He has a good point

[Mr.Fitnah]

Ok, good 'nuff for me.

Rauf said that Sharia was compatible with the US Constitution.
The Good Dr believes it.

I mean, I believe he knows the neighborhood around the proposed Muslim Center near Ground Zero.

I do not see where anyone may have commented about the compatability of Sharia with the US Constitution. In a historical context, Islamic countries have been able to exist for centuries without democracy, and see no reason why democracy should be something they should eagerly adopt.

On the other hand, The USA has been compatable with all sorts of religions, and I see no reason why a Muslim (church? temple? Community Center?) should be any different than Scientology.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2386865-post190.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2386987-post211.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2387269-post218.html

Islam is different as it calls for the death of all non members, sanctifies armed robbery ,rape and murder and lying as acts of piety.

 

[syrenn]

Good for them. I hope MORE things open up around that site before the mosque ever opens.

a womans rights center
a gay, lesbian, trans gender help center.
an all pork restaurant
a comic store dedicated to muslim satire
a strip club
a sex store
a jewish learning center
a christian reading room
a military recruiting office


you know stuff like that!

It really is a shame that no one really thinks about their post before writing them.

Aside from the "comic store dedicated to Muslim satire", which probably doesn't exist ANYWHERE, all of those things you listed are already within 5 blocks of the proposed site. Including a strip club on the corner, a Military recruiting office around the corner, a Christian reading room 2 blocks away, a "sex store" (assuming you mean a sex toy store) 2 blocks away, and a BBQ place around the corner as well.

Instead of attempting some sort of childish "gotcha" (the adult equivalent of licking your classmate's cake so they won't eat it), do some research.

The man who put the idea for this center together spent the first 3 days after 9/11 volunteering at Ground Zero, and then a week in the hospital for dust-related injuries.

Did you?

No I didn't, my family lives in Manhattan and i am there often, does that count? You could call me an upper west side girl.

None of what this man did changes my mine or opinion that building this center in the financial district is tasteless and insensitive. Nor does it change my mind that having MORE things anti muslim right on top of this place is any LESS insensitive to the people who would visit it. I am not saying a few blocks away, i am saying right next door and all around the place.

 

[Samson]

Rauf said that Sharia was compatible with the US Constitution.
The Good Dr believes it.

I mean, I believe he knows the neighborhood around the proposed Muslim Center near Ground Zero.

I do not see where anyone may have commented about the compatability of Sharia with the US Constitution. In a historical context, Islamic countries have been able to exist for centuries without democracy, and see no reason why democracy should be something they should eagerly adopt.

On the other hand, The USA has been compatable with all sorts of religions, and I see no reason why a Muslim (church? temple? Community Center?) should be any different than Scientology.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2386865-post190.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2386987-post211.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2387269-post218.html

Ok I got it:

Rauf has claimed that Sharia law DOES NOT CONFLICT with the Constitution - not that he wants to change the Constitution to fit Sharia law. There's a pretty big difference right there.

and Dr. Isin believes this is true

I think the point that Dr. Isin is making (or agreeing with) is Sharia Law, like US State Law, CANNOT take precedence over US Federal Law, including the Constitution. In fact, it cannot conflict with state laws.

Even Christian churches cannot do whatever the hell they want: David Koresh being a prime example.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Good for them. I hope MORE things open up around that site before the mosque ever opens.

a womans rights center
a gay, lesbian, trans gender help center.
an all pork restaurant
a comic store dedicated to muslim satire
a strip club
a sex store
a jewish learning center
a christian reading room
a military recruiting office


you know stuff like that!

It really is a shame that no one really thinks about their post before writing them.

Aside from the "comic store dedicated to Muslim satire", which probably doesn't exist ANYWHERE, all of those things you listed are already within 5 blocks of the proposed site. Including a strip club on the corner, a Military recruiting office around the corner, a Christian reading room 2 blocks away, a "sex store" (assuming you mean a sex toy store) 2 blocks away, and a BBQ place around the corner as well.

Instead of attempting some sort of childish "gotcha" (the adult equivalent of licking your classmate's cake so they won't eat it), do some research.

The man who put the idea for this center together spent the first 3 days after 9/11 volunteering at Ground Zero, and then a week in the hospital for dust-related injuries.

Did you?

No I didn't, my family lives in Manhattan and i am there often, does that count? You could call me an upper west side girl.

None of what this man did changes my mine or opinion that building this center in the financial district is tasteless and insensitive. Nor does it change my mind that having MORE things anti muslim right on top of this place is any LESS insensitive to the people who would visit it. I am not saying a few blocks away, i am saying right next door and all around the place.

You're entitled to whatever opinion of the Center that you'd like.

