Muslims threaten New York restaurant for serving alcohol

Suggested police response to Muslim whiners: STFU.

Good for these people! Stand up to these scum and give them the what-for they rightly deserve!

A volunteer at the mosque returning a call from the Transom said that a law forbids serving liquor within 200 feet of a place of worship and that "not more than 200 feet is between the mosque and the bar."

Memo to muhammadins: A storefront where you bang your heads five times a day in devotion to the moon-demon Ba'al is NOT a place of worship.

This calls for reinforcements from every pubin New York. Start with McSorley's Wonderful Saloon.

This is the United States of America and we'll DRINK whatever the f**k we want.

'This is the United States of America and we'll do whatever the f**k we want.'"

Could we borrow Mr. Friedman and have him flown over here for, let's say... oh, a decade or so, please?

"...shield the mosque's worshipers from the sight of a gay wedding over the weekend..." -- from the article.

This could get interesting...in your face gay activists vs Muslim conservatives. And this on top of what was likely outright provocation by New Yorkers in what might well have been a gleeful atmosphere in hosting pig roasts next door to a mosque.

Sorry folks, in this case I'll have to come down on the side of Muslim sensibilities. Their objections to this are not unlike the objections of conservatives of all stripes to Hollywood's constantly shoving truly slimy, objectionable crap down our collective throats all the time. At root this has less to do with religion, except for those who would make it so, than it does with objections to coarse and uncivilized behavior. As long as they remain nonviolent, they have my sympathies but my guess is they won't be successful in their complaints.

Without wanting to sound as I'm being flippant, but it was only around a year ago that these kind of stories, which are becoming more and more prevailent in the US, were the stories that were happening in the UK.
Back then we Brits had to put up with "Dhimmi Brits! It'll never happen in the US!"
Well, it is. And it will get worse.
Ah, the United States Of Dhimmitude. Not got a nice ring to it has it? Hell, at least you have your guns.....

Maybe now you will realise just how quickly things can change - we had to put up with "Ha! You voted Labour in to power - Dhimmi Brits get what you deserve!".

Ahem. Obama.

Did you know an anagram of President Hussein Obama is I KEEEEL YOU INFIDELS?

Good thing no one at the mosque was watching the History Channel the other day. They would have fainted at the sight of a modern marvel: the pig.

The Spotted Pig

All visitors to New York should patronize it.

BROADWAY AND 29TH!!!!!!!!

I had heard something of this story before and just assumed it was out in some Muslim neighborhood in Queens but BROADWAY & 29TH!!!! In the bustling heart of Manhattan?? Are they stark staring MAD! Islam is so effing totally DEMENTED they are going to wake EVERYONE up just by being their arrogant a-hole selves.

While I agree with the sentiments being expressed, I think we should leave the profanity to other sites. It just gives ammunition to Robert's critics.

"a law forbids serving liquor within 200 feet of a place of worship and that "not more than 200 feet is between the mosque and the bar."

Good, then move unholy mosque. Preferably to Saudi.

"Sorry folks, in this case I'll have to come down on the side of Muslim sensibilities. Their objections to this are not unlike the objections of conservatives of all stripes to Hollywood's constantly shoving truly slimy, objectionable crap down our collective throats all the time."

Whaaaat?! You've got to be kidding! That's not an analogy!

You're comparing your opinion of "Hollywood's...crap" (whatever you mean by "crap"), which is undefined, to a specific restaurant in a specific city serving specific food/drink items that Muslims, in all their intolerant, supremacist glory, object to, in FREE AMERICA. Free America, that's the point. We don't capitulate to 7th century AD Barbarians, esp. after the mass-murder of 9/11. But, not for any reason! You want to wind up like Western Europe?

And, whaaaat? This has EVERYTHING to do with their "religion." ! New Yorkers at this restaurant - you keep having the pork roasts and champagne, right in front of the intolerant Muslim creeps at the mosque, who have threatened to throw bricks through your windows.

You don't like it, Mohammedans? Then go back to where you came from. There shouldn't be any mosques in America. Good God, we are slowly being taken over, like Western Europe. No sympathies whatsoever for Mohammedans, except for female victims of Honor Killings.

New Yorker jihadwatchers might like to arrange to send Mr Friedman a nice copy of 1. Stealth Jihad and 2. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades, with a suitable covering letter.

And perhaps send him, too, a copy of the so-called 'Pact of Omar', legendary template for, and archetype of, all the petty and draconian discriminatory laws that were elaborated for the repression and humiliation of dhimmi populations in Muslim lands. {Note that although the first-person 'voice' in the text is that of the victims, every vindictive clause in it is clearly dictated by the Muslim overlords.}

"We heard from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When 
Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the 
Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows:
'In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant 
of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of 
such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct 
(aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our 
community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you: 


'We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, 
Churches, convents, or monks' cells,
'nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such 
of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims. 


'We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers.
'We shall give 
board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
'

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor hide 
him from the Muslims. 


'We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.
'

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it.
'We shall not 
prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
'

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when 
they wish to sit. 


'We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the 
qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair.
'We shall not speak as 
they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas. 


'We shall not mount on saddles,
'nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms 
nor carry them on our persons.
'

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

'*

We shall not sell fermented drinks* {my emphasis - highlight this part when you send it to Mr Friedman - dda}.

'We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
'

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the 
zunar round our waists 
.
'We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the 
Muslims.
'We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly {note: church bells prohibited - dda}.
'We shall not 
raise our voices when following our dead.
'We shall not show lights on any of the 
roads of the Muslims or in their markets.
'We shall not bury our dead near the 
Muslims.
'

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
'

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
'

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We 
shall not strike a Muslim.") {Note well - 'we shall not strike a Muslim' - this is a broad, universal, open-ended statement, and makes NO allowance for any mitigating circumstances; a dhimmi must not hit a Muslim, period; in other words, dhimmis are not allowed to hit a Muslim EVER, even to defend themselves or another dhimmi being attacked by a Muslim - dda}.

'

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, 
and in return we receive safe-conduct. 

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, 
we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for 
contumacy and sedition. 

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose 
them in addition to those which they have undertaken.

They are: "They shall not 
buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims,"

and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with 
deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact." 


-from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.

I seem to recall that more elaborate versions of the 'rules for dhimmis' forbade the display of wine *or pork*, but at the moment I cannot find the specific reference.

If anyone else can find a source for the rule against display of wine and pork, I suggest they include it in a letter to Mr Friedman, so he knows that what is going on is that the Muslims, right there in New York City, are trying to force him to submit to the Sharia rules for those non-Muslims who live under Muslim domination.

He is on the front line against the Jihad. He needs to know that. His dander is up already; now he needs to know that there are many other people who know exactly what is going on, and will back him up and cheer him on.

The bar must stay open; and the pig roasts should become an annual event.

Islams dedicated followers of mayhem do have the option of relocating their mosque to more favorable climates...say Somalia...

This is one block from where I used to have my business.

Heartbreaking; just heartbreaking.

And VampireJack, I think most of us on this site have been (painfully) aware that Britian's troubles would eventually be our own. Especially so, since Obama's election.

I was disappointed they have put up a curtain. In the city near me, an old pub has now become a mosque - just across the road from a pork butcher.

After receiving many complaints from his new neighbours, he now makes certain to display four pig's heads at the front of the window, all four with their blind gaze across the road.

Why does he do that? Well, he's a pork butcher, why else would he have pig's heads in his shop window?

Next to the mosque is a car park, built over the remains of a pig slaughterhouse. It used to be called the Porking Yard, but a complaint from the mosque was upheld, so now its sign proclaims: "The Parking Yard, formerly known as THE PORKING YARD"

:-)

OIC Newsletter - Issue 41 (21 Oct 09):

At the 7th Doha Interfaith Dialogue Conference: OIC Secretary General warns against targeting Islamic and Christian sacred sites in Al-Quds

The Secretary General of the OIC Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu emphasized in an address delivered on October 20, 2009 at the 7th Doha Interfaith Dialogue Conference that Islamic civilization stands out compared to other civilizations by regarding Man as its linchpin and the backbone of its value system.

[snip...]

Broaching the Palestinian dossier, Ihsanoglu stated that the OIC was the first to initiate contact with the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to demand on behalf of the Islamic Group that an international fact-finding investigation be conducted into the blatant violations of human rights in Gaza, the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians, and the massive destruction of Palestinians' property and vital amenities. He called for solidarity, now that the UN Human Rights Council has endorsed the Goldstone report, in order to achieve the report's objective of holding accountable the perpetrators of these heinous acts.

The Secretary General called for proper respect for Muslim and Christian sacred sites and sanctities in the holy city of Al-Quds. He underscored that the judaization of Al-Quds constitutes a brazen encroachment upon other people's rights. He indicated that Al-Quds permanently hosted Christians and their holy sites for the past 2000 years just as Islamic holy sites have been in the city for over the past 1400 years. He cautioned that Israel currently strives to destroy both Islamic and Christian religious sites and pushes hard for the complete control and judaization of the holy city of Al-Quds.

After the Conference, Secretary General Ihsanoglu met H.H. the Emir of the State of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, on 21st October 2009 in the Emir’s office in the Amiri Diwan, Doha. Talks between the Secretary General and H.H. Sheikh Hamad revolved around the current situation and the issues related to the Muslim world as well as the OIC's preparations for the celebration of the 40th anniversary of its creation. The two sides discussed recent developments in Palestine and the Goldstone report.

So very comforting knowing that the second largest inter-governmental organization (after the Useless Nations) can get away publishing such blatant lies. And our (Western) governments believe them!

We are so cooked!

(You can read all this garbage here.)

Sorry for the above - wrong thread!

I found a source for the ban on dhimmis' displaying wine or pork.

It's in Umdat al-Salik, or Reliance of the Traveller, a compendium of sharia law.

"o11.5
Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property.

In addition, they:

(1) are penalized for committing adultery or theft, though not for drunkenness;


(2) are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

(3) are not greeted with “as-Salamu alaykum”;

(4) must keep to the side of the street;


(5) may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

(6) *are forbidden to openly display wine or pork*,

(A: to ring church bells or display crosses,)

recite the Torah or Evangel aloud,
or make public display of their funerals and feast-days;


(7) and are forbidden to build new churches." END QUOTE.

There it is, number 6: the dhimmis "are forbidden to openly display wine or pork".

The restaurant proprietors are amazingly tolerant and polite.

My gut says "Bring it, bitch!"

How much further do we have to go before we need to say such things out loud?

Not far I fear.

Will the bar move? No, and actually, a new revelation from God requires us to ask you to move your mosque, or at any rate, not audibly pronounce the call to your corrupted forms of prayer. For our God has told us that your religion is corrupted. In our religion, Malsi, in our holy book, the Nar'uq, Chapter 9, verse 29, it says, verbatim from the mouth of God:

Fight against the citizenship rights of Muslims who have been given the Qur'an and who forbid not the killing of apostates from Islam, and who follow the theocratic teachings of Muhammad, until they publicly reject the totalitarian goals of Islam and feel those goals thoroughly subdued.

The Muslims at the mosque should first march down to the Consulate, or Tourist Commission if that exists in New York, of Algeria and vandalize the place and attack the Algerians working in it. After all, what are the Algerians doing, allowing wine to be produced and exported? That's un-Islamic. The country, the government, the people who are behaving like Infidels should be punished. Start with them, and with any rich Arabs you find drinking liquor in, say, London or New York. The minute you find them, obviously you must, as a good Muslim, attack them. They are worse than Infidels. They are hypocrites.

'The Most Dangerous Infidel In The World' comes to mind:
Pork & Beer

Shield the mosque's worshipers from a gay wedding (from article). They are worried about the booze the next will be the pig they roasted be the next thing they complain about or is it that they need to tell us how it is ok hide the beatings you give to your women and hide their faces
because some old dead dude says it is okey dokey. Something he didn't bother to write down himself as he was boffing his own kin. I'll go with the American way of life myself everytime.

He said some mosque visitors "object to seeing people drink alcohol."

If they were groveling to allah properly, they wouldn't be looking across the street. It's not the "sight" of people consuming alcohol that bothers them, it's another islamic power play to intimidate their neighbors and show everybody who's boss. It is obviously a store-front mosque that has probably had hundreds of tenants over the years, transformed into an eyesore and traffic congestion nightmare by the muslims.

They love to put their prayer halls in heavily populated, high traffic areas to create traffic jams and pedestrian intimidation by hordes of hostile muslim males. If they don't like the business district, which was there long before their shoddy mosque, they should build a mega-mosque in Yemen and relocate. No liquor problems there. These people are mobsters just like the Mafia. If you don't appease us, we'll break your windows!
People must start standing up to them and challenging their threats and intimidation or we'll end up just like Europe. They go out of their way to make people hate them and then whine like petulant children when they don't get their way. Their arrogance is unbelievable.

Concerning Eastview's comments above, I am solidly in the camp of darcy, and with Wellington (though he seemed to have pulled his punches).

I don't have a clear enough memory of Eastview's many previous posts, but in a sense they don't matter. What he wrote above demonstrates such an astounding lack of comprehension of what Jihad Watch has been documenting and analyzing over the past several years, that one cannot take seriously anything else Eastview might have written. I hate to say this, but Eastview has demonstrated that he is a "weak link" -- perhaps not the weakest, but weak enough to be considered for exclusion from the anti-Islam movement.

Eastview would do well to read dumbledoresarmy's posts above and fully digest them -- then his homework would be to read the last 2 years of Jihad Watch and Dhimmit Watch posts completely. If he still feels the same way, then adios.

traeh, I think you are on to something. As when Robert says "Christians blow up _____" Ah, no, well actually Muslims blow up....

"In our religion, Malsi, in our holy book, the Nar'uq, Chapter 9, verse 29, it says, verbatim from the mouth of God:"

This could be a way to reach fence-sitters and those that know nothing, yet hold opinions or speak anyway. It might help explode their vacuous thoughts on islam. How many chapters in the Nar'uq? 114?...

Shouldn't New Yorkers be threatening restaurants for serving muslims? PS I am holding my breath for muslims to be so discusted with our culture that they just go back home.

"...a law forbids serving liquor within 200 feet of a place of worship and that 'not more than 200 feet is between the mosque and the bar'."

I would have to agree with this law, because we wouldn't want to contaminate the liquor.

Cheers!

From the article:

""He said the mosque had suggested it couldn't control the behavior of "a few bad eggs"; i.e., "we could get a brick through our window." Mr. Friedman said he made the police aware of this threat.""

In some cities here in California we do laws that DO hold the establishment responsible for it's patrons - obviously designed for bars, but it SHOULD also apply for mosques - IF people who attend cannot control themselves,and IF it's a constant problem, then the city has the right to CLOSE that establishment. Why not apply the same criteria here - IF the mosque keeps attracting the wrong element, then it should close.

The comment about no problem getting a taxi at certain times - is that a reference to taxi drivers coming to pray? If I was the bar owner, I'd be sponsoring a happy hour that ended about 10 minutes before prayers let out, eventually all those drunks wanting a ride in YOUR taxi may eventaully have those drivers going someplace else for prayers. - or do they want to get sued and have their medallion pulled for refusing a fare?

HESPERADO: "I hate to say this, but Eastview has demonstrated that he is a "weak link" -- perhaps not the weakest, but weak enough to be considered for exclusion from the anti-Islam movement."

Hesp,

I like you buddy, but you are way out of line here. It reminds me of the day you called me MC/PC because I had the gall to differentiate the Iranian regime from the protesters it was murdering in the streets.

Eastview couldn't be more wrong here, and anyone and everyone should have the right to point that out (as Wellington did so effectively). His (Eastview's) analogy was absolutely lame, equating Hollywood values with restaurant patrons eating pork and drinking beer.

Nonetheless, who died and left you boss of the anti-Jihad? Nobody should be "excluded" for expressing an opinion...hell, you're the only one I know here who is rooting for Muslims to reconstitute the Caliphate....a far more egregious view in my opinion than Eastview's above.

Lighten up, man. You have much to offer, you're bright as hell, but the heavy-handed judgment of me on that one occasion, of Robert on many occasions, and of Eastview above...just isn't constructive.

More power to Mr Friedman

Ladies and gentlemen

observe our latest Mohammedtroll, who presumably thinks that in the interests of 'peace' Mr Friedman should submit to the threats from his aggressive Muslim neighbours and shut down his bar and stop with the oh-so-offensive pig roasts. Our Mohammedtroll's comment boils down to the demand that we must submit without resistance to the demands, and the domination, of Muslims.

To which I respond: Lan Astaslem.

I believe that Mr Friedman has every right to continue serving alcohol to his patrons, and serving roast pig too, exactly as he has done to this day.

The Muslims have no right whatsoever to force him to stop doing either of those things, or to only do them 'behind closed doors', in hiding.

And if any young Mohammedan thugs, with the tacit approval or even sly encouragement of the Mosque, throw bricks through Friedman's restaurant windows as 'punishment' for the heinous 'sin' of displaying pork and wine in the view of Muslims, then I should hope that those young Mohammedan thugs would be seized by New York City police and suitably punished.

I concur, moreover, with the comment by RecycledCG, above:

who quoted the article (to wit) -

""He said the mosque had suggested it couldn't control the behavior of "a few bad eggs"; i.e., "we could get a brick through our window." Mr. Friedman said he made the police aware of this threat.""

and then observed, 'In some cities here in California we do laws that DO hold the establishment responsible for its patrons - obviously designed for bars, but it SHOULD also apply for mosques - IF people who attend cannot control themselves, and IF it's a constant problem, then the city has the right to CLOSE that establishment.

'Why not apply the same criteria here? - IF the mosque keeps attracting the wrong element, then it should close.'

Right on, RecycledCG. An excellent idea. If applied retrospectively, it would remove from the landscape quite a lot of mosques that have been repeatedly associated with criminal and/ or jihadist activity.

45ch:

The Gallup poll of "What Muslims really think", has been comprehensively torn apart by a number of commentators, eg Martin Kramer on 9 April 08:

The core argument of the book is that only 7% of Muslims are "politically radicalized," and that "about 9 in 10 Muslims are moderate." On what does this factoid rest? The authors explain (pp. 69-70):
According to the Gallup Poll, 7% of respondents think that the 9/11 attacks were "completely" justified and view the United States unfavorably.... the 7%, whom we'll call "the politically radicalized" because of their radical political orientation... are a potential source for recruitment or support for terrorist groups.
So an essential precondition for being "politically radicalized" is to believe that 9/11 was "completely" justified. The pool of support is only 7%. Don't you feel relieved? ...

Yet a year and a half ago, Esposito and Mogahed used a different definition of "radical," in interpreting respondents' answers to Gallup's 9/11 question. In November 2006, they gave this definition:
Respondents who said 9/11 was unjustified (1 or 2 on a 5-point scale, where 1 is totally unjustified and 5 is completely justified) are classified as moderates. Respondents who said 9/11 was justified (4 or 5 on the same scale) are classified as radicals.
Wait a minute.... In 2006, then, these same authors defined "radicals" not only as Muslims who thought 9/11 was "completely justified" (5 on their scale), but those who thought it was largely justified (4 on their scale).
So for their new book, they've drastically narrowed their own definition of "radical," to get to that 7% figure. And they've also spread the impression in the media that the other 93% are "moderates." [my emphasis]
http://sandbox.blog-city.com/dr_esposito_and_the_seven_percent_solution.htm

And Hillel Fradkin on 10 April 08...
So who does speak for Islam? Apparently, Esposito and Mogahed do. For the book does not actually present the poll. It provides a very small and partial account of the responses to some questions, but fails to include even one table or chart of data....
A reader without deep pockets cannot easily remedy this deficiency: the Gallup Organization charges $28,500 to access the data.
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2008/04/who_does_speak_for_islam/

So why don't you (Gallup) remedy the deficiency by making the actual figures available online. I shared the frustration of the two critics above, having read the book and found it wanting and tendentious...

This shameful poll to which Gallup shamefully put its name, only goes to support the spurious moral relativism which you have expressed above. There are indeed bad eggs in every culture and religion, but what goes on in the name of Islam, by many, many (many!) of its adherents simply dwarfs what happens in any other religions. Full stop.

45ch:

Re your hate crime stats, I have done a "discrimination index" at the blog below, based on FBI Hate Crime Stats. In short:
In 2007 69.2% of hate crimes were against Jews (1.2% of the population) and 8.7% of the crimes were against Muslims (0.6%) of the population.
Hardly the figures that would warrant the "victimhood" mentality we see in the Muslim community. Unless, of course, they were deliberately playing the "victimhoood card" as a kind of stealth Jihad, as they did in the case of the "Flying Imams", in order to blunt the effectiveness of first-responders to suspicious activity... could that be it?? Noooo... that would be too cynical and Islamophobic of me to suggest that....
http://thebattleoftours.blogspot.com/2009/09/over-at-plancks-constant-blog-fellow.html

They should coincide Happy Hours with ass sniffing services! A new drink a "stiff sniff" cocktail. Also, have a sidewalk cafe with tables where customers could sit with their dogs! Maybe the storefront would move its location to avoid the delicious smell of ribs!

"A volunteer at the mosque returning a call from the Transom said that a law forbids serving liquor within 200 feet of a place of worship and that "not more than 200 feet is between the mosque and the bar."

Regardless of this Law being null and void to this situation, I have to say I am outraged that a law like
this even exists. Nowhere in the Constitution does it
say alcohol must be 200 feet from a place of worship.

Where did this power to make this Law come from?
The Federal-Government can make NO LAW for or against
religion. Due to Jefferson's wall of separation letter
THE STATE can make NO LAW for or against religion.

Whether or not you think the supreme court read Jefferson's letter correctly is not the issue here. The issue is the supreme court have ruled THE STATE can make NO LAW for or against religion.

So where in the HELL did this law come from?

Hesperado,

There are many first rate commenters here at this site.
Eastview is one of them. You suggest that he should be considered for exclusion for having posted one unpopular comment and his history of valuable contributions is irrelevant?
My answer is no.

I could say the same about you. You write well most of the time, but occasionally get it wrong, like now.

Take my tip, try to be infallible, with good English, like what I write.

Ernie Banks; stop your whinin' about profanity. If Robert was worried about every cuss word here being a bullet his foes might use against him, he'd delete the comment.

He's deleted several of mine.

If a little profanity gets your undies in an uproar, find a different site at which to comment. Or, hey... start your own blog.

"Would you be so vocal in your condemnation of Christians who might be offended by the very same kinds of things they find equally offensive, say of the piss Christ, or gay parades where the most outrageous and offensive of things are flaunted merely for sake of offending?"

Again, that is not analogous to the situation described in this thread.

For one, the restaurant incident with the as-usual complaining Muslims has happened. It's a fact.

As for your Christian "example," that's sheer speculation and hasn't happened. It's fiction.

Next, the Muslim situation is an affront to our American culture of Freedom. You don't like alcohol and pork being served because you're Muslims? Well, this is not a Muslim country, Thank God. So, too bad - go somewhere else. In particular, after you slaughtered 3,000 of our citizens to your non-existent vicious and murderous pagan moon deity and absurd theology.

As for "neutered churches," - what do you want, an Inquisition of the guy who made the "piss Christ?" You want us to behave like the uncivilized, barbaric, 100% self-righteous, smugly moralistic, intolerant Mohammedans? Who are 100% intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others? No thanks.

And, concerning your word choice of "backbone" to describe the Muslims' - I don't agree. You know who has the backbone? The owner of the restaurant, Mr. Friedman, who said, "This is the United States of America and we'll do whatever the f**k we want.'"

Now that's backbone. Especially in these idiotic PC times when the West is submitting to Muslim barbarism. How to describe the Muslims' behavior? Arrogant, imperious, presumptuous and superior. Muslims don't assimilate, they're here to dominate, just as the co-Founder of CAIR, the arrogant and preening Omar Ahmad, who has openly proclaimed:

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

People - "The camel in the tent" is happening right before our eyes, and the frog being slowly boiled in the pot. We should not give the Supremacist Mohammedans one inch. Why don't we just start submitting to Fascists and Nazis, and accede to their demands, too? Same thing.

proxywar brings up an interesting point by questioning the legal reference:

"law forbids serving liquor within 200 feet of a place of worship "

. . . such a law would contravene the Catholic sacrament of the table commemorating the last supper of Christ - where wine is served to parishioners - well within this 200 foot restriction.

****

As for the pub, I would simply return the favor by questioning whether that 'place of worship' is following the letter of the law . . . particularly on occasions like Eid. Does the structure meet capacity limitations, adhere to all fire safety standards, does it create parking/loitering issues etc.

proxywar brings up an interesting point by questioning the legal reference:

"law forbids serving liquor within 200 feet of a place of worship "

. . . such a law would contravene the Catholic sacrament of the table commemorating the last supper of Christ - where wine is served to parishioners - well within this 200 foot restriction.

****

As for the pub, I would simply return the favor by questioning whether that 'place of worship' is following the letter of the law . . . particularly on occasions like Eid. Does the structure meet capacity limitations, adhere to all fire safety standards, does it create parking/loitering issues etc.

It just never ends with those people. "There will be peace if___________... but only an idiot believes that kind of acquiesence crap.
Case in point, is there peace among the sunnis, shiites, kurds, et al? No, hopefully they'll just eliminate themselves and save the West the trouble paying the jizya.
They don't play well with differing sects of moslems either.
So, I'm thinking if we could deport them all from the West to the Saudi Arabian peninsula, they could duke it out to the death over what exactly their disciple of the devil; mo-baby, means in their book of strife, torture, and death aka the koran.

Hey dda -

The Mohammedan troll has answered you.

The first problem, Mohammedan troll, is that there is no "dialogue" with Supremacist Mohammedans. It's their way or the highway. Sort of like the same if you're dealing with Fascists and Nazis.

The second problem, Mohammedan troll, is that your ideology does not allow for any "reconciliation" between Mohammedans and "Infidels." That's Islam 101. What, you think we don't know that?

The third problem is that Muslims are the Haters. They hate Jews, they hate Christians, they hate all "Disbelievers." Hey - take a gander at your unholy book, why don't you? Therefore, your final sentence is about as puerile as it gets - are you a middle-schooler, or something?

As dda asserted: "To which I respond: Lan Astaslem."

Brava! No submitting to the Barbarians who should be in their own countries over-breeding and merrily planning their Jihadist activities, for which they will be rewarded by "allah," who is really Mohamet.

The Mohamedbenyoussef of the South did the same thing in Knoxville a few months ago. But when you try to take the bier away from the rednecks, you are making a declaration of war.
and the Mohamedbenyoussef shut their mouths very fast.

The Romans were the ones in power at that time; ergo, by definition they could not have been terrorists.

Muhammad the treacherous, illiterate, boy-lovin', child-raping limp-writsted maggot made peace treaties so he could strengthen, re-arm and attack later, not because he was a peace-maker.

Jesus advised his followers to sell their cloaks and buy swords in Luke 22.

45ch, you're just as stupid as all the other trolls we find here. LIke Darcy said; pitiful.

Winslow:

Notice that on 9/11, Osama Bin Laden was not able to recruit any of the millions of American muslims.

Yes, western govts will allow mass muslim immigration because intelligence services like the CIA inform Presidents that muslims are peace loving people and that is why President Reagan was pro-immigration and allowed muslims into America.

Maybe they screwed up and forgot to fight. But, that same message also goes out to Christians today.

We won't forget to fight. Count on it, dirtbag. We got something for your ass.

Making peace by destroying legitimate threats to myself, those I love, and my country... a noble, legal and just undertaking for which I signed up long ago.

What a dope you are, 45ch. I bet the 45 depicts your IQ.

From our new "peace troll": "I never said anything about submitting to threats.
What I did say is dialog with the aim at reconciliation."

