# Cab driver stabbed after being asked if he was a Muslim



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 25, 2010)

This is what intolerance leads to.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/musli...-stabbing-hate-crime-charge/story?id=11480081


> A New York City cab driver was attacked Tuesday evening just after 6 p.m. by a passenger who asked him if he was Muslim, says the NYPD.
> ...
> As the cab headed north on Third Avenue, Enright allegedly asked Sharif, who is of South Asian origin, "Are you Muslim?" When Sharif confirmed that he was Muslim, police say, Enright stabbed him multiple times.



The attacker is said to have been very drunk, and has been taken to the hospital for psychiatric examination as well.  He faces attempted murder and hate crime charges.

I find this very sad.  It's nothing more than a modern-day lynching.


----------



## Steve (Aug 25, 2010)

Nothing much to add to this...  very sad.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 25, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Nothing much to add to this...  very sad.



My biggest concern is that there is going to be a spark that sets off a wave of this type of violence.  The politicians and the news media have whipped up public anger to a high degree; now we begin to see what happens.  They used to call this 'incitement to riot'.


----------



## Steve (Aug 25, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> My biggest concern is that there is going to be a spark that sets off a wave of this type of violence.  The politicians and the news media have whipped up public anger to a high degree; now we begin to see what happens.  They used to call this 'incitement to riot'.



Agreed.  And while it looked like obama was going to stand up, politicians are actively fleeing the scene.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 25, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Agreed.  And while it looked like obama was going to stand up, politicians are actively fleeing the scene.



Some are; some are not, IMHO.  To me, it appears as though the Tea Party-ish side of the Republican Party is whipping up hysteria; while the Democratic politicians have completely caved and walked away as quickly as they could.  *Cowardly curs* would be my description of them.  President Obama took a principled stand and then backed down; now he's completely silent on the matter.  I understand that Mayor Bloomberg is still actively taking the pro-tolerance side of the debate.  I don't think much of Mayor Bloomberg otherwise, but I give him props for this.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 25, 2010)

But Bill, "They All Want To Kill Us" as one idiot on Facebook said to me as I dropped her from my list.  All 1.6 billion of the worlds Muslims are even now, actively conspiring to kill us all, all us non-Muslims. Dunno if they have a private wifi, have developed telepathy, or are using carrier pidgeons to coordinate this, but my source was quite certain, as are alot of people that "They" are coming for us.

So, we need to prepare, and beat them to the punch. You know, round them up in camps, make them wear special symbols, maybe even take a 'shower'.

(The reference is intentional. My opinion of these people, the ones spouting "They", not Muslims, are that they are full-tilt asshats who lack common sense, and need a serious clue-by-four application.)


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 25, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> But Bill, "They All Want To Kill Us" as one idiot on Facebook said to me as I dropped her from my list.  All 1.6 billion of the worlds Muslims are even now, actively conspiring to kill us all, all us non-Muslims. Dunno if they have a private wifi, have developed telepathy, or are using carrier pidgeons to coordinate this, but my source was quite certain, as are alot of people that "They" are coming for us.
> 
> So, we need to prepare, and beat them to the punch. You know, round them up in camps, make them wear special symbols, maybe even take a 'shower'.
> 
> (The reference is intentional. My opinion of these people, the ones spouting "They", not Muslims, are that they are full-tilt asshats who lack common sense, and need a serious clue-by-four application.)



And to be fair, it exists on both sides.  There are many Muslims who hold similar views about Americans or Christians or Jews.  Intolerance and fear are not limited to the USA.

However, things are seldom as they appear.

http://pewglobal.org/category/survey-reports/

http://pewglobal.org/2010/02/04/mixed-views-of-hamas-and-hezbollah-in-largely-muslim-nations/



> Across predominantly Muslim nations, there is little enthusiasm for the extremist Islamic organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, although there are pockets of support for both groups, especially in the Middle East.



The bad news; there are pockets of support.  The good news; it's not universal, as the bigots would have us believe.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 25, 2010)

I have a deep fear that things will get a lot worse before they get better.  

Ordinary people are, perforce, conditioned by their environment and their 'media' as well as their religions.  That conditioning, for the past decade, has been one to ferment distrust and hate/fear of both 'sides' of this manufactured divide.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 25, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> I have a deep fear that things will get a lot worse before they get better.
> 
> Ordinary people are, perforce, conditioned by their environment and  their 'media' as well as their religions.  That conditioning, for the  past decade, has been one to ferment distrust and hate/fear of both  'sides' of this manufactured divide.


From the NY Daily News:
In an odd twist, Enright was a volunteer for Intersections International,  a Manhattan-based group that promotes peace among different religions. A  spokesman confirmed he was filming for the group, which recently threw  its support behind the controversial Park 51 mosque project near Ground Zero.
Intersections International, not exactly a hot bed of right wing activity...
But, continue to smear conservatives, I understand you have to.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 25, 2010)

Big Don said:


> But, continue to smear conservatives, I understand you have to.



Where did you get that from, Don?  Or weren't you talking to me?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 25, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Where did you get that from, Don?  Or weren't you talking to me?



I was thinking the same thing.  Didn't you just say it comes from 'both sides'?  Hate is not limited to one political party or another, nor is intolerance.  In this case, it may even be mental instability.  However, it is true that in the case of the _'Ground Zero Mosque'_, the more extreme-right Republicans are whipping up a media frenzy, with Fox complicit, while the Democratic politicians are cowering with their tails between their legs.  I'm sure which is worse, the hate-mongering of the Republicans or the abject cowardice of the Democrats.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 25, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Where did you get that from, Don?  Or weren't you talking to me?


No, and Sorry Suke, the snark was aimed at others, your preceding comment seemed tailor made to the daily news quote.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 25, 2010)

Ah, I understand - darned English having singular and plural "You"'s can make things easy to misread at times :nods:.


----------



## Omar B (Aug 25, 2010)

So saddening.  Shades of NY in the weeks after 9/11, not a time I want to think about.


----------



## Carol (Aug 25, 2010)

It wasn't just limited to NYC....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balbir_Singh_Sodhi


----------



## Omar B (Aug 25, 2010)

Carol said:


> It wasn't just limited to NYC....
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balbir_Singh_Sodhi



I got a couple sideways glances and questions about my religion and background myself.  Most of it from random loudmouths who didn't see what I saw.  I was one of the first there working triage out of the BMCC campus.


----------



## Carol (Aug 26, 2010)

Omar B said:


> I got a couple sideways glances and questions about my religion and background myself.  Most of it from random loudmouths who didn't see what I saw.  I was one of the first there working triage out of the BMCC campus.



Props for that.  I was 20 miles out, stranded (least of my worries) and feeling very helpless.


----------



## Omar B (Aug 26, 2010)

Yeah, my best bud's dad is a cop so he got all us dudes together in a pickup.

Stories like this are just horrific.  This hard working guy got stabbed by who?  A practical nobody who has done nothing.  This muslem he hates enough to stab was out there working hard and one can almost guess is an upstanding guy.


----------



## Carol (Aug 26, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Yeah, my best bud's dad is a cop so he got all us dudes together in a pickup.
> 
> Stories like this are just horrific.  This hard working guy got stabbed by who?  A practical nobody who has done nothing.  This muslem he hates enough to stab was out there working hard and one can almost guess is an upstanding guy.



Its even darker than that.



> A college student who did
> volunteer work in Afghanistan
> was charged yesterday
> with using a folding tool to
> ...



This wasn't just a random drunk...this dude put some thought in to hurting someone.

Link is subscription only...the rest of the article just says he'll be held without bail, yadda yadda yadda

http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/hate-crime-charged-in-stabbing-of-muslim-cabbie-1.2237393


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 26, 2010)

Carol said:


> Its even darker than that.
> 
> This wasn't just a random drunk...this dude put some thought in to hurting someone.
> 
> ...



The guy is not your typical person whom you'd expect to see out there protesting against the so-called 'Ground Zero Mosque'.  In fact, just the opposite.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/26/2010-08-26_maniac_wanted_better_for_everyone.html



> Capelluto and other friends said they never heard Enright disparage Muslims.
> "All I've ever heard is that he wants things to get better for everyone," Capelluto said.
> Raised in Brewster, which is in Putnam County, Enright is a senior at the School of Visual Arts and does volunteer work for Intersections International, a group that promotes peace and tolerance.
> As his senior thesis, he embarked on a film project to follow his high school buddy Marine Cpl. Alex Eckner through boot camp in Hawaii.
> ...



(FYI, The Marine Corps does not have 'boot camp' in Hawaii, so I have no idea what that's about).

But, it is starting to look as if he may have been affected by his time in Afghanistan, embedded with combat Marines.



> He was embedded with Marines on the front lines in Afghanistan in April and May.
> A neighbor and longtime friend, who identified himself only as Jesse, said Enright was different when he returned.
> "He said it was chaos," the pal said. "He did mention that they lost a few troops over there."



​I don't think anyone knows what was going on in this guy's head at the time.  Being 'very drunk' as he is described as being doesn't make a peaceful person become a murderous thug, at least not in my experience.  There's something else going on.

I only hope that this shocks people enough to make some borderline psychos maybe pull back a bit.  I hope it acts as a wake-up call and not a trigger event.


----------



## MJS (Aug 26, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> This is what intolerance leads to.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/musli...-stabbing-hate-crime-charge/story?id=11480081
> 
> ...


 
Very sad indeed.  I'm sure we saw quite a bit of hate after 9/11 and even moreso now, with the mosque debate going on.  Guy trying to make an honest living driving a cab, and gets attacked by someone who shouldn't be walking the streets.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 26, 2010)

MJS said:


> Very sad indeed.  I'm sure we saw quite a bit of hate after 9/11 and even moreso now, with the mosque debate going on.  Guy trying to make an honest living driving a cab, and gets attacked by someone who shouldn't be walking the streets.



I think it is very premature to attempt to define what this guy's reasoning was - sick in the head or some other reason - but I do think it is appropriate to talk about radicalization.

Normal, everyday people can be made into radicals.  The most common examples of this are mob actions, like historical accounts of lynchings.  Elder posted a video of a man nearly attacked in a rally against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque because it was 'thought' he was a Muslim.

But that's a temporary madness, the madness of mobs and crowds.  It tends to vanish when the crowd disburses.  People do things they would not otherwise do.

There are other forms of radicalization, and it is those that I fear more than mob actions at the moment.  I do not know if this guy, supposedly a peace activist, became radicalized by what he saw and heard when he was in Afghanistan, but it may be possible that's what happened.  The stories I've read so far indicate that he embedded as a video journalist with a high-school buddy, a Marine in combat in Afghanistan.  I'm sure he saw and heard a lot while there; it has been reported that he returned 'changed' (PTSD?).

It should also be noted that radicalization happens unintentionally (such as in battle) and intentionally (by indoctrination and massive rhetoric) and it happens on every side of a conflict.  Muslims who are radicals became that way somehow, it never happens in a vacuum.  In other words, their radicalization makes terrorists.  Are we also going to produce radicals?  That's my fear.

