Obama backs mosque near ground zero

[Darryl1958]

If a person is working in a job they really never did want, and really do hate, than often they will intentionally do their employment tasks in a way that they subconciously know will lead to their termination.

We can only hope that Americans grant him his secret wish.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

"Obama backs mosque near ground zero"

Pathetic and outrageous, but not surprising. Obama is playing to the “useful idiots” crowd.

Here are just a few examples, out of many, of the history of mosque-building on conquered land:

Great Mosque of Damascus - After the Arab conquest of Damascus, the mosque was built on the Christian basilica dedicated to John the Baptist.

Great Mosque of Córdoba - After the Islamic conquest of the Visigothic kingdom the Emir Abd ar-Rahman I bought the church. Abd ar-Rahman I and his descendants reworked it over two centuries to refashion it as a mosque.

Faith Mosque - The Fatih Mosque was constructed by order of Fatih Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror from 1463-1471, on the site of the former Byzantine Church of the Holy Apostles.

And, no mater how people try do dress it up as anything other than building a mosque on conquered land, (a true testament that these PC lemmings are being led by the nose), Muslim extremists world-wide will see it as an in-your-face, triumphant achievement on conquered land. They will be dancing in the streets, just as they did on 9/11.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

In his speech, President Obama said that all great religions have the same teaching: “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.”

Seems to me, Islam does not teach that.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

"Obama backs mosque near ground zero"

Pathetic and outrageous, but not surprising. Obama is playing to the “useful idiots” crowd.

Here are just a few examples, out of many, of the history of mosque-building on conquered land:

Great Mosque of Damascus - After the Arab conquest of Damascus, the mosque was built on the Christian basilica dedicated to John the Baptist.

Great Mosque of Córdoba - After the Islamic conquest of the Visigothic kingdom the Emir Abd ar-Rahman I bought the church. Abd ar-Rahman I and his descendants reworked it over two centuries to refashion it as a mosque.

Faith Mosque - The Fatih Mosque was constructed by order of Fatih Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror from 1463-1471, on the site of the former Byzantine Church of the Holy Apostles.

And, no mater how people try do dress it up as anything other than building a mosque on conquered land, (a true testament that these PC lemmings are being led by the nose), Muslim extremists world-wide will see it as an in-your-face, triumphant achievement on conquered land. They will be dancing in the streets, just as they did on 9/11.

They are “Victory Mosques”.

 

[Darryl1958]

In his speech, President Obama said that all great religions have the same teaching: “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.”

Seems to me, Islam does not teach that.

I am sure if some militant Christians blew up the Kaaba, Muslims wouldn’t want a church built two blocks away from the hole in the ground.

I’m pretty sure that they wouldn’t want that church built in the same city as the Kaaba actually, even if the Kaaba was not blown up.

 

[Darryl1958]

heck not even in the same country.

 

[MugenOne]

Despite calling the 9/11 mosque as a multicultural center, none of us, kaffar, is allowed to enter the building. Almost every mosque and Islamic center is described as “multicultural center.” I have yet to see an infidel in it.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

From what I have read, the building will be 2 blocks away from Ground Zero. So, exactly how many blocks away would be appropriate?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

If we have the kind of freedom of religion discussed here, then why has the reconstruction of the destroyed Church of St. Nicholas on the block on the south side of the WTC been blocked.

NINE YEARS!

But they are being given expedited approval for a mosque.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

From what I have read, the building will be 2 blocks away from Ground Zero. So, exactly how many blocks away would be appropriate?

Fair question.

Would you approve of a mosque being build inside the WTC itself?

Is Islam purely religious worship of God? Or is Islam a culture that demands submission by everyone to Sharia Law?

Is there is a conflict between Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution?

If there is, then which controls in the United States? The Constitution or Sharia Law?

Followers of Islam do not approve of freedom of religion.

Women are not permitted full equality in Islam [and in the Mosque]. So, what will the role of U.S. law be given these differences?

If women are not acknowledged as having equal rights, then would the construction of this mosque or any mosque be illegal under U.S. law.

So, how do we reconcile our Constitutional freedom of religion with Islam’s abolition of freedom of religion?

If these are irreconcilable differences, then what?

Do perhaps return to the origins of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Federalist Papers which basically are Christian-oriented. With tolerance for other religions.

 

[estesbob]

1. The question is not to do they have a right to build the Mosque there, the question is should they
2. If they are truly building the mosque to foster understanding they should realize by now that they failed miserably and the best way to show their good faith is to take up the governor’s offer for free land away from Ground Zero.
3. This has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of religion.

 

[MugenOne]

When Umar ibn al-Khattab, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, they wrote to him as follows:

In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate.
This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:

• We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells; nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
• We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers.
• We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
• We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor hide him from the Muslims.
• We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children.
• We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it.
• We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
• We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
• We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair.
• We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas (patronyms).
• We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.
• We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
• We shall not sell fermented drinks.
• We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
• We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists.
• We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims.
• We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets.
• We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
• We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
• We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
• (When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, “We shall not strike a Muslim.”)

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct. If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant dhimma , and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khattab replied:
Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: “They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims,” and “Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.”

 

[bbarrick8383]

“Shady” sounds appropriately vague and incriminating for an accusation with no real evidence.
Are you referring to this?
mediamatters.org/blog/201007260003

As far as shady goes, I am referring to the fact that the man representing him on Fox the other day says that he condems Hamas as a terrorist organization(behind closed doors), and they are willing to show where the money to build it is coming from. But, they have not done it yet.

But, no that was not the one I was referring to. Someone posted on another thread here, I believe it was a muslim woman in New York who opposed the mosque.

The only reason people would take issue with this is if they were unreasonably suspicious of Muslim Americans or openly discriminatory. If 60% of the population was racist against blacks would we accuse blacks of being insensitive for wanting to build a black cultural centre?

No, I think the funding situation is a valid concern. I would have serious questions if this young lady was wanting to build a mosque as well.

youtube.com/watch?v=8fSvyv0urTE

Please name one specific reason you have for suspecting the centre is for any purpose other than being an educational cultural/community centre.

I want to know for a fact, through a complete investigation, that the money and this imam have no terrorist ties. That includes beliefs that are questionable, such as the young lady above. If there are none, I do not oppose it.

The real question is:

If it turns out that funding had come from overseas ties to terrorism, would you still support it?

I think 60 some odd percent of the American population have a valid concern and should not be labeled as haters like the left tend to do.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The transcript of the President’s speech is on the internet and includes this:

“Indeed, over the course of our history, religion has flourished within our borders precisely because Americans have had the right to worship as they choose -– including the right to believe in no religion at all. And it is a testament to the wisdom of our Founders that America remains deeply religious -– a nation where the ability of peoples of different faiths to coexist peacefully and with mutual respect for one another stands in stark contrast to the religious conflict that persists elsewhere around the globe.” - President Obama

However, we must also be mindful that the Koran allows Muslims to kill infidels [non-Muslims]. In some places, the Koran DEMANDS that infidels be killed.

There is therefore a conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the notion of coexisting peacefully.

There, indeed, have been times and places in which Muslims have allowed infidels to exist peacefully. However, the present time and place does not appear to be one of those times and places.

Not when on September 11, 2001, 3000 people were murdered.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Would you approve of a mosque being build inside the WTC itself?

Depends. Are other faiths present as well?

Is Islam purely religious worship of God? Or is Islam a culture that demands submission by everyone to Sharia Law?

Kinda reminds me of the old question American Protestants used to ask, “Aren’t Catholics subjects of a foreign power?”

Is there is a conflict between Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution?

If there is, then which controls in the United States? The Constitution or Sharia Law?

The is always a tension between religion and state. America seems to have found an uneasy yet appropriate balance. Do we encourage Muslims to adopt our understanding of freedom by denying them the ability to simply build a center?

Followers of Islam do not approve of freedom of religion.

I’d be careful on that one. Plenty of Muslims in the USA and Europe have adopted westernized views of religious freedom.

Women are not permitted full equality in Islam [and in the Mosque]. So, what will the role of U.S. law be given these differences?

Once again, many Mulsims in the US and Europe have adopted westernized views on these issues. It can also be claimed that fundamentalist Christianity doesn’t view women as equal yet they still enjoy 1st Amendment protection.

If women are not acknowledged as having equal rights, then would the construction of this mosque or any mosque be illegal under U.S. law.

Huh? I doubt that very much.

So, how do we reconcile our Constitutional freedom of religion with Islam’s abolition of freedom of religion?

The same way Catholics did even though the Syllabus of Errors seemed to conflict with American values.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/13/transcript-president-obama-at-white-house-iftar-dinner/

That is the transcript of President Obama’s speech.

It has some statements of questionable accuracy.

Excerpt:

For in the end, we remain “one nation, under God, indivisible.” And we can only achieve “liberty and justice for all” if we live by that one rule at the heart of every great religion, including Islam —- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Inaccurate statement.

My previous post on this sentence was based on hearing the President making his speech as rebroadcast on the radio.

However, I was so shocked at this inaccuracy, that I thought I had misheard, so I looked it up.

I did not mishear.

The President did, in fact, make that statement.

And Islam does not tolerate this kind of freedom or reciprocity or whatever you want to call it.

They do not tolerate it for their own members and they freely cut the throats of non-believers and infidels and Christians as well.

 

[Darryl1958]

If we have the kind of freedom of religion discussed here, then why has the reconstruction of the destroyed Church of St. Nicholas on the block on the south side of the WTC been blocked.

NINE YEARS!

But they are being given expedited approval for a mosque.

When Obama said that America is not a Christian country, he meant it.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

When Obama said that America is not a Christian country, he meant it.

Interesting point!

If the United States is now a Muslim country, then certainly a lot of other things fall into place.

 

[estesbob]

One may wonder why Obama decided to get involved inthis at all. From now until the November elections nearly everything that comes out of his mouth is going to be designed to motivate the base to show up at the polls in November. It is not that the Democrat base is all that particularly fond of Muslims -its that they feel showing disagreement with Muslims can be seen as siding with Israel-which of course is a mortal sin for the Left.

 

[SwizzleStick]

…To me, it sounds as though conservatives might be a little more accepting if the Imam wasn’t so shady about the whole thing. …

I don’t know if “shady” is the correct adjective, but controversial sure fits regarding Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam who is the driving force behind having the mosque constructed in New York. His attitude does not give me warm fuzzies.

Right after 9/11, when he was asked if the U.S. deserved the attacks, Rauf answered: “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”

When he was asked to explain why and how he considered the U.S. an accessory, Rauf said, “Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”

At “National Review,” Dan Foster wrote: "When you say that the United States was “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11, as he did, it tends to blunt my ability to pick up the subtleties of what comes after. That interview was equivocal at every turn, and when moral equivalences are trotted out regarding 9/11, the tie goes to “your either with us, or with the terrorists.” In other words, we are perfectly entitled to suspect that the “accessories to the crime” bit represents the investment, while the “condemning terrorism” bit is merely the hedge.

The editors of the magazine wrote “While he cannot quite bring himself to blame the terrorists for being terrorists, he finds it easy to blame the United States for being a victim of terrorism.”

nationalreview.com/corner/242680/bloggingheads-mosque-and-rangel-and-socialism-and-christie-daniel-foster