Protest forming against ground zero mosque

[JW Frogen]

Once again Kalim, Forrest Gump.

Islam is as Islam does.

 

[Kalam]

And fight them until there is no oppression* and the religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then indeed, Allah is All-Seer of what they do. - 8:39

fitnatun - A burning with fire. (T.) - And The melting of gold and of silver (K, TA) in order to separate, or distinguish, the bad from the good. (TA.) - And [hence, or] from signifying "he melted," (T,) or from that verb as signifying "he put into the fire," (Msb,) gold, and silver, "for that purpose," (T, Msb,) it signifies A trial, or probation; (IAr, T, i, M, Ik, TA ) and affliction, distress, or hardship; (TA) and [particularly] an affliction whereby one is tried, proved, or tested: (IAar, T, S, K, TA) this is the sum of its meaning in the language of the Arabs: (T, TA :*) or the trial whereby the condition of a man may be evinced: this, accord .to Zj, may be the meaning in the Kur v. 45: (M) or a mean whereby the condition of a man is evinced, in respect of good and of evil: (Kull) [hence it often means a temptation] - Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon, Volume 6, p. 119​

And fight them until oppression is not, and the religion becomes for Allah. Then if they cease then (let there be) no hostility except against the wrongdoers*. The sacred month for the sacred month, and for all the violations is legal retribution. Then whoever transgressed upon you then you transgress on him in the same manner as he transgressed upon you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear. - 2:193-194

*adh-dhalimiina - wrongdoers (dhalama - to do wrong or evil, treat unjustly, ill-treat, oppress, harm, suppress, tyrannize, misuse, act wrongfully, deprive anyone of a right, misplace, injure, be oppressive, be guilty of injustice, act wickedly, be wanting in or fail.) - Lane's Lexicon, pp. 351-352​

 

[Kalam]

Once again Kalim, Forrest Gump.

Islam is as Islam does.

Nope. Islam is. Muslims do.

 

[JW Frogen]

Once again Kalim, Forrest Gump.

Islam is as Islam does.

Nope. Islam is. Muslims do.

What Muslims do is the problem here.

 

[Kalam]

What Muslims do is the problem here.

Not mine. If I were you, I'd be more concerned about my over-reliance on sweeping generalizations.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

As for the "convert or kill" comment...

That concept has no basis in Islam; no notable scholar has ever denied that people have the right to follow religions other than Islam.

yeah right


The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr

Allah said,

[وَقَـتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ كُلُّهُ لِلهِ]

(And fight them until there is no more Fitnah, and the religion will all be for Allah alone.)

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Please cite any reliable lexicographical source that includes "polytheism" or "disbelief" as synonyms for fitnatun. Alternatively, continue to amuse me by displaying your ignorance of elementary Arabic.

I have asked you for some time to post some reliable source that state the tafsir of Ibn Kathir is unreliable . You have failed to do so at every opertunity.
You have been exposed as a genuine bullshit artist.

 

[CurveLight]

I see by this link that the Pope condemns the actions:

bullshit

He covered up one event himself that we know of prior to being voted pope

In that link, he condemns the actions. I'm only going by what the article says.

Seems to me that I read in one of those articles that the ex deacon claims he covered up one event himself and if I am not mistaken it further states that the then Cardinal Ratzinger transferred the pedophile to another position and that the pedophile later abused other children.

I don't think there is any doubt that sexual abuse has gone on in the Catholic Church. What I find hard to believe is that the Catholic Church insists that its clergy remain silent to authorities about it.

Then again, I believe that in confession they have undertaken vows of confidentiality, but I do not believe that confession is the issue in these cases. My understanding is that this deals with when a victim comes forward.

CL pointed out that a Cardinal apologized for his role and the requirement of the vow of silence on the part of the victim. I don't deny that this Cardinal required such vows be made, what I am struggling with is whether or not that is the actual policy of the Catholic Church.

Immie

You're becoming more dishonest by the post. The Cardinal apologized FOR COVERING IT UP as well as making the victims vow silence.

Do you really fucking think it is pure coincidence that Cardinal did EXACTLY what the orders were by keeping the abuses silent and making victims vow silence?

 

[CurveLight]

Do you need to have the word "proof" defined for you? That was what my initial statement said. If you would like I can post a link to the definition of "proof". You have presented none.

I have seen no proof of any of your allegations except that an order exists. This order supposedly states (according to an attorney and the media) that Catholic clergy should promote the sexual abuse of children by their silence. I'm sorry, but I find that very hard to believe.

edit: by the way, you have presented "evidence" to back up your claim. You have not proven your claim. That is something I have never been able to get through to TruthMatters. You present evidence. The evidence by itself is not proof. I certainly hope, I won't have to go through all the trouble I have gone through with TM to get that point through to you. I believe you are better able to understand that then she is, at least I hope you are.

Immie

You're looking for proof of a claim I've not made. I've been pointing out nothing more than the policy of keeping sex abuse cases a secret. The Pope himself recently admitted that is the Vatican's Policy.

Your strawman of promoting sexual abuse by silence is bullshit.

I've presented evidence in many forms including a fucking Cardinal apologizing for his role in covering up sexual abuse and having victims sign vows of silence. Does that sound vaguely familiar? Doesn't that sound a lot like what the order states as well as the 2001 letter from the Vatican that was sent to Bishops on a global scale.

Fuck your bullshit snobbery about "hoping" you won't need to explain "proof." I've been softer on you than others because I though you were a bit mentally challenged and rather congenial. Fuck that.

Proof is nothing more than sufficient evidence fuckwad. I've provided evidence by factual evidence the orders exist, that the 1962 order was in effect until it was updated by the Vatican in 2001, a Cardinal apologizing for doing what the order stated, bishops affirming they understood violating the order meant excommunication, actual convictions and confessions, and the damn Pope himself admitting the policy. But in your fucked up world that is somehow insufficient evidence. You then bitch about an english translation. Why? If I post it the next thing you'll do is demand several international courts certifying the translation is accurate and even if I could do that you'd then claim I need to produce a critically acclaimed rap album by Kevin "Lovin' Mah Trailurr Park" Federline. Why? Because with people like you there is always a delusional justification available to keep your eyes closed.

You have presented one sided "evidence" from the media and seem to refuse to give the church the right of rebuttal.

I did not say you made that argument about promoting abuse by silence. I said the report is making that argument and there is no proof that is the case. That is what I am reading from the article and I don't believe that the media as being completely truthful. They are presenting only one side of the issue without giving the church a fair shake.

I have admitted several times that the order exists. I never once claimed they did not. That was not the argument. The argument was what they actually say. Give me one good reason that I should accept the word of the attorney or The Guardian over the word of the church. Just one reason.

Correct me if I am wrong, but what I understand you have been trying to argue is that this order states that it is Vatican Policy that any clergy who goes to the authorities regarding any case of sexual abuse on a child does so under the threat of excommunication. Is that not what you have been arguing? I don't see that the evidence you have provided proves your case. I see that there is an order that may say that or may have been interpreted as to having said that. No where am I saying you are wrong, I'm just not seeing the evidence that you claim proves your case. The burden of proof lies on you.

As for the apology from the Cardinal, it says to me that they Cardinal covered up a crime and that the Cardinal screwed up. It does not tell me what Vatican Policy is.

Plain and simple, you have not proven the issue and the fact that you have now resorted to whining and name calling says to me that you can't do so. You may have convinced yourself that Vatican Policy is for clergy to remain silent, but like I said, I find that hard to believe.

Immie

One sided evidence from the media is all I've presented? You're a fucking dishonest bitch. You just got done acknowledging a Cardinal apologized for covering up sex abuse then turn right around say I've not given room for the Church to give a rebuttal? Who the fuck does the Cardinal represent? An attorney, the Guardian, CBS, USA Today, or the Church?

Here's another bit you keep ignoring....you know....where the damn Pope admits it is the Vatican's policy:

"But he laid no blame for the problem on the Vatican's policies of keeping such cases secret."
Http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-03-20-church-abuse-pope_N.htm

Go ahead and ignore that for the tenth time.

 

[CurveLight]

I'm having a problem finding where exactly the Pope admitted this was Vatican policy.

I see by this link that the Pope condemns the actions:

Pope blasts Irish bishops, orders Vatican probe - USATODAY.com





What exactly are you saying the Pope admitted was church policy? Hiding information from the authorities or what is stated here: "the Vatican insists that secrecy rule only applied to the church's investigation and didn't preclude reporting abuse to police."

What exactly did the Pope admit?

And again, I'm not defending the church. I'm simply asking questions.

I think you assume the worst case against the church and have accepted that whatever the media says is gospel in this case.

Immie

You're a fuckstick. You just got done blasting me for saying the pope shouldn't be believed but you cite the pope to claim he condemned what happened.

Unlike you, I haven't simply "gone by the media." Hell, hardly anything I've supplied has been speculation by the media. I live in Boston so I've been studying this issue for quite a few years so you can fuck off with your assumptions I simply accept what the "media" says. You've just proven your hypocrisy.

I did not say that the Pope should not be believed. Seems you have reading comprehension problems.

Is this the quote to which you refer?

Oh and by the way, I don't pay a whole hell of a lot of attention to the Pope. Maybe you do? I find his office to be... well, let's not go there, it got Luther in a hell of a lot of trouble that I would rather not get myself into.

I didn't say he should not be believed. I said I don't pay a whole hell of a lot of attention to him. I sure as hell did not say he was a liar.

Maybe you just don't understand the allusion to Martin Luther? Luther claimed the office of the Pope was anti-Christ. Not that the Pope was, but the office of the Pope.

I have to assume that you have gone strictly by the media as you have presented only one side of the issue and you seem to accept everything they say.

Immie

Y
ou said not much attention should be paid to what the Pope says then you cite the Pope to defend your argument. Got hypocrisy? If you "shouldn't pay much attention" to what someone says then that means that person is not credible. Not believeable.

Then you repeat the lie I've only presented one sided media evidence.....after you just got done admitting a Cardinal confessed. That is why I'm calling you a fucking dishonest bitch. I'm not insulting you out of a lack of evidence I've presented. It's from the lack of integrity and intellectual honesty on your part.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The opening date : Sept. 11, 2011. The 10th anniversary OF 911
Location : a building close enough to have been damaged during the attack.

Nah not insensitive at all.

 

[CurveLight]

The opening date : Sept. 11, 2011. The 10th anniversary OF 911
Location : a building close enough to have been damaged during the attack.

Nah not insensitive at all.

Do you ever get embarrassed by how much you lie?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The opening date : Sept. 11, 2011. The 10th anniversary OF 911
Location : a building close enough to have been damaged during the attack.

Nah not insensitive at all.

Do you ever get embarrassed by how much you lie?

Im sorry what exactly is the lie ?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

A mosque rises over Ground Zero. And fed-up New Yorkers are crying, "No!"
A chorus of critics -- from neighbors to those who lost loved ones on 9/11 to me -- feel as if they've received a swift kick in the teeth.
Plans are under way for a Muslim house of worship, topped by a 13-story cultural center with a swimming pool, in a building damaged by the fuselage of a jet flown by extremists into the World Trade Center.
The opening date shall live in infamy: Sept. 11, 2011. The 10th anniversary of the day a hole was punched in the city's heart.


Read more: Mosque madness at Ground Zero - NYPOST.com

 

[CurveLight]

The opening date : Sept. 11, 2011. The 10th anniversary OF 911
Location : a building close enough to have been damaged during the attack.

Nah not insensitive at all.

Do you ever get embarrassed by how much you lie?

Im sorry what exactly is the lie ?

How in the fuck are they going to open it in less than 18 months when they don't even have the money yet and it will take at least two years to build?

Passing on lies is the price you pay for relying bullshit islamic hating websites for info.

 

[CurveLight]

A mosque rises over Ground Zero. And fed-up New Yorkers are crying, "No!"
A chorus of critics -- from neighbors to those who lost loved ones on 9/11 to me -- feel as if they've received a swift kick in the teeth.
Plans are under way for a Muslim house of worship, topped by a 13-story cultural center with a swimming pool, in a building damaged by the fuselage of a jet flown by extremists into the World Trade Center.
The opening date shall live in infamy: Sept. 11, 2011. The 10th anniversary of the day a hole was punched in the city's heart.


Read more: Mosque madness at Ground Zero - NYPOST.com

Dumbfucking bigot.

"The mosque could be open in three years."
Http://www.ksn.com/content/news/als...built-blocks-from/99Zj8xJFxUy1WQp_bXFeQg.cspx

 

[Si modo]

Do you ever get embarrassed by how much you lie?

Im sorry what exactly is the lie ?

How in the fuck are they going to open it in less than 18 months when they don't even have the money yet and it will take at least two years to build?

Passing on lies is the price you pay for relying bullshit islamic hating websites for info.

Sooooooo, Fitah is lying because he quoted a newpaper article?

Then you are lying because YOU quoted a news media article, too.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

A mosque rises over Ground Zero. And fed-up New Yorkers are crying, "No!"
A chorus of critics -- from neighbors to those who lost loved ones on 9/11 to me -- feel as if they've received a swift kick in the teeth.
Plans are under way for a Muslim house of worship, topped by a 13-story cultural center with a swimming pool, in a building damaged by the fuselage of a jet flown by extremists into the World Trade Center.
The opening date shall live in infamy: Sept. 11, 2011. The 10th anniversary of the day a hole was punched in the city's heart.


Read more: Mosque madness at Ground Zero - NYPOST.com

Dumbfucking bigot.

"The mosque could be open in three years."
Http://www.ksn.com/content/news/als...built-blocks-from/99Zj8xJFxUy1WQp_bXFeQg.cspx

The building is there,, the dedication is to take place on 9/11/2010.
that does not mean the construction is complete..
Where I work we are open yet we are under expansion
and renovation that will last for the rest of the year , but some how we are open.

You are deranged.

 

[CurveLight]

A mosque rises over Ground Zero. And fed-up New Yorkers are crying, "No!"
A chorus of critics -- from neighbors to those who lost loved ones on 9/11 to me -- feel as if they've received a swift kick in the teeth.
Plans are under way for a Muslim house of worship, topped by a 13-story cultural center with a swimming pool, in a building damaged by the fuselage of a jet flown by extremists into the World Trade Center.
The opening date shall live in infamy: Sept. 11, 2011. The 10th anniversary of the day a hole was punched in the city's heart.


Read more: Mosque madness at Ground Zero - NYPOST.com

Dumbfucking bigot.

"The mosque could be open in three years."
Http://www.ksn.com/content/news/als...built-blocks-from/99Zj8xJFxUy1WQp_bXFeQg.cspx

The building is there,, the dedication is to take place on 9/11/2010.
that does not mean the construction is complete..
Where I work we are open yet we are under expansion
and renovation that will last for the rest of the year , but some how we are open.

You are deranged.

You said the opening date is 9/11/2011....and now you are saying the "building is already there."

What building?

 

[bodecea]

Do you ever get embarrassed by how much you lie?

Im sorry what exactly is the lie ?

How in the fuck are they going to open it in less than 18 months when they don't even have the money yet and it will take at least two years to build?

Passing on lies is the price you pay for relying bullshit islamic hating websites for info.

Religious fanatics and anti-Religious fanatics will do whatever it takes....lie, cheat, steal, or kill.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Dumbfucking bigot.

"The mosque could be open in three years."
Http://www.ksn.com/content/news/als...built-blocks-from/99Zj8xJFxUy1WQp_bXFeQg.cspx

The building is there,, the dedication is to take place on 9/11/2010.
that does not mean the construction is complete..
Where I work we are open yet we are under expansion
and renovation that will last for the rest of the year , but some how we are open.

You are deranged.

You said the opening date is 9/11/2011....and now you are saying the "building is already there."

What building?

The Burlington coat factory building in lower Manhattan, the building that was damaged on 9/11/2001, the site of the proposed new mosque.
The building that was being referenced in the link you provided.