And of course, radicals breed radicals.  I can well imagine that if these sorts of attacks proliferate and Muslims who live in America become fearful of it happening to them, leaders in their own community will arise who will attempt to radicalize them too, and if their fear is well-grounded by reality, they may get lots of converts.  Then we've got a real problem.

This nearly happened during the 'Militia Movement' ten years ago in the USA.  It could happen again, with a religious component.  Ugly.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 26, 2010)

Additional note:  I just saw this online, and I agree with it:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cab-d...ed-attacker-michael-enright/story?id=11486802



> "This is what the terrorists want," said New York Gov. David Paterson Thursday. "This is the terrorists getting a yield on their investment when they attacked this country and blew up the World Trade Center, that we're now fighting each other. This is making their day."



We lose when we turn against each other - Christian against Muslim, American-born against legal immigrants.  We play directly into the hands of those who would destroy us.  It is very little more than political Aikido - using our own strength and anger against us.  The terrorists did not do this to us; they set the stage and we're doing it to ourselves.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 26, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Additional note:  I just saw this online, and I agree with it:
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cab-d...ed-attacker-michael-enright/story?id=11486802
> 
> ...


So obvious, even a blind man could see that.


----------



## MJS (Aug 26, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think it is very premature to attempt to define what this guy's reasoning was - sick in the head or some other reason - but I do think it is appropriate to talk about radicalization.
> 
> Normal, everyday people can be made into radicals. The most common examples of this are mob actions, like historical accounts of lynchings. Elder posted a video of a man nearly attacked in a rally against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque because it was 'thought' he was a Muslim.
> 
> ...


 
Well, be that as it may, IMO, this guy has some serious issues, and this seems to me that it was premeditated.  Why do I say that?  Because this guy was probably pissed off at the Muslim population as a whole, and was seeking out anyone of that faith, to attack.  He probably would have done the same thing if he walked up to a passerby or street vendor.


----------



## crushing (Aug 26, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The guy is not your typical person whom you'd expect to see out there protesting against the so-called 'Ground Zero Mosque'. In fact, just the opposite.
> 
> I don't think anyone knows what was going on in this guy's head at the time. *Being 'very drunk' as he is described as being doesn't make a peaceful person become a murderous thug, at least not in my experience. There's something else going on.*


 

Various news stories report:
"An officer there noticed the commotion, found Enright slumped on the sidewalk and arrested him."

Given Enright's background and community involvement, this whole story seems kind of suspicious.  I wonder if they did any toxicology tests on Enright?  Wouldn't the story take a strange turn if they found some sort of date rape type drug in his system?

Anyway, Enright's media conviction so far appears successful.  The legal conviction should be pretty easy, especially if Enright can't remember anything and the cab driver is scared to death and there aren't any witnesses to come forth other than an "officer that noticed the commotion".


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 26, 2010)

MJS said:


> Well, be that as it may, IMO, this guy has some serious issues, and this seems to me that it was premeditated.  Why do I say that?  Because *this guy was probably pissed off at the Muslim population as a whole*, and was seeking out anyone of that faith, to attack.  He probably would have done the same thing if he walked up to a passerby or street vendor.



If true - and we don't know yet, but I'm leaning that way too - then it is an example of radicalization.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Aug 26, 2010)

This cabbie being attacked pisses me off! Obviously the guy who did the attack is a pratt and needs to be dealt with accordingly. The most annoying thing about this whole episode is that the lefties are going to use this example everytime someone even attempte to speak out against this Sharia academy juast a couple of blocks from ground zero.

The Imam who will be leading this 'cultural center' has expressed his antiAmerican views time and time again, but according to many of you, it is inappropriate to speak out against him and his ilk.

Let's see who amongst you would be tolerant of a branch davidian church being built next to the Federal building in Oklahoma.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 26, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> This cabbie being attacked pisses me off! Obviously the guy who did the attack is a pratt and needs to be dealt with accordingly. The most annoying thing about this whole episode is that the lefties are going to use this example everytime someone even attempte to speak out against this Sharia academy juast a couple of blocks from ground zero.



And they shouldn't because?



> The Imam who will be leading this 'cultural center' has expressed his antiAmerican views time and time again, but according to many of you, it is inappropriate to speak out against him and his ilk.



No, according to me, he's neither anti-American, nor has he expressed anti-American views.



> Let's see who amongst you would be tolerant of a branch davidian church being built next to the Federal building in Oklahoma.



Branch Davidians and Federal Buildings in OKC?  I think you've got a few wires crossed.  OKC is Timothy McVeigh.  Branch Davidians were in Waco, Texas.  They didn't blow up any buildings, although they were in one that burnt down.

But as far as a Branch Davidian Church next to a federal building?  Sure, why not?


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 26, 2010)

Perhaps the lefty, film student, pro-mosque dude decided that he had to sacrifice a Muslim "for the cause" of uniting the "pros" against the "antis"? And maybe he had to liquor himself up in order to do it?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959704575453450937635686.html


> Mr. Enright is also a volunteer with Intersections International, an initiative of the Collegiate Churches of New York that promotes justice and faith across religions and cultures. The organization, which covered part of Mr. Enright's travel expenses to Afghanistan, has been a staunch supporter of the Islamic center near ground zero. Mr. Enright volunteered with the group's veteran-civilian dialogue project.
> Joseph Ward III, the director of communications for Intersections, said that if Mr. Enright had been involved in a hate crime, it ran "counter to everything Intersections stands for" and was shocking.



And oddly enough some sources are saying that the cabbie is against the planned Mosque.



> But Sharif &#8212; who expressed that he personally feels the mosque should be built elsewhere &#8212; said he suspected the tension over the debate may have served as a motive for the assault.
> 
> Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Kn...sts+Governor/3446449/story.html#ixzz0xkwpV2IJ



Hows that for a conspiracy theory?

Or maybe it was just some lone nut vs an example of widespread anti-Muslim violence.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Aug 26, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And they shouldn't because?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually one of Tim McVeigh's twisted views was that the feds should pay for the Waco debarcle.
Now when it comes to the Imam's views stating that the US is partly responsible for 9/11 and that we are the most Sharia compliant nation on Earth is quite anti-American in MY opinion.
My point is, that one guy stabs a muslim in NYC and the leftists use the incident to tar all of us who disagree with this sharia academy with this bastard's brush. Now I know you don't believe that Bill due to your past posts, but plenty are now using this as lefty propaganda


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 26, 2010)

Maybe it would be more difficult to tar you with any brush if you didn't call the proposed center a "sharia academy".

Again, cry foul at being called a bigot, and then go on to demonstrate bigotry.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 26, 2010)

Why is it inaccurate to call it a "Sharia academy", *EH*?  Not being argumentative here, just looking to understand.

Also, *YL*'s point is a valid one about how the actions of one extremist will mar the ability of those holding views disputing the issue to make their point.

Of course, that truism does cut both ways, as any really good blade, whether physical or philosophical, will .


----------



## elder999 (Aug 26, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Why is it inaccurate to call it a "Sharia academy", *EH*? Not being argumentative here, just looking to understand


 
Have a look here:



> The community center will reach out to all New Yorkers with six programmatic areas: &#8232;&#8232;
> *1.    Culture and Arts* - 500-seat auditorium, exhibition
> *&#8232;&#8232;2.    Education -* Lecture hall, conference rooms, library, classrooms
> *&#8232;3.    Social Cohesion *- cooking classes, senior citizens space, childcare, banquet hall&#8232;
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 26, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> Actually one of Tim McVeigh's twisted views was that the feds should pay for the Waco debarcle.



I'm still not sure how that affects Branch Davidians.



> Now when it comes to the Imam's views stating that the US is partly responsible for 9/11 and that we are the most Sharia compliant nation on Earth is quite anti-American in MY opinion.



You're welcome to your opinion, but you'd be wrong.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201008260002



> _Any system of rule that upholds, protects, and furthers these rights is therefore legally "Islamic," or Shariah compliant, in its substance. Because these rights are God-given, they are inalienable and cannot be deprived of any man or woman without depriving them of their essential humanity._
> _  What I am demonstrating is that the American political structure is Shariah compliant._




He's talking about a different understanding of Sharia than you think, but that's a nuanced viewpoint that would require a nuanced understanding of religion.  The current shoot-first-ask-questions-never zeitgeist doesn't support deep thought, IMHO.



> My point is, that one guy stabs a muslim in NYC and the leftists use the incident to tar all of us who disagree with this sharia academy with this bastard's brush. Now I know you don't believe that Bill due to your past posts, but plenty are now using this as lefty propaganda



Well, they're going to use it, but that's what happens.  The fact is, this guy could just as well have been a Tea Party freakazoid.  While most Tea Partiers would not do such a thing, once you get a crowd riled up, things start to happen.  That's the level the rhetoric has reached.  I hope people take a step back now instead of continuing to make up crap about Islam that they clearly don't understand to support their odd anti-freedom position on the so-called mosque.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 27, 2010)

This is a sad story.  not just because an innocent man got hurt because of his religious preference, but because it seems so many are at a place where they think he probably deserved it for being muslim.   Looking at all the protest I am seeing against mosque all over the US, it is becoming very worrisome.  

As far as an extremist actions making it hard to argue your point...welcome to how most Muslims feel.  Ironic, huh?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 27, 2010)

As a practical Catholic, I respectfully offer this:

http://www.zenit.org/article-30169?l=english



> ZE10082701 - 2010-08-27
> Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-30169?l=english
> 
> *Vatican Message to Muslims for Ramadan*
> ...


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 27, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Why is it inaccurate to call it a "Sharia academy", *EH*?  Not being argumentative here, just looking to understand.



Because when Islamophobes talk about "Shari'a" in the West, they mean it as a takeover of Western law and society by the rules of shari'a.  They mean that suddenly all the women must walk about in burqas, non-believers must pay the jizya, and a host of other things which will never happen in the West.  Thus to call the center a "shari'a academy" is to claim that the center is a sinister place for the export of totalitarian ideology and law that will attempt to take over the West.  These sorts of overblown fears are extremely easy to find when you start looking around.

These sorts of fears are also explicitly negated by the words and actions of this Sufi Imam himself.  That has been ignored however in favor of trying to paint him as a terrorist-sympathizing extremist.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 27, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> These sorts of fears are also explicitly negated by the words and actions of this Sufi Imam himself.  That has been ignored however in favor of trying to paint him as a terrorist-sympathizing extremist.



I absolutely agree.  I knew little about this Imam before the recent debate; however, I have known of Sufism for a long time (back to the 1980's) and I've found much to admire about it.  If one wants to have an interesting layperson's perspective, read the science fiction novel 'Dune' by Frank Herbert.  He took a lot of concepts from Jewish Kabbalah, Islamic Sufism, and even Christian Gnosticism and melded them together to create situations and characters.  The 'Fremen' were in fact based on Bedouins, the war that created the current environment was the 'Butlerian Jihad' and the Bene Gesserit were Kabbalists of a sort.

