Muslim Center on Ground Zero APPROVED By Board.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think you pwned yourself Mr Galt. You do it every time you generalise on this subject.

P.S. The Vatican is IN Rome, it is not Rome itself.

Yes but its population is 800 and its basically its own little country, definitely not compatible to Mecca. Therefore you basically have to compare it to rome.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Sousuke

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It wasn't my point, but the population isn't relevant to the fact that both are exclusive holy sites.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It wasn't my point, but the population isn't relevant to the fact that both are exclusive holy sites.

It is when you consider all 800 are Catholics. I rather doubt the population in Mecca is so homogeneous. Also there are more holy sites outside of the Vatican in rome than inside.

[GabiandVi 34]

When there's a synagogue built in the Vatican?

This would be like saying when there is a Christian chapel built in the Blue Mosque.

Meanwhile, Agia Sophia (the "Mecca" of Orthodox Christians), just up the street from the Blue Mosque, is a museum, no longer a place of worship.

I mean, I think the entire thing is a ridiculous argument, but you can't compare Mecca and the Vatican. The Vatican ONLY exists as a Catholic state and was nothing before it was established as one. Mecca existed BEFORE Islam, WAS NOT a Muslim city and continued to have NON Muslim residents. I could go on pointing out the obvious differences between the two places.

However, I take the point that Synagogues being built in Mecca would not be a prerequisite for anything.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The reference to the Vatican was an inane response to an inane post - I wouldn't read more into it than that.

Of course you kind of have to wonder why the emphasis of response is on the reply rather than the original post.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So the contention is that most Muslims support terrorism.

Beautiful. As I say, this hate ####### should not be allowed on this site.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Yes but its population is 800 and its basically its own little country, definitely not compatible to Mecca. Therefore you basically have to compare it to rome.

There's nothing inane about my response. The Vatican is quite comparible to Mecca in that both are dedicated to a specific faith.

Vatican City State was founded following the signing of the Lateran Pacts between the Holy See and Italy on February 11th 1929. These were ratified on June 7th 1929. Its nature as a sovereign State distinct from the Holy See is universally recognized under international law...

Mecca is a holy city within a sovereign state, and no sovereign state can be compelled to accomodate any particular faith, if that is their choice not to. The Vatican has no plans to allow the building of masjids, synagogues or protestant churches, as far as I know, so a bunch of bigots must be running it, according to the logic displayed here.

Unlike you folks, I have been to Mecca, and, yes, everyone in Mecca is Muslim. Non-Muslims are not allowed to even visit there.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Jenn! 918]

we know full well there are many peaceful Muslims but we also know these attacks always have one common denominator AT THEIR ROOT.

Exactly....the large majority, who obviously have misinterpreted their faith. Why do they choose to be peaceful when their religion so clearly dictates otherwise?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I think it's time you go and start your own website rather than spend 50% of your posts trying to decide who can post here and what the terms should be.

In your bigotry... you assume everyone who sees Islam as a religion with a -disturbing amount of hostility- must be "haters".

We are not haters, we know full well there are many peaceful Muslims but we also know these attacks always have one common denominator AT THEIR ROOT.

Get lost Pike.

A disturbing amount of hostility, eh?

In Defense of Pat Robertson

Pat Robertson and others are right about Islam being a violent religion. Look at the evidence for yourself.

Pat Robertson recently drew attacks from Muslim groups for calling Muhammad a "wild-eyed fanatic," among other things. Robertson, as usual, states the case in excessively inflammatory terms.

But it must be said that Robertson's basic critique of Islam as an inherently violent religion is accurate. This may not be politically correct to say, but one need only examine evidence. Islam is not only violent in its current practice but at its core--which is to say in its sacred text, the Qur'an.

Remember that Muhammad was a military leader and as such involved personally in a great deal of brutality. In the course of one battle, Muhammad's troops raid a village and kill everyone "until there was no survivor left." [Full citations provided below.] During another battle, Muhammad's troops killed many men but the "prophet" is disturbed that male infants weren't murdered too--and sends the troops back to finish the job.

The early Muslims are shown to be not only brutal but treacherous (a fact worth remembering as we consider peace treaties with Muslim nations). In one battle, the Muhammadans promised peace to a tribe nearby. Then, when the other tribe members were lulled into complacency, Muhammad massacred "all the males." They kept the women as slaves.

The hatred for other faiths that we see in modern Islam has its roots in the Qur'an. The book tells how the Jews of the area had offered peace and Muhammad invited them to a ceremony to declare peace. Instead, Muhammad massacred the 950 of them.

Muhammad even countenances brutality against his own people. When a group in the region reputedly insulted Allah by worshiping an idol, Muhammad led the slaughter of 3,000 people in a single day. When some of his followers strayed by following non-Islamic sex practices, Allah literally directs Muhammad to slaughter another 24,000: "take all the heads of the people and hang them up before Allah against the sun."

Under the Sharia, the Islamic law, even the slightest infractions are punished with brutal violence. Some foods were not cooked according to Halal laws? Two men were immediately executed.

The notion that Allah is a forgiving God is comical. At one point, Muhammad had led his troops to victory and then had his troops mutilate the genitalia of the opponents. He and his allies also set fire to a walled city and then waited for the victims to flee, at which point they were ambushed and slaughtered. Putting aside the historical accuracy of that account, is this really the "God of Peace" that Muslim leaders speak about?

The appalling treatment of women we see in Islamic countries today also has its roots in the Qur'an. When a mob of Muslims is attacking a man, he responds by offering his own daughter to be raped. Allah teaches the Muslims that to in order repopulate a diminished tribe, they should go to a nearby field, wait for the women to come out, and then kidnap, rape and marry them.

This is all very consistent with the basic theology of Islam spelled out in chilling clarity by Muhammed himself: "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Finally, if there's any doubt about the fanatical nature of the faith, it should be dispelled with this chilling passage: "Happy shall they be who take your little ones [babies] and dash them against the rock."

If you are skeptical, I urge you to read the passages and citations yourself. It's there in black and white.

Hmmm, I seem to have made a few errors with the attributions. The passages you've just read are not from the Qur'an; they're from the Bible. Where I say Muhammad, I actually meant either Moses, Joshua, David, or another biblical figure. "I have not come to bring peace but a sword" was uttered by Jesus. When I say "Allah," I actually meant God of the Hebrew Bible. And when I refer to Muhammed's troops, I actually meant the Hebrews. There are obviously many other examples of brutality in the Bible (the best summary I've seen is Gregg Easterbrook's "Beside Still Waters").

Forgive my sloppiness, but it seemed useful to make a point, which is not that Christianity or Judaism are inherently violent but rather that the exercise of scanning ancient texts and pulling out passages depicting violence is of dubious value. Men and women of that earlier day were violent, and so was the God of their sacred book.

I am not saying Islam is a "religion of peace." That actually seems as unprovable as saying it is a religion of violence. What matters fundamentally is how the religion is practiced now. Modern Christians and Jews have proven capable of rising above the violence of the Bible and so have many modern Muslims. That doesn't mean they necessarily will in all cases, but if they choose a path of violence it is not because it is embedded in the Qur'an but rather because they, as individuals, are twisted.

Citations:

For a particularly nice summary of the Bible's violent elements see Gregg Easterbrook's wonderful book, "Beside Still Waters."

Remember that Muhammad is a military leader and as such is involved personally a great deal of brutality. In the course of one battle led by Muhammad, he raids a village and kills everyone "until their was not one survivor left." (This is actually from Numbers 21:35, the story of the taking of Bashan.) After another battle, Muhammad's troops have slain many men but the "prophet" is disturbed that male infants weren't killed--so he sends the troops back to finish the job. (This actually occurs in Numbers 31:14-17, when Israel takes vengeance on the Mid'ianites.)

They are shown to be not only brutal but treacherous (history worth remembering as we consider peace treaties). In one battle, the Muhammadans promised peace to a tribe nearby and then, when they were lulled into complacency, massacred "all the males." They kept the women as slaves. (This is a story from Genesis 34:25, when Simeon and Levi take vengeance on Shechem, who had defiled their sister Dinah.)

The hatred for other faiths that we see in modern Islam has its roots in the Qur'an. At one point, the Jews of the area had offered peace and Muhammad invited them to a ceremony to declare peace. Instead, Muhammad massacred the 950 of them.

(As Elijah does, in

I Kings 18:40

, to the followers of the false God Ba'al.)

But it goes beyond that; Muhammad even countenances brutality against his own. When one group in the region reputedly insulted Allah by worshiping an idol, Muhammad led the slaughter of 3,000 people in a single day. Another group of dissenters prompted a bloody massacre led by Muhammed that killed 14,700 people, according to the Qur'an. (When Korah leads a rebellion against Moses and Aaron, a plague sent by God kills 14,700, Numbers 16:49). Later, when some of his followers strayed by following non-Islamic sex practices, Allah literally directs Muhammad to slaughter another 24,000: "take all the heads of the people and hang them up before Allah against the sun." (This slaughter occured in Numbers 25:9, when some Isarelites were found to have joined the Moabites in improper sex.)

