When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
“ya’ll have now got my attention and I’m tempted to make a post in favor of the Grand Mosque, whereas before I was ambivalent and on the sidelines about it, mostly thinking this isn’t a smart idea and only asking for trouble.”
First: No one says “ya’ll” anymore and I live in the Deep South.
But let’s put that aside.
But I say “ya’ll” and I live in the deep West Coast. So? And we’ve been down this road already. Need I explain again:
“Y’all?” Come on. I live in the Deep South and I don’t say “y’all.” Trying to appeal to the redneck demographic won’t make your case for you.
Oh, for the love of mercy! 🙄
Yer seriously a-gonna make an issue of thet one? I’ve offen typed out “y’all”, on account o’ when ah vocalize, it’s easier t’say than “yo’ all”. ah’s not doin’ a Hillary Clinton number, fo’ God’s sake! An’ ah’s not treatin’ y’all as hillbilly rednecks, tryin’ t’appeal t’yo’ by lin’uistically talkin’ down t’yo’.
I admit I’ve consciously used it here to get under your skin since you made such a fuss over it last time we broke lances. Think of it as my nyookular Bush moment (who actually knows how to pronounce it “correctly”…but chooses not to).
By the way…. Aye Chihuahua has also used it, addressing you specifically. Why didn’t you let him know you’re from the deep south and no one uses it? SoCal Chris types it a lot….ever call him on it? Patvann‘s occasionally typed it. Yonason‘s used it. Scott‘s used it. Mata uses it quite a bit.
Aren’t you admitting that you are merely taking the pro-mosque point of view simply to irritate people whom you see as bigoted toward Islam?
While I will admit to a certain mischievous pleasure in going against the grain and kicking over ant hills just to see all hell break loose, I’m serious in my ponderance on a post advocating why the vociferous opposition to the Grand Mosque might be a win-win for the real enemies. YOU beyond all other commenters have been evolving my opinion on the matter. I really haven’t been following the story that closely because it’s not one that interested me much. But since you’ve more or less forced me to read more than I cared to by drawing me into this debate, I’m thinking this really is a big deal and one that can be politically disastrous for conservatives and harmful to America’s image, and a feather in the cap for al Qaeda.
I think it’s important to put a conservative voice out there that says “not all of us have jumped on the bandwagon”, since the overwhelming din amongst the rightwing blogosphere and FOX News watchers is to express outrage and opposition to the building of the Mosque.
Surely, you aren’t tarring me with that brush. I know you are not.
Nope. I haven’t. I’m zeroed in on those who basically think Muhammad Ali is out converting or killing infidels because the Koran tells him to; or he must be practicing taqqiya and hiding his true nature from us, being the devious practitioner of (Sufi) Islam that he is. 🙄
So, why can’t you see that the opposition here isn’t entirely focused on blocking a mosque in New York. Just one at Ground Zero?
Oh, I understand that some people can distinguish between “radical” Islam and other forms of Islam. But why can’t you see that there are those on your side of the issue who can’t? And they are making great noise and are harmful to not only to the conservative movement but to America’s image.
And why can’t you see (I don’t mind disagreement, but I’d appreciate clarity in understanding my position) why I believe a mosque at Ground Zero isn’t spitting in the face of the 9/11 victims and America, but a spit of defiance in the face of al Qaeda?
How many mosques are there in New York? Dozens, hundreds or more? How can anyone with a straight face say we are “persecuting” Islam by suggesting this mosque be built at another site. Especially so since mosques are everywhere?
It’s a great point. But because this is garnishing so much attention, it makes great propaganda fodder for the Islamists. Reasonable people might be able to empathize and understand why there is such opposition, and that not all of it has to do with being religiously bigoted.
Had you been alive at the time, would you have supported a Japanese Cultural Center built at Pearl Harbor just a few years after the attacks?
I’ve explained myself before regarding the analogy comparison; it doesn’t fly with me. Because to buy into that comparison, you would have to be equating Japan with Islam itself. And you’ve just basically insisted to me that you aren’t against Islam, but against radical Islam.
Now, if you wanted to equate Islamic terrorists with Japan and why we wouldn’t support an Islamic terror camp built at Ground Zero any more than a Japanese Cultural Center at Pearl Harbor, then I accept the analogy.
I know you are not an appeaser. I went back and looked at what you said about the Danish Cartoons and South Park:
But should we now let any Muslim group, whether moderate or not, build a mosque wherever they want? Will it make them happy or will the radicals just demand more?
I’m not offended. When I first heard about this, I winced and felt, “bad idea”. But debating this, reading a little more on it, I’m now more inclined to support the idea. So long as it isn’t a mosque inspiring the jihad movement and the promotion of political (anti-American) Islam. But as Mata says, they are following our laws, obtaining the proper zoning/building permits; and unless we are prepared to make it look as if we really do think we are at war with Islam by making civil rights violations, I say all this public pressure to bear in opposition, all this scrounging around for legal recourse actions….it’s just playing into the hands of bin Laden and Zawahiri who have been telling Muslims how badly imperial/racist America is persecuting Muslims and are at war with Islam; and for the political left who want to paint us (conservatives)a as intolerant racists/bigots.
Question: Doesn’t it trouble you that the Imam behind the Ground Zero mosque supports universal Shariah law?
Can you show me the link on that again? It’s hard to digest everything that I have to read.
Sure, it’d “trouble” me. And as Mata and I have more or less stated, we don’t support his political views, which may mirror that of any anti-war liberal activist (doesn’t the Pope more or less oppose violence and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?). But so long as he isn’t imposing Sharia on us through violent conversion or killing, then he’s no different than so many other belief systems and religions I will have no part of belonging to. But in this country, he’s free to believe in them.
Let me know when we build a Christian mega church in Mecca and I’ll reconsider my view.
What Mata said. (It really is a ridiculous attempt at a one-line “zinger”, Mike).
@Curt said: “I come down on the middle of this issue, I see good points made by both sides. ”
Isn’t that taking the easy way out?
As regards to conservatives hyperventilating over Islam, I don’t see it. Sure we have a few examples here on this thread but that viewpoint IS MINOR.
Bigotry towards Islam is NOT the issue here. The issue is whether this mosque at this site is appropriate and what are the real motives of those who are building it.
Mata and Wordsmith have seemed a bit desperate to take us off on some magical journey into La La land where bigots can be found under every rock. That’s just not reality.
@Wordsmith asks: “Question: Doesn’t it trouble you that the Imam behind the Ground Zero mosque supports universal Shariah law? Can you show me the link on that again? It’s hard to digest everything that I have to read. ”
Oh come on. Really? You haven’t heard about this?
Did Google break on your computer?
Fine, here’s a quick sampling:
America should be “Shariah compliant.” A presentation by Sean Hannity with Debra Burlingame and Robert Spencer:
HANNITY: But he may be much more radical than most Americans know.
Now in a book published back in 2004, “What Is Right With Islam,” Feisal Abdul Rauf, he wrote of his fondness for Sharia Law and his belief that the U.S. can accommodate it. He argued, quote, that “the American political structure is Sharia compliant,” continuing, quote, “For America to score even higher on the ‘Islamic’ or ‘Sharia’ compliance scale, America would need to do two things: invite the voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation’s practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws.”
I suppose that would mean allowing Muslims to have their own Sharia courts, Jewish people to have their own courts, Christians their own courts and so on and so on.
How very American? Constitutional?
Joining me now with reaction is the director of JihadWatch.org, Robert Spencer, and the cofounder for 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America, Deborah Burlingame. Our friend is back with us.
DEBORAH BURLINGAME, COFOUNDER, 9/11 FAMILIES FOR A SAFE AND STRONG AMERICA: Hi, Sean.
HANNITY: Good to see you. Thanks for being here.
All right. Sharia Law compliant?
ROBERT SPENCER, DIRECTOR, JIHADWATCH.ORG: What he’s saying is that America has put no roadblocks in the place of the implementation of Sharia. And this is why we’re having a rally on June 6 against this mosque. Pamela Geller and I and Stop the Islamization of America, we’re having a rally to protest against this mosque. Because Sharia is at variance with the American law in numerous ways and with American freedoms — the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of women with men, the equality of rights of all people before the law.
Sharia denies all that. Feisal Abdul Rauf is for all that.
HANNITY: What he’s saying here is that — and look, this is the guy — this is right next to nine — you know, Ground Zero.
SPENCER: Yes.
HANNITY: All right. So they’re going to build a 13-story mosque. But what he’s saying here is religious communities in America, forget the U.S. Constitution, you know, equal justice under the law and constitutional principles. He’s saying that they ought to be allowed to judge themselves and use Sharia Law here in America. Is that your take, Deborah?
BURLINGAME: It is. It’s my take, it’s his take.
HANNITY: That’s a great point.
BURLINGAME: And in fact he’s really trying to get Sharia, sneak it in, hoping that Americans aren’t familiar with their own Constitution. Americans do understand the concept of the separation of church and state. And Muslims here in this country understand — who have embraced the American way of life, have embraced the concept of separation of mosque and state.
But look what he’s doing when he goes abroad. This book…
HANNITY: You — I wanted to point this out. You brought this — this is in this book. This is the imam that is — is spearheading the effort to build the mosque. These are his words. He’s the one that has argued that Sharia Law could be used in the U.S., because they can have their own courts and religious leaders, correct?
BURLINGAME: Yes. But — but when he published this in 2007 in the Muslim world, he didn’t call it “What’s Right With Islam” and a later title, “What’s Right with America.” He called it “A Call to Prayer From the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Da’wah From the Heart of America…”
HANNITY: Meaning?
BURLINGAME: “… Post-9/11.” Robert, tell him what da’wah means.
SPENCER: Da’wah is Islamic proselytizing. And in the Islamic law, da’wah precedes jihad. You call the nonbelievers to Islam. And if they refuse to accept it, then you initiate the jihad against them. But the whole goal of both da’wah and jihad is to impose Islamic law or Sharia upon the nonbelievers as a political system, not as a religious one.
HANNITY: What about the controversy — controversy involving his father?
SPENCER: The controversy involving his father involves the Muslim Brotherhood and the fact that this guy has ties to this group that is, in its own words, “dedicated to eliminating and destroying western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.”
HANNITY: So you both believe — and as I read this, this is becoming more and more alarming to me. And you have been very nice to give me a copy of the book and tell me about the translation when it was first published, you know, in other countries — that he would want to impose or at least allow for Muslims to have the ability to transcend the American court system.
SPENCER: Oh, yes.
HANNITY: Explain Sharia Law. Why don’t we go into in just a little detail in the short time we have?
SPENCER: Well, Sharia Law denies equality of rights…
HANNITY: To women.
SPENCER: … to non-Muslims, to women.
HANNITY: Right, right.
SPENCER: And it does not allow for them to operate in an equal system.
See, the thing about Sharia is unlike — you mentioned Jewish courts in the beginning, Sean. The thing, the difference is, is that no other religious system makes rules for people who are outside the religion. But Islamic law does. And it mandates, institutionalizes the subjugation of non-Muslims. And so that’s what Feisal Abdul Rauf is actually calling for.
BURLINGAME: And let me also add, this man has close ties to the Malaysian government. The Cordova Initiative, his — his operation that’s going to build this mosque, is funded by the Malaysian government. He has offices in Malaysia. That’s where he published this book.
And in Malaysia, in the Sharia courts, Sharia courts are mandated. No Muslim can go into a civil court. They have to have their things adjudicated in these courts. There are penalties for converting to Christianity there.
HANNITY: You lost your brother. Your brother was the pilot of the American Airlines flight that hit the — the Pentagon.
BURLINGAME: Right.
HANNITY: All right. Mayor Bloomberg just raced out there, at least through a spokesman and others. And all of this is fine, these people that are opposing this, this is outrageous.
BURLINGAME: I don’t think that’s what he said, Sean. To give him credit, his — his remark was very neutral. What he said was…
HANNITY: They have a right to…
BURLINGAME: They — they have lawfully purchased this property. And they have a right to build. In other words, he wasn’t endorsing the project. Imam Rauf and his wife are saying that. But he has uttered no such thing.
HANNITY: Listen, if all of this is true and with the relationship of his father, should he even be in the U.S.? I’ll ask both of you quick.
SPENCER: Feisal Abdul Rauf needs to be questioned with his followers as to whether his loyalty is really with the U.S. Constitution or not.
HANNITY: Do you think — what do you suspect?
SPENCER: Oh, I don’t think he is at all. I think he wants to impose Islamic law here. He’s very explicit about that, in fact.
BURLINGAME: I believe he does embrace the Constitution, and he knows if he gets enough Muslims voting in the voting booth he can change the Constitution to accept Sharia and create Sharia courts right here. That’s what da’wah will do.
HANNITY: We’ll continue to follow the story. Guys, thanks very much. We appreciate it.
And don’t forget, there are real questions as to whether Imam Rauf really believes in interfaith dialogue:
While we are at it, let’s remember that Imam Rauf gave an interview to 60 Minutes on September 30, 2001 where he said the U.S. bears responsiblity for 9/11:
“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened….ecause we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”
Does that sound like the words of a moderate Muslim?
And we are supposed to be worried about offending this guy?
Give it a rest!
As I said before and say again: when we build that mega church in Mecca, come and talk to me about tolerance! Your defense of this mosque is what is absurd.
As regards to conservatives hyperventilating over Islam, I don’t see it. Sure we have a few examples here on this thread but that viewpoint IS MINOR.
Plenty of other examples from and on other’s blogs as well. Your putting blinders by ignoring it. While it’s not anywhere near the size nor the scope of the left’s hyperbole over anything conservative there most definitely is hyperventilating over Islam from SOME conservatives. In many instances this hyperventilating is completely justified, others not so.
Bigotry towards Islam is NOT the issue here. The issue is whether this mosque at this site is appropriate and what are the real motives of those who are building it.
I agree, and that’s why I addressed that issue as well as the issue’s other’s on this thread brought up.
This mosque represents so much more than a mere gathering place for worship and spritual reflection. This is a self declared foreign enemy planting their flag upon U.S. soil. They are planting that flag on the very spot that they viewed as our symbol of freedom and economic success. They are choosing as the date to plant that flag the 10th anniversary of what they view as their great victory in tearing that symbol down. They have announced this truth in both english and arabic. Please do not insult the intelligence of everyone reading this blog by pretending that this is not the case.
Well, that’s one way of looking at it….
Here’s another: Some people keep crying out, “Where are the ‘moderate’ Muslims? Why aren’t they speaking out?” (ignoring how they have been speaking out and have been in this fight, with Islamists and the global jihad movement being the #1 killer of Muslims who don’t share their worldview and ideology). Well, assuming Imam Rauf is a “moderate” (and I know that question is being questioned, but let’s assume for sake of argument) as is his organization and those funding the Mosque, would you or Mike’s America still oppose its placement at Ground Zero?
al Qaeda regards the vast majority of Muslims who don’t share their narrow ideological interpretation of Islam as Muslim traitors. As Rauf’s wife, Daisy Khan, indicated, a Mosque- that in part has a Memorial dedicated to the victims of 9/11- would be a testament to the failure of al Qaeda to rally the Islamic world to its cause and is a “blow to the extremists”. Most Muslims have rejected al Qaeda theology. Why alienate Muslims, needlessly? Why give validity to the jihadists?
NYTimes letter linked earlier:
the Cordoba Center was precisely a way to remedy the perceived failure of moderate Muslims to speak out against extremism. It would be a place, the statement said, not only where freedom of religion could be practiced but where American Muslims could “stand together with our fellow citizens to condemn extremism and violence.”
Yet when moderate Muslims stand up, we’re telling them to “sit back down” and go to the back of the bus?
Another problem which I see is the definition of moderate muslim. All too often, I see the moderate muslims cropping up in federal terror investigations, money laundering scheemes, or just plain double speak in arabic news sources.
Then they were never “moderate” Muslims. No? Let’s not forget that terror plots have been foiled thanks to tip offs by “moderates” (most recent in memory is the father of the Christmas bomber).
That may seem bigoted to say, but the truth of the matter is not caring about politically correct sensibilities. If there are moderate muslims, let them join us in fighting against the islamofacists.
What if they’re trying to, but we’re too blinded, too busy lumping them in with the Islamofascists? Dumping on their religion (different but related to that practiced by al Qaeda)?
Maybe that’s because he had so many links raising questions about the radical Islamists trying to censor Americans. Sort of like what I am battling against here.
*Badum bump*
Yeah, apparently Google listed my blog as having malware. Since around May 26th. Still haven’t found time to research into what I need to do to track down the bad link/clear my site.
Any ideas?
Why is it that you insist on ignoring the warnings of Debra Burlingame and Walid Shoebat and even those of Dr. Jasser, a personal favorite of Wordsmith?
I suspect Jasser often sees it more beneficial to his Muslim community to side with conservative America on most issues raised, regarding “the Islamisation of America”. Politically, it keeps him out of the camp of being lumped in with CAIR and the Islamists, giving him more credibility as a voice for moderates who are deeply pro-American.
This said, it’s often the case that with very few exceptions, I never agree 100% of the time with even my most favorite conservative voices.
You and Wordsmith are being needlessly contrarian.
Actually, you’ve convinced me that this debate is much needed.
Shall we post this on the front F.A. page and give more readers a chance to weigh in?
If you don’t, maybe I will; or create my post on the matter. You’ll definitely attract plenty of allies from the amen chorus of conservative voices here to pile on.
I for one would like it to be known that not all conservatives have jumped on the “opposition to the Grand Mosque at Ground Zero” gravy train bandwagon.
Wordsmith has already unburdened himself by admitting that he took a contrarian position on this despite his earlier ambivalence.
Oh, Mike, Mike….as you say, “tsk, tsk, tsk”….
Old Trooper
13 years ago
@Wordsmith, all other issues aside, the timing of this event and the close proximity to Ground Zero is the point of objection to the FA posters that do not favor the Mosque. It is an issue of sensitivity and a the lack of understanding of that sensitivity on the part of the Muslim Community that desires to build there.
I happen to view Ground Zero the same as the Murrah Federal Building site in Oklahoma City. It is hallowed ground in my opinion. That insensitivity has nothing to do with Civil or Property Rights but it does exist and there lies the objection. You must acknowledge that insensitivity as crass and insulting to those that object to this Mosque, the location and the timing or you have missed the point that some FA posters were trying to make.
I am as tolerant as I can possibly be but I see the objections as somewhat reasonable. I see the insensitivity as unreasonable after having spent over a decade in the Middle East. We in the Military have bent over backwards to respect the Customs and sensitivities of the Host Nations and were there at the request and approval of the Host Nations. Were we Occupiers or Unwanted Guests we would not have been there since Desert Shield and Desert Storm to contribute to Regional Stability. I have deployed to the Balkans to halt the ethnic cleansing and rape murder and mayhem committed against Muslims there.
The major objection is all about the lack of sensitivity, not Property or Civil Rights. Please acknowledge that. Off my soapbox now. I deal with Islam daily as well as Tribal issues. Those folks test my tolerance and patience daily over issues that I consider to be petty, archaic and absurd. My ability to function is all about tolerance and sensitivity here. I respect their Holy Sites and their faith. I am a “guest” here, although an armed one, and I will leave when my mission is done. I do expect American Muslims to exercise the same sensitivity, respect and tolerance that I have regarding their Mosque or Cultural Center.
I don’t know. Needs further research. And as many times as I’ve liked listening to some of what he says, I’m not sure what to make of his questionable reliability.
Sadly, when you toss away the straw men, you haven’t got a defense.
Mike, why is it that you have to be so antagonistic and insulting whenever you get into debates that don’t really go the way you want it to go? I respect your point regarding the question of whether or not Imam Rauf is a moderate and questions about funding. I don’t find citing Hannity, Burlingame, Shoebat, and other conservative faves as conclusive proof.
So why is it that you seem to not really hear/comprehend the points Mata has put forth and the ones I have brought to the table? Sometimes, it’s like you avoid valid points if it means you having to concede anything. So you focus on supposed “strawmen” and start mocking and sounding bellicose and insulting. Why?
@Wordsmithreposts then comments: “‘Sadly, when you toss away the straw men, you haven’t got a defense.’ Mike, why is it that you have to be so antagonistic and insulting whenever you get into debates that don’t really go the way you want it to go? ”
It’s not an insult Wordsmithl It’s an observation. Besides, I see the debate going entirely in my direction. Don’t you?
Furthermore, your comment that: “I for one would like it to be known that not all conservatives have jumped on the “opposition to the Grand Mosque at Ground Zero” gravy train bandwagon” smacks of the same kind of tone you say you find offensive or insulting in my remarks. “Gravy train bandwagon?” What does that even mean?
Tsk, tsk yourself!
P.S. No comment on the info you requested on the Shariah or blame USA for 9/11 comments from Imam Rauf? Is this what you would expect from a moderate Muslim?
Bigotry towards Islam is NOT the issue here. The issue is whether this mosque at this site is appropriate and what are the real motives of those who are building it.
That’s a really odd statement to make. Bigotry is part of the issue here, as it may relate to the motives of those who are opposed to building of the Mosque. Geller seems to be one leading the charge and sounds Islamophobic. Some commenters here (not just this thread, but past threads) seem to have no problems admitting as much, although they don’t use that word.
I posed the question earlier to flyovercountry: If it were the case that Rauf were a “moderate”, would there still be opposition? My guess is, yes. So is the question of whether Rauf is a moderate or not, really, truly the issue?
Frankly, if it were Dr. Jasser who wished to open this Grand Mosque along with a memorial to the 9/11 victims, I strongly suspect the din of opposition would still be vociferous. And Jasser is as pro-Founding Fathers, Constitution-loving, believer of separation of Mosque and State as they come.
So what drives the passionate opposition?
The belief, overt or subliminally implanted, that Islam itself is the enemy that attacked us on 9/11. Not Islamic jihadis who share a version of the faith with a vast majority who had no part in the attack.
Mata and Wordsmith have seemed a bit desperate to take us off on some magical journey into La La land where bigots can be found under every rock. That’s just not reality.
Nice characterization of our arguments, Mike.
I’m really sweating desperation here, Mike; not merely trying to carry on a dialogue.
@Wordsmith asks: “Question: Doesn’t it trouble you that the Imam behind the Ground Zero mosque supports universal Shariah law? Can you show me the link on that again? It’s hard to digest everything that I have to read. ”
Oh come on. Really? You haven’t heard about this?
Did Google break on your computer?
Sorry to exasperate you, Mike. Sometimes I skim through things. I’ll try to make this topic my #1 priority from now on. Forgive me if I fall short of the expectation.
Fine, here’s a quick sampling:
America should be “Shariah compliant.” A presentation by Sean Hannity with Debra Burlingame and Robert Spencer:
Aside from what Mata wrote in #57 on “sharia compliant”, here’s some interesting comments regarding Rauf on Sharia:
Can you explain Sharia?
The word “Sharia” is the term given to define the collectivity of laws that Muslims govern themselves by. And there is a presumption that these laws recognize all of the specific laws mentioned in the Quran and in the practice of the prophet, and do not conflict with that. So any law, anything studied in the Quran or the hadith, is definitely [Sharia]. The idea is that it is divinely legislated, that the creator also has legislated certain things for us.
But in the community of Muslims, it was recognized very early on that the Quran and the hadith do not speak to all issues. And there are many issues which are not necessarily addressed in the Quran and the hadith, that the Quran is silent on. … There is a recognition in the [science] of Islamic jurisprudence that there are issues which have to be obtained by analogy, by consensus, and other [subsidiary] sources of jurisprudence. But as long as they don’t conflict with the Quran and hadith of the prophet, it’s considered to be, quote, unquote, “Sharia.”
The flexibility built in there, you know, the using of your own common sense, is that what allows different places to apply Sharia differently?
Well, I wouldn’t phrase it quite that way. The correct phrasing would be that when people think about Islamic law, there’s a presumption that all of Islamic law is Quranic, or emanates from the Quran and the hadith. The point is, and the truth of the matter is, what really defines Islamic law [is] the sum total of Islamic law as has been practiced by Muslims throughout the last 14, 15 centuries … . Generally, it emanates from the Quran and the hadith. The Quran and the hadith are a limiting factor and a shaping factor. But any body of laws that includes and embodies the specific commandments and prohibitions mentioned in the Quran and the hadith, that does not violate any of these things, has been considered as Sharia, as Islamic. And this allows a lot of variation of opinion, in things which the Quran and the hadith are relatively silent on as long as the principles are maintained, of justice, et cetera.
My understanding of [the Sharia] rules about punishment for matrimonial infidelity [is that] you have to have four eyewitnesses, or several eyewitnesses to the [act] in order to demand the death penalty. It’s almost inconceivable to me that you could ever produce that kind of eyewitness or evidence. But we hear that these kinds of punishments are meted out fairly regularly. Is the law being followed the way it’s set [out]?
You cannot judge a whole body of law by one instance of criminal law. When people think about Sharia law, they often think about the penalties for certain crimes. They don’t think about the sum total of Islamic law and its jurisprudence, which means the underlying structure and philosophy and understanding of how you arrive at what we call the Islamically correct decision. You do not define Sharia law by just a couple of penalties. …
Islamic law has a few penalties for certain crimes. But the rules of evidence, as you mentioned in the case of adultery, require either the free confession by the individual and/or the existence of four witnesses who are of sound mind and who fit the description of qualified witnesses, which is very rare to obtain.
Much of what we see when we hear of events that apply Sharia law, what we see in Nigeria, for instance, or even in Pakistan, is a desire by much of the people to see the general principles of justice followed. … It is a desire by the people to see their system of laws be more equitable. It is a call for correction of the overall system of social justice, of economic justice, which the Quran calls for, and the example of the prophet calls for.
You see, Muslims have an ideal. Part of their ideal is to follow what they call the example of the prophet, the Sunna of the prophet. So at an individual level, a human being who wants to perfect himself or herself looks to the tradition of the prophet, his individual practice, and tries to emulate the prophet as much as possible.
There is also a collective subliminal ambition that Muslims have, that at a collective level, they also embody the ideals of the community that the prophet developed in Medina. So when Muslims today speak of the attempt to establish an Islamic state, what they are really saying is that they would like to have a community that lives in accordance with the ideals, the relationships, the social contract, which the prophet had developed in Medina with his companions and how they had this amongst each other. …
And I go back to my earlier comment regarding this matter.
While we are at it, let’s remember that Imam Rauf gave an interview to 60 Minutes on September 30, 2001 where he said the U.S. bears responsiblity for 9/11:
“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened….ecause we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”
Does that sound like the words of a moderate Muslim?
And we are supposed to be worried about offending this guy?
Give it a rest!
And I repeat what Mata and I have been saying: it’s no different an expression of opinion than any other hippie liberal has. Does he have to be a politically conservative Republican pro-war on terror kind of guy to be labeled “moderate Muslim”? What’s the Pope’s stance on the Iraq War again?
P.S. No comment on the info you requested on the Shariah or blame USA for 9/11 comments from Imam Rauf? Is this what you would expect from a moderate Muslim?
Patience, sir! I was going down the list…skipped over Old Trooper (woulda been the last comment to tackle for the night) to come back to you. I’m juggling responding to you, checking my FB, going over your link, doing some research, watching Jimmy Fallon…gimme a break! *yawn* (Sleepy, not bored).
@Wordsmith, all other issues aside, the timing of this event and the close proximity to Ground Zero is the point of objection to the FA posters that do not favor the Mosque. It is an issue of sensitivity and a the lack of understanding of that sensitivity on the part of the Muslim Community that desires to build there.
Yeah, that goes in alignment to my initial feelings on the matter.
It’s like sporting an anti-Obama bumpersticker in South Central LA….you’re just beggin’ for trouble.
I happen to view Ground Zero the same as the Murrah Federal Building site in Oklahoma City. It is hallowed ground in my opinion. That insensitivity has nothing to do with Civil or Property Rights but it does exist and there lies the objection. You must acknowledge that insensitivity as crass and insulting to those that object to this Mosque, the location and the timing or you have missed the point that some FA posters were trying to make.
Insensitive from our perspective; but it could be (as Mata also brought up) that Muslims like Rauf who fervently believe Islam did not attack us on 9/11 and who regard al Qaeda as not “true Islam”, if that is their sincere belief, and being surrounded and pampered by political correctness in liberal NYC “egging” on the “Islam is a religion of peace and we support you and diversity” notions, they just might have been too naive to not have seen the potential backlash. It may not be intentional insensitivity if their intent is to heal wounds and stand up in defiance of Islamic terror through the building of a Mosque there.
I am as tolerant as I can possibly be but I see the objections as somewhat reasonable.
I agree.
We in the Military have bent over backwards to respect the Customs and sensitivities of the Host Nations
And that only speaks to the credit of who the U.S. military is. It goes in our favor and flies against anti-U.S. propaganda.
The major objection is all about the lack of sensitivity, not Property or Civil Rights. Please acknowledge that.
I wonder if it doesn’t go beyond that. There should be no issue if it’s accepted that there is a difference between the ones who attacked us and the religion as practiced by majority Muslims in the world.
I deal with Islam daily as well as Tribal issues. Those folks test my tolerance and patience daily over issues that I consider to be petty, archaic and absurd. My ability to function is all about tolerance and sensitivity here. I respect their Holy Sites and their faith. I am a “guest” here, although an armed one, and I will leave when my mission is done. I do expect American Muslims to exercise the same sensitivity, respect and tolerance that I have regarding their Mosque or Cultural Center.
I think Islam has a diverse range, and what you are dealing with is related to regional geo-political realities of tribes, customs, ethnicity, and culture where the Islamic faith is a part of all that.
WE HAVE TO NOTE, that this is the right time for the AMERICANS to make theirs voices heard as much: because “IF” that building is there they are the ones who will have to ANGRYLY look at it and wont still accept it, so the IMAN has to decide now and try to visualyse what the possible repercussions of the coming future. NOW WHEN this time is right for him to back off if he and his followers, realy listened to the real AMERICANS.
@Wordsmith said: “but Mike, come on, now: You ALWAYS see the debate going in your direction. ”
It’s no accident that it usually does.
I’ll look forward to your analysis of the less than moderate statements of Imam Rauf. Implementing Shariah Law in the United States and blaming us for 9/11 doesn’t exactly put him in the same league as Dr. Jasser.
And here’s a little something for your “gravy train bandwagon” whatever the hell that means:
OLD TROOPER: hi, I always buy the dog cookies made by wallmart founder co., he had thoses made specialy for his dog OLD ROY; and my dogs realy go nuts for it: hope you are well. bye 😉
CURT: AS you mentionned, it has nothing to do with POLITIC views; looking at all the people from equal partys expressing their beleifs, and we can also add many from other countrys who disapproved, thoses who also lost loved ones. bye 🙄
sigh…. Personally I thought Curt had the perfect “last word”. But I can see Mike’s not happy with that, accusing Curt for “taking the easy way out”, and the battles continue to wage. You’re an all or nothing kind of guy, eh Mike? Just feel the need to control the masses opinions? Not “an insult”, but “an observation”…. 😆
@Old Trooper: The major objection is all about the lack of sensitivity, not Property or Civil Rights. Please acknowledge that.
OT, I’d say that Wordsmith and myself, as well as @Curt have all stated that we find the choice to rebuild in that spot as highly objectional. In that point, there is consensus. However that is not where the debate lies. It lies in what to do about it. And apparently, in the quest to force something not particularly healthy for our rule of law, the gloves are off and any smear campaign is sanctioned. Dang… that is sooooo Alinsky and Obama’ish. This would be much simpler if there were unmitigated proof that terrorist funds were used, since would be stopped in it’s tracks with finance sanctions. However that doesn’t appear to be the case…. unless, of course, you’d like to consider the Carnegie Bros as a terrorist group.
I have also said everyone is certainly free to protest as much as they want… as is our 1st Amendment right. However it is unlikely to change the mosque owners mind about building, and that public protest will be used as fodder by the global Islamic jihad movement as proof that America is at war with Islam/Muslims, and not the jihad movement which represents a small segment of that religion. Then you can add the political talking point bonus for the Democrats, who will be happy to point out that the conservatives are Islamophobic.
My return request is *that* fact also be acknowledged. With our free speech comes the repercussions. Part and parcel of that treasured freedom. In this case, one can weigh the pros and cons… will they accomplish stopping the mosque? And at what cost?
Lastly, I beg to differ…. property rights are intrinsically entangled with this issue. It’s the crime/punishment aspect to this that makes it truly ugly. Because, listening to Mike and ilk, the question becomes: is poor taste and insensitivity, combined with public objection, enough to negate an individual’s development rights despite following the legal procedure?
God help us all if it is.
Nor does it do much good when the figure heads of this movement label this protest as stopping Islam’s growth in America. If bigots aren’t “under every rock”, as Mike doth protest, then one should be questioning the presentation by those spearheading this protest, and what they are shouting thru their megaphones. I’d say I’ve provided considerably more proof that those who share Mike’s feelings about the mosque do indeed harbor animosity toward all Muslims… which would be the very definition of bigotry. So my opinion is Mike’s sense of reality is quite distorted, or else he is determined to remain completely unaware of those who stand so solidly at his side in order to advance the agenda of stopping this mosque… and potentially others, if you listen to Gellar and Spencer.
I believe Curt mirrors Word’s and my opinion perfectly in objecting to their decision, but not wanting to support unequal application of the law in prohibiting it. Mike, however, has another agenda because we disagree with the end goal. Instead he appears determined to paint us as either naive, or supportive of a “blame America” opinion, which all of us clearly believe is erroneous. Since there are many Americans and elected officials who share the “blame America” belief (including our POTUS), that particular attitude isn’t isolated to Rauf or Muslims.
Additionally, Mike takes liberal interpretations of Rauf’s own words, in between his so called “observations”, INRE Rauf’s intent by definitively stating that he supports “universal Shariah”. This he bases on some commentary by apparent mind readers. WTF?
At best Rauf can be accused of supporting a system similar to Britain’s recent parallel Shariah court system for local domestic issues (i.e. divorces, etc). Something I in NO way support. However that isn’t Rauf’s decision, but that of Congress. So the focus of the venom… if and when that should come up… should be toward our lawmakers considering that move, not individuals who may support that idea. We have Americans who support communism and/or the lighter form of socialism. Shall we apply that same interference in unequal application of the law to them as well? Shall we prohibit development of any buildings that house Communist organizations?
Mike’sA: And we are supposed to be worried about offending this guy?
Nope. It’s pretty obvious you do selective reading and vast quantities of liberal interpretation. After sundry comments on two separate threads, it’s crystal clear my position doesn’t entail consideration of his feelings at all. I care about what happens when you, Mike, don’t like what I believe and decide that you should be able to alter the law to stop me midstream in a legal endeavor.
But of course, there’s never a moment when you don’t like what I believe, right? 😉
Mike, however, has another agenda because we disagree with the end goal. Instead he appears determined to paint us as either naive, or supportive of a “blame America” opinion, which all of us clearly believe is erroneous.
That’s another straw man. My position has been consistent on this issue and you continue to misrepresent my opinion.
Additionally, Mike takes liberal interpretations of Rauf’s own words, in between his so called “observations”, INRE Rauf’s intent by definitively stating that he supports “universal Shariah”. This he bases on some commentary by apparent mind readers. WTF?
It’s not just my opinion. It’s shared by Sean Hannity, Debra Burlingame and Robert Spencer among MANY others. We can’t all be Islamophobes.
Curt reference blinders above. Can I borrow your pair?
Perhaps you can join Wordsmith on the “gravy train bandwagon.”
I thank @Old Trooper for his first hand experience and contribution to this discussion. He does an excellent job of summing up how I feel about the issue as well.
It’s not an insult Wordsmithl It’s an observation. Besides, I see the debate going entirely in my direction. Don’t you?
Furthermore, your comment that: “I for one would like it to be known that not all conservatives have jumped on the “opposition to the Grand Mosque at Ground Zero” gravy train bandwagon” smacks of the same kind of tone you say you find offensive or insulting in my remarks.
What can I say…you bring out the worst in me? 😮
Well, I apologize if I’ve taken on the same tone as you. Happy?
@Mike’s America: … and you continue to misrepresent my opinion.
This from the king of misrepresentation… 🙄
It’s not just my opinion. It’s shared by Sean Hannity, Debra Burlingame and Robert Spencer among MANY others. We can’t all be Islamophobes.
In this instance, you just may be. Altho anyone that holds up Hannity as a bastion of intelligent commentary loses every ounce of credibility, IMHO. Spencer, along with Gellar, is a figure head that is morphing this from the mosque to everything Islamic based on their organization’s goal. Burlingame is just another woman with an opinion. And frankly, I’m not much on the herd mentality.
Curt reference blinders above. Can I borrow your pair?
Perhaps you can join Wordsmith on the “gravy train bandwagon.”
I’d say that Word, Curt and myself see both sides of the equation, where you choose not to see any but your own. So your blinders appear to be working just fine, and I possess none to lend to you.
But thanks again for another desperate juvenile remark made in self defense, Mike. Not “an insult”… just “an observation”.
@MataHarley: So you not only insult Sean Hannity but reject Debra Burlingame and Spencer as well.
How convenient.
Come on now… Are you suggesting I am an Islamaphobe?
And frankly, I haven’t seen a lot of the “both sides” of this question from you.
Me “desperate?” Not at all. Right yes!
@ilovebeeswarzone: Looks like you can still buy Gravy Train. I know I’m excited about it!
P.S. As far the “bandwagon” goes. I leapt on early. Sean Hannity took two weeks to pick up on it. I didn’t really have a lot of information about Imam Rauf when I first started talking about it but thanks to Mata and Word I learned that he blames 9/11 on the USA and wants Shariah Law in the U.S. Those are facts in his own words and I never would have bothered to find them without the challenge.
“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened….ecause we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”– Imam Rauf, September 2001
In a book published back in 2004, “What Is Right With Islam,” Feisal Abdul Rauf, he wrote of his fondness for Sharia Law and his belief that the U.S. can accommodate it. He argued, quote, that “the American political structure is Sharia compliant,” continuing, quote, “For America to score even higher on the ‘Islamic’ or ‘Sharia’ compliance scale, America would need to do two things: invite the voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation’s practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws.”
The bottom line remains the same: Build the mosque somewhere else. But not at Ground Zero!
Mike’sA: I didn’t really have a lot of information about Imam Rauf when I first started talking about it but thanks to Mata and Word I learned that he blames 9/11 on the USA and wants Shariah Law in the U.S.
Mike… did I just hear you admit you leaped to an uninformed opinion?? LOL And do you think that first emotional instinct may have any bearing on how you choose to absorb and exaggerate the two points you mention beyond reasonable comprehension?
Mike’sA: So you not only insult Sean Hannity but reject Debra Burlingame and Spencer as well.
How convenient.
Of course I reject Burlingame and Spencer’s opinions, because I disagree. What of it? As far as Hannity, never liked the man and he’s inadequate, putting it kindly, to do more than simply run off a mantra of talking points. If he goes outside that line, he flounders. Again, what of it? Am I required by you to revere every conservative pundit?
Come on now… Are you suggesting I am an Islamaphobe?
Look, Mike. I can’t look into your heart on all things. I can only gauge where you are coming from on what you volunteer as your reasoning. In this case, you leap to assumptions because of a Free Gaza Movement donation, protest a “blame America” belief that is common amongst many that aren’t Muslim and that serve as elected officials in our Congress, and accept misrepresentation (as well as perpetuate) that Rauf advocates changing this nation to a Shariah nation. A misrepresentation you continue in your latest comment when you say: “…when I first started talking about it but thanks to Mata and Word I learned that he blames 9/11 on the USA and wants Shariah Law in the U.S.” As I said, Rauf is not in control of implementing any Shariah courts in this nation. Nor do I suspect that Muslims, who divorce is not legally recognized by their religion if done in the US courts, may entirely disagree. This, however, is completely different than making our Constitution… which he says is Shariah compliant for their freedoms… obsolete and replacing our government. Note the words “religious communities more leeway”. He advocates what Britain has done to allow judicial finality for the Muslim community, in accord with their beliefs. I don’t agree, but Britain is not a Shariah governed nation as a result.
And, since you demonstrate vast reading miscomprehension, I will once again state that I am in no way in support of a parallel Shariah court system here…. despite the quandary it places Muslims in with their religious practice. But that battle I will wage with Congress, if and when that comes to pass.
Since all of the above are exaggerations of truth based on the evidence, I’m not left with much choice but to assume, that in this particular issue, you are demonstrating signs of Islamaphobia. And I’m sorry to say that a couple of posts on your blog 3-4 years ago don’t do much to discourage that. And believe you me, I don’t like thinking you are caught up in an attitude so sweeping in scope.
And frankly, I haven’t seen a lot of the “both sides” of this question from you.
Speaking of misrepresentation, I’ve said more times than you can count on Billy Bob’s toes that I fully agree that the building of this mosque there is reprehensible. I do not agree with the proposed solutions, and I recognize the detriment of the bruhaha. I, unlike you, have weighed the pros and cons, and placed more weight on the damage than can be done if you proceed the path Gellar and Spencer have chosen for your movement.
You do choose to ignore that consensus of base disagreement. How was it you put it? “How convenient”.
That mosque need not be built where it is planned. The proximity is intentional and is for the purpose of eliciting a response- a response that plays directly on the feelings of the people of this country.
Either way, we lose.
If we don’t object, it will be a propaganda triumph over America.
If we do, it’s because we hate them.
It is a lose-lose proposal. Provocation is a political tactic. That’s what they did to Israel and it’s what they do to us.
Rauf knows this. His demands that the President of the US apologize to the entire Muslim world for everything bad that’s ever happened before there can even be progress in relations says all one really needs to know.
As if President Bowandscrape hasn’t apologized enough already.
No sensible person would do what Rauf is doing. Acting as though it’s reasonable is not reasonable.
Yes, DrJohn… it’s a lose lose for us, and a win win for terrorists. A point that both Wordsmith and I have been making for some time here.
Whether Rauf knew this, and it was done deliberately, is speculation on your part – unless, of course, he imparted that knowledge to you in a personal conversation. That may have been his motive, or it may be that he chose that location for exactly the reasons he states… as a finger to jihad. If that is the case, it’s entirely reasonable, and following his intent.
So let’s not confuse your personal speculation of what is in a stranger’s heart with facts. There’s already enough of that going around on this subject.
CURT: YOUR “POST” is so HOT, that i cannot barely touch my keyboard, HOPEFULLY MIKE’AMERICA,they will change their mind on building that kind of STRUCTURE,and re think the print: MAYBE DONALD TRUMP can give them some brilliant ideas on it, he surely would not accept to, loose his TENANTS on his HIGHRISES very expansives appartments buildings, who are paying big money for it, and like to keep their VIEW on NY. bye 🙄
But I assure you there is a vast difference between “fear” and preferring not to succomb to any particular brand of hysteria or herd mentality. Never been afraid of having my own opinions, even when they aren’t mainstream.
And that last photo with the sheep? Hysterical…. perhaps he was on his way to a “toy run”? Or has a bizarre penchant for girlfriends….
thanks to Mata and Word I learned that he blames 9/11 on the USA
Mike, it’s the same belief about “blowback” shared by a lot of Americans, including those on the left, and some coming from the right like Ron Paul and Michael Scheuer.
Ok, so he believes aspects of America’s foreign policy and past wars has a share of the blame (although denies America “deserved” what happened). Do you deny that negative perception of American foreign policy contributes to anti-Americanism? What was one of the main thrusts of complaint bin Laden made in his 1998 fatwa? Occupation of the Arabian penninsula? Support for Israel?
Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.
Note he says “we” and not “you”? He’s identifying himself as American. And the belief that we have incurred backlash/blowback from past wars, military interventions, overthrow of dictators, etc. is a belief shared by many liberals.
