The Ground-zero mosque, continued

[GentlemanObserver]

none of that amounts to islam being the enemy. whats going on in some parts of western europe is about legislating islam to conform to host nations' values on certain narrow parameters. to be honest, i am sick of blaring minarets too. would you call me an islamophobe to detest having noise pumped 5 times a day into my ears? its happening these days and its infringing on my freedom and sanity.

Do you have the same problem with the Temple bell or the Church Bell?

With regards to minerates, the the EU and USA use of loud speakers for call of prayer in mosques is strictly prohibited.

 

[GentlemanObserver]

Careful with your generalizations. Not all American Muslims support the Cordoba House project.

Same applies to you, not all Americans oppose the construction of the project.

 

[inddef]

Yes so says you? Why should we let you define ourselves.

Muslims have a greater and older tradition in religious tolerance than history of most other civilizations. The teachings of tolerance all exist within the confines of Islam, its only a matter of putting it real world practice, once again. Here's a fella who has finally started talking about building bridges between Islam and the west and has no demonstrable evidence of peddling any extremist ideology yet you're rejecting all overtures of peace and harmony?

Does that not make you the violent one? Does that not make you the intolerant one?

its not just extreme versions of islam that are incompatible with modern polity but very moderate ones too. i don't see any major sect in islam granting freedom to leave islam and freedom to blaspheme against islam in principle. at the very least, if an authority with a major following decriminalizes these in principle, you'd start to have a case. right now, moderate islam simply isn't good enough.

anyway, i am not talking against the mosque. the mosque is legal, fine and should go through. i am talking about the erroneous idea that moderate islam has something to teach the west about political principles just by not being extreme. nope. a hundred years of reform later maybe, but not today.

 

[Awesome]

Then what does calling non-muslims 'unclean' equal to...???

You have to do some introspection and come out clean whether or not America is a secular state or is it not? Are you an American objecting to this mosque or is it a faithful follower/missionary of Christ that as is objecting to the mosque? Do you foresee the mosque as an insult on the memory of the lives lost on 9/11 or do you see this as the furtherance of a rival religion over Christianity?

For if it's Christianity up in arms against Islam in America, it makes sense and your fears or phobias can be justified as Christianity as an entity is in competition with Islam as an entity. But if you're saying America is a secular state, it cannot as much define policy based against a religion as much as it cannot define policy in favor of a religion - be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism or heck even Satanism.

You must abandon secularism - declare Islam as your official enemy and herd Muslims into internment camps, for this tantrum to make any sense. Right now you're saying one thing, meaning another and raising more suspicions about yourself.

 

[GentlemanObserver]

its not just extreme versions of islam that are incompatible with modern polity but very moderate ones too. i don't see any major sect in islam granting freedom to leave islam and freedom to blaspheme against islam in principle. at the very least, if a major followed body of scholars decriminalizes these in principle, you'd start to have a case. right now, moderate islam simply isn't good enough.

anyway, i am not talking against the mosque. the mosque is legal, fine and should go through. i am talking about the erroneous idea that moderate islam has something to teach the west about political principles just by not being extreme. nope. a hundred years of reform later maybe, but not today.

right now, moderate islam simply isn't good enough.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (14 January 1892 – 6 March 1984)

 

[inddef]

i think we are talking past each other actually. i sympathize with concerns of vilification of moderate muslims.

i am talking about the fact that even moderate islam isn't mature enough to be compatible with values of the enlightenment, let alone the extreme versions.

 

[Awesome]

its not just extreme versions of islam that are incompatible with modern polity but very moderate ones too. i don't see any major sect in islam granting freedom to leave islam and freedom to blaspheme against islam in principle. at the very least, if an authority with a major following decriminalizes these in principle, you'd start to have a case. right now, moderate islam simply isn't good enough.

anyway, i am not talking against the mosque. the mosque is legal, fine and should go through. i am talking about the erroneous idea that moderate islam has something to teach the west about political principles just by not being extreme. nope. a hundred years of reform later maybe, but not today.

You're mixing up two things to rule by Shariah and to adhere to Shariah. I've not asked to be ruled or to rule by Shariah laws - I'm strongly committed to Secularism as that does not negate my faith, my beliefs or my religious practices - neither mine nor of anyone else.

However in my personal capacity I may wish to submit myself to Shariah laws where it affects no one else but myself - and others may wish to do the same. This is already practiced in the UK where Shariah arbitration exists to settle disputes between two parties where both agree to it.

To leave Islam, to blaspheme against it - means the rejection of Shariah in a secular governance system hence the concept of apostasy is not mandated upon the state.

As said before, there is some very difficult and honorable work being done here. To dismiss this guy as you did with your "Shariah peddler" comment, is unfair to say the least.

 

[GentlemanObserver]

i am talking about the fact that even moderate islam isn't mature enough to be compatible with values of the enlightenment, let alone the extreme versions.

How Flawed. Do you read the teaching of Rumi, do you understand the teachings of the prophet and the interpretations of the Quran. Or do you base your opinion of what "moderate Islam" is based on the comments made by halfwit radicals veiled in a guise of tolerance and moderation?

Enlighten yourself about Islam and it's mystical aspects before making such ludicrous statements:

 

[magg]

Are you an American objecting to this mosque or is it a faithful follower/missionary of Christ that as is objecting to the mosque? Do you foresee the mosque as an insult on the memory of the lives lost on 9/11 or do you see this as the furtherance of a rival religion over Christianity?

The questions are wrongly framed. There is another important point. One doesn't need to do reverse discrimination to show that one is secular. Why do people need to support a Mosque being built at any specific location to prove that they are not anti-muslims.

There is an equilibrium and harmony in each locality and building of a religious place should be undertaken only when the majority of the people around it are not affected by any means due to it's building.

The people are projecting a simplistic yet untrue assertion that the Americans don't want it as they see it's building as an insult to the innocent people killed in a dastardly act. There can be a complex yet an entirely different school of thought.

 

[inddef]

You're mixing up two things to rule by Shariah and to adhere to Shariah. I've not asked to be ruled or to rule by Shariah laws - I'm strongly committed to Secularism as that does not negate my faith, my beliefs or my religious practices - neither mine nor anyone of anyone else.

However in my personal capacity I may wish to submit myself to Shariah laws where it affects no one else but myself - and others may wish to do the same. This is already practiced in the UK where Shariah arbitration exists to settle disputes between two parties where both agree to it.

To leave Islam, to blaspheme against it - means the rejection of Shariah in a secular governance system hence the concept of apostasy is not mandated upon the state.

As said before, there is some very difficult and honorable work being done here. To dismiss this guy as you did with your "Shariah peddler" comment, is unfair to say the least.

well, the simple thing is this. until the interpretation of sharia actually changes widely to allow freedom to leave the religion and freedom to blaspheme at the very least, the incompatibility between islam and the secular west doesn't go away, because these are UNDHR rights.

the more misalignment there exists, the more islam will be viewed suspiciously as a subversive, alien and incompatible ideology which wants to exert rule (keeping followers under the heel /suppressing criticism etc)

 

[Awesome]

"Tolerance" is by far inferior to "rights":

One has to wonder if the concept of "rights" would've ever came about if tolerance was not preached first.

Wouldn't might have always been right?

If I can silence you, I would, why do I have the need to give you the right to speak against me if I'm not tolerant of your rights to speak against me?

Initially I had stated that this is hands down a decision in favor of the mosque both legally and morally. Legal in the sense that it's their right to build a place of worship. Moral in the sense that the place of worship they are building is promoting a code of tolerance and peaceful co-existence.

 

[GentlemanObserver]

In the end it all boils down to this:

 

[GentlemanObserver]

well, the simple thing is this. until the interpretation of sharia actually changes widely to allow freedom to leave the religion and freedom to blaspheme at the very least, the incompatibility between islam and the secular west doesn't go away, because these are UNDHR rights.

the more misalignment there exists, the more islam will be viewed suspiciously as a subversive, alien and incompatible ideology which wants to exert rule.

the more islam will be viewed suspiciously as a subversive, alien and incompatible ideology which wants to exert rule.

How can you view a belief system as suspicious or deviant? Tis the practitioner who is found wanting. To suggest such a thing is an oxymoron in itself.

 

[Awesome]

The questions are wrongly framed. There is another important point. One doesn't need to do reverse discrimination to show that one is secular. Why do people need to support a Mosque being built at any specific location to prove that they are not anti-muslims.

Actually your question is reverse. One basic thing that is taught since forever - "My freedom ends where it impacts somebody else's freedom."

You're not being asked to support the mosque, you're being asked to not inhibit the freedom of others to open a mosque - wherever.

There is an equilibrium and harmony in each locality and building of a religious place should be undertaken only when the majority of the people around it are not affected by any means due to it's building.

The way the mosque is being built - it has no minaret, the building already exists, it is private property, it is not forcing people to join in congregation in no imaginable way does it affects the mental or physical being of any person by its existence in that spot.

My freedom would end if it took away any of your freedoms, not in any other way.

 

[inddef]

How can you view a belief system as suspicious or deviant? Tis the practitioner who is found wanting. To suggest such a thing is an oxymoron in itself.

actually, i should make it clear that i am talking from the enlightenment intellectual standpoint. i understand that populist politics has different reasons to oppose islam and muslims(xenophobia / racism etc)

however, i don't think islam will get much support from the enlightenment intellectuals either until major reforms happen over time.