Snopes got Snoped!

http://hubpages.com/hub/Snopes-got-Snoped

Snopes is run by a man and a woman, with no background or training in investigations, using Google.

Snopes.com has been considered the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. Once a negative article is posted by them, people point and say, "See, I told you it wasn't true!"

But what is Snopes? What are their methods and training that gives them the authority to decide what is true and what is not? For several years people have tried to find out who exactly was behind the website Snopes.com. Only recently did they get to the bottom of it. Are you ready for this? It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current caselaw. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.

David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago. After a few years it began gaining popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral. But, over the past couple of years people started asking questions when Snopes was proven wrong in a number of their conclusions. There were also criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues, but rather asserting their beliefs in controversial issues.

In 2008, State Farm agent Bud Gregg hoisted a political sign in Mandeville, Louisiana referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet. The Mikkelson's were quick to "research" this issue and post their condemnation of it on Snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Mr. Gregg into taking down the sign. In fact, nothing of the sort ever took place. A friend of Mr. Gregg personally contacted David Mikkelson to alert him of the factual inaccuracy, leaving him Mr. Gregg's contact phone numbers. Mr. Mikkelson was told that Mr. Gregg would give him the phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would inform them that they had never pressured Mr. Gregg to take down his sign.

But the Mikkelson's never called Mr. Gregg. In fact, Mr. Gregg found out that no one from Snopes.com had ever contacted any one with State Farm. Yet, Snopes.com has kept their false story of Mr. Gregg up to this day, as the "final factual word" on the issue.

What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-motivated.

So, if you really want to know the truth about a story or a rumor you have heard, by all means, do not go to Snopes.com! You could do just as well if you were a liberal with an Internet connection. Don't go to wikipedia.com either as their team of amateur editors have also been caught in a number of bold-faced liberal-biased untruths. (Such as Wikigate and their religious treatment of Obama.) Take anything these sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative. Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their sources for yourself.

Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do.

WHAT ISLAM IS NOT...

http://www.nmatv.com/video/618/What-Islam-Is-Not

The many faces of freedom of speech on Facebook

http://sioe.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/the-many-faces-of-freedom-of-speech-on-facebook/   

Recently freedom of speech has been a victim of an extraordinarily well-organized attack by the left wing and islam. The latest example is the increasing islamisation of Facebook and the removal of the profile of ANYONE who expresses a dissenting opinion.  This social media that attracts millions of people every day has lately developed itself into a platform for the spreading of left-wing propaganda and especially Islamic propaganda.

The recent deactivation of personal profiles which have not at all violated ANY of Facebook´s rules are clear cut examples of the total submission and Dhimmitude to islam, now undertaken by Facebook. While anti-semitic profiles are flourishing on Facebook, one islam-critical profile after the next is being closed down without a logical or truthfull reason for it. Facebook literally bulges with hate-groups that call for killings on Jews, Danes (and other citizens of western countries), groups that indeed call for discrimination (believers vs. non-believers). That, by the way, is actually racism, according to the new definition of the term "racism". Groups that hate Denmark and who urge to the destruction of democracy, and are literally boiling with threats to Danes, Americans and discriminate against women. All this is actually violating Facebook´s rules.  By the way, Islam/Muslim is NOT A RACE!

But, in the name of political correctness, Facebook is not reacting to it! – or is it, perhaps in the name of freedom of speech? While all these hate groups are successfully flourishing on Facebook, and while all the hate group personal profiles threaten others and violate all sorts of Facebook rules on a daily basis, one after another the islamic critical groups are being shut down by Facebook, and the islamic critical personal profiles are being deactivated by Facebook – without any true violation.

Now, one might ask if criticizing islam is not violating Facebook rules.  It depends on how islam is defined. It certainly depends on how this criticism is being conducted. Indeed it depends on whether or not we are speaking about hate-groups and racism or about factual well-documented, direct quotes from the Quran itself, from the Hadiths, and direct quotes from the Islamic leaders and Holy men.  I shall account for how Facebook is becoming Islamized in a fully legal and democratic way. 

