Mosque planned for ground zero. - Page 2

I won't hold my breath waiting for it, but I'd love for you to present evidence in support of these claims your making. Or is just your feeling about the relative numbers?

How many extremist Muslims in the US have you heard saying that Christians shouldn't be able to build a church? That's extremist.

How many extremist Muslims in the US have blown up abortion clinics? Burned crosses in racial hatred?

And try this...

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktl...0,194500.story
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/11/...zed/index.html
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...ad.php?t=28206 (OK... that one's Canada)
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/23578143/detail.html

And these...

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/mus...-a-hate-crime/
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-12889
http://rightoftexas.blogspot.com/200...st-baylor.html
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sikh-...attacked-texas

Now the ball's in your court. I'd love for you to show similar events in America perpetrated by American Muslims. Go ahead.

Well, first I don't know if I've heard of any Christians saying that Muslims shouldn't build a mosque, but whatever.



And how many extremist Christians have hijacked planes and flown them into buildings?



Those are some fine anecdotal examples. However...



No, I think it's still in your court. Here's your statement in case you've forgotten:


The first is a specific claim. The second is also a specific claim albeit qualified with the word "probably." I don't believe that your links have yet supported these claims.

Of course you'll need to define "extremist" in some objective way in order to get to a place where you can count them all.

OMG!? Isn't that exactly what you and Gay Davi... um... "Camp" David are saying in this thread? OK... let me qualify it... How many Muslims in the US have you heard saying that Christians shouldn't be able to build a church anywhere it's legal to do so?

How many American Muslims did that? You did read what I posted, right?

I showed you seven examples of terrorist action, presumably from American Christians, all directed toward Muslims. I bet you couldn't find more than one example of the other. The incompetent Times Square stooge. Seven is more than one. That takes care of the second. As for the first all you have to do is go on the internet and read threads like this to know the truth.

"Extremist" is anyone who is not interested in working toward a peaceful coexistence.

Do you want to peacefully coexist with Christians and Muslims?

I cannot speak for Camp David, but I'm fairly certain I have never said that. But, please, point me to the post where I have.



I have not heard any. However, I'm not around many Muslims where the subject has come up, so this might be a poor sample set. So what?


Got it.


In your mind, perhaps. Simply cherry picking examples that well, might, bolster one side of your argument and then claiming there are no examples on the opposite side of your argument does not prove your point at all. It simply makes it looks like you're just making shit up based on your own biased perceptions of "extremist" Christians (and their alleged actions) and "extremist" Muslims (and their alleged lack of actions.)



No sir. I am not doing the homework to try and prove the claim you have made.

Still 0 for 2.



How...ummm...objective.

Absolutely.

I am not an American, but I vote NO. It is hypocrisy at its extreme if you build a mosque there.

Why you should build a mosque there: because it shows that the massive majority of sane rational US citizens know that 911 was just the product of a few nutters and nothing to do with Islam.

The fact that a few stray loons in the US and elsewhere have a vested interest in promoting the idea that this is what Islam actually is (see earlier ridiculous statement in thread about 'conversion by the sword' being a pillar of Islam) makes it all the more of a good idea.

The majority of Christians and Muslims want to peacefully coexist, too.

Exactly. Now why the hell is this concept so difficult for people to grasp?

Exactly. So the mosque should not bother anyone except the extremists and the prejudiced.

Indeed. We are in agreement on this issue. Let them build the mosque. Either the First Amendment applies to everyone equally or it applies to no one.

Agreed. I think though that is not enough to just build the mosque as some sort of principle....a mosque is just a building really and does not approximate to a church, a mosque could be anywhere (almost) and does not need consecration or anything like that.

What really matters is the Imam of this mosque. They need to make sure he is someone capable of both reclaiming Islam from any fundies and also educating those that think Islam is something it isn't.

That's from the pov of the Muslim community. Probably doesn't much matter to anyone else!

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

So I guess that's in the hands of that Islamic community or "congregation" (whatever term is used) of that area, right? I assume that Islam doesn't work like the Catholic church (or some Protestant denominations) in regard to selecting or appointing someone to this position from a higher up organizational entity. Does it?

No, not in Sunni. The Shi'i Imams are more institutionalized I guess but I'm pretty sure it won't be a Shi'i mosque. Hopefully it won't be Saudi funded either. Be interesting to see some background on who's funding it.

In Sunni Islam anyone can be the Imam in theory though it's usually someone respected in the community which in practice means someone like a scholar or religious student.

The huge majority of the American people want to co-exist with Muslims... hell, there are between 7 and 10 million Islamic people who are US CITIZENS for Allah's sake. I would think the huge majority here would also wish to coexist peacefully with Muslims. There is only one regular poster on here ("stevegmu") who obviously doesn't, that is, from the plain evidence in his posts. It appears that he shares the same opinions as the likes of certain senior (ex) politicians such as Perle, Abrams, Chertoff, Feith, Luttwak, Zakheim, Kissinger, Libby, Adelman, Zoelleck, Grossman, Bolton, Frum, etc . etc. etc... and very well-placed media pundits such as Horowitz, Pipes, Geller, etc. etc. etc. in the minds of whom "the only good Muslim is a dead one".

Surely they can be reformed. Many cult members have been successfully reprogramed.
Where do you think all these Islamic terrorists were brainwashed, recruited and turned into terrorists? The Boy Scouts? Every known homegrown jihadist in the US has had ties to radical mosques. It is an insult to allow a terror recruitment and training center in the shadow of Ground Zero.

Odd I am the only one against it, yet the poll results show otherwise. Kind of like Arizona's new law. The lefty media will have you believe everyone is against the law, yet poll after poll paints a different story.

WHo can be reformed? Muslims as a whole?

Or a certain section of Muslims? If the latter then which section? How many are there? Who are they?


What is the definition of a cult?

What are the prominent cults within Islam? Or do you mean to imply - as it seems you do - that Islam itself is the cult.

If so then what is the 'parent' - we know that all cults are schismatic and derive from an original parent-ideal don't we?


Don't know. Is there a special centre?

Is there just one place? Just one creed and dogma...all Islamic terrorists agree with each other? Please tell us...we need to know...


Who funds the radical mosques? Where are they? What is there version of Islam?

Obviously you know that there are many versions of Islam - such as Sunni and Shi'i but also many more. Perhaps you think they are all 'the same thing' and part of some over-arching conspiracy ?

What type are the mosques in the US?

I give you a clue in case you are finding all these questions a bit taxing: more than 80% of US mosques are funded by the US most prominent Middle Eastern Ally. This ally shares a version of Islam which is essentially the same as that of 90% of Islamist groups.


It would be or it is?

If the latter please share the info you have that someone is building a terrorist recruting centre at Ground Zero.


There is something odd for sure but I don't think it's that.....

More right-wing hate at Ground Zero:

Seems wingnuts fave wet-dream Palin has weighed in - albeit in a somewhat illiterate manner - against the mosque (which is not even a mosque but a cultural centre) and other right0wingers are jostling to the front to spit their hate and bile.

One typical example is right-wing poster boy and Chairman of tea Party Express, Mark Williams who had this to say which I think is quite tame by the usual standards but gives a flavour of how these people think - or don't think:


Hmmm Nice....

Sounds like a certain poster on here.

Here are some more of his supporters.

I have not yet formed an opinion on this planned Mosque/Islamic Center next door to the remains of the World Trade Center terrorism site but your reporting of others opinion seems to lack context. Since many in New York City oppose this you should cover their view too... Moreover:


Former Governor's Palin's legitimate concerns, that the mosque's location would be an "unnecessary provocation" so close to Ground Zero is in fact shared by many albeit most New York citizens. You might wish to sample their opinion as it contrasts well with New York's mayor.

Several points:

First the objection is based not on the stated aims of the organization or nature of Islam but what racists like this character I quoted are claiming.

If they are correct then then of course, there should be no cultural centre.

Ie: no reasonable person would condone a centre by a terrorist organization at ground zero or anywhere else that espoused the teaching of a religion which preached hate.

I agree with that (without agree with the NAzi that said it of course).

The question is "is what he and other protesters said true?". If it is: no Centre. If not then why not have a Centre? Of course in this latter case we need to look at what we do with liars like that who try to stir up hate and violence but that's perhaps for another thread.

Second point: this Centre is by an organization who have the stated aim to encourage dialogue and which rejects violence and extremism.

So again, are they telling the truth? If they are why would racists oppose it..ok, no need to ask that...we know the answer.

Contrasts as in conflicts:

I agree 100% with this.

The United States represents diversity.

Only our adversary would have us turn one against another. I for one will not go there.

Fellowship

I would like to know more on this viewpoint. Would you be willing to expand with detail what you are saying here?

Fellows

Hi Fellows

While we're waiting for that I'd like to share why I think a Cultural Centre there is actually a very good idea and even necessary. It is not a mosque btw - that is disinfo - it is a Cultural Centre organized by an Islamic group and there happens to be a mosque there for Muslim visitors.

Btw, in the Middle East Christians often pray in mosques. The main mosque at Damascus for example houses the (alleged) tomb of John the Baptist and is a major place of Christian pilgrimage in the region.

Why I think it is a good idea: it is necessary for Islam to get back to the traditional roots which were those of tolerance and religious plurality. This organization aims to do this which is why it is called 'Cordoba' as this was the city where Jews, Christians and Muslims lived in harmony for 800 years.

What better time and place to restate these aims of tolerance and non-violence.

The reactions to the plan seem to show there is a dire need for it. No-one is trying to convert anyone or spread dissent - it is about tolerance and religious diversity.

Recall that I said I had not yet formed an opinion here; I am sympathetic to former Governor Palin's point that the mosque's location would be an "unnecessary provocation" so close to Ground Zero is in fact shared by many albeit most New York citizens. I am also sympathetic to the idea of religious freedom. Hence the conundrum. While you may say that this Centre is by an organization who have the stated aim to encourage dialogue and which rejects violence and extremism, I have no proof of that, since several other such organizations have been allowed yet they were later found to be advancing Sharia Law principles, the foundation of terrorism.

Let me ask you, what evidence do you have that this so-named Ground Zero Mosque will not foster Sharia instruction? Who is financing this Ground Zero mosque and why does it need to be so close to one of this nation's best example of fanatical Muslim jihad?

Because it is not a mosque.

It is a Cultural Centre run by the Cordoba Project.

There is a mosque planned in the Centre but many Centres and Institutions have mosques attached. The 'mosque' in this case is merely a room where someone can pray.

In the Islamic world teaching generally takes place in Friday mosques or Grand mosques - each city may have hundreds of mosques but in only a few is there sermons perhaps...most are there as spaces for prayer much like chapels in airports.

This is what they say their mission is:


Now that raises some issues;

1) Is it a worthy aim?

For sure some will not agree with it and oppose it. That is their right. But I would think most people would want MORE harmony and peace and LESS confrontation and violence and if this helps...

2) If we accept that this is a worthy aim then the next question is "is it true?" ie - is this really what they want or is it a front for a terror outfit?

This is a legitimate concern and one which is down to the authorities to ascertain.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the relevant US agencies have investigated this organization and would not allow its existence - let alone this plan - should it be untoward.

I think it's too much of a challenge for the victims and their families. It's a bold move, but could push the wrong buttons.

It would be better if they could build some sort of "inter-faith" kind of community centre.

In my vision of a better world, most of the larger "places of worship" around the world would be "inter-faith" centres where you have a mosque, church, temple near to each other. If you visit Malaysia, you'll see examples of churches, hindu and buddhist temples and mosques all almost next to each other in some crowded neighbourhoods. They don't have any "inter-faith" community buildings, though there is some kind of "inter-faith" council (non-government organisation)... the inter-faith community centres should be the next step to foster understanding and tolerant spiritual growth.

The only issue is that, in several countries, converting out of Islam is very much prohibited. Whereas the other religions allow denouncement/ changing of your religion.

For the USA, I propose more inter-faith dialogues and meetings, rather than just building traditional places of worship in hopes of engendering tolerance.

Edit: Not saying Malaysia is perfect, just commenting on the co-location of buildings of worship.

Hey, okay, cool I posted before seeing your post. It is OF ABSOLUTE, CRITICAL IMPORTANCE that this debate be carried out understanding it may or may not be a mosque.

A "prayer room" is very, very different from a mosque. Kind of how a mini-chapel is very different from a church.

My proposal for the Cordoba Project is such ~ have a Muslim prayer-room, a Christian mini-chapel, something similar for Judaism, and a meditative room for Buddhists, and another non-religion-specific "self-spiritual area".

Edit: More information on a "masjid" (mosque) vs a "musalla" (prayer room/ prayer hall)... http://lifeofummaslam.wordpress.com/...and-a-mussala/

Disclaimer - I'm not Muslim, more towards New Age...

Edit2: Okay, I know, the tricky part is these Muslim centres and so on, whether it can be called a Mosque or is it just a prayer hall (Musalla)? This is important in the perception of what is considered a mosque in the US...

This is the page of the actual project.


At first I thought that it might be better to be a neutral inter-faith Centre rather than 'Muslim-led' as it says there but then I thought about it and that would not address the problem.

The task is to somehow reclaim Islam from extremism - people often say this is what must be done but when Muslims try to do it there is opposition - and this is why I think it MUST be a Muslim-led project.

Otherwise those who believe and promote the idea that Islam is the same thing as extremism and terrorism would be unopposed and nothing would change.

"The proposed Cordoba House overlooking the World Trade Center site where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites. For example, most of them dont understand that Cordoba House is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Cordoba, Spain the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the worlds third-largest mosque complex.

Today, some of the Mosques backers insist this term is being used to symbolize interfaith cooperation when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way.

Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for religious toleration are arrogantly dishonest. They ignore the fact that more than 100 mosques already exist in New York City. Meanwhile, there are no churches or synagogues in all of Saudi Arabia. In fact no Christian or Jew can even enter Mecca."

Newt Gingrich Statement on the Proposed Cordoba House
http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/newt...ue-ground-zero

Did you read the opinion of this person who replied in the feedback section below the remarks of Newt?

I will paste it here:

"I like you Newt, but can't say I fully agree with you on this one. I just don't think we can stoop to the level of behavior of the Saudis. We're bigger than that.

This would be like saying Muslim women cannot walk American streets without their veils. It's just not American. We can't look at the restrictions placed on Americans by other countries, and then say, "well we're going to do the same to you."

Also, we allow churches and businesses to build buildings all the time without knowing exactly where the money came from.

Eye for an eye doesn't work here. "

I tend to agree with this individual.

Fellows

But this is not true. I am now even more convinced of the need for the thread on Islam which was Fellow's suggestion.

I think we all want peace and not division - sometimes division occurs and conflict arises, shit happens. But why make it up when it is not true?

Cordova is far from an insulting term: it is the place where Jews, Christians and Muslims lived together for 800 years.

Of course if you want to find reasons to deny this or denigrate it then you can as you can with anything.


It is not a mosque. It is a Cultural Centre.

Every Islamist does not actually think what you quote here btw - Islamists generally hate the time of co-operation between religions because it is something they do not want. Like some in the West do not want it too.


Which is why I suppose such a Centre could never occur in Saudi Arabia. This is poor logic.

It would only be sound logic if the Centre was Saudi financed or Wahabi based. Or, if perhaps the Saudi version of Islam is correct.

You can argue those points but I would quote the Qur'an on the issue of Christians and Jews:


So as the Qur'an claims that Jews and Christians will also go to heaven there arose two traditions in Islam:

1) That one should not - nor need to - try to convert them
2) that they can worship in Islamic areas.

Saudi do not believe this - or they ignore it - but there it is: in the Qur'an.

And also remember: the Saudi version of Islam is an eighteenth century development. Islam existed for 1200 years before the Saudi Wahabi belief was ever heard of.

But you know, at the end of the day it all boils down to this: we have all one life to live - whatever you think happens after if anything - and it will pass very quickly.

You can spend your time in a negative fashion looking for divisions and bad things - and you will find them pretty quick - or you can try to do something about it and leave the world a better place in no matter how small a way.

That's what I've decided to do anyway and I want to be counted with the peacemakers and those that make an effort and not those who complain and point out the bad while doing nothing. We all have this choice so between Mr Gringrich and the Cordoba Project I'll choose the latter as it seems to me more constructive. Others are free to make their own choices.

All I would say is the real evidence should be on the table so they can choose objectively without manipulation.

AMEN Brother!

Bravo and well stated indeed! I agree completely!!!

Fellows

Apropos.

Al Qaeda needed a NYC field office; now they have one!

Not all comics are created equal. Yours are racist and idiotic.

They had one for 8 years it was called "The White House"