Mosque on the Twin Towers ruins

[DavidOdden]

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.

I'm still waiting for a principle, rather than the hint of a principle. There have been hundreds of property crimes in the US against abortion clinics, promulgated by Christian terrorists. Some of those buildings therefore had to be abandoned as abortion clinics. Do you agree that by your principle, the properties should not be sold to any Christian religious organization; or, to any person who actively promotes Christianity?

[softwareNerd]

My answers are: Concepts are objective. bin Laden and Rauf are both muslims..

So, everyone who says he's selfish is selfish?

[The Wrath]

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.

I'm dying to know how it is "self-righteous" or "leftist" to point out the objective fact that the building is not a mosque, nor on Ground Zero.

And in answer to your last post, yes "Muslim" does indeed encompass both bin Laden and the "Ground Zero imam." And the word atheist encompasses Ayn Rand and Joseph Stalin.

It is not incumbent on you or anyone else to differentiate between Muslim and non-Muslim, unless you really hit the books on Islam. It makes no difference whether you consider both bin Laden and Rauf to be Muslims. What matters is that each man considers himself to be a Muslim, and it is up to you to distinguish between them. How do you justify lumping together all people who call themselves Muslims, based on the beliefs and actions of a few? Yes, there are many Muslims who commit atrocities in the name of their religion, but there are far more who do not.

Sure, any Muslim cleric can be rightly said to want to "spread Islam." But you are willfully omitting the rather salient difference that not all of them wish to do it by violent force.

Edited August 24, 2010 by The Wrath

[DavidOdden]

I'm dying to know how it is "self-righteous" or "leftist" to point out the objective fact that the building is not a mosque, nor on Ground Zero.

Well, claiming that it is not a mosque and that the building is not a part of Ground Zero are both standard parts of the leftist response to this matter. I can understand if a person is ignorant of the fact that that building was also struck by airplane parts. I was quite surprised to learn that fact. The claim that this is not a mosque strikes me as hairsplitting evasion. We could hire Bill Clinton to declare "It depends on how you define 'mosque'".

And in answer to your last post, yes "Muslim" does indeed encompass both bin Laden and the "Ground Zero imam." And the word atheist encompasses Ayn Rand and Joseph Stalin.

Grames will have to defend his principle-to-be, but I want to point out that correlation and causation are different. 9-11 was caused by Islamic ideology; neither Objectivism nor Communism were caused by atheist.

[The Wrath]

Well, claiming that it is not a mosque and that the building is not a part of Ground Zero are both standard parts of the leftist response to this matter. I can understand if a person is ignorant of the fact that that building was also struck by airplane parts. I was quite surprised to learn that fact. The claim that this is not a mosque strikes me as hairsplitting evasion. We could hire Bill Clinton to declare "It depends on how you define 'mosque'".

Hiring Bill Clinton is hardly necessary. A mosque, as commonly understood, is not a community center with a basketball court that also happens to have a Muslim prayer room. If Christians opened a similar building, it would not be called a church. The way opponents of this project talk about it, you'd get the idea that a gigantic piece of Arabian architecture--complete with a crescent moon sitting atop a grand dome and minarets from which pour the muezzin call--is going to be sitting on top of the ruins of the twin towers.

Grames will have to defend his principle-to-be, but I want to point out that correlation and causation are different. 9-11 was caused by Islamic ideology; neither Objectivism nor Communism were caused by atheist.

You say that as though there is only one Islamic ideology. 9/11 was caused by bin Laden's particular interpretation of his particular version of Wahhabism. Whirling Dervishes follow a completely different ideology, and it's silly to pretend there is more of a connection between them than there actually is. If we're going to lump the various Islamic ideologies into a single subheading, to create the illusion that they are more closely related than they actually are, why stop there? Why not take it one step further and just call it monotheistic ideology?

Edited August 24, 2010 by The Wrath

[Grames]

I'm still waiting for a principle, rather than the hint of a principle. There have been hundreds of property crimes in the US against abortion clinics, promulgated by Christian terrorists. Some of those buildings therefore had to be abandoned as abortion clinics. Do you agree that by your principle, the properties should not be sold to any Christian religious organization; or, to any person who actively promotes Christianity?

Ethically, yes. Legally such a sale should be the grounds for a civil suit.

