Study Shows U.S. Mosques Are Repositories of Muslim Brotherhood Literature and Preach

[60Shock]

I do not believe tha anywhere near the majority of American Arabs living in this country fall into this category. But, there is certainly a significant vocal and active group on terrorists operating in their Mosques promoting and spouting violence to all non-believers and apparently gaining support in leaps and bounds.

This country needs to wake up this danger and stop ***** footing around the political correctness issues.

The full study and more information about the Mapping Shariah project may be accessed here at the project’s website: www.mappingsharia.com. The study was supported by the Center for Security Policy.



The abstract for the study summarizes the research findings:

A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers.
Of the 100 mosques surveyed,
51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence;
30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence;
19% had no violent texts at all.
Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts.
The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshipper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques.
In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts.
58% of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad.
The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite guest imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.
The study’s authors, Professor Mordechai Kedar of Bar Ilan University in Israel and David Yerushalmi, who serves as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., have both published widely on terrorism, Islamic law and its underlying doctrines of jihad and violence against unbelievers.

[JJClamdip]

They should be shut down and all muslims escorted out of the country.

Just like the open border situation there is no political will in Washington to do anything about it, we are fools to let this happen.

[Wu du Nord]

What's the Center for Security Policy? That name doesn't mean anything to me.

I own a few bibles. Each of them has passages advocating violence. I'm not a particularly violent person, so I ignore those passages.

[RoyalShock]

What's the Center for Security Policy? That name doesn't mean anything to me.

I own a few bibles. Each of them has passages advocating violence. I'm not a particularly violent person, so I ignore those passages.

Not to change the subject, but please provide a passage, given Christ's command to love one another (including your enemies), that advocates violence in the new covenant.

[Kung Wu]

What's the Center for Security Policy? That name doesn't mean anything to me.

Closing your eyes when someone is about to punch you in the face is a good tactic?

[60Shock]

What's the Center for Security Policy? That name doesn't mean anything to me.

I own a few bibles. Each of them has passages advocating violence. I'm not a particularly violent person, so I ignore those passages.

There is absolutely no comparison between any so called violence stated in either the new or old testaments with what we are talking about here.

I might just further add that avoiding something as violent as this does not make it go away. If anything, it further encourages it.

But to answer your question, the following is all the information about the Center for Security Policy and also about two authors of the article.

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.

For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org.

The study’s authors, Professor Mordechai Kedar of Bar Ilan University in Israel and David Yerushalmi, who serves as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., have both published widely on terrorism, Islamic law and its underlying doctrines of jihad and violence against unbelievers.

Dr. Kedar is an assistant professor in the department of Arabic and Middle East studies and a research associate with the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies, both at Bar Ilan University, Israel. He is the author of Asad in Search of Legitimacy: Message and Rhetoric in the Syrian Press under Hafiz and Bashar (Sussex) and numerous articles.

David Yerushalmi has been practicing law for more than 27 years. He is a litigator specializing in public policy relating to national security, the intersection between sharia and terrorism in the name of Islam, and public interest law. Mr. Yerushalmi is licensed and practices in Washington D.C., New York, California, and Arizona and serves as General Counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., which is one of the nation’s leading national security think tanks founded by former Reagan administration official Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.


The Perspectives on Terrorism study can be accessed here: http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/...-mosque-survey.


The earlier Middle East Quarterly study can be accessed here: http://www.meforum.org/2931/american-mosques.

The full study and more information about the Mapping Shariah project may be accessed here at the project’s website: www.mappingsharia.com. The study was supported by the Center for Security Policy.

[Wu du Nord]

Not to change the subject, but please provide a passage, given Christ's command to love one another (including your enemies), that advocates violence in the new covenant.

I'm not particularly interested in arguing this topic, I'm willing to guess that it's much dearer to you than to me. That's not a great recipe for mutual respect and understanding. I'm just positing that wars/crusades/purges/etc done based on various forms of Christian beliefs are a little difficult to whistle past. It's also unlikely to be excused by claiming, 'Sorry, we read part of our book wrong, but today we've got it square. Now we're against violence, but we're going to hold your feet to the fire for being pro-violence.'

Closing your eyes when someone is about to punch you in the face is a good tactic?

Not so much a 'tactic' as a reflex. I also can't sneeze with my eyes open. :stupid:

[Wu du Nord]

There is absolutely no comparison between any so called violence stated in either the new or old testaments with what we are talking about here.

Is 'so-called violence' violence directed at someone else? ;-)
Is it degrees of violence that concern you, and you find worth discriminating between?

I might just further add that avoiding something as violent as this does not make it go away. If anything, it further encourages it.

I'm just not following when you say 'as violent as this.' I presume you intend Islam, the religion.

But to answer your question, the following is all the information about the Center for Security Policy and also about two authors of the article.

... Snip ...

So it's a partisan think-tank lobbying group with a web-site? Good to know. ;-)

[SB Shock]

I'm not particularly interested in arguing this topic,

Then why say anything? Generally the protocol is if you don't really care to discuss a specific topic then you don't say anything.

I'm just positing that wars/crusades/purges/etc done based on various forms of Christian beliefs are a little difficult to whistle past.

Now you are deflecting, because that is not what you said.

I own a few bibles. Each of them has passages advocating violence. I'm not a particularly violent person, so I ignore those passages.

As far as the crusades - that is what happens when the State = Church

[Wu du Nord]

Then why say anything? Generally the protocol is if you don't really care to discuss a specific topic then you don't say anything.

Clever, but not particularly relevant. I was just saying that I didn't want to engage in a particular tangent of the discussion. That's not unusual. If one person holds strong views on a particular topic, and another doesn't then why pursue, eh?

Now you are deflecting, because that is not what you said.

I'm not certain what you think I said.

As far as the crusades - that is what happens when the State = Church

What? No.

[RoyalShock]

I agree with SB that you're being deflective by using an example to make a point, then dismissing it the way you did when asked to back up how that example is relevant.

In one hand you have men of history using biblical scripture, in error, to justify violent actions and war. That responsibility lies with the men, not the book or it's Writer. Hate the player, not the game, so to speak. In contrast, with Islam you have their primary prophet directing his followers to commit acts of violence against non-believers in the name of Allah. Big difference when the behavior is supported by scripture. I've yet to hear a satisfactory dismissal from moderate Muslims of Mohammed's violent teachings. On the surface, at least, it appears that it is the radicals who are the more accurate followers of their religion.

That said, we have the freedom of religion insofar as practicing that religion doesn't violate anyone's Constitutionally protected rights. If religious leaders are directing their followers to commit crimes against citizens, then we already have laws in place to deal with them. If a U.S. Muslim wants to voluntarily submit himself to the harsher requirements and punishments of Sharia law, more power to him.

[Wu du Nord]

Pardon, my initial comment was a concise specifically personal statement... the conversation was then redirected towards the general.

At best, by drawing a line at the 'new covenant' portion, an excuse is provided to 'Christians' as followers of a text that doesn't advocate violence; well, at least not in the important bits we follow. I suspect this still leaves Jews on the other side of the fence as a followers of religious texts that advocate violence.

[RoyalShock]

As far as I know, the OT does not command Jews to commit violent acts against other people, except where the law demands physical punishments among adherents for acts of disobedience.

That's a far cry from Mohammed commanding non-believers to convert to Islam or be killed or enslaved.

[SubGod22]

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

[Kung Wu]

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Too late, Maggie is on to me in another thread.