A Mosque On The Twin Towers Site?

[CaneBrain 95]

What exactly was the aim of the spanish inqusition? When I try to learn about it, I get confusing answers depending on the pov of the writer. Also, if you can respond in the next hour, I would reall appreciate a good fried chicken recipe.

To convert non-believers by any means possible and stamp out dissent from The Church....

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

The Muslim moors had ruled parts of spain for hundreds of years, and as such there was a great deal of muslims in spain. Also, the moors were permissive to "children of the book" so a large amount of jews had settled there. Ferdinand and Isabella were the first to unite (Ie conquer) all of spain and form one powerful kingdom, and their rule was naturally fragile. Where as most inquisitions were run by the Catholic Church, Isabella and Ferdinand had taken control of the spanish inquisition, and there after the inquisition was run by the state. Thus the purposes of it were primarily political, under the guise of religion, to establish Catholich homogeneity over the iberian peninsula, and by extension, solidify F & I's Catholic rule. There was also obviously economic interest, because the property of the inquested could be confiscated by the tribunals, and ultimately went to the crown. Plus, there is just some good old fashioned Medieval antisemitism , which has it's roots in the great jewish revolts against the Roman empire, and has been chugging along to this very day.

[Balloon guy 158]

What exactly was the aim of the spanish inqusition? When I try to learn about it, I get confusing answers depending on the pov of the writer. Also, if you can respond in the next hour, I would reall appreciate a good fried chicken recipe.

PowerAnd Lemon Pepper

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The Muslim moors had ruled parts of spain for hundreds of years

I'm sorry, but the card says, "Moops."

[85suited 0]

I'm sorry, but the card says, "Moops."

Bravo mr costanza

[antistuff 0]

Yup, I heard an interview with the lady who ran this group on the radio today.The Raelian movement is truly awesome. They think we were created in a lab by aliens.

Not that crazy. At least the concept of aliens is not a metaphysical one.

[Balloon guy 158]

Not that crazy. At least the concept of aliens is not a metaphysical one.

But it is often an analphysical one....

[WordsOfTheProphet 0]

But it is often an analphysical one....

http://www.kickasstorrents.com/search/anal-physical/Here you can download it absolutely for free!

[antistuff 0]

But it is often an analphysical one....

as long as they don't get married....

[Balloon guy 158]

as long as they don't get married....

You have been cracking me up lately.Don't think they go unnoticed. Funny, fitting and clever.Well done.

[Roll the Bones 74]

There is absolutely a competition between cultural/psychological systems in the world right now, and several of them are not compatible. The faster we realize this the better off we will be be. I think its ironic that much of this discussion was sidetracked on an irrelevant freedom of religion issue. The muslim culture is one that does not value freedom and individuality. Almost every place in which islam is in charge is a place where people are not guaranteed the freedom to speak their minds, to wear what they wish, regardless of their sex, religion, or race. That is an ideology which is incompatible with ours. The fact that it is spreading is definitely something to be concerned about, and we shouldn't wait until there is a minaret on every corner (like in Switzerland) to start thinking about how to deal with it.

Well, I don't think the freedom of religon issue is irrelevent. It roils my gut to see all the neo-conservatives spouting off hatred just like the radical Islamist. It comes down to whether we view moderate Islam as terrorists or not. I don't think we under any threat of there being enough Muslims to override our constitution and invoke Sharia law any time soon. It would be more likely that the Christians would get a majority and override things invoking Christian law. Obviously neither of us like the extremist on either side but I think we should encourage the moderates and speak out against racisim and bigotry. In fact all moderate Islamic countries with Sharia Law, still have a democratic government of some sort separate from it.I also believe that as technology and education improve in the Islamic societies people will start speaking out against religous doctrine just like we are doing here. Women for example will fight back from being oppressed. We should encourage those countries that support that freedom. I don't think that they will come here to escape oppression only to bring it back down on themselves. The hope does lie in the future.

[vbnautilus 48]

Well, I don't think the freedom of religon issue is irrelevent.

But virtually no one has said they don't have a legal right to build the mosque.

It roils my gut to see all the neo-conservatives spouting off hatred just like the radical Islamist.

You must hate that!

It comes down to whether we view moderate Islam as terrorists or not. I don't think we under any threat of there being enough Muslims to override our constitution and invoke Sharia law any time soon. It would be more likely that the Christians would get a majority and override things invoking Christian law. Obviously neither of us like the extremist on either side but I think we should encourage the moderates and speak out against racisim and bigotry. In fact all moderate Islamic countries with Sharia Law, still have a democratic government of some sort separate from it.I also believe that as technology and education improve in the Islamic societies people will start speaking out against religous doctrine just like we are doing here. Women for example will fight back from being oppressed. We should encourage those countries that support that freedom. I don't think that they will come here to escape oppression only to bring it back down on themselves. The hope does lie in the future.

When exactly will they start speaking out against religious doctrine? What will it take? Some people flying a plane into a building didn't do it. Sam Harris had a nice op-ed in the Washington Post this week entitled "Silence is not moderation". It speaks to this very issue:http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith...moderation.html

[Mills 0]

I'm really surprised, VB, that you are buying into the the myth of the 'silent Muslim majority' I don't mean to be disrespectful at all, I think you infuse the majority of topics with great insights, but I find it hard to understand how someone who (from my perspective) approaches things from a critical perspective can honestly believe that the majority of muslims are silent in regards to acts of sensless murder. When you say things like 'Muslims don't speak out'.... it seems to me you haven't been looking very hard:http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.phpThis link provides a large number of specific examples...And this is a video of Muslims in Mumbia, India, holding a rally denouncing acts of terrorism:http://www.youtube.com/user/bassbole#p/a/f/0/HIcp4EPyED8Why endorse a blanket statement like that in the first place? I don't get it.

[vbnautilus 48]

I'm really surprised, VB, that you are buying into the the myth of the 'silent Muslim majority' I don't mean to be disrespectful at all, I think you infuse the majority of topics with great insights, but I find it hard to understand how someone who (from my perspective) approaches things from a critical perspective can honestly believe that the majority of muslims are silent in regards to acts of sensless murder. When you say things like 'Muslims don't speak out'.... it seems to me you haven't been looking very hard:http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.phpThis link provides a large number of specific examples...And this is a video of Muslims in Mumbia, India, holding a rally denouncing acts of terrorism:http://www.youtube.com/user/bassbole#p/a/f/0/HIcp4EPyED8Why endorse a blanket statement like that in the first place? I don't get it.

Oh its quite common for them to renounce "terrorism". Of course. What they pretty much never do is renounce the doctrines of jihad, martyrdom, treatment of women, etc. -- the principles that are codified in their religious texts. They can't, those texts are sacred. They never criticize Islam itself. It is self-criticism that is needed, rather than simply distancing themselves from the "terrorists" who "distort" their religion.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Not sure if this has been covered in here yet, but is it true that there was a mosque built in the Pentagon where it was hit by the plane?Edit: Apparently it's a non-denominational chapel. Google is faster than you losers.2nd Edit: The people who are spreading that rumor are also losers. In fact, even bigger losers than you guys.3rd Edit: Has anybody here seen the movie "The Losers?"

[Balloon guy 158]

Not sure if this has been covered in here yet, but is it true that there was a mosque built in the Pentagon where it was hit by the plane?

They never found a plane.But weirdly they are opening up a CIA recruiting center there....and NO ONE IS PROTESTING THAT!

[mk 11]

They never found a plane.

[Balloon guy 158]

Pretty sure that is the poster for the Obama Health Care/Stimulus/future of America plan that he is working on!

[Roll the Bones 74]

http://www.slate.com/id/2265607/The Imam SpeaksFeisal Abdul Rauf defends his plan for an Islamic center near Ground Zero.By William SaletanPosted Tuesday, Aug. 31, 2010, at 8:21 AM ETImam Feisal Abdul RaufImam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero, is traveling through the Middle East at the request of the State Department. As part of this ambassadorial tour, he has given an interview to the National of Abu Dhabi, published yesterday, in which he responds to questions about the U.S. uproar over his project. Are his answers adequate? Let's take a look.1. Much of the reaction is just politics. "There is no doubt that the election season has had a major impact upon the nature of the discourse," the imam says. This implies that the intensity of the backlash will subside once the November elections are over—and that time is what's needed to cool the resistance. We'll see whether this bet proves wise. The backlash is normal. "The struggles we are going through today are of the same genre as what the previous faith communities had to face," he says. "Jewish immigrants, Catholic immigrants had to face even worse attacks against their communities." But "as the second generation establishes itself and is rooted in the United States they articulate an expression of who we are as Americans and [are] seen decreasingly as alien." This point is similar to the previous one: Time will dissolve much of the resistance. But here, the imam is no longer talking about a single election. He's talking about generations. He's saying that after the election is over, the remaining, underlying distrust of Muslims will ultimately be healed only by the slow process of integration. The upside of this prognosis is that in the long run, history favors healing.3. This is a local matter. "The local community board recognizes and understands the vision, the politicians in New York understand the vision, and there is broad-based support for these objectives," says the imam. In a separate talk in Bahrain, he told a questioner, "The opposition to us has come from outside the community." He's right, but this is a risky tack. A man who was born outside the United States (he's a naturalized citizen), speaks English with an accent, and preaches a minority religion that was invoked by the 9/11 plotters is claiming insider status against Christian, native-born Americans. This might work in the ethnic mixing bowl of New York. But in the broader United States, it sounds pretty crazy.4. He probably should have picked a different site. Abdul Rauf never says this. But the National reports, "When asked about whether he would have chosen a different location for the project if he knew in advance about the controversy, Imam Feisal said the Prophet Mohammad instructed Muslims not to dwell on past decisions and wonder about alternative outcomes." Translation: Oops! Similarly, in a CBS News interview that aired Monday, the project's developer, Sharif El-Gamal, has this exchange:Q: Did it occur to you when you were putting this together that that was two blocks too close to a place that many, many people feel very strongly about? El-Gamal: Not at all. It did not even cross my mind once. Q: Why not? El-Gamal: Because I did not hold myself or my faith accountable for that tragedy.The takeaway from these interviews seems pretty clear: Neither man appreciated the political risks of the site they chose. If they had, they would have handled things quite differently.5. The real fight is between moderates and radicals. Abdul Rauf says the struggle now "is not between Muslims and non-Muslims, but between moderates of all the faith traditions and the radicals of all the faith traditions. So what is required is a coalition." He says Muslim radicals and anti-Muslim radicals "feed off each other and need each other to sustain themselves. So we need right now to combat the radical voices." This is the crux of the whole debate, and here, the imam is exactly right. Witness the eerily similar, mutually reinforcing fulminations of Osama Bin Laden and Newt Gingrich. When Abdul Rauf returns to the United States, this is the point he needs to emphasize: In the mosque debate, we should side not with one faith against another, but with moderation against radicalism.6. The backlash justifies going ahead with the plan. "The fact that there has been this misunderstanding shows the need for the project," says the imam. Well, yes. But does it show the need for building the project at the presently planned site? It's safer to point out simply that the backlash is unjustified and that the project will help ameliorate the underlying distrust.7. Religious pluralism is Islam. Our basic rights, enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, reflect a "foundational viewpoint of America" that "is exactly what Islam is," says the imam. He asserts that the American principle "that religious liberty is a fundamental protected right" is "a value which lies at the very core of the Quranic value."Really? Freedom of religion is at the core of Islam? That strikes me as wildly implausible. It certainly isn't true of Judaism or Christianity. These are religions, not neutral referees. They try to run your life. The imam, too, believes that Islam should run the lives of Muslims. Yet he suggests that Islamic law is a perfect fit, if not a synonym, for American pluralism. Gingrich disputes this, and here, Gingrich seems to have the better argument. When the imam returns, he has a lot of explaining to do.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Possible explanation for Imam Faisals comment in number 7.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sherman-a-ja...s_b_698206.htmlSherman A. Jackson.Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies, University of MichiganPosted: August 29, 2010 08:42 While it started out as a minor footnote, opposition to sharî'ah has now morphed into the mantra by which many justify their opposition to the so-called "Ground Zero mosque." If we allow this mosque to go forth, so the logic goes, the next thing you know, all the bars in the country will be shut down (and those infidel lushes flogged!), all the women will be draped in sheets, and Muhammad will replace Jacob as the most popular name in America. Allahu akbar! While some of this hysteria is clearly being peddled by people who know better, most Americans are probably just engaged in a good-faith attempt to understand and respond to sharî'ah through the only prism they have: their own historical experience. I was recently reminded of this on a visit to Cairo, during which time two popes, one Catholic, the other Coptic, expressed almost mutually contradictory sentiments about sharî'ah. The chasm separating their perspectives related not to their different levels of knowledge about sharî'ah but almost entirely to their differences in historical experience. I arrived in Cairo on the first of June. On 29 May, the High Administrative Court of Egypt had ordered the Coptic Church to issue marriage licenses to divorced Copts who wanted to remarry. The Church demurred, arguing that this went against official Church doctrine, according to which adultery, death or apostasy were the only legitimate reasons for divorce and thus the only basis upon which the Church could issue licenses to remarry. Because the couples in question did not fit any of these criteria, the Church insisted that it could not issue such licenses and that, in the name of religious freedom, the High Court should not try to force it to do so.For the next three weeks (I left on June 19) Egyptian papers teemed with coverage of what was developing into a constitutional crisis -- demonstrations, letter-writing, rallies, the whole nine. Those who supported the secular character of the Egyptian state -- Muslim or Christian -- argued that in the name of equality (Muslims are free to divorce and remarry) and human rights (marriage is a fundamental right) the Coptic Church should either issue the licenses or be forced to do so by the state. The most interesting position, however, was that of the Church itself. In addition to religious freedom it invoked sharî'ah in its defense! Time and again, Church officials publicly invoked such sharî'ah maxims as, "When confronted with People of the Book (Jews and Christians), adjudicate among them on the basis of their own religion." The Coptic patriarch, Pope Shanoudah III, even went so far as to quote the Qur'ân directly in his weekly sermon: "Let the People of the Bible adjudicate according to what God revealed therein. And whoever does not adjudicate in accordance to what God reveals, they are among the corrupt" (5: 47). As if these statements were not explicit enough, in an interview published on 10 June in the official Ahram newspaper, Pope Shanoudah stated plainly and without equivocation, "We simply ask the judges, if they want to reconcile with the Church, to apply the Islamic sharî'ah." It would be disingenuous, of course, to read more than tactical sophistication into the Pope's and the Church's position. After all, Pope Shanoudah did not rush out to sign up with the Muslim Brotherhood. Still, their statements and protestations make it clear that he and the Church understood that under sharî'ah they would enjoy the right to preserve their way of life as Christians and that the rules governing Muslims do not automatically extend to non-Muslims. One can thus imagine my surprise to read, also in the Ahram newspaper, statements by Pope Benedict XVI in which he expressed, during a visit to Cypress, fears about how Christians in the Middle East would fair under the rising tide of sharî'ah-minded Islamic resurgence. Rather than seeing in sharî'ah any protection for the rights of Christians or other minorities, Pope Benedict could only imagine it to be a threat to his co-religionists. What accounts for this difference between these two popes?For Pope Shanoudah, sharî'ah took its definitive political character under the pre-modern order, when non-Muslim communities existed before the Muslim state, and and rather than obliterate these, the state merely required them to recognize its sovereignty. For Pope Benedict, sharî'ah was seen through the prism of modern Western history, where it was presumed to be the uniform law of a homogenizing nation-state that decides if, how and according to what rules communities are to exist. For Pope Shanoudah, sharî'ah included a palpable element of "live and let live." For Pope Benedict, sharî'ah was simply "the law of the land" -- for everyone. Most Americans share the perspective of Pope Benedict XVI. While some of this is based on simple prejudice and the massive amount of disinformation being spread about sharî'ah, I suspect that most of it is based on the simple fact that people simply view sharî'ah through the prism of their own experience as citizens of a modern state. Just as the modern state applies a single régime of rules equally across the board to all citizens, so too, they assume, must sharî'ah. This, by the way, is not only the assumption of Pope Benedict and most non-Muslim Americans; many Muslims have also imbibed this understanding. But as Pope Shanoudah's and the Coptic Church's tactic demonstrates, this is more indebted to Western success at universalizing its narrative than it is to the intrinsic nature of sharî'ah itself. Bottom line? Sharî'ah accommodated the existence and lifestyles of Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians and countless others. It can live with a few bars and miniskirts and lots of Jacobs in modern America -- multiracial, multicultural, multireligious modern America

[mk 11]

Dear Fox News watchers,Please watch this:http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-augu...nt-company-trapThen stop watching Fox News.Harts,mk

[El Guapo 8]

Q: Did it occur to you when you were putting this together that that was two blocks too close to a place that many, many people feel very strongly about? El-Gamal: Not at all. It did not even cross my mind once. Q: Why not? El-Gamal: Because I did not hold myself or my faith accountable for that tragedy.7. Religious pluralism is Islam. Our basic rights, enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, reflect a "foundational viewpoint of America" that "is exactly what Islam is," says the imam. He asserts that the American principle "that religious liberty is a fundamental protected right" is "a value which lies at the very core of the Quranic value."

I think both of these quotes pretty much show that he is lying.

[CaneBrain 95]

I think both of these quotes pretty much show that he is lying.

Well, the 2nd one is BS as no religion is about religious pluralism.The first one I can believe because the heart of what he is saying is true (that he is not responsible for 9/11 and to blame Islam generally is as unfair as blaming a random protestant for the church molestations).....but it would show a stunning amount of naivety.

[El Guapo 8]

Well, the 2nd one is BS as no religion is about religious pluralism.The first one I can believe because the heart of what he is saying is true (that he is not responsible for 9/11 and to blame Islam generally is as unfair as blaming a random protestant for the church molestations).....but it would show a stunning amount of naivety.

Exactly. It never crossed his mind?

[Roll the Bones 74]

Okay let me make this a little clearer. The most interesting position, however, was that of the Church itself. In addition to religious freedom it invoked sharî'ah in its defense! Time and again, Church officials publicly invoked such sharî'ah maxims as, "When confronted with People of the Book (Jews and Christians), adjudicate among them on the basis of their own religion." The Coptic patriarch, Pope Shanoudah III, even went so far as to quote the Qur'ân directly in his weekly sermon: "Let the People of the Bible adjudicate according to what God revealed therein. And whoever does not adjudicate in accordance to what God reveals, they are among the corrupt"Muslims wanted the Coptic church to allow people to remarry after divorce. The Coptic church was quoting Sharia law back to them as a defense, since Sharia law claims that each religon should be left alone. Muslims view Sharia law about like Christians view the bible, each has there own version and it differs widely between countries. So, what I am suggesting is that Imam Faisal was implying was just that, Religious pluralism is Islam. Our basic rights, enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, reflect a "foundational viewpoint of America" that "is exactly what Islam is," says the imam. He asserts that the American principle "that religious liberty is a fundamental protected right" is "a value which lies at the very core of the Quranic value." he apparently shares this view of the Quran which seems perfectly reasonable, if it indeed is.