Obama backpedals from blessing on Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero

There freedom of religion ends both when their religion calls for Dhimmitude and when it advocates for the over through of the U.S. Constitution. This is what is meant by enemies foreign and domestic. But then Obama would rather bow and kiss gluteus maximus of Saudi Kings then defend the Constitution against Stealth Sharia law. His endorsement (and Bush's "Religion of Peace") is in direct opposition to the "shall not establish" clause. We do not have a Theocrate-in-Chief and nor do we need one. The U.S. Citizens are very capable of making these judgements on their own.

Obama's a straddler and a wuss. This latest "Obamanism" is all about political expediency and has nothing to do with truth, insight or guts.

Lying coward.

"President Barack Obama says Muslims have the right to build a mosque near ground zero in New York, but he's not saying whether he thinks it's a good idea to do so."
----------
Bullshi'ite. We heard him correctly the first time.

Google's queue of "Obama backpedals" keeps growing.
..it might be catching up to 'change we can believe in'.

One should not overlook Mayor Bloomberg, whose defense (he no doubt hears the ennobling phrase "impassioned defense" in his mind's ear) apparently played a role in Obama's decision to "speak out" at that Iftar Dinner (about which more anon, very much anon). Bloomberg thinks of himself as a regular George Washington, writing that beautiful and intelligent letter to Moses Seixas, of the Touro Synagogue, the one that includes, only very slightly altered, a passage from the Old Testament that Washington would have known by heart (as did all the educated people who founded this country), from the Book of Micah, the one that goletter to a member of the Touro Synagogue, the one that includes the echo of the Book of Micah:

"It would be inconsistent with the frankness of
my character not to avow that I am pleased with your
favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent
wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock
of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit
and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while
every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and
figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."

When George Washington alluded to "the children of the Stock of Abraham" he was referring to Jews, and there was none of that "three-abrahamic-faiths" stuff in those days, and I doubt if any of the Framers, if they thought of Islam at all, could think of it as a "religion" in the First Amendment sense. Indeed, what testimony we do have from the Framers -- from John Adams and Thomoas Jefferson -- or others, a little later, such as our most learned president, John Quincy Adams -- is unanimously ill-disposted toward the votaries of Muhammad.

And thee is one other thing to remember from that letter that Washington wrote to Moses Seixas of the Touro Synagogue (built with money raised among local Jewish families, with no billions arriving from some Jewish equivalent of Saudi Arabia).

In the same paragraph in which he discusses the right of freedom of conscience -- the very right that is not in truth given to anyone, non-Muslim or Muslim, in lands where Islam dominates and Muslims rule, George Washington also adds a carefully limiting phrase.

First he applauds the Freedom of Conscience in the young Republic:

"The Citizens of the United States of America
have a right to applaud themselves for having given to
mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a
policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of
conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no
more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the
indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed
the exercise of their inherent natural rights"

Of course he had in mind all the different sects of Christianity, and in his letter to Moses Seixas made clear that Jews, too, were included as beneficiares of an "enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation."

But note what he added at the very end of the paragraph most of which I have just quoted:

"For happily the Government of the United States, which gives
to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance
requires only that they who live under its protection
should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it
on all occasions their effectual support."

Got that, Mayor Bloomberg? The tolerant and liberal system of the American government, the one that Washington was praising and upholding, required only one thing of those who benefited from its policy of giving "to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assitance."

And what was that? The government of the United States "require," according to George Washington, "only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."

Well, I have a question for Mayor Bloomberg, who fancies himself, it appears, practically another George Washington, writing a letter to Moses Seixas of the Touro Synagogue. You haven't had much time, in your busy busy life of getting and spending, or rather of getting, and getting, and then spending rather fabulously to get something else, not money but power and, as you think it, glory, and you don't know much about political theory, and what the Founding Fathers had in mind, and I doubt if you have spent hours in a library in your own intimate and immediate encounter with histoyr, preferring, I suspect, aides to prepare potted summaries for you. And clearly you have not bothered to learn anything about Islam by reading the texts, or the scholars of Islam, or the historians of Islamic conquest. No, you've found out things by listening to Muslims in your administration, and in the case of the controversial ill-placed mosque, you've chosen to rely on your personal impressions of two past masters of sweetness-and-light taqiyya, Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy. You have not read what Rauf has written, certainly have no understanding of how Muslims will understand the sometimes aesopian language, or language impervious to the understanding of ignorant Infidels; I doubt if you know all the ways, beginning with the very title, of how the Arab-language version of Feisal Abdul Rauf's latest book on America and Da'wa differs from the English-language version.

But here is what you will simply have to accept on faith, until such time as you take the time to start learning something about Islam. And many billions of accumulated dollars will not help you learn -- you've got to do it all yourself, no one else can be paid to do it for you.

Those who believe in the Holy Law of Islam, the Shari'a, as Feisal Abdul Rauf does, and who wish it to be the secular law of this land, knowing perfectly well that in every important respect the Shari'a flatly contradicts the letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States, cannot possibly meet the criteria that, in his paean to religious liberty and tolerance, George Washington set out as the one requirement, the only requirement, but a most important one, to be asked of those who wished to enjoy the rights and privileges of being citizens of this country.

And, let me set it out one more time, that requirement was this:

"For happily the Government of the United States, which gives
to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance
requires only that they who live under its protection
should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it
on all occasions their effectual support."

Can someone who believes, as a matter of Muslim right, that there should be bigotry and persecution or, rather, what we in the advanced West would certainly have no trouble identifying as bigotry towards, and persecution of, all non-Muslims, everywhere that Islam dominates, and Muslims rule, be a "good citizen" of this country, if such people see nothing wrong with, do nothing to protest or work against, such bigotry and such persecution anywhere in the Muslim-ruled lands of Dar al-Islam?

