US to seize mosques, skyscraper tied to Iran
posted at 9:30 am on November 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The US has long barred Iran from conducting any business in this country, ever since the sacking of our embassy in Tehran and kidnapping of its personnel for 444 days. However, the US suspects that Iran has used a front company, Alavi, to acquire hundreds of millions in assets in the US, including a New York City skyscraper and four mosques. The federal government has filed to seize these assets, which appears to indicate that the outstretched hand will contain … a subpoena:
In what could be one of the biggest counterterrorism seizures in U.S. history, federal prosecutors sought to take over four U.S. mosques and a New York City skyscraper owned by a Muslim organization suspected of being controlled by the Iranian government.
Prosecutors on Thursday filed a civil complaint in federal court against the Alavi Foundation, seeking the forfeiture of more than $500 million in assets.
The assets include bank accounts; Islamic centers consisting of schools and mosques in New York, Maryland, California and Houston; more than 100 acres in Virginia; and a 36-story Manhattan office tower. Confiscating the properties would be a sharp blow against Iran, which the U.S. government has accused of bankrolling terrorism and trying to build a nuclear bomb.
The assets are run by the Alavi Foundation, which Michelle notes has another interesting mission — it sends Korans to prison inmates, which seems a little incongruous for a simple property management company. There’s nothing illegal about that, but there is something illegal with sending millions of dollars in rental income to Iran through a front company, Assa Corporation, to Iran’s Bank of Melli. The US considers Melli to be a part of Iran’s financing for its nuclear program and it has long been illegal to do any business with Melli.
The US has not physically seized the assets yet, and the feds can expect a fight. The skyscraper will not cause nearly as much controversy as the seizure of the mosques, and the courts will want a clear reason to allow places of worship to be seized. As the AP notes, that action may well be seen by a court as an unconstitutional breach of the First Amendment. The protection of religion in the US is not absolute, of course; if a place of worship acts as a criminal enterprise, law enforcement agencies have the duty to arrest those responsible and put an end to any criminal activity. If Iran funds these mosques in violation of federal law, then the US has the jurisdiction to seize them. But they had better have an airtight case if they expect a judge to sign off on the seizure.
The timing is interesting. Obama has made quite a show of offering an “outstretched hand” to Iran in order to get them into talks to normalize relations and end their nuclear-weapons program. Obama won a Nobel Prize for his talk, but no concessions from Iran. In fact, they have made it clear this week that they have no intention of following through even on the weak concessions they made on storing enriched uranium. The sudden and surprising news of these seizures may be more of an outstretched finger than a hand as a response to their reversal on the IAEA agreement.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I’m not defending Islam – I’m defending the concept of religion as currently defined. I don’t want it twisted or changed. Islam can meet a textbook definition of religion and still push crazy and dangerous ideas.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:04 AM
You’re getting angry and loosing sight. I never even brought up the Church of Scientology. You are conflating my comments with somebody else’s
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Obama decries action, offers apology
In other news, WH surprised to learn FBI is part of US Executive Branch
BobMbx on November 13, 2009 at 11:05 AM
First you refer to other human beings as “a fool” and then as “stupid” for not floating in your boat of perceptions and beliefs, or wanting to, whatever, then you declare “no” when I pointed out that you did just that.
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Oh whoop de damn doo. Ologies Ologies – Islam has Ologies!! We know ye by your bitter fruits, Islam. Murder, barbaric death porn, stonings, mass murders, honor murders, subjugation, lies, cultish deviancy, etc. etc.
Religion, my ass.
Fishoutofwater on November 13, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Not at all “angry” and wasn’t I “a fool” earlier, so you wrote?
Please share with us here how it is you can know the emotions of people across your keyboard, particularly when those emotions are not what those persons are experiencing.
You indicate you have delusions.
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:06 AM
The fact that I think people are being silly or foolish does not commend my own intellect. The attempt to imply that it does simply does not make it so.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Agreed dieudonne, Islam can pose and pass as a religion as it poses and passes being a complete closed social/political system as well. Just curious why you jump to its defense.
BL@KBIRD on November 13, 2009 at 11:07 AM
The fact that a barbarian or a savage behaves like a barbarian or a savage doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have religion. It means that he is a barbarian with a religion and that he behaves like a barbarian.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:09 AM
I’m not defending Islam – I’m defending the current definition of religion. In order for Islam not to be a religion we would have to change the current accepted usage and definition of that word. I think that is a wildly dangerous path to start walking and I’m suspicious about where it will end.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Somewhere around there someone introduced the term “Scientology” and I generally assumed that was you.
Whatever.
I’m not at all sure just what your point actually is at this stage other than you want or, rather, seem to need to discuss Islam.
Go ahead, type it out.
If no one responds or conjoins, at least you got it all out in one post, maybe you’ll feel less anxiety afterward than you seem to be experiencing now.
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:11 AM
So, does Rebarism, IE Zoroastrianism twisted around to the worship of me personally, constitute a legitimate religion, as you define it?
Rebar on November 13, 2009 at 11:11 AM
I suggested that anger is why you were attributing comments to me that I never made. I could have found less charitable reasons.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:12 AM
I think this represents an on going cultural schism between the FBI and the State Dept/CIA. The FBI has a notoriously staid oldschool almost prudish reputation sometimes cited as responsible for an inability to infiltrate the seemier aspects of GWOT. Where as in State & the CIA their seems to be more of a tendency for an internationalist bent more desposed towards go along to get along posture. With familiarity comes fraternity to some degree, respect for your opponent (which is healthy and necessary) can near morph into a Stockholm syndrome like comraderie.
Along the lines of the old CIA-KGB understanding of avoidance of actually killing one another, and families were verbotten, whilst neither had the slightest compunction to spare bystanders if it served to advantage.
Perhaps due to their operational theatres, and thus the cultrural outlook of those infiltrated, the FBI amore socially conservative, heartland paradigm. Where as the State/CIA coterie adopts a more secular accepting viewpoint closer to the european model.
In recognition of the variance between these schools of thought lends to the level of co-operation with the agenda’s of whatever mind-set currently occupies the Executive branch. This was glaringly apparent in the now notorious NIE report asserting that Iran had suspended their nuke program in response to W’s “Axis of Evil” stance possibly signaling to State & the CIA, that after Iraq Iran was was in the cross-hairs.
How all this relates to the high-rise & mosque seizures could be a replay in reverse, vis-a vis the FBI and the Obama administration. This action may not so much be a White House recalibration towards Iran, as the FBI going a wee bit rogue and feeling that they have the cover to do so in wake of the Ft. Hood fiasco.
Just a little food for thought as we digest this latest saga unfold and the concordant turf battles that have only been exasperated since the creation of Homeland Security and the new Intel Director.
Stay tuned.
Archimedes on November 13, 2009 at 11:12 AM
The fact that a barbarian or savage believes in literature that espouses and even encourages barbarism and savagery does have a lot to do with a lot of barbarians and savages acting out.
When people “believe” in ideology that espouses the destruction of human life, then, even if their nails are done and their hair is clean and they’re nicely dressed, they’re going to be acting out or attempting to emulate that ideology.
Savages, barbarism, you are applying behavioral terms to an unstated generality of humanity.
BUT if you’re referring to Muslims, then, as to those behaviors, you ought to be more specific.
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:14 AM
My point has been naked from the beginning. The concept of religion is clear and Islam meets that definition. People that want to suggest or assert that Islam doesn’t meet that definition have to do the heavy lifting to demonstrate why it isn’t, come up with a new definition, and good reasons why this new definition should prevail.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Obama could turn the NY mosque into a hotel/spa for Gitmo terrorists during their upcoming 5-year trial process in US Courts. Wouldn’t want them to be uncomfortable.
PattyJ on November 13, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Well, you’ve already hurled your pejoratives. At this point, I think there’s little desire by few to understand what you’re capable of or not.
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Your assumption that others bear some burden of proof for their opinions is absurd, if not indicative of yet another round of corrupt attempts to indoctrinate others.
I doubt few here — or any here — are intimidated by your flimsy gauntlet.
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Islam is one big criminal enterprise as well as a crime against humanity.
MB4 on November 13, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Hahahaha…
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Possibly. It would deserve scrutiny – not saying it would or wouldn’t survive that scrutiny. Islam has withstood that scrutiny for more than a thousand years. You would have to make more changes to Zoroastrianism than just placing yourself as the godhead. Zoroastrianism with you inserted into the middle of it wouldn’t have much cohesion. You’d have to account for lots of other things as well with that one change. Like dominoes. A fully formed religion could blossom as a result.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:19 AM
The can have whatever opinion they want with or without proof. I really don’t care. But the moment you start saying something silly like – Islam isn’t really a religion – (or variations on that) I think you’ve EARNED being challenged on that point. It’s like saying the sun isn’t a star or that a frog isn’t an amphibian. Assertions like that should be vigorously challenged.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Like insisting on discussions about Islam on internet comment areas? You could, or “one” could, just push a few dominoes here, there, next thing there’ll be full blown inquiry to define Islam and yell “Allah Akhbar”, right?
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:22 AM
I bet you have several blogs hosted on blogspot with imaginary team members and most of what you “share” with “them” is a keen devotion to satanism, or, rather, “hell”. Am I right?
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:23 AM
they seized 100a in Virginia. does anyone know where this is?
kelley in virginia on November 13, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Is this the terrorist training center located in Red House, Virginia off of Rolling Hill Lane, between Sheikh Gilani Lane and Gilani Lane? Sheikh Gilani is the guy who sawed off Daniel Pearl’s head.
Jerricho68 on November 13, 2009 at 11:23 AM
http://tinyurl.com/537q9
Dark-Star on November 13, 2009 at 11:24 AM
What vulgar little tricks you resort to. I’m not an apologist for Islam and have clearly said that I believe there are many dangerous forms and ideas in it. I’m challenging the assertion that it isn’t a religion – an assertion you have failed to back up.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:25 AM
I don’t understand.
I got a “blocked” error page when I attempted to access your link…
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:25 AM
I realize you are straining to incite me and others here. I’m “a fool” and others are, too, also they’re “stupid” and now I’m “vulgar” and using “tricks”…
I suggest you stand up straight, get your soul in grip, exercise some concerns for that immortal soul and clean your house.
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Most of Jamaat ul-Fuqra’s terrorist training centers in the U.S. are exactly 100 acres. They seem to be selecting these plots based on a playbook. That is right close to Falwell’s place.
Jerricho68 on November 13, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Ah, forget it. It’s probably your firewall/antivirus…I keep forgetting that tinyurl is noew being routinely blocked as a spy site or somesuch, after misuse by hackers and virusmongers.
Dark-Star on November 13, 2009 at 11:30 AM
The latest refusal to defend your assertion and to, essentially, put your money where your mouth is has been noted.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:30 AM
For the record – I think the trick is vulgar not you. I think you’ve said some silly and foolish things but I don’t think you are stupid. I even believe that you’re motives are good. But I stand by my claim that I think it’s foolish to say Islam isn’t a religion. To say that Islam isn’t a religion means we have to change the definition of what a religion is. I think that is a perilous and un-conservative path.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:33 AM
You’ve remained hidden — that means, you’re behaving in a covert fashion, which reveals a hidden motive or motives — behind this “argument” you’re having with no one in particular and everyone here otherwise, in general, about some belief you maintain that there’s been some malignment of the term “religion” in association with Islam.
There have been numerous objections to Islam beliefs and behaviors, yet you’ve taken up some belief that — again, in general — society (here) is somehow arguing WITH or AGAINST YOUR BELIEFS yet you are not declaring what those beliefs are.
You listed earlier some social values and behaviors that, when “shared,” so you wrote, define any doing that sharing as being engaged in a “religion”.
And I listed and remarked several times after that that socio-behavioral regiments do not necessarily or inherently create a religion nor define one.
I realize that many people involved in Islam believe that what they’re involved in is “religion” — I’d hardly argue with them about that and I haven’t here — but in the perceptions of others who are not involved in that (Islam), most don’t recognize it as “religion” so much as a very extensive cult, or organization mostly of a cultural-political nature, as it’s displayed today.
If you care to define what you believe “religion” actually is, fine, do that. But your drawing out rather tedious hair-splitting is truly a waste of time.
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:22 AM
http://tinyurl.com/537q9
Dark-Star on November 13, 2009 at 11:24 AM
I don’t understand.
I got a “blocked” error page when I attempted to access your link…
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Blocked attack site.
Jerricho68 on November 13, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Then any crazy thing can be defined as a “religion” and deserve the same respect and protection.
If “Rebarism” can be a religion even though I fully admit I made it up on the spot, if scientology can be defined as a religion even though it’s founder flat out stated it was a con to bilk cash out of gullible rubes, if islam is a relgion despite clearly being cobbled together from other systems to give a madman carte blanche to rape murder and pillage to his black heart’s content, then your definition is fatally flawed, in fact it’s really not a definition at all.
Rebar on November 13, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Good cause would be if they had active terrorist training going on in the basements or something. Financial contributions though? That’s too easily stretchable (IE, that contribution to Mother Teresa led her to feed some terrorists therefore you’re supporting terrorists therefore we’re shutting down your Catholic church…)
Maybe seizing the Mosque’s bank accounts would be justifiable in this case… but the Mosque itself?
No.
Skywise on November 13, 2009 at 11:37 AM
That’s just pseudo-intellectual drivel, a pointless parsing of words illustrative of the mental masturbation endemic to the cult of academia.
Pull your head out of your ass and read my post. “We know ye by your bitter fruits, Islam.” The term “religion” is associated by “normal” people as being a system of beliefs that exerts a positive influence over the lives of its practitioners.
In this context, islam is the polar opposite of anything positive for its victims – Instead, islam enslaves their minds and souls in a hideous and barbaric cult of murder and death.
Islam is in no way a religion.
Fishoutofwater on November 13, 2009 at 11:37 AM
No, you referred to someone else here as “stupid” (or, rather, to other people as such).
So, all of the world can now read that you, “dieudonne,” does believe that Islam is a religion.
So, fine, believe that, go ahead. I also have a menu from a restaurant in Chicago that you might want to believe in religiously as a religion: it’s got shared dietary requirements for any and all who participate in it, the place has a dress code and financial requirements, one has to believe that they’ll be provided with a remarkable, sensational reward if they patronize (or “believe”) in the menu and the capabilities of the restaurant, the whole thing.
Your earlier definitions here of what you are defending as your understanding of why Islam is “a religion” have long since been aired, people read them, you wrote them, should have been the end of your issues in that regard.
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Not a blocked attack site. TINYurl has been abused by attackers so TINYurl is sometimes blocked enmasse. It leads to a different site that L probably wouldn’t like but doesn’t attack her machine.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:38 AM
O.K., that’s what the error code said.
Anyway, maybe “Dark-Star” will return later and clarify to what they were referring.
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Right! Good luck with that!
Fed45 on November 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Those are not the traits of a religion that I described earlier. There is nothing sacral about this, it does not deal with theology, salvific grace, the hereafter, etc. etc. You haven’t actually engaged the defining traits so much as you’ve avoided or selectively twisted them.
Waaaaah! The bad man doesn’t stop! WAAAAH.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:41 AM
I believe that islam needs to be banned from the United States as a treasonous foreign political entity, unless it’s reformed in such a way that sharia is eliminated, and that it respects the laws and traditions of the United States.
Which basically means re-writing the whole koran.
Islam is not part of civilization, it’s a barbaric code.
wildcat84 on November 13, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Maybe seizing the Mosque’s bank accounts would be justifiable in this case… but the Mosque itself?
No.
Wrong Troll. If anything illegal is going on they lose their building. At least they are supposed to. When 3 Red House terrorists were taken down on weapons charges they retained possession of the building. The compound is crawling with ex-cons and AK-47 knock offs.
Jerricho68 on November 13, 2009 at 11:42 AM
So you admit that you are “a bad man”.
Perhaps, more realistically, an immature, loitering human of dubious age.
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:42 AM
More name-calling. I’m surprised you don’t bore yourself.
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:44 AM
That isn’t how a religion is defined. It certainly isn’t how our courts or constitution define it. Worship of deities is one hallmark – which they have. A developed theology is another – which they have. There are a host of other traits as that have been repeated here again and again all of which Islam has. And so do all the other recognized churches and religious faiths.
The fact that you don’t think something has a positive influence on the life of a person doesn’t make it less of a religion. I don’t think Roman paganism had much positive influence but I’m not going to try to suggest that it wasn’t a religion.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Pot, meet kettle.
Seriously – the two of you are like a couple of sixth-graders alternately yelling semirandom facts at each other and engaging in petty insults.
Dark-Star on November 13, 2009 at 11:45 AM
There is literally not a name called in that statement you quote. Have you selected a wrong quote again?
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Uh… did you miss the point where I said “Good cause would be if they had active terrorist training going on in the basements or something”
Skywise on November 13, 2009 at 11:48 AM
*grin* I resent the suggestion that the facts I’m yelling are semi-random. I’ve carefully selected the principles I’m obnoxiously sticking by.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:48 AM
I would suggest that Islam started off as a cult of personality around Mohammed, the revelations he had were used to meet the requirements of Mohammed in his life and to manipulate his followers. Afterwards the early Caliphs adjusted it to be a political ideology and as a religion to supplement others in the region. So I guess I can call it a religion as it has spiritual aspects, however it is primarily a political system in terms of our interaction with it as it seeks to apply Sharia law which makes Muslims the top of the food chain so to speak.
Would you say that worshipping Satan is a religion, yes it is? What do you define as a good religion or a bad religion? This is the key question, now we would close down a Satan worship house that carried out human sacriface but we do not close one down that has a system of suicidal warfare within it against those that do not believe in it…
TrueBrit on November 13, 2009 at 11:49 AM
mohamed was a child molester, a murderer, a rapist and a petty bandit. Islam is more like the pirate code or the Costa Nostra bylaws then a religion. The koran even says that 20% of the take goes to the child molester mohamed pbuh.
Jerricho68 on November 13, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Wrong Troll. If anything illegal is going on they lose their building. At least they are supposed to. When 3 Red House terrorists were taken down on weapons charges they retained possession of the building. The compound is crawling with ex-cons and AK-47 knock offs.
Jerricho68 on November 13, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Uh… did you miss the point where I said “Good cause would be if they had active terrorist training going on in the basements or something”
Skywise on November 13, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Why does a religion of peace need so many weapons?
Jerricho68 on November 13, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Why does the Catholic Church have its own army?
Skywise on November 13, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Wait. What? Are you talking about the Swiss guard?
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Why does a religion of peace need so many weapons?
Jerricho68 on November 13, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Why does the Catholic Church have its own army?
Skywise on November 13, 2009 at 11:52 AM
A few dozen Swiss pikemen is not an Army your Trollishness. You sound like you practice the most asinine of the worlds religions atheism or in current english anti-theism.
Jerricho68 on November 13, 2009 at 11:55 AM
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:45 AM
I hate arguing with insane people. (see “It depends on what the meaning of ‘Is’ is.”) Nowhere did I address the “definition” of a religion, you fool. I only addressed the connotation of the term and where islam stands in that context. Work on your reading comprehension a little bit more before trying to discuss complicated subjects with adults.
Fishoutofwater on November 13, 2009 at 11:56 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Hey AP… get a load a this guy… He thinks I’m an atheist!
No troll. Just because some religions have the audacity to exercise their 2nd amendment rights doesn’t make them any less of a religion in my book.
Or are you against the 2nd amendment? Troll.
Skywise on November 13, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Islam should lose all protections as a religion, and be treated as any other outfit advocating the violent overthrow of the government, the murder of innocent “infidels,” and so on.
It will happen eventually unless all Muslims leave. The only question is, how many Americans will be murdered first.
Akzed on November 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Apparently I’m not going to get a response.
Not really a suprise.
Rebar on November 13, 2009 at 11:59 AM
A few dozen Swiss pikemen is not an Army your Trollishness. You sound like you practice the most asinine of the worlds religions atheism or in current english anti-theism.
Jerricho68 on November 13, 2009 at 11:55 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Hey AP… get a load a this guy… He thinks I’m an atheist!
No troll. Just because some religions have the audacity to exercise their 2nd amendment rights doesn’t make them any less of a religion in my book.
Or are you against the 2nd amendment? Troll.
Skywise on November 13, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Convicted felons and in your case the mentally insane have no 2nd amendment rights.
Jerricho68 on November 13, 2009 at 11:59 AM
It was a rhetorical flourish…
Skywise on November 13, 2009 at 11:59 AM
But that still doesn’t answer my question.
Do you or do you NOT support 2nd amendment rights for all religious individuals who are NOT convicted felons and not “mentally insane”
Or can I just brand you a Kosnian troll now? Charles Johnson?
Skywise on November 13, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Another Nancy boy who hates Jesus because he frowned upon his lifestyle choice. BooHoo.
Jerricho68 on November 13, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Confirmed.
Skywise on November 13, 2009 at 12:02 PM
You are correct. It wasn’t a definition you addressed so much as a common usage. My comments still stand. I think common usage includes many things beyond it being a positive influence in the lives of worshippers. I think it definitely includes the concepts of worship of the divine which Islam does.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bodyguard
The Swiss Guards couldn’t conquer jack squat, and you know it.
Dark-Star on November 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Red House recruits ex-cons and foreigners for weapons training. Neither of these has the right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights is for U.S. Citizens. The terrorist clerics have the right to go home or to prison or to shut up and not make any trouble. I didn’t realize mental hospitals afforded their patients internet access.
Jerricho68 on November 13, 2009 at 12:05 PM
I’m not at all sure just what your point actually is at this stage other than you want or, rather, seem to need to discuss Islam.
Go ahead, type it out.
If no one responds or conjoins, at least you got it all out in one post, maybe you’ll feel less anxiety afterward than you seem to be experiencing now.
Lourdes on November 13, 2009 at 11:11 AM
My point has been naked from the beginning. The concept of religion is clear and Islam meets that definition. People that want to suggest or assert that Islam doesn’t meet that definition have to do the heavy lifting to demonstrate why it isn’t, come up with a new definition, and good reasons why this new definition should prevail.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 11:14 AM
The point of discussion of religion & Islam, is that Islam has a unique nature in modern religion. Islam is every bit as much, if not more so, an ideology as well. When mullah’s declare that democracy and I slam are incompatable, they are correct.
Democracy being based on representitive appointment by election to a body that then deliberates and creates law.
In islam all the laws are already created and were relayed by Muhammed to the faithful to be meted out clerics. The very act of supplanting, or adding to God’s law is by definition blasphemy.
Since the enlightenment, the western world has had a seperation of church & state to varying degrees. Thus it finds itself in quandry in defending itself from an aggressive ideology that is itself a religion. We must address this issue or we will continue to be at serious disadvantage, most probably a fatal one.
As a side note in regards to seizing mosques. Translated into english, or any other western language, mosque is not an equivalent to a church, a “mosque” is a “meeting place”. What in thye west would call a hall, or auditorium, a civic gathering spot. One can see the conflation again of civic i.e. gov’t and religious aspects here again. Islam has cpitalized to maximal effect this misunderstandinga and adopt which ever meaning as it sees fit as desired.
This allows them to define what is the “battle space” and what is not, and simply invert the definition when they choose to do so. This allows them to justify using a mosque as a ordinace depot and firing position to attack us from, while screaming bloody murder when fire is returned. Under these imposed conditions, adherence to them is patently suicidal and victory in the GWOT altogether impossible.
While we say we are at war with a word-terrorism, they openly declare that they are at war with everyone who is not them. Surely anyone can see this is an idiotic strategem on our part doomed to failure. In recognition that “Islam” has openly declared war on us, as distatsteful as it too us, we have to accept that reality and return in kind.
Sorry, but I can see no other way to have even the remotest chance of survival, it is either submission to the ummah, or destruction of the ummah. Pick your poison.
Archimedes on November 13, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Write your Congressman Barney Fwank.
Jerricho68 on November 13, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Sorry. I didn’t see the comment. I’ll respond. Usage and definition of religion do specifically include syncretic belief systems so the fact that it was cobbled together from prior religions would be neither here nor there. Scientology DOES meet our definition of a church (See IRS and court disputes on the matter) even if the founder did explicitly state that he developed it to bilk people out of money. It’s not that these aren’t valid criticisms – it’s that the definition usage of religion doesn’t hinge on those things. Islam does have the features that the definition does hinge on.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Damn typo’s are out of control again! Once the war on terror is won, I am launching a crusade against the evil typos!
Archimedes on November 13, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Should have been EXCLUDE. Sorry.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 12:11 PM
You are quite correct. That being said it has been argued in the past that Christianity was not compatible with democracy (several Papal Bulls to that effect spring to mind) so I’m not sure this is -entirely- new problem before us. Democracy found a way to sail those waters with Christianity and I believe the same can be done here. That there will be conflict and violence doing so I have no doubt. That Islam present unique problems that make such violence more likely I also do not doubt.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Islam hasn’t declared war on us. That’s akin to saying that because David Koresh and a few other radical protestants declared war on the US that Christianity has declared war on the US.
Is there an ideological movement underway that wants to turn the US Islamic? Yes. But that’s not the same thing. Just as there was a shift to eugenics in the late 1800′s, puritanism in the early 1800s to the hippies/peace culture of the mid 1900′s as well as Christian evangelicalism in early 1900s. What matters is the Constitution and rule of law. Personally, I’d prefer to see this nation become more Christian and really don’t care for the Islamic movement. But I’m not about to subvert the constitution for that.
Skywise on November 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM
The term “religion” is associated by “normal” people as being a system of beliefs that exerts a positive influence over the lives of its practitioners.
In this context, islam is the polar opposite of anything positive for its victims – Instead, islam enslaves their minds and souls in a hideous and barbaric cult of murder and death.
Islam is in no way a religion.
Fishoutofwater on November 13, 2009 at 11:37 AM
This is your understanding of religion, not necessarily a correct one. The Thuggi’s of western India (made famous by Indiana Jones in The Temple of Doom) was founded on the “god given right” to waylay and rob any who venture into their realm. It is wher the west got the word “thug” from to depict a violent hoodlum.
In the face of just this one example, your contention that religion automatically conotes benevolence falls apart.
Archimedes on November 13, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Sorry… I didn’t realize that using big words like “rhetorical” and “flourish” made me “gay”.
Skywise on November 13, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Islam hasn’t declared war on us. That’s akin to saying that because David Koresh and a few other radical protestants declared war on the US that Christianity has declared war on the US.
Is there an ideological movement underway that wants to turn the US Islamic? Yes. But that’s not the same thing. Just as there was a shift to eugenics in the late 1800’s, puritanism in the early 1800s to the hippies/peace culture of the mid 1900’s as well as Christian evangelicalism in early 1900s. What matters is the Constitution and rule of law. Personally, I’d prefer to see this nation become more Christian and really don’t care for the Islamic movement. But I’m not about to subvert the constitution for that.
Skywise on November 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM
My word man, but you are absolutely dense! The Koran secifically states the House of Islam is always at war with all who are not in submission to it. Have you read the Koran, the Suras, or the Kadith? It would either you have not and have zero idea of which you speak, or you are practicing Takkfir in attempts to deceive you opponents!
As far as “not he same thing”, again you show either ignorance or appeasement. Islam by definition means SUBMISSION! To Islamify is dominate, domination is hostile, open declaration of intent to dominate is open hostilities! The very definition in the Geneva Conventions of WAR!
Your are nothing but a distraction bent upon subversion that I personally refuse to further enable.
Buh-bye!
Archimedes on November 13, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Why is that darn Obama always being overly PC???
Oh wait, that one won’t fly in this case.
Why does the first sentence call this a “counterterrorism seizure”? Yeah, the money was going to Iran, and yes Iran is (appropriately) on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, but if the money was going to the nuclear program, it seems odd to call it counterterrorism.
orange on November 13, 2009 at 12:30 PM
“Submission to God” is the full translation. Not submission to a Caliph or an Imam. That means there is room for it to exist along side democracy along with other religions. It’s also a homograph for other words and a trilateral for peace.
You also seem to have misunderstood takfir. Takfir is about apostasy – you are allowed to deny being a muslim in the face of persecution. It’s not some sort of carte blanche for you to tell any lies you think are required in some sort of holy war. Christianity had it’s own dispute about this during the persecutions of Nero. Some christian churches accepted apostates back and some wouldn’t. Eventually a definitive policy was worked out. Takfir is a close parallel.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Blah. Should have been “are you allowed to deny being a muslim in the face of persecution?” My own struggles with typos are terrible as well.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 12:43 PM
He just tried to steer you to a “dropper” site, which deposits malware on your computer. I would not recommend clicking any further links from this guy.
unclesmrgol on November 13, 2009 at 12:54 PM
I’m up with that. But I’d add that in addition to this attempt at reformation, they need to incorporate it across the Muslim world and prove it’s fruits in a positive manner. No more wars of aggression, no more terrorism, no more child marriages, no more female genital mutilation, no more subjugation of women, no more polygamy, no more discounting the testimony of women, no more need for four adult male witnesses of a rape to even contemplate a conviction, no more taqiyya, no more demonization of the West, accepting Israel and ceasing aggression against her, no more genocide, no more denial of the humanity of infidels, no more dhiminitude, no more jizya, no more jihad, no more supremecist desert nomad murdering rapist death cult. You know, pretty much everything Islam currently is and always was. Then we can consider allowing it in the US. For now, Islam is the enemy. Still.
Maquis on November 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Actually it’s a link to an animated smiley face the flashes the text “You are an idiot” at you. No malware. TINYurl CAN be used to lead people to malware sites but it wasn’t in this case. An abundance of caution leads some firewalls to block Tu completely.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Ed, a posting by “Dark-Star” redirects via tinyurl to “youareanidiot.org”. Here is McAfee’s description of the site. It hosts malware which attempts to overwhelm the browser with pop-ups via a javascript attack.
Recommend you remove Dark-Star’s link from his/her post.
unclesmrgol on November 13, 2009 at 1:06 PM
You also seem to have misunderstood takfir. Takfir is about apostasy – you are allowed to deny being a muslim in the face of persecution. It’s not some sort of carte blanche for you to tell any lies you think are required in some sort of holy war. Christianity had it’s own dispute about this during the persecutions of Nero. Some christian churches accepted apostates back and some wouldn’t. Eventually a definitive policy was worked out. Takfir is a close parallel.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Yes you are allowed to lie about your Islamic belief in the face of injustice or persecution. But, and a big but at that, is that to Islam all that stands in the way of an Islamic Caliphate bringing all into Dar es Islam, is an injustice. Look it up.
Anything that opposes, does not submit, the fulfillment of God’s will, i.e. the world under the House of Islam is de facto an injustice, or the repression of the Islamic right to dominate into Dhimmitude all who not convert outright. To interfere with their ordinance to “smite” the innocent who do not comply, is also an injustice and an oppression to deny their god-given duty that wiill allow them to ascend into heaven.
Until we come to recognize that their usage and meaning of words are often an inversion of how we conceptulize them, it is utter non-sense to think dialogue will do any good. Especially when they are quite content to hold us to our meaning of these words, while they adhere to their definitions. That is the crux of the problem with the PC view of tolerence in relation to Islam, in this case means to tolerate being beaten into submission and subjugation, or murder and mayhem.
I’ll pass, thanks anyways!
Archimedes on November 13, 2009 at 1:10 PM
The description of the site on McAfee’s siteadvisor is pretty damning. When people say they fired up a virtual pc and had it crash after visiting the site, and others say their computer crashed after visiting, I think an abundance of caution is warranted. On my machine, Firefox itself put up a warning, as did no-script and WOT. I’m building a xen virtual now so I can watch what it does via wireshark.
unclesmrgol on November 13, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Your definition of religion then allows anything to be declared a religion, therefore it’s not a definition, as it does not define anything. I can build a belief system about the dump I took this morning, by your rules. And that is silly, about a subject that is deadly serious.
Mankind’s march should be away from barbarism and toward civilization. Islam is, however you care to define it, barbarism. Western civilization does not consider Aztec human sacrifice to be a legitimate religion, even though, like everything else, it fits your definition. Islam should not, must not, be considered a legitimate religion based on exactly those grounds. It should be treated for what it actually is, a bloodthirsty barbaric fascist ideology that has forfeited it’s right to be in the marketplace of ideas.
Rebar on November 13, 2009 at 1:14 PM
It’s not MY definition that I’m using. But for the sake of argument – if the belief system you developed around the dump you took this morning includes a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life through reference to a higher power, deity or deities, or ultimate truth then you are on your way. If the system of beliefs you develop around the dump you took this morning also addresses the metaphysics of reality and the cosmos you have taken a step along the way. If a sacral way of life and prayer also revolves around said dump then you have almost checked every box.
When you say:
I would disagree strongly. Certainly the fields of theology and anthropology couldn’t disagree with that more. How many books do you think “Aztec religion” brings up on Amazon alone? I disagree very violently with human sacrifice but I’m not going to say that the Aztecs didn’t have a religion. They had a religion I consider abhorrent. Big difference.
Aspects of Islam are abhorrent to me – that doesn’t make it less of a religion.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Your take. Here’s a sunni islamic site’s take on taqayyah as practiced by the Shia.
And then there’s the concept of the hudna.
What one side (the non-Muslim side) may think is a binding, in perpetuity, treaty, isn’t.
unclesmrgol on November 13, 2009 at 1:30 PM
it’s a sunni (majority of Islam) cleric agreeing with what I said and decrying the Shia for saying otherwise. I’m not sure what this is supposed to suggest except that a minority within their minority have abused an idea. There is an S&M themed Christian community near me in Houston that preaches about spankings as “family discipline in an ordered home”. I don’t confuse that with mainstream main street Lutherans or Episcopalians.
Same thing. A controversial concept that many of their own clerics bicker over. A string of Popes also argued that any treaty signed with Muslim infidels wasn’t binging on faithful Christians when they were stirring up new crusades. These are old ideas, not unique to Islam, that have been dealt with before. They can be dealt with again.
dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 1:37 PM
There is a larger issue here. These facilities would be easily used as infiltration checkpoints and equipment stores. We know muslims are willing to use mosques in this fashion.
Its very likely the iranians are using this infrastructure in this manner. We know the iranians are willing to equip and fund terrorists like Hezbolla and Hamas and we know our borders are so porous people get across them undetected daily.
Connect the dots.
Iran is not the only country exporting terrorists and terror.
dogsoldier on November 13, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Nobody said they cant worship, just have to do it at some other mosques. Their not closing all mosques. So i dont see anybody getting their first amendments withheld.
Greed on November 13, 2009 at 1:54 PM
So you’re saying the dump I took this morning can be the foundation of a new religion.
I don’t know if I should laugh at, or feel sorry for you, all caught up in your pseudo-intellectual masturbation.
Bottom line is, islam is barbarism, and civilizations have the right to defend themselves against barbarism. America has the right to defend itself against islam, and if that requires declaring it, not a religion, but a hostile ideology, so be it.
Rebar on November 13, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Islam has the trappings of a barbaric religion and a supremacist ideology. Both are sufficient to declare it illegal in the West and to seek to exterminate it anywhere its practices violate the rights and well being of other nations or peoples. We don’t have to strip the appellation of religion from Islam to recognize its inhumanity nor to oppose it in as forceful a manner as necessary to protect innocents from it, to include banning or destroying it.
Sometimes, bad is bad.
Maquis on November 13, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »