Where will the Ground Zero mega-mosque be? On Ground Zero

This morning Politico has a story entitled "GOP takes harsher stance toward Islam" by Ben Smith and Maggie Haberman about the Republican Party's alleged slide toward "Islamophobia," complete with a tut-tutting quote about (what else?) tea parties and bigotry from Honest Ibe Hooper of Hamas-linked CAIR. Smith and Haberman do not, of course, see fit to mention that Hooper is the front man for a group that is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas jihad terror funding case, or that several of its officials have been convicted of jihad terror activities, and that thus Hooper himself merits the title of "bigot" -- and much worse titles -- far more than do those who oppose him and his ilk in the name of Constitutional freedoms.

But that's not why I'm writing this. Nor am I writing it because the Republican Party is allegedly growing more realistic about the threat of jihad and Islamic supremacism. I'm glad to see some of its exponents talking sense about the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero, but that doesn't mean that they have any more of a realistic or informed appraisal of the roots of jihad terrorism, stealth jihad, and the like than they always did. The party appears to be pretty much as clueless as it has always been, but time will tell.

No, I am writing this because of an offhand remark that Smith and Haberman make: "...what is now nationally known as the 'Ground Zero mosque' - it is actually a few blocks north of the site..."

This has become a common weapon in the arsenal of mosque proponents. They will say that the mosque needs to be at 9/11 to demonstrate American religious liberty and as a gesture of healing to reverse the damage done on 9/11, as Daisy Khan has said. Then they will contradict themselves by saying that the mosque won't be at Ground Zero anyway, but a few blocks away, and so it doesn't really have anything to do with 9/11.

In the first place, the mosque will not be a few blocks away. I have been to the site, and can tell you: walk half a block down the street from the Burlington Coat Factory that is set to be the site of the mega-mosque, turn left, and you will see Ground Zero. Smith and Haberman have apparently never been to the site, as no one who has could characterize it as "a few blocks north." It is actually just 600 feet away from Ground Zero.

But also, and more importantly, the Burlington Coat Factory building is in a larger sense part of Ground Zero. The landing gear from one of the jetliners hijacked on September 11, 2001 flew into the building that the Islamic supremacists want to tear down to construct their mosque. That makes this building part of the 9/11 attack site, and will make the mosque -- in the eyes of the Islamic world -- exactly what the Dome of the Rock is: a mosque of victory built right on the site of the Muslim defeat of the Infidels. The Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, built on the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, are declarations of the superiority of Islam over Judaism, and its victory over Judaism. The mosque at the Burlington Coat Factory site, built on the site -- not near it, but on it, because of that landing gear -- of the Islamic jihad attack on September 11, 2001, will be seen as a declaration of the superiority of Islam over the United States, and its victory over the American economic machine.

The Burlington Coat Factory building, 45 Park Place, which was severely damaged by that part of one of the 9/11 planes, is Ground Zero, as is the former World Trade Center site. That's why the Islamic supremacists want that building, and only that building, and why they have rebuffed Governor Paterson's offer to help them move elsewhere, and why they persist in their plans despite a rising chorus of public disapproval and public anguish that shows up their claims to be "building bridges" with this mega-mosque.

| 154 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

154 Comments

| Leave a comment

Freedom of religion in America...Does Islam qualify?

There can be no absolute religious freedom in America...While the US constitution mandates freedom of religion it does not mandate freedom of Sharia, and it does not mandate freedom of the exercise of sharia's vicious punishments...Nearly all sharia's physical body punishments are illegal in America...Since Islam is not Islam without sharia, Islam cannot fully practice their religion in America...

So they have a right to build because of building laws, but they do not have a right to practice Islam/sharia...Since Islam and sharia cannot be separated, Islam is not free to practice 'freedom of religion in the US', 'like everyone else'.(Rasool Obama)

If those leading the fight against the Ground Zero Supremacist Mega-Mosque automatically concede to the fiction that Islam is just another religion like any other and nothing more, then you may as well just submit to dhimmitude because you will never be able to stop Islam from propagating and eventually subsuming the West. Indeed, I just watched Congressman Peter King concede that the issue on Fox.

This Ground Zero Supremacist Mega-Mosque should be opposed on the grounds that besides being a religion Islam is also a very radical form of totalitarianism that seeks world domination as its main goal. Therefore, because Islam in effect is not just a religion but also a totalitarian theo-political ideology that seeks to subjugate the world via the imposition of Sharia, it is not protected by the first amendment of the constitution.

Indeed, Sharia institutionalizes systematic oppression of females and non-Muslims and incorporates draconian punishments such as stonings, beheadings, and amputations. There is also no freedom of religion in Islamic countries, the freedom of conscience is forbidden, and apostasy is punished by execution. Hence, it couldn’t be any clearer, besides being a religion, Islam is also a very radical form of totalitarianism that seeks world domination as its main goal.

Therefore, the fiction that Islam is a religion only like any other should not be conceded because it will set a precedence that should never be allowed to be set.

The 9/11 Jihad Victory Mosk could prove to be Hussein's waterloo.

So they have a right to build because of building laws, but they do not have a right to practice Islam/sharia...Since Islam and sharia cannot be separated, Islam is not free to practice 'freedom of religion in the US', 'like everyone else'.(Rasool Obama)

When you take Islam in totality for what it really is, a totalitarian theo-political ideology that seeks to subjugate all unbelievers via the imposition of Sharia as its main goal, it is clear that Islam is not protected under the first amendment of the constitution. I mean you can’t dissect Islam, take one tiny part of it, while you ignore the much greater part of it to circumvent the constitution. You must take Islam in totality for what it really is and when you do it couldn’t be clearer that Islam is not protected under the constitution, as our constitution is not a suicide pact.

Hence, those automatically conceding that point right off the bat that the Muslims have a legal right to build the mosque are missing the boat big time. Hence, it is sort of like Bush responding to 9/11 by occupying two Muslim countries to pursue fantasy based nation-building missions that are both exceedingly counterproductive. In other words, their fight to oppose the Ground Zero Supremacist Mega-Mosque couldn’t be anymore misguided.

OT...some...I have been registered at Politico since 07, and as far as I can tell, none of my few posts there have ever been posted...

OT:

People, check out the Libtard Columnist on the "Ft. Worth Star" poking fun at the idea of a Demographic Jihad by Muslims:

I'd like your opinion so hope you'll read.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/08/14/2404232/going-gaga-over-terror-babies.html

Taking bets on whether the Ground Zero mosque will have a minaret? And amplified calls to prayer? Odds?

If I am not mistaken, Islam has always been characterized as a religion with a political doctrine attached. Perhaps it would be more effective to reverse the emphasis: that is, that Islam as a political doctrine with a religious component attached.

It wouldn't be hard to demonstrate the point. The Islamic Republic of X, means that that country's laws, economic and social systems are an expression of a political doctrine. There are, for example, no countries called the Christian/Hindu/Buddhist Republic of X.

It would then be easier to show the general public that what we are fighting is not a religion, but a political doctrine that threatens the well-being of the free-world every bit as much as Communism did.

The 'religion' aspect could be more clearly shown to be a smokescreen to smuggle in the corrosive elements that threaten our freedom of speech, equal rights for all, etc..

Wright spent years asking terrorists questions, and expects that they will answer a stinking kufr truthfully...They might have told him everything he knows, but not everything they know...He doesn't seem to know about demographic jihad and how 'babies' play a major roll...

The mosque is 600 ft. away. Let's say, a second bombing happens, theoretically; would they have to evacuate the mosque in that scenario? The answer is yes!

So, by giving me bull**** by Smith and Haberman, they're also playing loose with the facts.

Thanks for reading, swami. Knew I could count on you!

Check out this great comment I read on another thread in the "Ft. Worth Star" today:

"As an American white woman, who has lived in several country's growing
up, I can assure you, a Muslim man would not last 10 minutes trying
to cram the doctrines of the Koran down my lifestyle, brainwash and
disrespect me as a human. Allah must have hated women.
Our Christian God created woman to be a companion to man.

Allah and the Koran are all about male superiority, violence and killing
of non-Muslims and females of their own faith. To furthur disrepect
females, Muslim men are promised 10 virgins upon death and meeting up
with Allah in the afterlife. On 1 condition, they kill or die killing
non-Muslims when they arrive. The Koran uses brainwashing as it's
major teaching tool.

It's scary out there, Muslims have taken over Europe and now they are
setting roots in the USA. Who knew we'd vote a Muslim in as the President of the USA?. Is this truly the End Times?

A day may come when we need Mexico to salvage and fight for the USA
against Muslim violence and killing and control. Think about it."

Great, isn't it? This lady KNOWS. Look - when you see the number of inane, uninformed, and idiotic comments on the "S-T" about Muslims/Islam you really appreciate a comment like the above!

A day may come when we need Mexico to salvage and fight for the USA against Muslim violence and killing and control. Think about it.

Actually I have thought about something like that...With the huge number of legal and illegal Mexicans, who are mostly Catholic, and the huge numbers of Muslim Immigants and there numerous offspring, who are 100% Islamic...There is bound to be a clash between these two groups because of competing ideologies and scarce resources...
I wonder if there are any mosques or Mahoundians living in Mexican mafia or M 13 controlled areas of LA?
My nephew is a sgt on the LA police gang task force...Last time I talked to him he said that the Mexican mafia had driven the M-13 gangsters out of the area...So he may be able to answer that question...Problem...I don't see him every day...

I have always said that Islam is much worse then Communism because Muslims have attached a god to their idealogy.

"The Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, built on the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, are declarations of the superiority of Islam over Judaism, and its victory over Judaism."

The Dome is 300 feet to the side of the site of Solomon Temple, just as the proposed "Victory Mosque" is 600 feet to the side of GZ. Defiantly Mohammad’s way to stand to the side and boast of victory..


"There is bound to be a clash between these two groups because of competing ideologies"

Well, there's going to be some huge gigantic "clash" in America involving the Muslims which our grand-children will be dealing with.

They're going to look back at these times and be so pissed off by all the idiotic political correctness which led to the huge Mohammedan/Islam problem THEY have to deal with.

It's like we're in the gradual build-up-to-Nazism stages, back in late '20's Germany.

Nothing can be more important then the struggle to help non Muslims understand that Islam is not just a religion, but a complete and total political system. Most experts on Islam believe that its tenants coupled with sharia law reflect that Islam is as much as 85 Pct. Political in its make up.

The nature of Islam and its aggressive postures for complete dominance over other religions is on open display every single day. In this world of instant communication it is almost impossible for people to not form some degree of awareness of what Islam is about even if they do not bother to look a little closer at what drives Muslims in the Quran which is extremely easy to find on the internet today.

Muslims aggressive behavior is openly on display in the UK on an almost daily basis. The British have become so steeped in political correctness and the perversion of multiculturalism (their Achilles Tendon) when it come to the ever growing demands of Muslims that at times you feel they are saying the words "yes master" with every outrageous accommodation they make to these people who have no allegiance to Britain.

Though there are many moderate Muslims who will not openly follow every surah in the Quran, fundamental Islam is running the show and it is steeped in an ideology of martyrdom, remembering what the sheite leader of Iran Ayatollah Khomeini said in 1980:

"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

Another words there is no patriotism, there is is only worshiping Allah. Thus the action of Iman Rauf in trying to build the mega mosque near ground zero are for Allah only and no other entity really matters to him. There is no compassion,there is no sensitivity to those who lost loved ones murdered by Islamic Jihadists, there is only allegiance to Allah.

Iman Rauf and his followers have demonstrated their insensitivity for several weeks now towards hundreds of thousands of Americans because building that mosque will make him a hero among Muslims everywhere.

Islam teaches, WAR is DECEIT......

But, all ISLAM is DECEIT.

Therefore, therefore all ISLAM IS WAR.

Get it?

I read a story about Mo taunting his enemies before attacking them. This Mosque is so remaniscant of that. I think we will have to deal with them before our grandchildren do.

duh_swami wrote:

"So they have a right to build because of building laws, but they do not have a right to practice Islam/sharia...Since Islam and sharia cannot be separated, Islam is not free to practice 'freedom of religion in the US', 'like everyone else'.(Rasool Obama)"

1. As I understand it, an Orthodox Christian church which was destroyed by the 9/11 Muslim bombers, has not been given permission to rebuild their church. That figures.

2. Also there is that unwritten clause in our constitution which would not require any use of the Constitution as a suicide pact. Rashool is interested in using our Constitution as a suicide pact but he will have a real hard time convincing everyone to drink the cool aid and commit suicide. The proof for this unwritten clause in the Constitution is that if any of our founders thought anything in the constitution was a suicide pact, they would never have written it in the first place and 70% of our people (although not Rashool) have enough sense to see that.

How hard is it to understand that GZ is the entire USA and the western world in general...It is measured in miles, not feet...

Whose side are you on?

It's simple. If you are a goofy elite liberal, you think that building a victory mosque on Ground Zero is perfectly okay. You also think that it is halal for the Al-Asqa victory mosque to lie on top of the Temple of Jerusalem. You think that it is proper for the Hagia Sophia to have been turned into a mosque. And the 20,000 mosques built on top of the destroyed Hindu temples, that's just history. The destruction of the Buddhas in Afghanistan was just unfortunate.

Whose side are you on?

"Whose side are you on?"

The Leftists'? Apparently, they're suicidal.

What is going on with the Greek Orthodox Church at Ground Zero?

Do we need to throw all this freedom of religion talk back into the faces of those opposing the church but oking the mosque?

