Ground Zero Mosque

[Belial]

TIME TO MOVE ALONG PEOPLE

[ExpandMyMind]

Ah yes, the "Christianity does it, too!" argument. Very original.

Questionmark, there are plenty of violent Quran verses and hadiths. It should be fairly easy to find them on the Internet. If you have any trouble finding them, let me know and I'll post a few for you.

NO.

The point was that no religion condones this. The Holy Books all contain horrible bits that could be used to further evil agendas but when someone uses one as an excuse to blow up an abortion clinic, we don't blame Christianity, we blame the wing-nut who believed it.

There are clear double standards at play here.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Plenty, but the Hadiths are not binding for all Muslims, there you would have to make distinctions between Sunni, Shia, Ismaelites and what have you. That would be saying that David Koresh's insane babblings are binding for all Christians.

Is the Quran binding, then? There are plenty of violent Quran verses. What exactly is it that Muslims are supposed to follow in order to be Muslim? It seems every bad Quranic verse or hadith or just anything bad about Muhammad is somehow "not binding."

NO.

The point was that no religion condones this. The Holy Books all contain horrible bits that could be used to further evil agendas but when someone uses one as an excuse to blow up an abortion clinic, we don't blame Christianity, we blame the wing-nut who believed it.

There are clear double standards at play here.

"Bits" is a bit of an understatement when speaking of the bad parts in the Quran and Sunna.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Pseudo Intellectual

[ninjadude]

If You Build It, Nothing Bad Will Happen

Conor Friedersdorf, 07.22.10, 4:38 PM ETYou've probably heard about "The Ground Zero Mosque," an Islamic community center planned in Lower Manhattan. But I bet you haven't heard of The Ground Zero Strip Club.

There are actually a couple of adult entertainment venues that show up on Google Maps if you search around the former site of the World Trade Center. Internet reviewers seem to like New York Dolls best, due to its sexy, disproportionately Russian staff, mirrored stage and purportedly high-quality lap dances.

As yet, I haven't heard anyone wonder why our political class is silent as the sex industry operates on sacred ground.

[...]

It's the word "they" that's doing all the misleading work. The people who declared war against us on Sept. 11, 2001, were al Qaeda radicals led by Osama bin Laden and his followers. Who are the people trying to build a 13-story Islamic community center that includes a single floor of prayer space, a swimming pool, a library, a child-care center, a concert hall, a gym, a culinary school and a restaurant? "They" are an Islamic group that has long run a mosque in the area for New York City Muslims. On 9/11, "they" found their community under attack, too. It is slander to assert that they've declared war against us, or that their motive in building a community center is celebrating the murder of Americans.

source

Edited August 15, 2010 by ninjadude

[ninjadude]

NOT ON GROUND ZERO.

So because the President said this:-

Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality … a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country

Right wingers want to go all John Cleese on Muslims

.

source

Edited August 15, 2010 by ninjadude

[ninjadude]

This morning on CNN’s State of the Union, New York congressmen Jerrold Nadler (D) effectively dismantled the arguments of his fellow Empire State colleague Peter King ®, who has been one of the most outspoken opponents of the new Islamic center project in lower Manhattan.

King argued that, while he respects Muslims’ “right” to build a new center, “they should listen to public opinion” and “should voluntarily move the mosque away from Ground Zero.” Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, explained, “We do not put the Bill of Rights…to a vote. The reason we have a Bill of Rights is that you have your religious rights…whether majorities like you or not, frankly.”

Nadler then addressed the biggest fallacy of the right-wing argument: namely, that in their opposition to the Islamic center, they are ascribing collective guilt on all Muslims for the terrorist acts of 9/11:

NADLER: [W]hat they are saying essentially is how can you put a mosque there when, after all, Muslims attacked us on 9/11, and this is ripping open a wound? Well, the fallacy is that Al Qaida attacked us. Islam did not attack us. Islam, like Christianity, like Judaism, like other religions, has many different people, some of whom regard other adherents of the religion as heretics of one sort or another.

It is only insensitive if you regard Islam as the culprit, as opposed to Al Qaida as the culprit. We were not attacked by all Muslims.

And there were Muslims who were killed there, there were Muslims who were killed there. There were Muslims who ran in as first responders to help. And we cannot take any position like that.

King — who has said he thinks there are “too many mosques in this country” and is an advocate of racially profiling all Muslims — claimed that he has been a defender of Islam. But, he added, the 9/11 attack “was carried out in the name of Islam,” and therefore, the new Islamic center would simply be rubbing “salt in the wounds.”

“[O]bjecting to this mosque would be as objectionable if you wouldn’t object to a church or a synagogue in the same place because that’s blaming all Islam and you can’t blame an entire religion,” Nadler explained. He then ticked through three prominent examples of GOP hypocrisy on the “Ground Zero mosque”:

1) Nadler: “One, there is a mosque in the Pentagon, which is also hallowed ground. No one objects to that.” [

Link

]

2) Nadler: “Second, the people who want to build this facility, which is partially a mosque and partially a community center, have a mosque a few blocks away from there, which no one has objected to.” [

Link

]

3) Nadler: “I would take the sincerity of many of the Republican critics of this…if they were supporting, as Peter is, but very few other Republicans are, the bill to give health care coverage to the 9/11 heroes and responders which all but 12 Republicans voted against in the House last week.” [

Link

]

source

[Agent X]

According to this PDF:

My link

More than 61% of all New Yorkers oppose the Mosque.

So I suppose that each and every one of those people is an Islamophobe?

I'm so sick and tired of liberals playing the race card when they know they can't win.

What is it about liberals that demand "respect" for everybody else except conservatives and never demand a two - way street?

Respect is something that is earned, and is a two way street.

[ExpandMyMind]

"Bits" is a bit of an understatement when speaking of the bad parts in the Quran and Sunna.

The point still remains valid.

[questionmark]

Is the Quran binding, then? There are plenty of violent Quran verses. What exactly is it that Muslims are supposed to follow in order to be Muslim? It seems every bad Quranic verse or hadith or just anything bad about Muhammad is somehow "not binding."

Ok let me put it to you as if you were three years old:

Once upon a time there were some bad men who did not like the American presence in Saudi Arabia and to force the Americans home they flew a few planes into the World Trade Center.

Religion had nothing to do with it except that all participants were Muslims of the Wahhabi sect(a variety professed almost exclusively in Saudi Arabia).

That is why justifying the not opening of a mosque (by non-Wahhabi Muslims) within a few blocks of that place is absolutely inane and can only be done by either uninformed or xenophobic. Most likely the xenophobic riling up the uninformed.

[ExpandMyMind]

Ok let me put it to you as if you were three years old:

Once upon a time there were some bad men who did not like the American presence in Saudi Arabia and to force the Americans home they flew a few planes into the World Trade Center.

Religion had nothing to do with it except that all participants were Muslims of the Wahhabi sect(a variety professed almost exclusively in Saudi Arabia).

That is why justifying the not opening of a mosque (by non-Wahhabi Muslims) within a few blocks of that place is absolutely inane and can only be done by either uninformed or xenophobic. Most likely the xenophobic riling up the uninformed.

Really couldn't be made any simpler.

[Mainpoint]

Freedom and liberty are under attack in america its about time people stood up against bigotry and hatred. Supporting the mosque is supporting freedom and american values. Its about rights of an individual.

[The Silver Thong]

According to this PDF:

My link

More than 61% of all New Yorkers oppose the Mosque.

So I suppose that each and every one of those people is an Islamophobe?

I'm so sick and tired of liberals playing the race card when they know they can't win.

What is it about liberals that demand "respect" for everybody else except conservatives and never demand a two - way street?

Respect is something that is earned, and is a two way street.

This is not a liberal issue at all, it's a constitutional issue that make party lines none existent. Obama had to say what he did and we all know that. The right for muslims to build a mosque is protected under the constitution.

If the location is is zoned and approved by the law and meets the standard required to build there, then there can be no argument about it. Popular opinion does not win out in a constitutional issue.

If the mosque is approved it means it has met the requirements of the law done deal. However I do feel for the people of New York and understand there dislike of the location but then again we really should make people aware of who the terrorists really were. Why is that being brushed under the rug in America.

I have a feeling this mosque might spark a whole new wave of hate crimes, unfortunately.

[Agent X]

It may be a protected right but is it the right thing to do?

Considering that the reason for it being built is to thumb their noses at the people who died, then it is not and shouldn't be built.

And personally I hope there will be nobody in New York who'll help them build it.

[venqax]

In my city, and in many, there are ordinances (in fact, it part it is a state law) prohibiting establshments that sell alcohol whithin some distance of a church or place of worship. I think it was seen, at least originally, as a matter of public taste, civility, decorum-- avoiding unnecessarily offending sensibilities while protecting rights. There are A LOT of places that sell alcohol-- bars, restaraunts, drug stores, gas stations, groceries- but none within this radius of a church. I think it's silly, myself. Just means the people from the church have to walk farther to the bar, or worse, drive, after their Sunday ceremonies. At least the Catholics and the Lutherans. The Methodists and Baptists go home to drink anyway.

Why is this issue really any different? True there is a right to religious exercise, and not one to be in a bar (altho I guesst the anti-smoking Nazis have come close to establishing one). But is public civility completely irrelevant to the law in NYC? Also true that because you are trying to stop it because it is a mosque presents problem that may be, legally, insurmountable. The Muslims, obviously, dont want to play nice and so wont abondon this project voluntarily. Does any one know if it is true that NYC zoning laws would NOT prohibit a gay bar from being opened near the mosque? That was the hilariously brilliant suggestion of someone. Probably was in jest, but hey, sometimes all you can do is respond in kind. Use the rules to your advantage; Allah knows they are.

[The Silver Thong]

It may be a protected right but is it the right thing to do?

Considering that the reason for it being built is to thumb their noses at the people who died, then it is not and shouldn't be built.

And personally I hope there will be nobody in New York who'll help them build it.

I can't argue if it's the right thing but that doesn't matter does it, the law is the law. I say let them build it, let them speak, and let them stand on there comments and actions. If they use this mosque as a talking point for Islam to thumb it's nose at the west so be it. It will only make there argument less valid and harm them in the long run.

[venqax]

Now wait, you are claiming here that the mosque should not be opened because the World Trade Center was attacked by religious nuts

Someone was trying to sell the notion that their motivations didn't have anything to do with religion. Were they religious nuts or simply disgruntled Bongonians? One reason to guess the former is that they constantaly refer to themselves as religious nuts (albeit in their own manner) and claim that everything they do is justified in the name of their nutty religion. As for that latter, Latin Amiericans have many of the same tired complaints about America. But I don't see a Venezuelan or Bolivian El Caida flying airplanes into buildings or blowing up subway stations or screaming about Our Lady of Guadalupe Hidalgo while they strap bombs on women. I'm guessing Islam is somewhat relevant here.

[Siara]

I can't argue if it's the right thing but that doesn't matter does it, the law is the law.

That's true. It would be great if the New York Muslim community could detach itself from Sharif El-Gamal's "Cordoba House" project (El-Gamal's interest in this is cash. Period). NYC should have come sort of public meeting with the NY Muslim community itself, instead of working through a selfish real estate developer.

[questionmark]

Someone was trying to sell the notion that their motivations didn't have anything to do with religion. Were they religious nuts or simply disgruntled Bongonians? One reason to guess the former is that they constantaly refer to themselves as religious nuts (albeit in their own manner) and claim that everything they do is justified in the name of their nutty religion. As for that latter, Latin Amiericans have many of the same tired complaints about America. But I don't see a Venezuelan or Bolivian El Caida flying airplanes into buildings or blowing up subway stations or screaming about Our Lady of Guadalupe Hidalgo while they strap bombs on women. I'm guessing Islam is somewhat relevant here.

You mean to say that the Guerrilleros de Christo Rey don't exist, that Timothy McVeigh had nothing to do with the religious right and that certain Christian sects don't want world domination?

Are we going to close all churches because of that and/or not authorize the building of new ones near the Murrah building in Oklahoma City?

Yeh... right!

Edited August 15, 2010 by questionmark

[The Silver Thong]

That's true. It would be great if the New York Muslim community could detach itself from Sharif El-Gamal's "Cordoba House" project (El-Gamal's interest in this is cash. Period). NYC should have come sort of public meeting with the NY Muslim community itself, instead of working through a selfish real estate developer.

Very good point. This all could have been handled far better. However I think we have some political views that would not listen no matter how it went down. Some are just blinded by opinion and media bias.

[Agent X]

Then you should do a google for:

Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah

They are the ones behind the mosque.

[Mainpoint]

I think it was seen, at least originally, as a matter of public taste, civility, decorum--

Your point is invalid

Its personal property not public property therefore public cannot decide its up to the individual

[Leah G.]

That is your right no arguments here. However I would like to know more about the man you think may be using this mosque as a platform to harm America or use it as a symbol of Islamic domination.

Posted Yesterday, 08:28 PM

It is "financial jihad," explained Yusuf Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood's sharia compass and the man Feisal Rauf, the brains behind the proposed Ground Zero mosque, admires as "the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today." It was 2002 and Qaradawi, who endorses suicide bombing and the targeting of American personnel operating in Islamic countries, was giving a lecture on the need to use the international financial system to support Islamist goals like Hamas's war to destroy Israel.

Another link died, this is getting spooky. Why do the links I find keep dieing?

Edited August 15, 2010 by Hatch

[The Silver Thong]

Then you should do a google for:

Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah

They are the ones behind the mosque.

I have read a bit about them and to be honest they are doing what we are doing here. Using there right to free speech and opinion. If they truly believe what they say then given enough rope they will hang themselves with it.

[Mainpoint]

Then you should do a google for:

Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah

They are the ones behind the mosque.

thats another reason why i think mosque is a good idea people are filled with so much misinformation that in a way its good now that atleast there is an oppurtunity for false impressions to be cleared up

[The Silver Thong]

Posted Yesterday, 08:28 PM

It is "financial jihad," explained Yusuf Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood's sharia compass — and the man Feisal Rauf, the brains behind the proposed Ground Zero mosque, admires as "the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today." It was 2002 and Qaradawi, who endorses suicide bombing and the targeting of American personnel operating in Islamic countries, was giving a lecture on the need to use the international financial system to support Islamist goals — like Hamas's war to destroy Israel.

Another link died, this is getting spooky. Why do the links I find keep dieing?

Thats the problem it's not about religion. It's about the law and money. Financial jihad, right there expose this to the everyday muslim and they will show contempt at what these folks are doing in the name of there religion. Amend laws that make it possible to follow the money. Hence tax it.