
quote:

Currently, America is faced with the insidious, multifaceted, and most deadly threat of Islamism. Since Islam has been around for centuries, there is a tendency to ignore or even deny the threat it poses to humanity. Various concessions are made, some of them as good faith offerings and some in the hope of placating the Islamists. Yet, concessions to threats are appeasements. And appeasements have never solved any problems. They only whet the appetite of the aggressor, give it more power, and make it even more dangerous.

And appeasement comes in many forms. When our leaders, for instance, call Islam a great religion, they are appeasing, if not lying outright. We the people elect our leaders and we hold them accountable and to be honorable. Using their voices to call a most deadly threat to everything we cherish a great religion, legitimizes Islamofascisim, on the one hand, and infuses the rest of us with a false belief.

We must go by the facts on the ground and not by rhetoric. Islam is not a great religion. It is overloaded by those who would make it a dangerous religious cult of hate and violence, intent on ruling the world under the Ummah with its barbaric Sharia laws.

Calling Islam a great religion and misrepresenting it is not simply a harmless gesture of goodwill and peacemaking. This is fueling the fire that has every intention of consuming us. Therefore, it is imperative that we choose our elected officials with great care. We must entrust the reins of our nation to the hands of a person of impeccable integrity who is unconditionally loyal to the Constitution, who does not sacrifice principles and truth at the altar of expediency, and who is not shrinking from what he must do to ensure our nation’s survival in the face of internal and external assaults.

http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=179&Itemid=2


threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


38 posted 05-27-2010 11:53 AM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/nyers_wage_jihad_vs_wtc_mosque_UgJiOBYEhrSOw4Q6hpvbQL

approved.
I guarantee this mosque will be built quicker than any of the 9-11 memorials still unbuilt on the site.

This is like planting a victory flag for Jihadists upon their victory field.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


39 posted 05-29-2010 02:18 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     So, if I understand correctly, Denise, the piece about "prior to Jihad" is, according to your research, a minority opinion on the translation?  Where did the piece you offered about "prior to Jihad" come from, then?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


40 posted 05-29-2010 02:42 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     When is the New Trade center supposed to be complete?

      It's going up at about a floor per week, last I heard, and the memorials were part of the plan.

     Is there some sort of competition going on?  If so, what would the competition be between, American anger at a group of Wahabi loonies-in-exile from Saudi Arabia versus American Freedom of Religion?  

     So, how do you proposed we show our anger against the Saudi Wahabi-loonies-in-exile?  

     Oh, I see, by expressing it against some other group of Muslims that may not have anything to do with the Wahabis, is that right?  Perhaps I've misunderstood you?  You believe this will help because of what?  Because they're all Muslims?  And a Catholic is the same as a Baptist, too, right?  They're all Christians.

     If the American anger against Wahabi-loonies-in exile wins — and that wouldn't necessarily include all Wahabis, either, would it? — then American notions of Freedom of Religion and Worship lose.  That's not what I have in mind for my country.  What do you have in mind for yours?  A little less religious freedom for your country, perhaps?  Or only a little less religious freedom for other people in your country, Hmmm?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


41 posted 05-29-2010 03:15 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The information I shared, Bob, came from those who have lived under Sharia, or their relatives have. I have no idea the percentage of Muslims who define Jihad in various ways, to say that it is a minority who view it in a literal physical violence. It is called the lesser Jihad in their writings, the spritiual verson being the greater Jihad.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


42 posted 06-01-2010 12:45 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Interesting video: Imam says one thing to us in English and then the exact opposite to those in the Muslim world in Arabic:
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=111
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


43 posted 06-01-2010 06:51 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Denise, my understanding of the spiritual Jihad is the effort to perfect one's own soul, and one's spiritual practice, including prayer charity and such.  It has to do with the battle for one's soul.  My personal knowledge of Islam is limited, however, and I do not pretend extensive knowledge of that tradition.  

     I suspect that you may be conflating two fairly different meanings of the word Jihad in the same way that Muslims sometimes conflate two different meanings of the word crusade.  When Billy Graham used to have a crusade for one or another place, he meant he's pack up his religious organization, move them to one or another city, and settle in for a few weeks of months and do an intensive series of services designed to convert the local folk to his brand of charismatic Christianity.  Graham borrowed the fervor of the tradition of sending the troops off to the Holy Land, but he didn't use any violence, simply rhetoric and faith and his personal joy and conviction in the message.

     Muslims, however, when they hear the word "Crusade," hear the military sense of the word, with violence, murder, forced conversion, rape, horror and atrocity.  It's a loaded piece of vocabulary.  For us, it's got nobility to it; not for them.

     For us, when we hear "Jihad," we have trouble hearing anything but terrorism, mass death, twin towers, blowing up Israeli busses and weddings.  That is a different sort of Jihad, as I understand it, in the Muslim tradition, though certainly an important thing.

     The important one, the greater Jihad, is the spiritual battle to perfect the soul through prayer and practice, making the Hejira, performing charity and the rest.  The sufi tradition, I think, is especially interesting and worth some exploration.  It has much in common with the contemplative branches in other world religions, Buddhist, Jewish, Taoist, and Christian certainly.

