Ground Zero mosque wins approval !!

[EjazR]

And as someone who have been to the ME and post Saddam Kuwait and who have a Quran and exegesis by various muslim authors, I posed uncomfortable questions that earned quick dismissal from the local imams.

That is unfortunate. I'm not sure what kind of questions you posed that got such quick dismissals as you suggest.

What I was specifically talking about is wether mosques in the US are "hotbed of extremism" as you suggested and I am confident that you will that is not the case. Thatswhy I suggested to go incognito to find out what is said on the Friday sermons.

 

[EjazR]

I think the construction of mosque at ground zero will be used as a symbolism of victory of Islam over America by the extremist organizations like al-qaeda and tout their invincibility and this will encourage the recruitment on new people who are sitting on the fence.

Actually it will be there defeat. There main aim is to say that American is categorically hostile to Islam such that no muslim can live in American and pratice Islam. More than America, they hate the muslims who are planning this cultural centre to show the face of moderate mainstream traditional Islam. People like Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan are people who give sleepless nights to AQ types. Nothing compared to what the entire firepower of American can do to them.

So this premise will fall flat on its face and whatever credibility that has suffered will vanish completely.

 

[FlickerSingh]

First ofall you have to differentiate between non-muslims and kafirs. Not all non-muslims are Kafirs.


Second, conversion to Islam is willingly not co-erced. Even if someone is co-erced his acceptance is not valid and the person who co-erced him/her has gravely sinned.

And what other principles are unchallenged. The biggest roadbloc is the killing of innocent civilians and categorically all muslims reject it from the most conservative to the liberal muslims.

Maybe you didn't know but 90% of the fatalities by terrorists who happen to be muslims are muslims themselves.

well I have often heard muslims describe all non-believers as kaffirs so forgive me if I was wrong and jews and christians for example are excluded but that term is only reserved for hindus, sikhs etc.

I meant the conversion of islamic principals and islam as a religion by the violent extremists which is unchallenged by majority muslims and not the act of converting to islam. does silence not imply acceptance of those violent principals espoused by the radicals?

if muslims suffer at the hands of extremists then I must say with respect that they are bringing it onto themselves. christianity for example rejected the violent principals of the catholic church in the early middle ages. the protestant group took a stance and stood up against the excesses of that church. buddhism moved away from extreme hindu principals. I dont observe any muslim group starting to campaign against the excesses of islam. if you burn a fire in other peoples' houses don't expect your neighbours to come running to help you douse the flames of your own burning walls.

 

[Mirza Jatt]

I think the construction of mosque at ground zero will be used as a symbolism of victory of Islam over America by the extremist organizations like al-qaeda and tout their invincibility and this will encourage the recruitment on new people who are sitting on the fence.

I agree with that!

and as I have said earlier...thoe mosque might end up being a reason for hatred among the americans for the Muslims. feeling will be a mixture of anger and helplessness, as they will see the mosque as a symbol for victory of the attackers.

 

[EjazR]

well I have often heard muslims describe all non-believers as kaffirs so forgive me if I was wrong and jews and christians for example are excluded but that term is only reserved for hindus, sikhs etc.

Kafirs are those who have try tohide or coverup the truth. Or those who don't accept Islam after being presented it in the right way.

hindus who believe in one god or follow the vedas are part of the people of the book like Jews or Christians.

Mushrik are those who worship more than one God. Anyways, thats offtopic.

I meant the conversion of islamic principals and islam as a religion by the violent extremists which is unchallenged by majority muslims and not the act of converting to islam. does silence not imply acceptance of those violent principals espoused by the radicals?

Sorry you are misinformed on that. There has been a loud and vociferous rejection of extremists by almost all religious scholars as well as fromtheir former colleagues as well. Most of the debate has been inArabic and Urdu language media and hence probably not as accessible to non-muslims but believe it or not even the conservative school of thoughts like the Salafis have rejected extremists like AQ.

if muslims suffer at the hands of extremists then I must say with respect that they are bringing it onto themselves. christianity for example rejected the violent principals of the catholic church in the early middle ages. the protestant group took a stance and stood up against the excesses of that church. buddhism moved away from extreme hindu principals. I dont observe any muslim group starting to campaign against the excesses of islam. if you burn a fire in other peoples' houses don't expect your neighbours to come running to help you douse the flames of your own burning walls.

Just in India for example youhad from 2006 onwards muslims groups led by JamiatUlema-Hind had numerous anti-terrorism conferences all over India. There were conferences attended mainly by Indian muslim religious scholars but also religous scholars from other parts of the Islamic world including ARab countries and Turkey for example. Hundred of thousands of muslims particiapted rejecting killing innocent civlians. Huge public spaces in Delhi, Pune, Hyderbad, Mumbai, Chennai were all filled with muslims rejecting violent extremist even though they had nothing to do with them.

Have you never heard about that? Maybe its because it doesnt make good media news like a crazy man in a cave who is not even a religious scholar but a businessman or a medical doctor.

If you follow Urdu or arabic media you will see how much the extremists have been marginalised even by their very own collegues who have renoucned their ideology.

 

[Tshering22]

Kafirs are those who have try tohide or coverup the truth. Or those who don't accept Islam after being presented it in the right way.

hindus who believe in one god or follow the vedas are part of the people of the book like Jews or Christians.

Mushrik are those who worship more than one God. Anyways, thats offtopic.



Sorry you are misinformed on that. There has been a loud and vociferous rejection of extremists by almost all religious scholars as well as fromtheir former colleagues as well. Most of the debate has been inArabic and Urdu language media and hence probably not as accessible to non-muslims but believe it or not even the conservative school of thoughts like the Salafis have rejected extremists like AQ.




Just in India for example youhad from 2006 onwards muslims groups led by JamiatUlema-Hind had numerous anti-terrorism conferences all over India. There were conferences attended mainly by Indian muslim religious scholars but also religous scholars from other parts of the Islamic world including ARab countries and Turkey for example. Hundred of thousands of muslims particiapted rejecting killing innocent civlians. Huge public spaces in Delhi, Pune, Hyderbad, Mumbai, Chennai were all filled with muslims rejecting violent extremist even though they had nothing to do with them.

Have you never heard about that? Maybe its because it doesnt make good media news like a crazy man in a cave who is not even a religious scholar but a businessman or a medical doctor.

If you follow Urdu or arabic media you will see how much the extremists have been marginalised even by their very own collegues who have renoucned their ideology.

But still there isn't any stopping to this isn't it? The point is, going community specific with a sort of 'leading' community initiative won't be appreciated. This might not be a mosque entirely, but you need to see what Indian_Jatt is saying.

The common American's helplessness will only channel their increased anger and hatred towards this and it will become more problematic.

 

[sam27]

First, a Ground Zero is a place doomed by nukes not by planes.

How may Synagogues, Temples and Churches are there in UAE, SA or Iran?

The mayor of NYC is a Jew, still the law was passed. Do we see that in our country?

They are also trying to build the Community Center in one of the most expensive real estate in the world, does it sounds logical?

Will Muslims feel comfortable going to a center and coming out when they are continuously seen suspicious by bystanders?

 

[ambidex]

^^^^I still stand by my suggestion that you should go visit your local mosques. There is some illogical fear of mosques and I have seen that wether in India, Australia or US, whenever we arrange open days and invite the local non-muslims they come up with the weirdest questions imaginable. And are happily surprised at the answers they get in return.

I hope you will appreciate that you may possibly have many misconceptions around Islam and mosques. What better way to go to your local mosques and see if they are true. On fridays they will most likley speak in English, just like they speak in Urdu/Hindi the lingua franca in India. So anyone can know what they are talking about.

A non believer will never go to a mosque if he do not have weird perceptions about Islam. But there are many non believers those who respect and understand Islam without attending those open seminars. What Muslims are failing to do today is by not targeting the later. Nothing is done by moderate Muslim voices to change that perception (as there are many other mediums and were many opportunities) and if they do the same, then they all are comprehensively bullied by radicals, in Muslim majority nations.

If it is about misconception then why a non believer should go to a mosque why not a believer should go into masses and clear those misconception. Your approach is passive and has done damage instead.

I would like to request you to go to Ahmadi mosque in Sydney and read their pamphlets and see their efforts. Here in PDF their are many Islam specialists but in Australia for any one else they all are Muslims and are changing misconceptions with great efforts.

 

[QueenOfTheOceans1]

I think there will be a rise of hatred for Muslims in the west in general.....

 

[EjazR]

@ambidex and Teshring

I think you didnt read my posts.

All school of thoughts including the most conservativelike the Salafisreject terrorism. So what confusion is there?

Today it is the muslims who die more in such attacks than non-muslims. Like I said, american are more likley to die in a car accident than a terrorist attack.

So what we need is changing the wrong perception of people. And ofcourse the muslims themselves are the first target group. Hence the community centre is a postive step in that direction.

Thecase of Pakistan and Afghanistan is very different where the leadership is still not decided on what is a bigger problem. But if you look at Saudi Arabia for example who have taken an important role in combating extremism. If you are uninformed of what is happening in the muslim countries and the media does not highlight the positive aspects taking place, it is yourduty to find out the truth as well rather than just depending on mass media.

 

[gambit]

That is unfortunate. I'm not sure what kind of questions you posed that got such quick dismissals as you suggest.

On this forum, I have never participated in any discussion that involve the minutae of Islam and the Quran, such as what verse is sahih or what is not and so on. I do not intend to get into that here.

What I was specifically talking about is wether mosques in the US are "hotbed of extremism" as you suggested and I am confident that you will that is not the case. Thatswhy I suggested to go incognito to find out what is said on the Friday sermons.

What is a 'virtue'? Strip of the 'good' and 'evil' connotations, a 'virtue' is simply something that is desirable. For a con man, being deft of tongue and hands is desirable, or 'virtuous'. For an auto mechanic, having a good set of tools and being deft with them are virtuous traits. For a religious leader, being well grounded in religious studies and one's sacred texts are virtuous.

America's objections to the construction of this mosque, or at least an Islamic 'community center', are virtue base: sensitivity, basic decency and respect. If anything, just like the Japanese regarding Pearl Harbor, we do not expect to raise any objections at all because we expect the muslims to be virtuous in not even proposing to build anything at all near Ground Zero. The current legal objections going on right now in NYC are essentially 'shocked' response upon seeing the lack of virtues by the muslims who proposed the construction of this mosque and by muslims who loudly proclaim the legality of the proposal to remotely support its construction.

With this mosque, or at least its proposal, we do not need to see open 'hotbed' of Islamic extremism to perceive that muslims do not respect our sensitivity and care not about basic decency. After 9/11, we did not round up muslims and intern them like we did with the Japanese in America back in the 1940s. Instead, our President exercised sensitivity, basic decency and respect, all moral virtues, by publicly standing alongside Islamic religious leaders and exonerate Islam of guilt of 9/11. The US President cannot order the citizenry to change its mind. He can only persuade by making himself and his subordinates examples of the virtues he want the citizenry to emulate, or at least pause and reconsider.

So is it too much to ask of ANY Islamic religious leader to exercise the same level of sensitivity, basic decency and respect? Apparently it is too much.

 

[ambidex]

@ambidex and Teshring

I think you didnt read my posts.

All school of thoughts including the most conservativelike the Salafisreject terrorism. So what confusion is there?

Today it is the muslims who die more in such attacks than non-muslims. Like I said, american are more likley to die in a car accident than a terrorist attack.

So what we need is changing the wrong perception of people. And ofcourse the muslims themselves are the first target group. Hence the community centre is a postive step in that direction.

Thecase of Pakistan and Afghanistan is very different where the leadership is still not decided on what is a bigger problem. But if you look at Saudi Arabia for example who have taken an important role in combating extremism. If you are uninformed of what is happening in the muslim countries and the media does not highlight the positive aspects taking place, it is yourduty to find out the truth as well rather than just depending on mass media.

Ejzar i have religiously followed your all posts and i have no objection on whatever you have said on this particular Issue and i really mean it. I was just trying to say that if perception is wrong and Muslims do care about that perception then they must do extraordinary efforts and to me they haven't done any cause they don't care, are passive, non missionary or not clever like Christians.

Adding: Pakistan and Afghanistan do not have resources to fix extremism. They have learnt to live in coexistence non willingly with it. That which can not be cured must be endured kind of.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

I believe gambit would only be satisfied if a major Islamic leader came out and said Islam was at fault for 9/11.

First that is too high a standard to expect from any religion. You will never hear the Pope say Christianity was at fault for the molesting of children, and that is far less henious than terrorism.

Second you must think your intelligence services idiots. They monitor and track these anti-American sermons since 9/11, and photograph those who attend. I would rather potential terrorists be attracted to these places like a magnet and be identified.

 

[gambit]

I believe gambit would only be satisfied if a major Islamic leader came out and said Islam was at fault for 9/11.

Nope...But if US foreign policies and support for Israel should be considered when discussing terrorism that involved a certain religion, then why the evasion about Islam and its influence?

First that is too high a standard to expect from any religion. You will never hear the Pope say Christianity was at fault for the molesting of children, and that is far less henious than terrorism.

As a lapsed Catholic, I am unable to find anything in the New Testament, from which the Catholic Church is largely based upon, that could be construed by any priest as permission to molest children. The concept of jihad and its wide open to interpretation, on the other hand...

Second you must think your intelligence services idiots. They monitor and track these anti-American sermons since 9/11, and photograph those who attend. I would rather potential terrorists be attracted to these places like a magnet and be identified.

One reason why I support its construction.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And you are wrong. Hawaiian Japanese-Americans will think more than twice before they feel any need is compelling enough to override their sense of sensitivity, basic decency and respect for history.

Yet there is the question of taste. I wonder what sort of Muslim will be so insensitive as to choose to support this project to completion and worship within a stone's throw of the former WTC? As gambit pointed out, no Japanese would build a shrine near the USS Arizona memorial in Hawaii.

There is no question of 'taste, decency, sensitivity or respect for history' here. These are all canards dredged up to somehow imply that American Muslims, Muslims in general and Islam bear responsibility for the 911 attacks. For any Muslim to accept these position is to accept culpability in the 911 attacks, and that is precisely the purpose behind these disingenuous arguments.

American Muslims did not condone the 911 attacks, they did not support them and the founders of this mosque have not condoned them. Since Muslims, both American and as a worldwide body, had no role in supporting or condoning the 911 attacks, constructing a mosque next to Ground Zero has no negative connotations, except in the fevered minds of bigots.

These bigots will never be satisfied - first it was demands of 'condemnation and protest', that happened, then it was demands of 'not enough condemnation and protests', now it is 'no mosque 3 blocks from Ground Zero' next it will be 'no mosque ten blocks from Ground Zero'. The probably 'no minarets on mosques', and who knows, then they'll want to revise the Quran because of how they perceive and interpret it (an interpretation they share with Islamic terrorists and extremists).

There is nothing 'virtuous' in conceding to hatemongers and bigots, and the fear and loathing they generate against communities and peoples they despise irrationally. In fact to concede to the demands of such people will be the 'unvirtuous' act. This proposed mosque is decent, is respectful of history, is tasteful, is 'virtuous' and is not insensitive except to bigots.