Is there a campaign to get the Greek Orthodox Church rebuilt?

Maybe this needs to be made more public- a group that was already there is not being allowed to rebuilt when a new group is forcing their way in.

Why isn't there more public out cry? Do people know about this? I am just learning about it.

ONLY BY FORCE
“As the essential principle of his [Muhammad’s] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.”
John Quincy Adams writing in about 1829
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/07/perfect-man.html

You wrote: "....it is clear that Islam is not protected under the first amendment of the constitution..."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It isn't clear to me that Islam is Not protected under the First Amendment. Do you think the Framers of the Constitution took the time to study Islamic history and law? Were these men prophets? One of the more insightful Framers, John Adams, wrote: "It will never be pretended that any persons employed in the service [i.e., framing constitutions] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven."

It is a losing proposition, it seems to me, basing our opposition to this supremacist mosque (or any mosque for that matter) on the the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. Obama, a man known for his utter contempt for the US Constitution, is on solid ground (conveniently) invoking the First Amendment, as well as the intent of America's Founders, now that it suites his interests and his sympathies.

Though strict constructionists might make the case that the First Amendment protection of speech is an absolute right, we have found this to be demonstrably false, especially in time of war. Shall we allow an imam to publicly call for the murder of Christians and Jews in the name of Free Speech? Would America's Founders sanction the free exercise of a religion in the US which for all practical purposes is at war with the US?

"The party appears to be pretty much as clueless as it has always been, but time will tell. "

"It is [a politician's] business to get and hold his job at all costs. If he can hold it by lying, he will hold it by lying; if lying peters out, he will try to hold it by embracing new truths. His ear is ever close to the ground."

H L Mencken - Notes on Democracy (1926), Part II

IMO politicians and even most people are not clueless, they just stubbornly refuse to take time to research the truths that might be very unpleasant.

Gravenimage made this point a few days ago about the Burlington Coat Factory actually being a part of Ground Zero. This is a position which should be mentioned whenever disputing with those who a) back the building of the mega-mosque and b) maintain that the Burlington Coat Factory is not part of Ground Zero.

Also what should be brought up anytime someone supports the building of this mosque is how punitive the Muslim world is to other religions. If the rejoinder is that we should not be guided by what other nations do (a rather vapid response to be sure), then mentioning reciprocity a la Benedict XVI is of great importance, as is pointing out that freedom can have restrictions on it from time to time without necessarily violating any Constitutional principle. As an example, assuming the Japanese owned land very near Pearl Harbor, this doesn't mean they have a right to build a Japanese cultural center there. Land use ordinances can take in a whole host of reasons (e.g., designation of the land as an historical site) why a particular parcel of land can not (never mind should not) be used for certain purposes.

"That's why the Islamic supremacists want that building, and only that building, and why they have rebuffed Governor Paterson's offer to help them move elsewhere, and why they persist in their plans despite a rising chorus of public disapproval and public anguish that shows up their claims to be "building bridges" with this mega-mosque."

Feisal Abdul Rauf must have his mosque as close to Ground Zero as possible, because of its symbolic -- i.e., triumphalist -- value. Otherwise it is just one more mosque. And he wants to get lots and lots of money from rich Gulf Arabs -- starting with those in the Emirates and Kuwait (just to show how "bridge-building" and "un-Wahhabi" he is) but, of course, in the end he 'll be taking money from the SAudis too. He sees this hundred million building-cum-mosque as his permanent ticket to economic wellbeing. A mosque elsewhere would not be such a monument to the Triumph of Islam - made more triumphant, still, if Muslims, if Feisal Abdul Rauf, can successfully ride roughshod over the wishes of about 3/4 of the citizens of New York. What a symbol for the world's most fanatical Islam. What a heartening thought, what a heartening sight, for them. Will this make them more placid, less aggressive, less demanding, or will it merely make them think that they are on the right path, the triumphant path, that even the Infidels in America, even the Infidels in New York City itself, with a Jewish mayor going to bat for that mosque, make them question whether there is to be an inevitably Triumph of Islam or, rather, convince many Muslims that there is simply no stopping Islam, no stoppiong mosques-and-madrasas no matter how important -- or as those ridiculous Infidels like to say, with their ridiculous ideas, how "hallowed" the ground.

There needs to be a gay/lesbian bar next to this mosque, lets see the outcry from liberal then! l think the grassroots in the Republican party gets, and even some of their leaders. You see also Conservative commentators such as Sean Hannity coming out against islamic terror, they are indeed reading JW! thankyou Robert and company !

Islam in stark contrast to faith-based religions is a religion of submission that forbids the freedom of conscience under the pain of death. For instance, in Christianity and other faith-based religions I can freely choose what it is I will adhere to and what it is I will not adhere to, and I can also freely choose to leave the religion if I so desire. However, with respect to Islam, because the freedom of conscience is forbidden under the pain of death, I can’t choose what it is I will adhere to and what it is I will not adhere to, as that is blasphemous and blasphemy is punished under the pain of death. Likewise I can’t freely choose to leave Islam, as murtaad (apostasy) is also punished under the pain of death. Hence, although you may try, however, you will never convince me that the founders intended to give the same protection for faith based religions to a religion of submission that forbids the freedom of conscience under the pain of death, since it is so antithetical to everything the founders were trying to attain.

Nevertheless, in any event the question is rendered moot, because Islam in addition to being a religion of submission that forbids the freedom of conscience under the pain of death is also a very radical form of totalitarianism that seeks world domination as its main goal. Hence, when you take Islam in totality for what it really is, it couldn’t be clearer that a totalitarian theo-political ideology that seeks to subjugate the world via the imposition of Sharia isn’t covered under the first amendment, as the constitution isn’t a suicide pact.

Thanks for the response, but your arguments although interesting were for the most part really lame.


"faith-based religion"

And a Fate-Based Religion, too. And if Fate -- that is, whimsical Allah -- decides this way, or decides that, who is an individual "slave of Allah" long accustomed to the habit of mental submission, to question what happens?

If the mosque is not built, this will be a sign of Allah's disfavor. Perhaps Allah thinks Muslims should not be quite so aggressive or violent. Perhaps Allah thinks Muslims are being just a bit too pushy in their conduct, through all possible means, of Jihad. Perhaps Allah is getting fed up with those who call themselves "Muslims" and actually prefers those who, in much juster, more decent, better organized, altogether more admirable -- for all of their faults -- societies, are called "non-Muslims." Worrisome doubts! Difficult thoughts!

Let the demoralization begin. It's well deserved.

This whole thing is so frustrating.

No matter how I feel about the GOP on a whole host of issues, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I cannot support the other political party that wants America to be subject to Sharia law.

The Left thinks they can corrupt Islam the way that they corrupt Christianity and Judaism. They believe that Islam is just another religion with funky clothing that can be converted into supporting gay rights and public funding of abortion. The Left's willful ignorance of danger makes it far, far more dangerous to our country than OBL.

The Chamberlains have just as much blood on their hands as the Hitlers. They do not support "peace," they support surrender to evil.

I hope that justice is brought upon those who are building this victory mosque.

If a Christian cult taught about other groups and infidels what Islam teaches, it would be destroyed by the US government.

Remember Waco?

Half of all "muslims" in American mosques should actually be undercover US agents. Any of them preaching "radical Islam" (ie, mainstream authentic Islam) should be addressed for inciting violence and hate speech. The arrests should be frequent and the punishments severe.

The overwhelming evidence remains a constant within the tenants of Islam through the Quran. In Islam there is only intolerance for any other religion but Islam, and yet Christians and other non Muslims are asked to be tolerant of Islam; the question is why? Is Islam held to a different standard then the rest of the religions of the world? The answer is apparently yes; but again the question is why? Why is this intolerance ignored by other religions and by Countries who hold Western values?

Could you build a church or synagogue in Saudia Arabia or Iran,let alone Iraq and Afghanistan or Syria? How about Yemen,Libya,Morocco, and how about trying to live safely in Egypt if you are a Coptic? Look at the struggles of Christians in Indonesia and a host of almost all of the 56 Islamic Countries that make up the OIC that is the largest block of countries in the United Nations and where many serve on the UN's human rights council-- that's right it is all a complete hypocritical sham.

If President Obama declares that Islam must be protected by America's Constitution then Islam should be held to the exact same requirement whether in America or throughout the world, and if not then they are failing to live up to that liberty, and that freedom. Because they do not live up to that freedom of religion they should be formally disqualified from practicing it under the umbrella of the Constitution.

But once again we must be reminded that Islam goes far beyond being a religion, it is in fact a complete totalitarian ideology driven by sharia law and their allegiance is only to Allah.

Of course, if you ride the Islamic logic of infiltrating centers of power to the end of line, then a 'prayer center', or some such thing, will be set up in the White House.
Oh, it's only for visiting dignitaries of the Islamic faith, they'll say, but its symbolism will be enormous.

Which way does the White House face, by the way? Mecca, by any chance?

You needn't convince me of the threat Islam poses to the West. You wrote above: "....it is clear that Islam is not protected under the first amendment of the constitution..."

How is it clear? You might argue as you have that Islamic law and teachings are not consistent with the Enlightenment principles and the values of America's Founders; principles of religious liberty, the freedom of conscience, etc. What evidence can you present from the writings of the Founders (the Framers) that Islam is not protected under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment? Obama argues that it is protected. I've not seen or read anyone credible on the Right who is arguing that Islam is not protected. Have you?

Sacred grounds should be shared by all religions, a house of interfaith worship could be built near the WTC. Statues of Moses,Jesus,and Mohammed can be displayed with a Minister,Rabbi, and Imam conducting services. There is no reason why Christians,Jews,or Muslims cannot pray at the same time in the same place. God is not deaf and he can hear every voice.

You wrote: "No matter how I feel about the GOP on a whole host of issues, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I cannot support the other political party that wants America to be subject to Sharia law...."


Not to make a direct comparison to the early nineteen thirties in Germany. When you have a choice between the Social Democrats, the Center Party and the Nazi Party, you vote for the Social Democrats or the Center Party. It could be a matter of life and death. For the Jews it was a matter of life and death.

I have no choice but to vote for every Republican candidate at the national level who will oppose ("fight") this nightmare in the White House. Maybe at some other point in history I could afford to vote for "purity," that is for some 'principled' third party candidate that does not stand a chance; thus redounding to Democrats' benefit. This November, I do not have that luxury. I must vote GOP.

"Islam teaches, WAR is DECEIT......"

n.a.palm,
Are you saying the Religion of Peace is really the RELIGION OF WAR??

Yeah, I guess that's a bit deceitful. How did it ever get to this, in the 21st century no less!?

I don't get it... what fools.... But great leaders knew about Islam, Jefferson and Adams, Churchill, to dispel this notion of the 'religion of peace'. The Islamic Republic's Ayatollah Khomeini was very clear on this issue, probably the one time he spoke the truth, NOT a 'religion of peace'.

You wrote: "If President Obama declares that Islam must be protected by America's Constitution then Islam should be held to the exact same requirement whether in America or throughout the world, and if not then they are failing to live up to that liberty, and that freedom...."


Over the years, I've heard my conservative, libertarian and "revolutionary" (e.g., World Net Daily's Joseph Farah) constantly invoke the Constitution. "Our elected officials need to abide by and return to the Constitution!" "Bush needs abide by the Constitution." "The Constitution, the Constitution....!" As though the Framers were gods or prophets and the Constitution is a sacrosanct document without spot or blemish.

Now we have a demagogue and (I would argue) an unprincipled reprobate invoking the Constitution. Well?

Just finished a happy Ramadan time with my family, praying and celebrating the end of another fast day. Quite lovely. I prayed a doa for you all.

So sad. If you spent 1/10th the energy lobbying to build something on Ground Zero, you might have built something yourself by now. But I know things are tough there with the 20%+ unemployment. Your political masters must be thanking Allah they have some non-issue to distract you with.

It is so sad to see Americans deconstruct their own Constitution based on fear of a single building. It's just a building.

---

"Half of all "muslims" in American mosques should actually be undercover US agents."

This one is just cute. Why wait for 500,000+ "agents" to be hired, go down to the local mosque yourself and citzens arrest the imam for hate speech.

Let us know how it goes OK?

---

Have a blessed Ramadan everyone.

Sacred grounds should be shared by all religions, a house of interfaith worship could be built near the WTC. Statues of Moses,Jesus,and Mohammed can be displayed with a Minister,Rabbi, and Imam conducting service...

Not too wise Morris...Years ago I decided it was time to build an ark...Once it was built, I began filling it with animals...Everything was going just fine until I put the dogs in with the chickens...I won't try that again...Your plan won't work for the same reason...

"It is so sad to see Americans deconstruct their own Constitution based on fear of a single building. It's just a building."

Okay, let's have a church or a temple or a synagogue in Saudi Arabia.

After all, it's just a building.

The Burlington Coat Factory building sold pigskin leather coats, and it's worth mentioning to Rauf and his gang.

How is it clear?

Screw the writings. Are you really contending the founders intended to protect a religion of submission that in stark contrast to faith based religions forbids the freedom of conscience under the pain of death, and that besides being a religion only is also a very radical form of totalitarianism that seeks world domination as its main goal? Are you really saying Sharia, which institutionalizes systematic oppression of females and non-Muslims and incorporates draconian punishments including stonings, beheadings, and amputations, while also forbidding the freedom of conscience, the freedom of religion, and punishing apostates under the pain of death is perfectly compatible with what the founders were intending to attain?