Like Neville Chamberlain and Hitler's peace treaty stopped World War II, right?

"Hate on both sides does not solve any problems."

But when hate, supremism and desire to conquer the world is on one side (Nazis, Muslims, etc.), and good will is on the other side (Chamberlain, Obama, Israel), dialog becomes a means of capitulation, appeasement by the side with good will. If we don't want to be subjugated by the supremist side, the only choice is to fight back, if you have the stomach for it.

From the article, one more time, for our enjoyment:

"After the recent FergusStock, a festival during which famed British chef Fergus Henderson cooked whole pigs for a rapt crowd of New York chefs and foodies, Mr. Friedman said the mosque's leaders called a meeting with the hotel. "They said, 'Can you move the bar?'" he said.
"And I laughed. And the guy said, 'Oh, you think that's funny?'
'And I said, 'Yeah, that is funny, that is really funny, because we're not going to move the bar just because you discovered we're serving booze.' Can you name one restaurant in New York that doesn't serve booze?"

Mr. Friedman and his partner, Spotted Pig chef April Bloomfield, did agree to nix plans for a dive bar in a townhouse next door,
but as for the restaurant, "I said, 'This is the United States of America and we'll do whatever the f**k we want.'"

He said the mosque had suggested it couldn't control the behavior of "a few bad eggs"; i.e., "we could get a brick through our window." Mr. Friedman said he made the police aware of this threat." END EXCERPT.

Let's hear that again. Mr Friedman, a New Yorker through-and-through, to the mafioso-style Mohammedan threateners, in words that could have come right out of Oriana Fallaci's 'The Rage and the Pride':

"This is the United States of America, and we'll do whatever the f**k we want".

Add 'Lan Astaslem' in Arabic script to that pronouncement, and you've got the T-shirt, the placard, and the bumper-sticker.

My fellow jihadwatchers...Mr Friedman should be inundated with intelligent and informative Love Mail for standing up to Mohammedan intimidation. AND with NYC jihadwatchers turning up for a regular Happy Hour and informal Council of War on his premises...is Pam Geller in NYC? Readings aloud of G K Chesterton's 'The Flying Inn' (for inspiration).

Were she still alive, I am sure that Oriana Fallaci would have been over at Mr Friedman's bar the moment she read the story, to have a drink and toast his chutzpah.

The Muslims have fired the opening shot across his bows; he has continued resolutely, and fired a shot or two back (calling the police to report an open threat). But this, I suspect, is only the beginning. He needs New York jihadwatchers to help him and encourage him; to tell him what he is getting into...and tell him that he is now presented (as cartoonist Kurt Westergaard was presented) with the chance to be a Hero. If he holds his ground and refuses to be frightened into submission, and the NYC police and his fellow non-Muslim citizens back him up, it seems to me that he is a front-row candidate for 'Anti-Dhimmi of the Year, 2009 (Citizen or Small Business Division)'.

...perhaps we have a location for a real-life Awards Ceremony?

Hey, let's think big: if he holds firm, and continues to refuse to submit... Mr Friedman for Mayor of New York City!

"Darcy, I see I'm kind of left standing alone on this. You know you've made your point poorly when people you greatly respect start yelling at you and you start getting overtures from those you would rather not associate with. But the examples I gave were not hypothetical. Visit Santa Monica Boulevard in West Hollywood or North Beach in San Francisco tomorrow night and you'll see what I mean." - Eastview

You're "standing alone" because you're siding with the always-"offended" Mohammedans who seek to curtail our American freedoms in the name of their absurd and oppressive ideology.

Since I don't live in California, why don't you enlighten me, us, on what's going to happen tomorrow night in Santa Monica and San Francisco? And how whatever happens infringes on our liberties as Americans.

"You will be blessed in your life if you take to heart what Jesus said: "blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." - 45ch, Mohammedan

Well, that lets the Slaughtering Muslims out!

The FURTHEST thing from "peacemakers" - MUSLIMS.

Any way you "people" can stop your Mass-Murdering Jihads?

Islam, a Religion for Sociopaths.

I went to the original article in the New York Observer. The attached Comments section is fairly smokin' with Islamosavvy comments. Any New York foodies whose attention has been grabbed by the initial story, will have got an education, quicksmart.

Now all we need are contact details for Mr Friedman so he can be told directly how much his continued Resistance matters, not just for himself and his customers, but for his City and his nation...and the entire non-Muslim world.

Let the Revolution begin...at the Breslin bar, New York City, United States of America.

Here's Oriana Fallaci, in 'The Rage and the Pride', giving her response to the Jihad, to that relentless Quran-fuelled Muslim drive to force other peoples, other places, to submit to Islamisation, that same obsessive drive to force others into Submission, by hook or by crook (the brick through the window) that Mr Friedman has just encountered;

"I’m telling you that we have no room for muezzins, for minarets, for false teetotalers, for their fucking Middle Ages, for their fucking chador.
"And if we had room, I wouldn’t give it to them... It would mean giving them Italy. And I won’t give them Italy."

Let's rephrase that, for Mr Friedman's use - 'It would mean giving them America. And I won't give them America'. 'It would mean giving them New York City. And I won't give them New York City'.

And from Oriana's The Force of Reason, the words of Pericles, 'The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage'.

Courage, Mr Friedman. You will need it in abundance, when the mosque across the road steps up its campaign to terrify you and your customers into Submission.

Memo to the Mohammedtrolls: sending Mr Friedman Hate Mail and threats will merely reveal to him even more fully the true character of your 'religion', which he has already begun to discern.

Will reply to Eastview, et al on that subtopic later.

Now, I have an observation about our latest participant, 45ch.

I had a sudden brainstorm. There is an interesting disparity between 45ch and the main JW commenters, aside from the obvious one that we are anti-Islam and he isn't:

We JW commenters would be able to pretend to be him and reproduce his point of view, comprised of his claims, arguments, thoughts and feelings about the general issue of Islam & Islamophobia (we could do this either as a satire, or straight). 45ch, however -- and here's the interesting part -- would not be able to reproduce our point of view faithully. If he tried, I guarantee it would come out as an overly simplistic caricature that would not be faithful to our POV.

I.e., we know him, but he doesn't know us.

"Christians" behave more like Muslims who are encouraged to take an eye for an eye and to pay evil with evil"

whatta load of crap ..hardly worth responding to. LIAR!

Eastview, Cornelius, StephenA55:

Eastview wrote

"My comment above, while perhaps poorly framed, was not a blanket expression of sympathy on behalf of Muslims per se, but rather intended to raise the general question of what consideration should be given to trampled cultural sensitivities of all kinds, regardless of whose they are."

This exculpatory explanation fails on the following account:

1) Muslims don't qualify as being part of a "general question of what consideration should be given to trampled cultural sensitivities".

They qualify as being part of a particular, unique question of a particular, unique culture that has a grotesquely evil, ghoulishly fanatical, singularly deceptive blueprint of supremacist conquest.

But why should Eastview be reminded of this? I thought he had already posted many posts that showed he was aware of all this?

As darcy intimates, this is simply unacceptable. And all those who tolerate it are being irrational.

Hesp,

Who "tolerated" it? We all lambasted him for his myopic comment. But for Christ's sake, it was over a question of cultural sensitivity, not of honor killing or mass murder.

To advocate Eastview's "exclusion" again reminds me of the "MC/PC" brush you tried to paint me with, a glaring attempt to tarnish my reputation here....and all because I expressed support for the victims of Iran's tyrannical Mullahs. I understand you had a different point of view. That's fine; we can disagree without the bomb-throwing!

Eastview's comment above wreaks of dhimmitude, but it stands in context to a body of comments from him over the months that were anything but. So now that we've given him a good lashing, let's display some good old-fashioned humanity and let him off the hook.

If Jesus did not love Peace at all cost, why did Jesus sacrifice his life without a fight ?

When the mob was trying to kill Jesus, why did He not retaliate ?

Define peace.

He could have chosen to retaliate. Without a fight? You think he died without a fight? he fought to the death. Just not with weapons. He fought with words and a message and that message provoked violence. His followers were crucified and eaten by lions remember. He hardly brought peace. Christianity brought turmoil, turmoil that only settled with acceptance of Christianity by Rome. Jesus never compromised with evil.

If we compromise with the evil that is Islam, we will not have peace. If we confront it, we may suffer. But like the message Christ left we will not be defeated. If we negotiate, accommodate and roll over we will. It will be a battle, and not a peaceful one. Personally I would approach it in a non-violent way, but like Martin Luther King, that way still leads to confrontation.

45ch - who is, to judge by its posting style and preferred catch phrases - the Mohammedtroll formerly known as 'loveverybody' [sic] - is trying a classic piece of Mohammedan jiujitsu.

I would be prepared to bet that it hates and despises Christianity and Christians, as it hates and despises all kafir.

But it can see that if naive western Christians can be persuaded that their faith requires them to respond - to murderous Muslim jihadists - with a suicidal pacifism, the task of said jihadists will be blissfully easy; they will be able to stomp all over us without encountering any resistance. If we all did what the Amish generally do, Muslims could rob, rape, sadistically torture and murder us to their hearts' content.

So, like the devil, our Mohammedtroll quotes scripture at us, scripture it does not itself believe in nor respect, for its own malevolent purposes; giving us advice it would not itself dream of following for one nanosecond.

Here is my translation of most of its postings in this thread: "Submit to Islam without a fight - your religion says you must! Don't resist! You mustn't resist!! You can't resist!!'

Dumbles said: "45ch - who is, to judge by its posting style and preferred catch phrases - the Mohammedtroll formerly known as 'loveverybody' [sic] - is trying a classic piece of Mohammedan jiujitsu."
Yes, I spotted that to, and I was going to ask. I wonder why he changed his name.

Loveverybody is the one who presenting that rediculous list of "moderite" Islamic countries which emberessingly for 45ch/loveverybody put Gambia which includes the goverment imprisoning missonaries http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/12/british-missionary-couple-in-muslim-african-country-face-months-in-jail-hell-hole-after-being-charge.html and vows to behead homosexuals. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/05/gambian-prez-vows-to-behead-every-homosexual-in-the-country.html

But this isn't all! Also on the list was Samolia (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/somalia-more-amputations-for-theft-this-time-in-mogadishu.html), Turkey Uzbekestan and Guinea (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/06/us-raps-several-arab-allies-for-human-trafficking.html)
I never did get a reply about retracting those countries from the list. I havn't gotten around to doing research on the other ten nations on his list, but perhaps I will.

"Due to US made weapons backing cruel dictators or the Israeli govt."
This is a lie. Isreal is defending herself from Arab neighbors who hate her, and have attacked numerous times unprovoked. Please look up the slideshow "What really happened in the middle east" by the Terrorism awareness project.

Also, I thought his mention of Christians "acting like Muslims" to be especially devious, if he is in a fact loveverybody.

Not only because it's characteristically false, which it is in either case, but because if he's verybody, then he's trying to present himself as an unbiased person (that is non-Muslim) when that is not the case.

45Ch:
Jesus knew the world will come to hate him and his followers, and especially in the end there will be much terrible persecution of Christians world wide (not saying it isn't terrible in some countries, but it will be moved to a world-wide scale). Jesus' message wasn't peaceful only in the way that it is reacted to, not because of anything in the message itself is violent. (Not saying you're saying that, but important to remember).

One should also remember that Jesus never taught his disciples to harm or subjugate other people as Mohammad did. He also never commanded them to not fight back against injustices. (I think the clearing of the temple was a good illustration).

Anyway, do you deny that you are everybody?
Could you please present ironclad proof of Israeli occupation and civil rights abuses?

Ladies and gentlemen

let us ignore the Mohammedan dementor.

Let us go right back to the posted article, and what is happening right now in New York City, United States of America.

A non-Muslim American citizen has a restaurant which serves 1. alcohol of various descriptions and 2. pork.

The Muslims in the mosque across the road have told this restauranteur to stop publicly serving wine and pork; and they have, in *exactly* the same manner as the mafia, issued a threat to him, that if he does not stop visibly serving pork and alcohol, he may get a brick through his windows.

The owner of the restaurant has very properly told them to go jump in the lake; and has, also very properly, reported the threat to the Police. I hope the Police take this case very seriously; ostentatious and regular police patrols in the vicinity would be a good idea.

Muslims in the USA have NO RIGHT WHATEVER to forbid the production and the public sale and consumption of pork and wine - neither of which are forbidden to Christians, who comprise the single biggest religious group in the USA.

As for other religious groups - Jews refrain from pork, but I very much doubt whether Mr Friedman would encounter the same sort of mafioso-style threats from a group of Jewish elders, were it a synagogue across the road rather than a mosque (although Jews refrain from pork, they do not feel compelled to force everyone else to do likewise; and as for wine, well, Jews are fine with alcohol and have no religious ban upon its consumption.) And I don't think that Mr Friedman would have anything to fear from a Sikh gurdwara, Hindu shrine, Buddhist shrine or Taoist temple, either, if such were his neighbours, rather than a mosque.

Personally, I think that if Mr Friedman, or any of his employees, or any of his customers, or his suppliers, is at any time, from now on, threatened or harmed in any way by a Muslim, or if there is *any* physical attack of any kind, by a Muslim, upon the restaurant, then the City and State of New York would have a good cause for *shutting down the mosque* - after first carrying out a surprise raid upon it and searching it from attic to basement, with the sort of sniffer dogs that are trained to detect cadavers, explosives and drugs.

The more Muslims talk, the more they turn people off. I'll drink to that! :)

But an Islamic center in the heart of Manhattan? What were they thinking?
Off the pigs!

Verybody/45ch:

You allergies to the truth might be your problem.

As a counter to the claim that Muslim countries are the most oppressive in the world, you listed a series of countries and the claim that they have sharia law that are secular (Which is on the face an oxymoron, how can you both have a religious-based law and be secular)? You also said that you didn't mean they are "moderate". (I did put "moderate" in the list, forgetting you said that.)

Well then, you're INTENTIONALLY setting up a false screen. If their are not moderate, and thus persecuting non-Muslims, then why should we care? Doesn't that mean they are still oppressive? Why even mention these countries as exemplary countries?

It seems you are trying (poorly) to distract us and hoping we will be wowed by the list of "secular Muslim" countries.

"Since the Jewish leadership pushed for the crucifixion of Christ, isn't it logical to assume that today's Israeli govt is capable of being just as unjust as the Jewish leadership was against the sinless Christ ?"

This argument is as racist as it is vile. Jews today should NOT be judged as the Jews who misguidedly crucified Christ, and yet you make the equivalence.

Take what you said to the logical conclusions by applying it to any people. "isn't it logical to assume that today's German govt is capable of being just as unjust as the German (Nazi) leadership was against the sinless Jews ?"

Of course, any people is capable of committing horrors (or good), but it a past generation should NEVER be tied to the present, unless there is a CLEAR ideology that is being followed by both (say, oh I don't know, the Quran).

You claim to be on the side of Christ. well, do you believe him when he claimed himself to be the "way truth and life"?

45ch/loveverybody said:"A person living in the US might be oppressed by pornography and other vices whereas a person in a Muslim country might be more family oriented and thus feel not oppressed by vices that might not exist in Muslim countries."
Hmm. Equating pornography with beheading and stoning? That's... uh, interesting.

45ch said: "I did not make a racist statement. Racist is when a person says that all Jews are evil. I did not say that."
If you agree that any country is capable of doing evil, regardless of the past, then why trot out the "Christ killers" line, a line used by misguided racists over the centuries? Saying this IMPLYS a correlation, which is just about the same as saying "Jews are evil" in all but those words. I have shown yours is a ridiculous statement, just as if I had said the same about nazis and Germans.

I noticed you AGAIN list the SAME countries, like a parrot, not even removing the ones I mentioned. Not one answer to my evidence that some countries should be stricken from the list.

I've linked to articles showing at least some of those countries DO follow sharia law's orders to subjugate non-believers and deal harshly with thieves with amputation.

45ch linked to: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_and_massacres_during_the_1948_Palestine_War"

Wikipedia article says: "[The neutrality of this article is disputed.]" (Which really sums up most of Wikipedia)

Tell me, who started the war of 1948? the Jews or the Arabs?

45ch said: "Yes, Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and the only way to show a Muslim the Truth is not through the power of the gun but by the power of the Holy Spirit because it is easy to rely on a gun but its much harder to rely on the Holy Spirit and when a muslim sees that a christian is deriving his power from God and not from a gun, that muslim is going to see that Christianity is the Truth and Islam is not."
So, you beleive Jesus is the son of God? I find this claim that you are a Christian very hard to swallow from your posts, especially when you were posting as loveverybody. You sound like a Muslim to me. A Christian wouldn't work so hard to apologize for Islam.

45ch/loveverybody said:"A person living in the US might be oppressed by pornography and other vices whereas a person in a Muslim country might be more family oriented and thus feel not oppressed by vices that might not exist in Muslim countries."
Hmm. Equating pornography with beheading and stoning? That's... uh, interesting.

45ch said: "I did not make a racist statement. Racist is when a person says that all Jews are evil. I did not say that."
If you agree that any country is capable of doing evil, regardless of the past, then why trot out the "Christ killers" line, a line used by misguided racists over the centuries? Saying this IMPLYS a correlation, which is just about the same as saying "Jews are evil" in all but those words. I have shown yours is a ridiculous statement, just as if I had said the same about nazis and Germans.

I noticed you AGAIN list the SAME countries, like a parrot, not even removing the ones I mentioned. Not one answer to my evidence that some countries should be stricken from the list.

I've linked to articles showing at least some of those countries DO follow sharia law's orders to subjugate non-believers and deal harshly with thieves with amputation.

45ch linked to: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_and_massacres_during_the_1948_Palestine_War"

Wikipedia article says: "[The neutrality of this article is disputed.]" (Which really sums up most of Wikipedia)

Tell me, who started the war of 1948? the Jews or the Arabs?

45ch said: "Yes, Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and the only way to show a Muslim the Truth is not through the power of the gun but by the power of the Holy Spirit because it is easy to rely on a gun but its much harder to rely on the Holy Spirit and when a muslim sees that a christian is deriving his power from God and not from a gun, that muslim is going to see that Christianity is the Truth and Islam is not."
So, you beleive Jesus is the son of God? I find this claim that you are a Christian very hard to swallow from your posts, especially when you were posting as loveverybody. You sound like a Muslim to me. A Christian wouldn't work so hard to apologize for Islam.

(Sorry, told me it timed out twice)

45ch said: "Your response to the list of secular muslim countries in no way suggests that muslims are a threat to our world, want to subjugate non-believers to Sharia other than your suggestion that sharia is cruel,"

This is called ignoring the evidence. I showed how these "secular" countries are subjegating non-beleivers, but instead of answering it you pretend it doesn't exist.

45ch said: "I rather live in a strict Sharia state than in a state where anything goes and the murder of babies through abortion is legal and the pornography is rampant leading many children to sexual addiction and dysfunctional family relations"

Then go ahead and move there if you're not there already. Bon Voyage! Have fun in your fascist state!
Though you denyed doing so before, you again equate pornography with "scrit shiara law", meaning you'd rather live in a state that stones infidels/apostates/adulterers and amputates theieves than be in a country with freedom, even the freedom that allows people to do things you disagree with. THIS IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF A FASCIST. You know what? I don't WANT you in the west.

45ch said: "In Iran, the Stop Stoning Forever Campaign was formed by various women’s rights activists after a man and a woman were stoned to death in Mashhad Iran in May 2006. Their main goal is to legally abolish stoning as a form of punishment for adultery in Iran."

Are they using justification from the Quran/Hadiths? If so, where? If not, how sucessfull do you think they will be?

45ch siad: "No matter which state started the war is not material because the overwhelming victims of that war were the elderly, the poor, sick, handicapped,the women, children and babies of palestine who were not even involved in the war but paid a heavy price for the sins of both the Israeli govt and the Arab govts."

Nice dodge. It does matter, Isreal has been defending themselves for the past 61 years, from wars the ARAB neighbor countries have started.

45ch: "The reason I am pro-muslim, pro-jew and pro-Christ is because:"
You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask if you're "pro-Christ". I asked if you believed in Christ's godhood. Some of your posts give the impression that you are not a muslim.

45ch said: "Your response to the list of secular muslim countries in no way suggests that muslims are a threat to our world, want to subjugate non-believers to Sharia other than your suggestion that sharia is cruel,"

This is called ignoring the evidence. I showed how these "secular" countries are subjegating non-beleivers, but instead of answering it you pretend it doesn't exist.

45ch said: "I rather live in a strict Sharia state than in a state where anything goes and the murder of babies through abortion is legal and the pornography is rampant leading many children to sexual addiction and dysfunctional family relations"

Then go ahead and move there if you're not there already. Bon Voyage! Have fun in your fascist state!
Though you denyed doing so before, you again equate pornography with "scrit shiara law", meaning you'd rather live in a state that stones infidels/apostates/adulterers and amputates theieves than be in a country with freedom, even the freedom that allows people to do things you disagree with. THIS IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF A FASCIST. You know what? I don't WANT you in the west.

45ch said: "In Iran, the Stop Stoning Forever Campaign was formed by various women’s rights activists after a man and a woman were stoned to death in Mashhad Iran in May 2006. Their main goal is to legally abolish stoning as a form of punishment for adultery in Iran."

Are they using justification from the Quran/Hadiths? If so, where? If not, how sucessfull do you think they will be?

45ch siad: "No matter which state started the war is not material because the overwhelming victims of that war were the elderly, the poor, sick, handicapped,the women, children and babies of palestine who were not even involved in the war but paid a heavy price for the sins of both the Israeli govt and the Arab govts."

Nice dodge. It does matter, Isreal has been defending themselves for the past 61 years, from wars the ARAB neighbor countries have started.

45ch: "The reason I am pro-muslim, pro-jew and pro-Christ is because:"
You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask if you're "pro-Christ". I asked if you believed in Christ's godhood. Some of your posts give the impression that you are not a muslim.

45ch said: "Your response to the list of secular muslim countries in no way suggests that muslims are a threat to our world, want to subjugate non-believers to Sharia other than your suggestion that sharia is cruel, which I agree but at the same time living under Sharia has its advantages if you are a law abiding citizen."
I showed how these countries are following sharia's laws commands to stone adulterers/apostates and amputate thieves. If you can't defeat the evidence, ignore it, ne?
And then at the end you make apologies for fascism anyway.

45ch said: "I rather live in a strict Sharia state than in a state where anything goes and the murder of babies through abortion is legal and the pornography is rampant leading many children to sexual addiction and dysfunctional family relations"

Then go! Bon Voyage! Have fun in the sharia state! You denied do so before, but again you equate pornography with stoning and beheading.
Also, "in a state where anything goes" is absolutely false, and shows you bias when you characterize this way. America is far from it. You're confusing HATRED OF FASCISM and ANARCHY.

45ch said: "In Iran, the Stop Stoning Forever Campaign was formed by various women’s rights activists after a man and a woman were stoned to death in Mashhad Iran in May 2006. Their main goal is to legally abolish stoning as a form of punishment for adultery in Iran.

RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan), oppose stoning per se as an especially "cruel" practice."

are they using Islamic justification? If so, what? Do you think this will be successful? Why or why not?

"I am on the side of Jesus and being on His side, I know I am going to be blessed in my life."
No your not. You've said you'd prefer living in a state where non-believers are treated like sh*t and where punishments include flogging, stoning and amputation.

In all, I'm getting tired of talking with you. You have numerous times shown you prefer fascism. Honestly, I don't have the time for fascists.

Ladies and gentlemen (I address any non-Muslim reader who may be revisiting this early thread, or who may google their way in, in future, and who has persevered to this point):

the poster calling itself '45ch' is a Muslim and I am almost sure its nom de plume may refer to the 45th chapter (Surah).

It is merely engaging in sand-throwing and threadjacking.

I advise you, on any thread in which a Mohammedan dementor engages in such frantic activity, to go right back up to the posted article and reread it, slowly and carefully, for it is likely to be of importance.

Have a good think about the fact that according to an authoritative sourcebook of Islamic law, the Umdat al-Salik, non-Muslims living as dhimmis (which is NOT fun) in an Islamic state, are forbidden to display wine and pork; and that the Muslim leaders in the mosque opposite Mr Friedman's restaurant in *New York City* have in effect told him - by mans of an oblique threat worthy of the Mafia - that unless he stops serving alcohol and pork in the view of the Muslims in their mosque, he will get a brick through his window. In other words - unless he conforms to behaviour that sharia law expects of a non-Muslim living as a dhimmi in an Islamic state, he will be *punished*.

QUOTE: 'He [Friedman] said the mosque had suggested it couldn't control the behavior of "a few bad eggs"; i.e., "we could get a brick through our window."' UNQUOTE

Mr Friedman was completely within his rights to inform the New York City Police Department after hearing that kind of talk. '45ch' claimed that the remarks of those Muslim 'leaders' should be written off as 'free speech'. Yeah, right. 'Nice little restaurant you got here...pity if anything should happen to it...' is a bit different from what normally classifies as 'free speech'. It's a threat intended to inspire fear, plain and simple.

And should any Muslims attack Mr Friedman's restaurant or any non-Muslim person associated with it, then the New York Police will very properly enforce the non-Muslim laws of the State of New York, which say that throwing bricks through someone's window is a crime.

'45ch', being a Mohammedan, classifies Mr Friedman's response as hate, presumably, and as an act of war. (It is instructive that 45ch keeps on talking about 'war zones' - for in classic Islamic thought, everywhere that Muslims do not yet enjoy Total Domination, all places where sharia is not fully enforced, are - 'dar al harb', 'the region of war'. New York City and the USA are a war zone, dar al harb; because they are not governed by sharia, because many of their denizens, such as Mr Friedman, do not fawn, flatter and grovel to Muslims, and because Muslims are not yet strong enough to do whatever they like to the non-Muslims).

In the Orwellian world of Islam, non-Muslims by merely existing, by doing all the un-Islamic things they do, such as eating pork and drinking wine and spirits in the sight of Muslims, constitute a monstrous offence that is a standing casus belli; and should they refuse to accept Islam, or, should they refuse to submit to Muslim theocratic despotism and pay jizya for 'protection', should they offer any objection or resistance AT ALL to the attempt to subject them to Muslim despotism, then it is *all their fault*, *they* are the 'cause' of the jihad which is waged against them.

To refuse to submit, and to talk back to Muslims without flattery or fear - as Mr Friedman has done - is to offend outrageously. I suspect that 45ch is interpreting Mr Friedman's sassy answer, and his reporting of Muslim threats to the police, as 'hate'.

Here are a few classic articles on the subject of what offends Muslims and 'provokes' , or 'causes', the Jihad.

First - '95 Other Things That Fuel Muslim Extremism' -

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/10/fitzgerald-95-things-that-fuel-muslim-extremism.html

Second - 'When Is Islam Oppressed?', a hilarious and informative article by the Bangladeshi apostate, Abul Kasem:

http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/IslamOppressed.htm

(Oh dear, those poor, poor Muslims in the Mosque feel so terribly 'oppressed', so under attack, and such victims of HATE, every time they smell the smell of roast pork drifting across the street from Mr Friedman's restaurant and see his customers happily quaffing a glass or two of spirituous liquors).

And here - and all of them are based on actual factual news stories - is 'the list of things that offend Muslims'. Pork and wine are not the half of it.

http://amboytimes.typepad.com/the_amboy_times/2007/02/the_list_of_thi.html

I'm officially inviting Mr. Spencer, Ms. Geller, Ms. Malkin and a buch of others to this bar to celebrate the victory of Mr. Geert Wilders.
How many of you want to come?
Oh, that many? - looks like we might have to take it in turns.