     Islam, as do all of these religions, has adherents who are more interested in the form of the religion than in its substance.  But then, with poems too, you will find people who benefit from the memorizing of only a line of two of a nursery rhyme, and if their lives are brightened by only that much, I wouldn't begrudge them the light; nor would I blame the Mulberry bush about which they murmur on occasion for the muddle they have made of their own lives or the hash they've made of other's.  Maybe if they'd had some Browning in addition, they might have done better.  Or if they'd been soothed to remember the color of Mary's little Lamb.  Or if they'd remembered the face of another Pilgrim they'd met on the way to Mecca.  Hey?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


44 posted 06-01-2010 06:58 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Not saying you're altogether wrong in what your saying Bob, but could a significant factor be that the bellicose version of crusading is virtually non-existent today, while the violent version of Jihad is anything but?  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


45 posted 06-01-2010 08:51 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I'm not conflating anything, Bob, the word has different meanings. One peaceful and personal, the other violent.

And as Stephen notes, the violent version is anything but non-existent today, unlike the Crusades of the Middle Ages, which were a response by the Christian realm in response to hundreds of years of muslim conquests and atrocities.

And whether through peaceful jihad or violent, the intent remains to make Sharia the law of the land in every land that they can.

In a religion rich in symbolism, this attempt to build the mosque where they intend, and the date chosen for the grand opening, smacks of a statement to me. And that statement, going by the statements of those most familiar with the religion and its history, is one of conquest and victory.

I also know of no other religion that condones violence as a way to gain Paradise and no other religion that condones deliberate lying and deceit to further the cause or work of God.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


46 posted 08-05-2010 04:35 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Sam Seder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPPxBrtrH1c
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


47 posted 08-05-2010 11:31 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

By Joe Conason

“No recent controversy has so plainly revealed the hollow values of the American right than the effort to prevent the construction of a community center in Lower Manhattan because it will include a mosque. Arguments in opposition range from a professed concern for the sensitivities of the Sept. 11 victims’ families to a primitive battle cry against Islam—but what they all share is an arrant disregard for our country’s founding principles.

The impulse to violate the First Amendment rights of Muslims—as Muslims!—is so blatantly wrong and so radical, in the worst sense, that it almost defies outrage. Until now, nobody in a position of responsibility has sought to deny basic religious liberty to any group whose practices did not somehow trespass the law. Despite disagreements around the borders of religious freedom, the nation shared a consensus in favor of the concept—for everyone, with no exceptions.

It is a consensus that dates back to the first days following the Revolution, when George Washington wrote to the Jewish congregation in Newport, R.I., guaranteeing the new republic’s commitment to universal tolerance. The first president explained in that historic letter why that guarantee could only be categorical and indivisible:

“All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts.”

In short, the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, to those of any faith or no faith, belongs to all the people. Liberty is not bestowed on Muslims or Hindus or Jews by Christians, and cannot be rescinded from any group by another. Certainly, it is not subject to revocation by any seedy demagogue.

But now, the former speaker of the House and a former Republican vice presidential candidate, both of whom may well run for president in the next election, are campaigning against “the 9/11 mosque.” Although the building is to be constructed on private property, both Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin seem to believe that the state should forbid construction of a mosque there.

According to Palin, this project represents a threatened “stab” in the “heart” for every American—and that’s all she said. The former Alaska governor’s remarks frequently lack any semblance of reason or logic. This time, her fumbling diction, instructing “peace-loving” Muslims to “refudiate” the mosque, provided such amusement that the ominous subtext of the message was almost ignored—but it couldn’t have been clearer.

Beneath her references to healing and understanding, Palin let every Muslim in America know that their religion, its edifices and symbols, offends their fellow Americans. She was saying that Islam doesn’t share equal status with other faiths. She was warning the Muslim community against any assertion of those rights.

Characteristically, Gingrich went further, using aggressive language and false insinuation. Without any shred of evidence, he denounced the moderate Muslims developing the community center as “hostile to our civilization.” Instead of building where they live, in New York City, he urged them to try to build a church or a synagogue “in Saudi Arabia.”

By uttering those words, the old bully proved what liberals and moderates have often noticed about the religious right—namely, the troubling resemblance between our homegrown ultras and the foreign extremists who have attacked us. Only when the Saudis permit full religious freedom to Christians and Jews, Gingrich suggested, should we do likewise to Muslims. So he recommends that we trash the Bill of Rights and mimic the practices of foreign despots.

At the very least, the mosque debate should dispel any sense that “conservatives” like these are the strict and true defenders of the Constitution they often claim to be. These politicians—along with the mob they are stirring—recklessly endanger the most sacred American traditions.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/sarah_palin_and_newt_gingrich_need_a_history_lesson_20100804

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


48 posted 08-06-2010 10:38 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

“Newsweek writer and CNN host Fareed Zakaria has returned an award he received in 2005 from the Anti-Defamation League over the Jewish group's opposition towards the Ground Zero mosque.

"Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize," Zakaria writes in next week's Newsweek. "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."
...
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.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/fareed-zakaria-returns-an_n_674099.html
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


49 posted 08-07-2010 01:23 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I think that many middle east Muslims see what we are doing there as a crusade, Stephanos, and what the western world has done there for the past couple hundred years as well.  I would call that extremely bellicose indeed.  I think that it's simply easier to be blind to how our behavior is seen by others than it is to be aware of how their behavior affects us.

     Overall, we are probably more the offenders than they.

     There is still no excuse for 9/11.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Mosque near WTC site   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors