Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Violent Anti-Mosque crowd turns on Black Carpenter

page: 27
53
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Treating individuals with hatred is self-defeating. It creates hatred in return. It doesn't matter who this guy was and what his reasons for being there, he was not carrying inflammatory banners or saying anything inflammatory.

Calling the area where the community centre is being built "hallowed ground" is stupid. All of America suffered that day, not just the people of that area. And we still have no proof that Muslims were even involved in the attacks. Any evidence was hidden from us and quickly buried, while we were brainwashed to hate Muslims and invade their countries.

This is where a Boeing supposedly entered the Pentagon, wings and all. Can anyone see a hole big enough for a Boeing 757, with a wing span of 38.05m (124ft 10in), length 47.32m (155ft 3in) and height 13.56m (44ft 6in), in this picture?
Boeing 757 dimensions

However the concerns about Wahhabism are well founded. Wahhabism is a branch of Islamic practice far removed from traditional Islam as it was practiced 300 years ago. It sets Muslim against Muslim, and sets the western world against Muslims in general. And it comes from America's great "friend" in the Muslim world, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is no friend to America, but The House of Saud is a friend of those with power who want to mould our societies to their benefit.
- Just as is the "Christian" movement of Dominionism.

The world would be better off if we could put all the Wahhabis and Dominionists onto a lonely island, to fight it out together with sticks and stones.




posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
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?


Well, yes there is. As the NY Post puts its "his writings directed at Muslims are full of praise for the most noxious and dangerous Muslim thinkers".

Please see below.


Behind the Mosque: Extremism at Ground Zero

At least two of Imam Rauf's books, a 2000 treatise on Islamic law and his 2004 "What's Right with Islam," laud the implementation of sharia -- including within America -- and the "rejuvenating" Islamic religious spirit of Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Wahhab.

He also lionizes as two ostensible "modernists" Jamal al-Dinal-Afghani (d. 1897), and his student Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905). In fact, both defended the Wahhabis, praised the salutary influence of Ibn Taymiyyah and promoted the pretense that sha ria -- despite its permanent advocacy of jihad and dehumanizing injunctions on non-Muslims and women -- was somehow compatible with Western concepts of human rights, as in our own Bill of Rights.

In short, Feisal Rauf's public image as a devotee of the "contemplative" Sufi school of Islam cannot change the fact that his writings directed at Muslims are full of praise for the most noxious and dangerous Muslim thinkers.

Source:
NY Post

www.nypost.com...



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Originally posted by AceWombat04
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?



any proof they won't?

any proof i won't do a certain thing next year?

any proof you will not do something next year?

any proof disclosure won't come in the future?

you see what kind of question you are asking?

it's like, should we fix the gas pipe now or after the explosion?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
Well, yes there is. As the NY Post puts its "his writings directed at Muslims are full of praise for the most noxious and dangerous Muslim thinkers".


As I said, in the United States, what you say it not legally tantamount to what you do, unless you directly threaten someone. So I ask again: is there any proof that he, or anyone associated with it are supporting, planning, financing, or committing acts of terror or subversion? Yes or no.

Stating that he agrees with an ideal or philosophical position in a book does not meet the criteria of what I'm asking about. It's cause for concern in my opinion, and a reason to investigate further; to look for the proof I'm asking about. Has such investigation by the authorities turned up such proof? Hard proof of criminal or terrorist planning or other wrongdoing?


Originally posted by fooks

any proof they won't?

any proof i won't do a certain thing next year?

any proof you will not do something next year?

any proof disclosure won't come in the future?

you see what kind of question you are asking?

it's like, should we fix the gas pipe now or after the explosion?


In the United States of America, American citizens are innocent until proven guilty. Do you disagree with that facet of our laws and Constitution?
edit on 10/18/2010 by AceWombat04 because: Clarification/spelling



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
So I ask again: is there any proof that he, or anyone associated with it are supporting, planning, financing, or committing acts of terror or subversion? Yes or no.


You have narrowed your narrow question.

Your new question has only 22 words and only mentions criminal acts.

Your original question had 42 words and mentioned

”take a radical

Or

violent interpretation of the Qur'an

Or

criminal acts”


Your original question was


Originally posted by AceWombat04
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?


With respect, why are you trying to move the goalposts?

Is it because I demonstrated that, as the NY Post puts it, "his writings directed at Muslims are full of praise for the most noxious and dangerous Muslim thinkers"?

Thereby proving that he does indeed take a radical interpretation of the Qur'an.

I take it, by implication, that you support radical Imams building mosques in the USA. Yes or No?

edit on 18-10-2010 by ollncasino because: spelling



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
You have narrowed your narrow question.

Your new question has only 22 words and only mentions criminal acts.

Your original question had 42 words and mentioned

”take a radical

Or

violent interpretation of the Qur'an

Or

criminal acts”


Your original question was


Originally posted by AceWombat04
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?


With respect, why are you trying to move the goalposts?


I'm not trying to. I was acknowledging that you answered part of my question, and then re-asked the rest. I also didn't ignore your comments about his writings, either. I expressed great concern with respect to them, and said I felt he should be investigated on that basis. I'm still waiting for an answer to the rest of my question, though: Is there any proof that he/they are planning, threatening, or committing violence, terror, or the espousement thereof?


I take it, by implication, that you support radical Imams building mosques in the USA. Yes or No?


Absolute, emphatically, not. I absolutely oppose that, as should be obvious by my expressions of concern and my calls for an investigation into his activities, associations, and finances by DHS, particularly the FBI. I haven't seen any proof that he is a "radical Imam," however. Again, what one says and what one does are two different things from a legal perspective. All I've seen proof of is that he wrote something in two books more than half a decade ago that concerns me greatly, but does not constitute proof of criminal or terrorist intent/threats/activity. In fact, to the contrary, the actions he has taken since then (that are public at least - which is why I want an investigation, which I hope is actually happening) indicate moderate views.

So I ask again, is there any proof that he/they are planning, threatening, or committing violence, terror, or the espousement thereof?

I have answered your question. Will you answer mine?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Brownish skin + Under Armor cap + Puerto Rico flag bead necklace = Muslim that should be attacked?
Wow!! What the heck is wrong with these people?



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I'm not trying to (move the goal post). I was acknowledging that you answered part of my question, and then re-asked the rest.


Acknowledging?

I answered your original question with a “Yes”, the Ground Zero Imam does take a “take a radical interpretation of the Qur'an” and proved it.

Your response reminds me of a Winson Churchill quote

“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”


Originally posted by AceWombat04
I haven't seen any proof that he is a "radical Imam," however


The Ground Zero Imam admires the "rejuvenating" Islamic religious spirit of Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Wahhab, both men who advocated violent Jihad against non Muslims.


Originally posted by AceWombat04
All I've seen proof of is that he (the Ground Zero Imam) wrote something in two books more than half a decade ago that concerns me greatly.


More than half a decade ago?

My, that was a long time ago.


Originally posted by AceWombat04
So I ask again, is there any proof that he/they are planning, threatening, or committing violence, terror, or the espousement thereof?


Espousement thereof?

Does admiring the "rejuvenating" Islamic religious spirit of men who made violent jihad against non-Muslims a central aspect of their teachings count?


Originally posted by AceWombat04
Again, what one says and what one does are two different things from a legal perspective.


You have answered my question. Clearly you feel it doesn't.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
Acknowledging?

I answered your original question with a “Yes”, the Ground Zero Imam does take a “take a radical interpretation of the Qur'an” and proved it.


I acknowledged what you said, said it was of great concern, and expressed my advocacy of greater transparency on his part, and for an investigation into his activities, associations, and finances.



The Ground Zero Imam admires the "rejuvenating" Islamic religious spirit of Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Wahhab, both men who advocated violent Jihad against non Muslims.


See above.


More than half a decade ago?

My, that was a long time ago.


There's no need for sarcasm. All I'm saying is that it wasn't yesterday. It isn't proof positive of what his intentions with this community center are today. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that if his intentions are radical or of a nature that supports terror that that's acceptable to me. I'm saying there needs to be an investigation seeking proof that those intentions are against the law. Criminal intent. Terrorist threats. Terror plots. Terror funding. Aiding and sheltering terrorists. Something.


Espousement thereof?

Does admiring the "rejuvenating" Islamic religious spirit of men who made violent jihad against non-Muslims a central aspect of their teachings count?


I've already addressed and acknowledged that and stated that it concerns me. It may or may not count, for that part of my question, as I said in my previous post. But it counts as your answer, at least. I have acknowledged that, and am continuing to ask the rest of my question.

Please hear me out, here.

You keep implying that I'm ignoring aspects of your posts or "moving the goal posts." But why are you ignoring the rest of my question? I've asked it literally dozens of times now, and you have not answered the remainder of it.

There’s a reason I keep asking it, and it’s probably not what you think it is (though I don’t want to presume.) I’m asking it because I make a distinction between what everyone is saying that this “mosque” is - a breeding ground for radicalism that poses a threat to the security of our country and way of life - and what the Imam associated with it wrote years ago. Why? Because in America people are allowed to have opinions. Yes, even radical ones. I don’t agree with them, but they have that right.

Unless they break any laws or hurt any people or property, we have to legally tolerate the existence of other groups which in the past have been associated with killings and other violent acts, such as the KKK, the Aryan Brotherhood, Satanists, etc. What a Muslim cleric wrote in a book is not exempt from those laws or from freedom of speech. We don’t have to like it or agree with it, and we can say so, but we do have to allow it to exist under the law.

That is why I am asking for proof of something other than thoughts and ideas. Because those, as repugnant as one might find them, are not crimes in America. So please, for the last time, answer my question:

Is there any proof of actual criminal misconduct, association with terror organizations, funding of terrorism or terror organizations, aiding and abetting of terrorists or terrorism-related groups? Yes or no? (And no, this rephrasing of my question is not me "moving the goal posts." It's for purposes of clarity and precision.)

Please answer the question. Please don't reply again without answering this. Thank-you.
edit on 10/19/2010 by AceWombat04 because: spelling
edit on 10/19/2010 by AceWombat04 because: Clarification



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 

Actually, you didn't really answer the question very accurately, instead used radical interpretations of mundane terms to build up a view contrary to the truth.

Yes, the Imam supports shari'ah. To you, with your anti-islam slant, that probably rushes into your head words like "beheading, stoning, oppression", etc. Thing is, that isn't what the Imam was talking about when he's talking about Shariah, as you can see from his interviews posted here.

Yes, the imam praises Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul-Wahhab (funny calling someone who was the SON of Abdul-Wahhab as "Wahhab". It'd be like calling John McClane's daughter "Clane"). But to claim that he's a radical and supports jihad because these people supposedly supported it is silly. Ibn Taymiyyah lived in the time of the Mongol invasions. Of course he supported a jihad against them. Ibn Abdul-Wahhab didn't have any particularly different views on jihad, the most you could say is that he wished to purify and separate Islam from the outside influences it had gathered over the centuries- he preached against the non-islamic (Christian and other) practices that had permeated some of the muslim schools of thought. If you wished to be super-critical and negatively biased against him, you could perhaps say he was a religious isolationist.

Praise for the "purifying spirit" of these two individuals in no way implies any sort of radicalism, so your using of that as a point to show this Imam's radical nature doesn't really work.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by ollncasino
 

Yes, the Imam supports shari'ah. To you, with your anti-islam slant, that probably rushes into your head words like "beheading, stoning, oppression", etc. Thing is, that isn't what the Imam was talking about when he's talking about Shariah, as you can see from his interviews posted here.


Was he referring to some other version of Sharia law rather than the Muslim one described in the Koran and Hadiths?

You know, the one that prescribes adulterers being stoned to death

Video surfaces of Taliban stoning woman in northwest Pakistan



or being stoned to death for being a homosexual

Sharia punishments being taught in UK

I don't think you have thought this one through.

If you had, you would perhaps realise what you are defending.
edit on 17-12-2010 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


Islamic community center developer seeks federal funding


New York (CNN) -- The developer behind the controversial Islamic community center and mosque planned for Lower Manhattan has requested federal funding through the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to support the project known as Park51. The funding would come from money the Department of Housing and Urban Development allocated to help rebuild the neighborhood after the 9/11 attacks.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 

Yeah, see, there is a perfect example. Excuse me, but where in the Quran and Hadith is there anything about being stoned for being homosexual?


I don't think YOU have thought this out fully.



Interesting to see you back on the Islam-Hate circuit! Was wondering where you'd gotten to
.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by ollncasino
 

Yeah, see, there is a perfect example. Excuse me, but where in the Quran and Hadith is there anything about being stoned for being homosexual?


So no argument that the punishment for adultery is stoning to death then?

Please follow link below to study punishment for commititng homosexual acts under Sharia law


* The Hanafi school does not consider same-sex intercourse to constitute adultery, and therefore leaves punishment up to the judge's discretion. Most early scholars of this school specifically ruled out the death penalty, others allow it for a second offence.

* Imam Shafi'i considers same-sex intercourse as analogous to other zina; thus, a married person found to have done so is punished as an adulterer (by stoning to death), and an unmarried one, as a fornicator, is left to be flogged.

* The Maliki school says that anyone (married or unmarried) found to have committed same-sex intercourse should be punished as an adulterer.

* Within the Ja'fari schools, Sayyid al-Khoi says that anyone (married or unmarried) found to have committed same-sex intercourse should be punished as an adulterer.

www.religionfacts.com...


So it looks as if you are wrong. Sharia law does prescribe stoning to death for homosexual actitivty.

Whipping for eating during Ramadan is quite popular as well

Indonesian women caned for selling food during Muslim festival of Ramadan




The two women were found guilty of selling food during the fasting hours of Ramadan, thereby violating Islamic sharia law.

The conservative province passed a law last year that imposes death by stoning on Muslim adulterers and a law under which homosexuality is punishable by long prison terms.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Why do you defend such intolerance?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by ollncasino
 

Interesting to see you back on the Islam-Hate circuit! Was wondering where you'd gotten to
.



The man who defends the right of Muslims to stone adulterers and homosexuals to death, has the twisted logic to accuse me of being on an Islam hate circuit?


Luckily, very confused people like yourself are very much in the minority.

Sharia law banned: Oklahoma to become the first U.S. state to veto use of Islamic code

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Good luck defending intolerance in the pursuit of tolerance!
edit on 18-12-2010 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join