With the definition of islam as a starting-point there is clearly a difference between how Facebook defines islam and how islam critics define it. If we assume that Facebook defines islam as a religion, we must establish that Facebook is complying with it´s own rules since criticizing religion is not allowed according to the UN, and accordingly on Facebook.  There is every reason to be on guard towards critics on this religion. It seems only natural to ask if this applies to all religions. The answer must be a clear no. This only applies to islam. It is fully legal to call for the killing of Jews and other infidels, to discriminate against infidels and women, as well as to urge the destruction of democracy with all means at your disposal – all with the single aim to establish the khalifate and sharia law.  At least if you consider Facebook´s handling of the situational trendsetting practice. So, islam critics are per Facebook definition racists and will accordingly be deactivated without further discussion. Recently, a well-known islam critical personal profiles were deactivated without notice, despite the fact that no Facebook rules were violated.

 

The profiles were Anders Gravers and Aly Renrut. It was simply reported by moslems and left-wing activists for being offending or not a real profile.  Ok, so someone is offended by criticism of islam. According to the Danish Constitution, §77 (freedom of speech), and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights such criticism is not illegal. These profiles have not violated any of the above referenced documents. On the contrary, freedom of speech has been used responsibly and with consideration. These profiles have, at any given time, openly declared themselves an opponent to any totalitarian regime and an eager opponent to racism. They have allowed themselves to consider islam a totalitarian regime, in which equality and freedom is non-existent. No law prohibits this consideration, and it is therefore outermost thought-provoking and alarming that Facebook obviously sees itself above the Danish and US Constitution and Bill of Rights!

With this as a starting-point, that the islamic criticism has been conducted by Anders Gravers and Aly Renrut, there has always been a sober tone, an anti-racist attitude and a factual approach to the discussion.  Contrary to what the left wing and certain moslems on Facebook wish to display, there is in fact, no valid reason for the deactivation of these specific profiles, since all Facebook´s rules have been complied with completely. The reason for the many reports must be found in the fact that these very profiles actually displayed the truth about islam in an – to islamisists – threatening way.  So Facebook choose to submit to the many moslem reports and submits completely to the Islamic demands.

Now with the starting-point and the rules about hate-groups and racism established, we must simply prove none of these have applied to the deactivated profiles. Many attempts have been made to make Anders Gravers and Aly Renrut to make statements beyond reasonable limits or even statements which are illegal. However, no one has succeeded in making either one of them state anything racist or hateful.  On the contrary, they have always emphasized that racism will not be tolerated, derogatory words or nicknames are unacceptable and that they are not criticizing muslims, as such, but rather the totalitarian ideology islam. Nevertheless the left wing activists and islam have succeded in creating the impression that Anders Gravers and Aly Renrut have violated Facebooks rules, with the result of their profiles being deactivated by Facebook. 

What is, really, going on here? Why is it such a problem some people have been kicked off of Facebook? Does that really matter in the overall perspective? It certainly isn´t a real social problem, is it? Yes! That is exactly what it is. It ought to be clear to anyone, this is not really about a profile on Facebook. This is about the basic values, the basic laws of this country. We have a set of values in this country, founded on charity and equality, respect and tolerance. We have a set of laws, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which ensures us these basic God given rights – and duties.

We live in a portion of the world where basic human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble in demonstrations and equality, are gifts granted by God.  However, we must not forget that millions of people have sacrificed their life so that we can enjoy these rights as we do today.  The Normandy coast on June 6, 1944, is just one such example. We are among the just 10% of the total population on Earth to enjoy these rights and privileges. These values and laws have, in the most abusive way, been undermined, by none other than Facebook.

This sanctimonious social medium, is atttempting to make us believe it is an open and tolerant to everyone, and is demanding a decent tone and manners, so politically correct it makes you want to vomit! This very site is totally inconsistent when it comes to enforcing it´s own rules! It is not about the people who were kicked off of Facebook. It is about the principle that these people have allowed themself to –with the Constitution in hand– criticize islam as being one of our era´s greatest threats to democracy. At the same time, Facebook is yellow from infected personal profiles and hate-groups against the West, against women, against Denmark, against sexual equality, against any equality as such, against Jews, against homosexuals, against infidels and non-believers, against Danes, against Americans, against "whatever" is western and above all against democracy. All of this is going on while the site is being used by millions of people all over the world without the slightest criticism!  It roars right in, on the corneas of the users like an express train, with no filter whatsoever, and indeed it is happening in the name of free speech.

Point in example, the deactivation of Anders Gravers´ and Aly Renruts' profiles...

This is a very dangerous development that we are witnessing. In the name of free speech, in the name of democracy, the advocates of free speech and democracy are being abusively harassed, threatened and now also brought to silence on Facebook, as it is increasingly becoming an islamic propaganda platform. All of this is happening right in front of our eyes without anyone interfering! In the name of democracy, democracy is being fought from the inside.

The last time we saw such in the world, was in Germany in 1933. The method is not different, nor is the goal. If we are to endure as a democracy we have to begin to understand just which threats to democracy are really being exposed to in our time.

A good place to start is Facebook.

We urge our readers to find  and expose the muslim hate-groups and left wing groups clearly violating Facebook´s criteria and to voice their objections to such, on Facebook.

Thor/Aly



Help Anders Gravers back on facebook – support this group:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=101770483205664 

Aly Renrut is also a VICTIM OF THE MUSLIM FIGHT AGAINST THE 1ST AMENDMENT ON FACEBOOK, AS ALY RENRUT (an ANAGRAM of her previous name: TURNER) HAS BEEN REMOVED!!!

Maine: Muslim Teen Sets off Chemical Bomb near Mosque

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/09/teenager-responsible-for-chemical-bomb.html

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Maine: Muslim Teen Sets off Chemical Bomb near Mosque

Once again we find that a violent  incident at a mosque was committed by ........a Muslim. This is the pattern. But this latest incident is deeply troubling for more nefarious reasons. This wasn't merely a hoax hate crime committed by a Muslim to stoke the bogus Islamic supremacist narrative of "islamophobia," this was a young Muslim experimenting with a bomb -- practicing his craft at his local mosque. Got that?

Islamic leaders told police the explosion was just a 13-year-old "experimenting." What was the kid trying to do? "Teenager responsible for chemical bomb near Islamic Society of Portland," by Helen Dailey for WCSH6.com, September 22 (thanks to Joe):

PORTLAND, ME (NEWS CENTER) -- Police say there were no injuries or damage caused by a chemical bomb that went off in a parking lot near the Islamic Society of Portland.

The bomb went off in the lot between the Islamic Society and Back Bay Grill around 8:00 PM Tuesday night. Portland Police say Islamic elders came forward to tell them that a 13 year old from the Society was experimenting and was responsible for the bomb. Another bomb was also found undetinated [sic]....

Just a young Muslim at a mosque experimenting with a bomb. In Maine. What's to be concerned about? It isn't as if mosques have ever been centers of violence elsewhere, right?

Muslims whine about "Islamophobia," refuse to address jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/09/maryland-muslims-whine-about-islamophobia-refuse-to-address-jihad-terrorism-and-islamic-supremacism.html


Sep 23, 2010

Muslims whine about "Islamophobia,"
but refuse to address
jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism

If Muslims really wants to cure "Islamophobia," here is an easy way. They can:


1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.


2. Renounce definitively not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people.


3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.


4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.


5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.


If Muslims do those five things, voila! People like me will no longer suffer from the illness of "Islamophobia"!


And Pamela Geller said it best: "Muslims in the U.S. are not the ones living under death threat. People who are standing up to jihad activity and Islamic supremacism are. They are not the ones targeted. We are. They are not getting death threats. We are. They don't have to live with 24/7/365 heavy duty security, Geert Wilders does. Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Salman Rushdie, the producers from Comedy Central, and accidental counter-jihad tourists like Molly Norris live under death threat. As do I."

Indeed, I have a stalker who has threatened my life and posted private information about me online with the clear intention of inciting Muslims to attack me, who lives in College Park, Maryland. I wonder if he attended this forum -- the Nyumburu Cultural Center is in that city.

"Panel discusses cause and effect of Islamophobia in the U.S.," by Melissa Quijada in the DiamondbackOnline, September 23 (thanks to Tipster):

Scattered views filled a forum yesterday as students and activists addressed the fear of Islam and Muslims that's recently resurfaced in the media, agreeing the term Islamophobia should be discussed emphasizing similarities, not differences.

Last night at the Nyumburu Cultural Center, the Black Male Initiative student group hosted a discussion of about 100 students and activists to address social tensions amid a recent surge of anti-Islamic sentiments. Supported by the Muslim Students' Association and the Muslim Women of Maryland members, the event challenged the word and filled seats.

"It's important for us as engaged citizens and human beings to speak out against these injustices when they rear their ugly heads," said Solomon Comissiong, Nyumburu Cultural Center's assistant director of student involvement and public relations, as he opened the panel.

And when discussing an issue that often creates deep divides, panelists emphasized the importance of unity in tackling such a phenomenon.

"The existence of 'Islamophobia' is a social failure," said Secretary of the Muslim Students' Association Osama Eshera. "This is an issue we all have to deal with together."

Panelists paid specific attention to a string of anti-Islamic events, many of which have recently made national headlines, that led to the discussion held last night.

Dave Zirin, a sports writer and socialist activist who co-monitored the event with Comissiong, referenced the New York City cab driver who was stabbed in the throat, face and arm after disclosing his Muslim faith. Comissiong cited the national unrest earlier this month when Florida pastor Terry Jones threatened to burn copies of the Qur'an in protest of efforts to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

Of course, the New York cabbie stabber worked for a pro-Ground Zero mosque group, so it is hard to pin his actions on "Islamophobia." And it's outstanding moral myopia to tut-tut at the Qur'an-burning but not at the Muslims who murdered innocents because of it.

"We thought it was necessary to do something like this in light of all the anti-Muslim backlash," Comissiong said.

Much of the first half of conversation pointed to the terrorist acts of Sept. 11 as the root of fear and hatred of Islam.

"There's a notion that Muslims rejoiced while Americans suffered," said Eshera, a junior bioengineering major. "The reality is that about 300 Muslims died in the terrorist attacks."

Preposterous. A tenth of the people killed in the Trade Towers were Muslims? A ridiculous lie, but clearly one that Islamic supremacists have agreed upon, as it is oft-repeated lately.

A long line of both students and seasoned social activists stepped forward to ask questions and make comments, causing the event to run longer than expected. Some fundamentally challenged the term Islamophobia and the differences between Americanized fear against Muslims and the Islamic faith.

"You have an entire community calling it Islamophobia and a community of Muslims calling it Islamophobia," said university aluma and panelist Rayyan Ghuma. "It's all about semantics now."

"It takes us labels for us to do anything," said Omnia Joehar, junior government and politics major. "How many have stood up until 'Islamophobia' was made?"

Yesterday's discussion even spurred Elizabeth Rosenberg, co-president of the Interfaith Dialogue Project, to address the same topic with her group members next week.

Comissiong said he hoped the discussion was a start to spreading awareness so others can continue to address the issue on the campus.

"We want people to leave with a heightened consciousness," said Comissiong. "We want them to have a feeling of empowerment."

Oh, no worries, Mr. Comissiong. They feel plenty empowered.

U.S. News ~ Poll: 52 percent in U.S. negative on Islam

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/09/20/Poll-52-percent-in-US-negative-on-Islam/UPI-69471284998613/ 

Published: Sept. 20, 2010 at 12:03 PM

NEW YORK, Sept. 20 (UPI) --

More than half of Americans hold an unfavorable view of Islam and say they consider it to be a religion that encourages violence, a poll indicates. 

Americans hold strongly positive views on Christianity but are less approving in their assessment of other religions, the Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.


In a survey of 1,024 adults, the poll found 83 percent generally have a favorable view of Christianity while 47 percent feel the same way about Judaism and 43 percent about Buddhism.


But 52 percent of respondents said they hold an unfavorable view of Islam, the poll found.


Asked about religion encouraging violence, 45 percent said they believe Islam encourages violence and 25 percent described it as a peaceful religion.


While 91 per cent of Americans say they have a good basic understanding of the teachings and beliefs of Christianity, less than half are knowledgeable about five other religions: Judaism 43 percent, Islam 34 percent, Buddhism 31 percent, Hinduism 22 percent and Sikhism 8 percent, the poll indicates.


The poll was conducted online on Sept 14 and 15 with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.



Related Stories

• Texas school board takes on Islam  http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/09/15/Texas-school-board-takes-on-Islam/UPI-89351284579929/


• Security panel links radical Islam, terror   http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/09/15/Security-panel-links-radical-Islam-terror/UPI-54401284579348/


• Florida pastor won't burn Koran   http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/09/11/Florida-pastor-wont-burn-Koran/UPI-32421284206370/

SHARIA FOR DUMMIES

http://bigpeace.com/ndarwish/2010/08/26/sharia-for-dummies/
Posted by Nonie Darwish Aug 26th 2010 at 4:42 am

Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf claims that the

US Constitution is Sharia compliant...

Now let's examine a few laws of Sharia below to see if

Imam Rauf is truthful or a fraud:

1- Jihad defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

2- A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

3- A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

4- A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.

5- It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

6- A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

7- The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam.

8- A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.

9- A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of : 1) an apostasy 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.

10- A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.

11- Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it.

A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

12- Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

13- Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

14- Homosexuality is punishable by death.

15-  It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, the opposite is not true for Muslims.

16-  A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

17- No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

18- A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority.

19- Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

20- There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.

21- Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

22- Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.

23- There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

24- A woman inherits half what a man inherits.

25- A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.

26- The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.

27- A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.

28- The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.

29- A woman looses custody if she remarries.

30- To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.

31- A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money

(dowry) without marrying the rape victim.

32- A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t.

33- A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.

”The above are clear cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life.

Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the US constitution?

California Sharia “College” Set to Open

http://loganswarning.com/2010/08/23/california-sharia-college-set-to-open/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Loganswarning+%28Loganswarning
                                  
                                                                   
August 23, 2010                 

Not only are US Mosques teaching and preaching Sharia Law, now our government is foolishly allowing a Sharia “college” to open. I say foolishly because Sharia is what the enemy wants to impose on us, and allowing it to be taught here in America, is the equivalent to allowing Nazis to have their own US schools during WWII. Not only do we have to end all Muslim immigration, we also need to ban Sharia Law. Then arrest and deport if possible, any Muslim who calls for Sharia. They are to be looked upon as enemies of the state, just as Nazis were.

California school aims to be country’s first accredited Muslim college

As controversy swirls around a proposed Islamic center near New York City’s ground zero and a handful of other mosque projects around the country, students will arrive this week at a California school that is aiming to become the country’s first accredited Muslim college.

Zaytuna College hopes to the train a generation of Islamic clerics and professionals in a Western Islamic tradition that school officials say is ill understood by many of the foreign-born imams currently working in the United States.

“There’s a triumphalist view that’s not conducive to the type of religion we need to see,” said Hamza Yusuf, chairman of Zaytuna’s trustees board, describing many foreign-born imams. “American Muslims can help change a lot of the Muslim world to create the potential for conviviality.”

The school, located in Berkeley, will offer just two degrees – Arabic, and a combined Islamic law and theology major – when it opens its doors Monday to the 15 students in its first freshmen class. The class includes eight women and seven men.

But its leaders say they plan to expand to around 150 students in the school’s first four years and that they want to eventually train young people for careers in U.S. law, journalism, academia, and other fields.

First year tuition is $11,000 plus room and board, according to the school.

The school has yet to generate much controversy, but Yusuf, a co-founder who is the public face of the school, said he expects such criticism will come.

“I think the American people that are criticizing the ground zero mosque… are also criticizing us,” he told CNN’s Don Lemon on Sunday. “It’s par for the course right now. Islam is an acceptable target. To be prejudicial towards Islam is politically correct.”

But experts on American Islam say that the strain of modernist, mystical Islam espoused by Yusuf, which draws on Sufi traditions, might be more controversial among conservative Muslims.

SNIP

Though Zaytuna has received little attention outside the Muslim world, many American Muslims have been watching the project closely.

“It is hugely significant,” said Eboo Patel, a prominent Muslim activist who focuses on youth organizing. “Part of what America is about is that people from diverse background build on traditions that are inspired by their heritage but that serve the common good, in the same way that Catholic universities or Jewish hospitals do.”

“The big story right now is the integration of Muslims into America,” he said, “and the establishment of Zaytuna is an important milestone in that arc.”

Eboo (one of Obama’s Islamic con men), Sharia is not about Muslims integrating. In fact is is quite the opposite.

REFERENCE: CNN -
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/22/california-school-aims-to-be-countrys-first-accredited-muslim-college/

Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1496/mosques-on-sacred-sites-of-defeated-enemies              

by Gabriel Scheinmann

August 23, 2010 at 5:00 am

The real issue behind the controversy that has erupted over plans to build a 15-story cultural center, mosque and madrassa a few yards from Ground Zero is not only about the mysterious funding behind the Cordoba Center initiative, or whether or not its founders and backers have malign intentions. It is primarily about understanding how Muslims across the world, in particular Islamists, would view the conversion of the site of the greatest Muslim attack on U.S. soil into a Muslim house of worship. Given the long history of mosque-building following Muslim military victories, the building of the Cordoba House on Ground Zero will be seen in the same light as the Muslim conquests of Mecca, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. Whereas Americans hope that the attacks on New York City and Washington are seen as the clarion's call for aggressive American action to counter Islamist ideology, the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque will be seen by the same Islamists as its first step towards the decline of America.

Bin Laden and his Islamists would love nothing better to plant the flag of Islam in the cultural capital of the West. This would not be read in the Muslim world as a sign of the West's tolerance, but of its weakness. In its long history of conquest, Islam has habitually converted the scared shrines of its enemies into mosques and madrasas. A cursory look at the world's most famous mosques lays bare the fact that many were former houses of worships of defeated enemies.

Islam's most sacred site, al-Kaaba, in Mecca was a pagan shrine that predated Islam by hundreds of years. Mohammed himself, after his army's conquest of Mecca in 630, destroyed hundreds of idols, proclaiming the truth of his new religion, and, since, it has become the hub of the annual Muslim pilgrimage, hajj, and a core pillar of Islam. Following the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, the Ummayad Caliphate proceeded to build the Dome of the Rock, the Masjid Qubat al-Sakhra, on top of the Jewish Temple Mount in 689. Inscribed on the inner walls of the shrine are clear warnings to Christianity, professing Islamic supremacy. Sprawled on the inner octagonal arcade, flowing counterclockwise, the dedication warns Christians and Jews to "not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning God save the truth" and threatens the Christian Trinity by insisting that "The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is) better for you! - God is only One God."[1] Whoever believes that God had a son, "whoso disbelieveth the revelations of God (will find that) lo! God is swift at reckoning!"[2] Having defeated their Christian enemies, the Umayyads built a grand mosque on top of Judaism's most sacred site that contained a clear declaration of Muslim supremacy over their brother Abrahamic religions.

Similar conversions were ordered as the Muslim conquests expanded across Africa and Europe. The Grand Mosque of Damascus, also known as the Umayyad Mosque, was converted from a church dedicated to John the Baptist in 705. The world-renown Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was a thousand year-old Christian church before being transformed into a mosque following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. It was only converted into a museum in 1935 by ultra-secularist and Turkish founding father Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Over the long history of Muslim territorial advance, thousands of mosques, from Spain to India, were built on sites of important religious or political value to their defeated foes.

Supporters of the project might argue that the actions of invading Muslim armies over a millennia ago are irrelevant to the issue at hand in lower Manhattan. However, it is impossible to separate the recent decline of such a trend with the parallel decline and territorial recession of Muslim lands in the second half of the second millennium. Moreover, recent territories that have returned to Muslim rule following decolonization have seen the return of the conversions of religious sites into mosques. Muammar Qaddafi, the ruler of Libya, converted 78 synagogues into mosques in the 1970s.[3] In 1975, the Great Synagogue of Oran was confiscated by the Algerian government and similarly transformed.

Proponents like to cite the namesake of the Cordoba House complex as evidence of its goal of tolerance and pluralism, referring to the relative tolerant attitude of Muslim Spain to its Jewish and Christian minorities. Those proponents, however, should recall that the Great Mosque, or Mezquita, of Cordoba was itself a Visigoth Church that was converted and rebuilt as a mosque following Muslim conquest in 784, lasting nearly 500 years before it was recaptured and converted back into a Catholic cathedral.

Both survivors and the families of the victims of the September 11 attacks, as well as most prideful New Yorkers, have strongly objected to what they see at best as an insensitive project to, at worst, a malicious broadside against those who suffered tremendously on that day and since.

It has even divided the organized Jewish community, pitting a vehemently supportive J Street against a nuancedly opposed Anti-Defamation League. The mosque, run by the Cordoba House, claims to be promoting the project not only for functional reasons, but also for civilizational ones. Its supporters say that its aim is to use the 9/11 tragedy and the location of the Ground Zero Mosque as a message of tolerance and compromise in America. By hoping that Americans would never buy into the "Us against Them" rhetoric espoused by Islamists, supporters are seeking to demonstrate the superiority of Western culture and liberalism. The fact that this is even a debate in America demonstrates American tolerance; it is illegal to build a church or synagogue anywhere in Saudi Arabia.

American government officials have been divided over the plan, with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, Governor Deval Patrick, and, most recently, President Obama himself in support and many local and national politicians, including Senators John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, and Olympia Snowe, Congressman Peter King, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former Governors Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, in opposition.

But the symbolism could not be clearer: If the Cordoba's House supporters seek to emulate the tolerance of al-Andalus, the Arabic term for Muslim Spain, they are unwittingly declaring their possible acceptance of Muslim rule.

[1] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/DoTR.html
[2] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/DoTR.html
[3] http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=5&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=623&PID=0&IID=1901&TTL=The_Final_Exodus_of_the_Libyan_Jews_in_1967