I read the Imam's carefully-parsed language.  I understand what he is saying.  I don't think he has much chance of selling it to the rank-and-file of everyday Islam, let alone the hard-core Islamists, Wahabists, Salafists, and the like.  But he is clearly a moderate, and he clearly believes what he is saying - he's been saying it all his life, apparently.  He is no Johhny-come-lately to the situation.

However, to understand the Imam's writing in context, one has to have a grounding in the language of religion at the least, apologetics and linguistic, and then there is the layer of translation to deal with.  Hard enough to have these types of discussions with Christians about Christianity; the subtle distinctions are lost, or purposefully ignored, or see as apostasy and therefore not worthy of consideration; assuming one even thinks critically about one's own religion.

I do not think the current audience has any such background, for the most part, and many if not most of them are unwilling to learn what is needed to follow the thread of the Imam's arguments.

I debated even posting such arguments here; my first instinct is to do so, but I held back, thinking that such posts would be utterly lost on those who do not care to learn anything, and not necessary for those who have an understanding of the many traditions inside Islam.

But here is an example of the Imam's explanation of 'Sharia Law':

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages//frontline/shows/muslims/interviews/feisal.html



> *Can you explain Sharia?*
> The word "Sharia" is the term given to define the collectivity of laws that Muslims govern themselves by. And there is a presumption that these laws recognize all of the specific laws mentioned in the Quran and in the practice of the prophet, and do not conflict with that. So any law, anything studied in the Quran or the hadith, is definitely [Sharia]. The idea is that it is divinely legislated, that the creator also has legislated certain things for us.
> But in the community of Muslims, it was recognized very early on that the Quran and the hadith do not speak to all issues. And there are many issues which are not necessarily addressed in the Quran and the hadith, that the Quran is silent on. ... There is a recognition in the [science] of Islamic jurisprudence that there are issues which have to be obtained by analogy, by consensus, and other [subsidiary] sources of jurisprudence. But as long as they don't conflict with the Quran and hadith of the prophet, it's considered to be, quote, unquote, "Sharia."


...


> *In what ways do Western values, morals, and cultural practices, intrude upon, and [in what ways] are they at variance with Islamic ideals? *
> I think there are two aspects to this question, in the broader sense of the word. There is Western values regarding governance; Western values regarding separation of powers; Western notions regarding what the role of government is in society; Western notion in terms of democratic institutions and principles and ideas. And to a large extent, Muslims are very enamored of these systems, and would like to implement them in their own societies ... because these principles and norms are completely in sync with the principles of the Quran and the teachings of the prophet.  Muslims would like very much to implement these norms within their societies.
> When you come to speak about things like behavioral norms, gender relationships, or the kind of things that people will do, this is a separate issue. And there is another aspect of the West, and that is the attitude of the West towards the non-Western countries, in terms of trying to be presumptuous in telling them how they should even live their lives in ways that they are not accustomed to -- like modes of dress, for instance. In the 1930s, when the first shah of Iran forced his soldiers at bayonet point to force Iranian women to take off the chador, for instance.
> People don't like to be told how to dress. This is a matter of personal individual conscience. Even we here in the West do not insist that our students in public schools wear uniforms. We give them that level of freedom. People do not like to be told how to do certain things in their personal lives.



I would also like to say that I am not agog over Imam Rauf's intellectual prowess.  I think he is a very decent man, and that his ideas about America and religion are not at all worrisome to me; I like the man; and I truly see him as a very moderate Muslim, like most Sufis.  But I do think he is a bit out of his depth when speaking apologetics, and that doesn't help matters.  However, in this case, it is a bit like a high school graduate teaching a college-level course, but the audience has been usurped by booger-eatin' fifth-graders who are armed with spitballs and straws.  It's an unfortunate situation all the way around.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 27, 2010)

Here's an interesting piece that Imam Rauf wrote in 2008, well before the current mosque brouhaha:

http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Islam_28/Islam_and_the_West_When_religions_talk.shtml

I won't quote it, but I found the entire short piece well-written and exemplary of the type of statements Rauf has made consistently.  Note well how he takes the Saudis and extremists to task; this man is not a friend of extremism in any way; he'd be chopped up unto tiny bits by many Islamists, I have no doubt.  This is the guy everybody thinks is trying to usher in a 'Sharia Academy' and take over the USA?  I don't think so.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Aug 27, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Have a look here:


Oh, I get it Elder, so this isn't a sharia academy at all. This is going to be a multi-faith community center, where Christians, Jews and Muslims are going to hold hands singing Kumbayah. Wonderful!! I suppose there will also be ecumenical services read by women and open gay priests from the Anglican community. 
We should also not even mention Rauf's claims that the US is as responsible as Al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks and the UBL was made in the US. No, don't mention any of that, because that would be bigotry and intolerance. Another thing, let's not even question how this 'Cultural center of tolerance' is being funded, who cares. It doesn't matter, because this 'temple of co-existance' will be used to teach Islamic children that tolerance is wonderful and women, gays and and jews are to be respected and that the civil rights movement was noble.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Aug 27, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm still not sure how that affects Branch Davidians.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Wonderful Bill, my lack of Islamic understanding is probably due to the fact that I spent time among them in England in my teens. There's nothing like being attacked by a bunch of Pakistanis in your own country just because you walk down a street that they have claimed. Then there was beautiful Jasmin Ahkbar, a check out girl in my local Tesco who dated me once and then stopped calling me because she got the **** kicked out of her by her Dad and brothers. Great people, pillars of the Islamic community.
Maybe I should invite them over for the 'Tolerance center' grand opening. We could bury the hatchet, hold hands and love one another as human beings.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 27, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> ...women, gays and and jews are to be respected and that the civil rights movement was noble.



I would be more impressed with this argument if I thought the Islamophobes believed in any of it themselves.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Aug 27, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> This is a sad story. not just because an innocent man got hurt because of his religious preference, but because it seems so many are at a place where they think he probably deserved it for being muslim.  Looking at all the protest I am seeing against mosque all over the US, it is becoming very worrisome.
> 
> As far as an extremist actions making it hard to argue your point...welcome to how most Muslims feel. Ironic, huh?


You're right, Muslims get persecuted all over the world. In Iran they hang men for being gay. In Afghanistan, the Taliban (those wonderful sharia loving men) allow men to cut off their wive's noses and ears if she doesn't toe the line. In Saudi Arabia, if you steal a loaf of bread you get your right hand cut off. And, let's not forget the stonings that these wonderful persecuted people do if they find a woman who committed adultery. But of course you're right, using your first amendment right to speak out against a 'sharia aca..." hu hu sorry 'cultural center of harmony and tolerance' a stones throw from where ISLAMIC terrorists killed nearly 3000 people is the utmost evil and should be stopped.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Aug 27, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> I would be more impressed with this argument if I thought the Islamophobes believed in any of it themselves.


You obviously don't. You Conservaphobes love to be the standard bearer of tolerance, as long as it's tolerance on your terms.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Aug 27, 2010)

Going off to train now. This sitting around playing politics on the computer is making me fat.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 27, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> You obviously don't. You Conservaphobes love to be the standard bearer of tolerance, as long as it's tolerance on your terms.



Oh yes, obviously.  You will find no greater disrespector of women, Jews, gays and the Civil Rights movement than myself.  Why, it's almost like I'm condemning over a billion people as being exactly the same as each other based on the actions of some of them.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 27, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> Oh, I get it Elder, so this isn't a sharia academy at all.


 
No,. you clearly do not.



yorkshirelad said:


> We should also not even mention Rauf's claims that the US is as responsible as Al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks and the UBL was made in the US. No, don't mention any of that, because that would be bigotry and intolerance.


 
If you'd bothered to actually read the webpage, you'd have seen this:



> *On 60 Minutes, the Imam said that American Foreign policy is an accessory to terrorism&#8221;*
> The &#8216;60 Minutes&#8217; piece was completely incorrect as the statement was edited out of context. In the full interview, Imam Feisal describes the mistake the CIA made in the 1980s by financing Osama Bin Laden and strengthening the Taliban. This view is widely shared today by journalists, foreign policy experts and the US government. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf underlines the importance of not supporting &#8220;friends of convenience&#8221; who may later become our enemies. This is common sense.
> 
> *Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is an American* who takes his role as a citizen-ambassador very seriously. He is frequently requested by the US State Department to tour Muslim majority and western countries to speak about the merits of American ideals and Muslim integration into Western society. At the request of the FBI after 9/11, he provided cultural training to hundreds of FBI agents.
> ...


 




yorkshirelad said:


> Another thing, let's not even question how this 'Cultural center of tolerance' is being funded, who cares.


 
Again, if you'd actually bothered to read the webpage, you'd have seen
this:



> *Who is funding the Community Center?*
> No funds for this project have been raised to date. Before fundraising can begin, a new nonprofit organization will be formed. A project of this scale will require very diverse fundraising sources, including individuals from all faiths and beliefs, including Christians and Jews, who are committed to peace and understanding. We expect that our sources of funding will include individuals of different religions, charitable organizations, public funds, institutional and corporate sponsors.
> &#8232;&#8232;
> *You will need a lot of contributors. Who will review your donor list?*
> We will invite the New York Charities Bureau and the US Treasury Department to review our donor list to ensure that all funding sources are vetted to their satisfaction and approved. In addition, the new non-profit&#8217;s Trustees and Advisory Board will include a multi-faith group of distinguished individuals who will ensure that the community center stays true to its objectives of peace, tolerance and understanding between all.


 


yorkshirelad said:


> It doesn't matter, because this 'temple of co-existance' will be used to teach Islamic children that tolerance is wonderful and women, gays and and jews are to be respected and that the civil rights movement was noble.


 
Actually, it doesn't matter because you're already convinced of your point of view-before they've even raised the money to tear down the building that's there and start building a new one......there's a word for that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 27, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> Wonderful Bill, my lack of Islamic understanding is probably due to the fact that I spent time among them in England in my teens. There's nothing like being attacked by a bunch of Pakistanis in your own country just because you walk down a street that they have claimed. Then there was beautiful Jasmin Ahkbar, a check out girl in my local Tesco who dated me once and then stopped calling me because she got the **** kicked out of her by her Dad and brothers. Great people, pillars of the Islamic community.
> Maybe I should invite them over for the 'Tolerance center' grand opening. We could bury the hatchet, hold hands and love one another as human beings.



So your solution to dealing with intolerant Muslims is to silence a moderate Muslim, one of the extremist's enemies. You're doing their work for them, while simultaneously giving the extemists 'proof' that Americans are just Muslim-hating bigots that they can use to recruit more extemists. Well done. You should be proud.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 27, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> We should also not even mention Rauf's claims that the US is as responsible as Al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks and the UBL was made in the US. No, don't mention any of that, because that would be bigotry and intolerance.



Did the terrorists think they had just cause to attack us, yes or no? They felt they had provocation; our policies in the Middle East. That is what Rauf said and you lie if you deny it.

Was OBL or was he not a 'freedom fighter' in Afghanistan against the Soviets, an insurgency armed and funded by US tax dollars? OBL was indeed Made in the USA. Fact. If you don't like it, TFB. It's a fact.

OBL turned his attention to the USA when Saudi Arabia allowed US  troops on Saudi soil during the first Gulf War, while they rebuffed his own offers to fight Saddam with his own private army. Thus, US policies affected his actions. 

Nobody said OBL was right to do so, only a buffoon would believe that. It is fact that our policies affected his actions. 

To state that, as the Imam did, is to state the truth. You got a problem with the truth?


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 28, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> You're right, Muslims get persecuted all over the world. In Iran they hang men for being gay. In Afghanistan, the Taliban (those wonderful sharia loving men) allow men to cut off their wive's noses and ears if she doesn't toe the line. In Saudi Arabia, if you steal a loaf of bread you get your right hand cut off. And, let's not forget the stonings that these wonderful persecuted people do if they find a woman who committed adultery. But of course you're right, using your first amendment right to speak out against a 'sharia aca..." hu hu sorry 'cultural center of harmony and tolerance' a stones throw from where ISLAMIC terrorists killed nearly 3000 people is the utmost evil and should be stopped.


 
I don't know if you've noticed, but the US is NOT the same as those places where such violent and oppressive tacticts are used.  When we start using the actions of extremist in other places to justify bigotry and hatred here, we become what the terrorist say we are and we bocome that which we hate.  The US, and I presume Great Britain, are countries based upon laws and tolerance for people different than ourselves.  The first amendment makes that tolerance part of our law.  You cannot be a just and tolerant society to only some of your citizens.  You either are or you aren't.  If a person uses violence to enforce his opinion, I'm all for locking them up and throwing away the key.  That goes for anyone of any religion or belief.

A moderate Muslim friend told me shortly after 911 that there is a part in the Quran which says to kill an innocent is the same as killing all of humanity.  He was very distraught that someone claiming to believe in Islam could commit such horendous a horrendous act.  That is the normal attitide of _most_ Muslims.

The US did indeed do things which made it easier for Al'Queda to recruit emn and brainwash them into doing such vile things.  If you don't believe that, then you haven't been paying attention to US foreign policy.  We made mistakes.  Is it justification for killing 3000 people?  Hell no.  If we don't recognize our mistakes, we will repeat them.  making it easier in the future for such acts to happen.  Denying our own mistakes is willful ignorance and is not helpful in any way.

It seems your bigotry towards islam has a lot to do with your personal experience with a few bigoted muslims.  Is the best path to become just as bigoted as they are?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 28, 2010)

If the mosque is being run by a Sufi will there be singing? Not a frivolous question btw as some of you will know.

We have many different 'types' of Muslim in England, I don't want people to think we only have the radical type, we have the 'working my hardest to provide for my family and be a good citizen type' and the 'very pleased to be British' type. We also have the BNP and Combat 18 who will beat up a white girl for going out with someone outside her culture and who will beat up old Pakistani ladies. However all white people don't belong to the BNP and all Muslims aren't extremists.

We have quite a few Muslims in the forces who are deployed in Afghanistan, we also have Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, gays, bisexuals, and transexuals in the forces serving in Afghanistan.  There's no room for prejudice of *any type*. We have Muslims yes who want to kill our troops, we also have Christians who want to kill our troops.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/10/car-bomb-murder-cookstown

The Provisional IRA was funded largely by Americans, the current Republican terrorists may still be. Perhaps by the same people who are denouncing Muslim terrorism and want the mosques not to be built. Perhaps one man's terrorist really is another man's freedom fighter.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 28, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> . We also have the BNP and Combat 18 who will beat up a white girl for going out with someone outside her culture and who will beat up old Pakistani ladies. However all white people don't belong to the BNP and all Muslims aren't extremists.


 
And not all Catholics are in the Mafia, and a horse can't moo, and a cow can't whinny......:lfao:





Tez3 said:


> .The Provisional IRA was funded largely by Americans, the current Republican terrorists may still be. Perhaps by the same people who are denouncing Muslim terrorism and want the mosques not to be built. Perhaps one man's terrorist really is another man's freedom fighter.


 
Quite. I think this actually touches on the whole Hamas question at times, since it's both a legitimate political power (by virtue of the people's votes) and a terrorist group, much like the quibbling difference made  by American's (some of them my Irish friends who sent $$$) between the IRA and Sinn Fein...


----------



## xJOHNx (Aug 28, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> Wonderful Bill, my lack of Islamic understanding is probably due to the fact that I spent time among them in England in my teens. There's nothing like being attacked by a bunch of Pakistanis in your own country just because you walk down a street that they have claimed. Then there was beautiful Jasmin Ahkbar, a check out girl in my local Tesco who dated me once and then stopped calling me because she got the **** kicked out of her by her Dad and brothers. Great people, pillars of the Islamic community.
> Maybe I should invite them over for the 'Tolerance center' grand opening. We could bury the hatchet, hold hands and love one another as human beings.



You shouldn't confuse your own personal experiences/demons with something that is happening years later in another country, with a whole different crowd of people.

I study in the Sufi tradition (and just like in Christianity, there is more than 1 tradition) and I can tell that they are not anything like the chaps I meet on the streets.

You must understand that people from Pakistan, Afghanistan and so on are just grouped by their common belief in Islam. But the cultural differences still remain.
For example: Iran is becoming of of the leading countries in scientific research and also one of the countries with the highest number of corrective surgeries (mostly about the Persian nose). Also, women are very sofisticated and generally very lovely to talk to.
Now if you go to Pakistan/Afghanistan where you still have the tribal feelings and ****ed up practices like 'dancing boys', you see that although both are connected through Islam, culturally they are as different as can be.

I wish I could write a more elaborate post, but I think my words fall into deaf man's ears.
But if you like, I can give you more info about the cultural differences between the inhabitants of different Sharia Nations.
Or even between the different 'sects' that exist under the general flag of Islam.


----------



## Blade96 (Aug 28, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> But Bill, "They All Want To Kill Us" as one idiot on Facebook said to me as I dropped her from my list.  All 1.6 billion of the worlds Muslims are even now, actively conspiring to kill us all, all us non-Muslims. Dunno if they have a private wifi, have developed telepathy, or are using carrier pidgeons to coordinate this, but my source was quite certain, as are alot of people that "They" are coming for us.





Omar B said:


> I got a couple sideways glances and questions about my religion and background myself.  Most of it from random loudmouths who didn't see what I saw.  I was one of the first there working triage out of the BMCC campus.



Some people in the states today remind me of a 21 century version of McCarthy. Only instead of Commies, ya got Muslims.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 28, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> Some people in the states today remind me of a 21 century version of McCarthy. Only instead of Commies, ya got Muslims.



That is exactly what we have, right down to bizarre concerns about purity and contamination, and the invention of a secret, disguised enemy among us who will take us over by trickery aided by those nasty liberals.

It is remarkable how closely the previous fears of Communism overlap the current fears of Islam.  If you were to replace the names in a Bircher pamphlet from the 50's with Islam and Muslim, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.  The Birchers even thought Eisenhower was a secret Communist agent, much like the Islamophobes seem convinced that Obama is a secret Muslim.


----------



## Blade96 (Aug 28, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> That is exactly what we have, right down to bizarre concerns about purity and contamination, and the invention of a secret, disguised enemy among us who will take us over by trickery aided by those nasty liberals.
> 
> It is remarkable how closely the previous fears of Communism overlap the current fears of Islam.  If you were to replace the names in a Bircher pamphlet from the 50's with Islam and Muslim, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.  The Birchers even thought Eisenhower was a secret Communist agent, much like the Islamophobes seem convinced that Obama is a secret Muslim.



I know, eh? I studied the cold war (i'm a history major) and i remarked to my father some years ago that its creepy how so many things that happened after 9/11 are a lot like what happened during the cold war.

Ike as a Communist agent, LOL, that one still makes me laugh.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 28, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> The US did indeed do things which made it easier for Al'Queda to recruit emn and brainwash them into doing such vile things.  If you don't believe that, then you haven't been paying attention to US foreign policy.  We made mistakes.




What exactly were these "mistakes" and what grievance does AlQueda use as their excuse for the murder of thousands of non-combatants on 9/11?

It's been my experience that many of the people who like to say "we asked for it" can't explain exactly what it was that we did.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 28, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> What exactly were these "mistakes" and what grievance does AlQueda use as their excuse for the murder of thousands of non-combatants on 9/11?


 

Really?  Okay, just one mistake off the top of my head, funding and supporting the Taliban for years.  We knew the Taliban's extrme views when we were giving them weapons and funding.  Then we no longer needed them we had nothing to do with them or the Afghan people.  

Wait, wait, here's another.  We funded and supported Sadam Hussien.  Why?  Because he was a convenient political ally against Iran.  Never mind that he was a tyrant that was killing his own people.  That can be overlooked...until we want to put boots on the ground in the Middle East, then him being a tyranical dictator is a perfectly good excuse for invasion.

I'm not saying that there is any excuse for murdering innocent people.  There isn't.  There is also no excuse for thinking that our own actions do not have consequences.  When you make deals with the devil, you have to assume there is going to be a high price to be paid in the end.  It is just common sense.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 28, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> What exactly were these "mistakes" and what grievance does AlQueda use as their excuse for the murder of thousands of non-combatants on 9/11?



I've stated it several times in this thread.  Let's do it again.

Here's a simple one, on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Formation_and_structuring_of_Al-Qaeda



> Following the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan in February  1989, Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia in 1990 as a hero of  jihad, who along with his Arab legion, "had brought down the mighty  superpower" of the Soviet Union.[49] The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990 had put the kingdom and its ruling House of Saud at risk. The world's most valuable oil fields  were within easy striking distance of Iraqi forces in Kuwait, and  Saddam's call to pan-Arab/Islamism could potentially rally internal  dissent. bin Laden met with King Fahd,  and Sultan, Minister of Defence of Saudi Arabia, telling them not to  depend on non-Muslim troops, and offered to help defend Saudi Arabia  with his mujahideen fighters. Bin Laden's offer was rebuffed, and after  the American offer to help repel Iraq from Kuwait was accepted,  involving deploying U.S. troops in Saudi territory,[50]  he publicly denounced Saudi Arabia's dependence on the U.S. military,  as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two  mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. Bin Laden's criticism of the Saudi monarchy led that government to attempt to silence him.
> *Shortly after Saudi Arabia permitted U.S. troops on Saudi soil, bin  Laden turned his attention to attacks on the west.* On November 8, 1990,  the FBI raided the New Jersey home of El Sayyid Nosair, an associate of al Qaeda operative Ali Mohamed,  discovering a great deal of evidence of terrorist plots, including  plans to blow up New York City skyscrapers, marking the earliest  uncovering of al Qaeda plans for such activities outside of Muslim  countries.[51] Nosair was eventually convicted in connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and for the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane on November 5, 1990.
> Bin Laden continued to speak publicly against the Saudi government  for harboring American troops, for which the Saudis banished him. He  went to live in exile in Sudan, in 1992, in a deal brokered by Ali  Mohamed.[52]



OBL, the founder of Al Qaeda, was mad at the US influence in the Middle East, particularly their presence on Saudi Arabian soil.   That is the beginning of their grievances with the USA.  There are many more.

A mistake for us to land troops in Saudi Arabia?  I don't think so.  But the fact that it is an action that we took, and that it is a grievance that OBL used to justify his terror attacks on the USA, means that yes, OBL had grievances against the USA.



> It's been my experience that many of the people who like to say "we asked for it" can't explain exactly what it was that we did.



I can't think of anyone in this thread who has said "we asked for it."

What I have said, and what Imam Rauf has said, is that Al Qaeda did not suddenly pop into existence in a vacuum, hating the USA for no particular reason except it was sunny that day and they prefer rain.  The fact is that they had and have grievances against the USA.  Are they justified to have grievances?  I have no idea.  I'm sure a lot of people don't like having their culture destroyed by outsiders, and we do tend to act like a bull in a china shop, exporting Democracy and so on wherever we go.

But that does NOT mean that _"we asked for it."_  It means that there were precipitating factors.  If we had ignored Kuwait when Iraq invaded them, OBL would not have gone to war with the USA.  That does NOT mean that we should not have defended Kuwait.  It does not mean that his actions against us were justified.  It does NOT mean that _"we asked for it."_  It means that he had reasons to do what he did, and that our actions were those reasons.  Everybody has reasons, it doesn't mean that they are justified.  Hitler had reasons, Stalin had reasons, Pol Pot had reasons; they all had reasons that they thought justified their actions.  None of that means that their victims _"asked for it."_

There are surely some few in the USA (but none in this thread that I've read of) who do believe that our own actions were wrong, and that we erred by committing them, and that if we had acted differently in the Middle East, we would not have been attacked.  I don't agree with them.  Even if we have made mistakes in the Middle East - and we have, but it is practically impossible NOT to make mistakes - we would have become targets sooner or later anyway.

I suspect that a clash was coming no matter what, just because of the fact that fundamentalist Islam, militant Islam, is not compatible with Western ideals.  As more and more Muslims became _'Westernized'_ and found concepts like Democracy and freedom and religious tolerance to be good things that they wanted, the extremists became more and more outraged.  And their outrage was directed at the culture that exported that Western flavor - the USA (primarily) and then the UK and Europe.

I am no fan of OBL or Islamist terrorists.  If and as they are found, I am firmly in favor of a bullet in their brains, each and every one of them.

However, that does not mean that I am such an America-first, love it or leave it, we never do anything wrong, drumbeater that I am incapable of recognizing that everyone, no matter how twisted and wrong, thinks they have provocation to do what they do.

Nothing happens in a vacuum.  Nobody gets up in the morning and says _"Ho hum, I think I'll recruit a bunch of guys and get them to fly some planes into some buildings in the USA, what the hell, they never did anything to me, but I'm just sick in the head like that."_  Yeah, OBL thought he had provocation and justification.  Yeah, it was based on things we actually did.  That doesn't make what he did right - it makes it justified in his own sick brain.

When Imam Rauf said that OBL was _"Made in America,"_ he was speaking the truth.  We US taxpayers, via the CIA, funded and supplied the rebels who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan.  OBL was one of the rebels who went there to fight the Soviets.  He is, in a very real sense, a Frankenstein's Monster, and we are Frankenstein in that sense.  Yes, he was Made in America.  We made him.  How could anyone not understand that?

Do you need me to explain this all again?  Or will you ignore this post and then start a new thread in which you make the same claims all over again?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 28, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> I'm not saying that there is any excuse for murdering innocent people.  There isn't.  There is also no excuse for thinking that our own actions do not have consequences.  When you make deals with the devil, you have to assume there is going to be a high price to be paid in the end.  It is just common sense.



Agreed.   We have interests in the Middle East.  It was decided, and it may have made sense at the time, to do as we did.  Obviously if we could have predicted the results, we might have chosen a different path.  But as you say, every action has consequences.

We have the situation in Iran now because why?  Because we installed and propped up a puppet dictator, the Shah, and he was eventually overthrown by religious nutjobs who wanted (surprise, surprise) to run their own damned country instead of having the USA run it by proxy for them.  Gee, I can't imagine why Iranians would be upset at having the USA control their dictator, who in turn controls them.  We'd love it a lot if we were treated that way, right?

Hey, I'm not even criticizing what we did in Iran, in Iraq, or anywhere else in the Middle East.  What's done is done.  It doesn't make the terrorists justified; it means that they have grievances with the USA - whether justified or not.  Everybody who does things, does them for a reason.  I can't imagine why someone would be so dense as to imagine that the USA craps rose petals, everybody loves us, we do no wrong, and anyone who attacks us just does it on a whim.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Aug 28, 2010)

elder999 said:


> No,. you clearly do not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I read the website, but I question the source.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Aug 28, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Oh yes, obviously. You will find no greater disrespector of women, Jews, gays and the Civil Rights movement than myself. Why, it's almost like I'm condemning over a billion people as being exactly the same as each other based on the actions of some of them.


Muslims on the whole are not the problem. It's muslims who publically state that UBL was "made in America". It's muslim's that say that we are in part to blame for 9/11. It's muslims that say that we are responsible for the death of 500 000 muslim babies. It's muslims who state that they don't believe Hamas to be a terrorist organization. Rauf has said all of this, but you guys don't want to acknowledge it.

Of course they have a perfect constitutional right to build this 'peaceful ecumenical temple' (ye right) where they are building it,  but I believe that it's in extremely poor taste and wholeheartedly inappropriate to build it there and I have a constitutional right to express my opinion.

BTY there are also various outspoken muslims who also believe that the site for this "cultural center" is inappropriate are they islamaphobes also?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Aug 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So your solution to dealing with intolerant Muslims is to silence a moderate Muslim, one of the extremist's enemies. You're doing their work for them, while simultaneously giving the extemists 'proof' that Americans are just Muslim-hating bigots that they can use to recruit more extemists. Well done. You should be proud.


 
I'm actually very proud. All those muslim hating bigots in the world trade center on 9/11 sure got what was coming to them eh Bill. Just listen to yourself. Fundamental muslims (note the word fundmental) hate us because of how we live. No molleycoddling, negotiations or appeasement will work on them. If anything it will embolden them.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 28, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> I read the website, but I question the source.


 
No you don't "question it"-you *dismissed* it. It answers every one of your questions.


yorkshirelad said:


> I'm actually very proud. All those muslim hating bigots in the world trade center on 9/11 sure got what was coming to them eh Bill. Just listen to yourself. Fundamental muslims (note the word fundmental) hate us because of how we live. No molleycoddling, negotiations or appeasement will work on them. If anything it will embolden them.


 

Not all fundamentalist muslims hate us-and the ones that do don't hate us because of "how we live." They have said repeatedly, for more than 40 years now, that they hate us because of our meddling in the Middle East and our support of Israel. There's no changing that. If I were to go over to someone else's house and punch them, and tell them it's 'cause their dog ***** on my lawn, and they keep letting their dog **** on my lawn, and I periodically punch them and tell them that's why, well, you think it would be clear to everyone watching and all involved that I wasn't doing it because they don't wear a ball cap or because they eat pork.....:lol:


----------



## yorkshirelad (Aug 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Did the terrorists think they had just cause to attack us, yes or no? They felt they had provocation; our policies in the Middle East. That is what Rauf said and you lie if you deny it.
> 
> Was OBL or was he not a 'freedom fighter' in Afghanistan against the Soviets, an insurgency armed and funded by US tax dollars? OBL was indeed Made in the USA. Fact. If you don't like it, TFB. It's a fact.
> 
> ...


I've got a problem with how this wanker states the truth. It's not exactly wise to partly blame the US for 9/11 in one sentence and then tell folk that he's building an islamic cultural center just a copule of blocks from where the attacks took place. He then expects the populace to be tolerant towards him and his flock. It's pure provocation and no amount of your bollocksology can deny that mate!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 28, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> Muslims on the whole are not the problem. It's muslims who publically state that UBL was "made in America".



I'm a Christian, and I state it, because it is true.



> It's muslim's that say that we are in part to blame for 9/11.



We are _'partly to blame'_ only in that we did things in the Middle East that had consequences.  That's also a fact.



> It's muslims that say that we are responsible for the death of 500 000 muslim babies.



I doubt anyone has said 500,000 babies, but there is no doubt that we've killed children in our air attacks.  Do you deny this?



> It's muslims who state that they don't believe Hamas to be a terrorist organization. Rauf has said all of this, but you guys don't want to acknowledge it.



Rauf has not said that Hamas is not a terrorist organization.  He has refused to state that they are.  This is not the same thing.

In any case, you continue to take his statements out of context; now that I've explained - repeatedly - what the actual context was, I see that this is intentional on your part.



> Of course they have a perfect constitutional right to build this 'peaceful ecumenical temple' (ye right) where they are building it,  but I believe that it's in extremely poor taste and wholeheartedly inappropriate to build it there and I have a constitutional right to express my opinion.



Yes, you have an absolute right to state your opinion.  And I have a perfect right to say you are wrong to feel the way you do, because your reasoning is based on faulty logic and incorrect facts that you continue to believe regardless of the truth.



> BTY there are also various outspoken muslims who also believe that the site for this "cultural center" is inappropriate are they islamaphobes also?



That is a false analogy.  No one believes you are an Islamaphobe *because* you don't want the Mosque to be built where it is currently planned.  Those that think it of you do so because of the hateful and disgusting things you've said, not to mention the outright lies you continue to utter.  It is not your opinion that makes you what you are, it's the vile content of your mind that does that, which leaks out with every word you type.  Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 28, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> I'm actually very proud. All those muslim hating bigots in the world trade center on 9/11 sure got what was coming to them eh Bill. Just listen to yourself. Fundamental muslims (note the word fundmental) hate us because of how we live. No molleycoddling, negotiations or appeasement will work on them. If anything it will embolden them.



But it will give them a bloody shirt to wave around.  Thanks for handing them that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 28, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> I've got a problem with how this wanker states the truth. It's not exactly wise to partly blame the US for 9/11 in one sentence and then tell folk that he's building an islamic cultural center just a copule of blocks from where the attacks took place. He then expects the populace to be tolerant towards him and his flock. It's pure provocation and no amount of your bollocksology can deny that mate!



He made the statements years ago, before planning to build the Mosque.  You'd know that, but you choose to ignore it.

It's not provocation, the man doesn't provoke anyone but bigots.  Case in point, MATE.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Or will you ignore this post and then start a new thread in which you make the same claims all over again?



What threads have I started on this topic Bill?

BTW. Funding the Taliban? Supporting Saddam? Those seem like mistakes in regards to OUR self interests (now) vs mistakes that had evil intent when they were made. Why would the Taliban be mad that we supported them when the Russians invaded? And I agree with Bills last post regarding our presence in Saudi Arabia. But even he stated that that wasn't a "mistake". Simply a decision that now has consequence. As do ALL decisions we make. I just think that the "we made mistakes in foreign policy and now we are paying for it" is an oversimplified mantra that is convenient for some people with certain political views to spout without being able to name said "mistakes".

I think the real issue is that we support Israel.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 28, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> What threads have I started on this topic Bill?



Sorry, my mistake.  Posted on, not started.



> BTW. Funding the Taliban? Supporting Saddam? Those seem like mistakes in regards to OUR self interests (now). Why would the Taliban be mad that we supported them when the Russians invaded?



I doubt they would.  But that's conflating two statements.  OBL is a Frankenstein's Monster that was learned how to fight in Afghanistan, as a 'holy warrior', against the Soviets, in a covert war that we supported with tax money and arms and training supplied by the CIA.  This is the core truth of the statement 'OBL was Made in the USA.'  Absolutely he was.

OBL was not an enemy of the USA then, but we helped create him as a leader and a asymmetric warfighter.  He used those skills against us when he decided that we were his enemy later on, when we set our 'unholy'  feet in Saudi Arabia and his own homeland kicked him out for being a punter.  So two events, not one.



> I think the real issue is that we support Israel.



I am sure that's in the mix as well.  And I am in favor of us continuing to support Israel.  I don't for a minute think that is a mistake on our part; but I'm also sure that it's one of the many reasons we're hated by Islamist terrorists.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 29, 2010)

I don't think supporting Israel is a mistake.  i do think supporting monsters for short term politiccal goals at the expense of long term political outcomes is a mistake.  So supporting and funding OBL and the Taliban then leaving the people of Afganastan to thier mercy is a mistake, in my opinion.  We knew what they were.  We knew what they were capable of.  Supporting Hussein and funding his military while he was killing his own people because we were at odds with Iran.  We were at odds with Iran because they ousted the man we placed in power there and took American hostages while we did it.  There was no denying at the time that he was a human monster. So yes, we contributed to the atmosphere which made those terrorist possible.  Could it have happened without our meddling and interference.  Quite possibly, but OBL and the extremist like him would not have nearly the support they have if we had not have had these mis-steps.  Voicing these things out loud is not supporting terrorism or hating on America.  It is acknowledging that mistakes were made and understanding some of the anger in the Muslim world isn't because some extremist with dreams of power tell them to be angry.  Hard feeling like that do not happen in a vaccumn.

If China or Russia had done the things that we have done in the Middle East, what do you suppose the discussions would look like then?  Would those actions be looked on as merely things that happened?  Or would they be looked upon as the short-sighted mistakes they were?  Rauf is saying that the US policies helped create this atmospere.  He never said we deserved what happened.  There is a difference.  Only people who have an axe to grind are putting those words in his mouth.


----------



## xJOHNx (Aug 29, 2010)

@ Bill and the others: check out the movie: "charlie wilson's war", besides being funny it actually sketches an accurate sketch of what happened during the rise of the taliban.

2 more points to clarify

- OBL is just a charismatic leader. Look at the videos of the guy shooting an AK47. He almost recoils against the wall, and he's suppossed to be the great soldier? No he's just the man with the cash (don't forget, he's not from pakistan or afghanistan, h's saudi).

- Most of the taliban soldiers just roll along with eachother. Most of them don't know how to read or write, so let alone critical thinking.
The fact that their country has been in wars during the last couple of hunderd years doesn't really add up to it.


----------



## Carol (Aug 29, 2010)

xJOHNx said:


> - Most of the taliban soldiers just roll along with eachother. Most of them don't know how to read or write, so let alone critical thinking.



Bingo.  This is why the education provided at the community center is so important.  I think some Americans hear that and think that's code for some kind of terrorist madrassah, where the steps are to provide better health and wellness knowledge, supporting educational efforts, and otherwise assist Muslims, esp. newer Americans, to integrate in to the United States and western culture as a whole.  The more support a person has for educational efforts, analytical skills, critical thinking abilities, the less likely one will be blindly follow the lemmings off the cliff, so to speak.

If I'm not mistaken, the U.S. State Department from both the Bush administration as well as the Obama administration has been behind many of his trips to the Middle East, to show how being Muslim is not incompatible with being Western or a Western lifestyle...and he's extroverted enough to risk sticking himself out there.


----------



## seasoned (Aug 29, 2010)

Education is critical for sure, lets hope some how that the hatred is addressed in some way also.


----------



## Carol (Aug 29, 2010)

seasoned said:


> Education is critical for sure, lets hope some how that the hatred is addressed in some way also.




The only hatred I am seeing is directed at the Imam. 

Outreach and actively working with other groups are a big part of the reason why the chater for the Board of Directors indicates that no single religion can encompass more than 50 percent of its membership, and why they have reached out to other relgious orgs in the area, including synagogues and churches.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 29, 2010)

Carol said:


> The Outreach and actively working with other groups are a big part of the reason why the chater for the Board of Directors indicates that no single religion can encompass more than 50 percent of its membership, and why they have reached out to other relgious orgs in the area, including synagogues and churches.


 
Well, now, careful, Carol-we can't trust* that* source...



yorkshirelad said:


> I read the website, but* I question the source*.


----------



## Carol (Aug 29, 2010)

Hey I'll go investigate. I'm taking a 4 day weekend and don't need to be back at the office til Wednesday afternoon.  Y'all take up a collect to cover my Acela fare, coupla nights at a Holiday Inn Express, and all the other associated research expenses, and I'm on it!!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 29, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> That is exactly what we have, right down to bizarre concerns about purity and contamination, and the invention of a secret, disguised enemy among us who will take us over by trickery aided by those nasty liberals.
> 
> It is remarkable how closely the previous fears of Communism overlap the current fears of Islam.  If you were to replace the names in a Bircher pamphlet from the 50's with Islam and Muslim, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.  The Birchers even thought Eisenhower was a secret Communist agent, much like the Islamophobes seem convinced that Obama is a secret Muslim.



Speaking of the John Birch Society reminded me of McCarthy:






[yt]
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TXlVnd6WXA8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TXlVnd6WXA8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/yt]


----------



## Blade96 (Aug 29, 2010)

i think knowing about american history that the US is responsible for a reason why a lot of the world hates it. 

But just ordinary hate and dislike.

No one deserves to have 3000 of their people killed by some nut bars flying planes into buildings.

i remember exactly what i was doing when that happened. and the next day our university held a two mins of silence at the clock tower in solidarity. Of course I was there. and next year on the first anniversary the same thing. and I was there too. Everyone sympathized with you americans when that happened.  It was a sin. No much more than just a sin. Was an act of mass murder. and though i was and still am a disliker of us governments and such the kind of anti americanism thats just regular dislike and hate, I could never think of doing such an unspeakable act. It was horrible!


----------



## Omar B (Aug 29, 2010)

Nice little video on the protest and protesters - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yPRl8vYXBw&feature=bulletin


----------



## MJS (Aug 31, 2010)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38924794/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Yeah, this guy isn't playing with a full deck IMO.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 31, 2010)

MJS said:


> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38924794/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
> 
> Yeah, this guy isn't playing with a full deck IMO.


 
Agreed.  Unfortunately, as the rethoric keeps getting turned up I think we'll start to see more and more of these crazies.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 31, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Agreed.  Unfortunately, as the rethoric keeps getting turned up I think we'll start to see more and more of these crazies.



I suspect it's not different than radicalization of all sorts - many suicide bombers are children and/or mentally unstable or developmentally-impaired.  The radical message (from any side) seems to resonate first with those who are least grounded in reality, then works its way in from the fringes.  Just an opinion.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Aug 31, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But it will give them a bloody shirt to wave around. Thanks for handing them that.


 
Why will speaking out against this center give muslims a bloody shirt? You truly are bonkers!!


----------



## yorkshirelad (Aug 31, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Speaking of the John Birch Society reminded me of McCarthy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
And yet it is Pelosi who wants an investigation into the people that are speaking out against the mosque. How very insidious!!


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 31, 2010)

Ordinary hate????


----------



## yorkshirelad (Aug 31, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Nice little video on the protest and protesters - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yPRl8vYXBw&feature=bulletin


 
So she went there to present an unbias view of each demonstration......bah ha ha ha ha ha  :rofl:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 31, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> Why will speaking out against this center give muslims a bloody shirt? You truly are bonkers!!



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129387963&ft=1&f=1091



> All this controversy and vitriol are not only encouraged; they're  welcomed. Extremists and radical clerics posted a stream of "I told you  so" messages: After years of telling followers that Islam was under  attack by the West, the harsh reaction to a simple community center  seemed to prove it.
> That message, transmitted  in a multitude of chat rooms and websites, has law enforcement worried.  There have been a record number of homegrown terrorist plots in this  country since late last year, and the conventional wisdom has been that  the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have moved some young Muslims   many of whom came of age watching U.S. forces fighting in two wars on  television  to join the fight.


...


> "Over the past nine to 12 months, Anwar al-Awlaki has tried to promote  this notion that the West, and particularly the United States, will turn  on its Muslim citizens," Fishman said. "And some of the anti-Islamic  tone that has been going around the country in connection with the  mosque debate feeds into this notion that people like Anwar al-Awlaki  can take advantage of."



I'm not 'bonkers'.  Neither am I playing into the hands of terrorists by giving them a bloody shirt to wave around.  I stand by my words.


----------



## crushing (Sep 1, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129387963&ft=1&f=1091
> 
> I'm not 'bonkers'. Neither am I playing into the hands of terrorists by giving them a bloody shirt to wave around. I stand by my words.


 
Extremists and radical clerics (not unlike our own politicians) will play this issue up no matter which way it goes.  If it the Muslim center is allowed, they will consider it a "Victory Mosque".  If the activity center is denied, it will show the world Americans are evil and hate Muslims.  To the extremists it will either be a bloody shirt or a white flag.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 1, 2010)

crushing said:


> Extremists and radical clerics (not unlike our own politicians) will play this issue up no matter which way it goes.  If it the Muslim center is allowed, they will consider it a "Victory Mosque".  If the activity center is denied, it will show the world Americans are evil and hate Muslims.  To the extremists it will either be a bloody shirt or a white flag.



So you admit that there is a bloody shirt and I'm not bonkers?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 1, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So you admit that there is a bloody shirt and I'm not bonkers?


No, you are quite bonkers because it's you who believes that these hateful extremists will somehow become pacifists if we play ball with their plans.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 1, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Well, now, careful, Carol-we can't trust* that* source...


Ye Jeff, I suppose if  were to use Fox News as the source of any information I may have you wouldn't be rolling tour eyes. :rofl:


----------



## elder999 (Sep 1, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> No, you are quite bonkers because it's you who believes that these hateful extremists will somehow become pacifists if we play ball with their plans.


 

No,* you're* bonkers for failing to acknowledge that not all Muslims are "these hateful extremists." :lfao:

As for the FoxNews thing, facts are facts, and usually incontavertible: if you cite Fox, and it proves to be true, it doesn't matter who says it. The website says that the sources of funding will be vetted and made public-we kind of have to take them at their word, since they don't seem to have any significant funding yet...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 1, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> No, you are quite bonkers because it's you who believes that these hateful extremists will somehow become pacifists if we play ball with their plans.



I haven't said anything of the sort.

I've said that the visceral and emotional negative reaction to the so-called 'Ground Zero Mosque' has the unwanted consequence of giving the extremists a bloody shirt to wave around as a recruiting tool, which they're clearly doing.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 1, 2010)

elder999 said:


> No,* you're* bonkers for failing to acknowledge that not all Muslims are "these hateful extremists." :lfao:
> 
> As for the FoxNews thing, facts are facts, and usually incontavertible: if you cite Fox, and it proves to be true, it doesn't matter who says it. The website says that the sources of funding will be vetted and made public-we kind of have to take them at their word, since they don't seem to have any significant funding yet...


Look through my past posts Jeff and you will notice that I refer to Muslim extremists, most notably muslims who are fixted with sharia.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 1, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> Look through my past posts Jeff and you will notice that I refer to Muslim extremists, most notably muslims who are fixted with sharia.


 

"Sharia" covers a loit of grouind, and is subject to quite a few interpretations, most of which are no more extremist than Hebraic law. In fact, that's akin to what the Imam is proposing, as far as sharia goes: if an Orthodox Jew gets a divorce in the U.S., court rulings generally follow the Hebraic proceedings-he wants the same for *his moderate*, and far more commonplace interpretation of sharia.

He doesn't want to stone accused adulterous women in Central Park, or anything of the sort-though it's easy to see how someone who wasn't apprised of the somewhat nuanced facts could assume as much....


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 1, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I haven't said anything of the sort.
> 
> I've said that the visceral and emotional negative reaction to the so-called 'Ground Zero Mosque' has the unwanted consequence of giving the extremists a bloody shirt to wave around as a recruiting tool, which they're clearly doing.


Exactly, you believe that demonstarting and speaking out against the mosque is giving extremist muslims a "bloody shirt". So what is your solution, stay quiet and don't speak out. You want us to ignore our first amendment right because muslims will get offended and cut more westerners heads off worldwide. Listen to what you're saying.

Now, as I've said, the loser who stabbed the cabby needs to be dealt with accordingly and punished to the full extent of the law, but tell me this, what are the statistics on violence against muslims in the US since 9/11? Then again, what are the statistics on violence against non muslims by muslims in the Islamic world since 9/11? Let's start with Nick Byrg, I'm sure his beheading is still on Rotten.com or some of those other despicable websites.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 1, 2010)

elder999 said:


> "Sharia" covers a loit of grouind, and is subject to quite a few interpretations, most of which are no more extremist than Hebraic law.



Consider Canon Law for Catholics, or Halal for Muslims, or Kosher for Jews.  None of these things have any meaning outside of their religious believers, but they accept that such law exists for the believers.

http://askfsis.custhelp.com/cgi-bin...?p_faqid=375&p_created=1180974843&p_topview=1



> Question
> If a label bears a Halal or Kosher statement, does FSIS have to monitor the production of the product to observe ritual slaughter of animals?
> 
> Answer
> No, the acceptability of the ritual used is the responsibility of the religious organization.  How they verify the acceptability is up to the organization.  FSIS inspection personnel may verify that the label is not falsified by verifying that the appropriate religious organization was contacted.



Of course, 'Sharia Law' means a lot of different things, to different Muslim groups as well as to non-Muslims.  Unfortunately, it has a very sinister meaning in the West, and it scares people.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 1, 2010)

elder999 said:


> "Sharia" covers a loit of grouind, and is subject to quite a few interpretations, most of which are no more extremist than Hebraic law. In fact, that's akin to what the Imam is proposing, as far as sharia goes: if an Orthodox Jew gets a divorce in the U.S., court rulings generally follow the Hebraic proceedings-he wants the same for *his moderate*, and far more commonplace interpretation of sharia.
> 
> He doesn't want to stone accused adulterous women in Central Park, or anything of the sort-though it's easy to see how someone who wasn't apprised of the somewhat nuanced facts could assume as much....


I understand what sharia is and how it works to some extent. Sharia itself is extremely vast and can be interpreted in many ways and oftentimes correlates with the civil laws that we follow on a day to day basis. Sharia however has no place in US society, the law of the land should be our guide. I know of some boroughs of the UK now where Sharia is being followed as an alternative to the law of the land because of the pervasive nature of Islam. Now, I understand that these folks got this building on the cheap, but it would be a noble gesture if they would simply relocate this center. Tolerance goes both ways.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 1, 2010)

elder999 said:


> He doesn't want to stone accused adulterous women in Central Park, or anything of the sort-though it's easy to see how someone who wasn't apprised of the somewhat nuanced facts could assume as much....


How do you know? He can't do that at the moment, but I would like to really know what his views are on this. I'm not saying that this is what he wants, I'm saying we don't know.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 1, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> Exactly, you believe that demonstarting and speaking out against the mosque is giving extremist muslims a "bloody shirt". So what is your solution, stay quiet and don't speak out. You want us to ignore our first amendment right because muslims will get offended and cut more westerners heads off worldwide. Listen to what you're saying.



Not so fast.  You claimed it was NOT giving them a bloody shirt.  When I proved it, you then said you meant that all along.



> Now, as I've said, the loser who stabbed the cabby needs to be dealt with accordingly and punished to the full extent of the law, but tell me this, what are the statistics on violence against muslims in the US since 9/11? Then again, what are the statistics on violence against non muslims by muslims in the Islamic world since 9/11? Let's start with Nick Byrg, I'm sure his beheading is still on Rotten.com or some of those other despicable websites.



Our law is not dependent upon the laws or lawlessness of other countries, and our application of both civil liberties and religious tolerance is not dependent upon how well they are respected elsewhere.  I have yet to see a court case in the USA find that an infringement of civil rights is justified against a person from Country A because Country A doesn't respect our rights in turn.  I find it depressing that you claim to believe in the rule of law, and then explain why it should not apply since 'they' are much worse than 'us'.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 1, 2010)

crushing said:


> Extremists and radical clerics (not unlike our own politicians) will play this issue up no matter which way it goes. If it the Muslim center is allowed, they will consider it a "Victory Mosque". If the activity center is denied, it will show the world Americans are evil and hate Muslims. To the extremists it will either be a bloody shirt or a white flag.


 

This "Victory mosque" thing is a fabrication.  If it held any traction what so ever, then extremist groups would claim that it is indeed a victory moque in order to discredit the imam and raising tensions further in the US.  Why they haven't done it is because unlike many Fox listeners, most Muslims realize it is a bunch of hooey.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 1, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> Now, I understand that these folks got this building on the cheap, but it would be a noble gesture if they would simply relocate this center.



How far?



> Tolerance goes both ways.



What tolerance are they supposed to be showing Christianity that they are not?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 1, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> I know of some boroughs of the UK now where Sharia is being followed as an alternative to the law of the land because of the pervasive nature of Islam.



http://www.islamic-sharia.org/



> *Statistics:
> 
> *  	 		 			  * 1982-1995
> 1,500 Cases  		 		 			  * 1996-2002 			  3,000 Cases  		 		 			  * 2003 - 2005
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Sharia_Council



> The council has no legal authority or jurisdiction in the United Kingdom[1].



http://bostonreview.net/BR34.2/bowen.php



> Muslims can easily find Islamic institutions for mediation or  arbitrationwhat the British papers call sharia courtsin London,  Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester, and elsewhere. The tribunals provide  downloadable forms on their web sites, charge set fees for service, and  meet on scheduled days of the month. Most of them offer only nonbinding  mediation. The exception is the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, which  recently registered under the Arbitration Act and places a solicitor  sidebyside with the Islamic scholar. The solicitor can make contracts  binding, enforceable in the civil courts. Beyond these formal  institutions, individual Muslim men, often imams at local mosques, offer  advice about family and other matters to Muslims.



This is no different than binding private arbitration in the USA.  First, both parties must agree to it.  Second, it is binding in civil courts only if recognized by a civil court of law as well.  Consider both Roman Catholic law in the USA (different laws affecting Catholics, but only binding on Catholics and only with their permission) and Judge Judy and similar TV shows or binding arbitration with various professional organizations representing doctors, lawyers, and so on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...m-dispensing-justice-side-British-courts.html



> In Britain, sharia courts are permitted to rule only in civil cases,  such as divorce and financial disputes. Until last year, these rulings  depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims. But now, due to a clause  in the Arbitration Act 1996, *they are enforceable by county and high  courts. *
> *Sharia courts are classified in the same way as  arbitration tribunals - with rulings binding in law provided both  parties in the dispute agree to give them the power to rule on their  case. *
> However, a Muslim couple must still be divorced in the  British courts for it to recognised under British law. The same  provision in the Arbitration Act applies to *Jewish Beth Din* courts,  which resolve similar civil cases.



There is nothing sinister here.  No one can be dragged to Sharia Court in the UK without their permission, and both parties have to agree to any decision made.

Imagine that; two parties, both presumably Muslim, who wish to have their case heard by a council that understands their religious beliefs and how it impacts the conflict in question.  Both agree to be bound by the decision, and it has no force of law unless both agree to the decision as well.  Oh, that's horrible!

Oh wait.  That sounds like Major League Baseball contract negotiations!


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 1, 2010)

elder999 said:


> No,* you're* bonkers for failing to acknowledge that not all Muslims are "these hateful extremists." :lfao:
> 
> As for the FoxNews thing, facts are facts, and usually incontavertible: if you cite Fox, and it proves to be true, it doesn't matter who says it. The website says that the sources of funding will be vetted and made public-we kind of have to take them at their word, since they don't seem to have any significant funding yet...


 

You mean this potential funding : http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/news_corp_remains_silent_on_da.html


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 1, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not so fast. You claimed it was NOT giving them a bloody shirt. When I proved it, you then said you meant that all along.
> 
> 
> 
> Our law is not dependent upon the laws or lawlessness of other countries, and our application of both civil liberties and religious tolerance is not dependent upon how well they are respected elsewhere. I have yet to see a court case in the USA find that an infringement of civil rights is justified against a person from Country A because Country A doesn't respect our rights in turn. I find it depressing that you claim to believe in the rule of law, and then explain why it should not apply since 'they' are much worse than 'us'.


 
You obviously find many things depressing Bill. It's not about country A or B, it's about ideology. The guy who stabbed the cabby was wrong, pure and simple, but attacks on muslims by non muslims in the US over the past ten years pales in significance to the almost 3000 killed in 9/11.
Now, you and this Imam may claim the UBL was made in the US, but as far as I'm concerned you would be wrong. He was in some way funded by the US when he was fighting with mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Russians, but his ideology is his own.
It is incendiary for this Imam to say such things at a time when he has plans to build a madrassa just a couple of blocks from ground zero. As if this is going to some how allure him to the US populace as a whole.
Oh and btw, the fanatical muslim community will keep waving a "bloody shirt" as long as we have a vested interest in the middle east and until we pray five times per day facing Mecca.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 1, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> You mean this potential funding : http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/news_corp_remains_silent_on_da.html


Nice try! I'm sure this guy is a shareholder in many different companies, probably Haliburton if he is wise. He's probably wise to have shares in Newscorp as more and more people are using their media outlets in some way or another, but I don't think Rupert Murdoch can do much about who owns stock in Newscorp when it is public.

