COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
world

Some Muslims question mosque near ground zero

92 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

92 Comments
Login to comment

"Muslims are pressing for wider acceptance"

Then they had better change their ways. Fundamentally.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An excellent illustration of the fact that Muslims are not a one monolithic group, no?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then they had better change their ways. Fundamentally.

they may be expecting the same from non-muslims.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then they had better change their ways. Fundamentally.

Who are they? Why do so many white Americans assume that anyone who is not like them is a part of some monolithic group that all think and act exactly alike?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

not all of them are "white" americans motagaijin. Some are asian, some are african american, some are latino, etc. Some of them are athiests, jewish, buddist, and hindu too. Believe it or not many cultures and people from around the world have a tiff with Islam.

And here as I've said before are some of the muslims with common sense asking why put the mosque there? Likewise, some are asian, some are caucasian, some are latino, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Watch some redneck drive a truck into it... Obama's been great for America but it has brought race onto everything that gets done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“The total absence of Feisal Rauf has a `Where’s Waldo’ quality that is maddening in itself,” U.S. Muslim writer Aziz Poonawalla, who supports the center, told the blog ordinary-gentlemen.com. “I’m quite capable of defending Rauf against some of the accusations against him, but am not inclined to carry his water for him while he gallivants about the globe.”

If Rauf want to build the mosque then shouldn't he be present to do some PR?

Mysteries Of The Absent Imam Feisal@http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26472

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As an agnostic I see all relgions with equal concern for their capacity to generate elitism, fundamentalism, hatred and violence. History, long and recent, soundly backs these worries.

But equally I think any society that is promoting itself as diverse, free and a place of liberty, must recognize the rights of many diverse groups to do what they will within the provisions of the law. And must equally welcome such activity as an expression of freedom. No one group, or small collection of disenters should be able to prevent such activity.

In my opinion the Mosque could well serve as a testimony of support from the greater Islamic community with respect to 911 and as an icon of our capacity to move past the actions of a few to respect and support the greater values our society claimes to adhere to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If they build it they will come to see it

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2..

No one group, or small collection of dissenters should be able to prevent such activity.

I don't consider 65% or more of the American people who disagree with this idea a small collection of dissenters.

When New York has over 50 mosques and is estimated to have more like 100+ mosques, why do you have to build it there? There are other options:

Build only a community center. Build a community center with mosque, church and synagogue. Go further out and find cheaper land and build the mosque/community center twice as large.

Why there, when you have people whose relatives died in 9/11 and feel animosity towards the mosque/center? Even if only one person objected, that person’s relative died because a Muslim belief.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "Then they had better change their ways. Fundamentally."

I can't think of a better example of where someone should practice what they preach. For the exact reason you fail to tolerate Muslims' beliefs you fall into the category you criticize them for. Ignorance and inacceptance knows no nationality or faith.

Personally I think it's good that some Muslims are voicing opposition; for one it throws water on the indignation of those who think all Muslims are the same -- clearly they are not. For another it forces ALL to do a little thinking in the aforementioned respect, but also about the site. So long as the criticism is CONSTRUCTIVE and not simply for the sake of opposition, then it's a good thing. Likewise, simply accepting for the sake of accepting (or following) is not good. So again, it's nice to see some opposing views backed up with rationale reasons.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

American Muslims who support the proposed mosque and Islamic center near ground zero are facing skeptics within their own faith—those who argue that the project is insensitive to Sept 11 victims and needlessly provocative at a time when Muslims are pressing for wider acceptance in the U.S.

A level headed and accurate assessment, it makes me happy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/obama_is_colluding_with_a_new.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't consider 65% or more of the American people who disagree with this idea a small collection of dissenters.

If you'd asked if black should have equal rights in society in 1960, 65% of whites would have said no. All this proves is that the majority of people are biased. What's your point?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about letting non Muslims, say in Saudi Arabia build say Christian, Jewish, Buddhists temples of worship in Mecca, and then New York can start to think about letting the supporters of Islam build in NYC, next to where the Saudi funded terrorists groups pocked America in the eye.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the Koran is a fairytale,nothing more!"

Not to the nutcases who believe in it, it's not. By the way, I think it's "Quran."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

motogaijin just by your posts, i'd say you have something against white Americans. i don't really know, of course, but isn't that exactly the kind of thing that you're saying you're against?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What, they want it AT Ground Zero?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What, they want it AT Ground Zero?

No, they don't. It's several blocks away. It's a non issue made up to distract from much more serious problems. Blown way out of proportion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Motogaijin...this doesn't have anything to do with black or white. This is 65% of Americans which includes: Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, White, Black, Green, etc..

It's like shouting "Fire, Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. You can do it since it is protected by the first amendment but if anyone gets hurt, your going to jail.

Sure, Americans/permanent residents can build their Mosque anywhere they like according to the law and zoning ordinances but when the greatest foreign attack on the U.S. is directly or indirectly attributed to Muslims, freedom of speech may not go as far as they like.

A few years ago, someone desecrated the American flag in Ohio. Another individual assault and battered the person who desecrated the flag. The person was charged with assault and battery and was fined $1 and let go.

Previous members of the Supreme Court have said that, "the Constitution is not a suicide pack."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Keith Olbermann has a great comment, clearing up any issues on this: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26189.htm Balanced, detailed and rational. Not hype.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For the exact reason you fail to tolerate Muslims' beliefs you fall into the category you criticize them for.

Do you think it's correct to tolerate somebody's assertion that homosexuals should be killed? Why should the intolerable be tolerated? Such tolerance ensures that homosexuals will be killed.

And your belief tbat people who dislike Islam assumse all Muslims are the same is just leftish hate-speech. I'm sure many Muslims think Islam is a croc. However, they are all bound by Islam, since dissention brings retribution in the Islamic world.

So long as the criticism is CONSTRUCTIVE and not simply for the sake of opposition, then it's a good thing

These free-thinking Muslims are saying EXCACTLY THE SAME THING as non-Muslims who oppose the mosque. Are these Muslims bigotted right-wing Islamophobes?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm really shocked how many of you have come up with terms spinning this into a hatred argument. We and those of us were directly affected by 9-11, especially those whose remains were never found have an issue with it at the moment and the imam who's building it has done a piss poor job in explaining himself to us. Columbine. A while after the Columbine shooting, the NRA held a convention/party not far away. People were outraged, yet, they had a constitution right to do so.

I have a constitutional right to free speech, meaning I could call your mother a slew of nasty things, but would that be cool? For a place as small as Manhattan and to have as many Muslim places to worship, just because people don't agree with one, doesn't make us into bigoted country. I worked with enough Muslims and American born Muslims who are against this as well. It is in poor taste until the Imams come out and do a much better job in outreach than they have. Actually, for the most part, most of them have come out and DEMANDED respect. It is in poor taste

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you think it's correct to tolerate somebody's assertion that homosexuals should be killed?

Yes, as long as it's just as assertion. And, as long as "tolerance" means we don't kill or imprison the person asserting it. (If they're spouting that on, say, a radio talk show, they might lose their job -- something conservatives would consider "intolerance.")

These free-thinking Muslims are saying EXCACTLY THE SAME THING as non-Muslims who oppose the mosque.

From where you stand, perhaps. A rational person can distinguish the difference between the two.

For example, none of the Muslims who question the project call it a "victory mosque" or have referred to it as a place of celebration for the 9/11 hijackers the way so many right-wing nutcases have.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

none of the Muslims who question the project call it a "victory mosque"" Well, you need to tell the Imam the name Cordoba may be a problem.

And this writer does too http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/jihad-articles/ali-sina-on-ground-zero-mosque-cordova-house/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

right-wing nutcases

There you go again. I find "right wing" more offensive than "nut-cases"

Prominent Muslim Tarek Fatah states that the mosque is a 'provocation'.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html

Is he a right wing nut-case? Wikipedia describes him as a 'leftist radical'. One thing's for sure: he knows a hell of lot more about Islam than you do.

Just for good measure, the head of Al-Arabiya TV, a leading Saudi Arabian TV station, states:

"I cannot imagine that Muslims want a mosque on this particular site, because it will be turned into an arena for promoters of hatred, and a symbol of those who committed the crime."

http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2(ampersand)id=21980

Oh no! Another right-wing nut-case!! They seem to be everywhere don't they, yabits?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@yabits

You say it's 'tolerable' to assert that homosexuals should be killed. So what happens when an Imam makes that assertion and a devout Muslim takes heed and goes and kills a homosexual? Ever heard of incitement?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, you need to tell the Imam the name Cordoba may be a problem.

Why? Do some Americans think "cordoba" means "victory" in Spanish?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I cannot imagine that Muslims want a mosque on this particular site, because it will be turned into an arena for promoters of hatred, and a symbol of those who committed the crime."

Yes. It will be "turned into" such by right-wing nutcases.

But I repeat myself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You say it's 'tolerable' to assert that homosexuals should be killed.

Yes. A person has a right to that opinion. Nobody has a right to cause physical harm to a person who expresses that opinion as an opinion -- at least not in the United States while there is a bit of freedom left.

So what happens when an Imam makes that assertion and a devout Muslim takes heed and goes and kills a homosexual?

In the United States, the Muslim will be arrested for murder.

Ever heard of incitement?

Yes. It's the difference between yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater and announcing that the theater will hold a fire drill at 9 PM.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The lack of responses from certain people on this thread is pretty interesting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://www.trueknowledge.com/q/what_is_the_meaning_of_the_word_cordoba http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cordoba

Maybe they think it means "victory" because of the old moorish mosque in Cordoba/Spain.

I asked before WHO used the term "Victory Mosque" first, so far I have not seen an answer. "Victory Mosque" to me seems to be too convenient a name, i.e. a name made up for propaganda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib said: The lack of responses from certain people on this thread is pretty interesting.

