| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Muslim leaders get upset and object loudly when anyone talks about Muslims being terrorists (as in the case of the complaints of Muslim leaders about the new season of 24) - but they never get upset and object loudly when Muslims actually are terrorists. When a Muslim blows up a bus, train, plane, or restaurant, in the name of Islam, these Muslim leaders never speak out loudly against it. They never say that anyone who does that in the name of Islam is not going to heaven and is not getting 72 virgins. They never speak out loudly saying that such a person has acted against Islam. You never hear a word from them, except some generic CYA line about "we are against all terrorism." But if a TV show depicts what's in the news almost every day - i.e. a Muslim blowing up a public place explicitly in the name of Islam - Muslim leaders have plenty of complaints to make about the depiction.
Why aren't these same Muslim leaders complaining loudly about the Imams who were just exposed, via covert videotape, at the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, England? As shown in this week's British TV documentary, those imams in a large, influential, and supposedly "moderate" mosque in England, were videotaped calling outright for Muslims to "hate" non-Muslims; for Muslims to attack women and gays; for Muslims to look forward to a day when Muslims will get the upper hand and when non-Muslims will be killed; for Muslims to form "a state within a state" until they "take over"; and for Muslims to be unsatisfied living in anything other than "the total Islamic state."
But these Islamic leaders aren't speaking out against any of that this week.
No. Not at all.
Instead they speak out against the depiction on TV of Muslims doing -- what the imams preached in favor of.
Does their silence on those who blow up planes, trains, busses, and restaurants, equal tacit support for such people? It's time to ask them to speak out loudly and object to such people, or to admit their tacit support for them.
Does their silence on the preaching shown in the British TV documentary, equal tacit support for such preaching? It's time to ask them to speak out loudly and object to such preaching, or to admit their tacit support for it.
#1
#2A few statements on a CAIR web page are grossly insufficient. To be seen as getting upset and objecting loudly, Muslim leaders need to hold rallies, marches, and preach in the mosques, that any Muslim who blows up a plane, train, bus or restaurant is not going to heaven.
Abdul, do you agree that a Muslim who blows up a plane, train, bus or restaurant is not going to heaven?
#3To Zumer and Abdul:
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the jizya (poor-due), then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
- Qu’ran, 9:5
You might also want to read this thoroughly;
http://www.randallterry.com/writings/index.cfm?doc=Comparing_Christ_and_Mohammed
#4A few statements on a CAIR web page are grossly insufficient. To be seen as getting upset and objecting loudly, Muslim leaders need to hold rallies, marches, and preach in the mosques, that any Muslim who blows up a plane, train, bus or restaurant is not going to heaven.
Bizarre. CAIR issues a statement criticizing a "24" storyline and you call that an example of "getting upset and objecting loudly."
CAIR posts multiple statements condemning the 9/11 terrorism, and you insist that is NOT an example of "getting upset and objecting loudly."
So which is it? Are you misrepresenting their reaction to "24"? Or are you misrepresenting their reaction to 9/11?
#5Posting a few statements on their web site is minor compared to this (same link as that in the article):
[CAIR] had a conference call Wednesday with Fox executives to protest the current plot line and request more positive portrayals of Muslims on the show, but was not promised anything.
When will CAIR have a conference with the authorities at the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, England, protesting their preaching in favor of "hate" and requesting preaching that a Muslim who blows up a public place does not go to heaven?
As I asked in the article, "Why aren't these same Muslim leaders complaining loudly about the Imams who were just exposed, via covert videotape, at the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, England?"
Do you have an answer for that?
#6Why would you expect the Council on American-Islamic Relations to weigh in on something going on in Birmingham, England?
#7Because Americans' views on the subject of Islam are being greatly influenced by the British TV documentary.
#8And your evidence of this is...?
#9
#10Do any of the Technorati results link to blogs that weren't already largely devoted to bashing Muslims?
#11It's up to you to provide supporting facts for your views; you'll have to research the answer to that yourself.
#12Abu Usamah at-Thahabi, born in New Jersey (spent 3 years in Orlando), now an Iman in London calls for the death of all "Kuffars".
Abu Usamah spent at least 3 years in Orlando Fl, see info below, the street address has been left off of the USA locations but they all trace back to large apartment buildings near Mosques.
ABU USAMAH at-THAHABI, SSN and DOB, Name
SSN: 138-68-XXXX, Issued in New Jersey 1978-1980
DOB: 03/10/1964
Addresses: Last Known-
HAMMOND AVE, PASSAIC, NJ 07055 (09/01/2000)
SEMORAN BLVD, ORLANDO, FL 32822 (01/01/2000)
CARAWAY DR, ORLANDO, FL 32819 (11/01/1997)
There are copies of traffic tickets that Abu Usama at-Thahabi received in Orlando Fl during 1999.