[Grames]

I'm dying to know how it is "self-righteous" or "leftist" to point out the objective fact that the building is not a mosque, nor on Ground Zero.

It is not a fact but a lie to insist an Islamic Cultural Center will not include a mosque within it and that is not on Ground Zero. You are a liar. You repeat the lie and count yourself virtuous for having done so. You are a self-righteous liar.

That the Guardian is leftist is well known; look it up. The leftist approval of this religious building when leftists are generally atheist and despise Christianity shows how the attraction of twisting the dagger in America's gut overcomes their antipathy toward religion.

And in answer to your last post, yes "Muslim" does indeed encompass both bin Laden and the "Ground Zero imam." And the word atheist encompasses Ayn Rand and Joseph Stalin.

It is not incumbent on you or anyone else to differentiate between Muslim and non-Muslim, unless you really hit the books on Islam. It makes no difference whether you consider both bin Laden and Rauf to be Muslims. What matters is that each man considers himself to be a Muslim, and it is up to you to distinguish between them. How do you justify lumping together all people who call themselves Muslims, based on the beliefs and actions of a few? Yes, there are many Muslims who commit atrocities in the name of their religion, but there are far more who do not.

Atheism does not cause Ayn Rand and Josef Stalin to act with similar ends or means because atheism is a nothing, a negation, an absence. Islam is a positive doctrine of ideas with a long history of violence accompanying it, the violence is commanded and caused by the ideas. Muslims who do not commit atrocities may be unable to do so, or too cowardly, or perhaps merely have not yet done so, or content themselves with financially subsidizing 'jihad operations'. Some Muslims may actually understand that the use of force is wrong, but it is not possible to tell which Muslims believe that and which are merely telling a sanctioned lie when they claim to believe that.

Sure, any Muslim cleric can be rightly said to want to "spread Islam." But you are willfully omitting the rather salient difference that not all of them wish to do it by violent force.

There is such a thing as non-violent force which includes such actions as lying and financially supporting terrorists and terrorist families.

[freestyle]

It is not a fact but a lie to insist an Islamic Cultural Center will not include a mosque within it and that is not on Ground Zero.

When you have the strongly left leaning PolitiFact calling it a lie, I can only assume ignorance by those making the "not a mosque" claim.

Is the "Ground Zero Mosque" not even a mosque?

Edited August 24, 2010 by freestyle

[DavidOdden]

You say that as though there is only one Islamic ideology. 9/11 was caused by bin Laden's particular interpretation of his particular version of Wahhabism. Whirling Dervishes follow a completely different ideology, and it's silly to pretend there is more of a connection between them than there actually is.

Ah, so your strategy is to deny that there even is such a thing as "Islam"? Since Soviet Communism, Chinese Communism and Cuban Communism differ in minute ways, are we to conclude that there is no such thing as Communism? Since Appaloosas, Clydesdales, Arabians, Lipizzan and Mustang are obviously different, do we conclude that there is no such thing as a horse? The fact that you can nit-pick the Islamic cult into innumerable sub-cults does not negate the fact that they have in common the fact of being versions of Islam, just as Catholicism, Orthodoxology and Protestantism are sub-types of Christianity.

Hezbollah, an Islamist terrorist organization, is Shiite, and as you know, Sunnis and Shiites are about as far apart as you can get in the Islamic world. The fact that 9-11 was implemented by one particular version of Islam does not contradict the broader truth that Islam itself teaches and causes a terrorist-friendly ideology, via the concept of jihad.

I grant the possibility that Ahmadiyya is no more Islam that Mormonism is Christian, but that is irrelevant to the valid generalization about what caused 9-11.

[The Wrath]

Ah, so your strategy is to deny that there even is such a thing as "Islam"? Since Soviet Communism, Chinese Communism and Cuban Communism differ in minute ways, are we to conclude that there is no such thing as Communism? Since Appaloosas, Clydesdales, Arabians, Lipizzan and Mustang are obviously different, do we conclude that there is no such thing as a horse? The fact that you can nit-pick the Islamic cult into innumerable sub-cults does not negate the fact that they have in common the fact of being versions of Islam, just as Catholicism, Orthodoxology and Protestantism are sub-types of Christianity.

I don't have a "strategy." "Strategy" implies that I have some overarching goal to make you and/or Grames think like I do. I don't particularly care if you agree with me or not, but I still want to put my opinion out there.

Having said that, I never said there isn't such a thing as "Islam." Merely that it's stupid to not differentiate its different forms when passing judgment on them. They may all deserve condemnation by the traits they have in common (i.e. belief in the supernatural and the preaching of falsehood.) But they do not all deserve condemnation for traits that only certain among them have. Whatever ideological principles there are that unify all of Islam, those are not the principles that led to 9/11, for the simple reason that the principles that directly led to 9/11 are not present in all Islamic sects. You might just as well say "Islamic ideology causes people to enter a trance and dance around in circles for hours on end." If someone does say that, you'd be quite right to point out that it's not "Islamic ideology," per se, but the ideology of a very specific sect that leads to that sort of behavior.

I'm not going to repeat the Western liberal nonsense about Islam being a "religion of peace," because it is utter crap. What I will say, is that Islam is a writhing mass of contradictions that can be used to justify whatever someone wants it to. As you rightly point out, there are violent groups among Sunnis and Shi'a. There is plenty of ground in the Koran, hadith, etc. that provides fertile soil for terrorism to grow in, and it is foolish to claim otherwise.

My only point is to illustrate that there are many sects of Islam who disagree with those interpretations and that, unless you wish to classify them as something other than "Islam," it makes no sense to lump them together with the violent sects and say that they are all motivated "by the same ideology." If the Sufis want to build a mosque (and for the sake of argument, I'll say an actual grand mosque with a dome, crescent moon, and minarets) near Ground Zero, that is fine with me. At least, it's as fine as I'd be with them having it anywhere else. I'd prefer it not to be anywhere, since I don't think Islam has anything positive to offer the world, but the Sufi sect had nothing to do with 9/11 and is not ideologically motivated to terrorism. I'm not going to place some sort of undeserved blame on them for the simple reason that it falls under the same general religious category as the Wahabbists.

Edited August 25, 2010 by The Wrath

[CapitalistSwine]

Wrath, I very much like your last post.

The claim that this is not a mosque strikes me as hairsplitting evasion.

What is your definition of a Mosque? I simply ask this because I am wondering if there some misinformation here that should be corrected regarding this specific case.

9-11 was caused by Islamic ideology; neither Objectivism nor Communism were caused by atheist.

This is mostly nitpicking my part but several other things would need to be proven, that have not been, to make the former claim solid, but like I said it is mostly nitpicking.

Edited August 25, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[DavidOdden]

Ethically, yes. Legally such a sale should be the grounds for a civil suit.

I don't understand that response. If there is a law prohibiting such a sale, then civil suits are irrelevant. If there is no such law, then the opponents of the mosque simply have no legal standing to block the sale. The property owner could have a cause of action against Islamic organizations (or Christian organizations) following your unborn principle, but in this case the owner did not oppose the sale, and in cases where property was rendered unsuitable for use by an act of terrorism, the owner must have agreed to the sale. What is the basis for a civil suit?

[Grames]

I don't understand that response. If there is a law prohibiting such a sale, then civil suits are irrelevant. If there is no such law, then the opponents of the mosque simply have no legal standing to block the sale. The property owner could have a cause of action against Islamic organizations (or Christian organizations) following your unborn principle, but in this case the owner did not oppose the sale, and in cases where property was rendered unsuitable for use by an act of terrorism, the owner must have agreed to the sale. What is the basis for a civil suit?

I am not a lawyer. As best I can describe the situation there is a conspiracy to commit economic duress. Economic duress is described in legal literature as present when a contract is induced under a threat of economic harm. A bombing of an abortion clinic which succeeds in closing the clinic permanently goes beyond a mere threat, but that should only make the case easier to prove. The conspiracy element is the fact the bomber and the religious organization subsequently purchasing the property are different individuals. For criminal conspiracy to exist the individuals involved must have coordinated their actions; I will assume that standard is not met in order to have the abortion clinic bombing scenario parallel the case of the Ground Zero Mosque. Then it is necessary to show in a civil suit that in some relevant aspect the bomber and the subsequent purchaser are the same party receiving the same benefit from the harm that was inflicted. If the clinic bomber and the religious organization have the same anti-abortion views that should be enough to demonstrate the same benefit from the harm.

I do not know how to resolve the problem of who has standing to sue. It cannot be correct that if everyone involved in owning and operating the clinic were to be killed in the bombing that no one would have standing to sue. Possibly anyone else who operates an abortion clinic would have standing to sue as they would be under greater threat to have a similar operation carried out against them if such operations routinely succeeded.

[Greebo]

I am not a lawyer. As best I can describe the situation there is a conspiracy to commit economic duress. Economic duress is described in legal literature as present when a contract is induced under a threat of economic harm. A bombing of an abortion clinic which succeeds in closing the clinic permanently goes beyond a mere threat, but that should only make the case easier to prove. The conspiracy element is the fact the bomber and the religious organization subsequently purchasing the property are different individuals. For criminal conspiracy to exist the individuals involved must have coordinated their actions; I will assume that standard is not met in order to have the abortion clinic bombing scenario parallel the case of the Ground Zero Mosque. Then it is necessary to show in a civil suit that in some relevant aspect the bomber and the subsequent purchaser are the same party receiving the same benefit from the harm that was inflicted. If the clinic bomber and the religious organization have the same anti-abortion views that should be enough to demonstrate the same benefit from the harm.

I do not know how to resolve the problem of who has standing to sue. It cannot be correct that if everyone involved in owning and operating the clinic were to be killed in the bombing that no one would have standing to sue. Possibly anyone else who operates an abortion clinic would have standing to sue as they would be under greater threat to have a similar operation carried out against them if such operations routinely succeeded.

This is absurd. Christianity is a concept that encompasses so many differently minded organizations - from Roman Catholic to Mormon to 7th Day Adventist to Fundamentalist Baptist that it is ludicrous to simply assume that because a Christian destroyed a building, any Christian later seeking to buy the same property is even remotely likely to have been in cahoots.

[DavidOdden]

Economic duress is described in legal literature as present when a contract is induced under a threat of economic harm. A bombing of an abortion clinic which succeeds in closing the clinic permanently goes beyond a mere threat, but that should only make the case easier to prove.

This would be a decent grounds for the property owner invalidating the sale (defense against contract enforcement) if there were even a shred of evidence that the property owner signed the sale papers only because they were threatened with a certain alternative (physical force or loss of wealth).

I do not know how to resolve the problem of who has standing to sue.

I suggest that the source of your problem lies in the belief that civil suit is the proper remedy, at least given your goal of legally preventing such a sale. However, a focus on civil law does have one nice feature, that it requires you to focus on specific individual rights and their violation. If all of the individuals with a property interest in the matter freely agree to the sale, then that is the end of the story. Thanks to that endangered but not yet dead legal principle privity of contract, a third party in principle has no legal standing to interfere in the dealings of these individuals.

Of course, statutory law changes that, which is why you have to make your restriction be statutory in nature: you will have to have a law which prohibits a sale under specified conditions. Look into "Son of Sam" laws, some of which have attempted to prevent any relative of the criminal from profiting from sale of publication rights to details of a crime. Although these laws have largely been found unconstitutional, they may provide you with a useful starting point.

Possibly anyone else who operates an abortion clinic would have standing to sue as they would be under greater threat to have a similar operation carried out against them if such operations routinely succeeded.

Hmmm, a variant of a class action lawsuit: an inverse class action, where an individual sues a class of people. I would not be surprised if such a creature actually comes into existence one of these days.

A civil suit approach is fundamentally wrong, and expanding the domain of civil suits in the way that you're contemplating leads 180 degrees away from objective law. Civil suits are a defect in the legal system, arising because (1) criminal law does not compensate the aggrieved party, it punishes the wrong-doer, and some mechanism is necessary whereby aggrieved parties can be made whole; (2) the subject matter of civil suits is typically so specific, and result-centered, that it cannot easily be made the subject of statutory law; (3) in general, statutory law addresses the relationship of the accused to society, and civil law addresses the relationship of specific members of society -- you obviously know the problem with that dichotomy.

Statutory law is the model of objective law, because it states in uniform and universally understandable terms what action is prohibited, and what the penalty for performing that action is. In my opinion, there is no principled impediment to expressing principles of tort law as criminal law, making it a crime to negligently allow a dead tree on your property to fall and destroy the property of a neighbor -- punished by requiring compensation to the neighbor.

[DavidOdden]

What is your definition of a Mosque? I simply ask this because I am wondering if there some misinformation here that should be corrected regarding this specific case.

A mosque is an "Islamic church". I would not bother to distinguish مسجد and مسجد جامع. A minimum requirement is the مصلى, which there will be. Notice that "church" does not refer exclusively to the sermon hall, it includes such things as the coatroom, Sunday School rooms, kitchen, snackroom, bookstore, minister's office, outreach offices blah blah blah. It is entirely immaterial what other fluff they add to the mosque: adding a donut hall does not make a church suddenly not be a church. Insofar as "mosque" and مسجد are not interchangeable, it is immaterial whether the structure satisfies the ritual sanctification requirements of مسجد .

[Grames]

This is absurd. Christianity is a concept that encompasses so many differently minded organizations - from Roman Catholic to Mormon to 7th Day Adventist to Fundamentalist Baptist that it is ludicrous to simply assume that because a Christian destroyed a building, any Christian later seeking to buy the same property is even remotely likely to have been in cahoots.

Of course it cannot be assumed, that is why the case is tried before a court and a plaintiff has to present evidence about that particular buyer.

[Greebo]

Of course it cannot be assumed, that is why the case is tried before a court and a plaintiff has to present evidence about that particular buyer.

Your entire basis of evidence being, what, "Your honor, a person who belongs to this very broadly defined group consisting of a few billion people destroyed this property, and another person who belongs to that same group now wants to buy said property, and the fact that they both belong to the same group is proof that there is a conspiracy between them!"?

[Grames]

Your entire basis of evidence being, what, "Your honor, a person who belongs to this very broadly defined group consisting of a few billion people destroyed this property, and another person who belongs to that same group now wants to buy said property, and the fact that they both belong to the same group is proof that there is a conspiracy between them!"?

No. If the motive for the initial destruction can be known (and we do know the individuals and their motives in the 9/11 attack, or an abortion clinic bombing), and if it can be demonstrated that the motive is shared by the buyers (another set of individuals with known affiliations and statements on record), then the buyer's interests have been advanced by a criminal act. In the case of the Ground Zero Mosque the present buyers had no interest in this address before the attack and it is only the significance of the landing gear that fell there that makes it of interest; I find this to be additional evidence demonstrating that the buyers share the motive of the attackers.

[Grames]

This would be a decent grounds for the property owner invalidating the sale (defense against contract enforcement) if there were even a shred of evidence that the property owner signed the sale papers only because they were threatened with a certain alternative (physical force or loss of wealth).

If the harm has already been inflicted or a threat ongoing then a property owner agreeing to a sale is not actually consent.

I suggest that the source of your problem lies in the belief that civil suit is the proper remedy, at least given your goal of legally preventing such a sale. However, a focus on civil law does have one nice feature, that it requires you to focus on specific individual rights and their violation. If all of the individuals with a property interest in the matter freely agree to the sale, then that is the end of the story. Thanks to that endangered but not yet dead legal principle privity of contract, a third party in principle has no legal standing to interfere in the dealings of these individuals.

Duress and coercion prevent consent, there can be no meeting of the minds between the contracting parties. A truly effective and durable duress or coercion would prevent the injured party from ever contesting the contract. If no third party can contest, then some instances of duress and coercion will succeed. The legal principle of privity of contract prevents much mischief and should be preserved. Then statuatory law must be the proper recourse. Perhaps the scope of extortion law can be expanded to cover this, but I can't see criminal penalties such as fines or jail terms being justified. Result would be a District Attorney moving nullify certain transactions rather than third parties doing so.

Of course, statutory law changes that, which is why you have to make your restriction be statutory in nature: you will have to have a law which prohibits a sale under specified conditions. Look into "Son of Sam" laws, some of which have attempted to prevent any relative of the criminal from profiting from sale of publication rights to details of a crime. Although these laws have largely been found unconstitutional, they may provide you with a useful starting point.

Thanks for the suggestion. I read that "Son of Sam" laws have fallen due to First Amendment issues, that at least would not be a problem.

Hmmm, a variant of a class action lawsuit: an inverse class action, where an individual sues a class of people. I would not be surprised if such a creature actually comes into existence one of these days.

It would not be a class of people being sued, but a particular property owner. You have characterized my intent as preventing certain sales, but I can only understand how it could be workable by negating and nullifying sales already completed, or as injunctions against particular defendants moving to complete a sale. There would only ever be particular defendants, an individual or some other legal entity alone or in combination.

A civil suit approach is fundamentally wrong, and expanding the domain of civil suits in the way that you're contemplating leads 180 degrees away from objective law. Civil suits are a defect in the legal system, arising because (1) criminal law does not compensate the aggrieved party, it punishes the wrong-doer, and some mechanism is necessary whereby aggrieved parties can be made whole; (2) the subject matter of civil suits is typically so specific, and result-centered, that it cannot easily be made the subject of statutory law; (3) in general, statutory law addresses the relationship of the accused to society, and civil law addresses the relationship of specific members of society -- you obviously know the problem with that dichotomy.

Civil suits as a defect in the legal system is large issue I have not considered before. I have thought: property is contract law, contract law is civil law, therefore civil suits are the way to go. I can see how an enabling law may be helpful and necessary before any suits could succeed.

Statutory law is the model of objective law, because it states in uniform and universally understandable terms what action is prohibited, and what the penalty for performing that action is. In my opinion, there is no principled impediment to expressing principles of tort law as criminal law, making it a crime to negligently allow a dead tree on your property to fall and destroy the property of a neighbor -- punished by requiring compensation to the neighbor.

I think the principled impediment is that the law cannot possibly anticipate everything bad that might happen. Judicial precedent can be made into law but there will always be new cases and an ever growing body of laws on picayune matters. I think objective law achieves its uniformity and understandability at least in part by being short, meaning principled and entrusting judges to apply the principles.

[Maximus]

A mosque is an "Islamic church". I would not bother to distinguish مسجد and مسجد جامع. A minimum requirement is the مصلى, which there will be. Notice that "church" does not refer exclusively to the sermon hall, it includes such things as the coatroom, Sunday School rooms, kitchen, snackroom, bookstore, minister's office, outreach offices blah blah blah. It is entirely immaterial what other fluff they add to the mosque: adding a donut hall does not make a church suddenly not be a church. Insofar as "mosque" and مسجد are not interchangeable, it is immaterial whether the structure satisfies the ritual sanctification requirements of مسجد .

David, I have no idea what that chicken scratching means.

[Greebo]

No. If the motive for the initial destruction can be known (and we do know the individuals and their motives in the 9/11 attack, or an abortion clinic bombing), and if it can be demonstrated that the motive is shared by the buyers (another set of individuals with known affiliations and statements on record), then the buyer's interests have been advanced by a criminal act. In the case of the Ground Zero Mosque the present buyers had no interest in this address before the attack and it is only the significance of the landing gear that fell there that makes it of interest; I find this to be additional evidence demonstrating that the buyers share the motive of the attackers.

The *motive* of the 9/11 terrorists was and is the destruction of the free Civilization in favor of imposing their belief system. There are vast numbers of Muslims who have NO such desire.

The *motive* of abortion bombers is killing the killers of babies. There are vast numbers of Christians who vehemently disapprove of such actions, and even large numbers who support freedom of choice when it comes to abortion.

Being Muslim or Christian or Democrat is not a *motive*, it's a highly generalized belief system. You might as well say that Democrats shouldn't benefit from living in the southern US because they share the same "motive" (being Democrats) as slave owners in the south from the 1800's.

[DavidOdden]

David, I have no idea what that chicken scratching means.

Those chicken scratches are Arabic words referring to three kind of Islamic location. The claim "It's not a mosque" implies that we ignorant infidel westerners do not know the true meaning of the word "mosque". But Islamic theology does not define "mosque", because it is not an Arabic word and not an Islamic technical term, property of Allah (ptuh). There is a theologically-based distinction between مسجد (masjid) and مصلى (musalla), and that distinction is purely cult-internal -- they are still building a mosque, because the concept "mosque" is, as I said, an Islamic church. So I was just making a technical point about the idea of "defining a mosque" as opposed to " defining مسجد or مصلى".

[gags]

Well, that's a relief. I thought the chicken scratch said "Death to the Infidels".

[DavidOdden]

I thought the chicken scratch said "Death to the Infidels".

That's a subtle semantic distinction. That is what in reality those chicken scratches reduce to, but that is not their translation.