The Ground-zero mosque, continued

[muse]

A Editorial from the "look we're singing a different tune" NYT:


September 2, 2010
Mistrust and the Mosque

The furor over the proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque near ground zero keeps giving us new reasons for dismay. As politicians and commentators work themselves and viewers into a rage, others who should be standing up for freedom and tolerance tiptoe away.

To the growing pile of discouragement, add this: A New York Times poll of New York City residents that found that even this city, the country’s most diverse and cosmopolitan, is not immune to suspicion and to a sadly wary misunderstanding of Muslim-Americans.

The poll found considerable distrust of Muslim-Americans and robust disapproval of the mosque proposal. Asked whether they thought Muslim-Americans were “more sympathetic to terrorists” than other citizens, 33 percent said yes, a discouraging figure, roughly consistent with polls taken since Sept. 11, 2001. Thirty-one percent said they didn’t know any Muslims; 39 percent said they knew Muslims but not as close friends.

A full 72 percent agreed that people had every right to build a “house of worship” near the site. But only 62 percent acknowledged that right when “house of worship” was changed to “mosque and Islamic community center.” Sixty-seven percent thought the mosque planners should find “a less controversial location.” While only 21 percent of respondents confessed to having “negative feelings” toward Muslims because of the attack on the World Trade Center, 59 percent said they knew people who did.

It has always been a myth that New York City, in all its dizzying globalness, is a utopia of humanistic harmony. The city has a bloody history of ethnic and class strife. But thanks to density and diversity, it has become a place like few others in this country, where the world rubs shoulders on subways, stoops and sidewalks, where gruff tolerance prevails and understanding thrives.

The Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island are two pinnacles of American openness to the outsider. New Yorkers like to think they are a perfect fit with their city.

Tolerance, however, isn’t the same as understanding, so it is appalling to see New Yorkers who could lead us all away from mosque madness, who should know better, playing to people’s worst instincts.

That includes Carl Paladino and Rick Lazio, Republicans running for governor who have disgraced their state with histrionics about the mosque being a terrorist triumph. And Rudolph Giuliani, who cloaks his opposition to the mosque as “sensitivity” to 9/11 families without acknowledging that this conflates all prayerful Muslims with terrorists, a despicable conclusion.

As the site of America’s bloodiest terrorist attack, New York had a great chance to lead by example. Too bad other places are ahead of us. Muslims hold daily prayer services in a chapel in the Pentagon, a place also hallowed by 9/11 dead. The country often has had the wisdom to choose graciousness and reconciliation over triumphalism, as is plain from the many monuments to Confederate soldiers in northern states, including the battlefield at Gettysburg.

New Yorkers, like other Americans, have a way to go. We stand with the poll’s minority: the 27 percent who say the mosque should be built in Lower Manhattan because moving it would compromise American values. Building it would be a gesture to Muslim-Americans who, of course, live here, pray here and died here, along with so many of their fellow Americans, on that awful September morning. But it’s all of us who will benefit.

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

I am not a muslim and still I am supporting creation of this mosque

1) Its not just a mosque in a typical sense, it is an Islamic community center that has a place for praying, so it is intended to improve the quality of Muslims who would use this facility.

2) Scrapping this project is not going to help create harmony, people who oppose the mosque would celebrate their victory and then pick another mosque to continue their fight.

3) If you give up an inch, religious bigots here in US would take a mile. Already protests against mosques in TN, MN and CA popping up, so it is much more than just another mosque.

4) This is an issue between moderate/tolerant america and extremists /intolerant america.

Great points.
#1. the nut jobs disagree. They think non muslims are never welcomed in a mosque ( news to me)
#2 Scraping the project would now mean "defeat". I did not think I would say that but in light of having this issue made a national debate, scrap the project & you still will not earn their respect. At best the will think muslims got intimidated. that is not unacceptable. We are dealing with bibe thumpers who themselves think one day their "god" is going to wipe off all jews, muxlims, hinuds, , buddhists etc....
There is no good-will going to get created here no matter what.
#3 Same point as above. You give in now, it will always be demanded of you in future. They already protested the CA mosque a while back & even brought their dogs outside the mosque.
#4 We all know who is going to win.

It is kinda like what Mr Gandhi said, they are unlike Christ!

 

[Solomon2]

...the nut jobs disagree. They think non muslims are never welcomed in a mosque ( news to me)

At the Muslim Community Center near me anybody can rent one of the halls, but if you don't leave it for the mosque at the call-to-prayer you won't be allowed to rent the hall again. They say their duty is to “…promote friendly relations and understanding between the Muslim community and the general public, and to disseminate information on Islamic principles…” I suppose Cordoba House will be just as welcoming.

Scraping the project would now mean "defeat"....There is no good-will going to get created here no matter what....You give in now, it will always be demanded of you in future.

That depends on how it's done.

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

At the Muslim Community Center near me anybody can rent one of the halls, but if you don't leave it for the mosque at the call-to-prayer you won't be allowed to rent the hall again. They say their duty is to “…promote friendly relations and understanding between the Muslim community and the general public, and to disseminate information on Islamic principles…” I suppose Cordoba House will be just as welcoming.

That depends on how it's done.

S..................... Thanks for responding.
It would really depend if the hall that they rent is also the prayer hall.
I am sure they let people know in advance if they need it cleared out
and rightly so. If that is not the case, maybe they should not rent the hall at all.
As for Cordoba house, well you have not been there yet so lets not make assumptions. You should know better than that & actually I am surprised. Plus it is a multi level complex so I dot see any issue
with interferences at all.

Fortunately for me, I was raised to raise my voice if something is not appropriate or someone does not conduct themselves properly & I ve continued to do so without considering their color, race or religion!
Not sure I can say that about a lot of people on here!

 

[Solomon2]

It would really depend if the hall that they rent is also the prayer hall.
I am sure they let people know in advance if they need it cleared out
and rightly so. If that is not the case, maybe they should not rent the hall at all.

Details

The point is, compelling non-Muslims to attend Muslim prayer services makes many non-Muslims at least uneasy and maybe fearful and hostile as well. That sort of compulsion is un-American, and makes a mockery of the MCC's promise of being available to the general public.

On the flip side, I do know of one Rabbi who accepted an invitation by Muslims to pray with them. While in the mosque he davened mincha, the Jewish afternoon prayer service. Would you be comfortable if Jews did that in your own mosque? What about your fellow Muslims?

As for Cordoba house, well you have not been there yet so lets not make assumptions.

Similar mission, similar facilities, don't see why we shouldn't expect similar conduct from the management, do you?

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

Details

The point is, compelling non-Muslims to attend Muslim prayer services makes many non-Muslims at least uneasy and maybe fearful and hostile as well. That sort of compulsion is un-American, and makes a mockery of the MCC's promise of being available to the general public.

On the flip side, I do know of one Rabbi who accepted an invitation by Muslims to pray with them. While in the mosque he davened mincha, the Jewish afternoon prayer service. Would you be comfortable if Jews did that in your own mosque? What about your fellow Muslims?

Similar mission, similar facilities, don't see why we shouldn't expect similar conduct from the management, do you?

I ve been to dozens of Mosques, I ve never heard BS before from anyone being forced to pray. But my resentment now towards you is regarding coment # 2.
After reading your response # 2, I am utterly dis-appointed at you. You are Biased & certaibnly have an agenda .. funny how you have more freedom to say whatever the FCUK you like compared to say, a muxlim would have on a Zionazi or nutjob blog!I hate the haters & I ignore people like you ....Have a nice life!
And lastly, Come & take it...................

 

[Solomon2]

^^^^^^^^^
I don't understand you. Would you be specific, please?

 

[muse]

Dedicated to Gambit:


Amen to the Imam
Posted on August 27th, 2010 by Jack Hunter



Sometimes editors like to have fun with their writers — like this week when my editor at the Charleston City Paper declared that controversial Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and yours truly are actually the same person. Explains Chris Haire:

“You want proof? Well here goes: As you know, Rauf is the guy behind the so-called Ground Zero mosque. Not surprisingly, Sean Hannity doesn’t like him. On his Monday afternoon radio show, Hannity played an audiotape of Rauf, one which Sean believes proves just how anti-American the imam is … The funny thing is, the main point that Hannity offers as an example of Rauf’s virulent anti-Americanism is more or less the same point that the City Paper’s own Jack Hunter has been saying for years now … . Namely that the United States has killed more innocent Muslims than Al Qaeda has killed innocent Americans.”

This is true regardless of who says it. Rauf specifically cites “the U.S-led sanction against Iraq [that] led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children” in the 1990s, a death toll confirmed by the United Nations, approved of by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright (who said it was “worth it”) and apparently deemed irrelevant by Hannity. Using math over emotion, the Iraqi death toll due to U.S. sanctions equals about 170 9/11s. Despite Hannity’s outrage, the imam is absolutely right.

Trying to get Americans to comprehend the weight of the damage their government sometimes causes overseas is comparable to how some wives react upon learning that their husband is a child molester — many simply shut down, emotionally and morally, refusing to believe it even against overwhelming evidence. The very thought is so traumatic that they go into denial, preferring to ignore or endure the tragedy rather than let it upset their worldview. There are other, similar examples of such denial: many now ask about the decades-long sexual-abuse allegations against the Catholic Church — did they not know or simply not want to know? Some question whether Germans during World War II were aware of the death camps in their own backyard — did they not know or simply not want to know?

A half-million dead children is not insignificant, in Iraq or anywhere else — yet did Americans not know or simply not want to know? Separated by an ocean from the situation and captive to a media that barely reported it, for most Americans it was probably a mix of apathy and ignorance, but the degree to which that ignorance remains willful is worth noting. Writes Haire: “for both Jack and Rauf, this simple stat — that 500,000 innocents died as the result of American actions — is proof that the U.S. has blood in its hands too. But for Hannity, to point out this fact is to commit chicken hawk heresy. It is a challenge to Hannity’s unchallengeable worldview, and as such, it must be wrong.”

Naturally, most Americans want to believe their nation acts in a largely benevolent manner abroad — something conservatives hardly ever believe about their government domestically — and any stark evidence to the contrary is often too heavy to absorb or to hurtful to consider. Pundits like Hannity spends hours keeping their audiences focused on relatively trivial controversies like whether some random mosque should be built next to Ground Zero, but consider it heresy even to consider that overseas the U.S. puts ground zeros next to mosques all the time. In an audio clip Hannity features on his website, intended to condemn the now-famous imam, Rauf makes a more salient and valuable point than any of his critics: “What complicates the discussion … is that the fact that the West has not been cognizant and has not addressed the issues of its own contribution to much injustice in the Arab and Muslim world. It’s a difficult subject to discuss with Western audiences, but it is one that must be pointed out and must be raised.”

Many Americans might dismiss, as Albright did and Hannity does, the death of a half-million children as an unfortunate, yet necessary fact of war. Funny enough, this is exactly what many in the Islamic world consider 9/11. Racking up deaths with government approval does not excuse it in the minds of Muslims whose children perished, any more than those children perishing excuses 9/11 in the minds of Americans. There is no excuse for either. Blood is on the hands of both parties, something that too many Americans still refuse to acknowledge, weigh, or even consider, and now Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is being attacked for merely pointing this out.

There will continue to be reasonable arguments on both sides of the Ground Zero mosque controversy — but what is most detrimental is the extent to which its central figure has become even more controversial simply for making a perfectly reasonable argument.

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

Anyways........................
hey Muse, ur back.................... well I guess I asked you that already!
do you always show up in "Ramadan"only????

 

[NWO]

Anyways........................
hey Muse, ur back.................... well I guess I asked you that already!
do you always show up in "Ramadan"only????

What better way to spend your time until Iftaar is not by browsing PDF?

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

What better way to spend your time until Iftaar is not by browsing PDF?

LOL.................... I was really bored !

 

[gambit]

Hugely wrong analogy.

Very appropriate analogy.

In Islamic faith each induvudual is resposible for his or her action.

...not based on what other people of Islamic faith did.

An individuals faith is not subject to what some body else or a group of people supposedly belonging to Islamic faith does.

Peer pressure and group think matter much in any community bound a set of principles. The role of a moral-legal authority in a religious community, no matter its size, is to provide the proverbial 'moral compass', based upon certain religious principles, to that community. So yes, generally speaking, what you said is nothing out of the norm. But the issue here is that in Islam, there is no such authority/leadership for this vessel to keep potential doctrinally wayward members from producing his own interpretations of the faith. In Christianity, the schism was from the Catholic Church.

In Islam...

Amazon.com: Islamic Law: From Historical Foundations To Contemporary Practice (9780268031732): Mawil Izzi Dien: Books

Chapter 10

The future of Islamic law

Historically speaking, the principle of theological rebellion against the umma is not a new phenomenon. The Khawarij seceders rebelled against Ali because they interpreted Islamic law to justify their actions. They withdrew from the Muslim community, which they claimed had betrayed the spirit of Islam, and subsequently set up their own camp with an independent commander. The importance of the Khawarij, in a historical sense, comes from their having formed the first seed of a Muslim trend, whereby the politics that were affected led to a new theological argument. The action of the Khawarij gives us an excellent historical example of how a cellular view can develop into a sectarian theological view with its followers and armies. The Khawarij disowned Ali and the entire Muslim community for the simple reason that Ali accepted the arbitration concerning the issue of who was entitled to be the leader of the community. In addition, theh Khawarij perceived any person who had committed a mortal sin as an apostate.

You cannot have a new theological movement unless you have group unity that stands upon a moral-legal foundation.

On the day of the judgement each indivudual will be judged based on their actions and...

Considering that no one ever came back from the afterlife and tells us what it look like, this particular argument is pointless.

The hijacking of the religion is a term used in the US msm. This is how they explain to the viewres this is not the real Islam. I don't know anybody of Islamic faith who ever used that as an excuse.

The Western mainstream media took its cue from those Islamic leaders who claimed, not necessarily using the word 'hijacking', that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda did not act in accordance with Islamic principles. Who are they to make such a proclamation? How do they know, or at best perceived, those actions to be un-Islamic? Did someone came back from the afterlife and informed them of Allah's opinions? Bottom line is this, you cannot assert that someone make a deviation unless there is a consensus as to what is the norm in the first place.

Basically what you are arguing is symbolism, it has no value in Islam.

If symbols are irrelevant, there would not be the hoopla and violent response from muslims about those Muhammad cartoons. Symbols and symbolism are important in human life.

For Gods sake , even George W Bush gets it, whats wrong with you ?

B43 'got it' that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein and a military overthrow was the only way. You disagree? What is wrong with you? If you appeal to Bush about your religion, whatever yours are, you are opening a very large can of worms.

 

[gambit]

So, you admit that the Islam that Al-Qaeda or anyone else follows is not as the same as the Islam other Muslims follow?

Different does not equal to inferior, or wrong. How do you know for certain that al-Qaeda is wrong? What if Osama bin Laden is correct and it is YOU who are wrong?

 

[pkpatriotic]

“New Yorkers Divided Over Islamic Center, Poll Finds,” says the New York Times in one of its headlines. Another says “New York Poll Finds Wariness About Muslim Center.”

Neither headline suggests a careful reading of the poll results — a poll conducted by the New York Times itself.

Two-thirds of New York City residents want a planned Muslim community center and mosque to be relocated to a less controversial site farther away from ground zero in Lower Manhattan, including many who describe themselves as supporters of the project, according to a New York Times poll.

The poll indicates that support for the 13-story complex, which organizers said would promote moderate Islam and interfaith dialogue, is tepid in its hometown.

Nearly nine years after the Sept. 11 attacks ignited a wave of anxiety about Muslims, many in the country’s biggest and arguably most cosmopolitan city still have an uneasy relationship with Islam. One-fifth of New Yorkers acknowledged animosity toward Muslims. Thirty-three percent said that compared with other American citizens, Muslims were more sympathetic to terrorists. And nearly 60 percent said people they know had negative feelings toward Muslims because of 9/11.

Over all, 50 percent of those surveyed oppose building the project two blocks north of the World Trade Center site, even though a majority believe that the developers have the right to do so. Thirty-five percent favor it.

Opposition is more intense in the boroughs outside Manhattan — for example, 54 percent in the Bronx — but it is even strong in Manhattan, considered a bastion of religious tolerance, where 41 percent are against it.

Opposition is “even strong in Manhattan,” or if we take away that particular slant in reading the numbers, we discover that by a 10% margin the majority of Manhattan residents polled favor the construction of the center. This almost exactly mirrors the size of the opposition in the boroughs.

Just as interesting is the fact that whether someone favors or opposes the construction closely correlates with whether they count Muslims among their close friends.

So what’s the conclusion?

Move to Manhattan, make friends with a Muslim and you’ll probably decide Park51 has a place in the neighborhood.

The problem turns out not to be the impending Islamization of America — it’s that not enough Americans have Muslim friends.

 

[indianpatriot]

Muslims of America on the first hand should have not proposed this mosque...perhaps they did it desperately to have some spice and enjoy some anti US bias...its like you are constructing a Chabad house in the heartland of Palestine !!