The Ground-zero mosque, continued

[somebozo]

And so to the families of the victims of 9-11 you have nothing to say, other than acknowledge that they should, in your opinion, learn to live with what they currently see as a cruel gesture by the Muslim community.

The muslims are hit by terrorism more than the Americans are. And then lets not forget american massacares in Iraq and Afghanistan. And lets not forget too that Islamic terrorism is american funded to its core. Its the western freedom of speec which gave haven and rights to radicals like Abo Hamza. Americans are just bearing the fruits of their failed political interference abroad. This has nothing to do with Muslim community neither their gestures. As simple as that.

Infact Muslims of America should fight a case against US gov for constantly defaming their indentities through a sponsered media campaign.

have a nice day!

 

[Awesome]

And so to the families of the victims of 9-11 you have nothing to say, other than acknowledge that they should, in your opinion, learn to live with what they currently see as a cruel gesture by the Muslim community.

They see it wrong and it is they that commit an act of cruelty by upholding such distorted world views.

 

[Awesome]

Although while some 9/11 families have gone towards the dark side and blanketed themselves with hatred, others have risen high and formed quite honorable opinions towards tolerance and humanism.

Media Repeat Unsubstantiated Claim that 9/11 Families Oppose Muslim Community Center SpeakEasy

I’ve read so many straight news stories claiming that families of 9/11 victims oppose the Park51 project (formerly Cordoba House), that I’d come to accept it as fact, at least to a degree. I figured that some of the 9/11 survivor groups had come out against the project and reporters were just too lazy to point out that those groups in no way represented “9/11 families,” whose opinions on the matter is presumably quite diverse.

I didn’t give it much more thought because it’s not relevant. Victims of violent crime are entitled to irrational, emotional responses to things like this. The rest of us aren’t.

But today Josh Marshall points out that there’s no evidence to support the claim in the first place.

…as evidence of [9/11 families'] opposition you’ll frequently see quotes from a woman named Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot aboard the plane flown into the Pentagon on 9/11…​

Marshall states the obvious: Burlingame has every right to her opinion.

That is not the same, however, as turning a blind eye when lazy journalists present her as representing or even being representative of the families of victims of the 9/11 attacks. The most cursory googling shows that she’s been advocating a string of right-wing positions going back over the last decade. Indeed, she’s the cofounder with Liz Cheney of Keeping America Safe.

Also very worth noting is that none of the 9/11 Families groups who actually seem to be membership organizations made up of families of the victims seem to have taken positions on the mosque issue at all. I looked at the websites of several such organizations. And they each contain ‘about’ pages with some information about the organization, its membership and in most cases boards of directors. The website of Burlingame’s group, 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, contains no such information. But it’s [sic] statement of purpose does give some sense of viewpoint: “The war against sharia is a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.”
​

Is it just me, or there something kind of perverse about astro-turfing the survivors of 9/11 victims?

 

[Awesome]

9/11 Victims' Families Have Mixed Reactions to Ground Zero Muslim Center

(Aug. 4) -- The proposed Muslim community center at ground zero is a "slap in the face," says the sister of a New York City firefighter who died on 9/11. But a New Jersey man whose son perished in the attacks is torn between his wish to help build a "better world" and his fears that the project will only spark more anger and suffering.

Families who lost loved ones when hijacked planes slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001, were wrestling with their feelings today, a day after the controversial Islamic center cleared a critical hurdle.

The project's fiercest critics argued that the center would be an insult to those who died at the hands of Muslim extremists.

But Herb Ouida, whose son Todd died in the attacks, says he supports the Cordoba Initiative's project.

"To call it a mosque is not right. It's a community center that includes a prayer center," Ouida told AOL News today.

The 68-year-old father from River Edge, N.J., says he is deeply concerned about the tone of some of the opposition to the project.

"What we are doing [when we oppose the community center] is we are saying to the world that we are at war with Islam. And we can't be. I want my grandchildren to live in a better world," he said.

"To say that we're going to condemn a religion and castigate a billion people in the world because they're Muslims, to say that they shouldn't have the ability to pray near the World Trade Center -- I don't think that's going to bring people together and cross the divide."

But Ouida, who along with his wife started a foundation to help fight childhood anxiety, a condition Todd struggled to overcome as a boy, said he understood the grief victims' families are still going through.

"Pain just sometimes causes you to lash out," he said. "And I know is that there's a lot of pain."

Nancy Nee of Long Island, N.Y., wants Muslims to be able to build a community center -- just not so close to ground zero, where her brother, 35-year-old firefighter George Cain, died 10 years ago.

"We're upset," Nee, 48, told AOL News today in a phone interview. "Not at the fact that Muslims have a right to practice their religion here ... we're not like that. But I feel that it's a slap in the face to put it close to ground zero."

Nee said the building's size, as well as its location, was a problem. "It's a 13-story building that will tower over the other buildings," she said. "It's almost like a trophy. The whole thing just reeks of arrogance at this point."

On 9/11, Marvin Bethea rushed to the World Trade Center to try to save lives, and has had trouble breathing ever since. The former Emergency Medical Services worker says he had to retire in 2004 when the breathing problems he acquired from toxic materials at the site made it too hard for him to work. But Bethea said he supports the Islamic center anyway.

"Even though my life has changed, I don't hate the Muslims," Bethea, 50, said. "Especially being a black man, I know what it's like to be discriminated against. I've lived with that."

Bethea believes racism is stoking the controversy.

"I understand the families are hurt and lost," he said. But "how do you sit here and condemn all Muslims as being terrorists?" he said. "That's just bigotry and hatred. We're a better nation than that. The diversity that we have, this is what New York is about. But we have such prejudices, some of us. We have a long way to go."

New Jersey resident Barry Zelman says it's inappropriate to have an Islamic center just steps from ground zero.

"We can say all Muslims did not do this, which is true. But they [terrorists] did it in the name of that religion. That was a primary underlying rationale for what they did," he said.

Zelman, 56, lost his brother Kenneth in the attacks and doesn't like the symbolism of the proposed community center. "You wouldn't have a German cultural center on top of a death camp," he said.

Jack Delaney, former director of EMS for New York Presbyterian Hospital, lost two of his men on Sept. 11 and remains permanently disabled because of an injury he sustained from falling debris at the World Trade Center site.

"You could say that I'm sensitive to some of these issues," Delaney, 53, said in a phone interview.

Delaney says he has no problem with Islam, but can't understand why the group sponsoring the center isn't being more sensitive to the wishes of the victims' families and survivors.

"If they truly are concerned about reaching out to the American people, I don't understand why they need to build a cultural center there," he said. "They realize that it's a raw nerve. And ... that makes me question why they actually want to build this mosque where they want to build it."

Charles Wolf of New York City lost his wife, Katherine, in the attacks. "She was a wonderful girl," said Wolf, 56.

He said he supports the Muslim community center "100 percent."

"I'm not going to brand any group for the actions of a few of the fringe," Wolf said. "The fact that the extremists who did this to us have now moved us in this direction through our fear and hatred, to be exactly like them ... it will come back to haunt us."

He accused certain politicians, like former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, of using the controversy over the community center to "foster a public backlash against Muslims." Giuliani called the project "a desecration" on the conservative Jeff Katz radio show this week.

Wolf thinks that sentiment is wrong, and said Americans can't support the rights of certain groups over others.

"This country was founded on the principles of religious freedom for all," he said. "Are we doing to start denying that to people? If we start doing that we start dismantling the values this country was founded upon."

 

[Awesome]

The 9/11 families with whom you can sympathize, but you cannot make them jude, jury and executioner on the Muslims. Their fears and emotions are irrational - these feelings may be understandable from them and further counseling should be suggested, but these feelings are not justifiable upon the rest of America and definitely not a valid excuse to use these angry 9/11 families as a shield against the losing argument in opposition of this Islamic Community Centre.

 

[Developereo]

Families of 9/11 victims have a legitimate reason to feel angry at their loss. However, this artificially engineered controversy over Park51 does them a great disservice by manipulating their emotions in the ongoing hate campaign by anti-muslim bigots.

 

[Awesome]

The ever so famous case of Salman Hamdani, the 9/11 Pakistani origin victim is there. The guy was marked down initially as a suspect in the WTC attack, but later it turned out while the rest of them were running away from the WTC, he was running towards it to save as many people as he could.

Untruths encourage hate - Spokesman.com - Aug. 20, 2010

Salman Hamdani died on Sept. 11, 2001. The 23-year-old research assistant at Rockefeller University had a degree in biochemistry. He was also a trained emergency medical technician and a cadet with the New York Police Department. But he never made it to work that day. Hamdani, a Muslim-American, was among that day’s first responders. He raced to ground zero to save others. His selfless act cost him his life.

Hamdani was later praised by President George W. Bush as a hero and mentioned by name in the USA Patriot Act. But that was not how he was portrayed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. In October, his parents went to Mecca to pray for their son. While they were away, the New York Post and other media outlets portrayed Hamdani as a possible terrorist on the run.

“MISSING – OR HIDING? MYSTERY OF THE NYPD CADET FROM PAKISTAN” screamed the Post headline.

The sensational article noted that someone fitting Hamdani’s description had been seen near the Midtown Tunnel a full month after 9/11. His family was interrogated. Hamdani’s Internet use and politics were investigated.

His parents, Talat and Saleem Hamdani, had been frantically searching the hospitals, the lists of the dead and the injured. “There were patients who had lost their memory,” his mother, Talat, said. “We hoped he would be one of them, we would be able to identify him.”

The ominous reports on Hamdani were typical of the increasing, overt bigotry against Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans and people of South Asian heritage. Talat, who worked as a teacher, told me how children in her extended family had to Anglicize their names to avoid discrimination:

“They were in second grade … Armeen became Amy, and one became Mickey and the other one became Mikey and the fourth one became Adam. And we asked them, Why did you change your names? And they said because we don’t want to be called terrorists in the school.”

On March 20, 2002, the Hamdanis received word that Salman’s DNA had been found at ground zero, and thus he was officially a victim of the attacks. At his funeral, held at the Islamic Community Center at East 96th St. in Manhattan, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and Rep. Gary Ackerman all spoke.

Which brings us to the controversy around the proposed Islamic community center, slated to be built at 51 Park Place in lower Manhattan. The facility is not, for the record, a mosque. And it is not at ground zero (it’s two blocks away). The Cordoba Initiative, the nonprofit group spearheading the project, describes it as a “community center, much like the YMCA or the Jewish Community Center … where people from any faith are allowed to use the facilities. Beyond having a gym, the Cordoba House will house a pool, restaurant, 500-person auditorium, 9/11 memorial, multifaith chapel, office and conference space, and prayer space.”

Opposition to the center started among fringe, right-wing blogs, and has since been swept into the mainstream. While the hole at ground zero has yet to be filled, as billionaire developers bicker over the plans, the news hole that August brings has been readily filled with the “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy.

There is another hole that needs to be filled, namely, the absence of people in the U.S. in leadership positions in every walk of life, of every political stripe, speaking out for freedom of religion and against racism. As the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Does anyone seriously say that there shouldn’t be a Christian church near the site of the Oklahoma City bombing, just because Timothy McVeigh was a Christian?

People who are against hate are not a fringe minority, not even a silent majority, but are a silenced majority. They are silenced by the chattering classes, who are driving this debate throughout the media.

Hate breeds violence. Marginalizing an entire population, an entire religion, is not good for our country. It endangers Muslims within America, and provokes animosity toward America around the world.

When I asked Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, which is a partner in the proposed community center, if she feared for herself, for her children or for Muslims in New York, she replied, “I’m afraid for my country.”

 

[fallstuff]

Oh Say, Can You Swear on a Koran?
What's correct.


Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

This argument both mistakes the purpose of the oath, and misunderstands the Constitution. In fact, it calls for the violation of some of the Constitution’s multiculturalist provisions.

To begin with, the oath is a religious ritual, both in its origins and its use by the devout today. The oath invokes God as a witness to one’s promise, as a means of making the promise more weighty on the oathtaker’s conscience.

This is why, for instance, the Federal Rules of Evidence, dealing with the related subject of the courtroom oath, state, “Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness’ conscience and impress the witness’ mind with the duty to do so.” If you want the oath to be maximally effective, then it is indeed entirely true that “all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.” That book is the one that will most impress the oathtaker’s mind with the duty to comply with the oath.

Of course, some might care less about making the oath more effective, and more about using the oath to reinforce traditional American values, in which they include respect for the Bible (the “only … book” “America is interested in”) over other holy books. That, I take it, is part of Prager’s argument, especially when he goes on to say, “When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization.”

Yet this would literally violate the Constitution’s provision that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” For the devout, taking an oath upon a religious book is a religious act. Requiring the performance of a religious act using the holy book of a particular religion is a religious test. If Congress were indeed to take the view that “If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don’t serve in Congress,” it would be imposing an unconstitutional religious test.

What’s more, the Constitution itself expressly recognizes the oath as a religious act that some may have religious compunctions about performing. The religious-test clause is actually part of a longer sentence: “The Senators and Representatives … [and other state and federal officials] shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required ….” The option of giving an affirmation rather than oath reflects the judgment — an early multiculturalist judgment — in favor of accommodating members of some denominations (such as Quakers) who read the Bible as generally prohibiting the swearing of oaths.

The affirmation option was thus one tool to make sure that the law didn’t exclude people of certain religious groups from office, but rather let them retain their religious culture while participating in American civic life. The religious-test clause was another tool. The Constitution itself — a pretty important part of the “value system underl[ying] American civilization” — expressly makes clear that elected officials need not take oaths of office with their hands on any book.

So the Constitution thus already expressly authorizes people not to swear at all, but to affirm, without reference to God or to a sacred work. Atheists and agnostics are thus protected, as well as members of certain Christian groups. Why would Muslims and others not be equally protected from having to perform a religious ritual that expressly invokes a religion in which they do not believe? Under the Constitution, all of them “are incapable of taking an oath on that book,” whether because they are Quakers, atheists, agnostics, or Muslims. Yet all remain entirely free to “serve in Congress.”

This leaves one milder form of Prager’s argument: Ellison shouldn’t have to swear on the Bible, but we don’t have to offer him a Koran, since he could affirm instead and affirmations don’t require any holy book. That’s not, I think, Prager’s actual argument (which is that “If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don’t serve in Congress” and that all elected officials should “take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book “). But it might be a fallback.

Yet this too strikes me as a misreading of the American constitutional system. Prager goes on to argue,

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” the Nazis’ bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison’s right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

But the Constitution’s judgment is that accommodating religious pluralism (especially as to oaths) doesn’t let “my culture trump[] America’s culture.” Rather, the legal culture created by the Constitution makes room for many religious cultures, and allows all their adherents to be equal citizens and equal officeholders.

We see this in the Constitution’s repeated recognition of affirmations as alternatives to oaths. We also see this in the free-exercise clause, which excludes no religion even though many denominations of that era saw rival denominations’ views, and especially the views of Catholics, as deeply wrong and even evil — perhaps not quite as evil as Mein Kampf (which isn’t a religious book, and thus not really apposite to the oath debate) but in that general ballpark.

The Supreme Court has long taken the view that the establishment clause and the free-exercise clause generally mandate equal treatment of people without regard to their religions; conservative justices, such as Scalia and Thomas, have agreed. Letting Christians swear the oath of office, while allowing members of other denominations only to swear what ends up being a mockery of an oath — a religious ceremony appealing to a religious belief system that they do not share — would be such discrimination. Nor have I seen any evidence that at the time of the framing, the religion clauses would have been interpreted in a way that differs from this consensus. And the text of the establishment clause suggests that the oath should be an oath not just of a federally “establish[ed] religion” (a religion given favored legal treatment by the government), but rather the oath that binds the particular officeholder “to support this Constitution.”

Finally, Prager argues that “for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.” I can’t speak to the common practices of Jewish officeholders, but some quick searches reveal that Linda Lingle, the Governor of Hawaii, was sworn in on the Tanakh (more or less the Old Testament); for the reasons I just mentioned, others would have been free to do the same, or to affirm if they preferred.

A Senate website reports that Presidents Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover (a Quaker) didn’t swear at all, but rather affirmed. If a Bible was present (the site is silent on that), it wouldn’t have been used as a swearing device. Nixon, also a Quaker, did swear, apparently on two Bibles. This didn’t seem to help.

Much folly has been urged in the name of multiculturalism. But this is no reason to dismiss the core notion that a nation should both create a common culture and leave people with the freedom to retain important aspects of other cultures — especially religious cultures. That notion is deeply American, and expressly enshrined in our Constitution. If it is “political correctness,” it is so only in the sense that it’s a political notion, and a correct one. It has served us well, even when dealing with religious groups that were once hated and seen as incompatible with American values, such as Catholics.

We ought not blindly accept the legitimacy of other cultures’ beliefs. But the Constitution says that we can’t demand complete surrender to our majority culture — especially its religious beliefs — either in “personal life” or in public life.

— Eugene Volokh is Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA

Link:

Oh Say, Can You Swear on a Koran? - Article - National Review Online

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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

No you don't sympathize Mr. "I'll pretend to not be Vinod2070 by not capitalizing the first letter of every sentence' - that much is obvious from the content of your posts, so stop insulting our intelligence.

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.

By whose standards and whose opinion? Yours?

I disagree - I believe moderate Islam is completely compatible.

 

[inddef]

No you don't sympathize Mr. "I'll pretend to not be Vinod2070 by not capitalizing the first letter of every sentence' - that much is obvious from the content of your posts, so stop insulting our intelligence.

By whose standards and whose opinion? Yours?

I disagree - I believe moderate Islam is completely compatible.

huh? what do i have to do with vinod2070. you don't seem to understand where i am coming from it seems. i don't have to make you.

 

[GentlemanObserver]

^ lol... Yeah sure!

 

[gambit]

If the Americans block the mosque they will be officially declaring Islam and all Muslim kind as the enemy. There is no other way of justifying, legally or morally, that this mosque cannot be built.

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.

By calling non-muslims 'unclean' Islam has effectively declared us infidels as the enemy. Being 'unclean' is part of a religious context on how to view those who are different.

Anyway...Ideas do nothing. Ideas require human agents to perform and propagate. Religions are ideas. Very grand ones. In that, Islam is no different from Christianity in that respect, and when the human agency is involved, we have 'politics'. The US does not need to abandon its secular nature in order to resist political Islam. Workers can refuse to enter any construction contract for this mosque. Suppliers can refuse to sell. That is their right and there is nothing Islamists can do about it. Just because you can wave money around does not mean others have to obey your biddings. Christians can counter Islamists on rhetorical grounds, provided that Islamists are willing to remain within that confine. You do believe in remaining inside that confine, right?

America was reflexive after Dec 7, 1941, and created internment camps for Japanese-Americans. It is approaching the ten-year anniversary of an Islamist attack on US soil and nothing happened to muslims in America for that time span. And in that time span, Islam is placed under the religious, political and social microscopes. Uncomfortable facts are revealed and now muslims are creating imaginary persecutions by speciously associating themselves with blacks.

 

[Solomon2]

I think the Muslim community in the USA should just give up making this centre, there is no point of preaching understanding when all your words of wisdom, understanding and cohabitation are met with -

It does seem that for a large segment of the U.S. population, "words of wisdom" from Muslms have little credibility. That is a change from the post 9-11 period. I can only suppose that this is a product of Americans' increased attention to and familiarity with Muslim and Islam since then.

I understand the grief of the victims of 9/11, having lost a cousin to terrorists in Pakistan, i know the pain far to well. But do i blame all pathans for killing my cousin who was just serving his country, or do i blame the terrorists.

If a Pathan organization wanted to build a mosque a stone's throw away from where your cousin was killed, insisting that it was THEIR community that was victimized, how would you feel?

When you start associating a particular race, religion or creed with those who carried out such acts, you have already conceded to the will of the terrorists which i want to remind some learned posters here is to breed misunderstanding and sow the seeds of hatred and conflict.

I do wish Pakistanis would give these words more thought.

Muslims have come out and Vociferously condemned 9/11 and those who carried out that disgusting atrocity on humanity. Why then are people still looking to Muslim to atone for sins not theirs to bare?

That pretty much says it all. All the 9-11 attackers are seen as Muslims, and a large proportion of Muslims deny this. Muslims are thus seen as trying to avoid collective responsibility for rearing and supporting terror in the first place. I think that can change, but I don't see the necessary steps being taken by Muslims to do so.

 

[Solomon2]

In my opinion, even canceling the Cordoba House project can't be done precipitately : now that the ground Muslims have stepped in has turned into - ahem - mud, they must be careful as to how they step out of it, lest it stick to their foot afterward. For example, withdrawing from the project citing American "bigotry" as the reason is simply another way to twist the knife into the hearts of the families of 9-11 victims. Muslims will be damned if they do and damned if they don't - unless they change their approach to this issue.

 

[EjazR]

It does seem that for a large segment of the U.S. population, "words of wisdom" from Muslms have little credibility. That is a change from the post 9-11 period. I can only suppose that this is a product of Americans' increased attention to and familiarity with Muslim and Islam since then.

Yes some people who actually did find out without prejudice about Islam and muslims agree that Islam was not responsible for these terrorist acts and that collectively victimising the entire Muslim community for the acts commited by someone is wrong. These people include Christians and Jews and people of all faiths. More power to them

Ofcourse you have the other set of people who claimg to have "learnt about Islam" from hatewebsites making good money by duping the gullible. They make "knowledgable" statements like Islam is a cult, Muslims worship a Monkey God and Muslims are just Nazis of the Middle East out to take over America starting with building their symbol of victory. I say God help them.

If a Pathan organization wanted to build a mosque a stone's throw away from where your cousin was killed, insisting that it was THEIR community that was victimized, how would you feel?

I am just surprised by similar "analogies" because it reveals more about the thought process of the person than anything else. Similar examples of Japanese and Nazis are given.

Your example here would be accurate if Al Qaeda was building the community centre in lower manhattan, and I would be the first to oppose it andmost likely every muslim living in NYC or American would. It might have some semblance if some sort of ideologue that supports Al Qaeda like Anwar Al-awlaki e.t.c. would have done it. Not a person who was in frontline post9/11 relief operations and worked with the FBI on anti-terror cases as any patriotic American and devout muslim would.

Muslims are the biggest victims of Al Qaeda's attacks. Not non-muslims. 90% of those killed by Al Qaeda's attacks are muslims and these are confirmed by none other than US agencies. It will be the muslim community that has suffered more than the American non-muslim community till date that will consider it abhorent for a centre to built by Al Qaeda. The community in religous terms that has suffered the most from Al Qaeda are the muslims themselves if you look at the statistics rather than the media brouhaha.

That pretty much says it all. All the 9-11 attackers are seen as Muslims, and a large proportion of Muslims deny this. Muslims are thus seen as trying to avoid collective responsibility for rearing and supporting terror in the first place. I think that can change, but I don't see the necessary steps being taken by Muslims to do so.

How can muslims in general particularly American muslims share collective responsibility for the 9/11 Attacks? There was a specific group that was part of it. It was not like 1.8Billion people around the world just decided one day that lets attack NYC. Muslims are no monoliths just like Chrisitans or Jews are not. Muslims are just like any average Christian or Jew at the end of the day. You have thousands of Christians who make 9/11 documentaries who deny the muslims were behind the attack and it was inside job. Doesn't mean that they are right.

But the muslims that matter, those running the Saudi govt for example have accepted it and that is where you should base your judgement on. Itis thanks to them that the OBL ideology has been defeated in the muslim world. BEing that as it may it never had a theological base to ever stand up with.

And have you forgotted the admissions made by Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton, that US should share responsibility for nuturing these "terror groups" in the first place in the Cold War against Communism. The time when Ronald Reagon dedicated the launch of Apollo to the mujahideen in Afghanistan?

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. They could not even proove their assertion of legitimising killing of civilians (Which William Casey of the CIA agreed to in Afghanistan against the Russian advisers btw) in the light of Islamic theology. OBL and Zawahiri were a bussinesman and a medical doctor. They had NO credibility in discussing Islamic theology.


Muslims around the world and any sensible non-muslim would rightly feel offended in saying that Al-Qaeda's action ( agroup that at its peak had about 2000 dedicated members allegedly) is supported by Muslims even ideologically when 90% of its victims are muslims themselves worldwide.

Like I have said before this project has far lost its value of being a death blow to Alqaeda which it would have been if it was built in a welcoming manner. American and the American muslim communitey has missed a big oppurtunity here. There was some sensible debate about sentiments of the people and renaming of community centre to Park51 e.t.c. Open house to the centre and open debates would have helped in tackling the concerns of these people. Just like various local Jewish and Christian groups supported the project. But thanks to the right wing nut jobs who reduced it to a debate of Nazis and Cult who worships Monkey Gods. There is no way anyone can engage honestly in such a debate now. Particularly now that some politicans have found it easier to talk about this than the economy, jobs or climate change.


Being from India, I am fully aware of the disastrous consequences of politicsing religious issues. Many of my Indian forum members would agree how emotional and divisive issues pertaining to religion can be. That is why I am saddened that the US which was always a model in terms of faith based societies can act openly unlike say France or Turkey where religious expression is supressed.


I personally think now that there should be a moratorium on the project. It was going to cost 100 million because the people wanted to add facilities that would server the lower manhattan region irrespective of faith but that can wait. I base this on the part experience of the media scare about the "Mega Mosque" in london. Even though the muslims there had all the laws on thier side, because of the communities outburst they stopped the project and later canned it. No reason was given, similarly here let the Americans for themselves decide why a project that was to host a memorial to the victims of 9/11 to honor their loved ones; by a community that suffers 90% of the victims in Al Qaeda attacks todate; that has been dubbed Alqaeda's worst nightmare was stopped. Ofcourse I would still thank those who supported the centre and the intiative despite all the hostility it generated.