Violent Anti-Mosque crowd turns on Black Carpenter

Originally posted by ollncasino
"What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.

Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied."

newsweek.washingtonpost.com...


So the Ground Zero Mosque Iman has clearly stated an aim of Muslims is to make secular law comply with Sharia law. He makes no bones about it.

If you continue reading, it is clear that he is talking about the Sharia penal code as applied in some cases, not the secular penal code. That the Sharia penal code that includes things like stonings and beheadings flows from a cultural context and not from the religious underpinnings of the law.

Originally posted by AceWombat04

That is, is there any evidence that any of the funding is illicit, or do we just want to know because this is a Muslim issue and about a mosque, and somehow in the zeitgeist that has become synonymous with a potential threat, whether real or not?

While the funding has been kept secret by the Muslim organizers for reasons we can only speculate, we do know that the Boston mosque was funded by Saudi Wahhabi funding. It has also been alleged that 80% of US mosques are Saudi Wahhabi funded and that Saudi Arabia has spent $87 Billion spreading Wahhabi Mosques around the world.

Almost all terrorists come from the hard-line Wahabi school of Islam

www.nypdshield.org...

Of the more than 1,200 mosques in America, more than 80-percent were built with Saudi money, according to author Reza F. Safa.

In fact, Safa writes that the Saudis have spent “$87 billion since 1973 to spread Islam throughout the United States and the Western hemisphere.” Elsewhere in the world, it is believed that Saudi Arabia finances some 85-percent of the world’s mosques, where the vitriolic and violent Wahabbist interpretation of Islam is taught.

www.nationalreview.com...

The Boston Globe has documentary evidence that the Boston Mosque was funded by Saudi Wahhabi sources.

"Many mosques are funded by Saudi Arabia, which spends heavily to propagate Wahhabism, a fanatic and aggressive strain of Islam.

The Saudi government, reported the 9/11 Commission, "uses zakat" -- Islamic charity -- "and government funds to spread Wahhabi beliefs throughout the world, including in mosques and schools. . . . Some Wahhabi-funded organizations have been exploited by extremists to further their goal of violent jihad against non-Muslims."

www.boston.com...

We can only speculate the reasons why the organizers of the Ground Zero Mosque have resisted demands to make the source of their funding public.

Originally posted by americandingbat
If you continue reading, it is clear that he is talking about the Sharia penal code as applied in some cases, not the secular penal code. That the Sharia penal code that includes things like stonings and beheadings flows from a cultural context and not from the religious underpinnings of the law.

(1) He is clearly talking about secular penal law and whether or not it is in accordance with Sharia law. He expressly states so.

What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad. Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied.

(2) He expressly states twice in the article that Muslims want secular law to be in accordance with Sharia law.

(3) He expressly states that when there is a conflict between secular law and Sharia law, the problem is the application of secular law.

The implication mentioned elsewhere is that a if secular law is just and fair, then it is in accordance with the Sharia.

"If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Sharia."

(4) Every secular scholar of Sharia law is aware that Sharia law is largely draw from the Hadiths which reflect 8th century Arabic culture.


I will post the remainder of the article so that everyone can continue reading and draw their own conclusion


"What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.

Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah.

In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government - legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Qur'an and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law.

The two pieces of unfinished business in Muslim countries are to revise the penal code so that it is responsive to modern realities and to ensure that the balance between the three branches of government is not out of kilter.

Rather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is. Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam.

newsweek.washingtonpost.com...


[edit on 26-8-2010 by ollncasino]

[edit on 26-8-2010 by ollncasino]

reply to post by I AM LEGION



The crowd wasn't violent. One man was agressive. Most of the crowd didn't participate at all.

reply to post by ollncasino


And I fully acknowledge and am deeply concerned by that. I think vigilance against any unlawful, violent, or otherwise destructive activities or elements anywhere - not the least of which includes in religious institutions used as fronts - is absolutely essential. I also believe that transparency is always a good thing and support calls for disclosure.

BUT... I didn't ask about the Boston mosque. I asked, and will ask again, is there any evidence - any at all - that this prayer space and its prospective patrons are now, have ever, or will be planning, threatening, condoning, or committing violence, terror, or supporting/funding/recruiting thereto? Yes or no?

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by maybereal11

 

This may be where we start arguing again...

I'm not interested in drying up discontent, because whoever sets himself to that task is asking the impossible of himself. Discontented people will always find something to be discontented about.

Maybe you misunderstood me.

I have no interest in riddding the worl of all it's ills. I am no eutopian.

But there is a spectrum of discontent...

It is one thing to be in hard economic circumstances or be disatisfied with your current government...it's another to feel so much anger and hopelessness that you eagerly strap a bomb to yourself and blow up folks.

I am not talking about people who are simply out of work or struggling to survive...I am talking about people who have been raised in a war-zone, have nothing and have often seen thier parents, children etc. murdered in a conflict that they don't understand and want someone to blame...that is a far cry from simple "discontent" and I have to believe we have the ability to change those circumstances in some small way.

I am not so naive to believe we can rid the world of poverty, but I think a hard review of what motivates Al-Qaeda recruits and what we could do to give them less "resources" would serve us well.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by ollncasino

If you can factually refute anything in any of my posts, then please do so. I would appreciate facts, not emotion.

I have...repeatedly...have you not been reading my posts?

For example on this very post...

Originally posted by ollncasino

By the way, did you know that Sharia courts are currently operating in England?

Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Are British people allowed to be worried now?

BS

What can sharia courts do in Britain?

Islamic judges can resolve disputes by agreement but cannot grant divorces or punish crimes.

“Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain,” claims a Sunday newspaper. The Government has “quietly sanctioned” powers for sharia judges to rule on divorce case, its report insists.

The truth is much more prosaic. The report produces no evidence to suggest that the Government has sanctioned any powers for sharia judges at all, quietly or otherwise. And a sharia court in Britain has no power to grant a divorce that is valid in English law.

All this is made perfectly clear by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, the body referred to in the newspaper report. The tribunal, which was established in 2007, says it operates “within the legal framework of England and Wales”.

It is entirely clear from this account that Muslims living in Britain must go to the ordinary civil courts if they wish to be divorced. The tribunal is not claiming any power to grant a divorce that would be recognised by the civil courts.

This important distinction is maintained when dealing with forced marriages. The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 gives new powers to the civil courts. The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal promises to make an “Islamic decision quickly and cheaply” but accepts that its status in English law will be no more than “evidence before the civil court”.

On criminal matters, the law of England and Wales remains binding. “The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal is unable to deal with criminal offences as we do not have jurisdiction to try such matters in the UK,”

www.telegraph.co.uk...


As for the rest of your Poll results = facts?

All of it is so insanely uncredible as to not warrant a continued response.

According to your article 7% of American Muslims can imagine a circumstance where suicide bombing might be acceptable? Strange you condemn the other 93% as well.

There are a long list of Christians Extremist Groups that feel the same way..have you examined the stats for Christians? Eric Rudolph bombed American civilians in the name of God and he was a folk hero to many evangelicals.

Shall I now list the current Christian Groups designated as terrorists? And the number of Americans they have murdered in Gods name? Old argument isn't it? My religion is better than yours?

Every religion has it's extremists...martydom is not just a component of Islam...

I have really stopped caring about your transparent BS. Feel free to keep posting it though. I will call it what it is at my liesure.

[Edit to correct bad math.]

[edit on 26-8-2010 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by maybereal11
According to your article 7% of American Muslims can imagine a circumstance where suicide bombing might be acceptable? Strange you condemn the other 93% as well.

Let's be reasonable here. I am no more condemning the 93% than you are supporting the 7% (despite your earlier statement that if the 'they' I opposed were American, you would stand beside them - I think you were just unaware of the fact that extremism existed in the American Muslim community).

pewforum.org...

I am however greatly concerned that 1 in 7 American Muslims under 30 support suicide bombing. Shouldn't we all be?

Originally posted by maybereal11
Every religion has it's extremists...martydom is not just a component of Islam...

In what sense are Islamic suicide bombers excused or somehow justified in light of religious extremism in other religions?

Originally posted by maybereal11
There are a long list of Christians Extremist Groups that feel the same way..have you examined the stats for Christians? Eric Rudolph bombed American civilians in the name of God and he was a folk hero to many evangelicals.

And this justifies Muslim suicide bombers in what way?

Originally posted by maybereal11
BS

Both the article you cited (from the Telegraph) and the one I cited (from the London Times) appear to misunderstand the nature of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal.

The Telegraph article stated that the Tribunal had no powers to exercise Sharia Law at all - untrue - it has extensive powers over commercial and debt matters which are enforceable in a secular court.

The Times article stated the Tribunal has power over divorce secular divorce - untrue - only over religious divorce.

What powers does Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) actually have?

The real teeth is the powers it has to make judgments under Sharia law on commercial and debt matter which are enforceable in a secular court (in the sense of exercising the remedy granted). Appeal to a secular court (the High court) is available in only limited circumstances and only on a point of law.

www.matribunal.com...

Refering to the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal own webpage.

"The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) was established in 2007 to provide a viable alternative for the Muslim community seeking to resolve disputes in accordance with Islamic Sacred Law and without having to resort to costly and time consuming litigation. The establishment of MAT is an important and significant step towards providing the Muslim community with a real opportunity to self determine disputes in accordance with Islamic Sacred Law.

MAT will operate within the legal framework of England and Wales thereby ensuring that any determination reached by MAT can be enforced through existing means of enforcement open to normal litigants. Although MAT must operate within the legal framework of England and Wales, this does not prevent or impede MAT from ensuring that all determinations reached by it are in accordance with one of the recognised Schools of Islamic Sacred Law. MAT will therefore, for the first time, offer the Muslim community a real and true opportunity to settle disputes in accordance with Islamic Sacred Law with the knowledge that the outcome as determined by MAT will be binding and enforceable.

The Procedural Rules which regulate and govern MAT ensure that MAT operates within defined parameters. The Procedural Rules require that the Tribunal must consist of at least two members, one a scholar of Islamic Sacred Law and the other a solicitor or barrister registered to practice in England or Wales."

Specifically what powers does it have? The devil is in the details as they say.

- The power to grant a normal Muslim religious divorce (not a secular divorce) under Sharia law
- The power to grant a forced marriage religious divorce under Sharia law which can be used as evidence in a normal court when pursing a secular divorce.
- The power to make make rulings on Commercial and Debt Disputes under Sharia law, enforceable in a secular court.

In the following circumstances it can determine reports to be used as evidence either in normal secular courts or by other administrative bodies e.g.
the immigration service.

Inheritance Disputes
Domestic Violence
Family Disputes

The fundamental power that has been granted is the right to adjudicate under Sharia law on commercial and debt matters. Appeal to a normal court is only available in one of 2 circumstances

(1) Both parties agree
or
(2) On a point of law if a secular Judicial review finds the tribunal has exercised its power unlawfully. Be aware that a judicial review in the UK and in the USA are different beasts.

www.matribunal.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by maybereal11
As for the rest of your Poll results = facts?
All of it is so insanely uncredible as to not warrant a continued response.

If you can prove any of the facts wrong, then please do so.

You are mistaken however in your assertion that The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has no powers. It has very real powers to exercise Sharia law on Commercial and Debt matters in England. Sharia law is up and running in England.

Not for everyone (only Muslims who choose to use the tribunal) and not on all legal matters (only effectively on commercial and debt matters), but Sharia has made a very significant bridgehead in England.


[edit on 26-8-2010 by ollncasino]

[edit on 26-8-2010 by ollncasino]

Originally posted by ollncasino

Let's be reasonable here.

Said the poster who has spent every single post since joining ATS attacking Muslims and their faith.

Originally posted by ollncasino
I am no more condemning the 93% than you are supporting the 7%

You have repeatedly and consistently stated that the Muslim faith is an evil, intolerant religion...not some 7%.

In the other thread you dedicated several posts to the theme..."Don't be friends with Muslims...they will kill you"

Shall I fish in that thread and post your rhetoric here?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by maybereal11
Every religion has it's extremists...martydom is not just a component of Islam...

In what sense are Islamic suicide bombers excused or somehow justified in light of religious extremism in other religions?

Of course not. Extremism should never be excused, that is why I continue to refute the onslaught of unfounded attacks you have been heaping upon Muslims et al. and anyone that looks to defend them from the bigotry.

Strange that you have never acknowledged that extremism is a function of religion as opposed to your repeated claims that the Muslim faith is hateful and intolerant by nature.

Sharia Law in the UK? No...arbitration on debt and family matters requiring both parties to agree and still at the full mercy of British Law.

by THAT ACCURATE DEFINITION...

Jewish courts are in daily use in Britain, and have been for centuries.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Catholics...Catholic Arbitration..Canon Law? Been around for centuries and is used in the UK all the time..

If Arbitration fails or any party wants to appeal to a government authority, they may.

All ruling and judgements must be in keeping with the laws of the land.

And it has bearing only on matters like Marriage and debts..and both parties must agree to the settlement etc. Even then it is only an "agreement" and not a valid court ruling, any Mediation ruling is nothing more than evidence for a legitimate UK court to decide upon.

What you posted was BS...I see you have back-peddled here alot, but like I said, you posted BS.

reply to post by ollncasino


You are misreading the article.

It's frankly not worth discussing here, since it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, but don't forget what the question he was answering was:

How would you respond to radical Muslim clerics in northwest Pakistan -- now under Islamic law -- who are calling for expansion of Islamic law across the entire federal republic of Pakistan. Should any nation be governed by religious rules.

Source

He starts his reply this way:

We hear a lot about "firebrand" Muslim clerics calling for the installation of Shariah law. It conjures images of women being stoned and forced into hiding behind burkas and denied educations. We think of beheadings and amputations as a form of justice. And we cringe.

Where you claim he is referring to the secular penal code, it is clear he is referring to the Sharia penal code as applied in some places -- that's why he says "Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context."

The last thing ollncasino needs against him side are facts or reason.

Then again.

I assume being ignorant is easy for ollncasino. How can it fail with such wit where he (probably) assumes everyone with a little common sense is a Muslim and has an evil "agenda".

Originally posted by maybereal11
In the other thread you dedicated several posts to the theme..."Don't be friends with Muslims...they will kill you"

Are you being disingenuous or are you just reduced to being dishonest?

Several of my posts were NOT about ..."Don't be friends with Muslims...they will kill you".

My posts were verses from the Koran about the "Koran instructing Muslims not to be friends with non Muslims". In spite of one poster contesting the validity of the translations, I could provide translations from reputable sources which were constituently in support of my assertions.

People can check that you are making things up by reading the post - it is about 40% down the page:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would appreciate it if don't just make things up. At least you have stopped calling me names.

Originally posted by maybereal11
You have repeatedly and consistently stated that the Muslim faith is an evil, intolerant religion...not some 7%.

Why do you feel the need to make things up and to try to put words in my mouth?

It would suggest that you are uncomfortable with the strength of your own postion.

People can do a search using this boards search function.

"ollncasino evil"
"ollncasino intolerant"

They will find that at no point have I called the Muslim faith an evil, intolerant religion, although other posters have attempted to put those words in my mouth.

I have consistently stated that the Koran preaches Jihad against non-Muslims. That is a question of objective fact, not opinion or political correctness.

You will also be able to quote me stating that in the Koran, intolerant passages greatly outnumer the tolerant passages. A matter of objective truth, not opinion.

If you insist on attacking me, could you please stop making things up?

Originally posted by maybereal11
If Arbitration fails or any party wants to appeal to a government authority, they may.

Not true. I'll let the Tribunals board speak for itself.

"The award is generally considered as final, but appeal may be made to the High Court on a question of law, with the approval of all the parties, or with the permission of the Court by way of judicial review."

www.matribunal.com...

Both parties must agree to an appeal to a secular court, not just one, so you are wrong.

Originally posted by maybereal11
All ruling and judgements must be in keeping with the laws of the land.

Again I will let the tribunal speak for itself

"Although MAT must operate within the legal framework of England and Wales, this does not prevent or impede MAT from ensuring that all determinations reached by it are in accordance with one of the recognised Schools of Islamic Sacred Law."

www.matribunal.com...

You are wrong again.

Originally posted by maybereal11
And it has bearing only on matters like Marriage and debts..and both parties must agree to the settlement etc. Even then it is only an "agreement" and not a valid court ruling

I will let the Tribunal speak for itself again

In respect of Commercial and Debt matters

"The arbitrator’s judgment, known as the Award, can be delivered instantaneously, and is binding on the parties as a High Court judgment would be and if required can be imposed as one."

www.matribunal.com...

"MAT will therefore, for the first time, offer the Muslim community a real and true opportunity to settle disputes in accordance with Islamic Sacred Law with the knowledge that the outcome as determined by MAT will be binding and enforceable."

www.matribunal.com...

Again you are wrong.

Originally posted by maybereal11
What you posted was BS...I see you have back-peddled here alot, but like I said, you posted BS.

In light of your unfounded accusations (intentionally so?) and factually incorrect assertions about Sharia law in the UK (as detailed above), it is rather bizarre that you have accused me of backpedaling and bull#ting.

I would also appreciate if you will stop stating that I have said thing that I have not.

I did not dedicate several posts to "Don't be friends with Muslims...they will kill you"

Nor have I "repeatedly and consistently stated that the Muslim faith is an evil, intolerant religion".

I haven't even said it once.

Plese stop making things up. I don't mind a debate. I can even handle being demonised. Making things up to attack me however is too much.

Originally posted by SIRTMG
The last thing ollncasino needs against him side are facts or reason.

Then again.

I assume being ignorant is easy for ollncasino. How can it fail with such wit where he (probably) assumes everyone with a little common sense is a Muslim and has an evil "agenda".

I have respect for AmericanDingBat. She made a very valid point.

He/She reads things properly (evidence) and presents a strong, reasoned argument.

She made a very valid point in that the Iman was referring to a specific set of circumstances.

You on the other hand merely accuse me of being ignorant.

Just don't stoop as low as some posters and make things up.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by maybereal11
You have repeatedly and consistently stated that the Muslim faith is an evil, intolerant religion...not some 7%.

Why do you feel the need to make things up and to try to put words in my mouth?

It would suggest that you are uncomfortable with the strength of your own postion.

People can do a search using this boards search function.

Okay...here is smallest of quick samplings of the library of muslim bashing you have posted..

On Tolerance....

Originally posted by ollncasino

Liberals also defend the Koran on the basis that it contains messages of tolerance. Again, we are dealing with statements from people either displaying ignorance or who are trying to spread wilful missinformation.


[edit on 20-8-2010 by ollncasino]

Originally posted by ollncasino
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel

 

Besides the fact that that the message of Jesus Christ, who preached love not war (unlike Muhammad who overwhelmingly preached violent Jihad) appears to have passed you by, the big difference is that Christianity isn't producing suicide bombers aimed at converting the whole world to Islam by violent Jihad.

It is quite a fundamental difference.

Originally posted by ollncasino


That's the funny thing. The more you understand Islamic teachings, the more you realise that it is in fact a relgion full of hateful statements against non Muslims, which commands Muslims to fight Jihad.

Such statements and commands are not the occasional verse. The Koran and Hadiths are bursting with them!

Originally posted by ollncasino
Yet, the Koran makes no bones about calling non-Muslims guilty, evil, wicked, evil-livers, liars, wrong doers, who have diseased hearts and are not to be trusted and who secretly hate Muslims.

Its almost as if all of this tolerance was a one way street!

[edit on 26-8-2010 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by ollncasino

Not true. I'll let the Tribunals board speak for itself.

"The award is generally considered as final, but appeal may be made to the High Court on a question of law, with the approval of all the parties, or with the permission of the Court by way of judicial review."

www.matribunal.com...

Both parties must agree to an appeal to a secular court, not just one, so you are wrong.

nope..Read it carefully, put that purported law degree to use.

Determination of preliminary point of jurisdiction.
32. - (1) The court may, on the application of a party to arbitral proceedings (upon notice to the other parties), determine any question as to the substantive jurisdiction of the tribunal.



A party may lose the right to object (see section 73).



(2) An application under this section shall not be considered unless-



(a) it is made with the agreement in writing of all the other parties to the proceedings, or


(b) it is made with the permission of the tribunal and the court is satisfied-


(i) that the determination of the question is likely to produce substantial savings in costs,


(ii) that the application was made without delay, and


(iii) that there is good reason why the matter should be decided by the court.


(3) An application under this section, unless made with the agreement of all the other parties to the proceedings, shall state the grounds on which it is said that the matter should be decided by the court.



(4) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may continue the arbitral proceedings and make an award while an application to the court under this section is pending.



(5) Unless the court gives leave, no appeal lies from a decision of the court whether the conditions specified in subsection (2) are met.



(6) The decision of the court on the question of jurisdiction shall be treated as a judgment of the court for the purposes of an appeal.



But no appeal lies without the leave of the court which shall not be given unless the court considers that the question involves a point of law which is one of general importance or is one which for some other special reason should be considered by the Court of Appeal.

www.matribunal.com...

seems like this topic took many twist and turns, so,

Here is an an article in the Ottawa Citizen by Ms. Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

Mischief in Manhattan

We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation

By Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, Citizen Special

Read more: www.ottawacitizen.com...

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"

an act of "fitna"
islam.about.com...

Building on the revelations exposed in the new audio posted at Atlas Monday morning, now comes new exclusive audio of the very connected, very influential stealth Imam radical Rauf.

9/11 was a watershed, was a major milestone, and a major catalytic force in, in catalyzing the attention towards the issue of Islam, it’s presence in the West, and it brought into much greater prominence our work and the importance of our work. Imam Rauf

- No we’ve created a different concept a different model, Mark. I’m the head coach of this strategic initiative, and the President of the United States, or the President of Malaysia, or the President of England, is like a player you want to bring in for particular plays. Imam Rauf

Imam Rauf Exposed: Off mic



atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com...

[edit on 053131p://bThursday2010 by Stormdancer777]

[edit on 053131p://bThursday2010 by Stormdancer777]

August 26, 2010
Obama's Arabic Teleprompter - Imam Rauf!
Eileen F. Toplansky
In a stunning revelation, it appears that the controversial Imam Rauf has been quite instrumental in the crafting of the speech that Obama gave in Cairo. This report comes from Walid Shoebat who speaks fluent Arabic. It is a shocking audio recording of Rauf's own voice boasting in Arabic that Obama's historic speech in Cairo was provided by the Imam's work with the Cordova Initiative.

www.americanthinker.com...

www.specialguests.com...

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Here is an an article in the Ottawa Citizen by Ms. Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation

By Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, Citizen Special

Read more: www.ottawacitizen.com...

Frankly, I've lost count of how many times this article has been posted. So two Canadian Muslim women think it's a deliberate provocation? If you read the article it's clear they don't have any in-depth knowledge of the project or the imam leading it, so I don't really think they have a basis for their opinion.

atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com...

And in this article it's also clear that Pamela Geller is interpreting the imam's words the way she wants to hear them, not the way they are meant.

For instance, he notes that 9/11 was a catalyst for us (the U.S.) to understand that our separation of religion and politics had blinded us to important factors that contributed to the rise of terrorism. That's a valid observation, and an important one if we want to understand what happened and prevent it from happening again.

He says he does not want or need a majority-demographic Islamic state, and Geller interprets that to mean he does want an Islamic state

Despite the fact that in all his writings that I've seen he's quite clear that he likes the current U.S. Constitution and current U.S. law and feels they are compatible with Islam as he understands it



reply to post by Stormdancer777


Again, misinterpretation of what has been said; I saw that on the other thread about it, and if you follow the links to what the imam said it's clear he's bragging that Obama used ideas from his book in the Cairo speech, not that he has become Obama's speechwriter.

[edit on 8/26/2010 by americandingbat]

I have a lot to post but it is a daunting task, for now I am just going to point out this isn't about Islam, it isn't about 9/11, a huge segment of Americans society has slowly watched as their rights and wishes have been undermined for decades.

They are angry, they are resentful, and they are fed up, with what they see as a liberal agenda that slowly eroded their rights, while pandering to the rights of others, possibly they don't realize how fed up they really are, or why.

The mosque is just the straw that broke the camels back,

For instance what is the hold up with the Church destroyed by 9/11, and where is Bloomberg?

www.nytimes.com...

Mr. Pataki cast doubt on the wisdom of city officials’ allowing a community center and mosque near ground zero when “we don’t know the funding, we don’t know the view of the people behind it.” By contrast, he said, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which oversees the trade center reconstruction site, had failed to “reach out and engage in a dialogue” about rebuilding the church with Greek Orthodox officials, who, he suggested, were a known quantity.

Why if we are for separation of church and state did our state department fund Feisal Abdul Rauf trip the the middle east?

Where are the liberal women rights activists on Islamic women rights and why do they remain silent?

Where are the atheist on the issue of our St. department funding the Imans visits, and our tax dollars going to refurbishing Mosques world wide to the tune of tens of millions of dollars?

While for decades Christians have had their rights taken from them, for instance ,

The 14 crosses erected along Utah roads to commemorate fallen state Highway Patrol troopers convey a state preference for Christianity and are a violation of the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.

Rights for Christian a to wear a cross in school are denied but the hijab is acceptable,

Foot bath and special prayer areas for Muslims put in colleges,
www.usatoday.com...

USA TODAY – Some public schools and universities are granting Muslim requests for prayer times, prayer rooms and ritual foot baths, prompting a debate on whether Islam is being given preferential treatment over other religions.

I thought the atheist fought for prayer to be taken out of the schools?

Why are you so quiet now?

Christianity is continually scrutinized, Americans are bashed and vilified in other countries, while it seems everyone has become an Islamic apologist,

This is hypocrisy as far a I am concerned, and if it is not hypocrisy, it is part of a nefarious plot to destroy what once was the fabric of American society, and they have infiltrate our school systems and our government,

I have a list I could go on and on, but there is a large segment of law abiding American citizens, that are tired of watching this double standard,

I took a couple days off to get a grasp of what I was seeing, and no I don't think they are bigots, or racist, I think they see something very strange happening, they have been sitting back and watching just minding their own business but the wounds were festering.











[edit on 103131p://bThursday2010 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Once again Rauf's trips overseas on behalf of the State Department are to improve relations with the Muslim and Arab world by promoting life in America as being fair to Muslims.

This will be his third trip to do that. He is not allowed to raise funds while he is travelling for the State Department.

Once again Rauf also does training for the FBI to help them spot the tell tale signs of a radical Islamist.

Believe it or not fighting the war on Terror with just bombs only breeds more terrorists.

Rauf plays an educational role in speaking to Muslims overseas about our fair and open society that allows for seperation of State and Church and religious equality as something they should admire and pursue in their own countries.

This in fact helps to promote the rights of the Muslim women that most people prefer to bomb or villify when they aren't trying to save them.

I really do question others who are continuing to remain this ignorant as the facts are posted again and again yet people, the same people keep posting these inflamatory articles again and again, that have been debunked again and again, that then still run from thread to thread recycling them again and again!



Public funds are not being used to finance the community center and mosque.

So you might want to fall off your wallet and see about donating for having the church you are concerned about rebuilt.

By the way you might want to ask that Church's board of directors what it did with the Insurance money it got after being destroyed.

In fact this Community Center and Mosque is PROPOSED they don't have the money to build it yet, all they have done is leased the property and conducted some preliminary studies, they haven't even applied for permits yet, or had code inspections done.

Which is in part why the false it's going to open on 9/11/11 story is so rediculous.

Maybe if some posters took a few days to actually read the threads they copy and paste things to and then leave without reading the responses to instead copy and paste the same post into another thread to rinse lather and repeat the process again and again, they wouldn't be working themselves up into these WHY ISN'T THE WORLD LIKE I WANT IT TO BE HISSY FITS?

Talk about building your own prison!





[edit on 26/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]