In "What Obama Got Wrong About the Mosque," August 13, Sam Harris breaks with the Leftist pro-Islamic supremacism lockstep that usually prevails at the Daily Beast and offers some common sense about the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero:
After weeks of dodging the issue, at a White House Ramadan dinner Friday night, President Obama came out in support of Park51, the planned Muslim community center and mosque two blocks away from the World Trade Center site.The President says he wasn't endorsing the ground zero mosque--only defending the right to build it. Sam Harris on his failure to acknowledge that Islam is different than other faiths.Should a 15-story mosque and Islamic cultural center be built two blocks from the site of the worst jihadist atrocity in living memory? Put this way, the question nearly answers itself. This is not to say, however, that I think we should prevent our fellow citizens from building "the ground zero mosque." There is probably no legal basis to do so in any case--nor should there be. But the margin between what is legal and what is desirable, or even decent, leaves room for many projects that well-intentioned people might still find offensive. If you can raise the requisite $100 million, you might also build a shrine to Satan on this spot, complete with the names of all the non-believing victims of 9/11 destined to suffer for eternity in Hell. You could also build an Institute of "9/11 Truth," catering to the credulity, masochism, and paranoia of the 16 percent of Americans who imagine that the World Trade Center was intentionally demolished by agents of the U.S. government. Incidentally, any shrine to conspiracy thinking should probably also contain a mosque, along with a list of the 4,000 Jews who suspiciously declined to practice their usury in the Twin Towers on the day of the attack.
The erection of a mosque upon the ashes of this atrocity will also be viewed by many millions of Muslims as a victory--and as a sign that the liberal values of the West are synonymous with decadence and cowardice.
Read it all.
So, let's not let them built it.
Demonstration safety thoughts...
http://freemendo.typepad.com/undaunted/2010/06/read-hereabout-boeing-guards-who-somehow-let-twelve-or-was-it-fourteen-handguns-be-stolen-from-a-storage-locker-at-the-he.html
Obama and the Left didn't get it wrong at all in their minds. They want to see Islam spread and rub the rest of Americans face in shit in the process.
Obama has made it clear in his books that he's pretty much anti-Western and anti-white and pro-Islam. In one passage he comes out and states to the effect 'that I will stand with the Muslims against my country".
And he's doing that now.
Lastly, Obama and the Left couldn't care less that Islam is a alien and hostile faith/politcal movement that stands in opposition of everything the U.S. stands for in terms of human rights and the Constitution.
Islam to them is a war club to smash down the more conservative Christian and Jewish denominations in the country.
GZ Mosque: Beware the Trojan Camel
http://blip.tv/file/3921528
Building Mosques over churches in conquered land is standard practise of lslam for Muslims victory
e.g. Originally St. Sopia Basilica in Istanbul,
Today a big Mosque!
"If you can raise the requisite $100 million, you might also build a shrine to Satan on this spot,.."
Muhammad admittedly received a message from Satan and delivered it to the people as if it were from God.
Qur'an 53:19-20, 17:73-75, 22:52-53
(video)
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/07/perfect-man.html
Not to mention the Temple Mount.
Why is it so difficult for the left to understand this concept ?
Even when the Soviet Union was still around, the CPUSA took it's orders from the Kremlin. They were actively working for a hostile, foreign government.
These mosques operate along the same line.
Glad to hear Sam Harris log in on our side, as he pulls no punches. Islam-aware people who predominantly communicate with the Left are very valuable in terms of kicking some sense into any of those people who will listen. Today I heard from a fellow cult-investigator I have known for decades who has been describing jihad as a particularly virulent and deadly form of cult and doing in on NPR and HuffPo.
And thanks to Sam for that deft backhand to the jaws of the 9/11 "troofers". Sam knows stoopid when he hears it.
At the time of 9/11, I wrote that 9/11, far from being a disaster for Islam, would turn out to be a publicity coup for it. So it turned out.