Under the Sharia, the Islamic law, even the slightest infractions are punished with brutal violence. In one case, some foods were not cooked according to Halal laws, and the two men were immediately executed. (The Lord smites Nadab and Abi'hu, the sons of Aaron, in Leviticus 10:2, for offering an unholy sacrifice.)

The notion that Allah is a forgiving God is comical. At one point, some people had the temerity to question one of the dietary laws and Allah supposedly responded by sending poisonous snakes to kill people. At another point, Muhammed had led his troops to victory but then proceeded to murder and then mutilate the genitalia of the opponents. In one case, they set fire to a walled city and then wait of the fleeing victims and slaughter them as they try to escape. (As Joshua and the people of Israel do to the city of Ai in Joshua 8:22.)

The appalling treatment of women in Islamic countries today has its roots in the Qur'an. In one case, a mob of Muslims is attacking a man and he responds by offering his own daughter to be raped. (As in Judges 19:24.) In some cases, it specifies that women who are raped should be executed. (One of these cases appear in Deuteronomy 22:23-27.) In another case, Allah literally instructs the Muslims that to repopulate a diminished tribe they should go to a nearby field, wait for the women to come out, kidnap, rape and marry them. (In Judges 21:20-24, Benjamite soldiers are told to repopulate their tribe by kidnapping the women of Shiloh.)

This is all very consistent and the theology that undergirds this is spelled out in chilling clarity, directly from Muhammad himself: "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." (This quote is actually attributed to Jesus in the New Testament, Matthew 10:34.)

Finally, if there's any doubt about the fanatical nature of the faith, it should be dispelled with this chilling passage: "Happy shall they be who take your little ones [babies] and dash them against the rock." (This quote is actually from the Psalms, 137:9, when the exiled Israelites dream of revenge against Babylon.)

Edited May 31, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Exactly....the large majority, who obviously have misinterpreted their faith. Why do they choose to be peaceful when their religion so clearly dictates otherwise?

I've wondered about this, too. It says that Muslims who don't kill innocents are ignorant of their very hostile faith, and the ones who know Islam are the violent ones. Yea, right. This kind of thinking mirrors the the Brigette Gabriel explanation of the good Muslim as a non-practicing Muslim.

[Jenn! 918]

I've wondered about this, too. It says that Muslims who don't kill innocents are ignorant of their very hostile faith, and the ones who know Islam are the violent ones. Yea, right. This kind of thinking mirrors the the Brigette Gabriel explanation of the good Muslim as a non-practicing Muslim.

Indeed. Thank goodness for western influence that serves to temper the pious!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Source for post #93 "In Defense of Pat Robertson"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it's time you go and start your own website rather than spend 50% of your posts trying to decide who can post here and what the terms should be.

In your bigotry... you assume everyone who sees Islam as a religion with a -disturbing amount of hostility- must be "haters".

We are not haters, we know full well there are many peaceful Muslims but we also know these attacks always have one common denominator AT THEIR ROOT.

Get lost Pike.

Perhaps you should "get lost" Danno. Always trying to justify your own bigotry by hiding behind that of others. Pathetic.

What exactly are comments like the "Muslim world" and "weren't just a few extremists" supposed to signify if not that the opinions of extremists represent a plurality of opinion? How about having the courage to say what you really think.

[GabiandVi 34]

it wasn't just "the Muslim world" that did some cheering. There were and various groups, factions, etcetera that thought we got what we deserved. Some from so-called friendly nations.

Too true!!! And completely disgusting, no matter who they were.

[GabiandVi 34]

Unlike you folks, I have been to Mecca, and, yes, everyone in Mecca is Muslim. Non-Muslims are not allowed to even visit there.

But this is partly the point, isn't it? Mecca existed before Islam, and continued as a city with a variety of inhabitants for many years until it became too uncomfortable and finally prohibited for non-Muslims to even visit there. On the other hand, the Vatican did NOT exist until it was established. It was only established as a center for the Church. It consists of several buildings, not an entire city, and people of ANY and ALL faiths are and have always been WELCOME to visit. In fact, while the places are limited, you can stay for as long as your (legal) purpose requires, whether you are Catholic, Christian, of other faiths or no faith at all.

Regardless, a synagogue in Mecca is a ridiculous idea and a meaningless argument for anything. I don't think we need to bring the Vatican into it at all, and doing so muddies the argument for me because I don't see the parallels. I understand it in response to the comment that was made. As such, it was not unwarrented.