The Ground-zero mosque, continued

[TruthSeeker]

It is time the American media start focusing on American prejudices and hate-mongering, instead of just maligning other nations and peoples.

What would be nice is if the supposedly rational and "old-school journalistic" media would provide context on such issues. Such as asking 9-11 families "why" a mosque bothers them. How far away would it have to be to not bother them, etc. That is, it would be nice if the media could, itself, differentiate between the rational and the irrational. Unfortunately all the reporters and editors are human beings also, so they love to hype a story (helps their careers) and love to pass on gossip and innuendo (it's their form of fun).

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

They are not "mere cartoons" for muslims. I mentioned earlier that this is a simplistic argument since you're implying that these are "mere cartoons" like Tom and Jerry.

Just like the 9/11 victims mean dearly to you, Prophet Muhammad means dearly to Muslims.

I don't think the comparison is a valid one for a different reason.

The cartoons were meant to caricature Mohammed, Islam and Muslims, and therefore deliberately insult/poke fun at whatever.

The proposed Islamic Center is not meant to insult/poke fun of/denigrate America, 9/11 and/or the victims of 9/11. Therefore the contrast of 'hurt sentiments', between opponents of this mosque and opponents of the Mohammed cartoons, is not an apt one.

 

[Solomon2]

It is time the American media start focusing on American prejudices and hate-mongering, instead of just maligning other nations and peoples.

When you advocate that aren't you pretty much dismissing the feelings of the non-Muslims who lost loved ones on 9-11 as not important?

I'll repeat: Muslims do have the right to build Cordoba House. And non-Muslim Americans have the right to think less of Muslims and Islam for doing so. I'm not sure if that's how it has to be, but that is how things are going right now.

The split between non-Muslim Americans is between those who think holding such an opinion of Islam and Muslims is justifiable and those who think it is unjustifiable prejudice. Those who think it is unjustifiable prejudice are losing ground because the insensitivity of Muslims like SMC is easily demonstrated, if not casually on display. How can an opinion be labeled "prejudice" if an opinion is reached in accordance with accurate facts, context, and reason? Is that not the very definition of rational judgment?

 

[fallstuff]

Well, the reality is that Americans, do, by and large, blame Islam for 9-11. It is not politically correct to acknowledge this because everyone, of course, knows this is "bigoted" and that Islam is "a religion of peace". But, on the other hand, it seems that all our blood enemies, the people who are killing Americans, are fervent followers of Islam, are they not? They even maintain that they are the very, very most authentic followers of Islam. So, Americans are confused between what they are told by the authorities and mainstream media ("religion of peace!") and what is actually happening around the world (wanton terrorism in the name of the Prophet). Privately and among trusted friends, Americans will acknowledge a fear that Islam is not a religion of peace and is dangerous to our freedoms, especially those of women. Hence, the "ground zero mosque" or the "Hamasoque" as Rush Limbaugh now calls it, is feared to be an advance of the darkness and is opposed. It is possible for Americans to believe in conspiracy theories, too. It is not only Pakistanis who can be misguided by their fears.

Agree with you. What you wrote are the ground facts.

I support the Cordoba Initiative because it will display a side of history and culture that is not known to the average American. Let them come at their will and see it, believe it or question it themselves instead of the filtered down versions on mainstream media which just "manufactures consent."

 

[Solomon2]

The proposed Islamic Center is not meant to insult/poke fun of/denigrate America, 9/11 and/or the victims of 9/11.

What stops a mosque built for one stated purpose from being converted instantly to the opposite purpose? As I said, it only takes one imam trumpeting this mosque as conquered territory to throw any higher (or is it lower?) principle into ruin.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

When you advocate that aren't you pretty much dismissing the feelings of the non-Muslims who lost loved ones on 9-11 as not important?

See my post right before your response.

I'll repeat: Muslims do have the right to build Cordoba House. And non-Muslim Americans have the right to think less of Muslims and Islam for doing so. I'm not sure if that's how it has to be, but that is how things are going right now.

And White Supremacists may 'think less' of the black community for intermarrying with Whites and moving into predominantly White neighborhoods, that doesn't make that sentiment any more acceptable.

The split between non-Muslim Americans is between those who think holding such an opinion of Islam and Muslims is justifiable and those who think it is unjustifiable prejudice. Those who think it is unjustifiable prejudice are losing ground because the insensitivity of Muslims like SMC is easily demonstrated, if not casually on display. How can an opinion be labeled "prejudice" if an opinion is reached in accordance with accurate facts, context, and reason? Is that not the very definition of rational judgment?

The only insensitivity on display is by Americans who think that any expression of the Islamic faith, at some arbitrary distance from a particular location, is somehow tantamount to a display of triumphalism on the part of extremists such as the ones who carried out the 9/11 attacks. These Americans are the ones who have outright insulted, abused and denigrated Muslims and their faith. Muslims supporting the cultural center have done no such thing - to try and paint them in the wrong is the height of intellectual dis-ingenuity.

It is the equivalent of a racist blaming the targets of racism for 'not being sensitive' to his/her prejudices and bigotry.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What stops a mosque built for one stated purpose from being converted instantly to the opposite purpose? As I said, it only takes one imam trumpeting this mosque as conquered territory to throw any higher (or is it lower?) principle into ruin.

That is a red herring and a hypothetical - we are dealing with facts and the current leadership of the Cordoba Initiative and the current plans for the Cultural Center, and there is nothing on display so far, on their part, that suggests an adherence to, or support for, extremist ideology.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

A couple of other pieces reflecting on the wave of prejudice, against immigrants and Muslims in particular, coursing through the US.

The Dawn Blog Blog Archive Terror babies and ugly politics

DAWN.COM | International | Fears over Eid-9/11 anniversary clash

 

[Canaan]

I don't know if you know, but there will be christian and jewish board members if the center is built.
That would be an indication about the center's purpose, for those who still insist that the center is about islamizing america.

 

[Solomon2]

The only insensitivity on display is by Americans who think that any expression of the Islamic faith, at some arbitrary distance from a particular location, is somehow tantamount to a display of triumphalism on the part of extremists such as the ones who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

That is how it is seen. That is sensitivity, not insensitivity. In my opinion, it would be different if, as in the Pentagon, a mosque had been destroyed along with the WTC; then the sentiment would have been opposite, and little effort spared to rebuild the mosque as speedily as possible.

Instead of purchasing the property, perhaps Muslims should lease it from a non-Muslim instead? Leases can be used to spell out the conditions of use - not specifying worship, but they can, for example, forbid weapons on the property, changes in external architecture, or its conversion to purposes not specified in the lease. Because the lessee is specified in the lease, their is some assurance the property won't fall under the control of extremists at some point in the future. And a lease implies temporary occupancy, so the Americans currently implacably opposed to Islam can comfort themselves by pointing out that the mosque may not be there forever.

These Americans are the ones who have outright insulted, abused and denigrated Muslims and their faith.

Gotta put up with that. Freedom of religion, you know.

Muslims supporting the cultural center have done no such thing - to try and paint them in the wrong is the height of intellectual dis-ingenuity.

Mosques can be captured by extremist factions. I witnessed that myself at the Islamic Center in D.C. The moderates locked out the extremists, but the extremists took over the street outside and were seen by non-Muslims as the angry face of Islam.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is how it is seen. That is sensitivity, not insensitivity. In my opinion, it would be different if, as in the Pentagon, a mosque had been destroyed along with the WTC; then the sentiment would have been opposite, and little effort spared to rebuild the mosque as speedily as possible.

It is not 'sensitivity' any more than throwing a fit over blacks moving into a neighborhood or intermarrying with Whites is 'sensitivity'. Just because people cling to prejudice does not mean it should be accepted or called 'politically incorrect speech' to mask it.

Instead of purchasing the property, perhaps Muslims should lease it from a non-Muslim instead? Leases can be used to spell out the conditions of use - not specifying worship, but they can, for example, forbid weapons on the property, changes in external architecture, or its conversion to purposes not specified in the lease. Because the lessee is specified in the lease, their is some assurance the property won't fall under the control of extremists at some point in the future. And a lease implies temporary occupancy, so the Americans currently implacably opposed to Islam can comfort themselves by pointing out that the mosque may not be there forever.

Why should there be a restriction on external architecture so long as it is conforms to local regulations? Next you'll want Muslims of a particular race to get the 'Michael Jackson treatment' so their 'external appearance' does not 'offend the sensitivities of some Americans'. And the Center will I am sure follow local regulations and laws on weapons and usage.

Gotta put up with that. Freedom of religion, you know.

Prejudice, bigotry and racism is not 'freedom of religion' - freedom of speech perhaps, a very ugly aspect of it, but not 'freedom of religion' as much as racism is not 'freedom of religion.'

Mosques can be captured by extremist factions. I witnessed that myself at the Islamic Center in D.C. The moderates locked out the extremists, but the extremists took over the street outside and were seen by non-Muslims as the angry face of Islam.

Without any sore of factual account of the whole episode from the parties involved, I can't really comment on an anecdotal account you might very well be just making up or misinterpreting.

But even if your account was true, the 'extremist control' of the proposed mosque remains a hypothetical, and decisions cannot be made on the basis of outlandish 'what iff's'.

 

[GentlemanObserver]

Sums up the debate and the ignorance perfectly:

 

[fallstuff]

I gotta give it up for the opposing folk for coming up with the most preposterous proposed "Leasing from a non-Muslim" solution for a manufactured controversy. One has to get up pretty early in the morning for a fast one like this !

Folks, here is whats going on:

1) To make you believe that there is problem with the site, when there is none.

2) The next one is to convince you that they are being very reasonable about it and offering you multiple alternatives only after you cancel your deal.

3) You naively believe these folks and cancel the project as suggested.

4) These guys will than start applying pressure on the new Landlord or any other alternate site owner to make sure you never get to build your $100 million Initiative.

 

[karan.1970]

in my view, if this cultural center is prevented from being built, its going to be a bigger victory for the terrorists as they would then have effectively destroyed the most cherished of American values. That of freedom of faith and expression.

 

[inddef]

in my view, if this cultural center is prevented from being built, its going to be a bigger victory for the terrorists as they would then have effectively destroyed the most cherished of American values. That of freedom of faith and expression.

i think its more about law than values. the US is a country of laws and this center does not break any.

freedom of faith is overrated. freedom in many cases has to be typically ensured by denying religions a free run.