We are now in a similar situation. If the GZM proponents win their case, and build the mosque, it would be seen in the wider Islamic world, that allah had yet again granted a tremendous victory to Muslims. If OTH, the said mosque has to shift its location, or is cancelled altogether, then CAIR and all the other Islamic groups will be crying "foul", and seeking sympathy - Islam is being victimized.
Either way, this crisis is going to be milked for all it’s got.
The real aim of the controversy though, like 9/11 itself, is to keep Islam right up there on the national and international agenda, i.e., making Islam pre-eminent, and the focus for all attention. Obama, willingly or unwittingly, has made this objective a reality, turning a NY city issue to an international one.
The more this controversy rages and polarises the America people, the greater a publicity disaster for the West this, and great propaganda boost for Islam.
It would appear that we are going to lose this battle either way. Not necessarily so. What some of the opponents have to do, is to seize this opportunity to tell the truth about Islam. That is, use the propaganda opportunity that has been created by Islamists to defeat their real purpose, of publicising for Islam – not just stop it but turn it against Islam. If some of the opponents can do this, the GZM proponents will themselves halt the controversy.
Robert Spencer is one of the opponents who can really expose the vile reality of Islam and explode the myth of a 'tolerant uh Islam'.
Seeing the comments on Sam's site, I don't think most liberals agree with him at all on this topic. Most remain virulently anti-Christian bigots and anti-Western pukes.
The GMZ controversy is not about the GMZ mosque, or even the triumphalist proclamation of Islam on the site of its first North American victory, but an opportunity for keeping Islam preeminent in the public eye. Obama may backtrack now, but that is not the point. He has succeeded in raising the profile of Islam to the international plane, which was never there in the first place.
The following
Robert Spencer,
Pamela Geller,
David Horowitz
are the best to seize the opportunity that the GMZ proponents have created to raise Islam, and use it to expose the reality of Islam. As they say, "never let a crisis go to waste".
Thanks for posting this, very good read.
It really is annoying how many comments and posts rely on the First Amendment. To my knowledge, nobody is trying to ban Islam from Lower Manhattan (though I hold out hope that eminent domain laws get used for good for once) and there are plenty of mosques in NYC. I touched on some of this after I saw some ridiculous questions posted at firedoglake. http://honestyinmotion.blogspot.com/2010/08/wasting-some-time-on-sunday-afternoon.html
Hi all. Douglas Murray's article on the proposed Ground Zero Mosque is well worth reading.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-12/ground-zero-mosque-controversy-and-american-muslims/2/
Can anyone tell me how to go about suggesting articles to be posted here?
I think this is absolutely correct. Presuming that the GZM is ultimately thwarted, this act of blatant overreach is an opportunity for our side and a tactical error for those stealth jihadists.
Islam is being discussed everywhere because this story is in the news. What CAIR fears most is exactly what is happening now---more and more people are looking at Islam with a skeptical eye.
I post on a variety of political blogs, and there are very open and fairly detailed discussions about Islam occurring where only a year or two ago, such conversations would result in being banned from the site.
Our side is gaining ground, there is no doubt about it. The only question I have is will the trend continue, and are we moving fast enough.
When a prominent leftist atheist can write this:
"The first thing that all honest students of Islam must admit is that it is not absolutely clear where members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, al-Shabab, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hamas, and other Muslim terrorist groups have misconstrued their religious obligations. If they are “extremists” who have deformed an ancient faith into a death cult, they haven’t deformed it by much. When one reads the Koran and the hadith, and consults the opinions of Muslim jurists over the centuries, one discovers that killing apostates, treating women like livestock, and waging jihad—not merely as an inner, spiritual struggle but as holy war against infidels—are practices that are central to the faith. Granted, one path out of this madness might be for mainstream Muslims to simply pretend that this isn’t so—and by this pretense persuade the next generation that the “true” Islam is peaceful, tolerant of difference, egalitarian, and fully compatible with a global civil society. But the holy books remain forever to be consulted, and no one will dare to edit them. Consequently, the most barbarous and divisive passages in these texts will remain forever open to being given their most plausible interpretations."
.........then maybe there is hope for the West. Robert, your message IS getting out there.
Sam Harris is not the only rational thinking atheist who cuts through the tolerance and PC nonsense advocating the GZ Mega Mosque.
Last Monday Christopher Hitchens put things into his very special and personal perspective in Slate:
"Mau-Mauing the Mosque
The dispute over the "Ground Zero mosque" is an object lesson in how not to resist intolerance.
The dispute over the construction of an Islamic center at "Ground Zero" in Lower Manhattan has now sunk to a level of stupidity that really does shame the memory and the victims of that terrible day in September 2001. One might think that a mosque or madrassa was being proposed in the place of the fallen towers themselves or atop the atomized ingredients of what was once a mass grave. (In point of fact, the best we have been able to do with the actual site, after almost a decade, is to create a huge, noisy, and dirty pit with almost no visible architectural progress. Perhaps resentment at the relative speed of the proposed Cordoba House is a subconscious by-product of embarrassment at this local and national disgrace.)
I don't like anything much about the Cordoba Initiative or the people who run it. The supposed imam of the place, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is on record as saying various shady and creepy things about the original atrocity. Shortly after 9/11, he told 60 Minutes, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." He added, "In the most direct sense, Osama Bin Laden is made in the USA." More recently, he has declined to identify the racist and totalitarian Hamas party as being guilty of the much less severe designation of terrorist. We are all familiar by now with the peddlers of such distortions and euphemisms and evasions, many of them repeated by half-baked secular and Christian spokesmen. A widespread cultural cringe impels many people to the half-belief that it's better to accommodate "moderates" like Rauf as a means of diluting the challenge of the real thing. So for the sake of peace and quiet, why not have Comedy Central censor itself or the entire U.S. press refuse to show the Danish cartoons? ..."
Read it all:
http://www.slate.com/id/2263334
The Cordoba Initiative affair is not an issue of religious freedom.
It is about an individual, Feisal Abdul Rauf, and his associates.
It is about statements he has made in writing, and in public, such as his 911 truth rhetoric, and his intent to dramatically influence domestic policy.
His financial backers are Saudi royals, and industrialists.
He belongs to Mahathir's Perdana group, and then lies when asked about it.
His Cordoba Initiative’s mission statement is to transform the country within ten years. He wrote about this 6 years ago in his book describing the group he would need to accomplish this.
He now belongs to a group very much like the one he envisioned 6 years ago, the US-Muslim Engagement Project.
A list of people who are either leaders or advisors includes: Madeline Albright, the Rockefellers, Ingrid Mattson, Dahlia Mogahead, the Alliance of Civilizations, co-founder of Esalen Institute, Edelman public relations firm, consensus builders, media professionals, Palestinian experts, and more.
http://www.usmuslimengagement.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=59
Once again I direct your attention to the USMEP video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytsy16Mz71c&feature=channel
At 3:04 it is revealed that The US Muslim Engagement Project organized citizen dialogues across the country.
I think these should be called what they are, focus groups, and you will never guess what they found.
"Although Americans face a steep learning curve about Islam, and the diversity of Muslim cultures, people also expressed a yearning to learn more."
Unless the political message of Feisal Abdul Rauf is addressed, the next ten years will see dahwa on "a level never before attempted" that will be enforced by massive immigration.
If the Reverend Sun Young Moon were trying to appropriate 911 in a similar manner, people would not be debating whether he was the next Christ, they would be looking at his politics. Feisal Abdul Rauf should be no different.
It obviously pains Sam to be in agreement with conservatives on this. He helpfully explains that he came to his conclusions using reason, while we simply relied on our bigotry. Even while pointing out the trop of islamophobia.
Bingo!! while he opposes it, he still managed to backhand the rest of us who aren't liberal and oppose it as well.
In short his opposition to it is no cause to rejoice.
walt wrote: In short his opposition to it is no cause to rejoice.
------------------
Why not rejoice? To win this fight against Islamic supremacism we need all those who are opposed to it to stand together.
A liberal friend whom I've been telling for years about Islamic intolerance came to me the other day and told me that he never believed what I said about Islam (I must look like a greasy Islamophobe) but he found out that it's all true after he read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris.
The point is that we're all in this together. We can't afford to let political differences distract us.
What some of the opponents have to do, is to seize this opportunity to tell the truth about Islam.
Islamic centers must be put to reveal the 'truth' about Islam, same as banks do in 'truth in lending' or consumer protection laws 'truth in labeling'. So when a potential convert attends da'wa night at the mosque, he would be handed a leaflet which spells out the 'truth about Islam', including how women are subservient to men, the many violent passages in their holy texts (we can help them draft this one), and the death for apostasy clause. Then, if they still want to recite the shahada, they can. But in 'consumer protection' fashion, they must be given a few days of 'look see' to make sure they understood what they got themselves into, including the right to withdraw their commitment without retribution or death threats. We protect consumers against fraud, this is the same thing. Islamic practice of taqiyya and kitman necessitates this policy of mandatory 'total disclosure' compliance at the mosque.
Part of Walt's comment says "Lastly, Obama and the Left couldn't care less that Islam is a alien and hostile faith/politcal movement that stands in opposition of everything the U.S. stands for in terms of human rights and the Constitution."
Actually Islam is alien and hostile to all that the majority of world's humanity believes and practices in. To quote Churchill it is the strongest retrograde force in the world.
The first thing the Americans must do is stop all Muslim immigration and then find ways to deport the Muslims already in the country otherwise America is doomed.
"Seeing the comments on Sam's site, I don't think most liberals agree with him at all on this topic. Most remain virulently anti-Christian bigots and anti-Western pukes."
The worst kind of hippies:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=college-know-it-all-hippie
Three cheers Sam Harris.
Borbastic, sometimes it pains me to be in agreement on this issue with people who otherwise would be busying themselves telling me how I will be going to hell when I die for being atheist. Joe Isaac has it right: we are all in this together because the Islamic Enemy wants to hang us all. Other political differences are important in other contexts, but not so much in this one.
Btw, this is probably the cybersquib question of the year, but what does it mean if you get an email telling you that someone is "following" you on TypePad?
I agree Joe, we should be happy about this. A liberal intellectual recognizes that Islam is totalitarian. Other liberals will give his arguments a chance, whereas the arguments of conservatives have been mostly ignored and rejected.
Something like that happened in reverse when Nixon opened relations with Red China. Many liberals had argued for that, but conservatives would only accept it if another conservative (Nixon) presented the arguments that it was the right course.
We need liberal allies desperately. We need as many allies as we can get. I agree with Spencer that this should not be a conservative or liberal issue, it should be something on which all non-Muslims can unite.
Personally I find Harris's article *very* significant, as one can use it with one's leftie friends and relatives and they have to take note. With the "usual suspects" (you know who I mean), if you quote them -- and no matter how spot-on & correct they may be -- you'll likely get the response like "oh, but s/he's just a right-wing/conservative/Republican/whatever nutter...." or similar ad hominem. With Harris, there's some common ground and if *he* is thinking like this, then goodness me, perhaps there's something in what Meeker's been banging on about....[interestingly my own partner has recently "seen the light" about some of these issues, having read an article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, while in Oz, that I gave her to read]
Yet, it's quite true, as Walt says "Seeing the comments on Sam's site, I don't think most liberals agree with him at all on this topic. Most remain virulently anti-Christian bigots and anti-Western pukes." They seem stuck in a warp: that (i) all religions are the same and have extremist elements and (ii) "....what about the violent passages in the Bible?"... they don't seem to have done the simple research that will make these protestations evanesce at the most cursory research. But perhaps they'll go away and think about it....