Those people would not happen to have names would they? You think they might be pretty sick of the whole topic after 500 posts in the other thread?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"You think they might be pretty sick of the whole topic after 500 posts in the other thread?"

Yeah, I thought it went on too long, and this thread exists only to beat that hoss a tad more.

Lot's of Americans want to punish 2 billion muslims for the alleged actions of a few mentally-ill Islamic terrorists, and the people pushing for it must have expected this kind of verbal annihalation.

Either way this goes, there will be lot's of bitter mis-understanding on both sides.

A lose-lose if you will.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“This, in my view, will be perceived by radicals in Islam as a defeat for their ideology,” said Hamid, senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. “They think in a very primitive way. If they see a mosque near ground zero, this would certainly be perceived as a sign of victory for al-Qaeda. In the end, they will think, `They are bowing to us.’”

People of America, listen to Hamid. A mosque at Ground Zero is a huge provocation and a very very symbolic battle. This mosque will be headed by the radical Muslims Brothers and they hate the Western world and culture with passion. Don't get fooled by the first amendement. No democraty should tolerate a religion with murder and conquest written in the book.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To divide the two groups: Most Americans who oppose this mosque do so because of two reasons. 1)believe in a 1.5 billion person conspiracy which caused 9/11, simply because the terrorists who carried it out were Muslims who believed, and therefore all sects of Islam bear some guilt. It is has been suggested they believe this due to 9 year old grief. Maybe. And, 2) because they are sympathetic to the feelings of the people of "reason" 1, again, apparently, citing those people's grief.

The Muslims in opposition however take no responsiblity for the 9/11 terror attacks at all. They simply wish to avoid the controversy unnecessarily stirred up by the people I describe in the first paragraph. In fact, they probably also wish to avoid potential violence.

But it all goes back to the people of the first paragraph and their contrived bullcrap. I think its already too much that we gave them a war on the Taliban in Afghanistan. At least the Taliban would seem to have a connection to 9/11, but they did not do it either. Al-Quaida did it, or so we are told, and we are also told that bin Laden is the primary guy behind the group and the attack. Yet, the FBI wants bin Laden, but not for 9/11!

Could someone please tell me who is responsible for 9/11 and exactly what their motives were? Could someone provide some substantiated proof of those? Because I tell you what, pandering to this idea of a pan-Muslim connection any further is as insane as it is asinine. If anyone's grieving is the core reason for opposition to the mosque, they have run my sympathy supply dry. All they deserve from us anymore is a hard slap across the face. The founding principles of our country are FAR more important than pandering to these self-indulgent people any further. Running our country into the ground over 9 year old grief and pathological presumption of guilt with no proof is immature, stupid, short sighted and just plain NOT worth it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No democraty should tolerate a religion with murder and conquest written in the book.

You mean throw the Jews out? That would just be wrong! Look, I will tolerate Muslims and Jews all day long. What I will not tolerate is people who break our laws. You find people who murdered and you feel free to lock them up with my blessing. But never-freaking-mind their religion!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard...

I might tolerate that for a few months of someone's grief, but nine years? Certainly not.

Sounds like no one has ever died panfully in your family or you are able to get over it quickly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think many here are missing the point of motogaijin civil rights comparison; namely, that majority support for a position does not necessarily make that position morally or legaly right.

Similarly, yabits is correct in the assertion that declaring a belief that homosexuals deserve to be put to death - however, odious - is free speech protected by the constitution. Similarly, advocating the death penalty for homosexual acts is protected. Urging others to actually go out and kill homosexuals, however, would be incitement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe they think it means "victory" because of the old moorish mosque in Cordoba/Spain.

Yeah, that was one of those "victories" known as WIN-WIN.

Some Americans just can't go for that. They actually think they lose something when someone else's rights are respected.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

diveit said: Sounds like no one has ever died panfully in your family or you are able to get over it quickly.

I am all about blaming the right people. Nothing will change me in that. People who wear their grief on the sleeve along with a finger point to the WRONG people are not worth much of time consoling or explaining things to. And when that time ends, slaps across the face is what they will get, for the sake of the future. I don't want to be the next victim of this madness no matter what its origin. I don't want any American to be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A mosque at Ground Zero is a huge provocation and a very very symbolic battle.

No one, but absolutely no one, can provoke me without my permission. Especially if they aren't doing anything that violates my rights.

This thread only serves to show that the Muslim community is not the monolithic entity so falsely portrayed by the hysterical anti-Islamist alarmists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, I guarantee that no matter what happens, there will more conflict in the future. But when it happens I will have the tactical advantage of the moral highground and many here won't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One thing I need to point out to you Mist, although of course you won't listen. Islamic law is above man-made laws. It is the divine law, and unshakable since it is the word of Allah. Now try to tell a fundamental follower of Islam how they should respect your laws. They have many religious "laws" that trump anything you could try to throw at them to make your laws valid in their minds. As much as you want to take the moral highground, you have put yourself in the position to ignore things that threaten your way of life if the threat knows how to play your game using your laws.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If they rebuild the St.Nicholas Greek Orthodox church where it used to be, I'll have absolutely no objection to the community center mosque being built at it's current location. Deal?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's perfectly fine to question and debate whether it is necessary or with it is in good taste but legally, those that want to build the Islamic Center at the Burlington Coat Factory should have the right to do so.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obviously you didn't read my previous posts Taka, I know it's legal but US laws and constitutional rights, but I'm also using my freedom of speech/expression to state my opinion that it is in bad taste that they are building the mosque because of what I know about Islamic ideology and the intent of that ideology.

This is a political game now, as I said, "What about the St.Nicholas Greek Orthodox church?" The people behind the church want to rebuild it, they have the money to rebuild it since it supposedly was their land until the church was destroyed. But from what I'm hearing local city government is making it quite difficult. Double standards again on your support of freedom of religion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

correction:I know it's legal by US laws and constitutional rights for the mosque to be built.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

America will always be made up of many peoples of many beliefs and ways of worshiping and ways of living out their lives in their own ideal way. This is something we will always be confronted with. America is special because we are a nation where many people find their identity by following their individual heritage and cultural rites. However, this should not be allowed to fracture us. People come to America to be united under the Constitution that will provide for them freedoms which they value and hold in high regard -freedoms that some of us have come to take for granted! But that is our unifying ideal that holds us all together. Because we live here with so many people that will always fight for the same freedoms but live each in their own way, it is a fact of American life that we will have to be willing to work together and make compromises and understand how to be kind to one another and appreciate every persons' struggles, so that we are able to continue to uphold the freedoms we each value so much. I agree, 9/11 is still an open wound and until the last person passes away that was there to bear witness to it, it will always be an open wound. A loss as severe as 9/11 does not heal. Life teaches us how to bear it and live with it and survive and go on living stronger and happy despite it; but such loss never disappears. It is always there and it is always bleeding. Some might even wear it as a badge simply because what happened is not something that should be healed, forgotten and dismissed. Anyone who has ever suffered any great loss will understand the truth in that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" I agree, 9/11 is still an open wound and until the last person passes away that was there to bear witness to it, it will always be an open wound. "

Jeez, I hope the families of the estimated 10,000 people that bought it on the night the Americans called "Shock and Awe" have more forgiveness than yourself. 9/11 was indeed horrific but it is high time to move on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts, remember the old saying "Forgive but never forget". Move on and when we forget and it happens again eh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with you, you know. But it is time to move on from the horror of 9/11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm sure we will after we're no longer under threat from Islamic extremism. Remember there are still organizations and people out there that want to repeat it and if possible, make it even larger than 9/11. Chances of people moving on are about as nil as China moving on from blaming the Japanese for WW2 aggression. :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Or the bastards that keyed my auto..... ;-)

Though I doubt any of us will ever see the end of the threat from Islamic nut-jobs.....moving on from 9/11 involves neither forgiveness nor forget as the event deserves neither.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do some Americans think "cordoba" means "victory" in Spanish?

We had a Chrysler Cordoba - not a bad car really, although it looked somewhat 'pimp-ish'.

Yes. It will be "turned into" such by right-wing nutcases.

Or radical Islamic nutcases - you see the problem therein lies that they tend to train in making and using explosive devices, and don't care who they kill - which is problematic to us poor schlomos trying to go about our everyday lives.

So what happens when an Imam makes that assertion and a devout Muslim takes heed and goes and kills a homosexual?

In the United States, the Muslim will be arrested for murder.

Yeah, great. But see point above. If said Imam incites murder, and said robot flunkie is trained terrorist, flunkie robot kills 50 innocents, and usually themselves in the process for their 50 virgins or whatever. Doesn't help the 50 innocents killed. Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Lot's of Americans want to punish 2 billion muslims for the alleged actions of a few mentally-ill Islamic terrorists

Mmmm...is it that, or just following a form of the oft quoted phrase 'discretion is the better part of valor'. Relocate slightly and all are served.

If anyone's grieving is the core reason for opposition to the mosque, they have run my sympathy supply dry. All they deserve from us anymore is a hard slap across the face.

Sorry mate, any credibility you every might have had flew out the window on this one. Have you ever sent wife/mother/brother or other loved on off to work/daycare whatever and had them murdered by religious extremists? If not I would say you know not about which you speak; I don't and I haven't. But to go there seems odd and rather scary to me. I suppose you're trying to say it's time to move on. I would simply suggest that that you walk a mile in their shoes before condemning them for grieving longer than the time you deem as acceptable.

This thread only serves to show that the Muslim community is not the monolithic entity so falsely portrayed by the hysterical anti-Islamist alarmists.

No, certainly it's not. I can't speak for all, and this is my opinion (just so I don't get accused of anything) but I think that many in the US have a problem with Islam/Muslims not because they choose a religion other than Christianity, but that according to the fundamental beliefs, Sharia law, the doctrine of Islam is too often interpreted to a degree that is so foreign to what the US is SUPPOSED to stand for that while yes religious freedom is one of the tenants of our democracy, the laws and edicts of this religion are so anti-democracy (if not in actual wording that too often in interpretation) that it becomes an affront and in opposition to what our Great Experiment is all about. Long, horribly written sentence, but you get my drift. When folks are getting stoned to death in Iran for having an affair under the tenants of Sharia law, it's difficult to balance that with a blanket statement of religious freedom and tolerance. Yes, I understand that if those of the Islamic faith come here they are subject to our laws and regulations, but how many headlines have you seen recently of 'family law' and even in some countries an agreement to allow the enforcement of Sharia law over those of the host nation? And yes, I get it that there are varying degrees of moderation and extremism in the Islamic faith. I equate it to a new found interest in sharks, thanks to the Discovery Channel and 'Shark week'. Yes, sharks are beautiful and too often misunderstood creatures. The passive sharks are grouped in with the great whites. Chances of a shark attack are akin to the chances of getting struck by lightening. But I still don't want to swim in a pool of sharks. Call me a bigot, racist or whatever you will. I think protecting the constitution and a religious group's right to build a house of worship under it are immensely important. But so is maintaining the overall spirit in integrity of freedom in this country. I see too many tenants of Islam that and Sharia law that threaten those freedoms and move progress we've made back to the stone age. Call me what you will, but at least I'm honest. Perhaps we've been kidding ourselves and being PC for too long. I'm not condoning the condemnation of all Muslims. Nor am I paranoid or bloody stupid enough to think that they're all 'out to get us'. But in the separation of church and state, it is a religion that in too many instances goes contrary to the rights and freedoms that I feel the US was founded upon. If you defend their right to build a mosque, defend my right to believe this without label. Yeah, right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tolerance is good, but TOLERANCE TO SOMETHING THAT INTOLERANCE IS STUPIDITY. This must be a good news for the Taliban.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NEVER TOLERATING THE INTOLERANT! once again; This must be a good news for the Taliban.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sorry about my english since i can't speak english anyway but do you get my point right? this "ground zero mosque" is an oxygen for radicalism!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Long, horribly written sentence, but you get my drift.

tigermoth - I agree. It was a long and horribly written sentence, it was also accurate. Very good summation of the situation. That sums up very nicely the way I feel as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, but to what degree do you tolerate the intolerant? And how long? How many do you sacrifice on this alter? How long do you stick your collective heads in the sand and claim righteous indignation for the rights of those, many of whom would do no such thing if roles were reversed and you were in their country?

Most seem to have long forgotten that what made this nation, and what allowed us to enjoy things such as freedom of religion was a common bond as Americans first, with a shared ideal and idea of what freedom truly is. Western democracies are now no longer 'allowed' to have this sense of identity without being labeled as xenophobic, intolerant bigots. We shall see how it all falls out in the end.

Still think the mosque could go anywhere else and be just as serving to the Muslim community.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, great. But see point above. If said Imam incites murder, and said robot flunkie is trained terrorist, flunkie robot kills 50 innocents, and usually themselves in the process for their 50 virgins or whatever. Doesn't help the 50 innocents killed. Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

So, how many mosques in the US have imams inciting murder?

How does "prevention" include not bulding a mosque in the first place?

If the "pound of cure" means some nebulous increased level of security at the cost of removing the rights of a religious group to build a place of worship on land that they own, in compliance with zoning laws, then Americans would be well advised to heed the warnings of their own founders -- who declared that those who sacrifice liberty to gain security deserve neither.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HonestDictator said: Now try to tell a fundamental follower of Islam how they should respect your laws. They have many religious "laws" that trump anything you could try to throw at them to make your laws valid in their minds.

Then he said:

If they rebuild the St.Nicholas Greek Orthodox church where it used to be, I'll have absolutely no objection to the community center mosque being built at it's current location. Deal?

As someone who has had a fair comparision removed twice, it is infuriating to read this off the point stuff. No matter how the related Muslims feel, they are NOT breaking any laws and NONE of them have anything to do with the Greek Orthodox Church which is actually AT ground zero. In fact, that church could have been rebuilt at the former site of the Burlington Coat Factory, two blocks away if they had just bought it when they had the chance!

Why should this board tolerate HonestDictator's being so outside the point? Is he grieving?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard: They simply wish to avoid the controversy unnecessarily stirred up by the people I describe in the first paragraph. In fact, they probably also wish to avoid potential violence.

Their views are clearly written in the article. They feel the mosque location is insensitive. No need to insert your words into their mouths.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, how many mosques in the US have imams inciting murder?

Don't know. Probably several. With more then 100 Mosques in New York City alone, its almost certain there are a few nutjobs out there. By the way, with more then 100 Mosques in NYC, including 1 just 4 blocks away from ground zero, anyone supporting this want to comment on why they absolutely must build this there?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Mistwizard hardly grieving just pointing out your own hypocrisy that you're more than willing to stand up for one religion over another just because for some reason you feel Islam is a down-trodden beggar boy (100million mosque) in need of protecting from the big bad people that don't support it and can't tell the complete double standard between that and a $10~20million church that was there before the attack. Both fall under the constitutional rights to build houses of worship, both are legal, and both allow freedom of religion. So why exactly do you feel that Islam is in such dire need of your support? What exactly do you feel you need to defend Islam from that it can not defend itself from?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

anyone supporting this want to comment on why they absolutely must build this there?

Of course there is no imperative to build the mosque, but that is besides the point, is it not? I mean, they own the building and have the right to do with it as they please. But if we are to return to the "why here" questions, a legitimate answer is that the Muslim community in question (that is, those living and working in Manhattan) is apparently under underserviced - otherwise they wouldn't be using the building as overflow (as they currently are doing). You can debate the wisdom or appropriateness of the location, but that doesn't negate their right to use the property. And there are certainly legitimate reasons for them to want to do so that don't include "celabratory 9/11 victory mosque."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If they rebuild the St.Nicholas Greek Orthodox church where it used to be, I'll have absolutely no objection to the community center mosque being built at it's current location. Deal?

A bit of a red herring, isn't it? I mean, it's not like the mosque-builders are preventing the re-building of St. Nicholas, is it? If what you wrote is true, then shouldn't you support both the mosque and the church independently? You say the Port Authority is being obstructionist; I can beleive it, given the inability to rebuild Ground Zero nearly a decade after the fact. But this is surely not the fault of the mosque builders? Why punish them for the Port Authorities failures?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Park 51/'Ground Zero Mosque' - The Crux of the Matter http://www.prlog.org/10872408

Bottom line? Business as usual; it's all about the money.

PRLog (Aug 19, 2010) – As an American Muslim citizen and activist, I wholeheartedly agree with and do not deny the right of the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA) and the Cordoba Initiative, who purchased the building at 51 Park Avenue for a reported 4.85M, to do with it as they like; in accordance with applicable laws.

However, given that it was known that this building was grazed by one of the jet liners that crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and that the information - being the potent symbolism that 'became a compelling rationale for the project' - was insufficient to cause the organizers to re-evaluate the choice of location for their Islamic cultural center and mosque, further substantiates the confrontational nature of the choice made when purchasing the property.

The estimated cost of constructing the 13-story project is reported to be upwards of $100M. What better way to garner support from donors than to incite them into contributing monetarily to the project by choosing a site that would inevitably become controversial - politically or otherwise - leading ultimately to mainstream media attention. Ka-ching. Free advertising.

At what cost?

Unnecessarily providing ammunition for the islamophobes citing constitutional rights violations; alienating survivors and family members who lost loved ones on 9/11; and contributing to the exacerbation of divisions that already exist in the Muslim community, that organizers purport the project is aimed at supporting?

What do you think was behind the President's comments about the wisdom in choosing 51 Park Avenue as the project's location? The writing was on the wall from day one. And the organizers knew it.

Bottom line? Business as usual; it's all about the money. And you can safely bet the U.S. government will be scrutinizing where every penny of the $100M comes from.

RELATED: EASY SHARE: Park 51/'Ground Zero Mosque' - The Crux of the Matter http://www.prlog.org/10872408 MWA Director Commends New York Governor in Step Toward Compromise on Ground Zero Mosque http://prlog.org/10866661 No Islamic Community Center at Ground Zero http://twforg.blogspot.com/2010/08/it-would-be-inappropriate-to-have.html Some Muslims Question Mosque Near Ground Zero http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/some-muslims-question-mosque-near-ground-zero Muslims are Failing to Call for Minority Rights in the Islamic Countries http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslims_are_failing_to_call_for_minority_rights_in_the_islamic_countries/0018169

ABOUT AUTHOR

Aishah Schwartz, an American Muslim revert to Islam since April 2002, is founder and director of the 2006 established Washington, D.C.-based Muslimah Writers Alliance (MWA) and a retired 17-year litigation legal assistant. She is also a published freelance non-fiction writer/journalist and internationally renown human rights activist with a focus on the rights of Muslim women and the plight of the Palestinian people affected by the Israeli imposed illegal embargo on Gaza.

--- end ---

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Freedom of religion goes this far now hmm? Some muslims are against this and this is another reason to completely ignore seperation between "church and state"? Seems like the salt just keeps on getting rubbed in deeper and deeper in the American public's eyes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100818/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_ground_zero_mosque_imam

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He will not be allowed to raise funds for the mosque on the trip, Mr Crowley said.

"We value his participation as a religious figure here in the United States who can help people overseas understand the role that religion plays in our society," he said.

Mr Crowley said this would be Mr Rauf's fourth US-government sponsored trip under a programme run by the State Department's Bureau of International Information Programs.

Sounds like he been doing this for quite a while and nobody complained. Not allowed to raise funds. This will be read and forgotten. The hatred for this mosque is all that matters. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On a kinder note if Mr.Rauf is taking that government paid trip to truly promote real peace between Islam (especially with Arab muslims) and western nations I wonder if he'll make it back alive. The qur'an has many verses about false diplomacy as long as it furthers the cause of Islam whether in the now or in the future.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

quite simply Adaydream how many people knew about it until it was released or finally reported to the MSM? I myself haven't heard a thing about it until this was posted today. I'd love to know how many other religious leaders have been sent to other countries on the taxpayers money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

here is another select quote from that article Aday, "We value his participation as a religious figure here in the United States who can help people overseas understand the role that religion plays in our society," he said.

Define the laws of the seperation between church and state. The US government by law is not to finance the encouragement or benefits of ANY RELIGION.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HonestDictator。

The USA hasn't practiced separation of Church and State for quiet some time now.

Just look at the money or how much power christian lobbying groups hold, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Zenny11 please tell me which christian lobbying groups are being financed by the government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Never stated that the goverment funded them, stop pulling things out of the air.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib said: Their views are clearly written in the article. They feel the mosque location is insensitive. No need to insert your words into their mouths.

Their views are clearly written, yes. But you seem to have not read their views, but the summation of the views in the beginning. The summation is, in fact, so far off that I question if you even read the whole article! The first one pretty much said the problem was the publicity, not the mosque. ie, no publicity no problem. Not quite insensitivity. The second says it won't help win the hearts and minds of America. Nothing about insensitivity. The last worries about a fundamentalist take-over, again, nothing about insensitivity.

The statements in the article are all over the place. But why am I telling you this? You can read, you just don't. Short of a proper poll, I stand by what I said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HonestDictator said: @Mistwizard hardly grieving just pointing out your own hypocrisy that you're more than willing to stand up for one religion over another

Whoa! Wait a minute! My hypocrisy? Stood up for one religion over another? What are you talking about? I tell you what, you QUOTE me where I stood up for Islam over another religion. If you can't, then you apologize. Simple, and fair.

As for my opinion of Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox, if it were up to me it would have been rebuilt as soon as was possible with public funds if insurance has not covered it. In fact, I did not even realize it was destroyed until just now. I thought the building was just too damaged to be used, but even then my opinion was the same. Why the public funds for SNGO but not Park51? Hypocrisy? Favor for Greek Orthodox? NO! Because the rebuilding has a significance to the public well-being and spirit and as an NPO it is too unfair that they should lose their facilities like that. If that were a mosque, and Park51 a church, I would fund the mosque but not the church, ie NO HYPOCRISY HERE.

I have no love for Christians, Jews or Muslims. But I have no hate either, and certainly, no hypocrisy.

A hypocrite would go on and on about SNGO not being able to rebuild while slamming Park51. Or maybe you don't know what hypocrisy is? PYHOOYA!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, how many mosques in the US have imams inciting murder?

How does "prevention" include not bulding a mosque in the first place?

If the "pound of cure" means some nebulous increased level of security at the cost of removing the rights of a religious group to build a place of worship on land that they own, in compliance with zoning laws, then Americans would be well advised to heed the warnings of their own founders -- who declared that those who sacrifice liberty to gain security deserve neither.

Yabits, I find myself either agreeing with you or understanding your points much more often these days - which is a bit scary, but good that perhaps we can open each others minds a bit in these discussions rather than always disagreeing and childish arguments. There is a good lesson there.

How many mosques in the U.S. have Imams inciting murder? Good question and I don't think the answer is known, except perhaps by the CIA. Perhaps more than you would think, and perhaps less than I would think. How many incite hate and murder against the west/christian infidels? How many do so in a less subtle method than actually preaching hate? How many help 'the cause' in other ways? For instance I used to frequent an Irish bar in the city and saw them on more than one occasion pass the hat around for donation for the IRA. How many mosques that might not be actually inciting violence, are assisting in funding and possible sending recruits? It would be naive to say none.

The prevention in not building the mosque comes in two forms. The immediate is a message by the local Muslim community that is behind this mosque that while they certainly do not agree with pigeon-holing all Islamic/Muslim groups with the 9/11 attackers, they understand the sensitivity issue and reason why this mosque might be seen in less than a positive light. It could only create a feeling of good will and perhaps promote better understanding; building the mosque will certainly do the opposite, as public opinion has shown. The other form has even been eluded to by a Muslim commenting on why the mosque is a bad idea. While certainly I think that it's likely over-blown to call this a 'victory mosque' you certainly must be able to see that extremists could easily point to this mosque and say that it proves the spread of Islam is unstoppable and 'God's will' on the spot of their 'greatest victory' against the evil west. Two blocks away, close enough. That's not implying the owners and users of this mosque will believe that, but radicals could promote it as such. Reason enough for pause anyway. And wouldn't it be just the feather in their caps if they can infiltrate this mosque with an extremist fringe?

