Does the West need to actively and massively kill all Muslims?
- Thread starter gastropod
- Start date
A 100 Million $ mosque in downtown Manhattan makes no sense AT ALL to me. That money could be better spent on Pakistani flood victims &/ or educating poor Muslims ...than building a stupid community center in the middle of an expensive neighborhood where very few if any muslims live. Mosques should serve the community, not the self-aggrandizing delusions of some stupid imam.
The people who oppose building the mosque are right for the wrong reasons. it's a very very inefficient use of capital....
Where they're completely wrong is equating this with "symbol of victory" BULLSHIT, but then when 40 sthg % of the GOP think the Prez is Muslim... ...that sort of madness is to be expected.
Yes, not to say the MSNBC or CNN are better. each network has their "mission." but they all operate the same way : shaping opinions through emotional pornography, a masterful use of that focus-groups favorite & battle tested tool : " Narrative."
I'm just saying your opinions are largely based on narratives the media have drilled into your head than any real fact gathering/ thinking exercise.
I'm not saying conservatives are in the least more racist than others..it's absolutely not true. What is true however is that bad economic times bring the "nativisit" in all of us. I wouldn't for an instant conflate that with racism. it's usually a mild & reversible case of xenophobia that disappears at the first glimpses of a recovery. I totally understand why a blue collar worker would get mad when caught between his livelihood being outsourced & illegal aliens screwing with labor market elasticity & hampering anyone "legal" with legitimate aspirations from making a decent living.
The truth remains that Most of you Muslim hating people would suck Hannity's cock the instant he'd take it out of the zipper. you're that subservient to the Murdoch propaganda machine.
Muslims are called many things, but stupid is not one of them by far. Then, WHY are the developers and Imam Rauf insist on insulting so many Americans? Is this a shakedown? Makes no sense other than the symbolic "finger in the eye" theory that matches the chosen name "Cordoba" meaning (to them) victory against the Western world.
Here's something interesting from www.thenationalscene.com
"Westerners who defend the building of the controversial mosque at ground zero do so on the grounds of religious freedom. Such First Amendment absolutism in the face of a deceptive religion whose beliefs are totally antithetical to our own, ultimately works against the West and aids in our own demise. American values such as liberty and religious freedom are fundamentally at odds with Islam. Sometimes in order to preserve liberty, ironically, you must enact restrictions against those who would destroy it.
Many believe there is no harm in allowing a mosque, of all things, to be built so close to the greatest act of terrorism - committed in the name of Islam - on American soil. They donât seem to grasp the larger implications of how Islam would view this, and what it means for America.
The following article by Raymond Ibrahim sheds much needed light on why this 9/11 mosque is so sinister. He offers a great deal of historical background into the two faces of Islam, and how the West is being duped into allowing what amounts to a shrine of our defeat and a call to continued jihad.
'Depending on whether Islamists address Americans or fellow Muslims, the same exact words they use often relay diametrically opposed meanings. One example: when Americans hear Muslims evoke âjustice,â the former envision Western-style justice, whereas Muslims naturally have Sharia law justice in mind.
Islamists obviously use this to their advantage: when addressing the West, Osama bin Laden bemoans the âjustice of our causes, particularly Palestineâ; yet, when addressing Muslims, his notion of justice far transcends territorial disputes and becomes unintelligible from a Western perspective: âBattle, animosity, and hatred-directed from the Muslim to the infidel-is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them. The West perceives fighting, enmity, and hatred all for the sake of the religion [i.e., Islam] as unjust, hostile, and evil. But whoâs understanding is right-our notions of justice and righteousness, or theirs?â (Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).
Of course, that Osama bin Laden-slayer of 3,000 Americans and avowed enemy to the rest-exhibits two faces, one to Americans another to Muslims, is not surprising. Yet the reader may well be surprised to discover that the controversial Cordoba Initiative, which plans on manifesting itself as the largest American mosque, situated atop Ground Zero-that is, atop the carnage caused by none other than bin Laden-also has two faces, conveying one thing to Americans, quite another to Muslims.
The very name of the initiative itself, âCordoba,â offers different connotations to different people: In the West, the Andalusian city of Cordoba is regularly touted as the model of medieval Muslim progressiveness and tolerance for Christians and Jews. To many Americans, then, the choice to name the mosque âCordobaâ is suggestive of rapprochement and interfaith dialogue; atop the rubble of 9/11, it implies âhealingâ-a new beginning between Muslims and Americans. The Cordoba Initiativeâs mission statement certainly suggests as much:
Cordoba Initiative aims to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, bringing back the atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect that we have longed for since Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony and prosperity eight hundred years ago.
Oddly enough, the so-called âtolerantâ era of Cordoba supposedly occurred during the caliphate of âAbd al-Rahman III (912-961)-well over a thousand years ago. âEight hundred years ago,â i.e., around 1200, the fanatical Almohids-ideological predecessors of al-Qaeda-were ravaging Cordoba, where âChristians and Jews were given the choice of conversion, exile, or death.â
A Freudian slip on the part of the Cordoba Initiative?
At any rate, the true history of Cordoba, not to mention the whole of Andalusia, is far less inspiring than what Western academics portray: the Christian city was conquered by Muslims around 711, its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. The original mosque of Cordoba-the namesake of the Ground Zero mosque-was built atop, and partly from the materials of, a Christian church. Modern day Muslims are well aware of all this. Such is the true-and ominous-legacy of Cordoba.
More pointedly, throughout Islamâs history, whenever a region was conquered, one of the first signs of consolidation was/is the erection of a mosque atop the sacred sites of the vanquished: the pagan Kaâba temple in Arabia was converted into Islamâs holiest site, the mosque of Mecca; the al-Aqsa mosque, Islamâs third holiest site, was built atop Solomonâs temple in Jerusalem; the Umayyad mosque was built atop the Church of St. John the Baptist; and the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque upon the conquest of Constantinople.
(Speaking of, in 2006, when the Pope visited the Hagia Sophia in Turkey, there was a risk that the âIslamic world [would go] into paroxysms of furyâ if there was âany perception that the pope is trying to re-appropriate a Christian center that fell to Muslims,â for example, if he had dared pray there-this even as Muslims today seek to build a mosque on the rubble of the Twin Towers.)
Such double-standards lead us back to the issue of double-meanings: As for the literal wording of the mosque project, âCordoba House,â it too offers opposing paradigms of thought: to Westerners, the English word âhouseâ suggests shelter, intimacy-coziness, even; in classical Arabic, however, the word for house, dar, can also mean âregion,â and is regularly used in a divisive sense, as in Dar al-Harb, i.e., âinfidel region of war.â Thus, to Muslim ears, while âCordobaâ offers allusions of conquest and domination, dar is further suggestive of division and separation (from infidels, a la the doctrine of al-Walaâ wa al-Baraâ, for instance).
Words aside, even the mosqueâs scheduled opening date-9/11/2011-has two aspects: to Americans, opening the mosque on 9/11 is to proclaim a new beginning with the Muslim world on the ten-year anniversary of the worst terror strikes on American soil; however, it just so happens that Koranic verse 9:111 is one of the loftiest calls for suicidal jihad-believers are exhorted to âkill and be killedâ-and is probably the reason al-Qaeda originally chose that date to strike. So while Americans may think the mosqueâs planned 9/11 opening is meant to commemorate that date, cryptically speaking, it is an evocation for all out war. A ânew beginning,â indeed, but of a very different sort, namely, the propagation of more Islamists and jihadists-mosques are, after all, epicenters of radicalization-on, of all places, soil sacred to America.
Some final thoughts on the history of Cordoba and the ominous parallels it bodes for America: though many Christian regions were conquered by Islam prior to Cordoba, its conquest signified the first time a truly âWesternâ region was conquered by the sword of Islam. It was also used as a base to launch further attacks into the heart of Europe (until decisively beaten at the Battle of Tours), just as, perhaps, the largest mosque in America will be used as a base to subvert the rest of the United States. And, the sacking of the original Cordoba was facilitated by an insider traitor-a warning to the U.S., which seems to have no end of traitors and willing lackeys.
Such, then, is the dual significance of the Cordoba Initiative: What appears to many Americans as a gesture of peace and interfaith dialogue, is to Muslims allusive of Islamist conquest and consolidation; mosques, which Americans assume are Muslim counterparts to Christian churches-that is, places where altruistic Muslims congregate and pray for world peace and harmony-are symbols of domination and centers of radicalization; the numbers of the opening date, 9/11/11, appear to Americans as commemorative of a new beginning, whereas the Koranic significance of those numbers is suicidal jihad. Of course, the two faces of the Cordoba House should not be surprising considering that the man behind the initiative, Feisal Abdul Rauf, also has two faces.
Going along with the historic analogy, there is one bit of good news: As opposed to the vast majority of onetime Western/Christian nations annexed by Islam, Cordoba, Spain did ultimately manage to overthrow the Islamic yoke. Though only after some 700 years of occupation.'"
@ Yannis
Debunked. you don't have to take my "Muslim" word for it
http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html
Debunked. you don't have to take my "Muslim" word for it
http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html
