Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Amaroq

Mosque on the Twin Towers ruins

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

You think that taking a college course is the best, or even a good way of becoming informed on a subject? OK, fair warning.

Maybe I could have worded that statement better, but that doesn't mean you can ignore everything else I said and just take that one statement as my suggestion. Please do not try and alter my overall position in an effort to discredit my views. Thank You.

CapitalistSWINE, I can't find anywhere on this forum where posters have pointed out fallacies on JihadWatch or islamwatch regarding what taqiyyah is and how islamists use it for their anti-life purposes

You had conversations with these people a page earlier.

See below:

You ought to be embarrassed. Not only does that just link to a page that simply says "There is no such page", but you didn't even get marginally close to what taqiyyah is.

Like David said, that's not true. Lying is only acceptable in Islam to achieve three goals, and no, not one of them is to advance Islamic dogma. Here are the three things:

Muhammad said: "Lying is wrong, except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy, for war is deception; or a lie to settle trouble between people" [Ahmad, 6.459. H]

BTW, I highly recommend reading Ed Cline's latest piece. Excellent.

While I quite enjoy Ed Cline's other pieces...and admittedly don't purposefully follow his articles, I run into most of them in my browsing about the internet anyways... I can say comfortably that I believe him to be one of the most ignorant people I have ever read professional articles from (as far as authors that can be viewed as respectable)on the internet regarding Islam in general. It is my position that he has obvious become mentally radicalized and biased from either the event of 9/11 and events after-word or through his very filtered sources of information that were originally chosen out of confirmation bias and that he can no longer be considered even-handed and independently trustworthy on this subject. If you disagree and wish to continue reading his articles and taking the information within as is that is your own pejorative. However, this is exactly why I stated you should have a spectrum of different views available to you on any given subject. In fact, I have such a great distaste for his clearly ignorant, twisted, and islamaphobic treatises that quite some time ago I had decided that I will eventually take a whole bunch of his articles and pick apart each ones inaccuracies and post it on my blog site (they will be refuted with either direct quotes from Islamic texts, Political Analysis Institution's reports, or commentary from real experts on these topics), at which point he is more than happy to challenge me with a retaliatory article if he likes.

Just because the man is an Objectivist does not give him automatic credibility on every subject he touches, this is a fallacious idea that has pervaded the minds of many people within this movement and it is a dangerous one. I have not once, when contemplating my own memories, suggested that there are not extremely dangerous elements of Islam and that they are exploited by various groups within the cultural community. I have not once suggested we do not take the full fight to our enemies, where it belongs, in times when it is rationally in our nations self-interest to do so. So if anyone is interpreting my comments as that of an "appeaser" something I have been called by someone on this forum before, that hilarious misconception stops right here and right now. I have a very strong distate for religious belief of any kind and particularly that of various radical, hateful, racist, violent and xenophobic sections of text or philosophical thought regarding the Islamic religion and I will not deny that there are large swathes of just that.

However I do feel that many of those doing the criticizing (which is entirely valid and in fact necessary given America's situation in the world right now as well as the position of Islam in the world right now as a religion) are much too uninformed regarding the big picture to be making some of the comments, claims, and wide-brush statements they are making. I have seen amazingly ignorant commentary about certain religious texts where it is obvious the person has no understanding of the actual context in which it was written (something all devout Muslism are aware of to a point where they can regularly put devout bible thumpers to shame regarding the knowledge of their own text, and I am speaking of the ones that know what they are talking about not the ignorant fanatic bible thumpers) and proper interpretation of it, but many other varied and disingenuous comments. Ayn Rand created a philosophy of Objectivism. That means ethical decisions in sensitive contexts need to be made with the utmost possible objectivity, something the Objectivist community as a whole, with the exception of some people here and there, greatly lacks as far as the current foreign policy swamp we are in demands.

It is a disservice to Rand, the philosophy, and ourselves to take the commentary of individuals we deem as blessed with a satisfactory intellectual fortitude merely for the fact they adhere to our philosophy in some sense or another despite the regular contradictions and erroneous details as fact while denegrating or right out ignoring the commentary of others who have proven their knowledge on the subject to be far and away improved over that of these commenters. If I have to be one of the ostracized few that is willing to put a stake through the heart of this intellectually decrepit cesspool of nonsense to get back to the necessary objectivity for us to make informed and enlightened decisions regarding our conflict with Islam, our Middle East enemies, and various terrorist cells throughout so that we don't go on some moronic ideological crusade that destroys our country from the inside out, economically or otherwise, rather than seating it firmly in a powerful and solidified position against these barbarians then so be it. I am more than willing to take that bullet seeveral times over and commit social suicide in this community for Objectivism,the other objectivist communities, and for the virtue that is knowledge, in general.

Now I know a few people will scold me for these comments on Ed Cline, that is fine and dandy, and they can go right on ahead in doing so, however I will likely not respond to those replies regarding this particular commentary because I plan on doing that piece sometime in September. Knowing this, all I have to say in response to those people is that the proof is in the pudding and they can read my comments then and respond to them then.

That is all I will have to say in this thread as anything mor I say in here will be largely off topic. I made a lengthy compilation essay that includes various other Objectivists arguments and positions regarding this Islamic Center as well as my own comments on my blog...of which at the top of that blog I said I would not be engaging in more discussion than I already had on the specific topic as I felt I had engaged in it plenty already. So on this topic they can read my views there. Otherwise...you know how to contact me for other discussions on unrelated topics of which I am more than willing to engage in, or if they would like a list of my own news feeds that I follow/a list of people & groups I listen to (something I have asked of others before in fact)...if relayed to me in a civilized and professional manner.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Muslims are spitting and laughing in our faces here. When will we finally fight back? :( If the Cordoba House Muslims support jihadi groups via obligatory Muslim charity, they should go to jail. If jihadi groups support them, that makes this a criminal enterprise which shouldn't legally be allowed.

One way or the other, the top jihadi mosques and madrassas in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan should be Predator Droned to rubble!!! :nuke:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When will we finally fight back?

When we can do it properly, instead of stupidly and unintentionally slowly destroying our own country as a result, like we are right now.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CapitalistSwine and Jake Ellison, you two would fit right in at http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php

1. If you have something to say, then say it plainly.

2. If you disagree with my positions, besides my comments on Ed Cline which I stated you could respond to at a later but relatively near date, then you are more than welcome to challenge me. However I would urge you to create a specific thread for that and to make me aware of its presence via PM since this is in fact the thread for discussing the Islamic center 2 blocks from the ground zero site in Manhattan and it has been steered off track (part of that admittedly being my fault) enough.

3. If you are going to use childish antics such as redirecting me to a website that I can only perceive is meant to insult me (I know next to nothing about that website but if they hold properly to Objectivism overall then I would say they are my friends in that respect. If they are anti-objectivists in some manner or another then I do not wish to socialize with them) then this just shows the hollowness of your own views on the matters I have confronted you on because you choose to use these tactics rather than dealing with the situation properly and professionally.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure what to make of this thread.

I have been studying Objectivism for around a year, I would not have expected anyone on here to actually suggest that a property-owner should not be allowed to build on their own land because it might hurt someone's feelings. I am shocked at the suggestion that Dr. Peikoff would approve (unfortunately I've not been able to listen to the podcast) - I would love you hear his reasons.

I think the problem is an underlying cultural nationalism, the perception of an enlightened 'us' vs. savage 'them' situation, even when 'they' are citizens of 'our' country. I understand the desire to protect Western civilisation, however, until there is evidence that this Mosque is being used to fund terrorism, defending our way of life means holding firm to freedom of speech, right of association, property rights and allowing accepting that Muslims have a right to build Mosques the same as Christians can build Churches and Walmart can build mega-stores.

Would those who oppose the Mosque also be in favour of further restrictions on the liberty of Muslims?

Like David said, that's not true. Lying is only acceptable in Islam to achieve three goals, and no, not one of them is to advance Islamic dogma. Here are the three things:

Muhammad said: "Lying is wrong, except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy, for war is deception; or a lie to settle trouble between people" [Ahmad, 6.459. H]

However, it is possible to interpret the present situation as "war" thereby enabling Muslims to lie to the West whilst maintaining their own ethical standards. I am not suggesting all Muslims would hold to this, though extremists certainly would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, it is possible to interpret the present situation as "war" thereby enabling Muslims to lie to the West whilst maintaining their own ethical standards. I am not suggesting all Muslims would hold to this, though extremists certainly would.

Yes this is certainly true. There are three main ways to interpret Jihad, most do not interpret it as a holy war, which has more to do with their interpretation and views of other parts of their belief system, particularly in their own distinction between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-harb.

The danger with websites such as that one is it not only draws but perpetuates the beliefs of these types of people:

23 Comments

exsgtbrown | March 26, 2007 8:57 AM

If a Muslims lips are moving, he is probably practicing his taqiyya. The muslim wants your property, your money, and the end of your life...

There is a regular attempt to equivocate the peaceful Muslims (the vast majority) with the extremist and fundamentalist groups (the tiny minority, by comparison). When one does nothing but read such essays in addition to such user comments, they become used to this idea, and it shows up clearly in their commentary when speaking on any subject related to the Islamic religion.

"Taqiyya" is a doctrine that goes back to early Islam and the persecution of Shi'a by Sunnis. The doctrine of "taqiyya" originates among the Shi'a who were told to dissimulate, not because the Americans or Israelis or British were coming, but because the Sunnis were coming, and how. A problem with many essays on texts in the Quran is that they often leave out the context that those writings were written in, albeit this is more of a general statement than one pertaining exclusively to this topic.

For the more pacifistic side of Islam (in large part American Muslims for example, and the vast majority of the followers of the religion in general)taqiyya is not something an outsider needs to worry about in most cases as they have a correlatively more acceptable(in our eyes) view of taqiyya in general, etc. and will often not employ it in the manner that people are worried about, if at all. JihadWatch is correct in some respects with Sunni employment of taqqiya. It is largely viewed as a hypocrisy of the sacred texts by most Sunni and most do in fact believe it to be an exclusively Shi'a practice. It is in fact a hypocrisy on the part of the Sunni as JihadWatch pointed out it is an essential component of the Quran and its teachings.

If you don't beleive me you can easily google this and find arguments in the comment sections of many discussions of Taqqiya between Sunni's and Shi'a. The Sunni's will often call out the Shi'as as betraying Islam through their use of taqqiya. The Shi'a often will call them hypocrites of the text in return and suggest that it is further justified by an extreme persecution of the Shi'a throughout history of which the Sunni have not faced (as the Islamic government are usually Sunni, etc.) and it is in fact a danger to call yourself a Shi'a often times even in Saudi Arabia. They implore that within the muslim world it is often a requirement for their own personal safety. This is how it is explained in most cases within the Quran. It is in fact the way the vast majority of Muslims, who practice intentionally or not as a defense mechanism, use it. As a self-defense system against prosecution, endangerment or otherwise by other Muslims or by "outsiders". The main point being, its primary role and function as understood by the vast majority of the Muslim community is not for malicious purposes. (Do not most of us lie when it is, at least in the short-range viewed as in our own interests vs. telling the truth? I would say yes.)

The majority of the Sunni that practice and engage in taqqiya often do not even realize it when they do it or otherwise consider it a justified action based on other considerations. Do you want to take a guess which group of Sunni is most likely to practice taqqiya at all, and especially in the malicious interpretation, as opposed to the majority of the Sunni who do not? The Wahhabi sect. An extremely hardcore Sunni Islamic sect based on the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab.

I can give one example of this divide, although I am sure there are better examples:

Quran states that: Moses (AS) with the order of Allah, assigned

Haroon (AS) as his successor (Caliph) and left his people to him, to go to

MIQAAT (appointment with Allah) for a total of forty days. After leaving of

Moses, all his companions (except very few) turned against Haroon, and were

deceived by Sameri, and became worshipers of a golden calf. (See Quran

7:142, 20:90-97, 20:83-88). When Moses (PBUH) came back from MIQAAT he was

very angry since Allah had informed him that his community went astray

during his absence. Moses came and started questioning his brother Haroon,

that why he did not take action to prevent this corruption. Quran states

that Haroon replied:

"(O' Moses) people did oppress me and they were about to kill me."

(Quran 7:150).

If you believe in Haroon as a true prophet of God, you do not allow

yourself to call him coward. Or do you think that Aaron was a Shia? In

fact, he was a Shia (follower) of Prophet Moses (AS). It was his duty to

save his life, though it appears that Wahhabis think he should have killed

himself.

And here is a debate between a Sunni & Shi'a regarding the interpretation of taqqiya:

> As Ibn Taymiyyah said, the verse 3:28 about Taqiyyah is applicable in the

> case of a non-believer ONLY under special cases, e.g., a Muslim cannot

> apply it against a Muslim.

A so-called Muslim who prosecute an innocent person, is not any better than

a non-Muslim. If you look around the world, from Saudi Arabia, to Iraq, to

Afghanistan,... the majority of those who prosecute Muslims call themselves

Muslims too. If you look at the History also, they majority of Muslim

rulers who called themselves Muslims and Khalifa, were oppressors and

tyrant (like Umayad and Abbasid Caliphs). Are you suggesting that we should

not safeguard our lives from those tyrants who label themselves as Muslims?

Moreover, by his above saying, Ibn Taymiyyah did not accept Sahih Muslim

as authentic, or else Ibn Taymiyyah has rejected the testimony of Prophet

(PBUH&HF). Even the Prophet (PBUH&HF) himself practiced al-Taqiyya in a

manner of diplomacy that served to advance good relations among the people.

The tradition from Sahih Muslim which I mentioned in my article talks about

MUSLIMS. In the case that there is a dispute between two Muslims to such

extent that it is considered as an eminent DANGER, and if nothing else

works, it is permitted to twist the words in order to make the

reconciliation. You see, there always exists a requirement of an eminent

DANGER for al-Taqiyya. For instance, the danger of divorce for a Muslim

couple who have a dispute. The commentary of the tradition talks about

Muslims too.

3. There are no direct links to Saudi Arabia masterminding campaigns of terror against the U.S, and they in fact are at direct odds with the majority of terroristic groups due to it's pro-U.S policy.

Self explanatory.

Things are much more complex than you make them seem, and as a result, this statement is false. Saudi Arabia is a greater threat to the United States by several degrees. They are our allies yes, but only in name and when it benefits them. The fact that were are allies with this can only be attributable to the horrendous foreign policy we have had for many decades, and the lining of pockets through strong Saudi lobbying power within D.C.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, it is possible to interpret the present situation as "war" thereby enabling Muslims to lie to the West whilst maintaining their own ethical standards. I am not suggesting all Muslims would hold to this, though extremists certainly would.

By the standard of "interpreting a situation" you are assuming here, it is possible to interpret as war a lot of things that aren't war. However, the conversation wasn't about war, it was about the specific point of whether the Koran permits Muslims "to lie in order to advance Islamic dogma". I provided the quote as definitive proof that it doesn't, nothing more. I certainly wasn't trying to prove that Muslims would never lie to Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/an-iranian-connection-to-the-cordoba-house-ground-zero-mosque/

Of course this comes as no surprise to anyone with half a brain.

Not enough to stop it. These loose connections are constantly being thrown about as justification, and they are not enough. Let me know when you get something substantial. Hopefully I won't have to define what "substantial" means but I have a feeling I will later on.

I hope you also realize there is a Mosque 4 blocks from GZ that has been around for 40 years. I hope you also realize that a large portion of the Mosques in America have "spurious" connections to these types of people, in this exact same fashion or worse. Nice try though. Man you guys are really grasping for straws on this huh? Not at all surprising this comes from Pajamas Media who is obviously not even handed in this debate. Still referring to it as the Ground Zero Mosque, even though it is not at Ground Zero and it is an Islamic Center with a Mosque within it, which is much different than a "13 story Mosque", and that they will allow for people of all religions to enter the center and use it. There is also the fact that it is not called the Cordoba House anymore. I know these are nit picks but they are important ones and it highlights the intellectual dishonesty of the source that they, in their very thorough coverage of this situation, fail to make the appropriate revisions that other news sites have.

Now this on the other hand, is a just fine idea, of which I can fully support:

Greg Gutsfeld of Fox's "Red Eye" suggested that in order to further spread the message of tolerance, understanding, and community, a gay bar be erected next door to the mosque :that is to rise near Ground Zero.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side note: politically, this is exactly the kind of issue that Obama loves - his opposition reacts on emotion and he strides in as the cool, thoughtful leader espousing freedom of speech. It's a pity to see him getting easy points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Side note: politically, this is exactly the kind of issue that Obama loves - his opposition reacts on emotion and he strides in as the cool, thoughtful leader espousing freedom of speech. It's a pity to see him getting easy points.

This is quite true, Obama has always known how to play the media in his favor. He always waits a while for things to simmer down from the initial reactions in a controversial debate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38698500/ns/politics-white_house/

I have to say, as hard as it his for him to keep his mouth shut on well...anything...I am a bit surprised he decided to put himself into this one, considering how much controversy there has been.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering most people in this country are against the mosque, I would hesitate before saying that Obama is getting easy points on this one. His recent statement on this issue was dead-on, but I suspect he might actually pay a political price for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jake Ellison & CapitalistSwine, you guys would fit right in at http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php

Did you really have the audacity to post this two separate times? No less when the original comment can be seen in a quote at the top of this same page? Thanks for proving the total and utter vacuity of your own arguments, which is why you are resorting to such infantile measures. Regardless of our disagreements, at least the others here are decent enough to make at least some form of valid argument for their own views. That is something that can obviously not be expected from you.

If we are going to start linking sites people belong at, you can try this one: http://www.4chan.org/

They might be too mature for you however.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Just browsing around, Objectivist Living has quite possibly the most uninformed bunch of people I've seen, just reading the Gay Marriage ban thread.

That had to be said. Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People do sometimes insist on being so self-righteously ignorant. Britain will succumb to Islam long before America does, he should not be so quick to share his leftist wisdom.

This strategic document from the Muslim Brotherhood explains the role of the Islamic Cultural Center in spreading Islam. Excerpt:

4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:

The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The

Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and

destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their

hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious

over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and

have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work

wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that

destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be

equal.

17- Understanding the role and the nature of work of "The Islamic Center" in every city

with what achieves the goal of the process of settlement:

The center we seek is the one which constitutes the "axis" of our Movement, the "perimeter" of

the circle of our work, our "balance center", the "base" for our rise and our "Dar al-Arqam" to

educate us, prepare us and supply our battalions in addition to being the "niche" of our prayers.

This is in order for the Islamic center to turn - in action not in words - into a seed "for a small

Islamic society" which is a reflection and a mirror to our central organizations. The center ought

to turn into a "beehive" which produces sweet honey. Thus, the Islamic center would turn into a

place for study, family, battalion, course, seminar, visit, sport, school, social club, women

gathering, kindergarten for male and female youngsters, the office of the domestic political

resolution, and the center for distributing our newspapers, magazines, books and our audio and

visual tapes.

In brief we say: we would like for the Islamic center to become "The House of Dawa"' and "the

general center" in deeds first before name. As much as we own and direct these centers at the

continent level, we can say we are marching successfully towards the settlement of Dawa' in this

country.

Meaning that the "center's" role should be the same as the "mosque's" role during the time of

God's prophet, God's prayers and peace be upon him, when he marched to "settle" the Dawa' in

its first generation in Madina. from the mosque, he drew the Islamic life and provided to the

world the most magnificent and fabulous civilization humanity knew.

This mandates that, eventually, the region, the branch and the Usra turn into "operations rooms"

for planning, direction, monitoring and leadership for the Islamic center in order to be a role

model to be followed.

The reason the former Burlington Coat Factory Outlet at 45 Park Place is available for purchase and mosque building is because a piece of an airplane fell on it on 9/11, penetrating the roof. The building was evacuated then and has never been reoccupied, although the roof has been patched. From this NY Times article the existing business was part of a chain and presumably would have continued in business if not for 9/11. With the towers being gone and other buildings damaged there is a lot less foot traffic in the area, which explains the difficulty in finding a new lessee. The arsonist who burns down your house should not profit by being able to buy your now available property, and at a discount. In the case of Ground Zero property the purchaser and the terrorists are different individuals but the commonality of goals via common ideology establishes all the coordination that is needed for an act of war, if not a criminal conspiracy.

Defining the "Ground Zero area" precisely is up for negotiation but this address must be included within the area under any reasonable definition because of the airplane part that came through the roof of the building at that address.

The proposed mosque is not merely near "Ground Zero", it is on "Ground Zero". Having the mosque built a few blocks away instead of exactly that address does not rise to the level of a violation of any constitutional right.

landing-gear-best.jpg?w=468&h=640

High resolution version: Wikimedia Debris impact areas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CapitalistSwine posted:

Greg Gutsfeld of Fox's "Red Eye" suggested that in order to further spread the message of tolerance, understanding, and community, a gay bar be erected next door to the mosque :that is to rise near Ground Zero.

I saw that episode. Might I suggest a pork Bar-B-Que place on the other side? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CapitalistSwine posted:

I saw that episode. Might I suggest a pork Bar-B-Que place on the other side? :P

I support the right to build the mosque (although I think its an insensitive act). I think a gay bar next to it would seriously be a great idea (joking aside!). It would be an equally insensitive act, and would truly test whether the centre really is trying to enhance community relations, or whether its just PR bull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the purchaser and the terrorists are different individuals but the commonality of goals via common ideology establishes all the coordination that is needed for an act of war, if not a criminal conspiracy.

Please provide (solid) evidence for this, as so far the only confirmation of this suggestion has been extremely specious reasoning and a "grasping at straws" as far as I have seen. Further, I am very much hoping Pamela Geller's video that she cut out all of the important stuff from, to make it look like something was suggested that was not, will not be included in that, because I am growing tired of refuting that dumb, edited video, and particularly, dealing with that horrid woman that shames the Atlas Shrugged banner across her website, again and again.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please provide (solid) evidence for this,

Solid evidence? Is the premise that Al Queda wants to spread Islam controversial? Is the premise that an Islamic Cultural Center will be used to spread Islam controversial? WTF, over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam is not the same thing to all muslims.

Are concepts objective or not? Does the concept "Muslim" validly integrate Osama bin laden and Imam Rauf or not? Do non-muslims have to study Islam and come to a definitive conclusion on who is a proper muslim and who is not before employing the concept of muslim? Given the contradictions of any religion and particularly this one, is it even possible to settle that question?

My answers are: Concepts are objective. bin Laden and Rauf are both muslims. I have no obligation to study the holy texts of a medieval death cult to recognize it as such. It is not possible to settle the question of who is a proper muslim (the sunni-shia war has been raging practically since Mohammed died), so demanding that I do so before reaching any conclusion is crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...