I was almost going to post at The Beast, but was overcome with ennui. Good on Robert et. al. for having the patience to go on repeating the key points even unto those that appear immune to common sense and what is in plain sight in front of us....
Bosch Fawstin,
I like the trojan camel.
When is your graphic novel about the anti-jihadist superhero Pigman coming out?
Yes, Meeker, I was thinking the same: that I could use Harris with my leftie friends and acquaintances. I will probably memorize verbatim a few key lines from the Harris article, so I can quote him to them in future discussions. It's important that people realize this is not just a "conservative" viewpoint. Islam really is totalitarian at its core.
Joe I wish I could share your optimism but I just can't about liberals in general. I'm just very pessimistic about them, if 9/11 couldn't change a significant percentage of them I don't know what can. Mind you I've seen some weak tea, namby pamby PC Christians see the light in regards to Islam, so I'm optimistic that we can win over a lot of fence sitting Christians in time. But liberals....
Thanks, traeh, I will be releasing Chapter One of The Infidel #1 digitally in late Sept. I intended it for summer release and it looks like I might make it right around the last official day of summer. And as a refresher, here's a short breakdown on the story:
The Infidel is a story about twin brothers, Killian Duke and Salaam Duka, whose Muslim background comes to the forefront of their lives on 9/11. Killian responds to the attacks by creating a counter-jihad superhero comic book called Pigman, as Salaam surrenders to Islam and becomes a Born Again Muslim, following the faith to wherever it leads him. The Pigman story is the comic book within the graphic novel that's a super echo of the main story.
I read a couple of comments that suggest that Robert and Pamella ought to make use of the GZM controversy. They are already doing a fantastic job on all fronts. I believe WE, you and I, need to be bold enough to expose Islam, in our homes, work place, and neighborhood.
What excuse do we have for not doing it?
Robert and Pamella,along with others have educated us enough about Islam that we must speak out in our realm of influence.
Hamas in accord with Obama:
"Hamas nod for gz mosque"
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hamas_nod_for_gz_mosque_cSohH9eha8sNZMTDz0VVPI?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=
re: borbastic, I'm not a conservative myself. Nor am I that degraded thing that Americans call "liberalism". Sam Harris is a fellow Enlightenment radical.
I think this is one of the best articles on the subject I've read.
The enemy within: Islamic subversion, sedition and sabotage.
Liberal leftist Washington Post conspiring with ground zero mosque muslims in order to destroy conservative judeo-christian America.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081204996.html
Nader
Robert Spencer and Pamella Geller, are indeed doing a magnificent job- no doubt of it.
The purpose of my post was to highlight, that the main reason for the GZ mosque was not about triumphalism or insulting the Infidel, though these are reasons as well, but to raise Islam and show it as the main religion of the world, sidelining Christianity above all. That is always the objective of Muslims, always. It is the reason I believe that Obama intervened and then withdrew his comments, once the objective had been attained, and his the withdrawal would not affect the result.
I don't think this aspect of the GZ mosque has been considered, and I thought it necessary to bring it to attention, of those who can most effectively counter it - Robert Spencer, and even turn the tables on this most insidious of all objectives.
If it already has been considered, then my apologies.
Dear Walt,
Obama did not make that quote "exactly" as that in his book "Dreams of My Father" or "The Audacity of Hope".
That actual quote reads "Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
I guess what he is actually saying is, should it ever come down to outright war with Islam, Obama would protect those Muslims living in the U.S. from ending up in internment camps as the Japanese did at the outbreak of, and during WWII.
Obama does support the Muslims in America.
He will protect them from persecution. He will stand with them.
Well, then, he can join the rest of them on their boat trip back to Johnny Shariahland.
I have one question re: the Mosque at ground zero...when they hang the photo potraits on the walls of the 19 hi-jackers from 9/11, WILL THEY BE IN COLOR OR BLACK & WHITE?
Folks, we, the USA, have morphed into the laziest bunch of ball-less people on the planet.
Thank a liberal.
I have one question re: the Mosque at ground zero...when they hang the photo potraits on the walls of the 19 hi-jackers from 9/11, WILL THEY BE IN COLOR OR BLACK & WHITE?
Folks, we, the USA, have morphed into the laziest bunch of ball-less people on the planet.
Thank a liberal.
The Dome of the Rock is built on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and encloses the Foundation Stone, the place upon which the ancient Ark of the Covenant resided. The Dome is a shrine to Muhammad's night journey and stands as Islam's testament to the world that it is superior to all religions, particularly, Christianity and Judaism, the faiths that became subject to it in 638AD at the fall of Jerusalem to Islam. The Dome is covered with ARabic script from the Qur'an declaring that Jesus is not the son of God, and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. The Ground zero Mosque will serve as the same testament to the world. It will declare Islam's victory on 9/11. When America's leaders fail to see what is really going on, they influence many Americans to do likewise. Islam is in a state of perpetual jihad until the entire world is under the dominion of Islam. The West seems oblivious to the dangers of Islam and our leaders lack the spine to recognize and acknowledge these dangers. www.whenthepiecesfit.org
To all my fellow Americans,
What America needs, at this time in her history, are elected representatives, unlike Obama and the majority of Congress and the Senate, who have the moral courage, integrity, knowledge of the truth about Islam, and the backbone to address the Islamic threat America faces today. We are at war with Islam, it is advancing around the world, including a campaign of stealth jihad right here in America. The building of more mosques, especially the Victory Mosque at ground zero, must be halted and reversed. We must educate ourselves about the "truth" of Islam, and not believe the propaganda spewing out of the mainstream media.
Knowledge is power, but unfortunately most Americans are still ignorant about Islam and believe that it is "a religion of peace," that there are "moderate" Muslims, and that this "peaceful religion" has been hijacked, twisted, and distorted by Islamic radicals within, none of which are true.
There is one such politician who understands the threat Islam poses to America and he is running for U.S. Congress 2010. His name is Vijay Kumar, Republican Candidate, 5th Congressional District, Tennessee. Among his many essays that are posted on his website, there are two in particular that every American should read: 1. Universal Jihad: Radical Islam's Worldwide War on Liberal Democracies 2. The Muslim Mosque: A State Within A State.
Mr. Kumar's website is: www.kumarforcongress.com
I want to second your observation, Walt.
When the typical American Leftist (I won't demean the term "liberal"--belief in freedom--any more) is led to the public square to be stoned for drinking wine or having the Bible on his bookshelf (no matter how much he disbelieves it), he'll say he has faith that a new and more moderate Islam will soon rise to take the place of the bigoted kind that has subjugated him and scold everyone who continues to resist.
Worse, those who commented that the Left will declare its Johnny-come-lately opposition to Islamic supremacism "reason-based" to distinguish it from the "bigotry" that informs the rest of us, are probably right, too. No-one on the Left will ever question the MultiCultie PeeCee-ism (itself an uninformed knee-jerk reaction) that got us to this position.
Any mosque built anywhere IS a shrine to Satan
Sam Harris, for what might be the first time, put a smart sentence together. And because of the rest of the article it's in, we can definitely conclude that he's still a moron.
I have not been here in a long time, but I have watched the ground zero debate closely. Here is my 2 cents worth:
You can criticize Obama for a lot of things if you wish, but on this, you cannot criticize his argument over Cordoba without wanting to spit on the constitution.
On Friday at the Ramadan Dinner at the White House (which was also held in previous administrations), Obama gave the constitutional argument for allowing the mosque to be built there. He did not offer his opinion, but rather, he defended the constitution, which btw is part of the oath of office that he took. In other words, he did his job. Yes, he was speaking to the crowd there, but every president tailors his words to the crowd in front of him. Bush was no different in this respect.
And on Saturday, in a brilliant move, I think, he reminded the press that he had not given his opinion on the "wisdom" of this whole shenanigan. In other words, he is not happy about this at all.
Now, I am a lifelong democrat and a huge Obama supporter, but I am vehemently opposed to Cordoba. Like most posters here, I think it is wrong and stupid and wish that they not build the thing. But I, like everyone else here, must respect and obey the constitution.
So, if you don't like the mosque being built, don't blame Obama or the dems for it. He or they did not cause the islamic community in NYC to get a wild hair up it's ass and decide to build so close to ground zero. Blame the constitution for it, if you must. And if it really bothers you, then propose a change in the constitution.
But remember, others also have the right to maybe built a big old in your face gay bar next to the mosque, or maybe a dog pound or a pig slaughterhouse, or maybe a "Museum of Islamic Intolerance". I personally think that the JCC right next door would be famous. These things are also protected under the constitution. You see, the sword cuts both ways.
And if it is a victory mosque, we won't be able to change that perception. But we can marginalize the muslims, we can make their stay there less pleasant by reminding them that others, people they don't approve of, also have the right to build.
I always find hypocrisy to be the most reliable trait in Americans. Nowhere in the American constitution does it declare that American's have the right to be free of offenses. If that were the case, I'd argue for all churches in general to be removed from public squares. The Judeo-Christian faith is responsible for much larger and more vehement atrocities than the actions of 19 hijackers on 9/11. However, I'm a man of the constitution and concede that all ideologies, even dumb ones,have the right to exist. The only caveat to this policy is explicitly violent propositions, such as those of the KKK and Nazi Germany. Whether you agree with Islam or not (I sure don't), Muslims have the same right as the Christians to the construction of their loony bins.
The minute I followed a link to the jaw dropping The End Of Nations article my first thought was Jihad Watch frequenters have to be able to chat about this! http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-Union-The-End-Of-Nations
"The only caveat to this policy is explicitly violent propositions, such as those of the KKK and Nazi Germany. Whether you agree with Islam or not Muslims have the same right as the Christians to the construction of their loony bins. "
Islam is an "explicitly violent proposition"?
Surah 9, Verse 5: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
So, you think that this is an isolated verse that I am misrepresenting? Well, then read the whole surah 9. What about the "context". Read the standard commentary of surah 9 by Ibn Kathir at tafsir.com. You shall change your mind.
What do the canonical hadith say about jihad?
Sahih Bukhari, volume 1, book 8, No. 387 Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah."
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 179 Allah's messenger said: "The Hour will not be established until you fight against the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"
So why should Islam be treated any differently than the KKK or Nazi Germany?
The bible is just as violent as the Quran. God killed off the entire population of the Earth aside from Noah and his friends. I don't see anyone refuting the claims to churches based on biblical literacy. Only hypocrites apply this line of argument unilaterally, targeting only specific or individual religions. If you are trying to discredit mosques on the grounds of religious violence then please argue the same against churches and synagogues. You'll have my full support then.
Mate, have you actually *read* both the Bible - all of it, from Genesis to Revelations? - AND the Qur'an. I have. And I gained exactly the opposite impression: that the Qur'an was more violent, both in content and in its overall 'tone', its spiritual 'atmosphere', than the Bible.
Funnily enough, Alexis de Tocqueville formed a similar impression of Islam: that it was distinctively violent.
"Jihad, Holy war, is an obligation for all believers. ... The state of war is the natural state with regard to infidels ...
"[T]hese doctrines of which the practical outcome is obvious are found on every page and in almost every word of the Koran ... The violent tendencies of the Koran are so striking
that I cannot understand how any man with good sense could miss them."
['Notes sur le Coran et autres textes sur les religions' - Alexis de TOCQUEVILLE
Introduits et commentés par Jean-Louis Benoît - Paris, 2007].
Of course, to get a true idea of the character of the Islamic 'scriptures', of those texts on which Muslims base their lives and from which they derive their totalitarian sharia 'law', you must read more than the Qur'an. You must read the Sira by Ibn Ishaq, which is the canonical biography of Mohammed - there are classic English translations by 1. A. Guillaume and 2. William Muir.
The Sira is unremittingly violent.
Then you have to read a reasonable sample of the main authoritative or sahih 'reliable' Hadith collections, which contain stories about what Mohammed and his companions and his wives, etc., did, taught and approved. The Sahih Bukhari hadith collection fills nine volumes; then there is the Sahih Muslim; these two are the most authoritative. Then there are four others that are not quite as highly rated as Bukhari and Muslim, but still carry a lot of weight with Muslims world-wide: Sunan Abu Dawud; Sunan Ibn Majah; Sunan at-Tirmidhi; and Sunan An-Nasai.
The Hadith contain much that is hair-raisingly violent: such as a description of a man murdering his concubine-wife by shoving a knife into her belly, to punish her for having spoken critically about Mohammed.
It would be more accurate to compare the amount of violence that appears in Quran, Sira and Hadith combined, with the amount of violence in the Bible, than to compare only what is in the Quran, with what is in the Bible.
And when you do, I think you might change your mind about which set of scriptures contains the higher 'violence quotient'.
As it happens, there is at least one person who has sat down to attempt to compare the canonical texts of Islam with the canonical texts of other major world religions. And here is what she found:
Jyllandsposten, Denmark, 10 September 2005.
'Islam er den mest krigeriske religion
'Islam is the most Warlike religion
'A Danish language researcher has spent over three years analyzing the original texts of ten different religions, and concludes that the Islamic texts stand out by encouraging terror and violence to a larger degree than other religions do.
' Four years after the terror attacks at the World Trade Center, Danish linguist Tina Magaard presents an analysis that questions Islam’s relationship with terror, violence and Holy War.
'Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions, concludes Tina Magaard.
'She has a PhD in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris, and has spent three years on a research project comparing the original texts of ten religions.
“The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree.
'There are also straightforward calls for terror.
'This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with," says Tina Magaard.
'Moreover, there are hundreds of calls in the Koran for fighting against people of other faiths.
“If it is correct that many Muslims view the Koran as the literal words of God, which cannot be interpreted or rephrased, then we have a problem. It is indisputable that the texts encourage terror and violence. Consequently, it must be reasonable to ask Muslims themselves how they relate to the text, if they read it as it is," says Tina Magaard." END QUOTE.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to "go in unto they brother's wife." But "Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and ... when he went in unto his brother's wife ... he spilled it on the ground.... And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also."
Genesis 38:8-10
Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is "defiled" by a man who seems to love her dearly. Her brothers trick all of the men of the town and kill them (after first having them all circumcised), and then take their wives and children captive
Genesis 34:1-31
The Bible is extremely violent, homophobic and corrupt when read literally. I wonder why our Christian nation only seems to have problems with the violent nature of other religions. It is a mystery.
Extremists of all stripes - bin Laden, Michael Ledeen, Cal Thomas, Sam Harris - aren't going to find much to like about this alleged "mosque." Apparently only Wahhabism and its offshoots (Taliban, al-Qaeda) are "sexy-violent" enough to capture the West's attention. In any case, I was personally interested in what the people of Manhattan think and went through the trouble to ask a few. It *seems* as though their most burning concern is .. restaurateur Serge Becker. There are many Manhattanites who believe that his business ventures attract a "bad element" and they don't want him operating in their neighborhood. So how do we get the peope of Manhattan to get worked up over this particular (proposed) building? Tell them it's *actually* going to be a trendy new, Becker-managed nightspot. If that sound ridiculous to you, well .. I guess you don't know Manhattan !