ABU USAMAH WORKS OUT OF THE GREEN LANE MOSQUE. 20 Green Lane, Small Heath Birmingham B9 5DB UK phone 0121 773 0019 http://www.greenlanemasjid.org
There needs to be a NYPD type Hercules team posted in front of every Mosque in NYC and London at any time of the day or night, without notice, 24/7 before these Muslims kill everyone one of us "Kuffars".
Bill Warner
www.wbipi.com
#13It’s up to you to provide supporting facts for your views; you’ll have to research the answer to that yourself.
That's my point. You haven't provided any supporting facts for your assertion that "Americans' views on the subject of Islam are being greatly influenced by the British TV documentary."
The fact that the documentary has been referenced on various blogs does not establish that. This blog, for example, was primarily devoted to bashing Muslims long before the documentary aired.
#14Randy, so you're saying the 57,000+ views of the video on YouTube didn't influence viewers' opinions? And you're saying the 628 blog posts didn't change any of the opinions of their readers? That seems hopeful at best.
Also, you are arguing that no pro-Islamic blogs are talking about the Green Mosque, which makes my point that pro-Islamic individuals aren't objecting to what's happening there. I was talking about Islamic leaders and CAIR, but you seem to be extending my argument to bloggers as well.
#15I am saying nothing of the sort. I am asking you to back up your assertion that "Americans’ views on the subject of Islam are being greatly influenced by the British TV documentary."
You appear to think that you can simply offer an assertion without any evidence, and it is up to others to prove you wrong. That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on you to make your case.
#16Randy,
I think a lot of Americans are monitoring closely what is happening in the United Kingdom as well as France because of the large, concentrated Muslim areas and the strife which have erupted into demonstrations, bombings, and riots. The recent Bavarian law banning headscarves (France has also done the same) makes one wonder. I have several friends who live in the UK, and they say its pretty scary.
What goes on there might be eventually happen here; that is precisely the reason CAIR should be interested in that documentary.
Americans seek explanations for the strife and restrictive laws being imposed in Europe and they turn to the media.
There have been several pieces on major broadcasts and news magazines as well as documentaries (one recently on PBS) exploring and examining Muslim culture, religion, relationship with Israel, and politics.
The internet is also a vast resource which highlight Memri and YouTube videos. There is so much on the internet that would not be presented or discussed by mainstream media as too controversial or counter to their respective agendas. How many newspapers in the US printed the Danish cartoons - or news programs showed them? But you were able to get them immediately on the internet! Which network will air the British documentary in question? Despite all the junk one has to wade through, there are raw,'inconvenient' truths presented on the internet, from all sides. I have no doubt that the YouTube clip in question will influence a great number of people especially since there is so much mystery attached to Islamic worship and the activities inside Mosques.
Last night Law and Order had an interesting story line involving terrorism and a patriotic Imam.
Yes, this definitely does sway opinion.
But honestly, I have not seen the Muslim community countering these assertions with tangible proof, denouncing unorthodox/hateful Imams, or supporting the War against Terrorism publicly.
I have seen Christians attacking the 'Fatwas' and faux pas of Pat Robertson.
I think that's the point.
#17Posting a few statements on their web site is minor compared to this (same link as that in the article):
Included at the same link on the CAIR website are copies of full-page ads placed in the Washington Post and New York Times condemning the 9/11 attacks and a letter to President Bush doing the same. This was not just "a few statements on their web site."
Your claim that Muslim leaders "never get upset and object loudly" to terrorism is a total lie.
Shame on you for continuing to spread what you know to be an outright lie.
#18Ah, now you accentuate the personal insults - "total lie", "outright lie." That's a sure sign that you know your argument is weak on the facts.
Ads and statements on web sites with generic statements like those you quote, are easy. Let them say at a march, a rally, or in a major mosque, that any Muslim who blows up a public place isn't going to heaven, and then we'll talk. Why don't they say that? Why don't you come up with an answer to that question?
#19I am waiting for you to explain how a conference call with Fox executives constitutes "getting upset and objecting loudly" but ads in major newspapers and a letter to President Bush do not constitute "getting upset and objecting loudly."
The insistence that anything short of a march or a rally does not qualify as "getting upset and objecting loudly" is entirely inconsistent with your stated belief that they "got upset and objected loudly" to the "24" episode.
So which is it? Are you lying about CAIR's reaction to 9/11? Or are you lying about their reaction to 24?
#20Abdul is right. By any standard in which CAIR's response to 24 is a loud objection, their response to 9/11 is also a loud objection.
Vik should probably just admit he was wrong and then we can move on.
#21Abdul and Randy, this was addressed in the first two paragraphs of the article. Try reading it.
There have been countless occurrences since 9-11 of Muslims blowing up public places - yet you have had to go back to 2001 for any evidence to support your claim that Islamic leaders oppose such things. 9-11 was so huge that CAIR had to issue some sort of response to it. Their behavior since then shows how little they meant it.
And your reliance on an event from 2001 shows how little evidence you can find since that time to oppose my argument that Islamic leaders don't do any of the following things:
-- Hold marches, rallies, or preach in mosques, that a Muslim who blows up a public place does not go to heaven.
#22Your words were crystal clear: Muslim leaders never get upset about terrorism. Muslim leaders never object loudly to terrorism.
You've now backed away from that claim, admitting that Muslim leaders did in fact get upset and object loudly after 9/11.
Unfortunately, you're not acknowledging that you've changed your story. You're pretending that this was your position all along.
If you hope to maintain any credibility, you're going to have to acknowledge that you made a mistake and apologize to Abdul. Then we can move on.
#23You’ve now backed away from that claim, admitting that Muslim leaders did in fact get upset and object loudly after 9/11.
No I didn't. Reread #21:
9-11 was so huge that CAIR had to issue some sort of response to it. Their behavior since then shows how little they meant it.
#24No matter how you slice it, you've admitted that CAIR objected loudly after 9/11. That contradicts your initial insistence that "Muslim leaders never object loudly to terrorism."
It's your responsibility to own up to your mistakes if you want to have any credibility.
#25So that's all that's left of your argument - that an insincere ad by CAIR from four years ago, means that CAIR did object once?
#26"Insincere," huh? So after you have been proved wrong in your claim that CAIR has never loudly objected to terrorism, your new tactic is trying to change the subject to CAIR's intentions, which are clearly unknowable.
But no, it isn't true that CAIR only objected once. Thirty seconds with Google will demonstrate that CAIR started a "Not in the name of Islam" petition which specifically condemned terrorism and declared it a betrayal of Islamic values. They ran radio ads with the same message. CAIR also condemned the 2005 bombings in London. CAIR supported the "Fatwa against Terror" and urged that it "be read by Imams, or Islamic prayer leaders, at Friday prayers across the United States."
The facts demonstrate that your claim that CAIR has never loudly objected to terrorism is false. Are you going to admit that you made a mistake? Or are you going to try to change the subject again?
#27Well, now you're debating like a reasonable person. This is what I like to see.
As you will see in my original post, I stated that "You never hear a word from them, except some generic CYA line about 'we are against all terrorism.'"
I regard these links you've provided from CAIR as being generic CYA statements, that CAIR can't avoid making, and which they are not sincere about. However, I have not made that case in this article, and you are very reasonable to question it.
As you may have heard, Sen. Barbara Boxer recently rescinded an award, because of the recipient's position with CAIR, which is widely regarded to be a supporter of terrorism, despite their various CYA statements such as the ones you quoted.
From Human Events:
Despite being founded by two self-identified supporters of Islamic terrorism and continually refusing to condemn Islamic terrorism, CAIR has not only survived, but thrived.
...Interviewed by Paula Zahn last week on CNN, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper let loose a grandiose fabrication:
“We practically have a rubber stamp saying, ‘CAIR condemns blank act of terrorism.’ We’ve repeatedly, consistently condemned terrorism in all its forms, including attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas, Hezbollah. We’ve condemned it repeatedly.”
Not true.
While CAIR did condemn one specific attack committed by Hamas—the particularly gruesome Netanya Passover Massacre in March 2002—it pointedly omitted any reference to the terrorist organization. (Interestingly, CAIR’s press release also avoided acknowledging that the bombing occurred in “Israel,” writing instead that the attack happened in “the Middle East.”) As for Hezbollah, CAIR has never condemned any of that organization’s many terrorist attacks. During the month-long war last summer, CAIR issued at least eight condemnations of Israel and America—but not one of Hezbollah.
CAIR has, in fact, never condemned Hamas or Hezbollah. Given repeated opportunities to do so by outlets such as the Washington Post and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, CAIR has flatly refused to denounce either.
Asked point-blank by Newsweek just last month to condemn Hamas, CAIR Executive Director (and co-founder) Nihad Awad demurred, dismissing the question as “the game of the pro-Israel lobby.”
When unaware their words were being recorded, though, both of CAIR’s co-founders have freely discussed Islamic terrorism—by voicing their support. In a speech at Barry University in Florida in 1994, Mr. Awad declared, “I’m in support of the Hamas movement.” Addressing a youth session at a 1999 Islamic Association for Palestine convention in Chicago, CAIR’s other co-founder, Omar Ahmad, praised suicide bombers who “kill themselves for Islam”: “Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide. They kill themselves for Islam.” (Transcript provided by the Investigative Project.)
The links you cite are for the most part very generic. For example, here's a statement from one of the CAIR links you provided: "Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives." A glance at the quote from the Koran provided by A.M. in #3 above, shows that the Koran isn't particularly consistent with that statement by CAIR. That's why these kinds of generic statements don't mean much.
This is particularly so because of the Islamic tradition of Taqiyya. From Wikipedia:
In Islamic tradition, Taqiyya (?????? - 'fear, guard against' )[1] is the dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion. It is based on Qur'an verses 3:28 and 16:106 as well as hadith, tafsir literature, and juridical commentaries.[2] Some Sunnis assert that Taqiyya is an act of hypocrisy that serves to conceal the truth. According to them, Taqiyya constitutes a lack of faith and trust in God because the person who conceals his beliefs to spare himself from danger is fearful of humans, when he should be fearful of God only.
The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be "Dissimulation."
What would mean something would be what I called for in this article: saying that any Muslim who blows up a public place "is not going to heaven and is not getting 72 virgins."
Whether we wind up agreeing or disagreeing, I think we are now having a useful exchange of views.
#28Randy has so thoroughly eviscerated your argument that there isn't much left to say at this point.
Your entire premise was false. Now all you can do is try to move the goal post: Even if they did condemn terrorism, they didn't mean it! Even if they condemned a particular attack, they didn't mention the responsible party by name!
You are taking a very cavalier approach to reality. It has been conclusively and repeatedly proven that you were wrong on the facts. There is no substance left in your argument. You are now powered only by a stubborn refusal to admit to your error.
Having said that, I did appreciate your effort to cite Wikipedia(!) as an authoritative source. That's the best laugh I've had in a month.
#29Abdul, your position appears to be that CAIR may be dissimulating - may in fact be a supporter of terrorism - but that doesn't matter to you. Is that your view?
#30http://www.bigpicweblog.com/exp/index.php/weblog/comments/muslim_leaders_object_to_tv_show_about_islamic_terrorists_but_not_to_actual/
#31http://www.al-athariyyah.com/correct_pos.html
http://austrolabe.com/2007/01/17/undercover-mosque/
I see you erased my message. This is a clear example of how you shape what you want people to see...
Please do not delete this comment.
#32I didn't erase any message of yours, Bilal. Possibly your page timed out and your message didn't post. If you have a page here open for a long time, and then you try to post a message, it doesn't go through, which you can see immediately by checking the comments section.
#33Bilal,
Thanks for the links!
I do have problems with timing out as some of my comments are long. I ahve learned to copy the post before I send them so if something goes wrong, I don't lose the content and have to start over.
If you look at some of the comments and trolls that have been posted here, you would understand that all Vik does is edit out foul language; he does not delete comments without due warning.
Thanks again!
A.M.
#34AN ADVICE:
To the Muslims:
Why waste your time trying to refute these people? Busy yourselves with beneficial knowledge.
To the non-Muslims:
The word "kaafir" (plural "kuffar") in the Arabic language, means rejecter, or denier, to the best of my knowledge.
Instead of wasting your time on boards like this, you would be far better off actually trying to find out what Islam is about, at its heart, starting with correct monotheism!
See below:
www.troid.org
www.bakkah.net
www.islaam.ca
Plus the athariyyah website mentioned earlier.
As for jihad, the best translation I can manage is "struggle". The Prophet, may prayers and peace be upon him, is ordered in the Qur'an to make jihad with the Qur'an!
Still believe that jihad means war?
Read about tawheed (oneness of our Creator) first before you read about anything else.
#35Welcome, Wise Young Man. I see visitors here from Saudi Arabia every day, but you may be the first commenter on this site from Saudi Arabia.
One of the coolest things about having a blog is the opportunity to talk to people from other countries.
WYM, Arabic words often have many related but widely differing meanings. Jihad, for example, can mean internal struggle, and it can also mean the external struggle of seeking to impose Islam on non-Muslims by violence. Many of the radical Islamists who blow up buses, planes, trains, restaurants, etc., say they are doing jihad.
Let me ask you this. Do you agree that any Muslim who blows up a plane, train, bus or restaurant, is not going to paradise?
Good question, Vik. I also wanted to point out, for those reading this, that Mohammed himself, as his "career" went on, increasingly defined "jihad" as war on the infidel, and the imposition of Islam by force.
Islamic doctrine cancels out the earlier meaning of "jihad" in favor of the latter - as I'm sure "wise young man" well knows.
Muslim leaders get upset and object loudly when anyone talks about Muslims being terrorists (as in the case of the complaints of Muslim leaders about the new season of 24) - but they never get upset and object loudly when Muslims actually are terrorists. When a Muslim blows up a bus, train, plane, or restaurant, in the name of Islam, these Muslim leaders never speak out loudly against it.
Shame on you for spreading such an obvious falsehood.
http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html