“Osama bin Laden is made in the USA”. Sayyid Qutb is the father of al Qaeda theology. His experience in the United States was a direct contributor to his anti-Americanism; and his writings, in turn and as a result, inspired and shaped al Qaeda’s ideology. bin Laden sees America as imperialistic and turned sharply antagonistic against the U.S. when we put troops and bases on the Arabian penninsula….and stayed. He was furious and felt humiliated. At both the Saudi royals/government and at the U.S. It doesn’t mean he is right in his views. But the fact remains, his perception of American foreign policy contributed to Osama bin Laden’s hatred of the U.S., leading to the events of 9/11.
So we “made” bin Laden…we “made” Saddam….just Howard Zinnish worldview leftism.
Most spiritual leaders are opposed to war/conflict/violence.
How does this put him square in the camp of radicals and terrorists?
Bees, it’s not often we treat the FA community to the common, friendly infighting we occasionally do off forum, and behind the scenes. But it’s a tribute to the diverse authors Curt has selected. We are anything but an echo chamber.
But I daresay, like a family, we may fight amongst ourselves, but woe to those who attempt to attack us as a family unit.
I would say, if they dont built that mosque they dont loose and we dont win because it’s not suppose to be built there anyway, so they wont make a favor to AMERICANS by not doing it, and AMERICANS wont need to bother with abroads deductions of loosing the building, this is their problem not AMERICANS’s problems. ARE they AMERICANS or not?.
@Wordsmith: You may recall I am not a big fan of Ron Paul either. Have you changed YOUR opinion on the Paulbots? Perhaps we should embrace their opinion to avoid antogonizing moderate Muslims?
@MataHarley: The only fear I have is that you might get the Burka caught in the gears of the Harley. That’s not something I want to see happen.
It’s bad enough for you gals to get out of a car without getting something caught in the door frame:
P.S. I endorse your statement: “I daresay, like a family, we may fight amongst ourselves, but woe to those who attempt to attack us as a family unit.” Just admit you were wrong and life will be so much better! 😈
@Wordsmith: What does Rauf’s wife (how many does he have?) wear when she’s in the Middle East? It would be no different than saying one thing in English and another thing in Arabic. Something we already notice Rauf is fond of.
@Wordsmith: You may recall I am not a big fan of Ron Paul either. Have you changed YOUR opinion on the Paulbots? Perhaps we should embrace their opinion to avoid antogonizing moderate Muslims?
Are you purposefully being incapable of getting the point? Or just can’t get it?as MataHarley said in #83:
since you demonstrate vast reading miscomprehension
“Whether Rauf knew this, and it was done deliberately, is speculation on your part – unless, of course, he imparted that knowledge to you in a personal conversation. That may have been his motive, or it may be that he chose that location for exactly the reasons he states… as a finger to jihad. If that is the case, it’s entirely reasonable, and following his intent.”
If Rauf hasn’t been part of the flotilla organizing, if Rauf hadn’t said OBL was made in America, if he hadn’t demanded that the President apologize for pretty much everything bad on Earth, you might have a point.
@DrJohn #104: The foundation and inspiration for much of al Qaeda’s theology is found in Sayyid Qutb, and his work, “Milestones”. Reference Lawrence Wright and “The Looming Tower“.
Drjohn: We only need wait a few years and as Mata encourages tolerance and understanding we’ll get to the point she’ll have to wear a burqa and be quiet
So you choose to follow Mike down the path of deliberate mischaracterization so you look good, DrJohn? You might want to go back thru all my my comments here, and on the other thread, and you might… if you read slowly.. figure out that thisn’t about tolerance for me, but rule of law that shan’t be usurped on hype and lack of evidence. You will also find numerous references as to my opinion on parallel Shariah law in the US, and where I find relief for any attempt to do so.
Ya know, sometimes it’s just difficult to respond to this kind of imbecilic dissertation. I simply don’t function at that schoolyard level anymore.
Mike’sA: Seems to me you leapt to the opposite uninformed opinion.
Who’s right?
Does Rauf want to see Shariah Law in the U.S.?
Didn’t he say “Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.?”
Just admit you were wrong…. I’ll forgive you!
Actually, no, Mike. I didn’t “leap” to any conclusion because I did my research before typing a single word. That I landed on the opposite side of the fence for the solution (not the disapproval of the location), is simply a matter of reading what Rauf said, and putting it into context with just about every lib/prog I know.
Just admit you were wrong…. I’ll forgive you!
You’re my little FA brother, Mike. Have respect for your elders. 😆 And of course you wouldn’t forgive me. If you thought I caved in on my beliefs by peer pressure or bully tactics, you’d lose all respect. This is an issue where we simply differ. What becomes somewhat frustrating is that you genuinely don’t get exactly where we differ and why, or you do and that’s simply not good enough for you.
I don’t have to agree with you, Mike. You’d be extremely bored if I did.
If Rauf hasn’t been part of the flotilla organizing, if Rauf hadn’t said OBL was made in America, if he hadn’t demanded that the President apologize for pretty much everything bad on Earth, you might have a point.
It’s speculation, but I’m right.
The problem here is that you are injecting your own colorization to what he said.
What do you suppose he meant by “OBL was made in America”? Reference back to my comment #89. (Which is, likewise, based upon my own speculation).
@Wordsmith: What does Rauf’s wife (how many does he have?) wear when she’s in the Middle East? It would be no different than saying one thing in English and another thing in Arabic. Something we already notice Rauf is fond of.
Seriously, Mike?! 😐
If she did wear a headscarf while visiting there, would it be any different than Hillary Clinton or Condi Rice? Are they some sort of hypocrites, closet Muslims, or is it about showing respect while on foreign soil?
Don’t kiss ‘im, Mata! It’s a trick! He’ll still be a frog with flybreath, at heart!
Old Trooper
13 years ago
A little more fuel for the fire from the right side of the world for knowledge on Islam and a place where it is in “practice”….. I deal with both Imams and Tribal Leaders daily here so there may be room for 3% error on my part but I do know US Law as do my SJA Officers on Staff.
*Sharia is in direct violation of the US and All State Constitutions so if the Imam believes that it can be put into practice in the US, he is full of it. Let Him or His Followers try it…
*Polygamy is in direct violation of ALL State and Federal Laws in the US.
*Sponsorship of the “Flotilla” is most likely in direct violation of the US Patriot Act if it is proven that
either the Norks or Iran are Co-Conspirators or “contributors” to that endeavor.
*Honor Killings, Wife Beatings, Marriages involving Children and Adults are Prohibited but such are recognized legitimately as a Man’s prerogative under Sharia but illegal Everywhere in the US.
*Rauf needs to back the hell off of Sharia or “Other Common Practices” recognized as Legit by Islam if he does not want to get my dander up. His Civil Rights need to be clarified if I am to be convinced that practice certain elements of His Faith is not in violation of US Laws. Sharia is not acceptable by US Legal Standards. Period.
I see this business on every Deployment to the ME in Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar, AF/PAK and other Islamic States. I am tolerant to a degree on Deployments but NOT in the US. Religious Practices vary but in the Philippines “faux crucifixion” is viewed as a testament of faith. I won’t go for acceptance of Human Sacrifice anywhere or doing peyote as a Tribal/Religious sacrament.
Brand Me as Intolerant if You wish but My Tolerance and Sensitivity has limits.
Sharia is not Constitutional in the US. Period.
Rauf needs to be better informed than to even attempt to back Sharia in the US.
You cannot Legally Eat Your Cake and Have It Too.
BTW, DrJohn… since you decided to step in it, and also demonstrate your limited focus…
If Rauf hasn’t been part of the flotilla organizing, if Rauf hadn’t said OBL was made in America, if he hadn’t demanded that the President apologize for pretty much everything bad on Earth, you might have a point.
Rauf did not organize the flotilla.. which BTW has also passed legitimate aid to Gaza. Rauf is like many others who donated to the Free Gaza Movement. Nor did he found that organization, nor is he on the Board of Advisors or Interim Board of Directors. Feel free to check it out yourself.
As far as your other two “not okay for Rauf, but okay for many elected officials and lib/prog” points, we’ve already been over and over that numerous times here. I’ve made my point, you and Mike have made yours Your guilt by association broad brush still doesn’t justify unequal application of the law, IMHO.
@Mike’s America #41:
But I say “ya’ll” and I live in the deep West Coast. So? And we’ve been down this road already. Need I explain again:
I admit I’ve consciously used it here to get under your skin since you made such a fuss over it last time we broke lances. Think of it as my nyookular Bush moment (who actually knows how to pronounce it “correctly”…but chooses not to).
By the way…. Aye Chihuahua has also used it, addressing you specifically. Why didn’t you let him know you’re from the deep south and no one uses it? SoCal Chris types it a lot….ever call him on it? Patvann‘s occasionally typed it. Yonason‘s used it. Scott‘s used it. Mata uses it quite a bit.
While I will admit to a certain mischievous pleasure in going against the grain and kicking over ant hills just to see all hell break loose, I’m serious in my ponderance on a post advocating why the vociferous opposition to the Grand Mosque might be a win-win for the real enemies. YOU beyond all other commenters have been evolving my opinion on the matter. I really haven’t been following the story that closely because it’s not one that interested me much. But since you’ve more or less forced me to read more than I cared to by drawing me into this debate, I’m thinking this really is a big deal and one that can be politically disastrous for conservatives and harmful to America’s image, and a feather in the cap for al Qaeda.
I think it’s important to put a conservative voice out there that says “not all of us have jumped on the bandwagon”, since the overwhelming din amongst the rightwing blogosphere and FOX News watchers is to express outrage and opposition to the building of the Mosque.
Nope. I haven’t. I’m zeroed in on those who basically think Muhammad Ali is out converting or killing infidels because the Koran tells him to; or he must be practicing taqqiya and hiding his true nature from us, being the devious practitioner of (Sufi) Islam that he is. 🙄
Oh, I understand that some people can distinguish between “radical” Islam and other forms of Islam. But why can’t you see that there are those on your side of the issue who can’t? And they are making great noise and are harmful to not only to the conservative movement but to America’s image.
And why can’t you see (I don’t mind disagreement, but I’d appreciate clarity in understanding my position) why I believe a mosque at Ground Zero isn’t spitting in the face of the 9/11 victims and America, but a spit of defiance in the face of al Qaeda?
It’s a great point. But because this is garnishing so much attention, it makes great propaganda fodder for the Islamists. Reasonable people might be able to empathize and understand why there is such opposition, and that not all of it has to do with being religiously bigoted.
I’ve explained myself before regarding the analogy comparison; it doesn’t fly with me. Because to buy into that comparison, you would have to be equating Japan with Islam itself. And you’ve just basically insisted to me that you aren’t against Islam, but against radical Islam.
Now, if you wanted to equate Islamic terrorists with Japan and why we wouldn’t support an Islamic terror camp built at Ground Zero any more than a Japanese Cultural Center at Pearl Harbor, then I accept the analogy.
I’m not offended. When I first heard about this, I winced and felt, “bad idea”. But debating this, reading a little more on it, I’m now more inclined to support the idea. So long as it isn’t a mosque inspiring the jihad movement and the promotion of political (anti-American) Islam. But as Mata says, they are following our laws, obtaining the proper zoning/building permits; and unless we are prepared to make it look as if we really do think we are at war with Islam by making civil rights violations, I say all this public pressure to bear in opposition, all this scrounging around for legal recourse actions….it’s just playing into the hands of bin Laden and Zawahiri who have been telling Muslims how badly imperial/racist America is persecuting Muslims and are at war with Islam; and for the political left who want to paint us (conservatives)a as intolerant racists/bigots.
Can you show me the link on that again? It’s hard to digest everything that I have to read.
Sure, it’d “trouble” me. And as Mata and I have more or less stated, we don’t support his political views, which may mirror that of any anti-war liberal activist (doesn’t the Pope more or less oppose violence and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?). But so long as he isn’t imposing Sharia on us through violent conversion or killing, then he’s no different than so many other belief systems and religions I will have no part of belonging to. But in this country, he’s free to believe in them.
What Mata said. (It really is a ridiculous attempt at a one-line “zinger”, Mike).
@Curt said: “I come down on the middle of this issue, I see good points made by both sides. ”
Isn’t that taking the easy way out?
As regards to conservatives hyperventilating over Islam, I don’t see it. Sure we have a few examples here on this thread but that viewpoint IS MINOR.
Bigotry towards Islam is NOT the issue here. The issue is whether this mosque at this site is appropriate and what are the real motives of those who are building it.
Mata and Wordsmith have seemed a bit desperate to take us off on some magical journey into La La land where bigots can be found under every rock. That’s just not reality.
@Wordsmith asks: “Question: Doesn’t it trouble you that the Imam behind the Ground Zero mosque supports universal Shariah law? Can you show me the link on that again? It’s hard to digest everything that I have to read. ”
Oh come on. Really? You haven’t heard about this?
Did Google break on your computer?
Fine, here’s a quick sampling:
America should be “Shariah compliant.” A presentation by Sean Hannity with Debra Burlingame and Robert Spencer:
And don’t forget, there are real questions as to whether Imam Rauf really believes in interfaith dialogue:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/?singlepage=true
While we are at it, let’s remember that Imam Rauf gave an interview to 60 Minutes on September 30, 2001 where he said the U.S. bears responsiblity for 9/11:
Does that sound like the words of a moderate Muslim?
And we are supposed to be worried about offending this guy?
Give it a rest!
As I said before and say again: when we build that mega church in Mecca, come and talk to me about tolerance! Your defense of this mosque is what is absurd.
No
Plenty of other examples from and on other’s blogs as well. Your putting blinders by ignoring it. While it’s not anywhere near the size nor the scope of the left’s hyperbole over anything conservative there most definitely is hyperventilating over Islam from SOME conservatives. In many instances this hyperventilating is completely justified, others not so.
I agree, and that’s why I addressed that issue as well as the issue’s other’s on this thread brought up.
@Flyovercountry:
Well, that’s one way of looking at it….
Here’s another: Some people keep crying out, “Where are the ‘moderate’ Muslims? Why aren’t they speaking out?” (ignoring how they have been speaking out and have been in this fight, with Islamists and the global jihad movement being the #1 killer of Muslims who don’t share their worldview and ideology). Well, assuming Imam Rauf is a “moderate” (and I know that question is being questioned, but let’s assume for sake of argument) as is his organization and those funding the Mosque, would you or Mike’s America still oppose its placement at Ground Zero?
al Qaeda regards the vast majority of Muslims who don’t share their narrow ideological interpretation of Islam as Muslim traitors. As Rauf’s wife, Daisy Khan, indicated, a Mosque- that in part has a Memorial dedicated to the victims of 9/11- would be a testament to the failure of al Qaeda to rally the Islamic world to its cause and is a “blow to the extremists”. Most Muslims have rejected al Qaeda theology. Why alienate Muslims, needlessly? Why give validity to the jihadists?
NYTimes letter linked earlier:
Yet when moderate Muslims stand up, we’re telling them to “sit back down” and go to the back of the bus?
Then they were never “moderate” Muslims. No? Let’s not forget that terror plots have been foiled thanks to tip offs by “moderates” (most recent in memory is the father of the Christmas bomber).
What if they’re trying to, but we’re too blinded, too busy lumping them in with the Islamofascists? Dumping on their religion (different but related to that practiced by al Qaeda)?
Thanks for the vid and transcript, Mike. Will take a look, but still going down the list of postings as well as other chores.
@Mike’s America #51:
*Badum bump*
Yeah, apparently Google listed my blog as having malware. Since around May 26th. Still haven’t found time to research into what I need to do to track down the bad link/clear my site.
Any ideas?
I suspect Jasser often sees it more beneficial to his Muslim community to side with conservative America on most issues raised, regarding “the Islamisation of America”. Politically, it keeps him out of the camp of being lumped in with CAIR and the Islamists, giving him more credibility as a voice for moderates who are deeply pro-American.
This said, it’s often the case that with very few exceptions, I never agree 100% of the time with even my most favorite conservative voices.
Actually, you’ve convinced me that this debate is much needed.
If you don’t, maybe I will; or create my post on the matter. You’ll definitely attract plenty of allies from the amen chorus of conservative voices here to pile on.
I for one would like it to be known that not all conservatives have jumped on the “opposition to the Grand Mosque at Ground Zero” gravy train bandwagon.
@Mike’s America #53:
Oh, Mike, Mike….as you say, “tsk, tsk, tsk”….
@Wordsmith, all other issues aside, the timing of this event and the close proximity to Ground Zero is the point of objection to the FA posters that do not favor the Mosque. It is an issue of sensitivity and a the lack of understanding of that sensitivity on the part of the Muslim Community that desires to build there.
I happen to view Ground Zero the same as the Murrah Federal Building site in Oklahoma City. It is hallowed ground in my opinion. That insensitivity has nothing to do with Civil or Property Rights but it does exist and there lies the objection. You must acknowledge that insensitivity as crass and insulting to those that object to this Mosque, the location and the timing or you have missed the point that some FA posters were trying to make.
I am as tolerant as I can possibly be but I see the objections as somewhat reasonable. I see the insensitivity as unreasonable after having spent over a decade in the Middle East. We in the Military have bent over backwards to respect the Customs and sensitivities of the Host Nations and were there at the request and approval of the Host Nations. Were we Occupiers or Unwanted Guests we would not have been there since Desert Shield and Desert Storm to contribute to Regional Stability. I have deployed to the Balkans to halt the ethnic cleansing and rape murder and mayhem committed against Muslims there.
The major objection is all about the lack of sensitivity, not Property or Civil Rights. Please acknowledge that. Off my soapbox now. I deal with Islam daily as well as Tribal issues. Those folks test my tolerance and patience daily over issues that I consider to be petty, archaic and absurd. My ability to function is all about tolerance and sensitivity here. I respect their Holy Sites and their faith. I am a “guest” here, although an armed one, and I will leave when my mission is done. I do expect American Muslims to exercise the same sensitivity, respect and tolerance that I have regarding their Mosque or Cultural Center.
@Mike’s America #56:
I don’t know. Needs further research. And as many times as I’ve liked listening to some of what he says, I’m not sure what to make of his questionable reliability.
Mike, why is it that you have to be so antagonistic and insulting whenever you get into debates that don’t really go the way you want it to go? I respect your point regarding the question of whether or not Imam Rauf is a moderate and questions about funding. I don’t find citing Hannity, Burlingame, Shoebat, and other conservative faves as conclusive proof.
So why is it that you seem to not really hear/comprehend the points Mata has put forth and the ones I have brought to the table? Sometimes, it’s like you avoid valid points if it means you having to concede anything. So you focus on supposed “strawmen” and start mocking and sounding bellicose and insulting. Why?
@Wordsmithreposts then comments: “‘Sadly, when you toss away the straw men, you haven’t got a defense.’ Mike, why is it that you have to be so antagonistic and insulting whenever you get into debates that don’t really go the way you want it to go? ”
It’s not an insult Wordsmithl It’s an observation. Besides, I see the debate going entirely in my direction. Don’t you?
Furthermore, your comment that: “I for one would like it to be known that not all conservatives have jumped on the “opposition to the Grand Mosque at Ground Zero” gravy train bandwagon” smacks of the same kind of tone you say you find offensive or insulting in my remarks. “Gravy train bandwagon?” What does that even mean?
Tsk, tsk yourself!
P.S. No comment on the info you requested on the Shariah or blame USA for 9/11 comments from Imam Rauf? Is this what you would expect from a moderate Muslim?
@Mike’s America #60:
That’s a really odd statement to make. Bigotry is part of the issue here, as it may relate to the motives of those who are opposed to building of the Mosque. Geller seems to be one leading the charge and sounds Islamophobic. Some commenters here (not just this thread, but past threads) seem to have no problems admitting as much, although they don’t use that word.
I posed the question earlier to flyovercountry: If it were the case that Rauf were a “moderate”, would there still be opposition? My guess is, yes. So is the question of whether Rauf is a moderate or not, really, truly the issue?
Frankly, if it were Dr. Jasser who wished to open this Grand Mosque along with a memorial to the 9/11 victims, I strongly suspect the din of opposition would still be vociferous. And Jasser is as pro-Founding Fathers, Constitution-loving, believer of separation of Mosque and State as they come.
So what drives the passionate opposition?
The belief, overt or subliminally implanted, that Islam itself is the enemy that attacked us on 9/11. Not Islamic jihadis who share a version of the faith with a vast majority who had no part in the attack.
Nice characterization of our arguments, Mike.
I’m really sweating desperation here, Mike; not merely trying to carry on a dialogue.
Sorry to exasperate you, Mike. Sometimes I skim through things. I’ll try to make this topic my #1 priority from now on. Forgive me if I fall short of the expectation.
Aside from what Mata wrote in #57 on “sharia compliant”, here’s some interesting comments regarding Rauf on Sharia:
And I go back to my earlier comment regarding this matter.
And I repeat what Mata and I have been saying: it’s no different an expression of opinion than any other hippie liberal has. Does he have to be a politically conservative Republican pro-war on terror kind of guy to be labeled “moderate Muslim”? What’s the Pope’s stance on the Iraq War again?
@Mike’s America:
Lol…but Mike, come on, now: You ALWAYS see the debate going in your direction. 😛
Mike….it’s 1:30am on the West Coast….I have no frakkin’ idea! 😆
When is your East Coast bedtime, anyway?!
@Mike’s America:
Patience, sir! I was going down the list…skipped over Old Trooper (woulda been the last comment to tackle for the night) to come back to you. I’m juggling responding to you, checking my FB, going over your link, doing some research, watching Jimmy Fallon…gimme a break! *yawn* (Sleepy, not bored).
@Old Trooper #64:
Yeah, that goes in alignment to my initial feelings on the matter.
It’s like sporting an anti-Obama bumpersticker in South Central LA….you’re just beggin’ for trouble.
Insensitive from our perspective; but it could be (as Mata also brought up) that Muslims like Rauf who fervently believe Islam did not attack us on 9/11 and who regard al Qaeda as not “true Islam”, if that is their sincere belief, and being surrounded and pampered by political correctness in liberal NYC “egging” on the “Islam is a religion of peace and we support you and diversity” notions, they just might have been too naive to not have seen the potential backlash. It may not be intentional insensitivity if their intent is to heal wounds and stand up in defiance of Islamic terror through the building of a Mosque there.
I agree.
And that only speaks to the credit of who the U.S. military is. It goes in our favor and flies against anti-U.S. propaganda.
I wonder if it doesn’t go beyond that. There should be no issue if it’s accepted that there is a difference between the ones who attacked us and the religion as practiced by majority Muslims in the world.
I think Islam has a diverse range, and what you are dealing with is related to regional geo-political realities of tribes, customs, ethnicity, and culture where the Islamic faith is a part of all that.
WE HAVE TO NOTE, that this is the right time for the AMERICANS to make theirs voices heard as much: because “IF” that building is there they are the ones who will have to ANGRYLY look at it and wont still accept it, so the IMAN has to decide now and try to visualyse what the possible repercussions of the coming future. NOW WHEN this time is right for him to back off if he and his followers, realy listened to the real AMERICANS.
@Wordsmith said: “but Mike, come on, now: You ALWAYS see the debate going in your direction. ”
It’s no accident that it usually does.
I’ll look forward to your analysis of the less than moderate statements of Imam Rauf. Implementing Shariah Law in the United States and blaming us for 9/11 doesn’t exactly put him in the same league as Dr. Jasser.
And here’s a little something for your “gravy train bandwagon” whatever the hell that means:
MIKE’SAMERICA: that gravy train’ look good for my dogs; Does WALMART carry it?. bye 🙄
OLD TROOPER: hi, I always buy the dog cookies made by wallmart founder co., he had thoses made specialy for his dog OLD ROY; and my dogs realy go nuts for it: hope you are well. bye 😉
CURT: AS you mentionned, it has nothing to do with POLITIC views; looking at all the people from equal partys expressing their beleifs, and we can also add many from other countrys who disapproved, thoses who also lost loved ones. bye 🙄
sigh…. Personally I thought Curt had the perfect “last word”. But I can see Mike’s not happy with that, accusing Curt for “taking the easy way out”, and the battles continue to wage. You’re an all or nothing kind of guy, eh Mike? Just feel the need to control the masses opinions? Not “an insult”, but “an observation”…. 😆
OT, I’d say that Wordsmith and myself, as well as @Curt have all stated that we find the choice to rebuild in that spot as highly objectional. In that point, there is consensus. However that is not where the debate lies. It lies in what to do about it. And apparently, in the quest to force something not particularly healthy for our rule of law, the gloves are off and any smear campaign is sanctioned. Dang… that is sooooo Alinsky and Obama’ish. This would be much simpler if there were unmitigated proof that terrorist funds were used, since would be stopped in it’s tracks with finance sanctions. However that doesn’t appear to be the case…. unless, of course, you’d like to consider the Carnegie Bros as a terrorist group.
I have also said everyone is certainly free to protest as much as they want… as is our 1st Amendment right. However it is unlikely to change the mosque owners mind about building, and that public protest will be used as fodder by the global Islamic jihad movement as proof that America is at war with Islam/Muslims, and not the jihad movement which represents a small segment of that religion. Then you can add the political talking point bonus for the Democrats, who will be happy to point out that the conservatives are Islamophobic.
My return request is *that* fact also be acknowledged. With our free speech comes the repercussions. Part and parcel of that treasured freedom. In this case, one can weigh the pros and cons… will they accomplish stopping the mosque? And at what cost?
Lastly, I beg to differ…. property rights are intrinsically entangled with this issue. It’s the crime/punishment aspect to this that makes it truly ugly. Because, listening to Mike and ilk, the question becomes: is poor taste and insensitivity, combined with public objection, enough to negate an individual’s development rights despite following the legal procedure?
God help us all if it is.
Nor does it do much good when the figure heads of this movement label this protest as stopping Islam’s growth in America. If bigots aren’t “under every rock”, as Mike doth protest, then one should be questioning the presentation by those spearheading this protest, and what they are shouting thru their megaphones. I’d say I’ve provided considerably more proof that those who share Mike’s feelings about the mosque do indeed harbor animosity toward all Muslims… which would be the very definition of bigotry. So my opinion is Mike’s sense of reality is quite distorted, or else he is determined to remain completely unaware of those who stand so solidly at his side in order to advance the agenda of stopping this mosque… and potentially others, if you listen to Gellar and Spencer.
I believe Curt mirrors Word’s and my opinion perfectly in objecting to their decision, but not wanting to support unequal application of the law in prohibiting it. Mike, however, has another agenda because we disagree with the end goal. Instead he appears determined to paint us as either naive, or supportive of a “blame America” opinion, which all of us clearly believe is erroneous. Since there are many Americans and elected officials who share the “blame America” belief (including our POTUS), that particular attitude isn’t isolated to Rauf or Muslims.
Additionally, Mike takes liberal interpretations of Rauf’s own words, in between his so called “observations”, INRE Rauf’s intent by definitively stating that he supports “universal Shariah”. This he bases on some commentary by apparent mind readers. WTF?
At best Rauf can be accused of supporting a system similar to Britain’s recent parallel Shariah court system for local domestic issues (i.e. divorces, etc). Something I in NO way support. However that isn’t Rauf’s decision, but that of Congress. So the focus of the venom… if and when that should come up… should be toward our lawmakers considering that move, not individuals who may support that idea. We have Americans who support communism and/or the lighter form of socialism. Shall we apply that same interference in unequal application of the law to them as well? Shall we prohibit development of any buildings that house Communist organizations?
Nope. It’s pretty obvious you do selective reading and vast quantities of liberal interpretation. After sundry comments on two separate threads, it’s crystal clear my position doesn’t entail consideration of his feelings at all. I care about what happens when you, Mike, don’t like what I believe and decide that you should be able to alter the law to stop me midstream in a legal endeavor.
But of course, there’s never a moment when you don’t like what I believe, right? 😉
@MataHarley said:
That’s another straw man. My position has been consistent on this issue and you continue to misrepresent my opinion.
It’s not just my opinion. It’s shared by Sean Hannity, Debra Burlingame and Robert Spencer among MANY others. We can’t all be Islamophobes.
Curt reference blinders above. Can I borrow your pair?
Perhaps you can join Wordsmith on the “gravy train bandwagon.”
I thank @Old Trooper for his first hand experience and contribution to this discussion. He does an excellent job of summing up how I feel about the issue as well.
@Mike’s America #66:
What can I say…you bring out the worst in me? 😮
Well, I apologize if I’ve taken on the same tone as you. Happy?
😆
This from the king of misrepresentation… 🙄
In this instance, you just may be. Altho anyone that holds up Hannity as a bastion of intelligent commentary loses every ounce of credibility, IMHO. Spencer, along with Gellar, is a figure head that is morphing this from the mosque to everything Islamic based on their organization’s goal. Burlingame is just another woman with an opinion. And frankly, I’m not much on the herd mentality.
I’d say that Word, Curt and myself see both sides of the equation, where you choose not to see any but your own. So your blinders appear to be working just fine, and I possess none to lend to you.
But thanks again for another desperate juvenile remark made in self defense, Mike. Not “an insult”… just “an observation”.
@MataHarley: So you not only insult Sean Hannity but reject Debra Burlingame and Spencer as well.
How convenient.
Come on now… Are you suggesting I am an Islamaphobe?
And frankly, I haven’t seen a lot of the “both sides” of this question from you.
Me “desperate?” Not at all. Right yes!
@ilovebeeswarzone: Looks like you can still buy Gravy Train. I know I’m excited about it!
P.S. As far the “bandwagon” goes. I leapt on early. Sean Hannity took two weeks to pick up on it. I didn’t really have a lot of information about Imam Rauf when I first started talking about it but thanks to Mata and Word I learned that he blames 9/11 on the USA and wants Shariah Law in the U.S. Those are facts in his own words and I never would have bothered to find them without the challenge.
The bottom line remains the same: Build the mosque somewhere else. But not at Ground Zero!
Mike… did I just hear you admit you leaped to an uninformed opinion?? LOL And do you think that first emotional instinct may have any bearing on how you choose to absorb and exaggerate the two points you mention beyond reasonable comprehension?
as you say… tsk tsk
Of course I reject Burlingame and Spencer’s opinions, because I disagree. What of it? As far as Hannity, never liked the man and he’s inadequate, putting it kindly, to do more than simply run off a mantra of talking points. If he goes outside that line, he flounders. Again, what of it? Am I required by you to revere every conservative pundit?
Look, Mike. I can’t look into your heart on all things. I can only gauge where you are coming from on what you volunteer as your reasoning. In this case, you leap to assumptions because of a Free Gaza Movement donation, protest a “blame America” belief that is common amongst many that aren’t Muslim and that serve as elected officials in our Congress, and accept misrepresentation (as well as perpetuate) that Rauf advocates changing this nation to a Shariah nation. A misrepresentation you continue in your latest comment when you say: “…when I first started talking about it but thanks to Mata and Word I learned that he blames 9/11 on the USA and wants Shariah Law in the U.S.” As I said, Rauf is not in control of implementing any Shariah courts in this nation. Nor do I suspect that Muslims, who divorce is not legally recognized by their religion if done in the US courts, may entirely disagree. This, however, is completely different than making our Constitution… which he says is Shariah compliant for their freedoms… obsolete and replacing our government. Note the words “religious communities more leeway”. He advocates what Britain has done to allow judicial finality for the Muslim community, in accord with their beliefs. I don’t agree, but Britain is not a Shariah governed nation as a result.
And, since you demonstrate vast reading miscomprehension, I will once again state that I am in no way in support of a parallel Shariah court system here…. despite the quandary it places Muslims in with their religious practice. But that battle I will wage with Congress, if and when that comes to pass.
Since all of the above are exaggerations of truth based on the evidence, I’m not left with much choice but to assume, that in this particular issue, you are demonstrating signs of Islamaphobia. And I’m sorry to say that a couple of posts on your blog 3-4 years ago don’t do much to discourage that. And believe you me, I don’t like thinking you are caught up in an attitude so sweeping in scope.
Speaking of misrepresentation, I’ve said more times than you can count on Billy Bob’s toes that I fully agree that the building of this mosque there is reprehensible. I do not agree with the proposed solutions, and I recognize the detriment of the bruhaha. I, unlike you, have weighed the pros and cons, and placed more weight on the damage than can be done if you proceed the path Gellar and Spencer have chosen for your movement.
You do choose to ignore that consensus of base disagreement. How was it you put it? “How convenient”.
That mosque need not be built where it is planned. The proximity is intentional and is for the purpose of eliciting a response- a response that plays directly on the feelings of the people of this country.
Either way, we lose.
If we don’t object, it will be a propaganda triumph over America.
If we do, it’s because we hate them.
It is a lose-lose proposal. Provocation is a political tactic. That’s what they did to Israel and it’s what they do to us.
Rauf knows this. His demands that the President of the US apologize to the entire Muslim world for everything bad that’s ever happened before there can even be progress in relations says all one really needs to know.
As if President Bowandscrape hasn’t apologized enough already.
No sensible person would do what Rauf is doing. Acting as though it’s reasonable is not reasonable.
Yes, DrJohn… it’s a lose lose for us, and a win win for terrorists. A point that both Wordsmith and I have been making for some time here.
Whether Rauf knew this, and it was done deliberately, is speculation on your part – unless, of course, he imparted that knowledge to you in a personal conversation. That may have been his motive, or it may be that he chose that location for exactly the reasons he states… as a finger to jihad. If that is the case, it’s entirely reasonable, and following his intent.
So let’s not confuse your personal speculation of what is in a stranger’s heart with facts. There’s already enough of that going around on this subject.
CURT: YOUR “POST” is so HOT, that i cannot barely touch my keyboard, HOPEFULLY MIKE’AMERICA,they will change their mind on building that kind of STRUCTURE,and re think the print: MAYBE DONALD TRUMP can give them some brilliant ideas on it, he surely would not accept to, loose his TENANTS on his HIGHRISES very expansives appartments buildings, who are paying big money for it, and like to keep their VIEW on NY. bye 🙄
@MataHarley: What a tame response to Dr. John.
Surely you aren’t more afraid of the Dentist’s drill than the Mike’s America mind meld?
As for your comment that “since you demonstrate vast reading miscomprehension,” I thought you were above the cheap shots.
O.K. you asked for it.
Careful you don’t wind up as one of the Burka Broads on Harleys!
Of course you know that some Islamic sects like Hamas refuse to allow women to ride bikes. Sheep yes, women no:
@ilovebeeswarzone: Maybe Donald Trump could redevelop that Mosque at Atlantic City as a Casinoe.
LOL! Now *that*, Mike, was funny.
But I assure you there is a vast difference between “fear” and preferring not to succomb to any particular brand of hysteria or herd mentality. Never been afraid of having my own opinions, even when they aren’t mainstream.
And that last photo with the sheep? Hysterical…. perhaps he was on his way to a “toy run”? Or has a bizarre penchant for girlfriends….
@Mike’s America #87: 😛
@Mike’s America:
Mike, it’s the same belief about “blowback” shared by a lot of Americans, including those on the left, and some coming from the right like Ron Paul and Michael Scheuer.
I wonder what other spiritual leaders also “blame 9/11” on some wacky claims.
Ok, so he believes aspects of America’s foreign policy and past wars has a share of the blame (although denies America “deserved” what happened). Do you deny that negative perception of American foreign policy contributes to anti-Americanism? What was one of the main thrusts of complaint bin Laden made in his 1998 fatwa? Occupation of the Arabian penninsula? Support for Israel?
Note he says “we” and not “you”? He’s identifying himself as American. And the belief that we have incurred backlash/blowback from past wars, military interventions, overthrow of dictators, etc. is a belief shared by many liberals.
“Osama bin Laden is made in the USA”. Sayyid Qutb is the father of al Qaeda theology. His experience in the United States was a direct contributor to his anti-Americanism; and his writings, in turn and as a result, inspired and shaped al Qaeda’s ideology. bin Laden sees America as imperialistic and turned sharply antagonistic against the U.S. when we put troops and bases on the Arabian penninsula….and stayed. He was furious and felt humiliated. At both the Saudi royals/government and at the U.S. It doesn’t mean he is right in his views. But the fact remains, his perception of American foreign policy contributed to Osama bin Laden’s hatred of the U.S., leading to the events of 9/11.
So we “made” bin Laden…we “made” Saddam….just Howard Zinnish worldview leftism.
Most spiritual leaders are opposed to war/conflict/violence.
How does this put him square in the camp of radicals and terrorists?
@ilovebeeswarzone:
😆
Bees, it’s not often we treat the FA community to the common, friendly infighting we occasionally do off forum, and behind the scenes. But it’s a tribute to the diverse authors Curt has selected. We are anything but an echo chamber.
But I daresay, like a family, we may fight amongst ourselves, but woe to those who attempt to attack us as a family unit.
I would say, if they dont built that mosque they dont loose and we dont win because it’s not suppose to be built there anyway, so they wont make a favor to AMERICANS by not doing it, and AMERICANS wont need to bother with abroads deductions of loosing the building, this is their problem not AMERICANS’s problems. ARE they AMERICANS or not?.
Just be patient, Mike.
We only need wait a few years and as Mata encourages tolerance and understanding we’ll get to the point she’ll have to wear a burqa and be quiet.
So as not to offend Rauf and company.
8)
@Wordsmith: You may recall I am not a big fan of Ron Paul either. Have you changed YOUR opinion on the Paulbots? Perhaps we should embrace their opinion to avoid antogonizing moderate Muslims?
@MataHarley: The only fear I have is that you might get the Burka caught in the gears of the Harley. That’s not something I want to see happen.
It’s bad enough for you gals to get out of a car without getting something caught in the door frame:
P.S. I endorse your statement: “I daresay, like a family, we may fight amongst ourselves, but woe to those who attempt to attack us as a family unit.” Just admit you were wrong and life will be so much better! 😈
@DrJohn #92: That’s a funny comment, Doc…especially given that Rauf’s wife Daisy Khan goes around burqa-free- in fact, not even a head scarf.
As for @MataHarley: “Mike… did I just hear you admit you leaped to an uninformed opinion?? ”
Seems to me you leapt to the opposite uninformed opinion.
Who’s right?
Does Rauf want to see Shariah Law in the U.S.?
Didn’t he say “Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.?”
Just admit you were wrong…. I’ll forgive you!
That’s not fair. I can’t post videos or pictures!
But that’s why it’s called “creeping Shar’ia”, Wordsmith!
@Wordsmith: What does Rauf’s wife (how many does he have?) wear when she’s in the Middle East? It would be no different than saying one thing in English and another thing in Arabic. Something we already notice Rauf is fond of.
And yes, kudos to Curt for this diversity!
@Mike’s America:
Are you purposefully being incapable of getting the point? Or just can’t get it?as MataHarley said in #83:
……
@DrJohn: Drop a link to photos and video and you can bet it will be posted forthwith!
@Wordsmith: “Are you purposefully being incapable of getting the point?” Tsk, tsk, tsk! Insults won’t win you any points.
Aren’t you sullying yourself and your already untenable position by stooping to what you claim is my level?
If I were a Muslim, you wouldn’t do it would you?
“Whether Rauf knew this, and it was done deliberately, is speculation on your part – unless, of course, he imparted that knowledge to you in a personal conversation. That may have been his motive, or it may be that he chose that location for exactly the reasons he states… as a finger to jihad. If that is the case, it’s entirely reasonable, and following his intent.”
If Rauf hasn’t been part of the flotilla organizing, if Rauf hadn’t said OBL was made in America, if he hadn’t demanded that the President apologize for pretty much everything bad on Earth, you might have a point.
It’s speculation, but I’m right.
I thought the father of Islamic Jihad was Amin Al-Husseini.
@Mike’s America: Not an insult…just an observation.
tsk, tsk, tsk… 😉
@DrJohn #104: The foundation and inspiration for much of al Qaeda’s theology is found in Sayyid Qutb, and his work, “Milestones”. Reference Lawrence Wright and “The Looming Tower“.
So you choose to follow Mike down the path of deliberate mischaracterization so you look good, DrJohn? You might want to go back thru all my my comments here, and on the other thread, and you might… if you read slowly.. figure out that thisn’t about tolerance for me, but rule of law that shan’t be usurped on hype and lack of evidence. You will also find numerous references as to my opinion on parallel Shariah law in the US, and where I find relief for any attempt to do so.
Ya know, sometimes it’s just difficult to respond to this kind of imbecilic dissertation. I simply don’t function at that schoolyard level anymore.
Actually, no, Mike. I didn’t “leap” to any conclusion because I did my research before typing a single word. That I landed on the opposite side of the fence for the solution (not the disapproval of the location), is simply a matter of reading what Rauf said, and putting it into context with just about every lib/prog I know.
You’re my little FA brother, Mike. Have respect for your elders. 😆 And of course you wouldn’t forgive me. If you thought I caved in on my beliefs by peer pressure or bully tactics, you’d lose all respect. This is an issue where we simply differ. What becomes somewhat frustrating is that you genuinely don’t get exactly where we differ and why, or you do and that’s simply not good enough for you.
I don’t have to agree with you, Mike. You’d be extremely bored if I did.
@DrJohn:
The problem here is that you are injecting your own colorization to what he said.
What do you suppose he meant by “OBL was made in America”? Reference back to my comment #89. (Which is, likewise, based upon my own speculation).
@Mike’s America #98:
Seriously, Mike?! 😐
If she did wear a headscarf while visiting there, would it be any different than Hillary Clinton or Condi Rice? Are they some sort of hypocrites, closet Muslims, or is it about showing respect while on foreign soil?
Jesus Christ…..*mumble*
Attempting to start another smear campaign, Mike? Or did you want to do something unusual, and research that point before you spread it around?
@Mike’s America #96:
Don’t kiss ‘im, Mata! It’s a trick! He’ll still be a frog with flybreath, at heart!
A little more fuel for the fire from the right side of the world for knowledge on Islam and a place where it is in “practice”….. I deal with both Imams and Tribal Leaders daily here so there may be room for 3% error on my part but I do know US Law as do my SJA Officers on Staff.
*Sharia is in direct violation of the US and All State Constitutions so if the Imam believes that it can be put into practice in the US, he is full of it. Let Him or His Followers try it…
*Polygamy is in direct violation of ALL State and Federal Laws in the US.
*Sponsorship of the “Flotilla” is most likely in direct violation of the US Patriot Act if it is proven that
either the Norks or Iran are Co-Conspirators or “contributors” to that endeavor.
*Honor Killings, Wife Beatings, Marriages involving Children and Adults are Prohibited but such are recognized legitimately as a Man’s prerogative under Sharia but illegal Everywhere in the US.
*Rauf needs to back the hell off of Sharia or “Other Common Practices” recognized as Legit by Islam if he does not want to get my dander up. His Civil Rights need to be clarified if I am to be convinced that practice certain elements of His Faith is not in violation of US Laws. Sharia is not acceptable by US Legal Standards. Period.
I see this business on every Deployment to the ME in Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar, AF/PAK and other Islamic States. I am tolerant to a degree on Deployments but NOT in the US. Religious Practices vary but in the Philippines “faux crucifixion” is viewed as a testament of faith. I won’t go for acceptance of Human Sacrifice anywhere or doing peyote as a Tribal/Religious sacrament.
Brand Me as Intolerant if You wish but My Tolerance and Sensitivity has limits.
Sharia is not Constitutional in the US. Period.
Rauf needs to be better informed than to even attempt to back Sharia in the US.
You cannot Legally Eat Your Cake and Have It Too.
BTW, DrJohn… since you decided to step in it, and also demonstrate your limited focus…
Rauf did not organize the flotilla.. which BTW has also passed legitimate aid to Gaza. Rauf is like many others who donated to the Free Gaza Movement. Nor did he found that organization, nor is he on the Board of Advisors or Interim Board of Directors. Feel free to check it out yourself.
As far as your other two “not okay for Rauf, but okay for many elected officials and lib/prog” points, we’ve already been over and over that numerous times here. I’ve made my point, you and Mike have made yours Your guilt by association broad brush still doesn’t justify unequal application of the law, IMHO.