Protest forming against ground zero mosque

[GHook93]

Fuck this PC shit! People should be mad as hell about this crap. Especially when the backer of this terrorist post is a promoter of Sharia law, terrorism and is anti-american!

 

[Intense]

Thank you for being honest........but I'm a bit confuzzled. If you don't see it as realistic then why have you been defending the Post's claim?

It hits on legitimate issues. The best thing for all sides here is venting, thoughts and words being stated, the relevant issues being tested through address and challenge. Let the chips fall where they may. There is an impression of things being rushed and railroaded, politically, that is a bad path that will only foster bitterness and resentment, CL. If the true intent of the construct is pure, running the gauntlet will only strengthen your cause, if it is other, it will be vetted.

Okay....but I still don't understand why you've been defending their claim when it was clearly designed to ignite indignation.

As for the mosque itself.....people are overlooking the factl it's being built out of a need for the growth in American Muslims.

The claim for 9/11/11 isn't significant to me. I'd like to know more on why it was made though. There is really little information on it.

The growth issue aside, I believe it is being described as the future Capital Islamic Site in New York State, that's much more than addressing population growth.

 

[Intense]

Fuck this PC shit! People should be mad as hell about this crap. Especially when the backer of this terrorist post is a promoter of Sharia law, terrorism and is anti-american!

I share your concerns about Shiria Law which does undermine the Rule of Law of the Land, in Our case, local, state, and federal. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of The Land. Sharia Law is equal in threat to the Progressives, who refuse to recognize and seek to dilute intent. I would point to 'Memorial and Remonstrance" by James Madison.

He addressed matters of Conscience in conflict with the Law of the Land and how to exercise Free expression through Nonviolent protest, and incarceration if necessary, to give spotlight to the Principles You stand for.
Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

We are all Individual's first, that is a powerful thing to realize.

 

[Kalam]

From what I understand, this is a "cultural center" and performing arts center as well as a mosque. Requiring non Muslim women to wear burka-like clothing is discriminatory.

Erm... no, I'm afraid a dress code isn't "discriminatory." If it bothers you so much, why don't you direct your ire toward restaurants that require men to wear slacks and blazers and women to wear dresses?

So there goes that PR spin. I hope the financial backers understand that their wives will be prohibited from the opening gala.

Only in your little mind, chanel.

And the Fox special did not overlook the lap dances and hookers enjoyed by the hijackers and Hassan. It was explained by some Muslim scholar

Who?

that sexual repression can lead to debauchery. And of course the West is the devil with its temptations. They were devout Muslims who were impatient for their 72 virgins.

You're clearly qualified to make that judgment.

 

[Murf76]

Abdul Rauf is a liar...

On May 25, 2010, Abdul Rauf wrote an article for the New York Daily News insisting:

My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America’s Muslim population into the mainstream society. [emphasis added]

Oh, really?

Only two months before, on March 24, 2010, Abdul Rauf is quoted in an article in Arabic for the website Rights4All entitled “The Most Prominent Imam in New York: ‘I Do Not Believe in Religious Dialogue.’”

Yes, you read that correctly and, yes, that is an accurate translation of Abdul Rauf. And Right4All is not an obscure blog, but the website of the media department of Cairo University, the leading educational institution of the Arabic-speaking world.

In the article, the imam said the following of the “religious dialogue” and “interweaving into the mainstream society” that he so solemnly seems to advocate in the Daily News and elsewhere:

This phrase is inaccurate. 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.

Read on for more quotes.
Pajamas Media Ground Zero Imam: ‘I Don’t Believe in Religious Dialogue’


The guy IS trying to establish Sharia law here in the United States. He's a fucking liar when he says it's all about "interweaving America's Muslim population". Our American system of law is not something that can be "woven" into by a a religious doctrine. The two are incompatible and these bullshitters KNOW it. They're just hoping we'll take their deliberate attempts at undermining our legal system as an innocent misunderstanding of it. It's not. The guy tells us in his own words where his priorities are.

Throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians, it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more than just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Sharia that are required to govern. It is known that there are sets of standards that are accepted by [Muslim] scholars to organize the relationships between government and the governed. [emphasis added]

When questioned about this, Abdul Rauf continued: “Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws.” He added:

New laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of Muhammad … so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with Sharia. [emphasis in translation]

 

[CurveLight]

It hits on legitimate issues. The best thing for all sides here is venting, thoughts and words being stated, the relevant issues being tested through address and challenge. Let the chips fall where they may. There is an impression of things being rushed and railroaded, politically, that is a bad path that will only foster bitterness and resentment, CL. If the true intent of the construct is pure, running the gauntlet will only strengthen your cause, if it is other, it will be vetted.

Okay....but I still don't understand why you've been defending their claim when it was clearly designed to ignite indignation.

As for the mosque itself.....people are overlooking the factl it's being built out of a need for the growth in American Muslims.

The claim for 9/11/11 isn't significant to me. I'd like to know more on why it was made though. There is really little information on it.

The growth issue aside, I believe it is being described as the future Capital Islamic Site in New York State, that's much more than addressing population growth.

You spent quite a bit of energy trying to claim the Post was correct in their 9/11/11 date through pages of posts and searching for independent verification and suddenly....it isn't that important? Hmmmm.....

 

[CurveLight]

Abdul Rauf is a liar...

On May 25, 2010, Abdul Rauf wrote an article for the New York Daily News insisting:

My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America’s Muslim population into the mainstream society. [emphasis added]

Oh, really?

Only two months before, on March 24, 2010, Abdul Rauf is quoted in an article in Arabic for the website Rights4All entitled “The Most Prominent Imam in New York: ‘I Do Not Believe in Religious Dialogue.’”

Yes, you read that correctly and, yes, that is an accurate translation of Abdul Rauf. And Right4All is not an obscure blog, but the website of the media department of Cairo University, the leading educational institution of the Arabic-speaking world.

In the article, the imam said the following of the “religious dialogue” and “interweaving into the mainstream society” that he so solemnly seems to advocate in the Daily News and elsewhere:

This phrase is inaccurate. 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.

Read on for more quotes.
Pajamas Media Ground Zero Imam: ‘I Don’t Believe in Religious Dialogue’


The guy IS trying to establish Sharia law here in the United States. He's a fucking liar when he says it's all about "interweaving America's Muslim population". Our American system of law is not something that can be "woven" into by a a religious doctrine. The two are incompatible and these bullshitters KNOW it. They're just hoping we'll take their deliberate attempts at undermining our legal system as an innocent misunderstanding of it. It's not. The guy tells us in his own words where his priorities are.

Throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians, it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more than just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Sharia that are required to govern. It is known that there are sets of standards that are accepted by [Muslim] scholars to organize the relationships between government and the governed. [emphasis added]

When questioned about this, Abdul Rauf continued: “Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws.” He added:

New laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of Muhammad … so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with Sharia. [emphasis in translation]

When you demonstrate your lack of comprehension to justify your bigotry it accomplishes absolutely nothing. Pats on the back from fellows mean nothing.

 

[Father Time]

From what I understand, this is a "cultural center" and performing arts center as well as a mosque. Requiring non Muslim women to wear burka-like clothing is discriminatory.

Erm... no, I'm afraid a dress code isn't "discriminatory." If it bothers you so much, why don't you direct your ire toward restaurants that require men to wear slacks and blazers and women to wear dresses?

It is when it only applies to people who don't follow a certain religion.

 

[Kalam]

From what I understand, this is a "cultural center" and performing arts center as well as a mosque. Requiring non Muslim women to wear burka-like clothing is discriminatory.

Erm... no, I'm afraid a dress code isn't "discriminatory." If it bothers you so much, why don't you direct your ire toward restaurants that require men to wear slacks and blazers and women to wear dresses?

It is when it only applies to people who don't follow a certain religion.

What "only applies to people who don't follow a certain religion"? If non-Muslims want to visit a masjid, they'll be expected to dress in accordance with Islamic standards of modesty. I thought it was sort of self-evident that Islamic standards of modesty must be observed by Muslims as well.

Were you under the impression that a Muslim can attend a khutbah in his boxer shorts?

 

[Father Time]

Erm... no, I'm afraid a dress code isn't "discriminatory." If it bothers you so much, why don't you direct your ire toward restaurants that require men to wear slacks and blazers and women to wear dresses?

It is when it only applies to people who don't follow a certain religion.

What "only applies to people who don't follow a certain religion"? If non-Muslims want to visit a masjid, they'll be expected to dress in accordance with Islamic standards of modesty. I thought it was sort of self-evident that Islamic standards of modesty must be observed by Muslims as well.

Were you under the impression that a Muslim can attend a khutbah in his boxer shorts?

I was under the impression that the burkah-like clothing requirement only applied to non-Muslims. Perhaps I read it wrong.

 

[Murf76]

When you demonstrate your lack of comprehension to justify your bigotry it accomplishes absolutely nothing. Pats on the back from fellows mean nothing.

Up yours, mouth-breather. I'm not the one shitting on Ground Zero and LYING about my intentions.

Taking note of the fact that this guy's words don't match his other words doesn't make me a "bigot". Although your accusation of such, identifies you a fucking pinhead who can't put up a legitimate point.

 

[Kalam]

It is when it only applies to people who don't follow a certain religion.

What "only applies to people who don't follow a certain religion"? If non-Muslims want to visit a masjid, they'll be expected to dress in accordance with Islamic standards of modesty. I thought it was sort of self-evident that Islamic standards of modesty must be observed by Muslims as well.

Were you under the impression that a Muslim can attend a khutbah in his boxer shorts?

I was under the impression that the burkah-like clothing requirement only applied to non-Muslims. Perhaps I read it wrong.

The burqah comment was made by chanel... nothing close to a burqah needs to be worn unless a woman insists on doing so. Religion does not play a role in the standard of modesty one must follow; the disparity in standards is between males and females due to obvious physical differences. I apologize if my posts did not make that clear.

 

[CurveLight]

When you demonstrate your lack of comprehension to justify your bigotry it accomplishes absolutely nothing. Pats on the back from fellows mean nothing.

Up yours, mouth-breather. I'm not the one shitting on Ground Zero and LYING about my intentions.

Taking note of the fact that this guy's words don't match his other words doesn't make me a "bigot". Although your accusation of such, identifies you a fucking pinhead who can't put up a legitimate point.

You are accusing the guy of lying based solely on your lack of comprehension. Your other comments make clear you are a bigot towards islam. Don't be ashamed of your positions, and if you are, then maybe you should re-calibrate.

 

[Murf76]

You are accusing the guy of lying based solely on your lack of comprehension. Your other comments make clear you are a bigot towards islam. Don't be ashamed of your positions, and if you are, then maybe you should re-calibrate.

Yeah... whatever. Here he is LYING about his funding:
Proposed mosque at Ground Zero to be funded partly with foreign money according to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf - NYPOST.com

 

[Intense]

Okay....but I still don't understand why you've been defending their claim when it was clearly designed to ignite indignation.

As for the mosque itself.....people are overlooking the factl it's being built out of a need for the growth in American Muslims.

The claim for 9/11/11 isn't significant to me. I'd like to know more on why it was made though. There is really little information on it.

The growth issue aside, I believe it is being described as the future Capital Islamic Site in New York State, that's much more than addressing population growth.

You spent quite a bit of energy trying to claim the Post was correct in their 9/11/11 date through pages of posts and searching for independent verification and suddenly....it isn't that important? Hmmmm.....

What I find curious is the "Fast Track Speak" coming from the local authorities. I wonder how much grease was necessary to get them off of their Bureaucratic Asses. How much did they hit you for?

Sweeping opposition under the rug has to date been a fail. The momentum slowed. 9/11/11 has probably no chance because of the exposure and reaction. Had none of the opposition surfaced like a 50 foot title wave heading for lower Manhattan, who's to say what could have been. How about you and I both work on Our Consciences and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[CurveLight]

The claim for 9/11/11 isn't significant to me. I'd like to know more on why it was made though. There is really little information on it.

The growth issue aside, I believe it is being described as the future Capital Islamic Site in New York State, that's much more than addressing population growth.

You spent quite a bit of energy trying to claim the Post was correct in their 9/11/11 date through pages of posts and searching for independent verification and suddenly....it isn't that important? Hmmmm.....

What I find curious is the "Fast Track Speak" coming from the local authorities. I wonder how much grease was necessary to get them off of their Bureaucratic Asses. How much did they hit you for?

Sweeping opposition under the rug has to date been a fail. The momentum slowed. 9/11/11 has probably no chance because of the exposure and reaction. Had none of the opposition surfaced like a 50 foot title wave heading for lower Manhattan, who's to say what could have been. How about you and I both work on Our Consciences and let the chips fall where they may.

What in the fuck are you smoking? I've clearly demonstrated there is no evidence the 9/11/11 date came from anywhere but the Post and that the project would take 3 years once groundbreaking occurred.

Now you are trying to say the 9/11/11 date probably isn't realitic because of.....publicity?

Wtf gomer? You just got done saying it wasn't realistic because of construction processes.......

And you ignored the point of my post......you know....how you....nevermind.

 

[CurveLight]

You are accusing the guy of lying based solely on your lack of comprehension. Your other comments make clear you are a bigot towards islam. Don't be ashamed of your positions, and if you are, then maybe you should re-calibrate.

Yeah... whatever. Here he is LYING about his funding:
Proposed mosque at Ground Zero to be funded partly with foreign money according to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf - NYPOST.com

The Post falsely claimed the mosque would open on the tenth anniversary of 9E so you need to provide a click worthy link. What else ya got?

 

[Intense]

You spent quite a bit of energy trying to claim the Post was correct in their 9/11/11 date through pages of posts and searching for independent verification and suddenly....it isn't that important? Hmmmm.....

What I find curious is the "Fast Track Speak" coming from the local authorities. I wonder how much grease was necessary to get them off of their Bureaucratic Asses. How much did they hit you for?

Sweeping opposition under the rug has to date been a fail. The momentum slowed. 9/11/11 has probably no chance because of the exposure and reaction. Had none of the opposition surfaced like a 50 foot title wave heading for lower Manhattan, who's to say what could have been. How about you and I both work on Our Consciences and let the chips fall where they may.

What in the fuck are you smoking? I've clearly demonstrated there is no evidence the 9/11/11 date came from anywhere but the Post and that the project would take 3 years once groundbreaking occurred.

Now you are trying to say the 9/11/11 date probably isn't realitic because of.....publicity?

Wtf gomer? You just got done saying it wasn't realistic because of construction processes.......

And you ignored the point of my post......you know....how you....nevermind.

You got part of it. I've seen stuff go up fast, and I've seen things stall. The Burroughs right now are loaded with unfinished Buildings. My point specifically, was that under the right circumstances, it could have been possible, that's all. Under current circumstances, it is clearly about as close to impossible as it could get. Again, the date is your issue, My issue which may or may not be justified is the True Cause behind the construction. Conscience first, in all things. The end does not justify the means. Do you know where the Post got their information on the 9/11/11 date? I did ask you that before.

 

[CurveLight]

What I find curious is the "Fast Track Speak" coming from the local authorities. I wonder how much grease was necessary to get them off of their Bureaucratic Asses. How much did they hit you for?

Sweeping opposition under the rug has to date been a fail. The momentum slowed. 9/11/11 has probably no chance because of the exposure and reaction. Had none of the opposition surfaced like a 50 foot title wave heading for lower Manhattan, who's to say what could have been. How about you and I both work on Our Consciences and let the chips fall where they may.

What in the fuck are you smoking? I've clearly demonstrated there is no evidence the 9/11/11 date came from anywhere but the Post and that the project would take 3 years once groundbreaking occurred.

Now you are trying to say the 9/11/11 date probably isn't realitic because of.....publicity?

Wtf gomer? You just got done saying it wasn't realistic because of construction processes.......

And you ignored the point of my post......you know....how you....nevermind.

You got part of it. I've seen stuff go up fast, and I've seen things stall. The Burroughs right now are loaded with unfinished Buildings. My point specifically, was that under the right circumstances, it could have been possible, that's all. Under current circumstances, it is clearly about as close to impossible as it could get. Again, the date is your issue, My issue which may or may not be justified is the True Cause behind the construction. Conscience first, in all things. The end does not justify the means. Do you know where the Post got their information on the 9/11/11 date? I did ask you that before.

Since you claimed the Post gave accurate info it is your responsibility to show where they got it from. You know they fabricated it but you will claim it isn't a fabrication if it can't be shown where they got the date. (Hint: that is the evidence they fabricated)

Also, there is no way in hell that could have been a realistic date for the same fucking reasons I've repeatedly stated. This is a waste of time.

 

[Intense]

What in the fuck are you smoking? I've clearly demonstrated there is no evidence the 9/11/11 date came from anywhere but the Post and that the project would take 3 years once groundbreaking occurred.

Now you are trying to say the 9/11/11 date probably isn't realitic because of.....publicity?

Wtf gomer? You just got done saying it wasn't realistic because of construction processes.......

And you ignored the point of my post......you know....how you....nevermind.

You got part of it. I've seen stuff go up fast, and I've seen things stall. The Burroughs right now are loaded with unfinished Buildings. My point specifically, was that under the right circumstances, it could have been possible, that's all. Under current circumstances, it is clearly about as close to impossible as it could get. Again, the date is your issue, My issue which may or may not be justified is the True Cause behind the construction. Conscience first, in all things. The end does not justify the means. Do you know where the Post got their information on the 9/11/11 date? I did ask you that before.

Since you claimed the Post gave accurate info it is your responsibility to show where they got it from. You know they fabricated it but you will claim it isn't a fabrication if it can't be shown where they got the date. (Hint: that is the evidence they fabricated)

Also, there is no way in hell that could have been a realistic date for the same fucking reasons I've repeatedly stated. This is a waste of time.

It is a lesson in futility.