If it is evidence of writings alone you are concerned with only, then lets see you or Obama produce evidence of writings of the founders expressively protecting what is in reality a totalitarian theo-political ideology that seeks to subjugate the world via the imposition of Sharia. While it is obvious that you may be more than just a little self-hating, it is perfectly clear to me the founders weren’t. Again, I find your arguments incredibly weak.

I prayed a doa for you all.

I thought I smelled something strange...Please don't do that...I don't want Allah to know where I am...

The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't know what the Founders intended to protect. Maybe had the Founders been prescient they would have qualified the statement, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Aside from Ground Zero, do you believe Muslims have the right, or do not have the right to build mosques in the US? If you believe Muslims do not have the right to build mosques in America, what pretext or legal argument would you make to prohibit the building of mosques in the US? That Islam is not a religion? I do not see Spencer making the argument that Islam is not a religion. How do you define a religion? What does and what does not constitute a religion?

Like I said, I've not read anyone on the political or scholarly Right (not even R. Spencer) make a case that mosques (as mosques) should "not" be built here in the US. The furthest I have heard Spencer go is that mosques should be carefully monitored or scrutinized for potential violent teachings therein.

Hooper is on FOX claiming that Geert Wilders is a hate monger and he wonders if Geert and Newt will burn some Qurans...
Why does FOX give this lout credibility by frequently having him on...

Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal?

No one gets my respect more than Spencer, but he and other anti-jihadists are not clones of each other...There is general agreement but not on every detail...I don't accept that Islam is a religion...It is a hostile hegemonic political system hiding behind religion...And I am opposed to, and have said many times, that mosque building in the US should be stopped...And if I had the power to do that, I would not let destructive political correctness get in my way...

As an American and a soldier who got some action in Iraq, I must say I'm disappointed at what I read here. I fought to protect the constitution of this great nation. The constitution specifically grants freedom of religion and worship. Now if you're going to get into semantics on what each book says, be it the Bible, Torah or Qur'an, and use this in a court of law to challenge whether Islam is a religion or not, good luck with that, having studied theology I can tell you there's some crazy crap in every single one of those books including quite a bit of crazy $hit in the bible, which I won't get into here, we're not here to debate religion. The fact is that the constitution of this great nation guarantees freedom of religion and we must honor it as we honor our fore fathers and all of the brave soldiers who fought and died in foreign wars. This mosque and Muslims right to worship just like Christians or Jews is 100% protected by the constitution, and if you side against that you side against the constitution and the United States of America, which makes you traitors to this country. If you're against freedom of religion and the constitution move to Israel where bigotry and religious oppression is allowed. You dishonor the soldiers who fought to protect our freedoms and you're all an embarrassment to this awesome nation. If I could I would spit in your faces. Semper Fi Never forgotten.

Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal?

Probably, but he is so vile, not many believe him...

Since muslim leaders say that islam cannot be separated from its political activities, that it works to further its own interests exclusively, and encourages/engages in organized, illegal activities.....I think it would be entirely appropriate that it be treated as any other corporate or business entity within our territory.

1. All muslim entities must pay full taxes.
2. All muslim entities must be viewed with an eye to vigorous prosecution under the RICO statutes.
3. All those who work for or donate to muslim entities must be publicly disclosed and those records made easily available for inspection by any citizen or legal resident of the US (similar to other political donors).
4. No parallel legal system that circumvents or supersedes US laws.
5. All muslim entities would be subject to routine and random inspection by various regulatory agencies (just like any other business in the US).

This way, muslims would remain free to worship their god as they see fit, but it would effectively start destroying the malignant political/terrorist activities that we Infidels have all become distressingly familiar with.

The Sunday morning talk shows have tried to obfuscate the words spoken at the White House Ramadan Dinner. When PBO backpedaled on his speech, he said that it was only about the right to build a mosque.

I am trying to find the quote but I recall PBO specifically mentioned "Lower Manhattan". That's a pretty small area, including Wall Street and Ground Zero. I don't see how he can weazel out of that one but the MSM will try to help pull his foot out of his mouth again.

Wellllll, THIS soldier is asking why you support an entity that is openly dedicated to overthrowing the government and the Constitution of the United States?

Hmmm?????

I'm waiting......

Uh, which side did you say you are on again?

You want to spit in faces...Start here punk...You are not the only military hero around...and you are not the only one who saw difficult and dangerous combat so take a flying leap...

You are not a hero, you are a disgrace...

OT: The New York Transit Authority's anti-terror ad campaign "If You See Something, Say Something" seems to be working. It's different from other wartime slogans - "Loose lips sink ships" "Uncle Sam needs You" "Better dead than red" "Fight the VD not the VC"
This shoulda been Obama's turf, war slogan is basic 101 community organizing. It looks like the war of ideas is taking off without him. I bet his speeches get lispy again.

"Author Profile Page Annie Oakley replied to comment from me.yahoo.com/a/tFX_gqwapJTCtmyeC1YZBRWnom0- | August 15, 2010 11:12 AM | Reply

Wellllll, THIS soldier is asking why you support an entity that is openly dedicated to overthrowing the government and the Constitution of the United States?

Hmmm?????

I'm waiting......

Uh, which side did you say you are on again?"

First let me say I'm not very religious, but I think I'm fairly knowledgeable on the subject having studied the three major religions.

I worship the U.S.A., my superior, and the M249, and now I'm pretty tight with my HK USP.

I have one question for you. Have you read the Talmud? If you have I don't think you would be asking that question? So tell me have you read it? If you haven't I don't think you have any right making the assertions your making.

Have you read the Talmud, and do you defend the constitution? I'm waiting for your answer?

Um, it's not as if Muslims have no place of worship available already in Lower Manhattan. I'm sure they have dozens of mosques from which to choose in order to fulfill any psychological need someone might feel for group worship.

Why don't you stop and ask yourself "Why there?", soldier?


Hello Yusef, good to hear that you are well.

Try this simple experiment and I guarantee that you will leave Islam:

Place your copy of the Quran on the floor in front of you, and simply stare at for 5 minutes. Then ask you’re the following questions:

What if those are not the words of god?

What if Muhammad was not the messenger of god?

What exactly is this book asking of me?!

* It is asking Muslims to beat their disobedient wives (criminal, domestic abuse):

004.034
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

* It is asking Muslims to chop off the hands and feet of petty criminals and those who oppose the demands of Islam:

005.033
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

* It is telling Muslims that they should not take Jews and Christians as their friends:

005.051
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

* It is telling the Muslims to fight and kill for Islam until the religion reigns supreme and governs the whole of the earth.

009.029
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Now don’t forget Yusef, you must believe all of the Quran. You can not pick and choose. Do you still believe that Islam is a good religion and choose to remain Muslim?

You should have no problem responding to my comment if you are indeed proud of your decision to remain Muslim.

By the way, here is a link to my website. Feel free to check it out:
http://www.considerationsofacanadianex-muslim.org

"And I am opposed to, and have said many times, that mosque building in the US should be stopped...And if I had the power to do that, I would not let destructive political correctness get in my way..."

And I tend to agree with you but you would have difficulty doing it under the rubric of the First Amendment because most elected officials, judges, etc., I believe or would rule or determine that Islam falls under First Amendment protections. To my knowledge, our Founders did not define what does and does not constitute religion. Neither did they define what does and does not constitute acceptable speech according to the law and / or in times of national emergency.

That is unfortunate, because as we have learned through painful experience, seditious speech cannot be tolerated in the middle of a war. US leaders would not have tolerated - in the name of Free Speech - Nazi marches or protests through American streets during the Second World War. Neither in my view, should we tolerate Muslim protests against American defensive policy or against America's allies in the streets today as we saw during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, 2008-2009. We are learning and will continue to learn through painful experience (I am afraid), not all forms of religious expression can be tolerated in times of peace much less in the midst of a war; especially not religious expression that is the root cause of the war; that is seditious by its very nature, from its inception, as Islam is.

You're no soldier just a punk ass Muslim or Liberal troll. BTW all the religious equivocation, using the Constitution as a club and skipping over the issue of the monster mosque being built on Ground Zero gave you away.

And not being a native English speaker didn't help you either.


Punk face spitter, who cares what you think or what you have studied...You discredit yourself with your spitting comment...Walt is right, you are either a Mahoundian or an appeasing troll...

Celebrity writer Danios at SpencerWatch.com has just released a damning report titled 'Silencing Spencer: Taqiyya and Kitman are part of Judeo-Christian Belief.'

The extended report is a line by line refutation of “Lying: It’s wrong–except when it isn’t”, found in Chapter 6 (“Islamic Law: Lie, Steal, and Kill”) of Robert Spencer’s book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).

The Introduction and Conclusion of the report have been included below:


Introduction:

"Part of the grandiose anti-Muslim conspiracy theory espoused by Islamophobes today includes the idea that Muslims are, in the words of Robert Spencer, involved in “large scale deception campaigns today.” [1] Spencer dedicates chapter 6 of his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) to convince his readers that Islamic law allows for and even encourages lying “if it fosters the growth of Islam.” [2] In this manner, moderate Muslim-Americans are cast away as “stealth jihadists”, who are simply using deception to further their belligerent faith. Any Muslim who says otherwise is accused of lying. When moderate Muslims express their peaceful views, these are dismissed as “deception campaigns.” On the other hand, when extremist and fundamentalist Muslims express their belligerent views, these are accepted as being “real Islam.”


Conclusion:

"The irony is not lost on the perceptive reader that Robert Spencer and the Islamophobes use deceptive arguments to claim that Muslims are engaging in “large-scale deception campaigns today.” [32] It is paranoid alarmism of the worst order, designed to spread anti-Muslim sentiment. Spencer’s vitriol is similar to the anti-Muslim polemic used by the Church during the Crusades, which does not come as a surprise, considering that his book opens up with the Crusader slogan “Deus Vult!” (God wills it!) and the very last word in it is “Crusade.” What is contained between “Deus Vult!” and “Crusade” is the propaganda needed to wage this Crusade that God so willed.

Taqiyya simply means that a Muslim can renounce his faith in order to save his life from torture or death. The doctrine of taqiyya is found in Judaism, which commands its followers to save their own lives even by lying. Many Christian thinkers also believe this is something permissible. As for kitman, this means “mental reservation” (i.e. telling half the truth in order to mislead someone), and is a doctrine accepted by the Church. Kitman is also accepted in Judaism.

If Muslims are to be vilified for believing in lying and using deceit in war, then Jews are to be condemned even more for believing that lying is permissible to kill idolaters for their idolatry. If Muslims are to be vilified for allowing lying to save life, then Christians are to be vilified more for the belief that lying is permitted to further the interests of the Church. Naturally, our opponents will balk and cry “tu quoque, tu quoque!” They wish Islam to be judged by a standard that their own religious belief cannot withstand. These Islamophobes engage in “mental reservation” when they mention half-truths about Islam. One must wonder if Robert Spencer believes it is permissible to lie in order to further the interests of the Catholic church? Considering that he is a fervent anti-Muslim Catholic apologist, it would not be hard to believe."


The full text of the report can be found at the following link:

http://spencerwatch.com/2010/08/15/silencing-spencer-taqiyya-and-kitman-are-part-of-judeo-christian-belief/

JW readers interested in refuting Danios' latest hit piece are welcome to post their refutations either on this site or at SpencerWatch.com.

On having read the article though, readers will once again realize why Robert simply does not stand a chance in hell of winning a debate with the amazing young Danios. Of course, true to form, the 'Taqiyya artists' on this site will continue the same old tired (hilarious) excuse that Danios is "beneath" Spencer, "not worth debating", etc. as part of a desperate attempt to save Spencer from complete and utter humiliation. It doesn't really matter though, since Danios will continue to pulverize Spencer's cartoonish paradigms with ruthless efficiency.


"The time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end..."


Regards,

Patriot.

Why do you care what Annie Oakley says, I believe she's US Army. (I might be mistaken but I was told 'You' only have eyes for the Navy (due to the extended periods they spend away from wives and girlfriends)

Walt, I invite you down to Swansboro, South Carolina for me to prove it? I also ask you since everyone's going tight lipped with my questions. Do you defend the 1st amendment, it's freedoms, and the constitution of the United States of America, or do you not, which makes you a traitor to my country? It's a yes no question? Waiting for an answer?

Maybe at some other point in history I could afford to vote for "purity," that is for some 'principled' third party candidate that does not stand a chance; thus redounding to Democrats' benefit. This November, I do not have that luxury. I must vote GOP.

I find it goes person by person. Too many GOP members also talk the PC talk and walk the PC walk. They won't go after Muslims who call for our downfall anymore than George W. Bush did. Most won't save us from what is currently in the White House any more than most Democrats. What did most of them do in the years since 9/11 to lessen the dangers we face in this country?
Even as we were at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Muslim terrorists were still coming here. They were the source of all those "homeland security alerts" we had during the 2004 campaign. The GOP was running the show. What did they do when they had the ability to change things?

I have been warning people about going to Spencerwatch...It has bugs that jump, and I got one for a one minute visit there...This chump Patriot has posted Denio's crap and challenges before...Denios is Dave 747 that posts here sometimes and always gets shot out of the saddle...Loonwatch is in the same category...avoid those sites...

Stay away from Spencerwatch, Patriot is trying to lure you into computer corruption...

Podcast,

"I mean you can’t dissect Islam, take one tiny part of it, while you ignore the much greater part of it to circumvent the constitution."

I agree. Islam is a systemic whole. Only in an abstract hypothetical sense can one pick it apart into parts or "elements". As a systemic whole, the whole is the problem, and the danger. Islam is both essentially and functionally metonymic.

This metonymically systemic nature of Islam can arguably work in our favor, insofar as even those in the influential public eye who are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons -- i.e., opposing the GZM not because it's an Islamic mosque but because its Imam seems to have "extremist" ties and sentiments -- are helping, for if any given part of Islam fits synergistically with the whole, then any given part condemned serves to condemn the whole metonymically.

The counter-argument to this theory is that we are not merely dealing with an abstract process here, but with a real danger, and one facet of that danger is the continued immigration into the West of Muslims, and the continued consequent aggrandizement of Muslims within our societies and institutions. Given the nature of the danger of Muslims (and the unique qualities of that nature should be known by those in the still inchoate anti-Islam movement), the West will inevitably have to remove Muslims from its societies through deportation: I.e., the West's management of the problem of Islam will perforce effectively take on the form not of a metonymic condemnation, but of a holistic condemnation. It's not a matter of if, only a matter of when. The longer we wait, the messier, the costlier and the bloodier (on both sides) that process will be.

I have yet been persuaded of the wisdom of maintaining a metonymic condemnation of Islam on the part of those of us in the West who are now functioning as "canaries in the coalmine" at the spearhead of the Great Reawakening of the West (reawakening, that is, from its ridiculous amnesia about the millennial threat of Muslims), rather than boldly -- and coherently -- standing for the only condemnation that makes sense, the holistic condemnation of Islam: Islam, the whole Islam, and nothing but Islam.

No one here gives you any credibility troll...You are way over your head here when it comes to Islam and Islamic hegemony...Nearly everyone who posts here regularly is an Islamic expert in their own right...Having done their homework...You are not going to teach or prove much of anything...unless you talk turkey about Islam...

"'Provocative, insensitive and uncaring': Fury after Obama backs mosque near site of September 11 disaster"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1303000/President-Obama-proves-favour-new-mosque-place-twin-towers.html#ixzz0whnBthAH

I hear you PMK. Look, I don't think there is a bigger critic on this site, of George W. Bush and his Republican supporters in Congress. During the Bush years, I cannot remember telling anyone "A wasted vote is a vote for the opposition."

I swore during the Bush years I would never again vote for the "lesser of the evils" as I had done when I voted for Bush. But that was before Obama came to power. My late father (who was politically active) used to say, 'If I can find a candidate I agree with 85 or 90% of the time (I cannot remember the exact percentages), he is my man'.

This is pretty common thinking amongst party activists and leaders. But after hearing this statement, a pro-life Republican asked me, "What if the other 10% means the man has a knife at my throat?" This I thought a great question. What if I were a German Jew who agreed with Adolf Hitler 90% of the time but because I am a Jew the other 10% meant the gas chamber?

For me, Obama has a knife at my throat. I will not deliberately vote for a Republican if I know he will not oppose Obama's agenda. We do know most, if not all Democrats at the national level can be expected to support Obama and his insidious agenda. "IF" we are able to turn this thing around slightly in November, then we can work on party purity and discipline. Meanwhile Obama and his Democratic colleagues have a knife at my throat.

"Patriot is trying to lure you into computer corruption..."

And you, duh_swami, are a damned liar! But is that the best you'll have got? LOL!

The great JW has now been effectively reduced to a bunch of village idiots incapable of putting a single decent refutation together. But I do understand that the fundamentally irrational positions held by Islamophobes in general are impossible to defend under criticism. Thus, the 'phobes are forced to engage in wholesale Taqiyya and Kitman as evidenced by duh_swami's comment above.


Regards,

Patriot.

"Patriot" (to what nation, I might ask)

Your bluster and braggadochio on behalf of Danios are the opposite of persuasive.

Scanning the argument you presented, I think I could refute it. For Spencer it would probably be like swatting a very annoying gnat.

Danios attributes a number of positions to Spencer that he does not take, and Danios cannot give us, I notice, any quotes from Spencer to back up the accusations against Spencer.

Further, the problem with Islam is not merely taqiyya or the use of deception. Does Danios consider that Muhammad said, "If someone changes his Islamic religion, then kill him."

Does Danios answer that? That's what I'd like to hear answered. I'd also like to hear Danios explain why the state of civil liberties and political rights in the bloc of Muslim majority nations is so horrific, on the whole.

I'd like to hear from Danios what he has to say about the fact that Muhammad countenanced the rape of captive women by his soldiers, as shown in core Islamic texts.

Indeed, there are a number of things that neither you nor Danios can answer, because they are unanswerable.

But also, and more importantly, the Burlington Coat Factory building is in a larger sense part of Ground Zero. The landing gear from one of the jetliners hijacked on September 11, 2001 flew into the building that the Islamic supremacists want to tear down to construct their mosque. That makes this building part of the 9/11 attack site, and will make the mosque -- in the eyes of the Islamic world -- exactly what the Dome of the Rock is: a mosque of victory built right on the site of the Muslim defeat of the Infidels.
...............

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I have made this point many times myself—the only reason—in the sweetly sneering words of Daisy Khan—that the building "came to" Rauf and Khan and the "Cordoba Institute" was that the building was so seriously damaged *on 9/11*, by the same hijackers who destroyed the nearby World Trade Center.

Why did the Burlington Coat Factory store never reopen, *as a Burlington Coat Factory store*? Because the undercarriage of one of the hijacked jet planes crashed through the roof, doing enormous damage to the building.

In fact, if the staff hadn't all been in the basement, gathering merchandise to restock before the store opened for business for the day, the death toll on that terrible day would likely have been much higher.

Well said, Buraq, thanks,

as there are so many great comments on this thread. Maybe about one of the most essential principles involving Islam. And it's opposite in many ways; Secular Democracies and its laws and values.

As you pointed out, there do exist so-called Islamic republics, and at least one Islamic kingdom (Saudi A.), but no Christian or Hindu-republics or kingdoms. And in Islamic republics they certainly do implement Islamic laws and principles, some of them completely at variance with those of secular democracies.

We now know Islam I + II, Islam's highest guiding texts and schools of thought very well. And the question is if Muslims want to interpret and implement those texts and guidelines as their goal when given their chance.

And if a large part of them, including residents of secular democracies want that, then they are no longer loyal or neutral to the laws and values of these secular-democratic nations. No, they are them loyal to a theocratic competitor of secular democracy. And why are they not proud enough to openly admit it? Instead of denying and contradicting their own highest guiding texts and the declarations of sooooo many of their co-religionists? If they think secular democracy is so bad, why do they keep denying they want to replace it with Islamic republics implementing GOD's laws, according to them? Bah, they have no respect for much of their own texts and laws, try to hide them from the scrutiny of the infidel public!!!

Whereas the overwhelming majority of Christians, Jews (just look at Israels secular Democracy) and Hindus (India is the biggest secular democracy on earth) indisputably are loyal or neutral to secular democracies. So comparison with followers of these 3 religions do not exonerate Islam. As the alleged US soldier above seems to imply.

And Geert Wilders is already saying what Hugh, Buraq, Podcast and others so eloquently reasoned. And his popularity is still rising in Holland. (in the polls he just rose from 24 to 31 seats, from 16 to 20 % of voters).

He looks global and compares faiths and loyalty to faiths, only then he looks at nations and loyalty to them. His PC opponents stupidly keep insisting to view Hollands Muslims as Dutch first and only then Muslims. But for a lot of them it is almost certainly the other way around. But the political correct people do not even want to ASK them. Let alone try to somehow make them take responsibility for their choices, namely for Islam and it's accompanying texts and fellow Muslims and their actions.

From which in a global perspective they profit. Because it is their faith that is being helped by the very so-called radicals and their violent oppression of other-faith-followers and warfare against democracy-bringing NATO-forces which benefits Islam and costs the secular democratic taxpayers trillions.

But profiting though they are, until now Muslims successfully avoid being held accountable, Islam is barely considered a choice and almost a race-accident of birth.

I don't think It's me who is the liar Dave...But nice try...Spencerwatch and loonwatch are infected...

Latest Fox News Poll. It's amazing how few voted "It is a relgious issue." I voted "both."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/15/ground-zero-mosque-religious-moral-issue/

As President Obama's seemingly conflicting responses over the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero draw more criticism to the White House, do you think it's a religious or moral issue?

Share your thoughts.


Is the Ground Zero Mosque a Religious or Moral Issue?

Religious -- the terrorists acted in the name of Islam, committing an act of jihad.

Moral -- it's about respect and consideration for the feelings of Sept. 11 families in particular, and of all Americans in general.

Neither

Both

Other (Post a comment)

the only condemnation that makes sense, the holistic condemnation of Islam: Islam, the whole Islam, and nothing but Islam.

Agreed...I'm not willing to give an inch...

duh_swami sir, the building of the mosque isn't really about Islam, although I doubt too many people here have any formal education in theology which I have, but since I'm not very religious I'll let that slide, The point here is that this is a test of the the constitution's protection of freedom of religion, and therefore cannot be stopped because doing so would go against the fundamental rights and freedoms we have as Americans in the 1st amendment. I'm completely stunned that I get no answer when I ask if if the commentors support the constitution and freedoms of the United States, even from alleged fellow soldiers and veterans. If you don't support the United States who do you support, are you agents of foreign powers? As far as I'm concerned I still go by are you for us or against us?, and it's quite obvious from your comments that you collectively are against America and the people in and out of uniform that defend it. What country do you represent? Are you even in the U.S.?

I have to get back to my imaginary life which you claim I have traitors? Good luck morons and pansys, it's your right, freedom of speech. I don't have a lot of free time. This has been a strange few hours?

"Scanning the argument you presented, I think I could refute it."

You are welcome to try!

"Danios attributes a number of positions to Spencer that he does not take, and Danios cannot give us, I notice, any quotes from Spencer to back up the accusations against Spencer."

You give me the awful impression of someone completely unfamiliar with Danios' writings. If you are'nt, I don't see how you could possibly make that claim. And I'm afraid the rest of your comment is yet another attempt at shifting the goal posts. You know you cannot defend the argument under discussion, so you conveniently change the topic.


Regards,

Patriot.

"If you haven't I don't think you have any right making the assertions your making."
---------------------------------------

Wrong answer, Little Hero! I have exactly the same right to make assertions that you do (a right which I would not possess under islamic law). You called us traitors, but I think you are the traitor. I also doubt you are the Marine you claim to be.

Whether or not I've read the Talmud is beside the point. Neither Israel nor the Jews of any nation are trying to overthrow the US or our Constitution. I can walk into any synagogue in America and be truly welcomed even though I am not a Jew. They will not ask me to leave because it is a certain day of the week, or because the Rabbi wishes to address a particular topic to his congregation. We do not have Jews flying planes into our buildings, planting bombs in our buildings, trying to destroy our infrastructure, kill/convert/enslave us because we are not Jewish, committing "honor" killings, advocating the murder of our law enforcement officers, mass-murdering our unarmed soldiers on our military bases, or spouting sedition and treason from the pulpit, etc. Whatever you find objectionable in the Talmud does not seem to result in anti-social, criminal behavior on the part of the Jews.

I think a much better question is for me to ask you if you have read the koran, and if so, what version and what year of publication? My next question would be how you missed all the hatred in it that is directed toward us Infidels.....or rather, why do you seem to agree with it? Are you simply too stupid to understand what you've read?

I've read the koran. Several versions of it, too. I've read other islamic texts, too. I know what they contain, though I will never have the polish at quoting them that Hugh, Robert, DDA or many of the others here possess.

Tell us all, Little Hero....are you really an islamist, or are you simply too cowardly to face the reality of what the islamists have planned for us? If it is cowardice, get a grip on yourself and pay close attention to what I'm going to say......Cowardice won't save your life. It only means you will die in disgrace. You have no balls. You have no real passion.

You want to see some balls, Little Hero? While you talk about being pretty tight with your HK and worshipping your M249, think about the Robert Spencers, Pam Gellars, Geert Wilders, Wafa Sultans, Riqfa Barrys, etc, of this world who go toe-to-toe with this sort of evil every day. They do it without M249s or HKs or a squad of soldiers surrounding them and backing them up. Some of them do it in places where they are not permitted to own or carry firearms. They have the kind of courage and passion that you'll NEVER have!

I find it extremely hard to believe that you "got some action in Iraq" and still believe that islam in its current form has any worthwhile to offer the rest of the world. Maybe you are one of those soldiers who spent all his time hiding behind the wire and never went out of the gate until it was time to come home? To me, Little Hero, you sound more like someone who got all his military and battle experience on a Playstation II.

Oh, BTW, I've probably been defending the Constitution since before you were born. I bet I saw more action in Iraq than you did, too.

And trollboy the monster mosque issue has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment at all, it's about real-estate and positioning. Folks don't care if the Saracens build their Mosque anywhere but there. If they built it a half mile away no one would give a shit.

Then again you'd have know the subject and not talk out your ass.

BTW why don't you show up in your dress uniform at a counter-protest to show the U.S. military is behind Obama and the Mullah on this.

I'm sure you could get on CNN and Fox.

Your on ignore face spitting punk...Don't post to me...I'm not in the mood for your BS...

" I am completely stunned that I get no answer when I ask if the commentors support the constitution and freedoms of the United States, even from alleged soldiers and veterans ".

Ok, here's an answer..I do support the US Constitution. But where in the US Constitution does it say that it's permissible to desecrate a cemetery ?

Where's the "tolerance " for the victims of 9/11 - answer me that ?

In fact, I am using my constitutional right of free speech, to demonstrate against this obscenity.

And it's too damn bad if you think that I'm " intolerant ". I am intolerant when someone wants to rub my face in $@#&.

And why is being a soldier, or a veteran, pertinent to this issue ? I am a veteran, but my opinion is no more, or less, equal to any other commenter here.

"This mosque and Muslims right to worship just like Christians or Jews is 100% protected by the constitution" --from a posting above

The question at issue is whether Muslims are indeed worship like other religions. Theirs is not a religion based upon personal confession. Theirs is a belief system based upon an imposed regulation of life, not only for its adherents but even by non-adherents who are unfortunate to be subjected to sharia and Islamic rule. The imposed regulation extends well beyond theology and dictates the politics, sociology, family law and financial structure of each Islamic polity. The withered fruits of this ideology are hard to ignore. Yet some manage to do so with ostrich-like determination to avoid seeing what is clearly there to be seen.

The First Amendment was drafted with the intention of addressing the era of English history immediately preceeding it but shows little recognition of the struggles of other European nations against Islam. It is a fair question, then, to ask what constitutes a "religion" and how the rights of the majority may be protected from the beliefs of a minority who believe it their god-given right to oppress, suppress, rape, murder, maim and claim righteousness in the process.

You wrote: "....regulation extends well beyond theology and dictates the politics, sociology, family law and financial structure..."


I think we need to be careful here. So does Judaism. While Judaism and Islam are very different, they are similar in that like Islam, Judaism is an all-embracing way of life that extend well beyond theology. I am speaking of the law of Moses; the Torah.

Patriot, I am willing to accept the lengthy Tu Quoque-argument of Danios as valid. Tu Quoque-arguments from both Islamic and Secular Democratic sides are often valid to a large extent.

But that only means that all of mankind is prone to lying, and that it's indeed done by people of all faiths. It does not mean the Muslims don't do it.

And you know Robert Spencer and Danios could be out of each other's hair much more than they are now, if a substantial body of Muslims, living in secular Democratic countries, regretfully but openly informed the world that:

Hey, they simply prefer "Divine" laws over manmade ones. Hey, they put emphasis on quite different values and prioritize values in a different order than secular democrats do. Or people with no values or chaotic ordered vaque values do. And what's wrong with that? Anjem Choudary in the UK indeed openly prefers his "Divine" laws over manmade ones and I respect him for it.

Robert Spencer and many ex-Muslims are very knowledgeable with everything Islam and Muslims concerns, all over history and all over the world.

In this context Spencer really is in agreement with Anjem Choudary and a lot of Muslims explaining Islam in very theocratic ways, often at great variance with secular democratic ways. And also that it may be achieved in undemocratic, violent and deceitful ways. But he just prefers another way of organising society, and democratic, fair ways to achieve it.

Robert exposes most of the time the pretense so-called Moderate Muslims present to the world that Islam is NOT theocratic and thus NOT anti-democratic in some very important aspects in it's core. As he frequently humoristically points out the endless stream of countless "misunderstanders" of Islam, according to the so-called moderate Muslims and Islam-apologists.

At least the so-called radical Muslims are proud of their faith, but the moderates seem to want to disguise it, making it appear subservient to secular democracy, almost being ashamed of it and of their "radical" co-religionists. Who are so dedicated to Islam as to study it profoundly and daily and who are often willing to die for it. But no, they must be just misunderstanders, perhaps many even primitive illiterates, according to Moderate Muslims.

Finally admitting in great majority that Islam is, at least in part, in competition with secular democratic organisation of society in itself could earn Muslims much respect. Their motto should be: Theocratic and proud!

This perhaps could start a long process of forming two separate forms of societies; Islamic and Secular Democratic ones, both exchanging as much as possible citizens that really desire/ hanker for and are loyal to the other side? And are willing to swear an oath of loyalty to Islam OR Secular Democracy, them being 2 mutually exclusive political systems? Sort of OIC exchanging citizens with United DEMOCRATIC Nations?

OT "I'd like your opinion so hope you'll read."

It appears to be some brainwashed leftard who is attempting to use babies to present a non-argument against us (fighters of the good fight) and telegraphing the name of another piece of fluff from Hollywood I'm sure to boycott. Yawn.

"Folks don't care if the Saracens build their Mosque anywhere but there. If they built it a half mile away no one would give a shit."

Speak for yourself. I oppose the building and existence of mosques anywhere and everywhere in the West. They are not (merely) houses of worship of a categorical Religion, they are foci of dangerously violent sedition following a blueprint of expansionist supremacism. No polity should be obliged to allow such, and no Western democracy need change one law to enforce intolerance of such a threat to its society.

"If I could I would spit in your faces."
*********

Ha, Ha , it seems we have a pre pubescent troll (or two) on the line. You & Patriot are two peas in a pod.

Now off with both of you before you inadvertently educate yourselves by being around the truth for too long a time.

It just occurred to me, "Why are you and "Danios" so obviously threatened by Spencer?)

I think Patriot and Danios are the same Dave 742...if not they are identical clones...Don't go to Spencerwatch or loonwatch...bugs...

Vickie wrote:

What is going on with the Greek Orthodox Church at Ground Zero?
.............

Here's some more informtion, Vickie:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/nine-years-later-church-at-ground-zero-still-not-rebuilt-but-mad-rush-to-build-islamic-supremacist-m.html

Yes—the rush to build the triumphal mosque at Ground Zero is even more obscene given the situation with the St. Nicholas Church. The little church would have been celebrating its 100 anniversary.

Muslims lie about their religion, and their motivations, they do it frequently, and they do it boldly.

Defenders of the faith will cite a prominent Muslim from history as an example of Islam peaceful side, but conceal the whole truth.

Here is defender of the faith “Justin” engaging in takiyya.

"It should be noted that major Islamic scholars strongly restricted the application of Abrogation. An authoritative text on that is the Itqan of Suyuti, in which he mentioned 20 verses were abrogated (not including the peace verses). He even made a poem about it to teach Muslims. Shah Wali Allah, a famous Muslim scholar in India, thinks only 5 verses were abrogated (again, not including the peace verses)."

I replied:

“It is funny you should mention Shah Wali-Ullah, because he is an advocate of violent jihad, a contemporary of Abdul Wahhab, and his ideas have inspired many jihadists.

This man is quite well known, and you can read about him, as I have done, at various websites.

Like this one - http://www.saag.org/common/uploaded_files/paper62...

For Justin to invoke Wali-Ullah’s name while claiming Islam is a religion of peace is extraordinary. “
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/15/separating-islam-from-terrorism/#idc-cover

On suyuti:

“Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth.

http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam

The whole “Palestinian” cause is a lie.
There was no nakbah, there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, it is not like the Warsaw ghetto, the flotilla was a provocation, and on and on and on.

Bin Laden will tell a Western audience his motivations are one thing, and then tell a Muslim audience he is motivated by religion.

Feisal Abdul Rauf lies also. In his book “What’s Right with Islam”, he praise Al Ghazali, but doesn’t mention that man’s endorsement of violent Jihad, subjugation of non-Muslims, and his misogyny.

Feisal Abdul Rauf also characterizes Aisha as “feisty”, without mentioning she was raped by Muhammad when she was nine.

Feisal Abdul Rauf ends his book with a poem by Sheikh Muhyiddin Ibn al-’Arabi ment to show us the ecumenical side of Islam, but the mad Imam does not tell us most Muslims consider al-’Arabi as a heretic.

Muslims lie about their religion, they do it in a particular way that is systematic. Muslims will not allow their text to be critically examined the way Christians, and Jews have allowed their texts to be examined.

One can waste their time at Loonwatch, or they can observe reality.

Loonwatch is takiyya, tu quoque, and sophistry, and that’s all there is to it.

Ok, Swami, YOUR word carries weight with me, thanks for the heads up.

livingengine, nice marshalling of key points of evidence.

On one point, I have a tangential observation:

Feisal Abdul Rauf also characterizes Aisha as “feisty”, without mentioning she was raped by Muhammad when she was nine.

Aisha in fact should really be the Poster Child for Muslima Stockholm Syndrome, since while she began as a victim (and a victim of the Original Gangster himself, Muhammad), she grew up to be a fanatical jihadist in her own right. Were she alive today, she would be our vociferous and active enemy -- even if many Jihad Watchers might myopically & sentimentally only see her victimhood.

I have first hand experience with Spencerwatch bugs...

"We need to be careful here" --from Wildjew

Of course, and always. But if my earlier comments are not clear enough in themselves, let it be further said that while Orthodox Judaism may be a complete regulation of its adherents' lives, I am not aware of any movement afoot to impose the full weight of Mosaic Law upon the world or to subject non-Jews to an subservient state analogous to dhimmitude. Observance of the Noahide Laws are perhaps to be encouraged among the Gentiles but not enforced.

Islam, on the other hand, goes well beyond the hasidim in terms of the demands it makes upon outsiders. Its moral code is completely alien to the moral code laid down by Moses. Its political ambitions go beyond the land of its birth.

I don't think anyone will confuse Judaism for Islam anytime soon.

Wildjew responds to Podcast: You needn't convince me of the threat Islam poses to the West. You wrote above: "....it is clear that Islam is not protected under the first amendment of the constitution..." (my bold)

How is it clear? You might argue as you have that Islamic law and teachings are not consistent with the Enlightenment principles and the values of America's Founders; principles of religious liberty, the freedom of conscience, etc. What evidence can you present from the writings of the Founders (the Framers) that Islam is not protected under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment?

Podcast responds to wildjew: How is it clear?

Screw the writings. Are you really contending the founders intended to protect a religion of submission that in stark contrast to faith based religions forbids the freedom of conscience under the pain of death, and that besides being a religion only is also a very radical form of totalitarianism that seeks world domination as its main goal? Are you really saying Sharia, which institutionalizes systematic oppression of females and non-Muslims and incorporates draconian punishments including stonings, beheadings, and amputations, while also forbidding the freedom of conscience, the freedom of religion, and punishing apostates under the pain of death is perfectly compatible with what the founders were intending to attain?


This argument exemplifies what others had written on the topic of whether or not Islam is protected by our Constitution's First Amendment, in particular the 'free exercise' clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

O course, those who argue the First Amendment does not restrict in any way worship or Islam, technically they are correct, since there is nothing in the US Constitution that forbids religious worship, as we choose to worship any faith. So Islam as a 'faith' is surely protected by the First Amendment. But Muslims are working hard to change that, with their insistence that Sharia is part of Islam and cannot be separate from it. And there is the problem: Once Sharia is admitted, which means admitting or accommodating our legal system to accept Sharia, to accept Allah's laws as valid jurisprudence (and seen superior to man-made laws) as our Constitutional 'rule of law'; then we are no longer considering Islam as a 'faith', like all other faiths, but are forced to accept it as a parallel, even superior, legal system with its own jurisprudence in direct contradiction to our laws. Islam is then political, not religious. This Islamic polity is in direct contradiction to equality before the law, freedom of conscience and belief, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, gender equality, and preventing cruel and unusual punishments (including executing someone for leaving Islam). There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that could support Sharia, nothing. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom of a dual legal system based on theocracy within a democratic state. To allow for the political Islam to dictate its Sharia is not protected anywhere in our laws, and certainly not in the First Amendment.

An analogy to this would be if the old 'divine right of kings' were resurrected by religious groups, so there was a theocratic dual system of jurisprudence operating along side out secular Constitutional rule of law. Christianity once accepted this divine right. But after the writings of Locke, Hobbs, European Enlightenment, and our nation's Founding Fathers, this argument was put to rest. No one today, whether Right or Left, accepts the divine right of kings, and even where kingdoms still exist they are mostly parliamentary monarchies (with the exception of some Islamic countries). Whether you are a religious person or layman, an academic or government official, Christian or Jew, no one is willing to backtrack to the divine rights of kings. So why should Islam be different in this respect? Sharia is a divine right (of Allah, or Mohammed) in contradiction to all that had been achieved by Constitutional government to ensure our individual rights. Why would we accept such Islamic 'divine right' protected by our First Amendment? It is not protected, by any means, since this is something separate from freedom of religion. Sharia is political; in fact it is a seditious act against the law.

So for Muslims to demand equal status for Sharia, because it is an integral part of their religion, under the umbrella of religious freedoms protected by the First Amendment, they are demanding status as 'divine right' in opposition to our Constitution. This is not yet Lebanon where Muslims can dominate events, nor will it ever be. Americans, and Europeans I believe will fight a civil war first before we become Lebanized by Islamic rule. The First Amendment and Islamic Sharia (along with its doctrine of Jihad) are in direct opposition to our laws, so Sharia is not at all protected as a 'religious freedom' of choice, or freedom of assembly. If Muslims cannot split off their Sharia and Jihad from their religion, they have a problem of their own doing. Our First Amendment cannot protect them, and in fact works against them on this. The ball should now be in their court to accept separation of religion and state, something we did long ago, if they want protection under the law. If they cannot do this, but push for Sharia instead, at some point Islam will cease to be viewed a religion but will be seen instead as a supremacist political ideology. Many already came to that conclusion. And that is not protected by the First Amendment, nor will it ever be. The real test for Islam vs. the First Amendment will be for Muslim clerics and laity to condemn Sharia and Jihad; but if they cannot, then they stand condemned by every law of the land; and the First Amendment fails them here. Then there is legal recourse to start shuttering the nation's mosques.

This closure would start with the mega-mosque at Ground Zero.

If Danios is correct that lying about one's religious affiliation was part of Christian doctrine then I'm pretty annoyed because my Sunday school teachers said Christian martyrs were thrown to the lions on account of being Christian and they would not lie. Peter did lie to those who queried his status but he later deeply regretted it.

You wrote: "....And there is the problem: Once Sharia is admitted, which means admitting or accommodating our legal system to accept Sharia, to accept Allah's laws as valid jurisprudence (and seen superior to man-made laws) as our Constitutional 'rule of law'; then we are no longer considering Islam as a 'faith', like all other faiths, but are forced to accept it as a parallel, even superior, legal system with its own jurisprudence in direct contradiction to our laws...."

I agree with you. Only Islam is coming in under the radar of foolish Americans and our naive leaders, by stealth - as the title of Spencer's book suggests. Muslims vehemently deny they will impose anything on us, much less Sharia. They assure us that Islam is wholly compatible with American and Western values. Before silly and trusting Americans realize what has come upon them, it will be over. In the long term, I see nothing to indicate anything other than gradual and ultimate supremacy of Islam in the West. Islam is, I believe, the West's "last hurrah." America is going the way of Europe I am afraid. There may be a temporary push-back this coming November but even members on this forum aren't sure whether to vote for or against those who will oppose Obama.

"And you, duh_swami, are a damned liar! But is that the best you'll have got? LOL!"

Whoa! ...no he isn't! Hey of all the posters on JW, Duh_Swami is one the MOST trusted contributors we have!

Get lost, patriot ...you're the LIAR.

The ball should now be in their court to accept separation of religion and state, something we did long ago, if they want protection under the law.

Or Muslims can just assure us they accept separation of religion and state, meanwhile continue stealth jihad as usual -- which is in fact what they've been doing for years, beginning years before 911 and only accelerating since then.

If they cannot do this, but push for Sharia instead, at some point Islam will cease to be viewed a religion but will be seen instead as a supremacist political ideology.

They will tend to "push" as stealthily as possible. Of course, they will not do so perfectly, and will make a misstep here and there. But often a misstep has to be an egregious smoking gun to get the attention of the PC MC mainstream. Even Rauf's Sharia advocacy, for example, has not been sufficiently egregious, apparently, to make him a hot potato persona non grata in polite society. PC MC has different standards for different cultural crimes: comedian Michael Richards, or Don Imus, can have their careers ruined with one ambiguous outburst deemed to be "racist"; or hypothetically if a politician were found out to have said the "N" word once, his career would be ruined. But Imam Rauf can be on record supporting Sharia law, and the PC MC mainstream looks the other way when it does not tie itself in logical knots trying to exculpate him.

In this sociopolitical climate we are in -- and there is no good reason to suppose it will be reversed sooner than at least a decade or two, if not, sadly, much longer -- and given Islamic taqiyya, simply holding out expectations for Muslims to behave is woefully inadequate, both conceptually and procedurally.

We should drop the word "religion" when referring to Islam and instead should label it as a movement, in fact a totalitarian movement.

We should avoid as far as possible the use of the word "religion" in relation to Islam - at least that is the view I have come to recently. To call it a religion is to concede ground, since for the vast majority of people in the secular west, "religion" is a kind of lifestyle option, not submission to a total system of human behaviour.

Islam is a total system in teh same way that Stalinism, Maoism, Nazism and some other isms are.

" If you're against freedom of religion and the constitution move to Israel where bigotry and religious oppression is allowed."

bwahahahaha.....spoken like a true believer of the Islamic faith.....

One point from history...the early American constitution did NOT establish freedom of religion. If you notice, the clause quoted is about what CONGRESS can do. But at time when the constitution first came into force there were still ESTABLISHED religions in a number of the states. I think one was Catholic, another Episcopalian and another Congregationalist. In other words, if you were a resident of that state, you were expected to follow that religion and there were legal sanctions if you did not.

My own view would be that merely to describe an organisation or a movement as a "religion" is not to enjoy the privileges of a "religion" under the constitution. I believe (bit of a guess) this has been established by the Supreme Court. So it is simply then a question in relation to Islam of deciding (a) what does it mean, in the context of the US constitution to be a "religion" and (b) whatever the definition under (a), does Islam come under that definition.

It seems clear to me that a religion as understood by the American constitution is a movement that (amongst other things) does NOT seek to overthrow the American constitution. But there is plentiful evidence to hand that Islam hates America and its constitution and wants nothing better than to overthrow its constitution. Therefore Islam cannot be considered a religion under the constitution.

I agree, Notoshariah, islam uses "religion" as a facade; but when you pull back the veil, you will find islam's true evil agenda: world domination. My God, no thank you!

I fought to protect the constitution of this great nation.Not really although one can understand you having to rationalise this way to make sense of the situation of being involved in Iraq. That involvement is a futile folly, moreover it was and is a con and the con was obvious at the time of the initial engagement.

This mosque and Muslims right to worship just like Christians or Jews is 100% protected by the constitutionThat would be a construction you are putting upon the Constitution. No one would object to the clause "right to worship just like Christians or Jews" being protected by the Constitution if the words "just like" truly applied but therein lies the problem.

More doubtful of Constitutional protection is the right to build a mosque for again a mosque is far more than a place of worship. The Islamist leader of Turkey has said "mosques are our barracks". In a legal sense the courts would operate on the sense that ignores this temporal use of mosques as sources of sustenance for those engaged in jihad so they would say yes Mr Rauf does have the right to build the mosque. However all religious people would also most likely accept that we all have a God given right to choose Hell as our spiritual home but we do not have to. Does Mr Rauf have to build the mosque there? No, not under the Constitution anyway.

Sounds like a troll or a Muslim/Muslim apologist to me!

"As an American and a soldier who got some action in Iraq, I must say I'm disappointed at what I read here."

Then go elsewhere.

"I fought to protect the constitution of this great nation."

Islam seeks to subvert that very Constitution.

"Now if you're going to get into semantics on what each book says, be it the Bible, Torah or Qur'an, and use this in a court of law to challenge whether Islam is a religion or not, good luck with that, having studied theology I can tell you there's some crazy crap in every single one of those books including quite a bit of crazy $hit in the bible, which I won't get into here, we're not here to debate religion."

Why is it that trolls always write in run-on sentences?

Not only are you illiterate, you're a liar. Show me where Judaism or Christianity have any open-ended commands for believers to forcibly convert, subjugate or do violence toward unbelievers. SHOW IT TO ME.

"We're not here to debate religion" and yet that's what you've done. Quite poorly too, since anyone who has read and compared the Islamic Scriptures with the Christian or Jewish ones know that they do not teach the same things.

"If I could I would spit in your faces."

LOL!!! What are you, five years old? You're a Marine? Spare me!

Again ...great point, Notoshariah; and I agree that islam should NOT benefit from our constitution -- especially since it is more a system of government, not a religion, per se.

Thanks Hesperado.

I didn't know anyone even read my posts.

It's cold in cyberspace.

"If I could I would spit in your faces."

Methinks that he would loooove to do more damage than that ...what a creep, eh?

I read your posts, too. I try to read everyone's posts, but don't always succeed. I don't always have enough time.

Some of my favorites are Defender of Islam's incoherent ramblings. They're like trying to solve a crossword puzzle without having the list of clues. I can fall over sideways laughing at his posts!

Israel actually has "anti-incitement" laws which make it ILLEGAL to make negative statements against another religion, race, national grouping, etc. and which punishes such statements, written or spoken, with fines and prison time.

Israelis who are Muslim get a certain percent of their tax money put back into their community's religious infrastructure, and even are allowed to observe certain aspects of sharia in their community courts as regards marriage, divorce, etc.

The Israelis are even so democratic that they allow a pro-Islamist Arab party a seat in the K'nesset.

"Have you read the Talmud, and do you defend the constitution? I'm waiting for your answer?"


Which Talmud? The Bavli, or the Yerushalmi?

For starters, the Talmudim are NOT legal codes, but a DISCUSSION of the oral traditions, traced to Moses at Sinai and the Elders of the Great Synagogue, as recorded in the Mishnah, the core text upon which Talmudic discussions are based.

The TalmudS record ALL sides of arguments/debates surrounding the core Mishnaic text. One CAN NOT gloss a quote from this sixty-four volume collection of literature and "prove" a point about Judaism.

In Jewish law, it is the majority opinion of the betei din, or courts of justice, that establishes what a legal decision on any given question is to be.

Only ignorant anti-Semites, neo-nazis, and others of their ilk try to "prove" "facts" and score anti-Jewish brownie buttons by quoting Talmudic texts.

It's utterly impossible to "read" Talmud (it must be studied together with all its numerous commentaries and the super-commentaries upon those, as well as the decisions in later legal codes such as the Arbaah Turim, Shulchan Aruch, etc. etc. etc. and then weigh ALL these together to come up with anything resembling a just representation of Jewish law.)

So, one can "read" the Talmud Bavli in one of its English or German translations, and still have NO idea what the final decision on any given question really is.

Do you have about FIVE years? Well, you are welcome to investigate the English translation of the Babylonian Talmud:

http://wilkerson.110mb.com/index.htm

After wading through its sixty-four volumes (without commentary!) let me know what you've discovered.

I would leave superficial judgements of this encyclopedic literature to dorks like David Duke, Franklin Pierce, and the nutcases over at "Radio Islam."

In the end, you still won't know from your superficial English-language reading what Judaism teachers, any more than someone with an elementary-school education could sit down with twenty huge volumes of case history and state with clarity what American law teaches on any given subject.

"If I could I would spit in your faces. Semper Fi Never forgotten."


......And your MOS was?

You cannot build a Dunkin' Donuts without local zoning approval. Is this unconstitutional? How does rejection of a high-rise mosque deny Muslims religious freedom?

All politics being local, zoning boards are supposed to represent citizens, and the NY appointee boards didn't even poll the people they represent.GZ "belongs" to America now, like Pearl Harbor. Can any of you imagine the outcry if someone wanted to put a McDonald's @ GZ? And we're getting a monument of hate?

Hey phony soldier, it's obvious you know nothing of the 3 religions you mentioned--except possibly one: the one that allows lying to advance its cause.

Please don't post here that you were fighting overseas to protect the right of Islamists to slap a mosque @ GZ, or anywhere else. You don't know the Constitution.

"And you, duh_swami, are a damned liar! But is that the best you'll have got? LOL!"

Thanks Champ, I'm blushing...

Hesperado, you said,

I oppose the building and existence of mosques anywhere and everywhere in the West. They are not (merely) houses of worship of a categorical Religion, they are foci of dangerously violent sedition following a blueprint of expansionist supremacism. No polity should be obliged to allow such, and no Western democracy need change one law to enforce intolerance of such a threat to its society.

I agree with the first two sentences, and the first half of the third, but wonder about second half of the third, which I made bold. I wonder what sympathetic lawyers would say to you. If the bolded text is true, it's important that as many people as possible understand that.

Here's some of the relevant U.S. law. Sedition and treason laws seem to require that someone must use violence or force or advocate force before he can be considered to have committed sedition or treason. So wouldn't it be hard or impossible, under current laws, to shut down all mosques as seditious?

U.S. Code
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Sec.
2381. Treason.
2382. Misprision of treason.
2383. Rebellion or insurrection.
2384. Seditious conspiracy.
2385. Advocating overthrow of Government.
2386. Registration of certain organizations.
2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally.
2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war.
2389. Recruiting for service against United States.
2390. Enlistment to serve against United States.


Sec. 2381. Treason

-STATUTE-
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war
against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason
and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five
years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and
shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Sec. 2382. Misprision of treason

-STATUTE-
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having
knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals
and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same
to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the
governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is
guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

Sec. 2383. Rebellion or insurrection

-STATUTE-
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any
rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United
States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United
States.

Sec. 2384. Seditious conspiracy

-STATUTE-
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to
overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the
United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force
the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the
execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize,
take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the
authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Sec. 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

-STATUTE-
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or
teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession
thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by
force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any
such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any
such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed
matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts
to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society,
group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the
overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or
violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any
such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes
thereof -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by
the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in
this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for
employment by the United States or any department or agency
thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize",
with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include
the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the
regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units
of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

Sec. 2386. Registration of certain organizations

-STATUTE-
(A) For the purposes of this section:
"Attorney General" means the Attorney General of the United
States;
"Organization" means any group, club, league, society, committee,
association, political party, or combination of individuals,
whether incorporated or otherwise, but such term shall not include
any corporation, association, community chest, fund, or foundation,
organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable,
scientific, literary, or educational purposes;
"Political activity" means any activity the purpose or aim of
which, or one of the purposes or aims of which, is the control by
force or overthrow of the Government of the United States or a
political subdivision thereof, or any State or political
subdivision thereof;
An organization is engaged in "civilian military activity" if:
(1) it gives instruction to, or prescribes instruction for, its
members in the use of firearms or other weapons or any substitute
therefor, or military or naval science; or
(2) it receives from any other organization or from any
individual instruction in military or naval science; or
(3) it engages in any military or naval maneuvers or
activities; or
(4) it engages, either with or without arms, in drills or
parades of a military or naval character; or
(5) it engages in any other form of organized activity which in
the opinion of the Attorney General constitutes preparation for
military action;

An organization is "subject to foreign control" if:
(a) it solicits or accepts financial contributions, loans, or
support of any kind, directly or indirectly, from, or is
affiliated directly or indirectly with, a foreign government or a
political subdivision thereof, or an agent, agency, or
instrumentality of a foreign government or political subdivision
thereof, or a political party in a foreign country, or an
international political organization; or
(b) its policies, or any of them, are determined by or at the
suggestion of, or in collaboration with, a foreign government or
political subdivision thereof, or an agent, agency, or
instrumentality of a foreign government or a political
subdivision thereof, or a political party in a foreign country,
or an international political organization.

(B)(1) The following organizations shall be required to register
with the Attorney General:
Every organization subject to foreign control which engages in
political activity;
Every organization which engages both in civilian military
activity and in political activity;
Every organization subject to foreign control which engages in
civilian military activity; and
Every organization, the purpose or aim of which, or one of the
purposes or aims of which, is the establishment, control, conduct,
seizure, or overthrow of a government or subdivision thereof by the
use of force, violence, military measures, or threats of any one or
more of the foregoing.
Every such organization shall register by filing with the
Attorney General, on such forms and in such detail as the Attorney
General may by rules and regulations prescribe, a registration
statement containing the information and documents prescribed in
subsection (B)(3) and shall within thirty days after the expiration
of each period of six months succeeding the filing of such
registration statement, file with the Attorney General, on such
forms and in such detail as the Attorney General may by rules and
regulations prescribe, a supplemental statement containing such
information and documents as may be necessary to make the
information and documents previously filed under this section
accurate and current with respect to such preceding six months'
period. Every statement required to be filed by this section shall
be subscribed, under oath, by all of the officers of the
organization.
(2) This section shall not require registration or the filing of
any statement with the Attorney General by:
(a) The armed forces of the United States; or
(b) The organized militia or National Guard of any State,
Territory, District, or possession of the United States; or
(c) Any law-enforcement agency of the United States or of any
Territory, District or possession thereof, or of any State or
political subdivision of a State, or of any agency or
instrumentality of one or more States; or
(d) Any duly established diplomatic mission or consular office of
a foreign government which is so recognized by the Department of
State; or
(e) Any nationally recognized organization of persons who are
veterans of the armed forces of the United States, or affiliates of
such organizations.
(3) Every registration statement required to be filed by any
organization shall contain the following information and documents:
(a) The name and post-office address of the organization in the
United States, and the names and addresses of all branches,
chapters, and affiliates of such organization;
(b) The name, address, and nationality of each officer, and of
each person who performs the functions of an officer, of the
organization, and of each branch, chapter, and affiliate of the
organization;
(c) The qualifications for membership in the organization;
(d) The existing and proposed aims and purposes of the
organization, and all the means by which these aims or purposes are
being attained or are to be attained;
(e) The address or addresses of meeting places of the
organization, and of each branch, chapter, or affiliate of the
organization, and the times of meetings;
(f) The name and address of each person who has contributed any
money, dues, property, or other thing of value to the organization
or to any branch, chapter, or affiliate of the organization;
(g) A detailed statement of the assets of the organization, and
of each branch, chapter, and affiliate of the organization, the
manner in which such assets were acquired, and a detailed statement
of the liabilities and income of the organization and of each
branch, chapter, and affiliate of the organization;
(h) A detailed description of the activities of the organization,
and of each chapter, branch, and affiliate of the organization;
(i) A description of the uniforms, badges, insignia, or other
means of identification prescribed by the organization, and worn or
carried by its officers or members, or any of such officers or
members;
(j) A copy of each book, pamphlet, leaflet, or other publication
or item of written, printed, or graphic matter issued or
distributed directly or indirectly by the organization, or by any
chapter, branch, or affiliate of the organization, or by any of the
members of the organization under its authority or within its
knowledge, together with the name of its author or authors and the
name and address of the publisher;
(k) A description of all firearms or other weapons owned by the
organization, or by any chapter, branch, or affiliate of the
organization, identified by the manufacturer's number thereon;
(l) In case the organization is subject to foreign control, the
manner in which it is so subject;
(m) A copy of the charter, articles of association, constitution,
bylaws, rules, regulations, agreements, resolutions, and all other
instruments relating to the organization, powers, and purposes of
the organization and to the powers of the officers of the
organization and of each chapter, branch, and affiliate of the
organization; and
(n) Such other information and documents pertinent to the
purposes of this section as the Attorney General may from time to
time require.
All statements filed under this section shall be public records
and open to public examination and inspection at all reasonable
hours under such rules and regulations as the Attorney General may
prescribe.
(C) The Attorney General is authorized at any time to make,
amend, and rescind such rules and regulations as may be necessary
to carry out this section, including rules and regulations
governing the statements required to be filed.
(D) Whoever violates any of the provisions of this section shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years,
or both.
Whoever in a statement filed pursuant to this section willfully
makes any false statement or willfully omits to state any fact
which is required to be stated, or which is necessary to make the
statements made not misleading, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Sec. 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally

-STATUTE-
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence
the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces
of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or
attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the
United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or
printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination,
disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the
military or naval forces of the United States -

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the
United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term "military or naval
forces of the United States" includes the Army of the United
States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy
Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the
United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the
Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the
master, officers, and crew of such vessel.

Sec. 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war

-STATUTE-
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or
conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere
with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of
the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or
attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or
willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the
United States, to the injury of the service or the United States,
or attempts to do so -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of
this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the
object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy
shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is
about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as
within the United States.

Sec. 2389. Recruiting for service against United States

-STATUTE-
Whoever recruits soldiers or sailors within the United States, or
in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to engage in
armed hostility against the same; or
Whoever opens within the United States, or in any place subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, a recruiting station for the
enlistment of such soldiers or sailors to serve in any manner in
armed hostility against the United States -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both.

Sec. 2390. Enlistment to serve against United States

-STATUTE-
Whoever enlists or is engaged within the United States or in any
place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, with intent to serve in
armed hostility against the United States, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


Or Muslims can just assure us they accept separation of religion and state, meanwhile continue stealth jihad as usual -- which is in fact what they've been doing for years, beginning years before 911 and only accelerating since then.
-Hesperado

Yes, Hesperado, wildjew, all Islam must do to become a 'religion' is separate itself from Sharia and Jihad, without stealth and without omissions, they have to come clean. Of course, we know they won't do that, they can't, because they are bundled with Jihad and Sharia as a full package. This means at some point they will have to be called on it legally, which then opens the door to legal restrictions on their actions. We already have this in our hunt for Islamic 'terrorists', so it just a short step to the next level, where all Islamic activities are retrained, especially what they do at the mosque.

Muslims vehemently deny they will impose anything on us, much less Sharia. They assure us that Islam is wholly compatible with American and Western values.
-wildjew

To be wholly compatible with America and Western values, they must drop their Jihad and Sharia. Pretty simple, otherwise they will feel the full force of the law as if they were any other cult. The First Amendment can't help them here, they're on their own, legally outcasts. What the Ground Zero mosque proposal did for America is bring attention to their true intentions. A battery of lawyers, Obama and Saudi money notwithstanding, not even Ahmadinejad's buffoonery, can stand in the way of full prosecution for violation of our Constitutional rights with their Sharia, sedition and RICO violations.

The cat is out of the bag, and Ground Zero mosque let it out. Now 70% of Americans are against it, and studying the issues. We should be grateful to imam Rauf. He single handedly killed Islamic Sharia. No amount of Saudi/UAE/Kuwait money can save them now. From here on it's all legal. As trash points out in his list of Statues:

"Here's some of the relevant U.S. law. Sedition and treason laws seem to require that someone must use violence or force or advocate force before he can be considered to have committed sedition or treason. So wouldn't it be hard or impossible, under current laws, to shut down all mosques as seditious?"

From here on in, it's all legal.

"As trash points out in his list of Statues"

Sorry, treah! My overeager computer program changed your name. :( My apologies.

Really good list of STATUTES in yours above. Important stuff to know.

Sec. 2386. Registration of certain organizations:
(A) "Organization" means any group, club, league, society, committee,
association, political party, or combination of individuals,
whether incorporated or otherwise, but such term shall not include
any corporation, association, community chest, fund, or foundation,
organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable,
scientific, literary, or educational purposes;
"Political activity" means any activity the purpose or aim of
which, or one of the purposes or aims of which, is the control by
force or overthrow of the Government of the United States or a
political subdivision thereof, or any State or political
subdivision thereof;…

Note how this does not affect "religious, charitable" organizations, but in next part it countermands with "political activity the purpose or aim of which is the control by force or overthrow of the Government of the United States" - this is Sharia.

An organization is "subject to foreign control" if:
(a) it solicits or accepts financial contributions, loans, or
support of any kind, directly or indirectly, from, or is
affiliated directly or indirectly with, a foreign government or a
political subdivision thereof, or an agent, agency, or
instrumentality of a foreign government or political subdivision
thereof, or a political party in a foreign country, or an
international political organization; or
(b) its policies, or any of them, are determined by or at the
suggestion of, or in collaboration with, a foreign government or
political subdivision thereof, or an agent, agency, or
instrumentality of a foreign government or a political
subdivision thereof, or a political party in a foreign country,
or an international political organization.

This is on legality of foreign funding for Ground Zero mosque. There's a lot of legal meat to work with, not only violent activity, but also intent of Sharia, Jihad and the Ummah, ie., Muslim Brotherhood and their proxies. Call in the 'sharks'.

I am nothing like "Defender of Islam".

I was talking about Feisal Abdul Rauf's connection to Perdana before ANYONE else, including the NYP.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/video-flotilla-jihadists-attacking-idf-soldiers.html#comment-673967

I brought to light Daisy Khan's soft peddling of polygamy.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/daisy-khan-on-polygamy-i-also-explain-to-brides-that-as-a-woman-you-have-certain-rights-and-as-a-man.html

Now, I have found how Feisal Abdul Rauf plugs into the power elite in this country, and what he plans to do from his Cordoba House.

I am nothing like "Defender of Islam".

Notice the red square and that's where the Jihadist Victory mosque will be. Thanks to Infidel Bloggers Alliance.
http://www.wnd.com/images/groundzero.jpg

The more protest and anguish there is over this building, the greater the desire of those building it to do whatever they can to see it built, to have it talked about, to push and shove and say that Americans: Jews, Christians, other religious groups, agnostics and atheists, must be sensitive to the feelings of muslims.

It is rather like the bully who takes something that belongs to another child and taunts him/her with it. The more anguish exhibited by the child, the greater the satisfaction the bully feels.

Of course, just as the smaller, or weaker, or meeker, more peaceful child cannot ignore the bully and his actions, cannot truly put aside their feelings of hurt and even anger, those who lost loved ones and those who feel for those who lost loved ones on that terrible day cannot just ignore the eye-poking and taunts of the muslims insisting on building to show what they think of those who disagree with them.

It is unfortunate that the more pain they cause, the more pain they want to cause and the more they enjoy it. But I have the feeling that their crowing will not last very long.

On the subject of Treason.

In 2009 a jihadwatch regular was reading a book 'Even Angels Ask' (1997) by one Jeff Lang, an American convert to Islam. From that book, he posted in this forum copies of certain passages which are most revealing.

This happened while we were using IntenseDebate for comments, so you will not find the original posting: the IntenseDebate comments did not 'roll over' when we returned to Typepad.

But, fortunately, I had kept a copy of the comment. Here it is, in full.

"Jeff Lang is an American Muslim convert. Unlike most Muslims we hear about around here, he's very honest and I believe truthfully working toward a real transformation of Islam into a peaceful ideology. He is accomplishing this in part by steadily analyzing many of the "authentic" hadith and demonstrating that they cannot be true.

"But as Robert has pointed out many times, one can only reform what one admits has a problem, and Lang readily does, in his 1997 book "Even Angels Ask."

"What does Lang have to say about the impact of Islamic jurisprudence?

QUOTE - 'A minority of Muslims ... believes that we must remain cognizant of the historical context of Muhammad's actions and sayings and that if we are to apply his example correctly, we must be alert to the many differences that exist between his time and ours... The main assumption behind the stricter approach is that the best and most efficient way to derive moral and spiritual benefit from Muhammad's life example is by imitating him as closely as possible. (p. 104)' UNQUOTE


Further:

QUOTE - 'Almost all Muslim religious leaders ... uphold the classical dar al Islam/dar al harb concept ...

'This poses a very difficult personal dilemma for many converts, **because it seems to them that to become a Muslim, they are required to become enemies of their own countries** {my emphasis - dda}' (p. 119) UNQUOTE

"And Lang writes of his own experience attending a Muslim lecture at an American mosque in the early 80s:

QUOTE - 'The second lecture was given by Hisham, a very bright medical student who had been studying in America for almost two years. I liked and respected Hisham very much...

'Hisham spoke that night about a Muslim's duties and responsibilities... His speech was very moving and had been running about an hour when he closed it with the following unexpected and stern remark.

"Finally, we must never forget--and this is extremely important--that as Muslims, we are obligated to desire, and when possible to participate in, the overthrow of any non-Islamic government--anywhere in the world--in order to replace it by an Islamic one."

"Hisham!" I interrupted. "Are you implying that Muslim American citizens are to commit themselves to the destruction of the U.S. government?--That they are to be a fifth column in America--a secret revolutionary group seeking to overthrow the government?

"**Do you mean that when an American converts to Islam he must commit himself to political treason?!"** {my emphasis - dda}.

"I thought that by presenting Hisham with a very extreme scenario, it would force him to soften or qualify his statement. He looked down at the floor as he pondered my question momentarily.

"Then he looked at me with an expression that reminded me of a doctor about to break the news to his patient that his tumor is malignant.

"Yes," he said. "Yes, that's true." (p. 117)." END QUOTE FROM LANG.
END ORIGINAL COMMENT.

Well, there it is, ladies and gentlemen.

"Q: When an American converts to Islam he must commit himself to political treason?"

"A: (from one 'Hisham', a pious and devout Muslim, studying *medicine* in the USA...and wouldn't we all like to know his last name? - and the exact name of the mosque that he was speaking in, way back when, in the 1980s?)

"Yes, Yes, that's true".


WOW!I mean W_O_W ! ! !


I had arrived at a conclusion, after 6 months or so of listening to you rabid pack of swine oink about your ideas and " If I only had my dilithium crystal" intentions for Islam and Muslims, that someone from the opposite side of the issue needed to keep an eye on y'all and had unofficially nominated and elected myself for the task {kinda like the last Presidential Administration, wink!}.

But, lemme testify the folks over at SpencerWatch.com have got it in HAND!{can I get an "AMIN"!}. No Worries, however, I've grown to think of the JW Rabid Doggz as my own little misguided red-neck cousins, so I'll still be poking my nose in from time to time to play fetch with y'all...


Allah Bless America!!!

Allah Bless America!!!

GOD FORBID!!!

..so I'll still be poking my nose in from time to time to play fetch with y'all...

"Play fetch"? That's what you call having your sorry ass kicked each time you "poke your nose in"?

Izzlum must have, among other things, perverted your sense of reality.

Livingengine,
I'm very sorry if I upset you! I didn't mean to imply that you are like DoI at all! You are coherent and easy to understand.

I was just kind of dismayed that in your post to Hesperado, you seemed to think that your posts go largely unread (see below). I think most of us read the topics we open pretty thoroughly. My reply was simply intended to let you know that other people besides Hesperado also read your comments, even if we don't reply directly to them.

"Thanks Hesperado.

I didn't know anyone even read my posts.

It's cold in cyberspace."

My comment about DoI was just a general comment. In retrospect, I suppose I should have left his name out of my reply to you in order to avoid confusion. Still, in every article I read here I hope to find a post from DoI so I can satisfy my daily urge for comedy. It's like reading my favorite cartoon in the newspaper.

Aww now Tommy, don't be like that! Let's meet the next time you're in NYC, we can go to Coney Island, I'll buy you a lemonaid and some cotton candy bro, HaHa!


Allah Bless America!!!
(She NEEDS it!)

I'll buy you a lemonaid and some cotton candy bro, HaHa!

I'll accept if you'll accept a ham-sandwich and beer, HoHo!

Allah Bless America!!!

God forbid!!!

see Tommy, in 2 comments we're negotiating and cracking jokes, it's not THAT serious buddy!


Allah Bless America!!!

yessir

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

Instead of talking about eating and drinking during ramadan, shouldn't you be doing the spirituality thing?

Hesperado said,

I oppose the building and existence of mosques anywhere and everywhere in the West. They are not (merely) houses of worship of a categorical Religion, they are foci of dangerously violent sedition following a blueprint of expansionist supremacism. No polity should be obliged to allow such, and no Western democracy need change one law to enforce intolerance of such a threat to its society.
(My bolding) A lot depends on whether the bolded part of Hesperado's statement is true, i.e., whether there is under current law a viable legal strategy to stop mosque-building. So far, I'm aware of no lawyers proposing such a strategy. Andrew McCarthy, prosecutor in the first WTC attack in the 90s, and author of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America would be the obvious one to ask about this.


In Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical of hadith collections, Muhammad said, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

Since the mosque site IS Ground Zero, and not just NEAR it - we need to start saying that, explaining that. If I, already a ferocious advocate against defiling GZ with the mosque, did not make that connection clearly until you gave it to me clearly, then those less invested and focused on the issue will not. It will help people who hold some ambivalence on the matter to come to our position.

"The mosque ON Ground Zero" - "The mosque IN Ground Zero" - "The Ground Zero mosque" . . .

Thank you, dear writer.

traeh,

Some points about the sedition issue:

1) I notice from your quotations of the laws that penalties only include either death, imprisonment, or fines. The question would be: Can any one or more of the branches of the U.S. Government modify penalties to include deportation?

2) As to the question of what to do about a subpopulation all of whose members are not ostensibly actively waging war on America: Recall FDR's internment of Japanese-American citizens. It was rationally and rightly determined that all Japanese-Americans are dangerous, even though probably only a few could be proved to have engaged in actual activities under those sedition laws. That internment was not ruled un-Constitutional then; nor has it ever been since. (But of course the Court of PC MC, more powerful than the U.S. Supreme Court in certain ways, has indeed ruled internment a "shameful chapter of our history" never to be repeated again.)

3) Read the post by dumbledoresarmy --

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/where-will-the-ground-zero-mega-mosque-be-on-ground-zero.html#comment-698049

Although anecdotal, it is emblematic of, and a glimpse into, a mountain of circumstantial evidence we have to indicate that all Muslims should be treated as suspect of sedition. All we need to do as a society is connect the dots. Before it's too late -- not only in order to prevent horrific attacks on us in the coming decades, but likely massive destruction of infrastructure, social dislocations, social disorder such as riots, insurrections, etc. throughout the West.

The whole point of proactive measures, the whole point of prevention, is that it operates prior to the establishment of smoking gun proof. It operates by reasonable inference, rather than being condemned to only reacting after the fact.

When the stakes are this horrifically high, it becomes exigent, for a society that wishes to protect itself, to begin to wrap its head around the concept of prevention, rather than continuing to whack terrorist moles while the much grander jihad is continuing to be aggrandized by Muslims within our societies.

"Andrew McCarthy, prosecutor in the first WTC attack in the 90s, and author of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America would be the obvious one to ask about this. "

I'm afraid Andrew McCarthy is only interested in Pipesian "extremism", not Islam and Muslims per se. So McCarthy would be a great source for us to consult were we to continue to do business as usual.

If you hadn't read my essay on McCarthy, see here:

http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2010/07/andy-mccarthy-hard-glazovian.html

Unfortunately, that article overlooks the fact that babies don't stay babies.

It also overlooks the reality of "anchor babies" - a pregnant foreigner comes into the country (say, Canada) and has her baby there. The baby is, for some bizarre reason, automagically a Canadian. Which means that the gov't will then allow the PARENTS to stay to look after the "new citizen" and will give them landed immigrant and eventually citizenship status.

Then chain migration allows this family to bring in lord-knows-how-many of their relatives, and then their relatives can use said chain migration ("Family Reunification") to bring in more and more people, and it just goes on.

In the case of Muslims, who is to say that NONE of these are going to be "radicals"? It's bad enough when non-Muslims abuse this to bring in large extended families and their families' families, etc (ie, "I really need my Granny here with me" - then Granny, being a New Immigrant, gets a place in a nursing home, jumping queue ahead of Canadians and sucking dry our "free" health care.) It's just insult to injury when it's a particular group of people known for wanting to recolonize and take over the country that's doing this.

Hi Dork,

If you like Loonwrectch you'll love Radio Islam.
http://www.radioislam.org/marx/marxjew1.htm

Enjoy. You were made for each other.

"Patriot" (to what country, I'd like to know),
There are some problems with that anti-Spencer website. For example, it seems Danios won't let an Islam-critic post comments -- unless the Islam-critic rants like a lunatic or is easy to answer. I tried to post, without any addition of my own, nothing but a hadith, including a link to the source of the hadith in a database at the University of Southern California. But I guess your great Danios found the hadith embarrassing, because he chose not to post it. I'm disappointed Danios is apparently just a propagandist who censors inconvenient hadiths, while letting ranters and straw men talk so he can make his opposition look bad.

In Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical of hadith collections, Muhammad said, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." Various other canonical hadiths attest that Muhammad called for death to those who leave Islam. That's why even today all the schools of Islamic law prescribe death for apostasy from Islam.

Shall we allow an imam to publicly call for the murder of Christians and Jews in the name of Free Speech? Would America's Founders sanction the free exercise of a religion in the US which for all practical purposes is at war with the US?

By the same token, shall we allow an imam to publicly call for the murder of Christians and Jews in the name of Freedom of Religion? That's what we are doing.

America's founders never envisioned the practice of islam in America. They were quite familiar with the horrors of islam after dealing with the Barbary pirates and they considered it a barbaric, contemptible belief system. Had muslims tried to invade America and establish a stronghold here, they would have been considered an invading army waging war against America and the practice of islam would have been made illegal. It's a shame they didn't have to address the practice of islam because they would have acted in the best interests of the Constitution, the people, and the future of the Republic. The wimps and cowards running the country today and in the forseeable future will continue to yield to the few screaming left-wing elites who would love nothing more than to see the muslims destroy Western Civilization. Political correctness trumps everything.

Oh, and to anyone thinking about taking Patriot's advice by going to spencerwatch... don't bother. I posted there twice and every single comment has to be approved by a moderator before they appear. The first one was censored because I said that Muhammad was a pedophile and a warlord, and that part of my post was cut out because it was "off topic." I posted again in other thread and it didn't appear at all. It was on topic. Traeh had the same thing happen and was allowed to repost because "it hit the spam filter."

They don't like opposing opinions there. They know they are wrong.

When I saw this The End Of Nations website it occurred to me that Jihad Watch commenters really have to see this link! http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-Union-The-End-Of-Nations

Living Engine wrote:

Thanks Hesperado.

I didn't know anyone even read my posts.

It's cold in cyberspace.
...............

Good post above, Living Engine.

It *can* be cold in cyberspace, no doubt, and at times it is difficult to know if anyone is reading your points—I often feel the same way—I'm sure many posters here do.

Just to let you know, I always try to read your comments, and they are always well worth reading.

I'll add that *I* read most everything people post here, even if I don't necessarily reply to everything.

Well: except for the very longest and most incoherent postings that are sometimes made by the worst of the Mohammedtrolls...those, sometimes, I choose to skip over. Once you've read one or two of *those*, you've read 'em all.

"Oh, and to anyone thinking about taking Patriot's advice by going to spencerwatch... don't bother. I posted there twice and every single comment has to be approved by a moderator before they appear."

Allah Snackbar, all comments are accepted on SpencerWatch as long as they are relevant to the topic. Danios simply does not approve comments which are off topic like the one you posted the other day since they only serve to distract everyone from the central theme of the article.

The problem with your ilk is that when you'll realize there is no way you'll can refute the arguments in the article, you'll tend to try and shift the conversation elsewhere.

For example, the other day, it was abundantly clear that the topic of the article was the concept of Taqiyya and how such a concept prevails in both Christian and Jewish religious teachings. When you found you had nothing to counter that claim, you chose to post something irrelevant. This being the case, I believe Danios did the right thing in censoring that particular comment since it added nothing of worth to the topic under discussion.

If however, you do have a serious refutation of Danios' works, please feel free to post it on SpencerWatch.com. If you are not comfortable with doing that, you may post it on this site and in turn, I shall put in a comment to Danios to let him know of developments.


Regards,

Patriot.

The pan-Islamic threat to the non-Islamic world in general and USA in particular did not end with 9/11 ! It is an un-ending movement of which the ground-zero mosque is a tiny fraction ! We in India have faced this threat for many many years , i.e. through the Muslim invaders coming from the Khyber Pass of Afganistan for 300 years and from the so called "secular" politics of the Congress Party of Gandhi & Nehru durin the latest 100 years ! USA has only recently , say since 9/11 , started facing the fire of Islam ! Nip this menace in the bud , Americans else it will engulf your entire national life with the tacit support of the "Muslim Vote Bank" that is slowly but steadily increasing in USA ! (Barak)Hussain Obama , unfortunately , has a Muslim gene in his blood and whatever he may say outwardly this gene in him will always make him take a softer reconsiliatory approach in facing the "Pan-Islamic Fire" ! Today Hussain in him is making him do this about the ground-zero Mosque ! Tommorrow he will , for the sake of his "Muslim Vote Bank", give more concessions to the "rat-type-breeding" population of Muslims in USA ! This is exactly what has happened in India , the largest peaceful ballot-box Democracy in the world. The creator of Islamic country Pakistan , i.e. England educated so called liberal minded Jinnah , "co-operated" with mild-mannered Hindu leader Gandhi and communist-minded Nehru , for almost 30 long years till 1946 but brought out his trump card of Islam at that time when , based entirely on the peaceful freedom movement of Gandhi , the independence of India from the British became a reality ! This was the true nature of a Muslim !!!! Beware of this kind of "Muslim behaviour of some of your double-faced politicians in USA. Many of them will be on the pay-roll of Saudi Arabia for a long time and will deceive you to become petro-dollar rich ! Saudi,UAE & Qatar petro-dollars have been at work in the "free" ballot-paper democracies like India and USA ! Beware of the greater threat of this "Islamic" Petro-Dollar threat to USA ! In India the petro-dollar power of these Arab Islamic countries have financed the creation of thousands of Mosques like the one coming up at ground-zero in New York ! With every such mosque in India there is an attached seminary called the "Madarasa" ! In Pakistan , unfortunately then financed by US CIA dollar fund , many such "madarasas" were built where today's Taliban soldiers of Islam were born who till date are fighting the US troops in Waziristan and "Frontier" Pakistan !
Today India's Muslim population is 20% of the total population and there are Muslim terrorist attacks dime a dozen in India ! Imagine when USA's Muslim ("rat-growth-rate") population becomes ,say, 15% of USA's total population by , say, the year 2050 , and crude oil is still the fuel-of-the-day then what havoc will those Muslims cause in USA ? BEWARE ! Nip THEM in BUD !

Leave a comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
Crucified Again by Raymond IbrahimDavid LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter