It functions as both a masjid and community center hence Islamic Center. I thought this would be obvious. :shrug:
Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero
- Thread starter pavlosmarcos
- Start date
It functions as both a masjid and community center hence Islamic Center. I thought this would be obvious. :shrug:
That is obvious. But that means they are building a mosque near Ground Zero. I thought you objected to that claim?ja'far said:
I sure as hell do. I've been trying to get you to admit that for quite a while now. You have been insisting that all these things I don't like are not Islam - you changing your mind?ja'far said:
Whatever Muslims believe and say is Islam, that is Islam. We have to deal with them. You object to me talking like that, for some reason - time to clarify.
We have learned to look at actions, not words, when dealing with apologists for Islam.ja'far said:
These people are being as offensive as one could possibly be, in such a project, by siting it where they are and financing it as they are and justifying it as they do. Empty words about tolerance are not credible - they are either lying or incredibly boneheaded, purely stupid. People encouraging tolerance don't start out by deliberately picking fights. And talk of gender equality is not credible from any orthodox Muslim - you guys are clueless, in that department.
I objected to the claim that its a masjid built on top of the "ground-zero," site, number one and number two, it functions as something more than that as well which is why I object to people saying it's a 13 story masjid when, it's not nor is that the only function of the proposed centre. It's called centre for a reason.
No, I have always admitted that these things exist however I reject and object to the way in which your defining things and portraying things. I have also stated that X isn't an inherent part of Islam meaning while, it does exist, it doesn't mean that X is not opposed to or is condone by Islam or other parts of the overall ummah. This has been the argument I have been using my entire time here. I have been saying this and repeating this nearly ever thread involving Islam. Not only this but just because X Muslim does X action because of X reason doesn't mean said reason has any basis or that they are correct in commiting X action rgo it wouldn't reflect upon Islam or Muslims in general but instead that individual person and or group, namely the people whom are actually doing X. People aren't perfect. You're also judging an entire group of people, close to 2 billion people, in a way you wouldn't for anything other group other than Muslims.
You're argument goes like this, Muslims do X therefore X is accepted by all Muslims and thus is accepted by Islam in general. That's what I have been arguing against.
Yet, here I am, a Muslim and a devout and very observant one at that, telling you this is Islam, this what I believe, this how I conduct myself in the real world and yet because this conflicts with your own view of what a Muslim "really," is then it's "just you Ja'far," when no, it's not. Secondly to say that what X group of Muslims say and or do constitutes Islam is patently idiotic. This definition and method of analysis would not be accepted by anyone in academia, so why should it be accepted here?
Third, how do you even know your correctly interpreting events and alleged actions of Muslims? I say this because, as is apparent on this forum, to you and many others here anything a Muslim says or does inherently means they were acting out of religious fervor which is of course, wrong. Muslims can act and do things without it having to do with Islam or religion. I mean come on, we are people to you know, or do you not think so? The way your portraying Muslims and your definition of Islam not only seems highly questionable but also wrong.
Who is 'we'? You're talking in abstracts number one and number two, again your defining and classifying Muslims as the unwanted foreign "other," that has to be "dealt with," by everyone else which, again, seems not only bigoted but also slightly racist considering who makes up the majority of the Muslim community in America.
In other words, again, it doesn't even really matter what I post then does it? I can post all the evidence, proof, sources and so on that I can and yet known of it will accepted, correct? How is this not bigotry? Even here, when talking about Muslims whom don't fit your cookie-cutter hegemonic mold of whom Muslims are they aren't even refered to as Muslims but "apologists of Islam." This, as usual is insane, it's insane, the hypocrisy here is simply astounding, truly and I suppose I could possibly find humor in it if weren't so pathetic and sad.
To state that "orthodox," (whatever that means) Muslims can't talk on the matters of gender equality is not only absurd but a ridiculous accusation. I ask you to prove your claims and you don't thus to me all this "actions," appear to be fictional. No one here has proven how they are financed, no one here has proven hardly any of the claims that have been leveled against this organization. I realize that any American would have a knee-jerk reaction to reading a headline such as "13 story mosque being built on the ground-zero site," but come on, this is getting bigoted and dishonest. What is the basis for this? Is there any? Or is this a fiction that you all have created to justify your opposition to something you don't fully understand?
Nope. You have, again, proved my point. The rest is unimportant.
Assumption, ad hominem. Dismissed.
You mean, if I were to be presented with the choice between allowing a quite possibly radical member of some group to build an edifice to the precepts of that group on the site of a massacre brought about by radical members of that group, or not allowing such a build? The mind boggles with the array of other examples.
Does it? Sheer assumption on your part. I've already pointed out the questionable backings of Rauf; but, you prefer to ignore them. Why? Because he's a Muslim? That seems a little bigoted, doesn't it?
A lie. Sorry, but it's early, and my bullshit tolerance settings are low. I just deleted the rest of the paragraph since it was nonsense: "Because you question Rauf and the CI, you must be questioning all Muslims, and that makes you bad, because I like tenuous assumptions." Don't bother.
And? "Make them feel oppressed" doesn't seem at all suggestive. You know full well the way in which many Muslim bigots interpret peaceful verses; in fact, they give them far less attention than I do. Is there some "higher sense" to making out that I'm the bad guy?
And millions of non-Muslims the world over are persecuted for their beliefs. Which you don't seem to know, or pretend not to. So you're either ignorant, or a bigot yourself. I'll assume you're just ignorant: so read something once in a while. Telegraph, Independent, Washington Times, Toronto Star, NYT. And so on. Open your eyes. Or shall I start burying you in links? Should I?
Besides your cardinal errors in the above terms (which you must have made since I even used the terms exactly as you yourself used them), you also have no knowledge whatsoever of my readings on Middle Eastern and Islamic history. So this is a double fail. Look, if you're just going to troll unsubstantiated crap, do it somewhere else.
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. Where have I described Muslims or Islam as hegemonic? Illustrate from the forum, please. Thanks.
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!"
My mistake, Muslims actually do something, they sit idly by and make up victimized shit talk while they passively agree with the acts extremists commit. It is not an opinion, it is an observation of Muslims worldwide.
No, it doesn't.ja'far said:
I have never once argued, stated, or implied that anything - anything at all - is accepted by all Muslims. I'm the guy who thinks there are atheistic Muslims, even.
I have never said or implied anything of the kind. I have always taken you as representing a large number of Muslims who believe as you do.ja'far said:
Not all of them do, however. Many don't. And their beliefs are just as much a part of Islam as yours are.
My argument is that a long list of very bad things is condoned by Islam, meaning that actual Muslims who justify their beliefs and actions according to Islam approve and condone and enact these very bad things, and that few if any existing factions or sects of Islam are free of all of them (the misogyny, in particular, appears to be almost universal) - if you bring Islam into your neighborhood, you will be bringing at least some of these very bad things as part of the Islam.
I don't make that call. I accept the claims and interpretations of the Muslims who are telling me why they did thus and so, as accurate description of their motives as known to themselves.ja'far said:
It doesn't change physical reality, if that's what you mean. The Cordoba House people are building a mosque next to Ground Zero, financed and organized by people from the faction of Muslims that financed and supported 9/11, which was justified on Islamic grounds by people who emphasized going to certain kinds of mosques. They are heralding this mosque and the companion cultural center, a very large complex all together, as marking a great advance for Islam in the West.ja'far said:
You're fucking insane like this is absurd. You selectively quote the ABC links and when I point out, they also refered to it as an Islamic Center and now I'm proving your point? No, what planet are you on?
So you're comparing Imam Rauf to the alleged terrorists who commited this act? Whose to say that's what really happened anyway? What evidence do you have for him being "potentially radical," or CI being "potentially radical"? I mean it's really a stretch here comparing CI to al-Qaidah now.
Yes, I have already posted it's mission statement.
What? One source that said one of his groups gave financial aid to a humanitarian flotilla? OH no.
How on Earth could you misinterpret the verses I have provided? Not to mention there is other verses which build upon each other in terms of situations, examples, what's permissible, what isn't. Not to mention the sahih hadiths and the quotes by scholars that also would be taken into consideratino or should be by any clergymen. Provide your examples, the verse doesn't suggest "make them feel oppressed," at all.
I'm not saying some Muslims aren't "persecuting," non-Muslims however what I am saying is that it's not an inherent part of Islamic practice or belief nor does it mean what they are doing is right.
Oh lawd, please, no, I beg of you.
Here is what I said:
"It can but it also can be a choice made by the woman by herself based upon her knowledge and understanding of her deen and what level of modesty she considers to be wajib based on the evidence, data and so forth that she has seen."
Here is what you said:
"but who decided that they were her level of deen?"
"...arguing exactly what I described: her level of deen is ultimately decided by external sources."
"And in still other societies, the right level of wajib, as well..."
You're wrong. You're not using the words in the same manner that I am, who the fuck do you think you're fooling?
Where did I say you did? No where. Unsubstantiated bullshit indeed.
Your point was that it was not a mosque. Yet it is also a mosque. In case you're wondering, we're done on this point.
Whoa whoa whoa. I was ready to close the book on you - my point was just that he seems like another conservative - but your statement above was odd. "Alleged" terrorists? Do tell.
"Shark? No ma'am: I'm just a dolphin. Look: here's my manifesto!"
What? One source that said one of his groups gave financial aid to a humanitarian flotilla? OH no.
A humanitarian flotilla packed with extremist Muslim bigots.
Q 9: 29. Also look up the term "dhimmi".
And I was saying this? Let's see where I made that point. I want you to locate that post for me. Do it.
I'm happy to see that you remembered at the 11th hour that millions of non-Muslims the world over are persecuted for their beliefs. I seem to recall saying that this was an interpretation of Islam; your response was a grade A grande mal freakout. Maybe you should read what I write instead of knocking the chip off your own shoulder and leaping up and down.
Ja’far, your misunderstanding is a little more elemental, and you’re also on the wrong thread. But I can deal with you here, too: you think there is only one interpretation of deen, No severity, nothing quantitative about it? Everyone’s interpretation of what’s acceptable is exactly the same? And you didn’t answer one fucking word about the core issue of the thread; instead, you pull a dodge and hope no one will notice. Sad. Don’t waste my time.
Memory not working when you rage out?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2588466&postcount=200
Unsubstantiated bullshit indeed.
Bells
Staff member
Of course..
That's why they are going to investigate and Israel does not agree with said investigation - because you know, Israel doesn't want the world to think that the ships were packed with "extremist Muslim bigots"..
If the flotilla was filled with "extremist Muslim bigots", Israel would be welcoming the investigation. Instead, we get this:
Makes sense eh? I mean if the ships were full of "extremist Muslim bigots", Israel would not be saying it's the UN's "obsession against Israel", right?
Bells:
As a moderator, you should be aware of the problems in getting threads off-target. My comments in the above post are about as far as one ought to go in assessing the facts of this particular case. That there were numerous Islamic extremists on the boat is not really in question; or, if you object very strenuously, is not really in question here. My suggestion would be that if you wish to debate the specifics of that case, you should probably start a new thread. I can certainly think of a couple explanations, but they are best discussed elsewhere.
As a moderator, you should be aware of the problems in getting threads off-target. My comments in the above post are about as far as one ought to go in assessing the facts of this particular case. That there were numerous Islamic extremists on the boat is not really in question; or, if you object very strenuously, is not really in question here. My suggestion would be that if you wish to debate the specifics of that case, you should probably start a new thread. I can certainly think of a couple explanations, but they are best discussed elsewhere.
Bells
Staff member
It was a response to a comment you made in this thread.
And connected to your views about Muslims and this mosque in general.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
That is the problem is there. Given a voice between allowing a quite possibly racist group holding a protest, or not, should I have the right to stop them? Doesn't that mean I can stop people who oppose this mosque on the grounds that they "quite possibly" hate Arabs?
Anyone who wants to abridge religious liberty and the free use of property on the basis of what might, quite possibly, be true, is a poor friend to liberty. The first amendment test for when speech can be abridged based on content is that there might be am imminent threat of harm caused by the speech. The tests for freedom of association and freedom of religion are similar. There is a limited sphere of content neutral regulations one can impose, but almost no leeway in controlling content itself.
As for the first: that was a bit longer response than my one sentence's worth.
As for the second: you know what my views are about this mosque, but not at all about Muslims generally. I could make the usual statements, but I have no guarantee you would read them or heed them. Still, I'm sure it would shock you to know that I've dated several Muslim girls, for example, and have a Muslim employee. How you fit that into your worldview is up to you.
I will say that it must be nice to be a moderator, so that all your own speech is implicitly protected. It seems you can say whatever you like about anyone you so choose. At least one other Mod has, similarly, no such trouble.
Quite possibly, yes.
Arabs? Are mosque-goers all Arabs? I thought Arabs constituted only a small fraction of all Muslims.
Ding ding. And that, as they say, is that. I mght also add that extremism, religious conservatism and totalitarianism are also a poor friend to liberty.
Bells
Staff member
So by responding and pointing out the irony of your post, I am somehow abusing my moderator powers?
The report button exists for a reason.
At least I back my statements up. Unlike you.
But that is the subject for another thread.
As for how you feel about this mosque. Yes, we have all seen just how much you are against Muslims having a place of worship in that area. Because apparently all Muslims should have to pay for the actions of a few and Muslims having a place of worship in that place is apparently an insult to the victims who died there..
Yes, we all know your opinions on this.
No, by slandering me as a "bigot". I've even asked you several times for evidence of this accusation...but you remain silent.
I wonder if this speaks to a larger issue: is it more morally fair to libel someone with the addition "IMHO", inferred or otherwise? It's an opinon, but the implication is there, and most people believe accusations with little critical evaluation.
You know what?: let's deviate for a moment here. Now, you know perfectly well that I reference and cite probably more than anyone here save Tiassa. Yet you're also free to make this accusation, which is undeniably false. So where is the line? There's this personal attack thing, which goes back and forth, which is to be expected to a degree. But many people - including you - seem to load on this smoke whenever challenged. Is it a self-defense mechanism, like a squid blowing ink? Is it serious? One never knows. It certainly isn't fair. But it's possible you actually feel that way. That would be unfortunate, but how would one deal with it? Should one deal with it? It's a complex issue. What do I do - if anything - when I know you're talking nonsense? (Press report? To what end, anyway?)
Actually, if you think back a bit, you'll find my opposition is a bit more complex than that. Check out my SNOTWUH for a clue.
Interestingly, you seemed to think that a Catholic dedication at the Oklahoma Bombing site would be hugely offensive. Not so? But here, where the proposed edifice is a mosque, it doesn't bother you. Or am I incorrect? If so, please state your explicit opinion on both sites, and the respective constructions, theoretical or proposed. Let's also keep in mind the full range of my considered opposition.
Seemingly not. :shrug: What is it you want me to say to this misconstruction? (Yours, not Rauf's.
)You do not believe in the theory of causality?Think disaster at 911, has not generated any effect?It's like nothing happened?
Do not you think every action generates a reaction?
Also,you do not understand the difference between claiming to not build in the area disaster 911 a Muslim center and claiming to not build mosques or Muslim centers anywhere on U.S. territory and even abolished the existing ones?
Not fair enough a requirement to not build a Muslim center in that area,but they can build anywhere else?
Hey theres a F**cking McDonalds in Jerusalem... whats your problem.
America exports its shit.................