The Ground-zero mosque, continued

[rohailmalhi]

msnbc video proxy for facebook

Just have a look at sum fact given on Msnbc program about this community center ......

 

[EjazR]

Who is saying muslims in America must? Before Sept 11, 2001, America was indifferent to Islam. To %99.999 of Americans, Islam was just another religion that any celebrity could indulge himself to attract attention, like how the Beatles took up Hare Krishna. Since then, America is at best ambivalent about Islam. The source of that ambivalence came from the fact that while we were indifferent about Islam, some muslims were not indifferent about US and attacked US in the name of Islam, so there is now an internal conflict between our respect for the freedom of religion and our dead who were victims of members of a religion acting in the name of their religion. Between now and then, despite that ambivalence, we elected a President who made no secret of his muslim past and even had a 'muslim' sounding name.

Here is something for you to consider...That in a secular state, it is not good for any religion to draw negative attention to itself. Look at Europe and see the evidence. The Euros are beginning to feel threatened. They will call upon their own religious past as part of the intellectual and moral defense of their societies.

The point you are missing is that Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton have accepted that America played a role in empowering the fringe fanatics in its fight against Communism. Personally I blame Pakistan and Saudi Arabia more because they were muslim countries and used Islam for a political purpose in their war in Afghanistan and fight against Communism.

But the US played its own role in utilising these groups. The American people were probably unaware of these except for Rambo fighting with the Mujahideen with a turban and vest in Afghanistan
orReagon dedicated space launches to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, but the reality is that US did use and influence these groups.

Like I have said earlier, I think there should be a freeze on the project now. But the sad part is that the right wing fanatics have taken over the debate. The sensible people are not there anymore. People are talking about terrorists funding the mosque, a tribute for Al Qaeda and all kinds of nonsense which is frankly offensive to a community that has suffered 90% deaths and widspread harships because of the people who attacked NYC on 9/11.

I still think that this is more because the Republicans and pollies have taken this as a wedge issue in econmically uncertain times to consolidate their votebank. I have seen these tactics too many times in India to not miss it. Once the elections are done, you will see the rhetoric pan down. But ofcourse each time ithappens there is damage to the social fabric.

 

[Solomon2]

As we have argued before, since the opposers don't have, and cannot hope to have any kind of constitutional backing for their negative position as opposers, they have resorted to the argument of "dominant culture" --

I haven't heard of such an argument being employed, and I doubt it would be effective. The effective argument against Cordoba House is the sensitivity of the families of the 9-11 victims to a new, large mosque close to the WTC.

 

[Patriot]

So Mr Solomon What's your PERSONAL opinion on the mosque.I hope you are neutral.

 

[Solomon2]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm neither for or against the project. Whether it goes forward or not, the sensitivities of the 9-11 families should be respected, therefore the backers of Cordoba House need to discuss the project with them directly.

 

[Awesome]

I haven't heard of such an argument being employed, and I doubt it would be effective. The effective argument against Cordoba House is the sensitivity of the families of the 9-11 victims to a new, large mosque close to the WTC.

Their sensitivities are wrong. The Muslims as a people are not responsible for 9/11. If they feel so, they should be referred to counselling since this sort of attitude definitely cannot be healthy for them or for society at large.

If they don't consider Muslims as a whole responsible, there is no issue.

The dominant culture argument is again very European style of curtailing freedoms, America would do well to protect its freedoms now or lose them in this wave of phobias it is cultivating.

 

[Awesome]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm neither for or against the project. Whether it goes forward or not, the sensitivities of the 9-11 families should be respected, therefore the backers of Cordoba House need to discuss the project with them directly.

They can do that if respect is reciprocated and the 9/11 families fight the media propagated notion that all 9/11 families hold all Muslim kind responsible for 9/11. Otherwise it would be more like giving in to the accusation and accepting that we as Muslims are inherently responsible for 9/11.

 

[muse]

Opposers, having failed to get traction with their "angry American equals patriotic and Islam hating" argument, have sought to attack Imam Abdul Rauf - here is Americas' favorite Indian media idols' take:


Fareed Zakaria GPS: Al Qaeda vs. Islam | Crooks and Liars


ADL ‘saddened, stunned’ by Zakaria returning first amendment freedom prize in Ground Zero mosque dispute



For Ejaz - forget about growing a pair, work on your CONSCIENCE - (Fareed is also an "Indian" )

To ban mosque is to subvert Constitution
By Roland S. Martin, CNN Contributor
August 23, 2010 8:36 a.m. EDT
.

(CNN) -- "My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution."

Those eloquent words were spoken on July 25, 1974, by an outstanding woman and fellow Texan, Rep. Barbara Jordan, when she was a member of the House Judiciary Committee investigating the impeachment of President Richard Nixon.

And as I have listened and watched the stunning debate over the potential location of an Islamic community center and mosque two blocks away from where the World Trade Center towers were destroyed on September 11, 2001, Jordan's precise words keep coming to mind.

In the aftermath of the tragic 9/11 attacks, the refrain from many Americans was that it was critical for the United States to prevent the terrorists, al Qaeda, from taking away what we wrested from the British between 1775 and 1783 -- our independence and democracy.

Yet in our zeal to fight terrorism worldwide, we have chipped away at our precious rights, willing to surrender hard-fought civil liberties under the guise of protecting ourselves from terrorists at home and abroad. Today, we are a nation embroiled in a local zoning dispute over a plan for a 13-story Islamic cultural center that will house a mosque, theater and other amenities.

It has been inaccurately described as the "ground zero mosque," a ridiculous term considering it will be two blocks away from the site of the fallen World Trade Center towers.

What has been fascinating and demoralizing to watch is the clear and unmistakable religious bigotry that has taken over this conversation. Critics of the project contend that they are not trying to trample on our precious constitutional right of religious freedom by opposing the project. They contend that it is simply in bad taste to build it so close to ground zero, and that Americans are far too emotional about the issue.

Others words really come to mind. Irrational. Hysterical. Intolerant. Hypocritical.

Over the last several years, we have seen American troops shedding blood on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting for American liberty and values. We hold ourselves up with self-righteousness as the paragon of democracy and freedom, yet we are quick to stifle the freedom of others we simply don't agree with.

A lot of the hateful rhetoric spewing out of talk radio, on blogs and on mainstream TV stems from a deep-seated mistrust, hatred and dislike of anyone practicing Islam.

In our politically correct way, we say we respect Muslims who aren't intent on launching a jihad, but the venom in the words of many reveals that isn't true. In a debate on CNN, James Carville talked about his Muslim friends being sickened by this attitude, only to see Bill Bennett then ask if those friends had publicly repudiated the Muslims involved in 9/11 and terrorism.

Is that what we've come to? We want to demand to see IDs of Hispanic-looking folks who might be here illegally, but we also want American Muslims to prove their patriotism by denouncing any and every crazed and deranged Muslim in the world who seeks to do us harm. Never mind that we have Muslims fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan; prove yourselves to be worthy Americans who are on "our side."

The pain and heartache that was created on 9/11 was unbearable for many. The nation was traumatized, shocked and paralyzed by the brazen acts caused by the bastards who swore allegiance, not to peace, but to a murderous man named Osama bin Laden and a loose-knit terror network named al Qaeda.

For some reason, Republicans have lost sight of the fact that even President George W. Bush made clear that America isn't at war with Islam. And clearly some Democrats are so afraid to stand up for the U.S. Constitution that they are about as weak as a wet sheet of paper.

Now instead of joining hands with fellow Americans, including Muslim Americans, our deep-seated hatred of Muslims is calling us to detest this community center and mosque.

As the drama has unfolded with rapid speed over the last several days, I've tried to understand how a nation so willing to pronounce our "American values" across the world could so easily forget that the early American settlers left nations to escape religious persecution. Our Founding Fathers could have easily created a national religion. But they had the foresight to allow this to be a land where anyone could choose, or not choose, to practice their religion freely.

Years ago while interning at the Houston Defender, I remember writing an editorial about a Texas ACLU lawyer and member of the NAACP defending a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, who was being ordered to turn over membership rolls of the group. No matter how much the attorney detested the KKK personally, he spoke of their rights being just as important as the NAACP's, and cited how efforts were made in the 1940s, '50s and '60s to force the NAACP to reveal their membership rolls.

Fighting to protect and uphold the U.S. Constitution even means defending those we can't stand. We cannot be so willing to exclude someone from the protection that that document affords.

Rep. Barbara Jordan also spoke to this issue in that tense hearing room on July 25, 1974.

"Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: 'We, the people.' It's a very eloquent beginning," she said. "But when that document was completed on the 17th of September in 1787, I was not included in that 'We, the people.' I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision, I have finally been included in 'We, the people.' "

Any American who claims to love this nation with all his or her heart should take the same view. No matter how raw our emotions have been rubbed, no matter how much anger we have for the despicable human beings who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11, none of us should be so angry and shameful that we trample the one document that has held this nation together all these years.

I am a believer in Jesus Christ; he is my personal lord and savior. I am an American who loves this country with all my heart and soul. But I also believe that the building of a Muslim community center near the World Trade Center site will not be an insult to the souls lost when those planes flew into the Twin Towers. It will not be a slap in the face to others traumatized by the events of that day. Allowing this project to go forward will show the best of America. It will mean that we not only love and respect our values, but we revere them to the point that we allow something to go forward even when other Americans disagree.

Even the pain of 9/11 isn't enough to turn our backs on the U.S. Constitution. That would simply be un-American.

 

[EjazR]

For Ejaz - forget about growing a pair, work on your CONSCIENCE - (Fareed is also an "Indian" )

I always appreciated Fareed's putting up in simple terms crucial matters. This is also one of them and I hope sane people heedhis take on the issue. His article right after 9/11 Why they hate us? is a must read for all those who are allergic whenever US foreign policy ismentioned in connection to anti-Americanism.

I have clearly stated my disgust with the way the issue was handled. I am not a US citizen or living in the US and by supporting the mosque I am in no way threatened. So I have not made my satement out of fear of any kind but its my own opinion.

The reason is more around pragmatic and I gave the example of the London "Mega Mosque" issue as well.

At the same time, I don't want to see American muslims to go into a shell. I said a freeze on building the centre, not canning it altogether. Explaining to the sane people is the priority beginning with the 9/11 families. And I hope to see these cultural centre all over US and other parts of the world as well.

You can't debate with people who talk about "sharia mosque" which makes no sense. (Its like calling Halakha Synagouge). Muslims should avail all other oppurtunities to bridge the gap with American public. Fareed Zakaria and other like mided people re crucial in this regard. I think Rauf and his wife would eventually take the right decision overall.

This ofcourse does not exclude by disappointment with the way the debate has been shifted from "sentiments of the families", to "triumpahlist symbol" and "subjugation of the west" and other fear mongering tactics.

 

[Solomon2]

They can do that if respect is reciprocated and the 9/11 families fight the media propagated notion that all 9/11 families hold all Muslim kind responsible for 9/11. Otherwise it would be more like giving in to the accusation and accepting that we as Muslims are inherently responsible for 9/11.

I do think that if the backers of Cordoba House justify themselves to the 9-11 families on this basis - that there is nothing wrong with Islam or Muslims and that the problem is with non-Muslim Americans - that given such a brutal, insensitive, and myopic approach the purpose of the backers of Cordoba House will thus be revealed as an attempt to give Islam a "pass" and disassociate ALL Muslims from any moral culpability for 9-11.

 

[muse]

I don't want to see American muslims to go into a shell

I don't this you and others will have anything to fear on this - quite the contrary is happening and much much more will happen.

You can't debate with people who talk about "sharia mosque" which makes no sense. (Its like calling Halakha Synagouge).

You have not quite understood what the opposers are about, the real aim of the opposers is to continue to ensure that Islam and Muslim are synonomous with terrorism and terrorists, both in the media (not a problem) and in the public opinion in the US (problem).

For my money, "bring it on" - see, hostility towards Islam, fear of Islam and Muslims in the US, if the polls presented by the opposers are a indication, is widespread -- and the there are going to many many more such struggles ahead - but with each struggle, the opposers get weaker, the American public is essentially a decent public and then there is the LAW - while the US justice department is the citidel of anti-terrorism(read anti-Islam action, it is but one arm of the judiciary, the constitution is a gaurantee to it's citizens.

If your position is anchored in conscience, you have nothing to fear from the opposers - you know, you just have trust that All the people cannot be, are not opened to be, fooled all the time. Just because you may lose something like the mega mosque in london(no constitution in the UK), does not mean you give up and accept second class status and the monker of terrorism (Indian Muslims should internalize this, they owe it to their progeny)


So, Ejaz, the struggle is really about keeping Islam and Muslims in the US on the back foot, to keep conflating Islam with terrorism and to conflate Muslims with terrorist - why? US government policies - Conservative, conserve WHAT? US government polices.

But change is one thing we can be sure of, right? Win or lose, is not the issue, it's to fight the good fight, to promote conscience - it's about conscience.

 

[toppys]

As we have argued before, since the opposers don't have, and cannot hope to have any kind of constitutional backing for their negative position as opposers, they have resorted to the argument of "dominant culture" -- in their recourse to "dominant culture", opposers conspire to create a paralell paradigm where they hope to propose that the "dominant culture" argument can do without recourse to the constitution, that opposers can tell other Americans what to think and what kind of attitudes to hold as "appropriate".

As an example of the "appropriate" the opposers argue that building the Islamic center is "insensitive" -- think about that, Will opposers next say that Jews should go without the Yarmukha, because these "Christ Killers" are being "insensitive" to the "dominant culture", will these Blacks not learn to stay in their own neighborhoods, I mean how "insensitive" of these blacks to move into neighborhoods where they are not "dominant", and think about this argument when it comes to jobs -- unfortunately for the opposers, the legal system has visited these social vices before, opposers hope the public will be more angry, more emotional than reasonable - and this approach has been successful before - but not before the law.

The greater the desperation of opposers, the more strenuous their efforts against US Muslims, and while they may succeed in some instances, over all, the efforts of the oposers ensure that more and more America becomes aware of US Muslims and Islam and it's recourse to the law and it's appeal to a decent America - so the greater the opposers effort, the closer and the deeper the integration of America and US Muslims, and the more distant between the attitudes and the kinds of policies the opposers favor.

Saudi Landmark Commission Approves New Mecca Synagogue | World
The Mecca Synagogue and Jewish Cultural Center, a 13-story Jewish cultural center proposed for a site two blocks from Mecca, an Islamic holy site, cleared its likely final hurdle when the Mecca and Medina Landmarks and Preservation Commission voted 9-0 to deny protected landmark status to the building currently occupying the site, a "I Hate The Jews" t-shirt stand.


The decision is believed to be the last legal impediment to the project going forward. The commission, whose 11 members are all appointed by Saudi King Abdullah, held its meeting yesterday morning in lower Mecca, in the shadow of the Masjid al-Haram.


Commission member Ahmed Al-Alawiwi was willing to acknowledge the controversy surrounding the proposal, saying that the building near the mosque, is a part of Islam's holy site. But Al-Alawiwi said that connection was not enough to warrant landmark status.

“One cannot designate hundreds of buildings on that criteria alone. We do not landmark the sky,” he said. "Unless there are Israeli F-15's in the area."


Mayor Muhammad Bloomamunda applauded the commission’s decision, saying in a speech on soon after the vote that the issue touched on the foundations of Islam.

"It's all about tolerance, Islam is a religion of tolerance. And peace," Bloomamunda said. "Right?"

"You better say 'right' or we will kill you all," Bloomamunda said. "Have a nice day."

 

[gambit]

Muslims around the world had no input in Al Qaeda's thinking and decision making body. No one in Alqaeda came to say India or Indonesia or Turkey explaining their foreign policy on how to attack US to gain acceptance.

First...The lack of a centralized religious authoritative body, like that of the Vatican, in Islam made it easy for ObL and al-Qaeda to formulate their own version of politicized Islam. With the UN and its Security Council, at least political bodies have several forums in which to air their grievances, plead their causes, create alliances, seeks moral support...etc...etc...The greater the number of agreements, even unwritten ones, the greater the odds of success in any UN forum.

Second...You are wrong in that al-Qaeda's brand of politicized Islam does not have worlwide support. Such support does not have to be openly popular and because so many are willing to quietly support al-Qaeda's version of politicized Islam, we have no idea as to the extent of numerical and ideological support. The fact that there are al-Qaeda's cells in every muslim country should tell us that al-Qaeda's version of political Islam is popular and enjoys considerable numerical support. Tacit support can and often does come from inaction. Is al-Qaeda's version of politicized Islam unknown before Sept 11, 2001? No. Such a version of politicized Islam was well known and enjoyed active support in many parts of the world, noticeably in the ME and Africa. For example: The Fighting Jama'ah Islamiyaah of Libya. Wahhabism is the foundation of this politicized Islam and the interpretation that Saudi Arabia export with near total worldwide muslim acquiescent, if not openly support.

The point you are missing is that Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton have accepted that America played a role in empowering the fringe fanatics in its fight against Communism. Personally I blame Pakistan and Saudi Arabia more because they were muslim countries and used Islam for a political purpose in their war in Afghanistan and fight against Communism.

But the US played its own role in utilising these groups. The American people were probably unaware of these except for Rambo fighting with the Mujahideen with a turban and vest in Afghanistan
orReagon dedicated space launches to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, but the reality is that US did use and influence these groups.

As if anyone has a choice in the matter at that time and that is the point that you missed. And if necessity made options unpalatable for everyone, then casting blame is wrong.

If everyone agree with Feisal Abdul Rauf's comment that US policies were 'accessories' to 9/11...

Accessory (legal term) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:

* The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea, are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").

* If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement.

The English legal authority William Blackstone, in his famous Commentaries, defined an accessory as...

As to the second point, who may be an accessory before the fact; Sir Matthew Hale 12 defines him to be one, who being absent at the time of the crime committed, does yet procure, counsel, or command another to commit a crime. Herein absence is necessary to make him an accessory; for such procusence is necessary to make him an accessory; for if such procurer, or the like, be present, he is guilty of the crime as principal." and an accessory-after-the-fact as follows: "AN accessory after the fact may be, where a person, knowing a felony to have been committed, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon.17 Therefore, to make an accessory ex post facto, it is in the first place requisite that he knows of the felony committed.18 In the next place, he must receive, relieve, comfort, or assist him. And, generally, any assistance whatever given to a felon, to hinder his being apprehended, tried, or suffering punishment, makes the assistor an accessory. As furnishing him with a horse to escape his pursuers, money or victuals to support him, a house or other shelter to conceal him, or open force and violence to rescue or protect him.

Is this the context of 'accessory' Rauf mean? Does he has any evidence that the US aided and abetted the 9/11 terrorists?

Or does he mean that the US and our foreign policies are influential factors in the rise of al-Qaeda and ObL's hostilities to US? If that is what he mean, then we should understand that those foreign policies must came from somewhere, stands upon a foundation, supported by certain leadership figures...etc...etc...So if America is to be morally complicit to some degrees on 9/11, then why is it unreasonable that America is uneasy about Islam as an influential factor on 9/11? Not only is the opposition numbers are rising in NYC but also are spreading across the country. This is telling for a people that was indifferent to Islam before 9/11 and the 'telling' is that America is ready to reciprocate to the Islamic world what the muslims have been doing to US.

Like I have said earlier, I think there should be a freeze on the project now.

This triumphalist symbol will be built. If I have any say in it, I would insist upon construction. A religious center, church or synagogue, is not a cloister designed to separate some people from society. A cloister is a monastery or a nunnery where people are essentially trained in religious matters not available to the laity under some principles. A religious center like a church or synagogue or mosque is supposed to be in service to a lay community and as such it should be close to a concentration of that community. The location of this proposed mosque is downtown financial. One hundred million$$ construction project to serve the few? Give me a break.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

As a great nation america should stand by it's constitution and values no matter what happens even if it means Obama loosing his job.

 

[muse]

we have no idea as to the extent of numerical and ideological support. The fact that there are al-Qaeda's cells in every muslim country should tell us that al-Qaeda's version of political Islam is popular and enjoys considerable numerical support

.


An interesting comment. Whose "we"? To what lows will opposers stoop to? Live and learn -- First they opposed the Islamic center with the argument that Islam is Terrorism - now they hope to spread fear of Al-Qaida and say that there is widespread support for Al-Qaida among Muslims - There is nothing they will not not stoop to, but this is a huge plus, the more they spread fear and lies, the easier they are to expose:


New Estimate of Strength of Al Qaeda Is Offered
By DAVID E. SANGER and MARK MAZZETTI
Published: June 30, 2010
ASPEN, Colo. — Michael E. Leiter, one of the country’s top counterterrorism officials, said Wednesday that American intelligence officials now estimated that there were somewhat “more than 300” Qaeda leaders and fighters hiding in Pakistan’s tribal areas, a rare public assessment of the strength of the terrorist group that is the central target of President Obama’s war strategy.

Taken together with the recent estimate by the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, that there are about 50 to 100 Qaeda operatives now in Afghanistan, American intelligence agencies believe that there are most likely fewer than 500 members of the group in a region where the United States has poured nearly 100,000 troops.

Many American officials warn about such comparisons, saying that Al Qaeda has forged close ties with a number of affiliated militant groups and that a large American troop presence is necessary to helping the Afghan government prevent Al Qaeda from gaining a safe haven in Afghanistan similar to what it had before the Sept. 11 attacks.

On Monday, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that on a recent trip to the region he was struck by the “depth of synergies” between Al Qaeda and a number of other insurgent groups, including the Pakistani and the Afghan Taliban.

Mr. Leiter, who is the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, concurred with Admiral Mullen’s judgment.

But with the fighting in Afghanistan intensifying and few indications that the Taliban are weakening, the recent estimates of Al Qaeda’s strength could give ammunition to critics of President Obama’s strategy who think the United States should pull most of its troops from the country and instead rely on small teams of Special Operations forces and missile strikes from C.I.A. drones.

Both Mr. Leiter and Admiral Mullen were speaking at the same homeland security conference at the Aspen Institute, sponsored in part by The New York Times. Mr. Panetta’s public remarks came last Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

Mr. Leiter told the audience on Wednesday that “we’ve had some incredible successes” against Al Qaeda’s leadership. Echoing Mr. Panetta’s assessment, he said the group “is weaker today than it has been at any time since 2001.”

But he quickly added, “Weaker does not mean harmless.”

Administration officials talk increasingly about the dangers posed by militant groups affiliated with Al Qaeda, saying they have both the intent and the capabilities to attack the United States. The man accused of trying to detonate a vehicle in Times Square in May received training from the Pakistani Taliban, a group once thought to be interested only in attacking inside Pakistan. On Dec. 25, a young Nigerian man tried to blow up a transatlantic jetliner on its way to Detroit after being trained by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a Yemen-based terror group, officials say.

Mr. Leiter’s organization was one of those criticized for failing to thwart the Dec. 25 attack by placing the man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, on a no-fly list.

Mr. Leiter said that “the threshold has been lowered” for placing individuals with suspected links to terror groups on that list, though he would not describe the new criteria. He said that Mr. Abdulmutallab was on a list of suspects “available to 10,000 people” inside the United States government, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department and others.


David E. Sanger reported from Aspen, Colo., and Mark Mazzetti from Washington.


The more they lie, the more they spread fear and hatred, the easier they are to expose - see for yourself the substance of the opposers.