Can someone who believes in the Shari'a, that goes against the letter and spirit of the Constitution, just as the "Cairo Declaration" on Human Rights goes against, or rather fatally vitiates, all the most important principles and rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which that "Cairo Declaration" is slyly presented as an "Islamic" version that differs only in scarcely discerinible ways from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, can someone who believes in the primacy and ideal of the Shari'a, the Anti-American Constitution, and who works, in ways little and big, to remove all obstacles to the spread and then the dominance of Islam, anti-Constitution, possibly fulfil the only requirement Washington insisted upon, which was "that they who live under its [the Constitution's, the First Amendment's] protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."

I can't claim that I "knew" George Washington, Mayor Bloomberg. But ust like many other Americans who are fascinated by, and have learned, American history, I "know" George Washington, know about his life, his deeds in peace and in war and in peace again, and I know not all, but not a little, of what he has written. And Mayor Bloomberg, you are no George Washington.

During the next few days to one week, I will prepare a document that I think can be effectively used against people like Obama and Bloomberg. I hope Mr. Spencer with his resources would be willing to correct any possible errors in it, and then to post it on the site, so it could be downloaded, printed, and posted all over the U.S., and possibly used in ads.

At that event, he said Muslims have the same right to freedom of religion as everyone else in America.

I posted this previously...but again...

Mahoundians do not have the right to religious freedom in America because such a right carries sharia with it, and as you know sharia and Islam are inseparable...Sharia with it's bundle of vicious punishments will run smack dab into US law...It is illegal to stone women, amputate limbs, preform FGM, kill apostates, honor killings, and throwing gays off tall buildings...and that's just for starts...So it is not possible for Islam to fully implement religious freedom in the USA...

All liars do that !!! They say one thing and claim they mean something else!!

He was commenting on and lecturing us that Muslims have right to build mosque on that site and now he says he means Muslims have all the rights to build a mosque as we are asking Muslims not to build any mosque anywhere. Doesn't he know that there are more than 100 mosques in New York City and more than 2000 mosques throughout USA. How were those mosque built if Americans didn't allow Muslims to build mosques in USA.

It is all Obama nonsense - he got the brownie points from Muslims in the present at the dinner and Muslims all over the world. His mission was accomplished in telling Muslims he is with them and now he is back peddling to calm the anger of Americans. He always does that as we have seen since before his election and all through his administration in passing the health care bill etc. Once he passes immigrant amnesty program and carbon cap and trade bill, we would not even know what has hit America!!!Wonderful post American President!!!

Not a good idea? Is that the best that he can do? Well of course it isn't a "good idea". Duh!

Hey, want to see what a spineless, namby pamby president looks like ...

http://annika.mu.nu/archives/spineless-poster.jpg

"That's what our country is about...and what our values are all about."
yah! important stuff matters!

Wasn't the time for Obama to say this last night?

How weak.

" ... but he's not saying whether he thinks it's a good idea to do so.. ".

Could it be that the President is thinking more about the coming Democratic bloodbath, in November, then he is for standing up for what is right ? Nah.. it's not politically prudent.

Sitting on the fence, and having it both ways, is a more effective way to garner votes, in our politically correct society. This, despite the fact that most New Yorkers oppose a mosque being built near ground zero.

At least Caesar Bloomberg took a stand- I'll give him that much. ( not that he has too much to lose, at this point ).

Politics as usual.

This president is the most pathetic representative of America I have ever seen in my whole life. This administration and the whole congress need to take heed in September. This president is out of here. What is there to say. We who are on watch know, because we have taken the time to inform ourselves of this dhimmi administration. We are coming and we will make the necessary changes. This mosque is not a done deal. All you congressman and women better inform yourselves as to what Hugh, Pamela, Robert. Wafa, and many others who know what shariah is all about. We know and we will fight to the end. It seems that no one wants to admit it but this is war. This dhimmi administration has caused our soldiers harm overseas, and now on our own land they support tyranny and deception in regards to this disgusting mosque on ground zero. This government has allowed this tyrant free government money to travel and tout this ground zero mosque to foreign enemies and cohorts and they not only pay for him but turn a blind eye to their true intentions. Thank you Hugh, Pam, Robert and all who have given time and sacrifice from your own families to inform us. We stand with you and we say to these dhimmis "Don't Tread On Me ."

I'm going to disagree just a little bit.

Under the First Amendment, Muslims have every right to believe that mortad should be executed, men may marry four women, and that the testimony of an ahl-al-kitab should be worth only half that of a Muslim. It's the same principle that allows the worshipers of the unfettered phallus to believe that two men going before a judge to get the state's sanction for sodomy is a "marriage". I recall that in Reynolds v. US, the Supreme Court agreed that a [mid-19th century]Mormon had the right to believe in polygamy; but not the right to act on it.

However, if some Muslim pleads that it is his faith and custom that led him to shoot his brother for becoming a Christian, the judge ought to reply that it is our custom to give the long drop and short tow to murderers after due process of law.

This being said, I join the chorus of those who see the 9/11 mosque as a finger jabbed into the eyes of the rest of us; and dare take a soupcon of hope that our President might just be learning on the job (but the Republicans will have to nominate a flagrant and open child molester and embezzler before I vote for Obama).

Backpedaling? I thought he was graduate of Harvard. Again , he is a joke of American. Impeachment is a good start. He and Bloomberg both.

Nice try, Dear Leader. But we heard you the first time. Your dimmnitude is showing.

Two-Faced-In-Chief.

Barack Taqiyya Obama.

One would think that you were all children by the way you idiots react. Much of Obama's constituency is liberal and in favor of the mosque. Do you really expect any president to abandon his voter-base? Do you actually think it would be wise for Obama to openly ostracize Muslims and join the ranks of us "Islamophobes"? How could he hope to accomplish anything if he has no support? It's also certainly not as though anything he does will get him votes from you Republitards.

Tell me, how many of you are still convinced that Obama's actually a Kenyan? It's a shame that the anti-Islam movement is filled with angst-ridden jackasses, more interested in political parties than initiating a reform in Islam.

I'm not Liberal at all, but thank you for proving my point. For people like you, this is all just an extension of the death panel/birth certificate/Obama's a Nazi nonsense, isn't it?

There's a headline on Politico that reads:
SPEECH ON MOSQUE WAS OBAMA'S CALL

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41077.html

"President Barack Obama’s decision to make public comments Friday that further stoked an already-brewing controversy over the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero was “purely” his own, an administration official said Saturday.
---------

NOW maybe I'm crazy, but does that sound like they're trying to deflect blame?

In other words:

"Don't blame the administration because this was purely Obama's call?"

or:

"Comments on Mosque were purely his own opinions, so don't blame the administration for them?"

Could it be:

"Don't blame the Obama administration for Obama's opinions?"

I'm sorry, but that's what it SOUNDS like to me!

John, like most kool-aid drinking Obama supporters don't get. Obama and the Democrats didn't win in 2008 just by appealing to Liberals, he appealed to independents, populists and pissed off GOPers.

Take away the later 3 groups and Obama is a one term preznit and Congress loses its Democratic super majority.

BTW he's already lost the white independent and populist vote. Sure he's still strong among the "john's" but they aren't a electoral bloc that can even get a single politician elected.

And thanks to idiot moves like this that places him on opposite sides of the American people, he is insuring the Democrats get their asses handed to them on a platter.

This is pure political gold for the GOP.

I apologize for calling you (my allies) names, though I really do get fed up with all of the political warfare here. Although we clearly disagree on this point, I'm not even remotely convinced that the Obama administration is helping to Islamicize America. Being openly friendly to Muslims seems like it would be the most sensible tactic for any leader of this country, given the current political climate. Just as the "moderates" behind the mega-mosque made a major mistake by showing their true colors, I think it would be a futile mistake for our nation to openly and unanimously declare war on Muslims. Of course, I don't know what Obama's personal views are on Islam, but I've yet to see any actions that really confirm these accusations... As I'm sure all of you are fully aware, politics is a game. I know that if I were in power, I would initially fight Islam subversively and quietly.

Anyway, on the topic of reform, I'm certainly aware of what it would need to entail--extensive revisions (and deletions) from the Koran and Haddiths, and the virtual removal of Mohammad from history.

That's a tall-order, but ANY action we take against Muslims is going to be a tall-order. I wouldn't have any moral qualms about forcing all Muslims to live in segregation from us, but that's not a realistic goal, given the nature of the beast.

I think that--for now, at least--we need to leave politics at the door and focus on educating people about Islam, dispelling all of the PC bullshit that they're fed everyday. In the long-run, I expect that the general public will accept the facts about Islam and lines in the sand will be drawn: Jihadists (and a small number of willing dhimmis, I'm sure), us, and truly decent Muslims (I'm sure at least a few of them exist :)) who are ready to reform their religion by cutting out all of its cancer.

from Google's "Obama backs down" collection.
(op-ed, April 2010) "Until he reached the White House, Barack Obama repeatedly insisted that the United States apply more pressure on Sudan so as to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur and elsewhere.
Yet, as president, Mr. Obama and his aides have caved, leaving Sudan gloating at American weakness...President Bashir told a rally “Even America is becoming an N.C.P. member. No one is against our will.”
Memo to Mr. Obama: When a man who has been charged with crimes against humanity tells the world that America is in his pocket, it’s time to review your policy"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/opinion/22kristof.html
'Obama's hand-picked special envoy to Sudan, Major General Jonathan Scott Gration (ret.USAF) was the "African expert" when Senator Obama traveled to Africa in 2006 on a five-nation, fifteen-day, fact-finding tour. Gration later endorsed Obama's presidential campaign, citing that Obama had the "judgment, wisdom, courage, experience, and leadership capability that we desperately need"
Hillary warned about the "the 3AM phone call"

I'm recanting my apology. Some of you ARE complete morons, and I'm embarrassed to be associated with you.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/14/gordon-duff-the-ground-zero-mosque-lies/

"I wouldn't have any moral qualms about forcing all Muslims to live in segregation from us"

Isn't THAT quaint?

Let it be known that Our Prophet (A.S.) told us that we, the Muslims, have been given the Earth as sustenance and as a place to pray, so, umm, we're not going anywhere! Y'all constantly decry Islamic supremacy, but Israel, whom the US worships, claim supremacy with their "chosen people" status, whine about that!!!

Thanks for the heads-up on the Islamaphobe Rally, Y'all hold a protest on the same block as the Cordoba House and don't see that as provocative? No Worries, I live in NYC, I'll be there, matter of fact, a few hundred kufi wearing, PRO Cordoba Muslims showing up would REALLY give you idiots something to whine about here the next day wouldn't it???

Allah Bless America!

John, your entreé:''One would think that you were all children by the way you idiots react''. And you wonder as to why you met with scorn? Many of us here have come up thu the school of hard knocks, just as many have through the school of dilligent study. That's what makes this forum so special, because it is a melting pot of ideas distinct from party-politics and other dogmas. Furthermore it is a kindergarten of minds, with all the scraps and disputes as well as the magic moments impliplicit. On that note moody boy, you seem to imply with your opening statement that all children are idiots. Think again.

From John...One would think that you were all children by the way you idiots react....

John disqualifies himself in the first sentence...Bye-bye- John...

It's interesting how some people go to the trouble to register just to defeat themselves in the first sentence...

Dank...Let it be known that Our Prophet (A.S.) told us that we, the Muslims, have been given the Earth as sustenance and as a place to pray, so, umm, we're not going anywhere!

Pipe dreams...'Don't bogart that joint my friend pass it over to me'...
The Prophet told me, when he appeared in a cannabis caused vision, that he was just kidding...So you better just dump Islam and get a job...

Luke 7:32 . Children in the market place

"Allah Bless America"?

Well kids, Allah has "blessed" America. That's why we have this Islam crap oozing through the door. Quetzalcoatl used to bless Mexico too, as it demanded 10,000 warriors a day on certain days to be slaughtered in human sacrifice as an offering to it.

Quetzalcoatl, Allah, a rose by any other name...

From Hugh above:

"When George Washington alluded to "the children of the Stock of Abraham" he was referring to Jews, and there was none of that "three-abrahamic-faiths" stuff in those days, and I doubt if any of the Framers, if they thought of Islam at all, could think of it as a "religion" in the First Amendment sense"

A truth that should be mentioned everytime someone speaks about Islam being a "religion".....Islam is much more than a "religion"....Is is a socio/political/governmental/judicial/executional entity whose stated goal is to be dominant over all who live on the planet...

Islam objects to other people having freedom to practice openly and freely the religion of their choice without strict Islamic governance...

"Obama's comment Saturday during a trip to Florida..."

Yessss-- I thought I felt a disturbance in the force...

Okay, it's childish. I can't think of anything that hasn't already been said. Maybe this: the controversy over the Ground Zero Mosque will never end, whether it's built or not.

It's astonishing that Muslims could make such a provocative move, then be shocked, shocked that the "infidels" are provoked.

As for the "It's a local matter" crap--the tragedy of 9/11 wasn't a local matter. No more so is the Monster Mosque.

I take this to be the mission statement of JW- from this site's "Why Jihad Watch" link:
Jihad Watch is dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts. We hope to alert people of good will to the true nature of the present global conflict.
-----------------------------------------------
I tend to agree with John's above observation that "Someone who is against Islam and posting on JihadWatch, yet happens to strongly disagree with your political views and conspiracy theories, is clearly a troll."

But human nature and intellect being what they are London Jim's and Sanjay's observations are apt, to wit:

That's what makes this forum so special, because it is a melting pot of ideas distinct from party-politics and other dogmas. Furthermore it is a kindergarten of minds, with all the scraps and disputes as well as the magic moments impliplicit. (London Jim)

Some Islamo-realists are, for want of a better word, ultra aggressive in interactions with others and end up hurting the cause of struggle against jihad, rather than help.
Part of the effort that we all try to make, I suppose.
(Sanjay)
-------------------
I have always expressed the belief that JW undermines its primary goal, set forth above, when it dilutes its message with extensive commentary and position-taking on general political subjects, especially domestic politics. JW's public political allies tend to come from the "right" of the political spectrum. It consistently allies with the likes of Newt, Palin, Bolton, Limbaugh, Savage, Fox News, etc while concommitantly deriding "leftists." I see this as a strategic error. While such labels as right and left are sometimes convoluted (how can someone opposed to an intolerant totalitarian belief system be labelled "rightwing" - shouldn't the reverse be true?) the result of JW's perceived rightwingednesse defeats its goals. At the very least, it alienates a large group of persons who will never be converted to the political right, but who would enthusiastically support the above referenced goal of JW - a result we all should welcome.

With respect to Obama's take on theology I came across the following letter to an editor and share it with you because I think it convincingly makes an excellent insight.

An Awful President, A Worse Theologian
Obama's lecture on religion was a classic of brain-dead multiculturalism. Early in his remarks, he said:
"Here at the White House, we have a tradition of hosting iftars that goes back several years, just as we host Christmas parties, seders, and Diwali celebrations."
I confess, I had to look it up--Diwali is a Hindu festival. But who cares? Under multicultural dogma, these events are all the same. This was the climax of Obama's lecture:
"For in the end, we remain "one nation, under God, indivisible." And we can only achieve "liberty and justice for all" if we live by that one rule at the heart of every religion, including Islam-that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us."
This is revealing: the ultimate destination of multiculturalism is platitudinous stupidity. All religions, Obama tells us, are really the same, and can be summed up in the Golden Rule. Actually, there is no religion that can be reduced to the Golden Rule, least of all Islam. Islam does not enjoin believers to do unto infidels as you would have infidels do unto you. On the contrary! Islam tells its followers to subdue infidels; to kill them; to, at best, reduce them to dhimmitude. The Golden Rule is antithetical to Islam. Here is a thought experiment: compare HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:52:176] with the parable of the good Samaritan.
Multiculturalism, in short, reduces its adherents (like President Obama) to a low intellectual plane. If you really think that all religions are the same, and they all exemplify the Golden Rule, then you won't understand the point of Cordoba House.

Thank God for you,Robert,Ive forwarded this site to every one that I know,10 years ago,I thought that islams allah was just a different name for the same God that I serve & worship,but as I studied & investigated islam,I quickly learned that this is a religion straight from Hell & satan himself,Your islam 101 should be required reading for every one in the USA that can read,as Unveiling Islam,More than A Prophet,& Voices behind The Veil by Emir Fethi Caner,& Ergun Mehmet Caner by two Christian professor brothers that were raised muslim,should be,As for our muslim, community organizer president,what else do You expect????walks like a Duck,Quacks like a Duck, what is it ???

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there"

Au contraire, Frere Barak Hussein.

SILENCE IS CONSENT.

This is Obama saying one thing to the "Muslim world," and quite another to his voting base. Taqqiya.

On the assertion by the Muslim promoters of the Ground Zero mosque and their dhimmi supporters in America that this is about freedom of religion I would ask for specific answers to two questions:

1) How many mosques are currently present and operational on American soil?

2) How many structures dedicated to worship by religious sects other than Islam are currently present and active on predominantly Muslim soil; Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Kuwait, Afghanistan, etc.?

Go here for an estimate of the number of mosques currently operational in America;
http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/08/muslims-push-new-mosque-projects-nationwide/

Go here and draw your own conclusions about the answer to question 2;
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=6222

To assert that America does not live up to its reputation for freedom of worship is to demonstrate a disturbing and dangerous level of ignorance that is being exploited by the majority of the Islamic support groups firmly established in America and throughout the West; CAIR, ISNA, IIIT, MSA, MAS, the OIC, etc. Ignorance among ordinary, working class citizens, though not to be condoned, is understandable given the deftness of the propaganda that we are deluged with on a daily basis but ignorance on the part of American leadership, at the highest levels, is an abomination in that it puts our country at serious risk.

The whining, complaining, victimization and outrage expressed by these Islamic groups with regard to Americas "hypocrisy" regarding religious freedom should cause everyone to pause and reflect on what is the real motivation behind this mosque given that there are over 1200 already built and in operation in America while there are zero churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia.

Who are the hypocrites? The answer is obvious unless you yourself are among the intellectual elites who mock those of us ordinary folk who plainly see this for what it is while you are covertly mocked by the Islamists as the useful idiots you are.

This is not about religious freedom. This is another nail in the coffin that Islamists are constructing for the body of the America that we love and that they intend to kill, literally and figuratively. It is a statement of conquest, that will be seen throughout the predominantly Muslim world as a symbol commemorating the beginning of the end for the country they regard as the great Satan; the one we still call home.

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," Obama said.

I WILL NOT COMMENT

That's the crux of it. His words are air. They say nothing. His position "on the wisdom of making the decision", forever buried.

Nah-Nah-Nah-Nah-Nah You can't make me!

POS

Re. Islam and the Golden Rule.

Two articles, posted here at jihadwatch, by psychologist and apostate from Islam, Ali Sina.

First:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/05/sina-the-golden-rule-and-islam.html

'Sina: The Golden Rule and Islam'.

Quote:
"The closest that Islam comes to this principle is a hadith that says:

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." [Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."]

'The same hadith is reported by Bukhari 1.2.12

'"The Prophet said, "None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself."

'**This brotherhood however does not extend to everyone.** {my emphasis - dda}.

' Quran (9:23) states that the believers should not take for friends and protectors (awlia) their fathers and brothers if they love Infidelity above Islam.

'In fact there are many verses that tell the Muslims to kill the unbelievers and be harsh with them.

'A clear example that Islam is not based on the Golden Rule is the verse (48:29) It says: "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.”

'This is the perfect definition of fascism.

'There are many other verses that show the brotherhood in Islam is not universal.

'The rest of mankind have no rights and should not be treated in the same way that Muslims are to be treated. The entire Quran is the breach of the Golden Rule.

'Quran tells Muslims to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), do not befriend them (3:28), fight them and show them harshness (9:123), and smite their heads (47:4).

'According to Muslims it is not the Golden Rule that defines the good and bad but it is Muhammad who does it. They believe what is good for Islam is the highest virtue and what is bad for Islam is the ultimate sin. This is the ethos of all cults."...

And a second discussion of the same subject:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/05/islam-and-the-golden-rule.html

In that article, Mr Spencer begins by quoting from a letter he was sent in 'refutation' of the 2005 article -

"Islamic Text on the Golden Rule:

The Quran: “Serve God, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess [the slave]: For God loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious” (Q:4:36)
(In fact the Quran goes beyond saying the Golden Rule by stating in more than four places that "Return evil with Kindness." (13:22, 23:96, 41:34, 28:54, 42:40))

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh):
“None of you have faith until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself” (Sahih
Muslim)

“Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and to enter Paradise…should treat the people as he wishes to be treated.” (Sahih Muslim)

"None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself"(Forty Hadith-Nawawi)

“None of you is a believer if he eats his full while his neighbour hasn’t anything.” (Musnad)

“Do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourselves.” (Abu Dawud)

“Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.” (Farewell Sermon)

“There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm.” (Ibn- Majah)".

He ran these texts past Ali Sina, and this was Ali Sina's response:

"The problem with the good teachings of Muhammad is that they are reserved for fellow Muslims.

"When the hadith says “None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself,.” it is talking about the fellow Muslims. The brotherhood in Islam does not extend to everyone."

...
"Verse 13:22 tells the believers to be patient and generous with their money. This is what all cults demand from their followers. The more sacrifice the cultist makes the more he or she can be manipulated.

"Verse 23:96 asks Muslims to repel evil, whereas the definition of evil for Muhammad was contradicting him.

"Verse 41:34 is a Meccan verse where Muhammad and his followers were the underdogs and here he preached patience and said repel evil with good so your enemy becomes as friend. Could he have done anything else?

"These orders changed when Muhammad came to power. In Medina Muhammad banished and massacred entire populations just because he suspected that they may not be friendly to him.

"28:54 is a repetition of 23:96 and 42:40 says whoever forgives and amends, he shall have his reward from Allah.

"However, Muhammad never forgave those who mocked him. {And we all know that whatever Muhammad did, said or approved, is *the* standard of behaviour for all Muslims for all time - the 'excellent pattern of conduct'; and that there are in fact verses in the Qur'an that *prescribe and encourage* vengefulness, retaliation - dda}.

"As for Muhammad’s unforgiving nature it is enough to recall the fate of Oqba the man who when Muhammad was in Mecca used to mock him and when he was captured in the Battle of Badr, Muhammad ordered his decapitation. He ventured to expostulate, and demand why he should be treated more vigorously than the other captives who were kept for ransom. ‘Because of your enmity to God and to his Prophet,’ replied Muhammad. ‘And my little girl!’ cried Oqba, in the bitterness of his soul, ‘Who will take care of her?’ – ‘Hellfire!’ exclaimed the heartless conqueror; and on the instant his victim was hewn to the ground. ‘Wretch that he was!’ continued Muhammad, ‘and persecutor! Unbeliever in God, in his Prophet, and in his Book! I give thanks unto the Lord that has slain you, and comforted mine eyes thereby.’

"How do you reconcile the claim that Muhammad in his farewell sermon said, “Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.” - With the fact that in his deathbed he said, “No two religions are allowed in Arabia” and ordered the forced conversion, expulsion or ethnic cleansing of the Jews and Christian and the murder of Pagans?

"The sura 9, which is the last words of Muhammad, is a manifesto of discrimination and human rights abuses. This sura alone is proof that Islam is against the Golden Rule".

"It's too bad the first black president has to be such a failure."
You betcha. In fact he is worse than a failure, he is an immoral corrupt whore of the worse kind who cares only about keeping wifey and his family happy. Too bad wifey hates Americans, especially white Americans, even more than he does.
There are so many fine potential presidential candidates out there who will hopefully take this next election by storm. My hope is that the winner will be a common-sense man or woman who will see past their own selfishness and party loyalty enough to care for and about Americans.Let's consider Giuliani, for instance, should he run for president again. He has a tried-and-true track record of caring for New Yorkers after the 9/11 atrocity. He also refused to take blood-money from that rat bastard islame representative who offered a huge amount as a form of "condolence". Also, by "American" candidates I don't mean people who were merely deposited here, literally or figuratively, purely because it was economically or politically efficacious to do so, but people who are proud to be living in a Constitutional Republic. The break-down of our Constitution is in direct proportion to the amount of "tolerance" we have while being schtupped up the arse. When we stop bending over and inviting it, maybe the exploitation will stop. That mozoids get away with murder is indicative of the larger problem of our elected officials strategically benefiting from screwing-over their constituents. What rank-and-file mozoids aren't aware of is that they too are being used as a pawn in the greater scheme of things being implemented by the handful of people who seek global authority. I do not feel badly for these barbarians, but see that they also will fall prey to power-hungry despots who use people to their own advantage. While Prez Bamster speaks in their favor, he is also simultaneously keeping his pockets lined with the network of people who will advance his parasitic career, regardless of to whom or what these mob bosses' allegiances fall.

For the benefit of those new to the subject of Muslim supremacism and rejection of the principle of reciprocity, a few other jihadwatch threads from the archives, that are well worth exploring, and reflecting upon.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/fitzgerald-ali-gomaa-and-that-strange-thing-the-golden-rule.html

'Fitzgerald: Ali Gomaa and that strange thing, the Golden Rule'

- bear in mind that Ali Gomaa is a high-ranking Muslim cleric at Al-Azhar Islamic University, Cairo - dda.

From November 2007:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/11/the-kaffir-kuffur-are-the-enemies-of-islam-they-are-less-than-human-unless-they-revert-to-the-one-tr.html

Hugh Fitzgerald, who had been eavesdropping at a Muslim website, shared with us an utterly typical discussion that he had overheard there:

'The Islam concept of "Walaa wal Baraa" -- Hatred and Love -- must be clearly grasped.

'The Hatred is for the Infidels, for the Unbelievers, all those who reject Islam, and the Love is for the Fellow Believers only, the members of the Umma, to whom, and to Islam, sole loyalty must be owed by the good Muslim.

'Many Muslim websites discuss this, and it goes hard with the occasional Muslim who suggests, for example, that sometimes the Kuffar (the Unbelievers) are not always to be regarded with such hatred, or fooled with outward smiles, and inward contempt.

'Here's one bit taken recently from such an English-language site for Muslims:

" - Walaa wal Baraa
- October 26th, 2007 at 4:22 pm: Aaisyah was right! Even if we don’t know all of Allah’s will, we know what He has told us. What do you think walaa wal baraa is? Something made up? A mistake of Ibrahim (alayhi salam)?

Bunch of coffee shop Muslims you all are. And yes, maybe Indonesia was hit because of the hijabs not being worn, among other sins. An Indonesian himself told me that’s why it was hit. Gulf Coast African told us that New Orleans was hit because of its corruption, so was Mississippi. Turks themselves Turkey was hit because they were so sinful. This is a pattern, so why are you all closing your eyes to it?

'The Islam of many of you is a joke, even if Allah decides mine was a joke on Judgment Day, that’s why I didn’t greet you all with “salam alaykum”.

'You’re not careful to avoid negating your shahada, and if you negate a condition of it, you negate it.

**One of those conditions is walaa wal baraa.** {my emphasis - da}

'And that means you don’t feel sorry for the kuffar when Allah punishes them.

'Even if you feel like giving them charity, you don’t feel sorry for them, and you really shouldn’t give them charity and help from a position of weakness, it only reinforces them against Islam.

'They’ll only conclude that you’re doing PR work because you want to undo the damage of 9/11.

'Now, when you seize power and authority in the land and Islam has the upper hand, mercy goes a long way to impress them into Islam.

'Otherwise, this weak Islam you (Umar Lee, Tariq Nelson, and Abu Sinan, and your fans) promote only makes the kuffar happy with their kufr and not impressed with Islam as the true revelation from Allah. I see a lot of potential for good in you and I see you misusing it to make the wrong powers happy. Sorry, guys, Sameer Khan was right and you all were wrong. Look up the evidences and you’ll see.

'If you want to impress kuffar with kindness, get the upper hand for the Shariah first.
 {!!!! - dda}.

'Walaa wal Baraa
- October 26th, 2007 at 4:31 pm:

'Here’s how he supporteed what he said below.

"Now, how do you all support your positions of loving the kuffar while hating the most serious of Muslims?
……


1. Hanifan - October 25, 2007
 - I think it’s permissible to be happy at the punishment that befalls the disbelievers.
 Allah says:
“But when he saw their hands went not towards the (meal), he felt some mistrust of them, and conceived a fear of them. They [Angels] said: “Fear not: We have been sent against the people of Lut.”. And his wife [Sara, wife of Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh)] was standing (there), and she laughed: But we gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob.” [Hud:70-71]
 Scholars say, Sara laughed when she heard of the punishment that was about to befall the people of Lut. She was happy. {note: in the BIBLE, she laughs because she doesn’t believe she could have a baby – NOT about the punishment of Sodom - dda}. However at the same token, prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) was pleading for the people of Lut: 
“When fear had passed from (the mind of) Abraham and the glad tidings had reached him, he began to plead with us for Lut’s people. For Abraham was, without doubt, forbearing (of faults), compassionate, and given to look to Allah. ” Hud:74-75.
It seems both options are permissible.

2. inshallahshaheed - October 26, 2007
- To Hanifan -
Yes that is correct, however the Shaykh, Abu ‘Aasim Muhammad al-Maqdisi argues in his brilliant treatise “Millat Ibraaheem” that this pleading for the nation (Qawm) of Loot (’alayhis salaam) by Ibraaheem (’alayhis salaam) was originally for the nation (Qawm) of Loot, but when the Angels said,
“Verily, we are going to destroy the people of this [Loot’s]
town…” (29:31)
Ibraaheem (’alayhis salaam) then changed his pleading to the believers amongst Loot’s nation, especially for Loot himself, and this change of pleading was when Ibraaheem said (as was recorded by Allah),
He (Ibraaheem) said: “But there is Loot in it.” They said: “We know better who is there, we will verily save him [Loot] and his family…” (29:32)

'
And the Shaykh uses the tafaseer of Ibn Katheer (2/594), and at-Tabari’s narration from Sa’eed ibn Jubayr (15/403) to support this argument. 


'He also then argues that even if this wasn’t true, then the notion that the Prophets - because of their mercy - to wish for the guidance of their people before their imminent destruction is understood. However, the point shouldn’t be forgotten regarding the Prophets and that is, “And they (i.e. the Prophets) were the ones who were not sent in the first place, except to show their open enmity and disavowal towards the polytheism (Shirk) and its people.”

'As for America and its people, then they are much worse in comparison to the nation of Loot (’alayhis salaam); in fact, there is no comparison considering that there are cases of rape every 3 minutes (or so) and all the other horrendous statistics.” END QUOTE FROM MUSLIM WEBSITE.

- Posted by: Hugh at November 5, 2007 10:25 AM

And since 'al walaa wa al-baraa', Loyalty and Enmity, has been mentioned, here is another jihadwatch thread well worth reading - both article and discussion.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/08/baptists-and-muslims-working-together-for-a-peaceful-world.html

In his closing remark upon the posted article, Raymond Ibrahim, who had found it, drew attention to

"the Muslim doctrine of Loyalty (to Muslims) and Enmity (for non-Muslims), more commonly known as al-Wala' we al-Bara'." and provided a link to a Muslim website where the matter is discussed in full. Read it. It will make your hair stand on end.

http://salafiyyah-jadeedah.tripod.com/wala_wal_bara/Alee_Imran.htm

'Al-Wala'u wa Al-Bara' Revealed in Al-'Imran (1/2)
by Khaalid al-Ghareeb
 - Courtesy Of: www.islam.org.au

Note well this, among the opening remarks:

"Al-Wala'u wa Al-Bara' is **the creed that guides all the actions and sayings of a Muslim** {my emphasis - dda} and it is by its practice and application that the ranks of the believers vary. It is imperative that this creed be unambiguous to the Muslim's mentality in order that it manifests and materialises correctly in his actions."

And this...

"The General Meaning of the Ayah [i.e Qur'an Surah 3:28-29] - "Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Awliya' (supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allah in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them...".

"Allah (s.w.t.) forbids His Believers from exhibiting any form of Muwalat to the disbelievers. This includes the manifestation of love and compassion to strengthen the ties with them or to regard them as companions and friends because of their kinship or acquaintance.

"The Believer can not be an ally of Allah's enemies and it is impossible for a person to combine the love of Allah (s.w.t.) and the love of his enemies because this is a combination of opposites; therefore, he who loves Allah, must also hate His enemies.

"It is forbidden upon the Muslim to give Muwalat to the disbelievers and forsake the believers.

"**There is no association or relationship whatsoever between Iman and Kufur.** {my emphasis - dda}."

Finally, from Canon Patrick Sookhdeo's analysis and critique of the Muslim 'Letter to the Christians' from October 2007:

http://barnabasfund.org/news/archives/text.php?ID_news_items=342

RESPONSE TO OPEN LETTER AND CALL FROM MUSLIM RELIGIOUS LEADERS TO CHRISTIAN LEADERS, 13 OCTOBER 2007

...'Love your neighbour"

'The letter suggests that loving your neighbour is a concept common to both Islam and Christianity.

'But it ignores the fact that the Muslim concept of love for your neighbour can only operate within the limited scope of shari`a.

'Therefore in Islam there can be no absolute love for all humans, as in Christianity.

'Islam treats specific groups of people in specific ways: Christians and Jews are to be humiliated and brought under Islamic dominion as second rate subjects; infidels must accept Islam or be killed; apostates are to be killed if they do not return to Islam; Islamic sects considered heretical are to be fought and annihilated.

'Thus "neighbour" is a very limited concept in Islam, i.e. limited to fellow Muslims of the same tradition."...

Sookhdeo (an apostate from Islam to Christianity) provides a very useful and illuminating appendix on 'the concept of love in Islam'.

He notes -

"In Islam God reveals himself mainly through his law (shari`a) which calls for submission and obedience.

"While in Christianity God is personal and establishes personal relationships of love with humans, in classical Islam God is seen as totally self-contained and beyond personal relationships.

"In Islam, although God loves certain Muslim people of whom he approves, he is not bound to love them even if they deserve his love.

"Ultimately God is not obliged to do anything, but acts as he wills, sometimes in an entirely capricious manner.

"Orthodox classical Islam is more concerned with God`s greatness and transcendence, with shari`a law and its applications, than with God`s love.

"God is absolutely other, unknowable, far beyond what can be known or imagined (wara`l wara i.e. beyond the beyond).

"The role of humans is to submit, fear and obey".

...
" Sheikh Muhammad al-Shinqiti, director of the Islamic Center of South Plains in Lubbock, Texas, claimed that harshness was part of shari`a and any attempt at softening it was giving in to Western Christian concepts which were incompatible with Islam.

"Shinqiti stated that a personalised faith, like that of Christians, leads to corruption and immorality. He preferred the detachment and severity of Islam...

"In this view, harshness rather than love and mercy are at the heart of Islam.

"The inference is that Christianity is weak and contemptible because it has love and mercy at its very core {nota bene - this sounds *exactly* like Herr Hitler! - dda}.

Australian scholar and priest, Rev Dr Mark Durie, came to similar conclusions when he examined 'A Common Word'.

Here are the two links for his discussion.

http://acommonword.blogspot.com/2008/02/notes-for-christians-on-understanding.html

and

http://acommonword.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-on-loving-ones-muslim-neighbour-in.html

From the first article, Dr Durie observes - "The discussion [in A Common Word] of ‘love thy neighbour’ is particularly weak. In Islam, calls to do good for one’s neighbour are traditionally taken to refer to one’s Muslim neighbour only."

Durie notes what happens in the Hadith texts:

'Who is my neighbour: the hadiths?

"A traditional Islamic understanding of the hadiths cited by A Common Word restricts the ‘neighbour’ and ‘brother’ to Muslims.

"This is reflected, for example, in the collections of Bukhari and Muslim.

" In the standard English translation of Bukhari, the translator adds ‘(Muslim)’ to make clear that it is love for fellow Muslims which is meant:

"The Prophet said, ‘None of you will have faith till he likes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself.’

"Likewise in the English translation of Muslim’s hadith collection, the equivalent hadith is listed under a section headed: Concerning the fact that it is one of the characteristics of Iman [faith] that one should like the same thing for one’s brother-in-Islam as one likes for one’s self.

"To which the translator remarks in a footnote: ‘A true believer has a strong sense of fellow-feeling and inculcates love for his brother-in-Islam.’

"If in Islamic tradition one’s ‘brother’ or one’s ‘neighbour’ whose good is to be promoted is only one’s fellow Muslim, then this teaching falls far short of the message of Christ."

Apologies for the very long posting above! I should have broken it up into shorter sections.

Anyway, for new readers, I'll throw in just one more thing - Hugh's analysis of the attitudes of a very popular - and deeply, thoroughly, classically Muslim - Indian Muslim 'preacher', one Zakir Naik.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/fitzgerald-zakir-naik-and-intolerance-as-proof-of-islams-truth.html

The whole posting bears reading, and re-reading, in the light of the Muslim proposal to build a great big mosque right next to Ground Zero, and the request, nay, the *demand*, that the mosque *must* be allowed to be built, as proof of American 'tolerance'.

Ipso Facto,
I am unsure of your point. If you are trying to demonstrate that the golden rule is inherent to Islam, I hope you will take the time to read some of the references/links submiited by dumbledoresarmy. I have not read tham all, but the first piece by Ali Sina was quite comprehensive and convincing. It is Islam 101 that the Quran contains contradictory messages so that one can cherry pick passages that could possibly be interpreted to demonstrate that Islamic doctrine appears to be believers should treat infidels equally. That is not true Islamic docteine.
Would you be willing to agree? Will you renounce the inequality under law that sharia dictates for non-Muslims?
p.s. thanks dumbledorsarmy (in the future, maybe just providing the links would be sufficient)

The second I saw this The End Of Nations commentary my first thought was Jihad Watch web visitors absolutely must have an opportunity to read this! http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-Union-The-End-Of-Nations