Sacrificing liberty to gain security. I agree with you on this one and it's a tough question. The problem is that while we've always managed to maintain something of a separation of church and state (yes, I know at times laughable with Bush's, etc.). With Islam and the Muslim community, there seems to be no separation. It's a dichotomy of cultures where one is so fundamentally different than the other that it's proven almost impossible to mesh the two. America is essentially a Christian nation - like it or not - and while it was founded on freedom of religion, it wasn't envisioned several hundred years ago that groups with such a different and prevailing set of cultural values and deep religious fervor would flock to the US in great numbers. And it certainly wasn't envisioned that said religion would have a violent fringe that while perhaps equal to Christianity's violent past, seems horribly out of date and downright scary in the modern civilized world we've supposedly created.

So do we trade the tenants of our Constitution and what America stands for and means, or do we stand by those principles and perhaps watch America become something unrecognizable and something it was never intended to be? It's a weird conundrum full of double-edged swords.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard: The first one pretty much said the problem was the publicity, not the mosque. ie, no publicity no problem. Not quite insensitivity. The second says it won't help win the hearts and minds of America. Nothing about insensitivity. The last worries about a fundamentalist take-over, again, nothing about insensitivity.

Which category does this one fall under?

Asra Nomani, author of “Standing Alone: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam,” said she backs the idea of the mosque in principle but believes the feelings of families who lost loved ones in the Sept 11, 2001, attacks should trump the plan.

Probably the "doesn't fall in line with my views so I'll ignore it" category. Or, perhaps she a is a Muslim woman who is racist against Muslims. I suppose you have a lot of choices left at your disposal. We're not mind readers, after all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" He said the space should include a synagogue and a church so it will truly be interfaith. "

Well, good luck with that! There goes the the funding from Saudi Arabia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Honest Dictator:

" On a kinder note if Mr.Rauf is taking that government paid trip to truly promote real peace between Islam (especially with Arab muslims) and western nations I wonder if he'll make it back alive. The qur'an has many verses about false diplomacy as long as it furthers the cause of Islam whether in the now or in the future. "

Don´t worry about that. As Valid Shoebat points out, what the Mr. Rauf is telling the Arab media is very different from the bromide that he is peddling to the Western press and politicians. What they hear is that is firmly for Shariah (also for the US of course), and against Western democracy.

So you can pick which Mr. Rauf you believe...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB, no links? And what do you have against Saudi Arabia? I thought they were U.S. allies?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Take a look at what Islam does to countries and their societies and you have all the reason you need to want to minimize its influence in America or any other democratic country. What good does it offer mankind. Not much. I just see lots of hatred, murder and mayhem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They say there is going to be a pool and a gym in there, right? Surely, that comes under construction and not religion. Maybe they wanna start changing their construction, using US supplies, or sumfing. Im confused there is too much talk on this. Is the Shariah Law a Government? Seems funny to me as an Australian that you would allow a government within a government(but then again-Oz- maybe not)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A person has a right to that opinion. Nobody has a right to cause physical harm to a person who expresses that opinion as an opinion -- at least not in the United States while there is a bit of freedom left.

Actually no you can't, if a white person goes out and says that in my opinion white women should be killed they would have the FBI, at the very least the local law enforcement all over them. You can't go around in the US by law expressing thoughts that such and such should be killed or that such and such group of people should be killed because they are homosexuals or because they are of this religion or because they are of this race and or sex it is illegal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but you are correct too that people, other than law enforcement, can't cause physical harm to those people who express such thoughts as an opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I heard there is a mosque INSIDE the pentagon so what is the problem with that mosque or islamic center at few blocks AWAY from ground zero?Pentagon too got attacked I think.Im not giving any opinion Im not american so Im asking to the americans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Makes sens for a Mosque to be in the pentagon and other goverment facilities as I am sure that there are people of Muslim faith employed by the USA goverment, as well as for visiting people.

Interesting I haven't heard any relatives of muslim faith who lost family/friends in the 9/11 attack speak out against the mosque.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Insensitive location, wrong time makes this project inappropriate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You have to remember that anywhere near 'Ground Zero' has become hallowed ground. The very idea of putting an 'enemy' place of worship in such a place is unthinkable to Americans.

Afterall, would Arabs allow a church to be built near the Masjid al-Haram? I don't think so.

To Americans, Ground Zero has become a special place... keep it special. No Muslim place of worship anywhere near it

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OK, I really have to ask. I wasn't going to post on that subject anymore because it's like, just too much but I have to ask this.

You have to remember that anywhere near 'Ground Zero' has become hallowed ground.

How 'near' is near? How large is that 'hallowed' ground? Where are the new construction rules concerning this 'hallowed' ground written? When were the new 'hallowed' rules implemented? What businesses or organizations do the new 'hallowed' rules pertain to? What, if any, are the penalties if the 'hallowed' rules are broken? Who takes care of said 'hallowed' ground? Are there any other businesses that do not follow the 'hallowed' rules at the moment? Should these businesses, like the PussyCat Lounge, think of moving a little so that they do not break these new 'hallowed' rules?

I have about a thousand other questions but I'll start with those ones. I'll also crack another beer because... well, just because.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites