Day five of a hearing into whether to stop construction of an approved Islamic Center of Murfreesboro mosque continued with the opponents’ attorney trying to paint the project as a doorway to Islamic domination and tyrannical Shariah law in the United States. Attorney Joe Brandon Jr. called several witnesses on Thursday who tried to connect the Islamic Center to terrorism and plots to overthrow democracy. (The Tennessean, 22 October 2010)
WSMV Nashville reports the following exchange between Brandon and Randy Groce, an investigator with the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Department:
“Is Islam a religion?” Brandon said.
“In my opinion, yes,” said Groce. “They have a belief in a deity, an afterlife.”
“You say an afterlife. Is this the same afterlife that, like, when you yell, ‘Allah akbar,’ and blow up several people, and you get several virgins â€“ is that the afterlife you’re talking about?” said Brandon.
Mosque opponents target Shari’a law at hearing while linking the mosque to terrorist groups.
Frank Gaffney comes out in front here, Anderson Cooper Â is annoying, acts stoopid and keeps interrupting. Former Paki ambassador Â Akbar Ahmed does his Islamic duty and supports the cause of the Muslim Brotherhood. Dirty little Ahmed lies and claims there is no sharia in Pakiland. Of course he cannot and will not denounce the headbangers from Al Azahr who Â are behind the Murefreesborgh mosque. He Â doesn’t Â even know what “promoting sharia means”. Â In this article here he tells us that resisting Ground Zero mosque and the mushrooming spread Â of mosques Â in the US causes resentment for which we are to blame and that “we need to treat the Taliban with respect…”
Murfreesboro, TN mosque opponents take the battle toÂ court (Barenaked has the story)
Here is Robert Spencer’s encounter with the old snake-oil salesman: Â Akbar Ahmed and me
Akbar Ahmed is so full of shiite you start to believe he’s made of it:
Suggestions for Dr. Robert Spencer
Dear Dr. Spencer,
This fellow Akbar Ahmed is a pan-Islamic impostor. Why ? Because I have heard and know similar things about Islam from a so-called moderate Indian Muslim, Asghar Ali Engineer, from Mumbai, India. Because Engineer was espousing moderate views, he was badly beaten up by some members of his community, and after that he has never spoken about “philosphical Islam” of the Rumi variety. The point that Akbar Ahmed tries his best to obfuscate, is that Islam is not Rumi, but Rumi is a part of Islam. Similarly, Osama bin Laden is also a follower of Islam. Per Ahmed’s view, which is acceptable, Osama is not the entire Islam. So, if Rumi and Osama are both part of Islam, with mutually distinct/exclusive characteristics, how can knowledge of Rumi help one understand Osama and vice-versa ? As yo have pointed out, it is Osama’s mentality of jihad against all infidels that we are after.
Also, Ahmed makes a mockery out of other Islamic scholars who have preceded him. This starts with none other than Al Biruni who was not a fanatic himself, but could not condemn Mahmud of Ghaznavi’s atrocities in 1060 A.D. in India. The plunders that Mahmud committed in the name of Islam were still considered acceptable by Al-Biruni. Come to the 20th century, 1933 (Lahore, Pakistan). Syed Abul Ala Maududi had clearly stated in page 6 of his monograph Jihad in Islam that the objective of Islam is not to commit loot/arson/murder for personal gains but to establish an Islamic state. That is whereever there is injustice (from Islamic viewpoint), it is the duty of Muslims (belonging to the party of Allah) to eradicate that “injustice” and replace it by Islamic justice (Sharia) and Quranic dictates.
What does Ahmed say to this view ? Maududi must be plain wrong to make such statements that are at complete odds/variance with Rumi ? So, will the real Islam please stand up ?
What a phony baloney !
Mohammed bin Kafir Abu Jahal