Violent Anti-Mosque crowd turns on Black Carpenter

page: 25
53
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   

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 willful misinformation.


I invite people to read the Koran. While the Koran contains some praiseworthy aspects, for instance, respect your elders and be charitable, it is an objective fact that it is bursting at the seams with intolerance towards non-Muslims.


Originally posted by ollncasino
That's the funny thing. The more you understand Islamic teachings, the more you realize that it is in fact a religion 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!


The sad thing is, that statement is true. Read the Koran!


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!



I really do wish that the Koran was a book of peace. Unfortunately, as an objective fact, it isn't. This allows a significant minority of Muslims who commit acts of terrorism to be able to find ample justification for their violent jihad within the holy book.

This website, seems to be quite evenhanded. It contains statements backed up by evidence that both show the good and the bad of the Koran

www.religioustolerance.org...

I will directly quote



"The Qur’an, the holy book of Islam, contains verses requiring Muslims to express tolerance towards other religions, particularly towards Jews and Christians. All three are the "people of the Book" who share a reverence for Abraham. But there are other verses which close to door to any possible understanding between Muslims and followers of other religions:

The main verses supporting the acceptance of the other monotheistic religions are: II.59, II.257, III.77, and CIX.

Less supportive are verses XXIII.56 and LXXIII.10.

Note that verse XI.257 "There shall be no compulsion in religion" is followed by a verse indicating that the unbelievers will be brought into the shadows and will remain in the fire forever.

The main verses clearly advocating intolerance and containing injunction to fight unbelievers are: II.187, III.27, III.114, IV.91, IV.144, V.37, V.56, VIII.65, IX.5, IX.29, IX.125, XXV.54, and XLVII.4.

These verses are very unambiguously stated.

Those verses in the Qur’an that indicate a positive attitude towards other monotheistic religions are often quoted by Muslims to show that Islam is a friendly religion intent on peaceful cooperation with other religions. Ahmad Mahmud Soliman states that:

"Islam orders its adherents not only to tolerate the opinions and creeds of others, but also have a firm belief in the orthodox principles of all heavenly religions. A Muslim who disbelieves the other apostles (such as Jesus or Moses) is not a true Muslim. Islam forbids the ill treatment of the followers of other religions and regards it as sinful to do them harm."

Unfortunately, it is the other verses that are more frequently quoted by radical fundamentalist mullahs. These verses imply that there can be neither relationship nor friendship, not even peaceful co-existence of Muslims with non-Muslims. These include verses such as:

bullet IX.29 "Fight those who do not believe.",
bullet IX.5 "Slay the pagans wherever you fight them", or
bullet II.187 "Slay them wherever you catch them"."


[edit on 27-8-2010 by ollncasino]




posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
nope..Read it carefully, put that purported law degree to use.


I am pleased that you appear to have conceded my other 2 main legal points

(i) that the Muslim ArbitrationTribunal's ruling in respect of Commercial and Debt matters can be enforced in a court and is as binding as a High court decision. Hence it is a valid ruling.

(ii) That the Muslim ArbitrationTribunal has the power to apply Sharia law.

I wrote



"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.


and you replied


Originally posted by maybereal11
nope..Read it carefully, put that purported law degree to use.


You are aware that I quoted directly from the Tribunal's own webpage?

www.matribunal.com...

Perhaps you should contact the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal and tell it that they have it wrong?

Perhaps you can offer them your legal expertise?


You further cited section 32 as determining the appeal question.

Section 32 begins



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.


and continues



(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

www.matribunal.com...


The words 'preliminary point of jurisdiction' and 'question as to the substantive jurisdiction' should have made it clear to you that section 32 is not about appealing the tribunal's final decision.

Section 32 is discussing the circumstances in which a party can challenge the jurisdiction of the Tribunal (its right to hear the case), not as you asserted an appeal of its decision.

In addition, besides the fact that section 32 does not deal with appeals of the tribunal's final decision, section 32 (2) makes it clear that if a party wishes to appeal in terms of Jurisdiction, he needs either the Tribunal's permission or the permission of the other party to do so.

The section you were really looking for was section 69 where a party has the right to appeal on a point of law if either both parties agree or the tribunal gives the objecting party permission.



Appeal on point of law.
69. - (1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a party to arbitral proceedings may (upon notice to the other parties and to the tribunal) appeal to the court on a question of law arising out of an award made in the proceedings.

An agreement to dispense with reasons for the tribunal's award shall be considered an agreement to exclude the court's jurisdiction under this section.

(2) An appeal shall not be brought under this section except-

(a) with the agreement of all the other parties to the proceedings, or

(b) with the leave of the court.


The right to appeal is also subject to the restrictions in section 70(2) and (3).

(3) Leave to appeal shall be given only if the court is satisfied-

(a) that the determination of the question will substantially affect the rights of one or more of the parties,

(b) that the question is one which the tribunal was asked to determine,

(c) that, on the basis of the findings of fact in the award-

(i) the decision of the tribunal on the question is obviously wrong, or

(ii) the question is one of general public importance and the decision of the tribunal is at least open to serious doubt, and

(d) that, despite the agreement of the parties to resolve the matter by arbitration, it is just and proper in all the circumstances for the court to determine the question.

(4) An application for leave to appeal under this section shall identify the question of law to be determined and state the grounds on which it is alleged that leave to appeal should be granted.

(5) The court shall determine an application for leave to appeal under this section without a hearing unless it appears to the court that a hearing is required.

(6) The leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section to grant or refuse leave to appeal.

(7) On an appeal under this section the court may by order-

(a) confirm the award,

(b) vary the award,

(c) remit the award to the tribunal, in whole or in part, for reconsideration in the light of the court's determination, or

(d) set aside the award in whole or in part.

The court shall not exercise its power to set aside an award, in whole or in part, unless it is satisfied that it would be inappropriate to remit the matters in question to the tribunal for reconsideration.

(8) The decision of the court on an appeal under this section shall be treated as a judgment of the court for the purposes of a further appeal.

But no such appeal lies without the leave of the court which shall not be given unless the court considers that the question 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...


So good try but no cigar. You are wrong again. As I said, contact the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal and tell them they have erred in law.

It will give them a good laugh.



[edit on 27-8-2010 by ollncasino]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Every time I return to the question I have now asked literally countless times, I stop receiving replies and never receive an answer.

I'm not asking about other mosques that have been used as fronts for the fomenting and funding of radical militancy or terror. I'm not asking about whether the Qur'an preaches violence or how frequently. I'm not asking about what other ostensible Muslims have and haven't done. I acknowledge all of those factors, but they are not answers to my question.

I'm asking a very simple, very straightforward question, and becoming increasingly dismayed by the fact that no one will give me a simple yes or no answer to it.

My question has been and remains: is there any proof - at all - that this particular Imam and his particular followers or the prospective patrons of this particular prayer space, take a radical or violent interpretation of the Qur'an, or are planning, threatening, or committing violence, terror, or the espousement thereof?

Because, once again, what some Muslims do and believe is not what all Muslims do and believe. Just as not every Christian believes or agrees with every single tenet of biblical scripture, not every Muslim believes in or preaches violence just because aspects of the Qu'ran do so. I have visited mosques and found no evidence of terrorist activity, hatred of nonbelievers, or radicalism. That doesn't mean there aren't mosques and other Muslim (or other religious!) institutions that are fronts for the spread of terrorism or violence in various forms. I would never claim that, as history has clearly demonstrated otherwise. What it does mean though, is that either every Muslim at the mosques I visited was putting on an act for the "infidel" who wandered in off the street without warning, or not every Muslim on the planet, nor every mosque, is a haven for violence or hate.

There are differing interpretations of the Qur'an. Many Muslims interpret Jihad as merely a personal struggle against iniquity and an effort to be good people - not violence or hatred against non-Muslims.

So with that being the case, we have to first establish proof that this particular group of Muslims and this particular location will be the violent, hateful, radical sorts that people are afraid they will be. So I ask again: is there any proof of that? I would appreciate a yes or no reply, rather than allusions to what other Muslims have done. My question is not about other Muslims. It is about these Muslims - the ones many are advocating the abridgement of religious liberties with respect to.

Because if there isn't, I don't understand what the basis for the opposition is. Because if the basis is simply the possibility that they might be, then in my opinion that same basis can be applied to many things, and is the first step on a very slippery slope in my view. No less slippery than not being vigilant toward the possibility of violence hiding behind any sort of front - religious or otherwise - and we must be vigilant against that. But with proof. With individually applicable evidence, not the wholesale suspicion of an entire faith. And not in my view to the point that we suggest removing someone's religious freedoms on the basis of a possibility for which there is no proof yet.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Yeah Stormdancer777! Who do you think you are questioning anything
Geez, you act like another dang Christian who has questions
or worse, a conspiracy theorist!

Your concern wouldn't be due to a few extremists who ran around here like rabid dogs posting 138+ posts within 3 threads, or creating thread after thread about neo-cons and the such....
You should be ashamed of yourself for fearing their attacks


Please do them a favor and shut the snip up, after all they ARE the NEW CHRISTIAN EXTREMISTS (history always repeats its self or didn't you know that too


Wake up dear, just because you and 70% of the country have questions about the muslim center doesn't mean you have the right to ask, to be concerned or to participate in this.

Don't you understand that you are suppose to conform to dogs who bark loudest


Don't you get it Stormdancer????

Geez, knowledge is everything!!
It's how people get away with not paying rent, mooching off landlords because they know more than the average bear....

Please break out of your prison, I beg you


You are one scary lady.... and tell me, do you really dance in storms????
You might want to ask permission first sweetie


All kidding aside, please continue to participate. You are no less important than the next member.


Thank you,
sweetliberty






[edit on 27-8-2010 by sweetliberty]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by sweetliberty
 

I would elaborate on the way that the mosque opponents are being silenced by its supporters as you have pointed out in your last post, but I have to go to work right now in order to contribute to the Imams overseas excursion.

I wish I could afford to take a vacation/fund raising trip halfway across the world, don't you?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
www.cordobainitiative.org.../ci-partners

CI partners

American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA)
www.asmasociety.org...

United Nations Alliance of Civilizations
www.unaoc.org...

Search for Common Ground
www.sfcg.org...

I question why no one else is helping this imam to calm the people here in the United States.

Why is this completely on his shoulders?

Edit to add, I'm fully aware Daisy Khan is the founder of the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA) and that she has spoken to the public but it seems not to have had much of an impact.

I'm also searching further as to who the other partners are, the links above, as far as I've read, don't elaborate to who the other partners are.


[edit on 27-8-2010 by sweetliberty]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by sweetliberty
 






You are one scary lady.... and tell me, do you really dance in storms????


Why yes, yes I do.


I have a list of reasons, and people, and personality types that don't want to consider the reason why many Americans are against this specific mosque, But I will have to think about posting it,

Some are genuinely concerned, others don't give two hoots about the constitutional rights unless it is for someone other then Christians, why some who have posted on these topics bash Christians themselves,



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I am trying point out to you how people feel, you know people that actually pay TAXES?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 





Some are genuinely concerned, others don't give two hoots about the constitutional rights unless it is for someone other then Christians, why some who have posted on these topics bash Christians themselves,


This is an endlessly reoccuring theme! It seems to me that those who keep pointing that out in post after post liken religion not to spirituality but some kind of perverse popularity contest.

Yet amazingly these same posters who love promoting this theme seldom stop to realize how often their own lack of integrity in promoting blatant falsehoods in regards to others, actually is what invites the criticism that they bristle at in regards to their religion.

In fact I could go through a Christian Bible and display a half a dozen things in just one random average post that contains this theme that are in fact opposite to and contrary too how the Christian Bible tells them to conduct themselves.

So in essence if the people promoting this religion as something above criticism are unable to even practice it's tennets as put forward in it, how could it achieve the image they wish to have for it?

So as a result, rather than attempt to act with the integrity and compassion Christians are extolled and commanded to, they do the exact opposite hoping to simply bash and attack anyone who might take notice of their seeming inability to follow their own doctrine.

If these people looked through their posts they would see that everything they are espousing is in fact the opposite of what their religion tells them to espouse.

Maybe, just mabye that's why such posters only have credibility with other religious zealots hiding behind their books and religions to use as a shield instead of living their books and following their principles.

Regardless it's nothing but a broken record of childesh deflection from people who can't even grasp the principles of their own religion let alone anyone elses.

So if such a poster can't even grasp the principles of their own religion and conduct themselves in true accordance with them, why then and how then would anyone value their opinion in regards to anyone else's religion when it's clear they don't even understand their own?

These are the exact type of people who would use violence, at a rally against anyone that dares to be honest, or dares to be different.

Which is what this thread is about, anger directed at someone being made a scapegoat for their anger.

A very un-Christian like thing to do, that is only bound to invite criticism.

Pretty simple to understand for those not involved in pushing a warped and convoluted and hypocritical agenda.

Thanks!




posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by I AM LEGION
 


Just shows you the hatred and fear in the hearts of these people...pathetic.

A few facts from someone who actually lives in NYC.

1) Its not a mosque.. Its a community center...with a prayer room.
2) Its not at Ground Zero... its not! The argument should end here.
3) There are adult stores, and other unsavory places closer to ground zero
4) There was a mosque there before, and its not the only one in the hood.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


I pay taxes! I hate that my taxes are being used for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hate that my taxes go to Israel, and I hate that I have taxes. But taxes are used for the fire department, police and various other efficient programs. I doubt my tax dollars are being used for this building being built.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I am not going to be bullied by you Proto, if you want to stick to one paragraph at a time, I 'll consider it,

But the average hard working tax payer is fed up.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


I pay taxes! I hate that my taxes are being used for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hate that my taxes go to Israel, and I hate that I have taxes. But taxes are used for the fire department, police and various other efficient programs. I doubt my tax dollars are being used for this building being built.


I am talking about the Iman's trip.

But yes on a side note, tax dollars go to schools, and schools that have a liberal agenda, and schools that pander to one segment of society in some instances over another.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I am not going to be bullied by you Proto, if you want to stick to one paragraph at a time, I 'll consider it,

But the average hard working tax payer is fed up.



Really have you got a list of average hard working tax payers there that state that?

What exactly are they fed up with?

Is your average hard working list of fed up tax payers from or compiled by Jihad Watch dot Com by chance?

Or one of the other not so reputable, biased sources of opinion that you copy and paste an endless array of long ago debunked articles and op-eds from day after day in thread after thread?

The truth is you aren't speaking for the average tax payer, your are speaking for a rather circumspect group of like minded ATS posters who seem oblivious to the reality of the world that they live in, to promote nothing but exagerations, falsehoods and fears, regardless of how it diminishes them or the organizations and people they claim to represent.

Most of these people in fact have no argument of their own, they simply mimick arguments of others in a copy and paste onslaught.

As such they can't discuss the constant slanders and distortions they promote honestly and can only liken anyone questioning their motives and methods as bullying them.

The thread though is about how people wrongly directed anger at and made to feel threatened a man walking down the streets he pays taxes to use.

Just in case you are considering engaging on a genuine level.

Thanks.

[edit on 27/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Liberal? Can you tell me what this liberal agenda is? I'm just curious.
: )



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Just so I am not confused by your statement...

Educating children is a "liberal agenda"?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Everyone is biased to one extent or another,

You are biased PT, be honest.
I was born and raised Christian, and yes it angers me to see them bashed continually,








[edit on 103131p://bFriday2010 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Just so I am not confused by your statement...

Educating children is a "liberal agenda"?


It has become that way, yes, my daughter just spent four years in college to become a teacher and yes it is very liberal., I didn't know this was a secret, I thought everyone knew this.

I am surrounded by teacher friends.

and the colleges, sheeese, Oh yes they have an agenda.

Movies,
music,
news,




[edit on 103131p://bFriday2010 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Everyone is biased to one extent or another, of something is true, it is true,

You are biased PT, be honest.
I was born and raised Christian, and yes it angers me to see them bashed continually,







So in other words you are unable to do what the Bible tells you in regards to this?

Yet you feel that this type of overly emotional behavior that intrudes in all your posts and in every thread you interact in, is some how making Christians look better?

By doing the opposite thing that Christians are supposed to?

Alrighty then.

So if I understand you correctly you are less worried about your evolution and path to perfection and enlightenment than you are worried about everyone else's path to evolution and enlightenment which you feel are an impedement to you doing yourself, what you lament so frequently and poorly other's aren't?

While you might not understand what you are saying, and doing, that doesn't mean other's don't.

In reality it's just a lot of excuses and attempts to justify rather poor and dishonest behavoir.

Behavoir that is basically just designed to make a sinner look like a saint because they proclaim it so, by means of diminishing wholesale entire swaths of humanity through stereotyping them.

Your frustration is really just borne of not being able to understand why such emotional manipulation doesn't work on all people.

Not with how you fail at your own religion.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Just so I am not confused by your statement...

Educating children is a "liberal agenda"?


It has become that way, yes, my daughter just spent four years in college to become a teacher and yes it is very liberal., I didn't know this was a secret, I thought everyone knew this.

I am surrounded by teacher friends.

and the colleges, sheeese, Oh yes they have an agenda.

Movies,
music,
news,




[edit on 103131p://bFriday2010 by Stormdancer777]


Secret? Well I can tell you everyone is treated equal regardless of politics. I'm a moderate. When I did a semester in college there were different groups. The Christians were the only conservative group. While me and numerous others field the rest.





new topics
top topics
 
53
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join