What I don't understand is why a.) You think that Muslims would be particularly offended by a "pork store" opening next door and b.) You think that, like on a schoolyard, that the way to deal with being offended (as you are by this Center) is to return in kind, and offend them back.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I mean, I believe he knows the neighborhood around the proposed Muslim Center near Ground Zero.

I do not see where anyone may have commented about the compatability of Sharia with the US Constitution. In a historical context, Islamic countries have been able to exist for centuries without democracy, and see no reason why democracy should be something they should eagerly adopt.

On the other hand, The USA has been compatable with all sorts of religions, and I see no reason why a Muslim (church? temple? Community Center?) should be any different than Scientology.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2386865-post190.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2386987-post211.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2387269-post218.html

Ok I got it:

Rauf has claimed that Sharia law DOES NOT CONFLICT with the Constitution - not that he wants to change the Constitution to fit Sharia law. There's a pretty big difference right there.

and Dr. Isin believes this is true

I think the point that Dr. Isin is making (or agreeing with) is Sharia Law, like US State Law, CANNOT take precedence over US Federal Law, including the Constitution. In fact, it cannot conflict with state laws.

Even Christian churches cannot do whatever the hell they want: David Koresh being a prime example.

Which bring us to the point.
Muslims civil rights will continue to be violated until all people live as muslims


How do you feel about ideologies that require all people be subjugated under their tenants?
Islam Question and Answer - Judging by that which Allaah has revealed
Islam Question and Answer - Should he turn to the human rights organizations to get his rights?
Islam Question and Answer - The kufr of one who rules according to other than what Allaah revealed

Allaah has commanded us to refer matters to His judgement and to establish Sharee‘ah, and He has forbidden us to rule with anything else, as is clear from a number of aayaat in the Qur’aan, such as the aayaat in Soorat al-Maa’idah (5) which discuss ruling according to what Allaah has revealed, and mention the following topics:

The command to rule according to what Allaah has revealed: “And so judge between them by what Allaah has revealed . . .” [aayah 49]

Warning against ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed: “. . . and follow not their vain desires . . .” [aayah 49]

Warning against compromising on any detail of Sharee‘ah, no matter how small: “. . . but beware of them lest they turn you far away from some of that which Allaah has sent down to you . . .” [aayah 49]

Forbidding seeking the ruling of jaahiliyyah, as is expressed in the rhetorical question “Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance?” [aayah 50]

The statement that nobody is better than Allaah to judge: “. . . and who is better in judgement than Allaah for a people who have firm Faith?” [aayah 50]

The statement that whoever does not judge according to what Allaah revealed is a kaafir, a zaalim (oppressor or wrongdoer) and a faasiq (sinner), as Allaah says: “. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the kaafiroon.” [aayah 44]; “. . . And whoever does not judge by that which Allaah has revealed, such are the zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers)” [aayah 45]; “. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed (then) such (people) are the faasiqoon (rebellious or disobedient).” [aayah 47].

The statement that it is obligatory for the Muslims to judge according to what Allaah has revealed, even if those who seek their judgement are not Muslim, as Allaah says: “. . . And if you judge, judge with justice between them. . .” [aayah 42]

The jihad will continue.


Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328) was a jurist of the Hanbali madhhab. He directed that "since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought."

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force."


Maliki jurist, Ibn Abi Zayd al Qayrawani (d. 996), agrees: "Jihad is a Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have either the alternative of converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war is declared against them."

Averroes (1126-1198) says this: "the Muslims are agreed that the aim of warfare against the People of the Book . . . is twofold: either conversion to Islam, or payment of poll-tax (jizya)."

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do

2:193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

 

[syrenn]

It really is a shame that no one really thinks about their post before writing them.

Aside from the "comic store dedicated to Muslim satire", which probably doesn't exist ANYWHERE, all of those things you listed are already within 5 blocks of the proposed site. Including a strip club on the corner, a Military recruiting office around the corner, a Christian reading room 2 blocks away, a "sex store" (assuming you mean a sex toy store) 2 blocks away, and a BBQ place around the corner as well.

Instead of attempting some sort of childish "gotcha" (the adult equivalent of licking your classmate's cake so they won't eat it), do some research.

The man who put the idea for this center together spent the first 3 days after 9/11 volunteering at Ground Zero, and then a week in the hospital for dust-related injuries.

Did you?

No I didn't, my family lives in Manhattan and i am there often, does that count? You could call me an upper west side girl.

None of what this man did changes my mine or opinion that building this center in the financial district is tasteless and insensitive. Nor does it change my mind that having MORE things anti muslim right on top of this place is any LESS insensitive to the people who would visit it. I am not saying a few blocks away, i am saying right next door and all around the place.

You're entitled to whatever opinion of the Center that you'd like.

What I don't understand is why a.) You think that Muslims would be particularly offended by a "pork store" opening next door and b.) You think that, like on a schoolyard, that the way to deal with being offended (as you are by this Center) is to return in kind, and offend them back.

That is about the size of it. Why should "we" be sensitive to "their" sensibilities?

I am very sure they will build their all things muslim center. If they have no problem with the idea that their muslim center is insensitive and tasteless in that location, then things that are insensitive to them should be a none issue.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No I didn't, my family lives in Manhattan and i am there often, does that count? You could call me an upper west side girl.

None of what this man did changes my mine or opinion that building this center in the financial district is tasteless and insensitive. Nor does it change my mind that having MORE things anti muslim right on top of this place is any LESS insensitive to the people who would visit it. I am not saying a few blocks away, i am saying right next door and all around the place.

You're entitled to whatever opinion of the Center that you'd like.

What I don't understand is why a.) You think that Muslims would be particularly offended by a "pork store" opening next door and b.) You think that, like on a schoolyard, that the way to deal with being offended (as you are by this Center) is to return in kind, and offend them back.

That is about the size of it. Why should "we" be sensitive to "their" sensibilities?

I am very sure they will build their all things muslim center. If they have no problem with the idea that their muslim center is insensitive and tasteless in that location, then things that are insensitive to them should be a none issue.

My point is that I'm sure it IS a non-issue to them if there's a pork store next door.

I understand that you think it would offend them.
I understand that you are offended by this Center.

What I don't understand why you think that just because they've offended you, you should offend them back.

 

[Samson]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2386865-post190.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2386987-post211.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2387269-post218.html

Ok I got it:

Rauf has claimed that Sharia law DOES NOT CONFLICT with the Constitution - not that he wants to change the Constitution to fit Sharia law. There's a pretty big difference right there.

and Dr. Isin believes this is true

I think the point that Dr. Isin is making (or agreeing with) is Sharia Law, like US State Law, CANNOT take precedence over US Federal Law, including the Constitution. In fact, it cannot conflict with state laws.

Even Christian churches cannot do whatever the hell they want: David Koresh being a prime example.

Which bring us to the point.
Muslims civil rights will continue to be violated until all people live as muslims

Anyone's civil rights can be violated, if they allow it. Muslims, like any other religion, can carry on with their own Religious Law (Cannon), EVEN IF IT CONFLICTS WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

As long as nobody complains, there's no basis for a civil rights suit.

Of course: Religious Law CANNOT Conflict with CRIMINAL LAW.

 

[syrenn]

You're entitled to whatever opinion of the Center that you'd like.

What I don't understand is why a.) You think that Muslims would be particularly offended by a "pork store" opening next door and b.) You think that, like on a schoolyard, that the way to deal with being offended (as you are by this Center) is to return in kind, and offend them back.

That is about the size of it. Why should "we" be sensitive to "their" sensibilities?

I am very sure they will build their all things muslim center. If they have no problem with the idea that their muslim center is insensitive and tasteless in that location, then things that are insensitive to them should be a none issue.

My point is that I'm sure it IS a non-issue to them if there's a pork store next door.

I understand that you think it would offend them.
I understand that you are offended by this Center.

What I don't understand why you think that just because they've offended you, you should offend them back.

Its about rights. If they have the right to offend then we should have the right to offend them back. I am tired of political correctness being used as a tool.

Rather simple.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That is about the size of it. Why should "we" be sensitive to "their" sensibilities?

I am very sure they will build their all things muslim center. If they have no problem with the idea that their muslim center is insensitive and tasteless in that location, then things that are insensitive to them should be a none issue.

My point is that I'm sure it IS a non-issue to them if there's a pork store next door.

I understand that you think it would offend them.
I understand that you are offended by this Center.

What I don't understand why you think that just because they've offended you, you should offend them back.

Its about rights. If they have the right to offend then we should have the right to offend them back. I am tired of political correctness being used as a tool.

Rather simple.

No one is saying you don't have the right to offend them.

I'm asking why you feel the need to.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Ok I got it:



and Dr. Isin believes this is true

I think the point that Dr. Isin is making (or agreeing with) is Sharia Law, like US State Law, CANNOT take precedence over US Federal Law, including the Constitution. In fact, it cannot conflict with state laws.

Even Christian churches cannot do whatever the hell they want: David Koresh being a prime example.

Which bring us to the point.
Muslims civil rights will continue to be violated until all people live as muslims

Anyone's civil rights can be violated, if they allow it. Muslims, like any other religion, can carry on with their own Religious Law (Cannon), EVEN IF IT CONFLICTS WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

As long as nobody complains, there's no basis for a civil rights suit.

Of course: Religious Law CANNOT Conflict with CRIMINAL LAW.

The Quran is of a different opinion,

 

[syrenn]

My point is that I'm sure it IS a non-issue to them if there's a pork store next door.

I understand that you think it would offend them.
I understand that you are offended by this Center.

What I don't understand why you think that just because they've offended you, you should offend them back.

Its about rights. If they have the right to offend then we should have the right to offend them back. I am tired of political correctness being used as a tool.

Rather simple.

No one is saying you don't have the right to offend them.

I'm asking why you feel the need to.

In this case it is more about principal. As i have said before ( i think in this thread) i do not care if the build their center. I feel the location is insensitive. If they do not think the location is insensitive, then anything that may offend the muslim sensibility is not insensitive in turn.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Its about rights. If they have the right to offend then we should have the right to offend them back. I am tired of political correctness being used as a tool.

Rather simple.

No one is saying you don't have the right to offend them.

I'm asking why you feel the need to.

In this case it is more about principal. As i have said before ( i think in this thread) i do not care if the build their center. I feel the location is insensitive. If they do not think the location is insensitive, then anything that may offend the muslim sensibility is not insensitive in turn.

So "But MOM! He did it first!" is a "principle" now?

 

[syrenn]

No one is saying you don't have the right to offend them.

I'm asking why you feel the need to.

In this case it is more about principal. As i have said before ( i think in this thread) i do not care if the build their center. I feel the location is insensitive. If they do not think the location is insensitive, then anything that may offend the muslim sensibility is not insensitive in turn.

So "But MOM! He did it first!" is a "principle" now?

If that is how you want to look at it fine.

Again if the muslims think their "center" is a good idea, then the gay bar people's idea is just as good.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

In this case it is more about principal. As i have said before ( i think in this thread) i do not care if the build their center. I feel the location is insensitive. If they do not think the location is insensitive, then anything that may offend the muslim sensibility is not insensitive in turn.

So "But MOM! He did it first!" is a "principle" now?

If that is how you want to look at it fine.

Again if the muslims think their "center" is a good idea, then the gay bar people's idea is just as good.

So your argument is based entirely on spite.

 

[syrenn]

So "But MOM! He did it first!" is a "principle" now?

If that is how you want to look at it fine.

Again if the muslims think their "center" is a good idea, then the gay bar people's idea is just as good.

So your argument is based entirely on spite.

Equal rights is not spite. The muslims feel their "center" is in good taste, the gay bar people think what they want is in good taste.

 

[AquaAthena]

It seems that the plan for the gay bar next to the new mosque has gotten back to the people behind it. What do they have to say about the idea?

You're free to open whatever you like. If you won't consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you're not going to build dialog

Twitter / Park 51 : .@greggutfeld You're free ...

You can't build a dialogue of you insult the people you want to dialogue with.

And a Hooters Bar on the other side.

*Heart* Greg Gutfeld of Red Eye on Fox at 3:a.m. Eastern M-F.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If that is how you want to look at it fine.

Again if the muslims think their "center" is a good idea, then the gay bar people's idea is just as good.

So your argument is based entirely on spite.

Equal rights is not spite. The muslims feel their "center" is in good taste, the gay bar people think what they want is in good taste.

Except the only people who want a gay bar there only want to spite the Center.

Once again, no one is claiming that anyone doesn't have the right to put a gay bar there.

It just seems really petty and childish.

 

[chanel]

They could call it the "Queer Mohammed".

In the spirit of the “separation of church and state,” my demand is that you commission a painting – fully funded with tax dollars – that has one intention and one intention only: To offend Muslims everywhere.

This new painting will help the NEA avoid any accusations of state sponsorship of religion by insulting some religion other than Christianity. In the past, you’ve supported the “Piss Christ” and the “Elephant Dung Mary.” Now, I’m asking you to fund the “Queer Muhammad.”

For this painting, I want the artist to put the Prophet Muhammad in a pink bathrobe. I also want him holding a little toy poodle. Finally, I would like you to feature him reading a copy of “Playgirl” magazine. If you want to get daring, you can also feature him French-kissing Salmon Rushdie. Or better yet, feature him French-kissing Jacques Chirac.

The Queer Muhammad: An experiment in tolerance

 

[rightwinger]

If that is how you want to look at it fine.

Again if the muslims think their "center" is a good idea, then the gay bar people's idea is just as good.

So your argument is based entirely on spite.

Equal rights is not spite. The muslims feel their "center" is in good taste, the gay bar people think what they want is in good taste.

Open a gay bar or strip club next to a church and watch the outcry