I don't think this will change a damned thing. There are lots of Muslim businesses in NYC that don't cause people to call for patrols.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=muslim+in+new+york
Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero
- Thread starter pavlosmarcos
- Start date
I don't think this will change a damned thing. There are lots of Muslim businesses in NYC that don't cause people to call for patrols.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=muslim+in+new+york
I wasn't refering to the National Guard being their to stop Muslims being Muslim, I was referring to them being their to stop self-righteous hater hicks from attempting to "bomb" the mosque.
You don't know who's coordinating the building of the mosque?
I hope you haven't been slagging me on this thread, phlog.
Edit: Apparently not. I was thinking of Panda.
Phlog, why not peruse the wide "intertubes" for news of this Rauf? Find out who's behind the build.
Page 10 and still people are refering to it as if it were a masjid or mosque. Page 10 and still people are suspicious of the "evil," and "mysterious," Muslims and their "grand leader," Imam Rauf. Knew there was a reason I tuned out of this idiotic thread. 
What we never see:
Muslims performing Jihad against the forbiddence of Churches and Synagoges in Mecca - because we see Mosques in all Christian lands, in India and in Jerusalem.
Muslims forming an army to capture Bin Laden.
Muslims burning Muslims who insult other religions.
Muslims who behead Muslims on the net who mass murder children in schools.
Muslims who correct Muslim media that publish false histories.
Muslims who march against Muslims who were allied with the Nazis and still reign as the Saudi Brotherhood.
Muslims who admit genocides committed against non-muslims and stole lands and dumped mosques on their most sacred sites.
Muslims who apprehend those Clerics who say its a blessing to kill the infidels.
Muslims who demand that Regimes should not rule for ever.
Muslims performing Jihad against the forbiddence of Churches and Synagoges in Mecca - because we see Mosques in all Christian lands, in India and in Jerusalem.
Muslims forming an army to capture Bin Laden.
Muslims burning Muslims who insult other religions.
Muslims who behead Muslims on the net who mass murder children in schools.
Muslims who correct Muslim media that publish false histories.
Muslims who march against Muslims who were allied with the Nazis and still reign as the Saudi Brotherhood.
Muslims who admit genocides committed against non-muslims and stole lands and dumped mosques on their most sacred sites.
Muslims who apprehend those Clerics who say its a blessing to kill the infidels.
Muslims who demand that Regimes should not rule for ever.
Page 10 and still people are refering to it as if it were a masjid or mosque. Page 10 and still people are suspicious of the "evil," and "mysterious," Muslims and their "grand leader," Imam Rauf. Knew there was a reason I tuned out of this idiotic thread.
Those who are never wrong - are never right.
Do you even know what the word jihad means? Why do all of you non-Muslims talk of jihad when you don't even know what it means? Do you know what it means and the significance thereof in Islam? What jihad are refering to exactly? Jihad bil lisan? Jihad bil yad? Jihad bil nafs? Oh, of course, you're talking about jihad bis saif, correct?
I am not even fully convinced that bin Laden isn't a CIA/US backed pawn used by the Western powers as a puppet to further their imperialist advances within the region.
Theoretically speaking, this argument is ridiculous.
What clerics? Whom is saying this? What is their basis for saying this? I have already posted many quotes by scholars and other sources which talks about Islamic military jurisprudence, do I need to do so again? You can't kill someone based upon kufr, that's called murder, murder is a very grievous sin, in al-Qur'an it states that to kill a man is like killing all of mankind.
Hi, the names Ja'far, I'm a Socialist, nice to meet you.
Who cares what Jihad means to you. Its a term used for killing non-muslims. Why not get your mass murderers - you can use whatever term you like, no need to educate us on its religious significance.
.
Yes, yesterday Iran claimed America and Israel bombed a Mosque in Pakistan and also in India with the murders we saw in the Taj Hotel - Muslims never admit their crimes, even when we see at least 50 bombings a month globally.
Who needs to know of a basis for clerics advocating murder of infidels - this is routine stuff seen on the net - and Muslims are silent of it. Muslims are seriously hurting themselves with denials. That Bin Laden is still free says a lot about Muslims.
The eternal mantra of all the anti-Islamic twits on this site.
"It's just you Ja'far."
No, it's not and if you need me to back up my arguments I can and will do so.
A term used by whom for what purpose and how is it being used and why? It's a misinterpreted term used by non-Muslims against Islam. Jihad means "struggle," period. If you noticed, I listed all four types of jihad, four of which have nothing to do with what you're talking about. The only one that could possibly be applied here is jihad bis saif, struggle by the sword. It only means "holy war," to those whom are ignorant of Islam. Jihad bis saif has also been refered to as al-jihad al-asghar ("lesser jihad") as opposed to jihad bil nafs which is al-jihad al-akbar ("greater jihad") though this is disputed. Jihad bis saif, only applys to defensive warfare in the face of persecution/opression.
Mass murderers indeed.
I have already posted and provided evidence and proof that killing non-combatents is haram. The sources even state that killing on the basis of kufr ("disbelief") is haram and would thus be murder which is of course a sin.
If it's so fucking prevelant and the evidence is SO overwhelming then you wouldn't have any problem in posting your sources, evidence and examples. It's funny how you people just spout off all these claims but when I say "prove it," oh, then, oh, it's self-evident, "I don't need to post anything, look it up." Who the fuck argues like this? In what other debate other than on Islam and Muslims, can someone introduce an argument and then refuse to post evidence? Come on, either back your shit up or admit your talking out of your ass. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Really? Realistically, what are Muslims in Europe suppose to do? Egypt? America? Turkmenistan? I mean this argument is absurd, what realistically is the lay Muslim in say, Germany, suppose to do? Drop his job, his life, his family, use money and resources he doesn't even have to go out looking for a man, he probably won't even find because some non-Muslim bigot in the West says if he doesn't then he supports him by inaction? Come on.
The fact that bin Laden is still free says a lot about America/ns.
The eternal mantra of all the anti-Islamic twits on this site.
"It's just you Ja'far."
No, it's not and if you need me to back up my arguments I can and will do so.
A term used by whom for what purpose and how is it being used and why? It's a misinterpreted term used by non-Muslims against Islam. Jihad means "struggle," period. If you noticed, I listed all four types of jihad, four of which have nothing to do with what you're talking about. The only one that could possibly be applied here is jihad bis saif, struggle by the sword. It only means "holy war," to those whom are ignorant of Islam. Jihad bis saif has also been refered to as al-jihad al-asghar ("lesser jihad") as opposed to jihad bil nafs which is al-jihad al-akbar ("greater jihad") though this is disputed. Jihad bis saif, only applys to defensive warfare in the face of persecution/opression.
Mass murderers indeed.
I have already posted and provided evidence and proof that killing non-combatents is haram. The sources even state that killing on the basis of kufr ("disbelief") is haram and would thus be murder which is of course a sin.
If it's so fucking prevelant and the evidence is SO overwhelming then you wouldn't have any problem in posting your sources, evidence and examples. It's funny how you people just spout off all these claims but when I say "prove it," oh, then, oh, it's self-evident, "I don't need to post anything, look it up." Who the fuck argues like this? In what other debate other than on Islam and Muslims, can someone introduce an argument and then refuse to post evidence? Come on, either back your shit up or admit your talking out of your ass. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Really? Realistically, what are Muslims in Europe suppose to do? Egypt? America? Turkmenistan? I mean this argument is absurd, what realistically is the lay Muslim in say, Germany, suppose to do? Drop his job, his life, his family, use money and resources he doesn't even have to go out looking for a man, he probably won't even find because some non-Muslim bigot in the West says if he doesn't then he supports him by inaction? Come on.
The fact that bin Laden is still free says a lot about America/ns.
The relevant question is never confronted. Why is there no Muslim movement denouncing Bin Laden by name - and why have they not captured him yet?
That siad, I don't believe he is the ultimate culprit - this honor belongs to the Regimes which rule over 57 countries and teach them evil doctrines. Bush's great error was going to the Afghan hills instead of Mecca and Cairo. This is fully vindicated today.
That is a warped view and had to be pulled out of you - it makes Muslims guilty, not America.
This is a better explanation why we see no Mulsims going after their own:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYWu2v_FY_4&feature=related
This Muslim says on international TV, it is wrong to kill innocent people - but all who refuse to convert are not innocent - and ok to kill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4&feature=related
You're right. I don't know why anyone would refer to it in that way.
Odd indeed. And Rauf himself?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/imam_unmosqued_0XbZMwCvHAVdRZEKgx29AK
Interesting book title this: sounds almost...triumphant?
A Call to Prayer from the WTC Rubble: Islamic Da'wah from the Heart of America Post 911 (Mizan, 2007) (Published under that title only in Malaysia, Seruan Azan Dari Puing WTC
akwah Islam di Jantung Amerika Pasca 9/11)Ah well: all unimportant, I'm sure.
Knew there was a reason I tuned out of this idiotic thread.
You're still here.
Actually, jihad itself is used against non-Muslims by Muslim bigots.
That "oppression or persecution" being decided by the viewer, who may himself be a conservative or bigot. What amounts to "defense"? Is it 'defense' to fight against limits on Islam in non-Islamic countries? Some religious leaders certainly interpret it that way. Is 'defense' protecting your children, presumably, from the spread of Christianity in an Islamic country (Indonesia, Malaysia)? The problem with the above interpretation is that 'defense' is an extraordinarily loose thing in the eyes of the zealot.
I know. Oh yeah, by the way, the two ABC links also callled it an Islamic Center. Cut the shit, you know just as well as I do the News channels need to jazz up titles to get people to pay attention saying "an Islamic Center is being built 2 blocks or more away from Ground Zero as a response to a need for larger worship space," isn't going to get much attention saying "those crazy Moslems are at it again! They're building a mosk on teh Groond Zero! I know! Bastards!" however will of course get wide attention which is precisely why everyone has and continues to phrase the topic in such a way because if you phrased it in an accurate way it doesn't sound as hysteria-inducing.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
A Call to Prayer from the WTC Rubble: Islamic Da'wah from the Heart of America Post 911 (Mizan, 2007) (Published under that title only in Malaysia, Seruan Azan Dari Puing WTC
I see nothing wrong with the title of this book. I'm sure if I were completely ignorant of Islam it would sound a little bit "scawy."
No, it's not, you can't reverse this and if anything you're only making it more apparent just how ignorant you are of Islam.
"Fight in the way of Allah against thse who fight you and do not trangress the limits. Indeed, Allah does not love those who trangress."-Al-Baqarah,2:190, al-Qur'an.
Actually, no, we have the examples of the early ummah and Muhammad (saw) and the challenges they faced. We have mention of this in al-Qur'an.
"Permission to fight has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory. They are those who have been evicted from their homes without right."-Al-Hajj, 22:39-40, al-Qur'an.
The rest of the surah also gives more examples of how the early ummah was being persecuted. Eviction from homes, murder, not being able to practice ones religion, legitimate persecution and oppression to the point were jihad bis saif is permissible on the basis that's it's defensive. It has always been said "fight those who fight you but do not trangress." The meaning is clear, especially combined with 7:199 and 8:61, which instructs the Muslim to resort to pardon and to advocate tolerance. The other verse states "if they resort to peace, so shall you." Which is to say, if they are no longer fighting you then you can longer fight them and you are to again resort to peace, resort to pardons and advocate tolerance.
What about this verse?
"You shall resort to pardon, advocate tolerance, and disregard the ignorant."-Al-A'raf, 7:199, al-Qur'an.
Or this one?
"O people, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, that you may recognize one another. The best among you in the sight of GOD is the most righteous. GOD is all-knowing, well-informed."-Al-Hujurat, 49:13, al-Qur'an.
Or these?
"If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient."-Al-Anfal, 8:61, al-Qur'an.
"GOD advocates justice, charity, and regarding the relatives. And He forbids evil, vice, and transgression. He enlightens you, that you may take heed."-An-Nahl,16:90, al-Qur'an.
Or this?
"The foundation is that the blood of Bani Aadam is sanctified and inviolable and no one is killed except with right. Killing due to kufr is not something which the legislations have agreed upon at any one time of the Shariah, such as killing the one who sits out of combat, for this is something that the legislations and intellect do not differ over. The blood of a disbeliever during the early history of Islaam was sanctified and inviolable just like the original sanctity of a person. Allaah prevented the Muslims from killing such a disbeliever."-Ibn Taymiyah, "As Saarim Al Maslool 'Alaa Shaatim ir Rasool", Page 104.
Last edited:
Actually, it says more about Muslims who passively agree with everything he says and does as they sit back and do nothing.
"Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam."-Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
This would of course apply to bin Laden. Ironic, no? Secondly, there is many people whom are against bin Laden, you're ignorance or willfull omission of this doesn't negate this fact. Thought I'd give you a relevant example.
Not to mention again, expecting the Muslim laity of the world to drop what they are doing and try to go find bin Laden is preposterous. Why haven't Americans done this? You say, this war of yours is all about finding him and putting him to justice, why haven't you found him yet? Allegedly the greatest military power in the world can't find one, 6ft tall man with the kidney problems? It's been 9 years, the fact that he hasn't been caught yet says a lot about America and Americans, why haven't you caught him yet? You have all the resources and staged a 2 country war on the basis of trying to find him and bring him to justice, why haven't you caught him yet? To distracted by our oil reserves and natural resources?
This is insane, so Bush's error was going to the one place were they could have found bin Laden and the one place that would make any sort of sense? Oh, of course, silly me, it makes MUCH more sense to invade Egypt, KSA and other conutries that had nothing to do with anything nor is there even a likely chance that he would be there to begin with. Not only this, the man has kidney trouble, how do you know he's not dead already? Videos? News flash, two former CIA officials already admitted to faking some bin Laden tapes. What else?
This is your own opinion based upon nothing thus it's more unsubstantiated bullshit. This is hilarious though, if I put on a turban and hold up a big sign with the star and crescent will all of you start running away like scared cattle? "Oh lawdy! Oh lawd! The Moslems are coming, teh Moslems are coming! Hide your women and children, ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!"
...you mean this shit?
Shit.
Then we have a problem; and reasonable grounds for refusal of permission to build. I was uncertain before; less so now.
I see nothing wrong with the title of this book. I'm sure if I were completely ignorant of Islam it would sound a little bit "scawy."
Unfortunately, it's also possible for Muslims and non-Muslims to remain ignorant of intent.
Nothing about it to reverse. "Fighting in the way of Allah" is an imposition of old on non-Muslims by Muslim bigots. If you want to improve your morality by focusing on the other definitions, that's fine; but it means nothing to everyone else. We'd just rather not be persecuted for our 'disbelief', if you don't mind. "To you, your way and to me, mine," or somesuch. No? You suppose
Too bad that's been given up. I notice that none of your quotes mention apostates, either; is Islam like a ratchet winding tighter and tighter? You know full well that Islam is open to numerous interpretations "making the unbeliever to feel himself oppressed" is one of them.
So it's a larger worship space, and a place for any Muslims nearby to practice their religion, but it's not a mosque?ja'far said:
What other worship spaces and places to practice their religion do Muslims have? I've heard of mosques, I haven't heard of those others.
Nice omission, did you miss this?
"The proposal to build an Islamic center..."
Taken from the exact same link and the other ABC link also mentions this, the fact that the American media is trying to stir up hysteria and panic doesn't mean a damn thing. Do you honestly think that the American media doesn't vomit a specific hegemonic and tailored images of Muslims and Islam to validate your wars within the region and go along with the adminstrations war? The fact of the matter is, it's an Islamic Center being built 2 or more blocks away from the actual "hallowed," site. You can post all the paranoic bullshit you want, it doesn't change these facts, sorry and yes, that shit.
I'm not even entirely certain as to whether or not this is true and even if it was true this is another subject entirely of which I'm sure you have just equally crazed and paranoic views on that as well.
Who says there is any hidden intent to begin with? This is your own assumption based on bigotry which apparently causes inherent suspicion of all Muslims and Islam. Not only that, all of this seems slightly racist. What other group do you treat in such a manner? What other group do you place under such scrutiny? What other group causes inherent suspicion? If this weren't about Muslims and Islam I am willing to bet most of you would be acting very differently than you are now.
It's also hilarious that you bitch about how Musilms are this and that, yet, an organization that one would assume you would accept and support in this matter in that it's one advocating tolerance, gender equality and so forth. This is the organization, again, that you're picking a fight with.
We have on the one hand, you saying that Muslims are intolerant, bigoted, sexist and so on but then on the other hand when Muslims actively try to put an end to such grievances in the ummah and say no, this isn't the case, this is the same organization that your opposing and against. So, you portray Muslims as bad, evil, wicked people then when we say no, create an organization to combat said grievances that same organization is attacked and opposed. In other words, your view of Muslims and Islam won't change regardless of what we do or don't do. This is what makes you a bigot.
How about you quote the entire verse?
"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight you and do not trangress the limits. Indeed, Allah does not love those who trangress."-Al-Baqarah, 2:190, al-Qur'an.
Funny how you omitted that. By snipping everything except the first part of the verse your stripping it not only of it's context but also the central message of said verse. "Fight those whom fight against you," which would suggest that fighting is only halal if it's in self-defense. I have also posted other verses which says "if they resort to peace, so shall you," and another verse that says "you shall resort to pardon, advocate tolerance," and so forth. Funny how you didn't (or won't) comment on those.
In other words any evidence, proof and so forth I give will not be accepted because your own intolerance and bigotry against a religion you know absolutely nothing about. If you did, then you would understand the weight that my evidence and sources have. Again, I am citing al-Qur'an, the central and most important text to all Muslims regardless of whether your Sunni, Shi'a or other. Again, if you knew anything about Islam or Muslims then you would know the weight of what I'm posting; it isn't mere definitions.
Are you? No, you're not, this is same bullshit meme you guys keep throwing around which isn't substantiated by anything other than your own hegemonic view of Islam.
You don't even know the meaning of such elementary words as "hijab," or "deen," or "wajib," so don't fucking sit here and pretend like you know a damn think about apostacy in Islam and the legality thereof. You have proven and continue to prove that you know jack shit about Islam, Muslims and Middle-Eastern history and culture, how the fuck am I supposed to believe that you know anything about said topic at all or even have enough knowledge about it to the point where you can debate it with me, in any real sense? Come on.
Oh, really? I'm confused about that considering none of you talk as if this were the case. I have said this shit since I started posting in this forum and yet you still talk about one, united, singular, homogenous entity. Even in this very post to which I'm responding to but now, oh, now, there is "numerous," interpretations, now, ooooooh now, there is varying opinions, how fucking convienant for your argument.
Again, more unsubstantiated bullshit.