On the other hand, if the Saudis are going to fund this, it's going to be a madrassa pure and simple.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 1, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> You mean this potential funding : http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/news_corp_remains_silent_on_da.html


 

I did find it amusing that Stewart's conclusion is that we shouldn't watch Fox News or we'll be supporting terrorism.  I also think it speaks volumes that they have absolutely no comment when other Stewart pieces have incited a very quick response through thier morning show.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 1, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is nothing sinister here. No one can be dragged to Sharia Court in the UK without their permission, and both parties have to agree to any decision made.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1055764/Islamic-sharia-courts-Britain-legally-binding.html
> 
> Read this Bill! These bastards have a great way of using our laws against us.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 1, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> You obviously find many things depressing Bill. It's not about country A or B, it's about ideology. The guy who stabbed the cabby was wrong, pure and simple, but attacks on muslims by non muslims in the US over the past ten years pales in significance to the almost 3000 killed in 9/11.



Yes, it does.  But you offer equivalence and then claim you don't.  It's one or the other.  Either it's OK for us to attack Muslims in retaliation for having been attacked by Muslims or it is not.  If it is not, then what happened on 9/11 has nothing to do with us attacking Muslims in the USA now.  You cannot have it both ways.



> Now, you and this Imam may claim the UBL was made in the US, but as far as I'm concerned you would be wrong. He was in some way funded by the US when he was fighting with mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Russians, but his ideology is his own.


No one said his ideology wasn't his own.  The claim was that he was 'made' in the USA and that statement is correct, as you've now agreed.



> It is incendiary for this Imam to say such things at a time when he has plans to build a madrassa just a couple of blocks from ground zero.


He didn't say it recently, he said it after 9/11.



> As if this is going to some how allure him to the US populace as a whole.


I don't think you know what the word 'allure' means.



> Oh and btw, the fanatical muslim community will keep waving a "bloody shirt" as long as we have a vested interest in the middle east and until we pray five times per day facing Mecca.


Nope.  You haven't addressed your back steps, and I'm not letting you off the hook.  First you said they didn't, and when I proved they did, you claimed you not only knew that, but you said it first.  Sorry, you owe some explanations before you play 'look over there' games.

This isn't about the argument, this is about you.  You made it personal when you stated I was insane.  Now you get to back up, apologize, or I keep after you until you give up and go away.  Plain and simple.  You screwed the pooch when you came after me, son.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 1, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> Nice try! I'm sure this guy is a shareholder in many different companies, probably Haliburton if he is wise. He's probably wise to have shares in Newscorp as more and more people are using their media outlets in some way or another, but I don't think Rupert Murdoch can do much about who owns stock in Newscorp when it is public.



Murdoch owns stock in his media companies too.  They're friends.  Get it?



> On the other hand, if the Saudis are going to fund this, it's going to be a madrassa pure and simple.



You make a lot of allegations, but you can't back up anything, and so far all your statements of definite fact are provable lies.  You don't like to admit that, so you change the subject and refer to people as insane.  Sorry, game over.  You lose.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 1, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> Bill Mattocks said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing sinister here. No one can be dragged to Sharia Court in the UK without their permission, and both parties have to agree to any decision made.
> ...


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 2, 2010)

I can choose to have any civil dispute with another Jew settled by a Beit Din. Does that mean the Ontario is ruled by Halacha?


----------



## xJOHNx (Sep 2, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> You obviously find many things depressing Bill. It's not about country A or B, it's about ideology. The guy who stabbed the cabby was wrong, pure and simple, but attacks on muslims by non muslims in the US over the past ten years pales in significance to the almost 3000 killed in 9/11.
> Now, you and this Imam may claim the UBL was made in the US, but as far as I'm concerned you would be wrong. He was in some way funded by the US when he was fighting with mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Russians, but his ideology is his own.
> It is incendiary for this Imam to say such things at a time when he has plans to build a madrassa just a couple of blocks from ground zero. As if this is going to some how allure him to the US populace as a whole.
> Oh and btw, the fanatical muslim community will keep waving a "bloody shirt" as long as we have a vested interest in the middle east and until we pray five times per day facing Mecca.


About the first paragraph: et alors? Or do you want the eye for an eye treatment? Kill 3000 muslims, so we can be even on that?
What is it that you want to say? Because really, you are throwing around wild arguments.

I think we both can agree that the acts that were commited by a few do not count for the the whole. As many Suffi scholars and even traditional Muslims have deemed the attack on 9/11 as pure horror.

The fanatical muslim community doesn't care about you converting. They really don't. As they have already killed other fellow-muslims (which is clearly prohibited by the Quran). Wise up, it's all about politics and power. Under a varnish coat called Islam (as it has always been with every group that is using religion as a tool to reach their goals).


----------



## Carol (Sep 2, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> I can choose to have any civil dispute with another Jew settled by a Beit Din. Does that mean the Ontario is ruled by Halacha?



Probably no more so than enjoying Mulligatawny Soup at an Udupi Bhavan means that you are a vegetarian Hindu.  

I think the concern that YL is voicing is over how voluntary "voluntary" truly is.  I remember this debate among local Muslims about 5 years ago or so, when England permitted some matters to be decided by a Shari'a court (if that is the proper term).  Some Muslims in both of our nations were up in arms about the idea...stating that they had emigrated west to _escape_ such a thing.

To me it is parallel to the subject that Blade96 brought up, that of forced arranged marriages.   There is noting illegal about an arranged marriage, but I don't think a forced marriage is legal under civil law.  My understanding is that each person must enter in to the marriage of their own free will.  But what recourse does a young person have if they are being forced in to this arrangement by everyone they know?  Especially in a tight eastern community where the people tend to take social matters much more personally and treat offenders to their ideals with much outward revulsion and disgust than we typically experience in western communities.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 2, 2010)

Carol said:


> I think the concern that YL is voicing is over how voluntary "voluntary" truly is.  I remember this debate among local Muslims about 5 years ago or so, when England permitted some matters to be decided by a Shari'a court (if that is the proper term).  Some Muslims in both of our nations were up in arms about the idea...stating that they had emigrated west to _escape_ such a thing.



This is where I part company with some.  I see that as liberals wringing their hands and trying to get the government's camel's nose under the tent.

What you appear to be saying is that there is social pressure on Muslims to accept the authority of these courts, so it would appear that they accept such arbitration voluntarily, when in fact they do not.

I can imagine such a thing happening.  I also cannot imagine a scenario under which it could be determined if a person was being influenced by their peers or not.  I would also venture the guess that YL is not deeply concerned about the poor, poor, disadvantaged Muslim youths who are trapped in their own culture.



> To me it is parallel to the subject that Blade96 brought up, that of forced arranged marriages.   There is noting illegal about an arranged marriage, but I don't think a forced marriage is legal under civil law.  My understanding is that each person must enter in to the marriage of their own free will.  But what recourse does a young person have if they are being forced in to this arrangement by everyone they know?  Especially in a tight eastern community where the people tend to take social matters much more personally and treat offenders to their ideals with much outward revulsion and disgust than we typically experience in western communities.



How does a person from the outside of such a culture tell whether or not an arranged marriage is truly voluntary on the part of both parties?  The alternative here would be to not allow cultures to practice their own beliefs and practices in the hopes of stopping a small minority who might be silently oppressed by such things.  Destroy the culture to save it.  Invade the right of the family to govern the family itself, insert the government, and for what?  To protect those who will not or choose not to speak up for themselves.

At a certain point, one must say that if a person is 'oppressed' and does not wish to do as their family wishes them to do, they must speak up.  If they do not, that is sadly their problem.  The only alternative is to destroy all family life in order to protect a tiny minority.

No one asked me if I wanted to be circumcised.  Shall the government tell parents they cannot perform this religious (for some Jews) ceremony?  No one asked me if I wanted to be baptized, confirmed, etc in the Catholic Church.  My family doesn't engage in arranged marriages, but my family certainly let me know that they didn't approve of my first marriage and brought pressure on me.  Shall the government protect me from them?

When a bride and groom get married and the bride is clearly pregnant, does any government agency step in to ensure that it's not a 'shotgun wedding' in the literal or figurative sense?  I don't think so.  If both say _"I do"_ at the wedding, that's pretty much it.

In my opinion, the government's job is to ensure that if a person objects to (arranged marriage, etc), that their right to refuse be protected.  If they do not object, I don't see it as the government's job to stick it's nose in.  I realize that some weak individuals will thereby be victimized.  I'm sorry about that, but I see no acceptable solution for it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 2, 2010)

Words mean things.  A madrassa is an Islamic school, not a community center, and not a mosque.  Some are run by extremists, most are probably not, but the word itself just means a school.


----------



## Carol (Sep 2, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Words mean things.  A madrassa is an Islamic school, not a community center, and not a mosque.  Some are run by extremists, most are probably not, but the word itself just means a school.



There are many in the United States, 10 in Massachusetts alone, including this school in a not-so-great town on the NH border which boasts a 7 to 1 student teacher ratio (!!)

http://www.theislamicacademy.com/IAPData/iap.asp


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 2, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, it does. But you offer equivalence and then claim you don't. It's one or the other. Either it's OK for us to attack Muslims in retaliation for having been attacked by Muslims or it is not. If it is not, then what happened on 9/11 has nothing to do with us attacking Muslims in the USA now. You cannot have it both ways.
> 
> No one said his ideology wasn't his own. The claim was that he was 'made' in the USA and that statement is correct, as you've now agreed.
> 
> ...


 
"Screwed the pooch", you really are amusing Bill! Let's address a few things here:
UBL was not made here! The US contributed to a group that he was associated with through funding and training. He is a result of indoctrination that he recieved from the Saudis. Btw his ideology isn't his own, it is shared by millions of muslims worldwide.

You think this Imam's chides to the US make it ok because it was right after 9/11. It makes it worse. 

Allure: to entice by charm or attraction.
I must admit, I was allured to the catholic church at one time. The images of Christ dying for my sins and the charm of the baby Jesus at Christmas had an impact. That is before I realized the truth that the hierarchy were only interested in making money and protecting pedos.

Anyway, it looks like the majority of the population are against you on this one. I think you apologist's take on things is getting old and tired with the people at large.

Btw Bill, I don't believe in the slightest that it is ok to attack random muslims as this creep has done and I believe I've made that clear. My point is, as you well know is that I do not want this one incident to be used to tar all who don't agree with the center with the same brush.

Oh, and because you like to play the semantics game, I will end by saying, I didn't call you insane at all. I refered to you as "bonkers". Which as far as I'm concerned means that you are tragically crazy, in an almost comical sense.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 2, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I can imagine such a thing happening. I also cannot imagine a scenario under which it could be determined if a person was being influenced by their peers or not. I would also venture the guess that YL is not deeply concerned about the poor, poor, disadvantaged Muslim youths who are trapped in their own culture.
> 
> 
> .


 
Oh, how well you know me.......NOT!!


----------

