View Full Version : Islamic group to build mosque adjacent to ground zero
Don Corleone
08-03-2010, 15:09
I tried searching the forums, but I apologize if this has already been treated in another thread (moderators, please feel free to close/merge as appropriate).
I was surprised there hasn't been much mention of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/ground-mosque-clear-major-hurdle-landmarks-commission-vote/story?id=11312002) here in the Backroom. Technically speaking, the mosque will be constructed two blocks away, as a 9 story building looking down on Ground Zero in Manhatten. All the same, I personally understand why people have issues with this.
Traditionally, muslims have built mosques on sites where they conquered a landmark from an enemy. For example, they built the Al Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock over the ruins of the Jewish temple in Jersulaem, so that no temple could ever be rebuilt. They converted the Basilica of Hagia Sophia (Cathedral of Holy Wisdom), what was essentially the centralized site for Eastern Orthodox Christians at the time after they conquered Constantinople in 1453 (then renamed to Istanbul). into the Ayasofa Mosque in an effort to forcibly convert the city's inhabitants to Islam.
Even the name of the group, Cordoba House, invokes images of Conquest.... Cordoba was the capital of Muslim Spain.
I know that in a free society, you cannot forbid people to practice their religious practices, and if it's a religious practice for these people (not necessarily all muslims) to build a huge "We Kicked Your Ass and This Place Is Ours Now" shrine at the site of a massacre like the 9/11 bombings, I suppose as long as they operate within the law it's technically their right.
But I ask you, let's not focus on the "Can they?" Let's focus on the "Should they?" Where does nationalism/zealotry need to take a back-seat to good taste? Would anybody have a problem if Fred Phelps opened a sister chapel on the grounds of the camp in Srebenicia and named it the "Church of the Almighty Who Gives the Heathens What They Deserve"?
rory_20_uk
08-03-2010, 15:16
It does seem unwise in what is still a belligerently Christian country.
Christians have also enjoyed dedicating to a victory over whoever they happened to be slaughtering at the time.
I forget who said it, but the ideals of the USA are to enshrine the right for others to burn the flag if they choose.
Trying to prevent something based on good taste is in the UK so perilously close to discriminating that one has to fnd a more plausible reason to be against it.
~:smoking:
Thought it was so rediculous I exptected an American to open it.
creepy detail, Dutch government, well the last one BYE, is partially funding it
edit, and of course it's a provocation, or completely stupid of course, how could anyone have a problem with it after all. In short to quote a famous movie line: they can smell your :daisy:
CountArach
08-03-2010, 15:32
It is also promising to include a memorial to the victims of 9/11, according to the Wall Street Journal.
So what's the problem?
If they were building directly on top of the building sure there might be a case, but two blocks away? I honestly don't see any issue here. And if there is an issue, how far away would you consider to be the distance at which mosques should be built? 5 blocks, 10 blocks, outside of New York altogether?
You assume that the mosque will be built for the purpose of provocation; but is that assumption correct?
Who says the muslims who'll be praying there agree with the viewpoints of the nutcases who flew planes into buildings?
***
How about looking at it from another angle?
->
The nutjobs flew planes in buildings to provoke your country. They wanted you to start hating all Muslims, because they want eternal war and conflict (or at least until all infidels are exterminated).
Instead of letting yourself be provoked to that, you ruin their plans by allowing Muslims to build a house of prayer only two blocks away from Ground Zero. America will always be a free country, no matter how many planes those nutjobs fly into your buildings. Take that, extremists.
Don Corleone
08-03-2010, 15:43
So what's the problem?
If they were building directly on top of the building sure there might be a case, but two blocks away? I honestly don't see any issue here. And if there is an issue, how far away would you consider to be the distance at which mosques should be built? 5 blocks, 10 blocks, outside of New York altogether?
Odd. The Mosque has been planned for over 5 years, but the Memorial (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/ground_zero_mosque_to_include.html)you mention was only included on Sunday evening, in advance of a critical vote by the Landmark Commission today.
Poor taste, and questionable financial backing. I haven't read much on it, just about the bickering from both sides. I don't think they are putting a minaret on it (yet), but I suppose they will do what they want. I also hope the feds to dig through the finances and bug the place. If the imams start preaching DTA and celebrating the 9/11 "martyrs", I don't imagine the NYFD will respond quickly when the place catches fire.
Can they? Yes. Should they? Probably not.
You assume that the mosque will be built for the purpose of provocation; but is that assumption correct?
Who says the muslims who'll be praying there agree with the viewpoints of the nutcases who flew planes into buildings?
***
How about looking at it from another angle?
->
The nutjobs flew planes in buildings to provoke your country. They wanted you to start hating all Muslims, because they want eternal war and conflict (or at least until all infidels are exterminated).
Instead of letting yourself be provoked to that, you ruin their plans by allowing Muslims to build a house of prayer only two blocks away from Ground Zero.
How about they do, kinda inconsiderate no, maybe the Germans should build a statue in Auswitz and hand out free candy, not all Germans are nazi's after all.
And look up Cordoba, they are planting a flag
You have a point by the way, NY didn't allow to be provoked, so a second one is build, incidently just there as well
Don Corleone
08-03-2010, 15:57
You assume that the mosque will be built for the purpose of provocation; but is that assumption correct?
Who says the muslims who'll be praying there agree with the viewpoints of the nutcases who flew planes into buildings?
***
How about looking at it from another angle?
->
The nutjobs flew planes in buildings to provoke your country. They wanted you to start hating all Muslims, because they want eternal war and conflict (or at least until all infidels are exterminated).
Instead of letting yourself be provoked to that, you ruin their plans by allowing Muslims to build a house of prayer only two blocks away from Ground Zero. America will always be a free country, no matter how many planes those nutjobs fly into your buildings. Take that, extremists.
You know, you're absolutely right. I can't imagine why the Tutsi's wouldn't want to know the "real Akazu", so I'm going to open a memorial/shrine to Paul Kagame in downtown Kigali. Shouldn't be a problem, right?
You know, you're absolutely right. I can't imagine why the Tutsi's wouldn't want to know the "real Akazu", so I'm going to open a memorial/shrine to Paul Kagame in downtown Kigali. Shouldn't be a problem, right?
Your analogy would work if they would be building a statue of Osama Bin Laden.
They don't, however. They want to build a mosque; not a shrine to celebrate the deaths of your countrymen.
Couple of thoughts: 2 blocks away is not "adjacent."
Unless I'm mistaken, there are already mosques closer (http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=mosques+in+lower+manhattan&fb=1&gl=us&hq=mosques&hnear=Manhattan,+New+York) than the part-time one being proposed.
Lastly, from what little I've read on the subject (which ain't a whole lot), the group that wants to build the community center/mosque is about as mellow and interfaith-friendly as muslims come. In other words, the Fred Phelps church blew up your house, so now you're angry at the Unitarians for wanting to build a YMCA. Evidence (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/c_welton_gaddy/2010/07/great_irony_in_outcry_over_ground_zero_mosque.html).
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the spiritual leader of Masjid Al-Farah mosque in lower Manhattan, has gained a reputation in New York for his interfaith work and his progressive practice of Islam. Together with his wife Daisy Khan, Imam Feisal envisioned devotees to Islam sharing space with other communities to enjoy arts, culture and dialogue. Inspired by the struggle of other religious communities seeking acceptance in America, they set out to establish Cordoba House, named for the Spanish city where Muslims, Jews, and Christians together created one of the most fertile and creative civilizations in the world. [...]
Last week, Daisy Khan joined me for a conversation on State of Belief, my weekly radio show. She expressed concern that critics of the Islamic cultural center have deeply misunderstood its creators' intent. The center will not function primarily as a mosque; New York City is already home to more than 200 mosques. Rather, modeled on the success of religiously based establishments like YMCAs and Jewish Community Centers, the Islamic center will serve the larger community to become an institution for learning, collaborating, and sharing knowledge across faiths and cultures.
In other words, to quote Obi-wan Kenobi, These aren't the muslims you're looking for; they can go about their business.
And what's with all of the pre-1000 A.D. conquest references to the Hagia Sofia and the Dome on the Rock? Do you really, honestly think that the proposed community center/mosque is part of a triumphal Islamist statement about how they kicked ass and took names on 9/11? Seriously?
Don Corleone
08-03-2010, 16:10
Couple of thoughts: 2 blocks away is not "adjacent."
Unless I'm mistaken, there are already mosques closer (http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=mosques+in+lower+manhattan&fb=1&gl=us&hq=mosques&hnear=Manhattan,+New+York) than the part-time one being proposed.
Lastly, from what little I've read on the subject (which ain't a whole lot), the group that wants to build the community center/mosque is about as mellow and interfaith-friendly as muslims come. In other words, the Fred Phelps church blew up your house, so now you're angry at the Unitarians for wanting to build a YMCA. Evidence (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/c_welton_gaddy/2010/07/great_irony_in_outcry_over_ground_zero_mosque.html).
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the spiritual leader of Masjid Al-Farah mosque in lower Manhattan, has gained a reputation in New York for his interfaith work and his progressive practice of Islam. Together with his wife Daisy Khan, Imam Feisal envisioned devotees to Islam sharing space with other communities to enjoy arts, culture and dialogue. Inspired by the struggle of other religious communities seeking acceptance in America, they set out to establish Cordoba House, named for the Spanish city where Muslims, Jews, and Christians together created one of the most fertile and creative civilizations in the world. [...]
Last week, Daisy Khan joined me for a conversation on State of Belief, my weekly radio show. She expressed concern that critics of the Islamic cultural center have deeply misunderstood its creators' intent. The center will not function primarily as a mosque; New York City is already home to more than 200 mosques. Rather, modeled on the success of religiously based establishments like YMCAs and Jewish Community Centers, the Islamic center will serve the larger community to become an institution for learning, collaborating, and sharing knowledge across faiths and cultures.
Interesting perspective Lemur. The group's leader, a Sufi Imam who stated on September 20th, 2001, that American policy was as much to blame for 9/11 as anyone or anything is as interfaith-friendly as Muslims come? That's not very encouraging.
I couldn't find any mosques listed in the Googlemaps link you forwarded (thank you for it though) that were as close or closer, but it's relevant to consider when they were constructed as well.
Seriously, you really don't see this as a big finger in the eye? You really don't see this as provocative? Regardless of my views on the matter, I wouldn't establish a "counter perspective center" in the Hiroshima Peace Park, but I suppose you wouldn't have any qualms with it if I did?
While initially suspicious, all I have to do is remember the DPW ports fiasco and I'm willing to give the builders of the mosque the benefit of the doubt. I don't know that the people wanting to stop the mosque have made that strong of a case yet.
Ser Clegane
08-03-2010, 16:14
I have to say the comments that come with the linked abc-article are by and large rather disturbing... :no:
Seriously, you really don't see this as a big finger in the eye? You really don't see this as provocative? Regardless of my views on the matter, I wouldn't establish a "counter perspective center" in the Hiroshima Peace Park, but I suppose you wouldn't have any qualms with it if I did?
I'm not trying to be dense, Don, but no, I do not see this as a provocation. If a Saudi-funded wahabbist tried to build something, then we'd be on the same page. But a local, and a couple who have a reputation for being mellow and interfaith? A dude who allows his woman to speak for him in the press? Does that sound like the fundie nutjobs we're at war with?
As for your Hiroshima analogy, do you believe a Starbucks should be allowed to operate within a few blocks of the memorial park? Should Americans be allowed to proseletyze and give out christian leaflets in Japan? If not, why not?
Just to throw a little more fuel on the fire, the proposed date for the grand opening is September 11, 2011.
Don Corleone
08-03-2010, 16:18
While initially suspicious, all I have to do is remember the DPW ports fiasco and I'm willing to give the builders of the mosque the benefit of the doubt. I don't know that the people wanting to stop the mosque have made that strong of a case yet.
I fail to see the linkage. I still believe it was jingoistic and paranoid to deny the Dubai Ports World harbor management deal. That had more to do with getting Charles Schumer reelected than anything.
This on the other hand is a project that aspires to build a conquerer's mosque overlooking the memorial at Ground Zero, built by a man who is on record stating that America got what it deserved, who chose to name his group after the capital of Islamic conquest of the West, Cordoba.
The main objectors to the site are islamophobes. That much is clear.
Just to throw a little more fuel on the fire, the proposed date for the grand opening is September 11, 2011.
How obvious does one want it, the Cordoba mosque, on that date. Fall of Cordoba, bit like 1453 symbolicaly.
Don Corleone
08-03-2010, 16:20
Just to throw a little more fuel on the fire, the proposed date for the grand opening is September 11, 2011.
Fascinating. Yeah, they don't mean any insult or provocation at all, do they...
Don Corleone
08-03-2010, 16:23
I'm no Islmaphobe, but do believe in things like sensitivity and good taste. You can ask anybody in here, I have as much animosity towards the Westboro Baptist Church as I do for anybody. But building a mosque on a site that overlooks the ground where muslim extremists declared war on the US and killed 3000 people in the name of Jihad... that just seems in extremely poor form.
The main objectors to the site are islamophobes. That much is clear.
Beskar, name-calling doesn't help advance this discussion even slightly. Reasonable people can feel concern about the Cordoba House. I disagree with them, but I don't think it's legit to label everyone who disagrees an "islamophobe." Radical islamists attacked this country in a very effective manner, and we've been at war with them and their proxies since. Having concerns about potential islamists is not some sort of "phobia."
Don, I'd like some linkage about the Imam before I decide that he's an anti-American nutjob. And from a respectable publication, please. Obviously WND and NRO will be screaming that he's the antichrist; let's hear from a level head.
Fascinating. Yeah, they don't mean any insult or provocation at all, do they...
They know perfectly well that political correctness will kick in when it willl inevitably be vandalised. Works no different in the States
Vladimir
08-03-2010, 16:33
Don, I'd like some linkage about the Imam before I decide that he's an anti-American nutjob. And from a respectable publication, please. Obviously WND and NRO will be screaming that he's the antichrist; let's hear from a level head.
Try Google.
Your research is so poor it borders on misinformation.
Try Google.
If you're going to do a Tribesman impersonantion, you need to use more smilies.
Here's a useful article from a respectable commentator who actually knows Feisal Abdul Rauf, which is far more than you can say of Liz Cheney or Sarah Palin:
If He Could, Bin Laden Would Bomb the Cordoba Initiative (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/08/if-he-could-bin-laden-would-bomb-the-cordoba-initiative/60833/)
This seems like such an obvious point, but it is apparently not obvious to the many people who oppose the Cordoba Initiative's planned mosque in lower Manhattan, so let me state it as clearly as possible: The Cordoba Initiative, which is headed by an imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an enemy of al Qaeda, no less than Rudolph Giuliani and the Anti-Defamation League are enemies of al Qaeda. Bin Laden would sooner dispatch a truck bomb to destroy the Cordoba Initiative's proposed community center than he would attack the ADL, for the simple reason that Osama's most dire enemies are Muslims. This is quantitatively true, of course -- al Qaeda and its ideological affiliates have murdered thousands of Muslims -- but it is ideologically true as well: al Qaeda's goal is the purification of Islam (that is to say, its extreme understanding of Islam) and apostates pose more of a threat to Bin Laden's understanding of Islam than do infidels.
I know Feisal Abdul Rauf; I've spoken with him at a public discussion at the 96th street mosque in New York about interfaith cooperation. He represents what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country. Bin Laden wants a clash of civilizations; the opponents of the this mosque project are giving him what he wants.
CountArach
08-03-2010, 16:41
Settle, please. Everything has been pretty good in this thread thus far, please keep it that way.
Well, that sounds okay to me but if the memorial looks anything like a big phallus, you will know they're lying to you... :sweatdrop:
I mean as you said, it's 2 blocks away, it's not even a mosque and uhm, apparently they already erected 200 mosques in New York to "mark their territory" so why is this center such a big deal?
Don Corleone
08-03-2010, 16:43
Would you settle for something from Breitbart.com? :laugh4:
From the Sydney Sun-Herald, (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/21/1079789939987.html) in 2004:
In a move likely to cause controversy with church leaders, Imam Feisal said it was Christians who started mass attacks on civilians.
"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."
Imam Feisal said the bombing in Madrid had made his message more urgent. He said there was an endless supply of angry young Muslim rebels prepared to die for their cause and there was no sign of the attacks ending unless there was a fundamental change in the world.
Imam Feisal, who argues for a Western style of Islam that promotes democracy and tolerance, said there could be little progress until the US acknowledged backing dictators and the US President gave an "America Culpa" speech to the Muslim world.
Emphasis mine: You want peace? You admit that you're to blame, then we'll talk...
And from an interview he gave Ed Bradley, on September 20th, 2001:
BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?
Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.
BRADLEY: OK. You say that we’re an accessory?
Imam ABDUL RAUF: Yes.
BRADLEY: How?
Imam ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.
CountArach
08-03-2010, 16:43
EDIT: Nevermind. Posting at 2am causes me to get confused.
It's normal muslims kill eachother. America is making the same mistake Europe made, don't. The UK thought they had the formula, Sweden still can't stop dripping, Islam and the west aren't compatible how much proof do you need, they are hostiles. And I don't mean the people who were born in an Islamic country with that.
And from an interview he gave Ed Bradley, on September 20th, 2001:
So the Imam believes (or believed, that interview is nine years old, and I'm not going to assume he's still all about that) that the atrocities of 9/11 were at least partially the result of "blowback." This was not a completely unheard-of opinion. Such violent lefties as Ron Paul (http://mises.org/daily/2588) voiced such perspectives publicly.
Look, I think the "blowback" theory is oversimplified, and I think that the folks who believe OBL was "made in the USA" are as wrong as a wrong person can be. But I do not think having that opinion is a game-ending disqualifier from all public discourse. Many of the factual elements of the "blowback" theory are correct. We have backed horrible dictators in the middle-east. We have encouraged political and social stasis. None of that is incorrect. Nevertheless, those who think that America brought 9/11 on ourselves are wrong.
So. Your quotes don't move me, or convince me that this Imam is a bad man. There are lots of people with whom I disagree whom I don't believe should be excluded from public life.
Islam and the west aren't compatible how much proof do you need, they are hostiles.
You do your argument no favors with this sort of sweeping generalization. Guys like OBL want a war of civilizations; useful idiots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot) want to give it to him. I'd say the Imam is a much greater threat to OBL's philosophy than you, friend. You fit right into the Wahabbist narrative.
ajaxfetish
08-03-2010, 16:53
Jon Stewart's take (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-7-2010/wish-you-weren-t-here)
Ajax
Well, that sounds okay to me but if the memorial looks anything like a big phallus, you will know they're lying to you... :sweatdrop:
Since basically all memorials look pretty similar to the Washington Monument... how do you explain that?
Well, that sounds okay to me but if the memorial looks anything like a big phallus, you will know they're lying to you... :sweatdrop:
Wouldn't want anything like this now, would we?
https://i385.photobucket.com/albums/oo293/joshball2000/EmpireStateBuilding.jpg
Don Corleone
08-03-2010, 17:01
It's normal muslims kill eachother. America is making the same mistake Europe made, don't. The UK thought they had the formula, Sweden still can't stop dripping, Islam and the west aren't compatible how much proof do you need, they are hostiles. And I don't mean the people who were born in an Islamic country with that.
Not that I don't appreciate your support, old friend, but I have to repudiate this statement. I am not making any sort of statement about Muslims in general or mosques in New York City.
I just went to cook my lunch in the microwave. While I was waiting, a glaring inconsistency hit me in the head like a brick...
Imam Abdul Rauf claims he wants to build inter-faith networks, cooperation and understanding.
If that's true, why isn't he openining an interfaith center? Why doesn't he have a chapel and a synagogue on the grounds?
@Lemur, I make no generalisations, can't help it if you are born in Saudi Arabia after all. But when you choose to be an islamist oh so bye. And that is what is now in America as well.
Don Corleone
08-03-2010, 17:08
So. Your quotes don't move me, or convince me that this Imam is a bad man. There are lots of people with whom I disagree whom I don't believe should be excluded from public life.
Hey, no fair using my Sith Lord tricks of mischaracterization of argument against me. :devil:
I don't think I ever said the Imam was necessarily a bad man. And I'm pretty damn sure I never said he should be excluded from public life.
He is building a mosque at the site of 9/11, and his justification is "I'm a tolerant inter-faith man of the west, trust me". I provided you with 2 examples where that was shown not to be the case, and therefore, his claims should not automatically get the benefit of the doubt.
And as I mentioned during my lunchbox epiphany, he of all people SHOULD have had the idea to make it an inter-faith center, not a conquerers mosque (which could arguably be dedicated to the 19 martyrs at any time, by a planned or unplanned successor).
Strike For The South
08-03-2010, 17:19
I think it's perfect
He is building a mosque at the site of 9/11, and his justification is "I'm a tolerant inter-faith man of the west, trust me". I provided you with 2 examples where that was shown not to be the case, and therefore, his claims should not automatically get the benefit of the doubt.
His belief, nine years ago, that US military interference in the middle east may have contributed to them attacking you doesn't mean he is intollerant.
And as I mentioned during my lunchbox epiphany, he of all people SHOULD have had the idea to make it an inter-faith center, not a conquerers mosque (which could arguably be dedicated to the 19 martyrs at any time, by a planned or unplanned successor).
He is Islamic after all. He may be accepting of catholics, but that doesn't mean he takes communion. If he were to build a place of worship it would be a mosque. It's a community centre and the mosque is just one part of it.
Don Corleone
08-03-2010, 17:21
While I always find Jon Stewart amusing and entertaining, you're not honestly submitting his monologue as evidentiary, I hope....
The whole thing with the NASA meatball morphing into the muslim crescent? That was Daily Show video editors, not Fox ones. He disclaims everything as "meant for entertainment purposes only", which is how I choose to allow him to enter debates like these.
PanzerJaeger
08-03-2010, 17:23
Originally Posted by Imam Abdul Rauf and Ed Bradley
BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?
Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.
BRADLEY: OK. You say that we’re an accessory?
Imam ABDUL RAUF: Yes.
BRADLEY: How?
Imam ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.
What a disagreeable person.
This is not the place to build a mosque and these are certainly not the people to do it. :no:
Not that I don't appreciate your support, old friend, but I have to repudiate this statement. I am not making any sort of statement about Muslims in general or mosques in New York City.
I just went to cook my lunch in the microwave. While I was waiting, a glaring inconsistency hit me in the head like a brick...
Imam Abdul Rauf claims he wants to build inter-faith networks, cooperation and understanding.
If that's true, why isn't he openining an interfaith center? Why doesn't he have a chapel and a synagogue on the grounds?
I don't support you, just your amazement.
Maybe the people who think this is a good idea would like to explain why they think it is such a great idea.
Don Corleone
08-03-2010, 17:28
He is Islamic after all. He may be accepting of catholics, but that doesn't mean he takes communion. If he were to build a place of worship it would be a mosque. It's a community centre and the mosque is just one part of it.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse on this one, so there's probably not much for me to say in a rebuttal.
PanzerJaeger
08-03-2010, 17:29
Maybe the people who think this is a good idea would like to explain why they think it is such a great idea.
To make it into the dictionary as the example of the antonym of 'discretion'?
Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.What a disagreeable person.
Abdul's Translation:
"He was trained by the CIA, and heavily funded by the CIA, even though he is a loony bin, to combat the Russians in Afghanistan and other American interests"
Jaegar's Translation:
"How dare you tell the truth?! We are the self-proclaimed almightly leaders of the free world, leaders of Democracy!!"
Yeah, sometimes saying the truth hurts. Not like America funding dictators and terrorists like Saddam, Obama Bin Laden, Coup of Democratic Iran, its malevolent meddling of international affairs, amongst other things, will ever backfire on them. :rolleyes:
Perhaps admitting that there were some serious misjudgements which caused certain ramifications of actions instead of proclaiming yourself "Leaders of the Free World" while being the number one support of despots and terrorism is anything to go by.
So the anger against his comments are false, America did some mistakes. However, he said people make those mistakes and can move on, and get better. He also want to bring better understanding and also aid in a more 'Western' Islam, which many muslims cry out for as well. But, since building such a building of tolerance a mile away near a place of intolerance is such a bad thing, there is much objection.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse on this one, so there's probably not much for me to say in a rebuttal.
You ask why doesn't he build a church or a synagogue? The answer is pretty simple: because he isn't a Christian or a Jew.
I'm not religious, so I won't go out of my way to build a place of worship, but that doesn't mean I hate religious people.
Don Corleone
08-03-2010, 17:47
You ask why doesn't he build a church or a synagogue? The answer is pretty simple: because he isn't a Christian or a Jew.
I'm not religious, so I won't go out of my way to build a place of worship, but that doesn't mean I hate religious people.
So there it is.... you agree with me that the construction of this mosque is more about the practice and advancement of Islam than it is what Imam Abdul Rauf himself said his goal was, that the mosque is not about spreading Islam, but spreading tolerance.
Thank you for ceding the point.
Since basically all memorials look pretty similar to the Washington Monument... how do you explain that?
Macho culture isn't unique to islamic extremists?
I was not very serious though, just trying to sneak in a silly joke.
What a disagreeable person.
This is not the place to build a mosque and these are certainly not the people to do it. :no:
He is however correct.
Don Corleone
08-03-2010, 17:52
Yeah, sometimes saying the truth hurts. Not like America funding dictators and terrorists like Saddam, Obama Bin Laden, Coup of Democratic Iran, its malevolent meddling of international affairs, amongst other things, will ever backfire on them. :rolleyes:
Perhaps admitting that there were some serious misjudgements which caused certain ramifications of actions instead of proclaiming yourself "Leaders of the Free World" while being the number one support of despots and terrorism is anything to go by.
So the anger against his comments are false, America did some mistakes. However, he said people make those mistakes and can move on, and get better. He also want to bring better understanding and also aid in a more 'Western' Islam, which many muslims cry out for as well. But, since building such a building of tolerance a mile away near a place of intolerance is such a bad thing, there is much objection.
Take a deep breath. Nobody is saying that America is perfect, or that we're blameless. And I'm not certain I understand your last sentance at all. If the place of intolerance you reference is Ground Zero (not sure why we're being branded as intolerant) and the building of tolerance that's being built is the mosque (not sure how building a mosque makes you any more or less tolerant or how building it in such a sensitive location makes it tolerant), then you should know the distance between the two proposed locations is 600 feet (about 170 meters). And I lied about the construction earlier, it's not 9 stories, it's 15, with an unobstructed view, looking down on Ground Zero. When you go to Ground Zero, which will remain a park, the "Al Getchu Nxt" mosque, with it's minarets and towering 15 story presence will dominate your view of the skyline.
Before everyone gets their panties in a wad about my name for the mosque, relax. I meant it jokingly, inspired by Ajax's Jon Stewart link.
You ask why doesn't he build a church or a synagogue? The answer is pretty simple: because he isn't a Christian or a Jew.
I'm not religious, so I won't go out of my way to build a place of worship, but that doesn't mean I hate religious people.
Lol even in Turkey it's pretty much impossible to build a church, fine with me but still. Or what is still staying/standing on Cyprus but yeah it's mutual respect.
Take a deep breath. Nobody is saying that America is perfect, or that we're blameless. So the poster I quoted calling a guy a "dick" because he was correct doesn't suggest that at all?
Question about my last line.
The intolerence linked to ground zero was meaning both the intolerant extremists, and some of the intolerant extremists on the American side too. Building a place of tolerance nearby is saying "Look, we made our mistakes, extremists on both sides isn't good, let's be real here, lets spread some tolerance and good will between us, so this will never happen again".
If America wanted to send a really powerful message, build a new UN headquarters or "Beacon of Tolerance" as a new national momument right ontop of Ground Zero it self. If America was really serious about this, they instantly get +rep with me.
Don Corleone
08-03-2010, 18:04
I don't think Panzer would ever make a statement that we in the US have been flawless practitioners of selfless humanity in the execution of our foreign policy. Recognizing that a religious leader, speaking about an attack on the nation he claims to be a member of 1 week after it happened and saying essentially "you created the problem" puts him into the dick category, for lack of good taste if for no other reason.
Your answer to all of this is we should build a monument to the world, claiming we admit we deserved it and we're sorry? Must be really pleasant to live in your reality.
PanzerJaeger
08-03-2010, 18:07
Is there nothing to be said for common courtesy?
These people are well within their rights to build a mosque in that location. I do not oppose their plans because I believe they are making subtle references to past Muslim conquest or because I believe they will recruit terrorist there (they will probably just funnel money to Pakistan like all good Muslim ‘community centers’), but because it is just plain rude. It’s as rude as those Christians that try to recruit outside of the Muslim festival in Dearborn, Michigan.
As has been pointed out, there are hundreds of mosques in New York. Obviously Americans are not against the building of mosques in general. But when it came to light that there was significant objection to this specific mosque in this specific location, particularly by families of 9/11 victims, the appropriate action would have been to find a different location. Instead, every action taken by the builders has been provocative at worst and insensitive at best, up to and including the half-hearted, quickly thrown together ‘9/11 memorial’ and the planned date for opening the place.
One of the 9/11 widows (or a mother of one of the victims) walked out of a town hall meeting last week so upset that she had a heart attack. The building of this mosque means something to her and hundreds of others in her position, and in turn, that should mean something to, for a lack of a more apt description, these arrogant Muslim dicks.
I fail to see the linkage. I still believe it was jingoistic and paranoid to deny the Dubai Ports World harbor management deal. That had more to do with getting Charles Schumer reelected than anything. The DPW debacle was a bipartisan effort. Peter King and other Republican congressmen were on the dogpile right along with Schumer and co. Which is why it reminds me of the current situation.
This on the other hand is a project that aspires to build a conquerer's mosque overlooking the memorial at Ground Zero, built by a man who is on record stating that America got what it deserved, who chose to name his group after the capital of Islamic conquest of the West, Cordoba.It's not overlooking Ground Zero, it will have an obstructed view of the new World Trade Center whenever it's built- that's about it. Also, the mosque will only be a small part of the structure.
If they are really planning on opening the center on 9/11/11, that would truly be in bad, bad taste. But the building itself seems innocent enough.
EDIT:
But when it came to light that there was significant objection to this specific mosque in this specific location, particularly by families of 9/11 victims, the appropriate action would have been to find a different location.To be fair, 9/11 families come down on both sides of this- there are those that support the center as well. Also, i've heard NYC officials claim that the large majority of the complaints are coming from outside of NYC. :shrug:
But we both agree that we have no reason to stop them.
Your answer to all of this is we should build a monument to the world, claiming we admit we deserved it and we're sorry? Must be really pleasant to live in your reality.
I love the twisting, when I obviously said "We should move on from past mistakes, and work against intolerance and promote greater tolerance so this never happens again" = "admit we deserved it and we are sorry", which has completely different linguistical connonactions and intentions.
PanzerJaeger
08-03-2010, 18:19
He is however correct.
He was not correct, not in the slightest. Rationale and complicity and two completely different concepts, and the good Imam crossed a logical line that betrayed his true feelings. America was in no way an accessory to that crime.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-03-2010, 18:19
Is there nothing to be said for common courtesy?
These people are well within their rights to build a mosque in that location. I do not oppose their plans because I believe they are making subtle references to past Muslim conquest or because I believe they will recruit terrorist there (they will probably just funnel money to Pakistan like all good Muslim ‘community centers’), but because it is just plain rude. It’s as rude as those Christians that try to recruit outside of the Muslim festival in Dearborn, Michigan.
As has been pointed out, there are hundreds of mosques in New York. Obviously Americans are not against the building of mosques in general. But when it came to light that there was significant objection to this specific mosque in this specific location, particularly by families of 9/11 victims, the appropriate action would have been to find a different location. Instead, every action taken by the builders has been provocative at worst and insensitive at best, up to and including the half-hearted, quickly thrown together ‘9/11 memorial’ and the planned date for opening the place.
One of the 9/11 widows (or a mother of one of the victims) walked out of a town hall meeting last week so upset that she had a heart attack. The building of this mosque means something to her and hundreds of others in her position, and in turn, that should mean something to, for a lack of a more apt description, these arrogant Muslim jerks.
Yes, this exactly the reason to oppose the mosque. The people defending it seem to talk mostly about "islamaphobes" whatever that means.
I think this:
Just to throw a little more fuel on the fire, the proposed date for the grand opening is September 11, 2011.
Makes the "it's two blocks away!" argument a bit silly...there is obviously a direct connection with the 9/11 attacks.
They say the main recruiting tool of al quaeda is "The Narrative", where America is hell bent on wiping islam from the face of the earth. There is definite value in gestures like this...people should know why it is being made though.
I think they should build it, but they could talk about it better (mind you I've only read what's in the thread here).
Crazed Rabbit
08-03-2010, 18:40
Abdul's Translation:
"He was trained by the CIA, and heavily funded by the CIA, even though he is a loony bin, to combat the Russians in Afghanistan and other American interests"
Jaegar's Translation:
"How dare you tell the truth?! We are the self-proclaimed almightly leaders of the free world, leaders of Democracy!!"
Yeah, sometimes saying the truth hurts.
I don't think you'd know anything about that; (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html)
BERGEN [known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997]: This is one of those things where you cannot put it out of its misery.
The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.
And what do Al-Queda leaders and the Us government agree on? That the US didn't fund or train Osama; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden#Opposing_View)
They argue that:
* with a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land
* that with several hundred million dollars a year in funding from non-American, Muslim sources, Arab Afghans themselves would have no need for American funds
* that Americans could not train mujahideen because Pakistani officials would not allow more than a handful of them to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan[24];
* that the Afghan Arabs were militant Islamists, reflexively hostile to Westerners, and prone to threaten or attack Westerners even though they knew the Westerners were helping the mujahideen.
Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri says much the same thing in his book Knights Under the Prophet's Banner.[25]
This mosque is in bad taste. The families of the dead don't want it - if the Iman in charge really wanted to respect interfaith dialog, he'd pay attention.
CR
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
08-03-2010, 19:15
So what's the problem?
If they were building directly on top of the building sure there might be a case, but two blocks away? I honestly don't see any issue here. And if there is an issue, how far away would you consider to be the distance at which mosques should be built? 5 blocks, 10 blocks, outside of New York altogether?
Yes. Tell the poor Muslims to build it somewhere else.
:idea2:
Can you see us building a church in Lebanon or Tehran?
Ser Clegane
08-03-2010, 19:23
Can you see us building a church in Lebanon or Tehran?
yeah - unthinkable...
tibilicus
08-03-2010, 19:26
It's a hard one to call. As someone from outside the US I want to say there's nothing wrong with it and people can do what they like. If I was from the US however I would probably feel very differently about.
As far as the whole Osama and US funding direct link, I doubt such a link exists. The US however is responsible for much of the mess in the Middle East. We have an Islamic Republic in Iran because the US fermented the desire for such a government, we have a war torn Iraq as the US poured money into the Iraq-Iran war, backing the Iraqis, who they were then forced to attack when their leader went overboard. Afghanistan is also affected by this same blight in the way the US encouraged the Taliban and funded a regime, simply for the purpose of delivering a bloody nose to its enemy, with no respect for the people of Afghanistan.
Of course, all this is just part of the messy picture of the middle-east and the reality is far more complicated than the US simply instigating poor regimes. I don't want to make out the US is wholly responsible for the mess, more they bear a large burden of the responsibility.
There is one thing that puzzles me.
When we have a Cathedral or a Church doing service (apart from being a Catholic place of prayer) as a location for inter-religious dialogue, people will not feel offended in the least. Buddhists in South Korea have very good reasons to feel offended, though.
However, as soon as the word "Islam" falls, people turn sour, the atmosphere drops with lightning speed and we treat it like it's some sort of highly contagious disease, at worst, and a necessary evil at best. Statements like "It's a mockery of the horrible events that happened at 9/11" or "But the terrorists murdered 3,000 people in the name of Islam". Statements like these reveal the way we treat Muslims nowadays. For some people, there is no difference between a crazed Wahabbi from the outskirts of the Rub' al-Khali, or a Sufi mystic from the fringes of the Himalaya, or an Iranian Shi'ite scholar whose parents fled to California when he was four. Likewise, they do not differentiate between the concept of "Islamism", a political ideology spewed forward by backwards lunatics in Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi-Arabia trying to push their political agenda's forward, and the concept of "Islam", a 6th century religion founded by an illiterate shepherd who had never even heard about "The United States" or "Great Britain".
Keep in mind that it is not the religion that changes, but the perspective of the religion that changes. Sometimes resulting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi'a) in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alevites) new (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmaddiya) sects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism).
What do Osama Bin Laden, Geert Wilders and Fred Phelps have in common? Their point of view on Islam and the Qur'an is exactly the same. Exactly the same. They disregard all verses that condemn violence and laud peace, but focus solely on those verses or hadiths, be they few or many, that allow them to push their agendas forward.
I think we that we're all still human beings and I think that everyone reading these forums doesn't really want anyone to die, right? So let's condemn all extremists, and everyone will be happy!
Sasaki Kojiro
08-03-2010, 19:56
However, as soon as the word "Islam" falls, people turn sour, the atmosphere drops with lightning speed and we treat it like it's some sort of highly contagious disease, at worst, and a necessary evil at best. Statements like "It's a mockery of the horrible events that happened at 9/11" or "But the terrorists murdered 3,000 people in the name of Islam". Statements like these reveal the way we treat Muslims nowadays. For some people, there is no difference between a crazed Wahabbi from the outskirts of the Rub' al-Khali, or a Sufi mystic from the fringes of the Himalaya, or an Iranian Shi'ite scholar whose parents fled to California when he was four. Likewise, they do not differentiate between the concept of "Islamism", a political ideology spewed forward by backwards lunatics in Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi-Arabia trying to push their political agenda's forward, and the concept of "Islam", a 6th century religion founded by an illiterate shepherd who had never even heard about "The United States" or "Great Britain".
but hax, you're acting as if everyone who opposes the mosque is an islamaphobe. Every time you hear something like "mosque opposed", you turn sour, the atmosphere drops with lightening speed etc.
ajaxfetish
08-03-2010, 20:02
While I always find Jon Stewart amusing and entertaining, you're not honestly submitting his monologue as evidentiary, I hope....
The whole thing with the NASA meatball morphing into the muslim crescent? That was Daily Show video editors, not Fox ones. He disclaims everything as "meant for entertainment purposes only", which is how I choose to allow him to enter debates like these.
Yes, I consider it humor and opinion, not evidence. Personally, whatever the appropriateness of the mosque location may be, I'm glad to live in a free country where Muslims, even though in the minority and not the best liked currently, can go on building their places of worship. I think this kind of thing is a good demonstration that we refuse to be terrorized.
Ajax
but hax, you're acting as if everyone who opposes the mosque is an islamaphobe. Every time you hear something like "mosque opposed", you turn sour, the atmosphere drops with lightening speed etc.
Could at least not use the thumbscrews lol
but hax, you're acting as if everyone who opposes the mosque is an islamaphobe. Every time you hear something like "mosque opposed", you turn sour, the atmosphere drops with lightening speed etc.
You may have misunderstood. I'm neither supporting nor opposing the construction of that mosque in particular. I just think we shouldn't regard the people opposing that mosque are allied with Osama bin Laden.
Ser Clegane
08-03-2010, 20:14
Just to throw a little more fuel on the fire, the proposed date for the grand opening is September 11, 2011.
Will this be the opening or the start of construction (they will certainly have to speed up a bit if they intend to open it by then)?
Either way the date is a bit unfortunate - at least considering the current atmosphere. I it wasn't so tense already the date might actaully be used to send a very clear message along the lines of "look what happened 10 years ago. This is not what we stand for. What happened 10 years ago is against what we believe in. On this day we want to show that we are muslims Americans and that we are part of this city"
Alas, if they ever intended to send such a message, it will probbaly be seen as lip service by many considering how the debate already went.
Too sad - might be a missed opprtunity for all people involved...
You may have misunderstood. I'm neither supporting nor opposing the construction of that mosque in particular. I just think we shouldn't regard the people opposing that mosque are allied with Osama bin Laden.
Why would anyone even consider any consideration? If they honestly believe, which they don't, that this is a great way to improve relations, don't they get it all wrong
If they honestly believe, which they don't, that this is a great way to improve relations, don't they get it all wrong
This is very important. I don't know if they believe that. You don't either. Marketing is essential.
"Downtown New York Interfaith Dialogue Community Center" sounds less terrorist than "Ground Zero Mosque". Although "DNYIDCC" doesn't roll off the tongue.
Can you see us building a church in Lebanon or Tehran?
You know Lebanon has a huge and possibly largest Christian population, right..? It is roughly 40% of the population are Christians.
Will this be the opening or the start of construction (they will certainly have to speed up a bit if they intend to open it by then)?
My bad on that. Demo and groundbreaking starts later this year. Construction slated to start 9/11/2011.
This is very important. I don't know if they believe that. You don't either.
Ground zero, 3000 dead. I think I would kinda know.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-03-2010, 20:53
My bad on that. Demo and groundbreaking starts later this year. Construction slated to start 9/11/2011.
Ah, so they're waiting 10 years before starting it.
Ah, so they're waiting 10 years before starting it.
:laugh4:
Ground zero, 3000 dead. I think I would kinda know.
If you possess psychic powers, I know some people who can get you into the business. You do not know their intents. Only they do, really.
ajaxfetish
08-03-2010, 22:11
and possibly largest Christian population
I'm having a bit of trouble with this phrase. Are you suggesting that Lebanon has a larger number of Christians than any other country? Or perhaps than any other middle eastern country? Or a larger proportion of Christians than any other country? Or that Lebanon is a majority Christian country with no other religion as well represented within its borders? Or something else entirely?
Ajax
Largest Christian population in a deemed "Muslim" country as per percentage.
seireikhaan
08-03-2010, 23:51
According to CNN, the place is already an islamic worship center. Linky (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/03/new-york-panel-votes-down-landmark-status-for-ground-zero-mosque-site/?hpt=T2).
There is a prayer site in the building currently, so Muslims are peacefully praying in the building already.
So sounds to me like they want to tear down an old building that was converted into a prayer center and make a nice, big, fancier, more proper version of itself. And its father away from ground zero than mosques already in existence. Call me nonplussed.
So sounds to me like they want to tear down an old building that was converted into a prayer center and make a nice, big, fancier, more proper version of itself. And its father away from ground zero than mosques already in existence. Call me nonplussed.
It is too much Foxnews knee-jerking from the usual sources. Seriously "They are going to look down upon Groud Zero and praise Allah" nonsense just speaks volumes.
Hosakawa Tito
08-04-2010, 00:44
I would think even those who favor this Islamic Center should be able to appreciate why some American feelings are rubbed raw by the idea of a mosque in this particular place. The ashes of 2,700+ innocent people certainly spread that far, and for many it is sacred ground.
On the other hand, our freedom of religion means nothing if it doesn't mean freedom of religion for all. However, I feel that the controversy created by building here would likely be counter-productive to the healing process.
Having the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.:bow:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-04-2010, 01:05
If you possess psychic powers, I know some people who can get you into the business. You do not know their intents. Only they do, really.
Well, them and their God, but no one's totally sure if it's actually my God. Perspecetive is a powerful thing.
One example from this very case: In Islam Cordoba is a paragon of co-existence and interfaith relationships nearly 1,000 years old. In Christianity it is the capital of a Muslim encrouchment into Western Christendom, which the Spanish in particular would like to wipe from the collective conciousness. There are Muslims who still desire the return of Cordoba to Islam, there are Christians who desire they return of Constantinople to Christendom.
Such is the way of things, neither side is really satisfied with the current liminal situation of the Hagia Sophia, Mosque on Saturday, Church on Sunday.
For this reason, and others, Christianity and Islam will continue to wage spiritual war, the debate between moderates and fanatics is whether the war should spill over into physical violence.
Rhyfelwyr
08-04-2010, 01:06
Having the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.:bow:
My whole political outlook is based on this idea. :bow:
I do not think this mosque is a nice idea. Even most people that hate Islam as a religion still realise that the vast majority of Muslims are not fanatics, otherwise they would have detonated themselves by now.
But they still see Islam as the ideology that led to 9/11, and to build a mosque over ground zero is nothing but a pretty shocking display of triumphalism.
That, and the whole 'every religion is peace, our values are all equally right etc' rhetoric makes me die on the inside, it's the only thing more stomach-churning than following modern party politics.
Don Corleone
08-04-2010, 02:20
According to CNN, the place is already an islamic worship center. Linky (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/03/new-york-panel-votes-down-landmark-status-for-ground-zero-mosque-site/?hpt=T2).
So sounds to me like they want to tear down an old building that was converted into a prayer center and make a nice, big, fancier, more proper version of itself. And its father away from ground zero than mosques already in existence. Call me nonplussed.
Show me a mosque closer to Ground Zero, and show me that it was constructed after 9/11/01. Until then, be as dismissive as you want, they weren't your friends that died in there.
Bad taste in my opinion, but if the zoning for it was correct, nothing NYC or anyone can do.
Show me a mosque closer to Ground Zero, and show me that it was constructed after 9/11/01. Until then, be as dismissive as you want, they weren't your friends that died in there.
As that if that makes a huge difference. If I had family who died there, and there was an inter-faith of tolerance and progression being built nearby, I would think that is a good thing, by helping ensure such a tragedy never happens again.
Don Corleone
08-04-2010, 03:17
As that if that makes a huge difference. If I had family who died there, and there was an inter-faith of tolerance and progression being built nearby, I would think that is a good thing, by helping ensure such a tragedy never happens again.
Can you read? There is no inter-faith center... "I" proposed that. They're building a mosque... not an inter-faith center. Try to keep up.
And I lost a friend & a high-school teammate that day. Don't you dare presume to lecture me on what's appropriate.
I can sprout similar arguments if I wanted, but they are based on nothing. This whole thing is sensationalism, especially the site is 1) Already there, just getting rebuilt. 2) There is a closer site. etc.
Don Corleone
08-04-2010, 03:47
I can sprout similar arguments if I wanted, but they are based on nothing. This whole thing is sensationalism, especially the site is 1) Already there, just getting rebuilt. 2) There is a closer site. etc.
Again, where are these oft-cited mosques at Ground Zero?
As for my "arguments based on nothing", this is my friend, Jim Greenleaf (http://www.jamesgreenleaf.org/). On the morning of September 11th, Jim, a relatively newlywed fellow, went to his job at the World Trade Center, and I guess you can fill in the blanks. I played highschool football with Jim and admired him greatly. His wife, his family and his friends miss him terribly. Now, while you might think its hip and cool to drop the "Get over it" line repeatedly, I personally don't want a memorial to the people that killed him built on his grave.
So, you'll have to forgive me if I don't applaud your cool, snarky routine.
As for my "arguments based on nothing", this is my friend, Jim Greenleaf (http://www.jamesgreenleaf.org/). On the morning of September 11th, Jim, a relatively newlywed fellow, went to his job at the World Trade Center, and I guess you can fill in the blanks. I played highschool football with Jim and admired him greatly. His wife, his family and his friends miss him terribly. Now, while you might think its hip and cool to drop the "Get over it" line repeatedly, I personally don't want a memorial to the people that killed him built on his grave.
So, you'll have to forgive me if I don't applaud your cool, snarky routine.
Ok then, what right do you have to deny a place of worship and memorial to the families of the muslim victims in the 9/11 attacks?
seireikhaan
08-04-2010, 04:24
Show me a mosque closer to Ground Zero, and show me that it was constructed after 9/11/01. Until then, be as dismissive as you want, they weren't your friends that died in there.
Taken from Lemur's post on the first page:
Couple of thoughts: 2 blocks away is not "adjacent."
Unless I'm mistaken, there are already mosques closer (http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=mosques+in+lower+manhattan&fb=1&gl=us&hq=mosques&hnear=Manhattan,+New+York) than the part-time one being proposed.
True, I cannot prove they were constructed after 9/11.
Maybe I'm being harsh, but having a loved one die in 9/11 does not give one free reign to irrationality. Terrorists committed the attacks. To impose penalty on every other member of the broad umbrella of Islam is absurd and spiteful. Do they feel agony every time they see a Muslim, or a mosque? Does it bite at them that Islam is allowed to be practiced, because of the actions of people a world away who bear nearly no similarity at all to those living in the states? Are Muslims in the United States not allowed to be involved in the 9/11 discussion? Do you think American muslims cheered when they witnessed the events? Do you think the relished the idea that people would suddenly treat them differently from then on, because of the actions of lunatics who's relation is in title only? 9/11 hurt Muslims too, and it is entirely within their dignity to share in the remembrance.
You know Lebanon has a huge and possibly largest Christian population, right..? It is roughly 40% of the population are Christians.
I found it especially funny that he picked Lebanon...
http://www.habeeb.com/lebanon.photos.58.html
PanzerJaeger
08-04-2010, 05:11
Ok then, what right do you have to deny a place of worship and memorial to the families of the muslim victims in the 9/11 attacks?
There are hundreds of such places in New York already. Problem solved!
Do you think American muslims cheered when they witnessed the events?
Yes, some did.
As for my "arguments based on nothing", this is my friend, Jim Greenleaf (http://www.jamesgreenleaf.org/). On the morning of September 11th, Jim, a relatively newlywed fellow, went to his job at the World Trade Center, and I guess you can fill in the blanks. I played highschool football with Jim and admired him greatly. His wife, his family and his friends miss him terribly. Now, while you might think its hip and cool to drop the "Get over it" line repeatedly, I personally don't want a memorial to the people that killed him built on his grave.
Actually, I wasn't attempting to be 'hip and cool', I was actually not being bigoted.
Seriously "I don't want a memorial to the people that killed him built on his grave." where is that even coming from?
We got from "Re-building a Islamic Prayer House two blocks away" to "Mosque Ground Zero" to "Building a Memorial for Muslim Matyrs on my Friends Grave". Where is it going to end? Are you going to take it to hold a sixth of the worlds popular (who are muslims) personally responsible for his death? Are you going to kick out all Muslims from America? When does your rationality begin to kick in?
If you realised how absurd your statements are, you wouldn't even be bothering to argue with me. Lemur and now Yaseikhaan have now provided the source for the Mosques closer than two-blocks away.
I am going to bow out, as Yaseikhaan simply put it best:
Maybe I'm being harsh, but having a loved one die in 9/11 does not give one free reign to irrationality. Terrorists committed the attacks. To impose penalty on every other member of the broad umbrella of Islam is absurd and spiteful. Do they feel agony every time they see a Muslim, or a mosque? Does it bite at them that Islam is allowed to be practiced, because of the actions of people a world away who bear nearly no similarity at all to those living in the states? Are Muslims in the United States not allowed to be involved in the 9/11 discussion? Do you think American muslims cheered when they witnessed the events? Do you think the relished the idea that people would suddenly treat them differently from then on, because of the actions of lunatics who's relation is in title only? 9/11 hurt Muslims too, and it is entirely within their dignity to share in the remembrance.
Less why not and more why do. At best they are finding respect for their religion more important than the feelings on the 3000 deaths. At worst, well youknowut I don't want to be boring. It doesn't take that much time to find out the ugly ties of the Cordoba foundation, try it for yourself
As for my "arguments based on nothing", this is my friend, Jim Greenleaf (http://www.jamesgreenleaf.org/). On the morning of September 11th, Jim, a relatively newlywed fellow, went to his job at the World Trade Center, and I guess you can fill in the blanks.
Don, you know I love you, but where are you going with this bit of tear-jerking grandstanding? I was in NYC on 9/11; I heard it, saw it, and (most importantly) smelt it. Both me and Mrs. Lemur lost people we knew on that day. Does that give me some sort of free pass in this debate? Does that give my opinions more weight?
I think you're unintentionally lowering the tone. What about the Orgahs who weren't in NYC or DC on 9/11, or who didn't personally know someone who died? Do they get to debate too, or are they less worthy?
I'm not defending Beskar, and I'm not siding with any blame-America bullhockey, but I think playing the "I know somebody who died" card is using a tactical nuke to kill a fly.
P.S.: This group (http://www.masjidmanhattan.com/) appears to be next door to the WTC site. They predate 9/11/01, although I'm not sure why that matters.
Of course your argument holds more weight if you know someone who died there, people don't want this because they know people who died there, they have more reason to be upset.
PanzerJaeger
08-04-2010, 08:20
I think Don’s sentiments are exactly why this thing shouldn’t be put up. It deeply offends many of those who were close to people who died there. Although the shady organization behind it and the continual string of provocative actions give plenty of reasons why, it really does not matter. Why are these Muslims insistent on gross insensitivity when there are plenty of places to build a 13 story building in Manhattan? Are they so convinced of their own primacy that they are unwilling to simply change the location before construction has even commenced to forgo needlessly inflicting pain on people who have endured more than enough already?
a completely inoffensive name
08-04-2010, 08:25
Too many emotions and ignorance in this issue for anyone to be making a truly rational argument here.
Incongruous
08-04-2010, 08:50
The main objectors to the site are islamophobes. That much is clear.
I object to it, it is an act which Cordoba house clearly wishes to link to 9/11 and is therefore imo a crass and abrasive thing to do. They have, rather in poor taste, turned a place of worship into a massive politico-cultural phallus.
Let's say the owners of the building site are willing to compromise with the sensitivities of the protesters.
Would that be possible at all or do you say that nothing that even smells like something that resembles something that could have to do with worshipping Allah can be built on that place, for the sole reason that it's only two blocks away from Ground Zero?
Would you be ok with a mosque dedicated to remembering all victims of the 9/11 attacks, with small places attached to it where people of different faiths can pray? Something to symbolise that extremism will never win?
If not, then would you be ok with a mosque three blocks away? Four blocks away? Somewhere in NYC? Outside of NYC? A mosque in NYC but invisible (e.g. in a basement)? Which is the appropriate distance?
Incongruous
08-04-2010, 08:57
I would be fine with a mosque which did not attempt to latch itself to the attacks of 9/11, that is poor taste. I would have thought that such a learned man would wish to remove the politics from his mosque.
Don Corleone
08-04-2010, 12:35
I think the problem with discussions like these is that we're debating intent, in this case the intent of Cordoba House. I'm reminding myself as much as lecturing anybody else... truth be told none of us can know for certain ahead of time what their intent really is. You can make inferences about their intent, but that's all based on what you bring to the argument in the first place.
I didn't mean to mention Jim in the context of "Well, my buddy dying means I have a pair of Aces showing". Of course it makes my arguments no more or no less valid. But Beskar raised the spectre that the whole argument was nothing more than sensationalism for its own sake, others have stated I just hate muslims or whatever "islamophobia" means. Neither is true... I have some real skin in this game.
The reason I keep asking for evidence of other mosques closer to ground zero is because I never found any in Lemur's interactive map. The construction date is valid to me because if they pre-date 9/11, then obviously they weren't built to memorialize anything.
Final point, then I'm moving on to other discussions.... I stand by the simple observation that if this mosque was really about tolerance and building bridges, they would have recognized the sensitivity of such a construciton and taken some steps to mitigate the impact. In it's magnitude, in it's mono-faith focus, in the timing, in it's refusal to provide any documentation on where the money is coming from, and in the lack of willingness to listen to divergent views, the founders of this mosque have convinced me that they do not care about the opinions of others. That doesn't imply "inter-faith tolerance" to me at any level.
I do not believe that this group speaks for all American muslims, or muslims in general for that matter. But I am convinced that for this group, this mosque is an enourmous "Screw you! We PWNED you!".
rory_20_uk
08-04-2010, 13:27
That's what religions do.
The religions with explosive growth at the moment are Evangelical Christians and extremist Muslims. In essence not those that say "there are many ways to God and the most important thing is to be a good person" but ones that say "THIS IS THE ONLY WAY ELSE YOU BURN IN HELL" are doing well.
If you truly believe yours is the way, merely upsetting others is a small price to pay to spread the Word.
~:smoking:
seireikhaan
08-04-2010, 14:12
I think the problem with discussions like these is that we're debating intent, in this case the intent of Cordoba House. I'm reminding myself as much as lecturing anybody else... truth be told none of us can know for certain ahead of time what their intent really is. You can make inferences about their intent, but that's all based on what you bring to the argument in the first place.
I do not believe that this group speaks for all American muslims, or muslims in general for that matter. But I am convinced that for this group, this mosque is an enourmous "Screw you! We PWNED you!".
Well, which is it, Don? Is knowing their true intent impossible, or do you feel you can suitably read their minds?
Final point, then I'm moving on to other discussions.... I stand by the simple observation that if this mosque was really about tolerance and building bridges, they would have recognized the sensitivity of such a construciton and taken some steps to mitigate the impact. In it's magnitude, in it's mono-faith focus, in the timing, in it's refusal to provide any documentation on where the money is coming from, and in the lack of willingness to listen to divergent views, the founders of this mosque have convinced me that they do not care about the opinions of others. That doesn't imply "inter-faith tolerance" to me at any level.
I believe the claim was about 'building bridges'. Given that the very concept of mosque-building(never mind the building's already a worship center) within x-block radius seems to be offensive, given that Muslims aren't apparently allowed to share in remembrance of 9/11, I'd say that a focus on bridging between Islam and everyone else is apparently in order. If anything, protesters are proving their point.
I do not believe that this group speaks for all American muslims, or muslims in general for that matter. But I am convinced that for this group, this mosque is an enourmous "Screw you! We PWNED you!".
Sums it up.
Sums it up.
Assuming you have mind-reading powers, then yes. Otherwise, you're assuming you know the intent of another person, which is always dicey.
Mayor Bloomberg tells it like it is (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/03/mayor_bloomberg_on_mosque/index.html):
In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue, and they were turned down. In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies, and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.
In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion, and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780s, St. Peter's on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site, and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center.
This morning, the city's Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted to extend -- not to extend -- landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building.
The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.
This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.
Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.
Assuming you have mind-reading powers, then yes. Otherwise, you're assuming you know the intent of another person, which is always dicey.
Had you done your research you would know that the organisation that is behind the Cordoba foundation is nobody other than the Muslim Brotherhood. I know their intentions, don't fall for honeytraps. Any sane person can predict that this mosque will be vandalised, that is probably it's very purpose.
Fragony, you and Vladimir seem to be doing your very best Tribesman impersonation; declare that you have sources, link to none of them, then walk away declaring victory.
Here's a novel thought: Instead of making vague, unsubstantiated statements about how I haven't done my research, how's about you post a link or article yourself? You know, sack up.
Fragony, you and Vladimir seem to be doing your very best Tribesman impersonation; declare that you have sources, link to none of them, then walk away declaring victory.
Here's a novel thought: Instead of making vague, unsubstantiated statements about how I haven't done my research, how's about you post a link or article yourself? You know, sack up.
In what newspaper, the NYT? BBC? Blogs aren't accepted as news-sources, not going to make that mistake again. Hence, do your own research, starting with the Imam. If I am wrong I will bite the dust and swallow without chewing.
edit: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero-mosque-developer-muslim-brotherhood-roots-radical-dreams/
Up to you to descredit it now
I know their intentions, don't fall for honeytraps. Any sane person can predict that this mosque will be vandalised, that is probably it's very purpose.
Allah u Admiral Ackbar? :inquisitive:
In what newspaper, the NYT? BBC? Blogs aren't accepted as news-sources, not going to make that mistake again.
Frags, if you can't or won't provide a link then we're just going off your opinion, which is that the Cordoba House is the tip of the spear of a giant muslim insult/honeytrap and its sole prupose is to be vandalized and provoke more Islamist violence. And we can't really debate it, 'cause you won't provide back-up, but you declare that I haven't done my research so I'm foolish. Or something like that. Where, exactly, am I supposed to go with a dead-end, no-calorie, fact-free argument like that?
Meanwhile, a solid response (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/this-is-not-my-normal-beat-bloomberg-mosque-dept/60904/) I can get behind about Bloomberg's speech, which you seem to be ignoring 'cause it doesn't fit into your narrative:
I love the plain "That's life" -- part of the thick-skinned, no-nonsense realism that Americans like to think exemplifies our culture, but doesn't always. Nothing is more admirable about this country in the rest of the world's eyes than the big-shouldered unflappable confidence demonstrated in that speech. Nothing is more contemptible than the touchy, nervous, intolerant defensiveness we sometimes show. [...]
Good for Bloomberg. Shame on Newt Gingrich, Joe Lieberman, and the ADL -- who, unlike Sarah Palin and the Tea Partyers, presumably know better. I will never be a New York guy, but New York is a very American city today.
One of my posts up, edited it.
edit: look up what 'taqiyya' means.
edit: look up what 'taqiyya' means.
Thanks for the link, gotta work so I won't be able to respond for a bit, but again, thanks.
As for "taqiyya," looked it up as instructed by your stern order. So taqiyya means that when threatened, compelled or under duress, muslims are allowed to disavow their faith or misrepresent themselves. And not every muslim scholar agrees on that.
Okay. Aren't Jews allowed to lie when threatened? Aren't Christians, unless they want to be martyrs, which is strictly voluntary? Aren't Mormons and Scientologists? How about Sikhs and Hindus?
You seem to believe that the concept of taqiyya means that any muslim can lie to any kafir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir) for any reason whatsoever, and therefore this stands a conclusive evidence that the muslims who want to build the Coroba House must be lying. Sketchy and doctrinally unsound, friend.
As for "taqiyya," looked it up as instructed by your stern order. So taqiyya means that when threatened, compelled or under duress, muslims are allowed to disavow their faith or misrepresent themselves. And not every muslim scholar agrees on that.
Your welcome
Correct; in the hardline version the expansionalist version of Islam, it also means that you are allowed to lie or 'hide your true believes' if it serves the Islam, to conquer by infiltration and deceit. Ask any Islamic scholar if that's bull.
Guess what version of Islam is behind the Cordoba Foundation.
PanzerJaeger
08-04-2010, 18:56
I love the plain "That's life" -- part of the thick-skinned, no-nonsense realism that Americans like to think exemplifies our culture, but doesn't always. Nothing is more admirable about this country in the rest of the world's eyes than the big-shouldered unflappable confidence demonstrated in that speech.
Sometimes it seems like I’m living in some sort of alternate reality. A group of radical, religiously motivated muslims that believed American foreign policy is to kill muslim babies runs a few planes filled with Americans into two skyscrapers and now a muslim cleric with the same worldview, who believes America was somehow an accessory to what has to be the biggest crime against itself... ever, wants to put up a Mosque on the very site… And this is what makes America great? This episode somehow demonstrates the strength of our society? To me it seems a sign of a weak, fickle culture that has lost sight of the forest for the trees. :angry:
Sometimes it seems like I’m living in some sort of alternate reality. A group of radical, religiously motivated muslims that believed American foreign policy is to kill muslim babies runs a few planes filled with Americans into two skyscrapers and now a muslim cleric with the same worldview, who believes America was somehow an accessory to what has to be the biggest crime against itself... ever, wants to put up a Mosque on the very site… And this is what makes America great? This episode somehow demonstrates the strength of our society? To me it seems a sign of a weak, fickle culture that has lost sight of the forest for the trees. :angry:
And you are a much bigger price. To these people that mosque is like the Conquest of Cordoba (the power at the time) and the Haggia Sophia (Constantinoble). Or do you fellow orgahs seriously believe that calling it the Cordoba Mosque isn't kinda related to the fact that the west was hit in the heart of capitalism.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
08-04-2010, 19:52
I would think even those who favor this Islamic Center should be able to appreciate why some American feelings are rubbed raw by the idea of a mosque in this particular place. The ashes of 2,700+ innocent people certainly spread that far, and for many it is sacred ground.
On the other hand, our freedom of religion means nothing if it doesn't mean freedom of religion for all. However, I feel that the controversy created by building here would likely be counter-productive to the healing process.
Having the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.:bow:
I argee with the last part, but try telling that to our nice muslim friends.
And you are a much bigger price. To these people that mosque is like the Conquest of Cordoba (the power at the time) and the Haggia Sophia (Constantinoble). Or do you fellow orgahs seriously believe that calling it the Cordoba Mosque isn't kinda related to the fact that the west was hit in the heart of capitalism.
Qurtuba or Cordóba, as far as I'm concerned, was generally a place of relative tolerance and prosperity where multiple faiths lived together, in relative peace, most of the time. Like Norman Sicily, Fatimid Egypt and Ottoman Turkey.
This episode somehow demonstrates the strength of our society? To me it seems a sign of a weak, fickle culture that has lost sight of the forest for the trees
Terms like "strength of our society" and "weak, fickle culture" strike me as semi-fascistic. I'm sure that was not your intention, was it?
Correct; in the hardline version the expansionalist version of Islam, it also means that you are allowed to lie or 'hide your true believes' if it serves the Islam, to conquer by infiltration and deceit. Ask any Islamic scholar if that's bull.
Guess what version of Islam is behind the Cordoba Foundation.
The part I bolded is the part I seriously doubt. I've never ever come across such a description of Taqiyyah, not in Islamic theological works (although I have read very little of them) nor in historical cases. We should further our own political ideals and agendas by subverting the meaning of a theological concept. That goes for extremist Muslims as much as it goes for you or me.
I disapprove of Taqiyyah, but it is understandable and quite rational if you ask me.
I argee with the last part, but try telling that to our nice muslim friends.
I think we don't have the moral authority nor enough influence to try and tell them that. I think they need to figure it out themselves, and I think a sizable amount of them already understood. Reza Aslan, I'm looking at you.
EDIT: Hey, look, they changed the name! (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/07/ground_zero_mosque_gets_lets_m.html)
Qurtuba or Cordóba, as far as I'm concerned, was generally a place of relative tolerance and prosperity where multiple faiths lived together, in relative peace, most of the time.
Until the Reconquista that is. When the city was captured in 1236, the resident Moors where chased away by... the Catholics.
What's wrong with the name Cordoba, is beyond my understanding ~:confused:
Btw, Frags, it wasn't Cordoba that fell in 1492, but Granada. The resident Muslims and Jews were, ehm, firmly encouraged to convert to Catholicism by the friendly neighbourhood catholic conquerors of that time.
But let the fact that Cordoba was a tolerant place, by the standards of that time of course, under Muslim rule, not get in the way of your outrage about the choice of the name Cordoba. Carry on.
The part I bolded is the part I seriously doubt. I've never ever come across such a description of Taqiyyah, not in Islamic theological works (although I have read very little of them) nor in historical cases. .
Look again.
The historical case is now. And you know just as well as I do that in the interpretation of the Islam there is a chronology where the latest always predates the former, so the peaceful Mohammed of Mecca is not the same person as the warlord of Medina. You know that.
@Andres, are we talking about a different mosque?
EDIT: Hey, look, they changed the name! (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/07/ground_zero_mosque_gets_lets_m.html)
Yeah, because putting the number "51" in the name will get rid of the conspiracy theorists. :rolleyes:
Look again.
The historical case is now.
The problem is that we then shouldn't defend the modern political use of "taqiyyah" as having existed within the Islamic world for centuries.
And you know just as well as I do that in the interpretation of the Islam there is a chronology where the latest always predates the former, so the peaceful Mohammed of Mecca is not the same person as the warlord of Medina. You know that.
I don't know exactly what you meant with your first statement. About the position of Muhammed; I cannot defend his sometimes illogical and inconsequential actions in any way, but what may be important to keep in mind is that Muslims do not revere Muhammed like (most) Christians revere Jesus as being (a part of) God or how Buddhists revere the Buddha.
Muhammed is dead, however. He has been for quite some time.
The problem is that we then shouldn't defend the modern political use of "taqiyyah" as having existed within the Islamic world for centuries.
I don't know exactly what you meant with your first statement. About the position of Muhammed; I cannot defend his sometimes illogical and inconsequential actions in any way, but what may be important to keep in mind is that Muslims do not revere Muhammed like (most) Christians revere Jesus as being (a part of) God or how Buddhists revere the Buddha.
Muhammed is dead, however. He has been for quite some time.
It's simple, there is a hierarchy of importance, and that is it's chronology, the latter is always more important than the former depending on when it's said. So whatever what was said in Mecca, doesn't count for what is said in Medina.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-04-2010, 22:17
I don't like the idea of a mosque near Ground Zero. Neither I, nor the government of NYC however, have a right to stop this project unless and until it can be demonstrated that this construction would create a "clear and present danger" to the population of NYC. Urinating on my sensibilities does not constitute such a danger. I am, however, very much of a mind with Don C on this one. While they may have the right to do this, I do not believe that they should do this -- or at least not yet. I do not and cannot completely subverty my emotional response to this issue -- as ACIN would have me do -- nor do I want to do so. My emotions are every bit as much a part of me as are my logical thoughts on an issue.
The larger concern, for me, is what to do with radical Islamists? Killing them is, at best, only a stop-gap answer, because the idea/set of interpretations that beget these fringers doesn't die with them.
Moreover, why are there so many of these fringers as a percentage of their faith group. one source I read suggested that as many as 15% of the followers of the prophet subscribe to the more radical versions such as Wahabism. What gives? I am well aware that Christianity too has its dangerous extremists -- see this note (http://www.religioustolerance.org/tomek34d.htm) -- but they are a far smaller percentage and are marginalized as the fruitbats they are. Why is Islam not able to accomplish the same?
I would be far more sanguine if I had faith that THAT was the goal of this mosque's teachings. That would be a worthy project -- and would help us build a better future.
Tellos Athenaios
08-04-2010, 23:38
@Naysayers:
I'm quite possibly naive, but to me this Mosque is all about a community which wants to upgrade -and in addition build a little “interfaith” extension, whatever that may be- into their complex: they have already provided the reason why. They want it and it is their property and their money and by the constitution of the USA and the laws and values of NYC also their right. It is up to those who do *not* want it to provide reasons so compelling as to why not that it should overturn what is otherwise an unquestionable right in the USA and NYC in particular.
Such a powerful counter argument which explains your sentiment should be much stronger than “I find it in poor taste”. Or that it is maybe, if you do go by disputed and highly specific theological concepts really a big phallus. Or that it is if you look at history 500 years past or something similar. One reason why I think those why-nots are so flimsy is that an argument against such a right is in itself an argument against the codified beliefs of “freedom of religion”, “freedom of expression”, “freedom to do with your own property what the heck you want” and is pretty much incompatible with all of modern “Western” culture and thought, and that of the USA in particular. Arguments about complex theological concepts or taste or history are not at all that relevant, I think (and also somewhat devoid of real substance if you are going to make claims that Islam is inherently incompatible with Western society based on attributes that were/are part of same Western society for as long as there have been Westerners anyway).
a completely inoffensive name
08-05-2010, 00:03
I am, however, very much of a mind with Don C on this one. While they may have the right to do this, I do not believe that they should do this -- or at least not yet. I do not and cannot completely subverty my emotional response to this issue -- as ACIN would have me do -- nor do I want to do so. My emotions are every bit as much a part of me as are my logical thoughts on an issue.
That's understandable. But keep in mind that putting aside emotions when regarding a decision that affects not just you but many others is not in any sense removing a part of yourself but allowing yourself to integrate with and think as the larger whole so as to make the best decision for that entity. That is whom this particular issue challenges, the whole of the nation and not any individual person.
I use my emotions every day when I am determining my own path toward success or failure, but I would never compromise others by injecting my pure individuality in a situation that deals with punishment or lenience toward other human beings. That's how you get activist judges who rewrite years of precedent in one ruling whether it be conservative or liberal, that's how you get internment camps created on the fear and prejudice of a single group of people simply because we are at war with their distant cousins.
I understand if you have been personally affected by 9/11. I don't know if I would be able to put aside emotion if I had the same experience as Don has. But that is why I said, there is too much emotion and ignorance in this issue for anyone to give a logical answer in the first place.
To me, being opposed to this makes about as much sense as being outraged over a Catholic hospital being built 2 blocks from a school. I mean, how dare they build a monument to child molestation on the very site of the place where we send our children to learn?
I find it a disturbing line of thinking. Imagine yourself a moderate American muslim and you're attending an overcrowded center in Tribeca and your organization wants to rehabilitate existing property for the use of your faith community. How do you react when you see people screaming that terrorists are building a monument celebrating 9/11 at Ground Zero?
What are you saying about the rank and file muslim Americans with statements like this? How well does this fit the meme peddled by anti-American terrorists of an America that hates Islam? People should know that I have no qualms about taking unpopular positions- but this is senseless. :no:
The problem with reasonable people is that they expect others to be reasonable as well, they can't imagine that someone is hostile towards them.
a completely inoffensive name
08-05-2010, 07:33
The problem with reasonable people is that they expect others to be reasonable as well, they can't imagine that someone is hostile towards them.
I disagree, if you are a reasonable person, you would understand that some people are unreasonable and like me would see where someone is coming from in terms of their hostility (AKA friend/family member died in 9/11).
I disagree, if you are a reasonable person, you would understand that some people are unreasonable and like me would see where someone is coming from in terms of their hostility (AKA friend/family member died in 9/11).
If you mean that I am being unreasonable, nope didn't lose anyone and I get along perfectly fine with the muslims. Like most people, that's the problem. Things aren't always what they appear to be, what you want this mosque to be is a good example of that. Why isn't anyone asking the obvious question 'if they understand that it is sensitive and could harm relations, why build it there it is counterproductive'. Maybe that is not why it's being build?
a completely inoffensive name
08-05-2010, 08:24
If you mean that I am being unreasonable, nope didn't lose anyone and I get along perfectly fine with the muslims. Like most people, that's the problem. Things aren't always what they appear to be, what you want this mosque to be is a good example of that. Why isn't anyone asking the obvious question 'if they understand that it is sensitive and could harm relations, why build it there it is counterproductive'. Maybe that is not why it's being build?
I wasn't saying anything about you. I was just disagreeing on the ignorance of the "reasonable" man.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-05-2010, 19:15
I don't know exactly what you meant with your first statement. About the position of Muhammed; I cannot defend his sometimes illogical and inconsequential actions in any way, but what may be important to keep in mind is that Muslims do not revere Muhammed like (most) Christians revere Jesus as being (a part of) God or how Buddhists revere the Buddha.
Muhammed is dead, however. He has been for quite some time.
I think that you have this a bit wrong, some Muslims certainly do revere Muhammed, they won't even have any images of him. On the other hand, Christians generally worship Jesus as interchangable with God. How Buddhists feel about the Buddha, I have no idea.
Whether there should be a Mosque at Ground Zero, I think probably not. Ultimately, all Muslims seek to establish the House of Islam, so it is therefore in extremely bad taste for Muslims to build visable places of worship to help extend the House of Islam within sight of places where other Muslims have killed thousands in pursuit of the same goal. The fact that the two Islamic creeds have different methods doesn't change the fact they have the same objectives.
If Christian Fundamentalists detonated bombs to destroy the Dome of the Rock, no Anglican would try to build a Church within two blocks.
I think that you have this a bit wrong, some Muslims certainly do revere Muhammed, they won't even have any images of him. On the other hand, Christians generally worship Jesus as interchangable with God. How Buddhists feel about the Buddha, I have no idea.
To be honest, the fact that it is forbidden to portray Muhammad (and certainly not just him, it's restricted to make images of any Prophet) is due to the fear that the image will become more important and thus people will fall into idolatry. It's comparable to the generally plain reformist churches. Here in the Netherlands, at least. As for his divine status; there is none. He was simply human, and that's it. He is not interchangable with God as Jesus is in most (!) Christian sects.
How Buddhists feel about the Buddha, I have no idea.
Kinda depends on the school, fell into my own trap there, heh. The oldest surviving school, Theravada, regards Siddharta Gautama as simply being human, with no supreme abilities or stuff. The newer school, Mahayana, regards some Buddha's (especially Mahavairocana Buddha) as possessing powers akin to that of the Judeo-Christian God. Generally, the historical Buddha is just revered as teacher. A great (subjectively the best) teacher at that, but still human and all people can become that teacher.
Ultimately, all Muslims seek to establish the House of Islam, so it is therefore in extremely bad taste for Muslims to build visable places of worship to help extend the House of Islam within sight of places where other Muslims have killed thousands in pursuit of the same goal. The fact that the two Islamic creeds have different methods doesn't change the fact they have the same objectives.
I don't think that the concept of Dar-al-Islam is pursued by the great majority of Muslims nowadays. Perhaps some of the fringe lunatics still harken back to Ye Olde Days, but I've seen no such desire within the Muslim community. If I'm mistaken, we're at a great loss, but Dar-al-Islam relied on the concept of the Muslim world being more civilised than the other worlds (during its time, perhaps was justified), but don't forget that the Muslims never (repeatedly) tried to invade China or western Europe. Edward Gibbon suggests some sort of proto-Clash of Civilisations after which all of western Europe would have been converted to Islam, but it's something of an unrealistic image, and unsustainable at that one (to the invaders). The invasion of France was never a war of annexation, it was a major raid.
If Christian Fundamentalists detonated bombs to destroy the Dome of the Rock, no Anglican would try to build a Church within two blocks.
EDIT: You know, it's happening (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGQzS7RA9zU) in South (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/world/asia/14iht-buddhist.1.16935374.html) Korea (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/15223) right now. Religious violence is not restricted to Islam; both Christianity and Buddhism also have their problems, it depends on where you're looking.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-05-2010, 20:42
To be honest, the fact that it is forbidden to portray Muhammad (and certainly not just him, it's restricted to make images of any Prophet) is due to the fear that the image will become more important and thus people will fall into idolatry. It's comparable to the generally plain reformist churches. Here in the Netherlands, at least. As for his divine status; there is none. He was simply human, and that's it. He is not interchangable with God as Jesus is in most (!) Christian sects.[quote]
You are not understanding my use of language, "reverence", is not the same as "worship" in Christian thought. I said nothing about Muhammed having "divine" status but he is generally agreed to have divine sanction, he is seen as an effective conduit between Man and God for the passage of information. Jesus is a conduit for communion with God, he provides his followers effective direct access.
[quote]Kinda depends on the school, fell into my own trap there, heh. The oldest surviving school, Theravada, regards Siddharta Gautama as simply being human, with no supreme abilities or stuff. The newer school, Mahayana, regards some Buddha's (especially Mahavairocana Buddha) as possessing powers akin to that of the Judeo-Christian God. Generally, the historical Buddha is just revered as teacher. A great (subjectively the best) teacher at that, but still human and all people can become that teacher.
OK, not something I see as hugely relevant right now.
I don't think that the concept of Dar-al-Islam is pursued by the great majority of Muslims nowadays. Perhaps some of the fringe lunatics still harken back to Ye Olde Days, but I've seen no such desire within the Muslim community. If I'm mistaken, we're at a great loss, but Dar-al-Islam relied on the concept of the Muslim world being more civilised than the other worlds (during its time, perhaps was justified), but don't forget that the Muslims never (repeatedly) tried to invade China or western Europe. Edward Gibbon suggests some sort of proto-Clash of Civilisations after which all of western Europe would have been converted to Islam, but it's something of an unrealistic image, and unsustainable at that one (to the invaders). The invasion of France was never a war of annexation, it was a major raid.
Uh-hum. Every part of the House of Islam is conquered land, the push up through Spain, and the push past Canstantinople into the Balkans gives the lie to what you say. The borders of the Islamic world are mostly geographical-military choke points, and in every case they have been pushed back from their previous frontiers by Christian Armies. Roland, Pepin the Fat, Carlos Magnus and El Cid dissagree with you.
To suggest that the current Muslim world is the result of anything other than Sultan's loosing wars is historically inaccurate.
EDIT: You know, it's happening (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGQzS7RA9zU) in South (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/world/asia/14iht-buddhist.1.16935374.html) Korea (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/15223) right now. Religious violence is not restricted to Islam; both Christianity and Buddhism also have their problems, it depends on where you're looking.
As far as I am concerned, religious violence in the name of Christ is not a Christian trait.... not everyone agrees with me. It remains an unfortunate truth that Islam is built on militaristic expansion and cultural supremacy. In a world where Islamic nations have neither the religion clearly struggles to articulate itself.
You are not understanding my use of language, "reverence", is not the same as "worship" in Christian thought. I said nothing about Muhammed having "divine" status but he is generally agreed to have divine sanction, he is seen as an effective conduit between Man and God for the passage of information. Jesus is a conduit for communion with God, he provides his followers effective direct access.
Yes, but this has nothing to do with the ban on not being allowed the depiction of Prophets, eh.
The borders of the Islamic world are mostly geographical-military choke points, and in every case they have been pushed back from their previous frontiers by Christian Armies. Roland, Pepin the Fat, Carlos Magnus and El Cid dissagree with you.
To suggest that the current Muslim world is the result of anything other than Sultan's loosing wars is historically inaccurate.
I don't think so. Perhaps history remains the same, but our interpretations of history are different. When Abd ar-Rahman invaded Gaul, he was not actually fighting on the orders of the Caliph in Damascus. I don't know whether he approved or disapproved of his actions, but the invasion of Gaul was not in the name of Islam nor was it sanctioned by the heir of Muhammad (= Caliph). It was simply a war of gathering war booty, not a war of spreading Islam into Europe.
Uh-hum. Every part of the House of Islam is conquered land, the push up through Spain, and the push past Canstantinople into the Balkans gives the lie to what you say.
Then I would like to hear, or read, rather, the explanation for the conversion of Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines. As far as I know, there were no Muslim armies ever even near the islands of Indonesia. Conquest by Muslim armies does not mean that the conquest was in the name of Islam. I find it hard to believe that the conquest of Constantinople was about Islam.
Also, what I would like to add, is that the conquest of Iran and Northern Africa by the Umayyads hardly was a war of mass conversion. There is little evidence of the Persians converting to Islam until at least the 11th century, half a milennia after the original conquest of Iran.
We might be dabbling too much in history now, though. This is what I said:
I don't think that the concept of Dar-al-Islam is pursued by the great majority of Muslims nowadays.
As far as I am concerned, religious violence in the name of Christ is not a Christian trait.... not everyone agrees with me. It remains an unfortunate truth that Islam is built on militaristic expansion and cultural supremacy. In a world where Islamic nations have neither the religion clearly struggles to articulate itself.
I don't know whether your opinion is really relevant right now. Christians are destroying buildings and killing people in the name of God. Over the last century, people in Vietnam, South Korea and several African nations can tell you something about religious violence in the name of Christ. Even today, in the US army (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/0082488). Muslims and Buddhists are also destroying buildings and killing people in the name of their respective religions. What's the difference between Muslim/Jainist/Buddhist violence and Christian violence? Just because Islam was originally a militaristic religion, doesn't mean it will always be, or has always been. Christianity was founded as a religion that tried to propogate love; look what happened in the Medieval time. I'm not trying to pull another "but the Crusades!" argument on you, I'm just saying that the fact that a religion was originally founded with a certain intent, does not mean that this same intent remains the same over the centuries or milennia.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-05-2010, 22:05
Yes, but this has nothing to do with the ban on not being allowed the depiction of Prophets, eh.
Not directly, but it has to do with how Muhammed's words and actions are interpreted today, while he may be "just a man" he is surely "first man" whne it comes to talking about God, or looking for an example to follow. Also, because he is "just" a man his example is less complex to follow than Christ's.
I don't think so. Perhaps history remains the same, but our interpretations of history are different. When Abd ar-Rahman invaded Gaul, he was not actually fighting on the orders of the Caliph in Damascus. I don't know whether he approved or disapproved of his actions, but the invasion of Gaul was not in the name of Islam nor was it sanctioned by the heir of Muhammad (= Caliph). It was simply a war of gathering war booty, not a war of spreading Islam into Europe.
Well, was it ever about spreading Islam as a religion? Even in Jerusalem the evidence is that conversion was slow, and the Crusaders could plausably claim to be liberators in the eleventh century. If the Reconquesta had failed Spain would be a Muslim country, and Muslims would have been free to continue to push north. Islam is as much a political as religious movement, and it has historically subjugated and then converted.
The fact is, Muslim armies were pushed back to Africa and the Balkans, and that is where the borders of Islamic dominance remained.
Then I would like to hear, or read, rather, the explanation for the conversion of Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines. As far as I know, there were no Muslim armies ever even near the islands of Indonesia. Conquest by Muslim armies does not mean that the conquest was in the name of Islam. I find it hard to believe that the conquest of Constantinople was about Islam.
In Brunei it was the installation of a Muslim Sultan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Brunei
Indonesia appears to have been a trade-motivated conversion, no doubt driven by local rulers wishing to gain favour with the Caliphate, rather like the cursed King John.
Also, what I would like to add, is that the conquest of Iran and Northern Africa by the Umayyads hardly was a war of mass conversion. There is little evidence of the Persians converting to Islam until at least the 11th century, half a milennia after the original conquest of Iran.
Quite true, but the religion was spread via political dominance as a result of conquest.
We might be dabbling too much in history now, though. This is what I said:
I don't know whether your opinion is really relevant right now. Christians are destroying buildings and killing people in the name of God. Over the last century, people in Vietnam, South Korea and several African nations can tell you something about religious violence in the name of Christ. Even today, in the US army (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/0082488). Muslims and Buddhists are also destroying buildings and killing people in the name of their respective religions. What's the difference between Muslim/Jainist/Buddhist violence and Christian violence? Just because Islam was originally a militaristic religion, doesn't mean it will always be, or has always been. Christianity was founded as a religion that tried to propogate love; look what happened in the Medieval time. I'm not trying to pull another "but the Crusades!" argument on you, I'm just saying that the fact that a religion was originally founded with a certain intent, does not mean that this same intent remains the same over the centuries or milennia.
It is relevant, because Islam and Christianity are historical religions, they are always interpreted in light of their historical founders. It will always be builder/mystic vs diplomat/warrior.
Also, my point: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7928377/Mainstream-Islamic-organisations-share-al-Qaeda-ideology.html
Edit: Cordoba is on that list, Quilliam believes they are broadly the same as militants.
@Hax, I don't know where the ban on depiction of Muhammed came from, it's not in the Qu'ran as far as I know. In mosques from before the sunni/shai'ti splitup he is often portraited.
Rhyfelwyr
08-06-2010, 13:11
The way I understand it, some hadiths prohibits the depiction of Mohammed to prevent idolatry and giving him reverence which would be due to Allah. I read in the God Delusion that the Wahhabist authorities plan to/have bulldozed the burial site of Mohamamd in order to prevent it becoming a site of worship to him. Such actions are in the spirit of the hadiths.
On the other hand, the funny thing about these Muslims protesting the depiction of Mohamamad in Danish cartoons etc is that they are commiting the same idolatry the hadiths aimed to prevent. While Muslims were not supposed to depict Mohammed to prevent worship/reverence of him, in superstitiously not allowing even non-Muslims to depict Mohammad in a non-religious manner, surely they are elevating Mohammad to the status of God himself?
al Roumi
08-06-2010, 13:11
While I'm arriving well too late to this party (which I should be gratefull for), i can't help but add my 2 cents.
Traditionally, muslims have built mosques on sites where they conquered a landmark from an enemy. For example, they built the Al Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock over the ruins of the Jewish temple in Jersulaem, so that no temple could ever be rebuilt. They converted the Basilica of Hagia Sophia (Cathedral of Holy Wisdom), what was essentially the centralized site for Eastern Orthodox Christians at the time after they conquered Constantinople in 1453 (then renamed to Istanbul). into the Ayasofa Mosque in an effort to forcibly convert the city's inhabitants to Islam.
Even the name of the group, Cordoba House, invokes images of Conquest.... Cordoba was the capital of Muslim Spain.
While the rest of this thread seems to have focused on the simple question of "should such a mosque be allowed", I'm afraid i have to question much of the "historical" bolloxs quoted above. While there are as many versions of a past event as there are people, this one seems particularly out on a "Muslims are out to get us and anyone else" limb. Moreover, its appalingly ill-informed.
1. Al Aqsa, built over the temple of Soloman -maybe because the conquering Arab army wanted to ensure correct(from their point of view: Islamic) worship on a site as important to both Judaisim and Islam, in a city they now controlled? This practice, where new peoples revering similar deities, or even choosing to revere different ones in the same place, extends back in history beyond Greek and Roman times. Many Catholic churches in Southern Europe are built on the very sites of Roman temples, themselves built on the sites of pre-existing temples to local deities.
2. Hagia Sophia, the Ottomans greately revered the basilica and when the city finally fell, the Sultan forbade any sack of the building -indeed, the only reason we can still marvel at its beauty is because the Ottomans respected the building and its contents enought to preserve the Byzantine art!
3. Finally, and most eloquantly: "Cordoba evoques images of conquest". I find it hard to respond in a respectful manner to such a crude and woefully-informed pronouncement. If the Islamic conquest of Spain is the most resonant product of your mind from the equation "Cordoba+Mosque", then this is perhaps the best evidence of your "one sided" or chronicaly ill informed view. For most historians, the Islamic rule of Spain is viewed as an almost singular period of un-parralleled cooperation between the three major montheistic faiths (Judaisim, Christainity and Islam), resulting in a golden age of cultural and scientific progress. The works of aristotle and other greeks made it into European languages through Al andalus' melange of cultures, science and languages. Indeed, to many, the collapse of of Al-Andalus though internal monarchic/aristocratic intrigue and external presure from the comparatively brutish contemporary Chrisitan kingdoms of Spain is seen as a great tragedy.
Lastly, and I can't resist this now (despite earlier urges to talk about the 1st and 4th crusades) -the irony is too great, perhaps the most notorious historical example of triumphalist excess is infact located in Cordoba. After the city's conquest by Castille, a chappel was built in the very centre of what was (and remains -its a UNESCO site) one the worlds most remarkable buildings: the great mosque of Cordoba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mosque_of_C%C3%B3rdoba).
For many, "Cordoba" might be an exellent choice of a name for a mosque as it symobolises inter-cultural harmony and progress. If you are interested: http://www.iosminaret.org/vol-2/issue18/Confluence_of_Civilizations.php
The way I understand it, some hadiths prohibits the depiction of Mohammed to prevent idolatry and giving him reverence which would be due to Allah. I read in the God Delusion that the Wahhabist authorities plan to/have bulldozed the burial site of Mohamamd in order to prevent it becoming a site of worship to him. Such actions are in the spirit of the hadiths.
On the other hand, the funny thing about these Muslims protesting the depiction of Mohamamad in Danish cartoons etc is that they are commiting the same idolatry the hadiths aimed to prevent. While Muslims were not supposed to depict Mohammed to prevent worship/reverence of him, in superstitiously not allowing even non-Muslims to depict Mohammad in a non-religious manner, surely they are elevating Mohammad to the status of God himself?
He is the perfect person, and nothing can do him justice. That cartoon affair is a missed chance on comedy by the way, let them sweat over it being a picture of a picture.
Megas Methuselah
08-06-2010, 23:00
...but what may be important to keep in mind is that Muslims do not revere Muhammed like (most) Christians revere Jesus as being (a part of) God or how Buddhists revere the Buddha.
I'm just throwing this out there, but perhaps it can be comparable to how Christian would feel about, say... Paul the Apostle, perhaps?
EDIT: Whoops, this is a very late post. Good points, everyone!
I'm just throwing this out there, but perhaps it can be comparable to how Christian would feel about, say... Paul the Apostle, perhaps?
Yes, that may actually come quite close. Perhaps there are some differences, but the basics are pretty much the same.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-06-2010, 23:17
To me, being opposed to this makes about as much sense as being outraged over a Catholic hospital being built 2 blocks from a school. I mean, how dare they build a monument to child molestation on the very site of the place where we send our children to learn?
I find it a disturbing line of thinking. Imagine yourself a moderate American muslim and you're attending an overcrowded center in Tribeca and your organization wants to rehabilitate existing property for the use of your faith community. How do you react when you see people screaming that terrorists are building a monument celebrating 9/11 at Ground Zero?
What are you saying about the rank and file muslim Americans with statements like this? How well does this fit the meme peddled by anti-American terrorists of an America that hates Islam? People should know that I have no qualms about taking unpopular positions- but this is senseless. :no:
Yeah, I agree. The problem here is that it's being "marketed" (for lack of a better word) as a ground zero mosque. That brings in a bunch of stuff about the victims families and what kind of political statement is being made--it associates it with the cultural relativist approach to the taliban that some people take.
Yeah, I agree. The problem here is that it's being "marketed" (for lack of a better word) as a ground zero mosque. That brings in a bunch of stuff about the victims families and what kind of political statement is being made--it associates it with the cultural relativist approach to the taliban that some people take.
I don't think it is being marketed as such, I thought it was it was just Conservative Nutjobs going ape over the fact a Muslim prayerhouse wants to upgrade near Ground Zero?
Sasaki Kojiro
08-07-2010, 00:19
I don't think it is being marketed as such, I thought it was it was just Conservative Nutjobs going ape over the fact marketing it as a Muslim prayerhouse wants to upgrade near Ground Zero?
:mellow:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-07-2010, 00:40
Yes, that may actually come quite close. Perhaps there are some differences, but the basics are pretty much the same.
Not quite, Paul is an extremely divisive character within Christian theology, viewed as everything from a True Saint to a Scysmatic and a Liar, despite the fact that his letters are universally recognised as brilliant (though some might also say insane).
1. Al Aqsa, built over the temple of Soloman -maybe because the conquering Arab army wanted to ensure correct(from their point of view: Islamic) worship on a site as important to both Judaisim and Islam, in a city they now controlled? This practice, where new peoples revering similar deities, or even choosing to revere different ones in the same place, extends back in history beyond Greek and Roman times. Many Catholic churches in Southern Europe are built on the very sites of Roman temples, themselves built on the sites of pre-existing temples to local deities.
2. Hagia Sophia, the Ottomans greately revered the basilica and when the city finally fell, the Sultan forbade any sack of the building -indeed, the only reason we can still marvel at its beauty is because the Ottomans respected the building and its contents enought to preserve the Byzantine art!
Hagia Sophia still became a Mosque, and the Mosque on the Temple Mount was built over a Christian Church (former Roman Temple) after it was demolished by the invaders. The use of both was a sign a Muslim domination, whatever else it was.
Rhyfelwyr
08-07-2010, 00:49
Not quite, Paul is an extremely divisive character within Christian theology, viewed as everything from a True Saint to a Scysmatic and a Liar, despite the fact that his letters are universally recognised as brilliant (though some might also say insane).
Sorry if this is too off topic, but threads do evolve, and the original matter seems to have run its course...
But as for Paul, he is just an ordinary Christian, there is no spiritual hierarchy in Christianity.
As for his epistles etc, I wouldn't say they are insane, he seems very level headed compared to, say, John. Plus even though there is the whole controversy which divided the early church in Acts, ultimately Paul was seeking to remove divisions in the church, by making gospel more open to the Gentiles.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-07-2010, 01:15
Sorry if this is too off topic, but threads do evolve, and the original matter seems to have run its course...
But as for Paul, he is just an ordinary Christian, there is no spiritual hierarchy in Christianity.
As for his epistles etc, I wouldn't say they are insane, he seems very level headed compared to, say, John. Plus even though there is the whole controversy which divided the early church in Acts, ultimately Paul was seeking to remove divisions in the church, by making gospel more open to the Gentiles.
I don't dissagree, I was merely making the point that he is not a simple figure in Christianity, he is not even universally a agreed to be a (minor) prophet.
Rhyfelwyr
08-07-2010, 02:27
I don't dissagree
You're not allowed to do that when we debate on Christianity. :tongue2:
Megas Methuselah
08-07-2010, 04:59
I like Paul.
a completely inoffensive name
08-07-2010, 07:21
I like fiction as well.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-07-2010, 10:53
You're not allowed to do that when we debate on Christianity. :tongue2:
Of course I am, I have free will! :yes:
But you can't, because you don't, unless God lets you.
Ah, so what now http://www.greekboston.com/wordpress/2010/08/greek-orthodox-church-or-mosque-ground-zero/ Maybe it's time to investigate why mr Bloomberg doesn't want the finances to be investigated. I know that a considerable part was funded by the Dutch government, naturally the labour party.
kewl Geertje is going to speak his mind, be ready for some harsh words you appeasement monkeys he tends to do that.
edit: found even more http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/
Hell is simply waking up in my reality
Taqiyya Lemur, told you so
Taqiyya Lemur, told you so
Yup, according to Pajamas Media the Imam said, "I do not believe in religious dialogue." He's EVIL! Full quote:
Religious dialogue as customarily understood is a set of events with discussions in large hotels that result in nothing. Religions do not dialogue and dialogue is not present in the attitudes of the followers, regardless of being Muslim or Christian. The image of Muslims in the West is complex which needs to be remedied.
Send him to Guantanamo immediately! And further in the article they quote him talking about how the U.S. is not "responsible" for the 9/11 attacks, but that our policies were an accessory! EVIL! The blowback theory (http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/did-blowback-cause-911/Content?oid=1111514) can ony be held by vile, subhuman monsters!
You were right all along, Frag. It's an invasion!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRVfGMjdGh8
-edit-
In slightly more sober analysis, Fareed Zakaria has a few things to say (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/06/the-real-ground-zero.html). I expect he's a lying Taqiyya-person as well, eh Frags?
Build the Ground Zero Mosque
Ever since 9/11, liberals and conservatives have agreed that the lasting solution to the problem of Islamic terror is to prevail in the battle of ideas and to discredit radical Islam, the ideology that motivates young men to kill and be killed. Victory in the war on terror will be won when a moderate, mainstream version of Islam—one that is compatible with modernity—fully triumphs over the world view of Osama bin Laden.
As the conservative Middle Eastern expert Daniel Pipes put it, “The U.S. role [in this struggle] is less to offer its own views than to help those Muslims with compatible views, especially on such issues as relations with non-Muslims, modernization, and the rights of women and minorities.” To that end, early in its tenure the Bush administration began a serious effort to seek out and support moderate Islam. Since then, Washington has funded mosques, schools, institutes, and community centers that are trying to modernize Islam around the world. Except, apparently, in New York City.
The debate over whether an Islamic center should be built a few blocks from the World Trade Center has ignored a fundamental point. If there is going to be a reformist movement in Islam, it is going to emerge from places like the proposed institute. We should be encouraging groups like the one behind this project, not demonizing them. Were this mosque being built in a foreign city, chances are that the U.S. government would be funding it.
The man spearheading the center, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a moderate Muslim clergyman. He has said one or two things about American foreign policy that strike me as overly critical —but it’s stuff you could read on The Huffington Post any day. On Islam, his main subject, Rauf’s views are clear: he routinely denounces all terrorism—as he did again last week, publicly. He speaks of the need for Muslims to live peacefully with all other religions. He emphasizes the commonalities among all faiths. He advocates equal rights for women, and argues against laws that in any way punish non-Muslims. His last book, What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America, argues that the United States is actually the ideal Islamic society because it encourages diversity and promotes freedom for individuals and for all religions. His vision of Islam is bin Laden’s nightmare.
Rauf often makes his arguments using interpretations of the Quran and other texts. Now, I am not a religious person, and this method strikes me as convoluted and Jesuitical. But for the vast majority of believing Muslims, only an argument that is compatible with their faith is going to sway them. The Somali-born “ex-Muslim” writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s advice to Muslims is to convert to Christianity. That may create buzz, but it is unlikely to have any effect on the 1.2 billion devout Muslims in the world.
The much larger issue that this center raises is, of course, of freedom of religion in America. Much has been written about this, and I would only urge people to read Michael Bloomberg’s speech on the subject last week. Bloomberg’s eloquent, brave, and carefully reasoned address should become required reading in every civics classroom in America. It probably will.
Bloomberg’s speech stands in stark contrast to the bizarre decision of the Anti-Defamation League to publicly side with those urging that the center be moved. The ADL’s mission statement says it seeks “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” But Abraham Foxman, the head of the ADL, explained that we must all respect the feelings of the 9/11 families, even if they are prejudiced feelings. “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted,” he said. First, the 9/11 families have mixed views on this mosque. There were, after all, dozens of Muslims killed at the World Trade Center. Do their feelings count? But more important, does Foxman believe that bigotry is OK if people think they’re victims? Does the anguish of Palestinians, then, entitle them to be anti-Semitic?
Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. I was thrilled to get the award from an organization that I had long admired. But I cannot in good conscience keep it anymore. I have returned both the handsome plaque and the $10,000 honorarium that came with it. I urge the ADL to reverse its decision. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain a reputation.
Or maybe you were wrong all the time, it's normal that people try to rediculise inconveniences, it's a shield. You probably read it by now. It's really that bad. You are free to discredit it.
edit: and AdrianII where the hell are you you were right this is much more dangerous than I thought.
I only rediculise the rediculous, never fear.
It's worth noting that all of your "clincher" posts are from Pajamas Media, and they're all from a single author, Alyssa A. Lappen (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alyssa_A._Lappen). Lappen's work is exclusively published in right-wing sites such as WND and Pajamas Media. The focus of her work, according to SourceWatch, is Jewish and Israeli advocacy. So, while this doesn't invalidate what she has to say, it is worth noting that she has a particular perspective that colors her work.
Moving on, the first link (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero-mosque-developer-muslim-brotherhood-roots-radical-dreams/) you provided is a pretty horrible piece of advocacy journalism. Going through sentence-by-sentence, pulling apart all of the logical fallacies would take the rest of my morning, but take it as a given that I do not find it compelling. Example of how bad it is:
"Rauf’s early UK education and familiarization with American popular culture and values made him an acutely adept practitioner of Islamic taqiyya — deceptive speech and action to advance the interests and supremacy of Islam (8). To further that Islamic advancement, Rauf in 1997 established the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA)." This is a real classic bit of BS. Note that her definition of taqiyya is unusual, to say the least, since every version I have seen involves lying under duress or threat, not "to advance the interests and supremacy of Islam." Note that the author asserts that Rauf is an "adept practitioner" of lying, but does not provide any example, quote or evidence to back the assertion up. We're just supposed to take it on the author's good will that the man is a habitual liar. Given how hard journalists normally have to work to prove a single lie, this is astonishing.
Then she elides that whole mess of illogic into the next sentence: Somehow the (not established) lying informs his "ASMA" group, which is not meant merely to "advance" Islam, but to advance its "supremacy." Note that the subject has not said anything about supremacy, and that the author is inserting this bit of alarmism without getting quotes, or combing the man's record, or any of the other things journalists call "work." She just gets to declare that he is this or he is that without needing any real substantiation.
Her financial reporting is an unfunny joke. She breathlessly tells us that ASMA received $576,312 million from Qatar, "That Persian Gulf nation has long harbored terror financiers, and even the government stands accused of funding international terrorism." And that's it. That's all she's got. Guilt by association, anyone? Has this woman done any real reporting, or does she just like to string vaguely related facts together as a sort of drinking game? Let's turn the tables: Alyssa Lappen publishes in Pajamas Media, which is often read and cited by white supremacists at Stormfront! So clearly Alyssa Lappen is a nazi sympathizer. See? Guilt by association is a game for the whole family.
All of her work is on this level. Keep quoting her if you like, but given the scale of her sloppiness and misrepresentation of "facts," don't ask me to disprove entire articles of this fecal matter again. I have neither the time nor the patience. If what she's saying is true, it will be reported again elsewhere. Seriously, learn to find facts in real media from respectable practitioners of journalism, like Adrian II. Hell, most political blogs operate on a higher factual standard than Pajamas Media.
If you want something "disproven," then pull a specific quote or point. I can't go wading in meters-deep :daisy: every time you stumble across a bit of demagoguery that's in sync with your monomania.
-edit-
I provided an entire essay from Fareed Zakaria. Feel free to "disprove" everything he has to say.
edit: and AdrianII where the hell are you you were right this is much more dangerous than I thought.
Now you sound like someone who is really into conspiracy theories. It's kinda cute actually, if I weren't hetero, I'd date you. ~;)
Now you sound like someone who is really into conspiracy theories. It's kinda cute actually, if I weren't hetero, I'd date you. ~;)
It's actually Adrian II that warned me against it
I never saw it as a direcr threat, and I was wrong.
I'll happily agree that wahabbist and salafist jerkwads are a real and present danger, no argument here. But you debase the struggle and humiliate yourself by casting an over-broad definition and accusing moderates of being extremists.
And honest-to-goodness medievalist goes to town (http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html) on Newt Gingrich and the Cordoba meme. No summation can do good scholarship justice, so I suggest you read the entire thing.
-edit-
Bonus question: Where were you hyperventilating alarmists when they built the Islamic prayer room in the other 9/11 target, the Pentagon (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/05/muslims_infiltrate_pentagon)?
huh, where when
Lemur stuff your bonus question, gave you plenty
Megas Methuselah
08-07-2010, 21:00
Bonus question: Where were you hyperventilating alarmists when they built the Islamic prayer room in the other 9/11 target, the Pentagon (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/05/muslims_infiltrate_pentagon)?
Wow, is that supposed to be controversial or something? Let's take it a step further and celebrate the Potlatch at the Pentagon, too.
Wow, is that supposed to be controversial or something? Let's take it a step further and celebrate the Potlatch at the Pentagon, too.
Nope it's something entirely different, only makes sense as an argument if you don't get the point. Lemur I don't give a crap about ordinay muslims only about the extremists. They exist, also in America, what are the odds of that. These guys are as welcome as the inquisition for normal muslims, and you will notice that the behaviour of your friendly muslim neighbour will change when they settle down, suddely their kids don't want to play with yours. That is because of intimidation and strict social control, these guys are an abso :daisy: lute pest
Lemur I don't give a crap about ordinay muslims only about the extremists.
But by casting an over-broad definition of "extremists" you give hope, comfort and aid to the salafists. See my earlier note about "useful idiots"; you are in grave danger of being one. Just because a rightwing masturblog screams that someone is a secret terrorist doesn't make it so. Your sources suck.
Meanwhile, it's nice to see politicans making hay while the sun shines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLLrd79aOqI
You suck, you demand something, and dodge when you get it.
You suck, you demand something, and dodge when you get it.
Excuse me? I responded (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?129873-Islamic-group-to-build-mosque-adjacent-to-ground-zero&p=2532298&viewfull=1#post2532298). Perhaps you missed the post.
Again, most of your paranoid, rambling, poorly-sourced, ranting sources are from single author. The author is problematic. Her theories are not substantiated or repeated anywhere but on the paranoid rightwing blogs. Echo chamber much?
You are taking the rantings of a pro-Israeli rightwing extremist who only publishes in niche political tracts as gospel truth. Were a leftwinger doing the same in an argument with you, I have little doubt how dismissive you would be.
Crazed Rabbit
08-08-2010, 21:32
But by casting an over-broad definition of "extremists" you give hope, comfort and aid to the salafists. See my earlier note about "useful idiots"; you are in grave danger of being one. Just because a rightwing masturblog screams that someone is a secret terrorist doesn't make it so. Your sources suck.
Meanwhile, it's nice to see politicans making hay while the sun shines:
I hate eminent domain, especially it's abuse. I now want this man to lose the election.
CR
Excuse me? I responded (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?129873-Islamic-group-to-build-mosque-adjacent-to-ground-zero&p=2532298&viewfull=1#post2532298). Perhaps you missed the post.
Again, most of your paranoid, rambling, poorly-sourced, ranting sources are from single author. The author is problematic. Her theories are not substantiated or repeated anywhere but on the paranoid rightwing blogs. Echo chamber much?
You are taking the rantings of a pro-Israeli rightwing extremist who only publishes in niche political tracts as gospel truth. Were a leftwinger doing the same in an argument with you, I have little doubt how dismissive you would be.
I am wut lol, I thought asumptions were bad
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-08-2010, 21:54
But by casting an over-broad definition of "extremists" you give hope, comfort and aid to the salafists. See my earlier note about "useful idiots"; you are in grave danger of being one. Just because a rightwing masturblog screams that someone is a secret terrorist doesn't make it so. Your sources suck.
Meanwhile, it's nice to see politicans making hay while the sun shines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLLrd79aOqI
Did you see the article from the Telegraph where Quillian labled Cordoba House "Islamist"?
Did you see the article from the Telegraph where Quillian labled Cordoba House "Islamist"?
Linky would be way cool.
Linky cherrypicing so why do you want them, meanwhile a sound response from the people I supposedly condemn http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html
Author doesn't know his religion very well, 'fitna' means 'cause' or 'struggle' in arab but message is clear, don't let him down.
Your reality doesn't exist, this is much worse than anything happening anywhere in Europe. With lightning speed you will lose everything. Your society doesn't have any ideological barricades, if you think you are being reasonable you are making a huge mistake.
Linky cherrypicing so why do you want them
Well, when someone opens a post saying "did you see," it's natural to want to see.
As for the Ottowa Citizen essay, I think the authors are clearer on the definition of fitna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_%28word%29) than you. Further, while they disapprove of the mosque, they bring no hard evidence to the table. The contention that Feisal Abdul Rauf is an extremist/jihadist/salafist stands unfounded, especially given the people who actually know the main and say he is a moderate. The sources you have provided do nothing to support your vision of Rauf as a seditious invader.
As for how America will "lose everything," well, would you care to give a timeframe for that prediction? It's all very easy and fun to predict the end of civilization, but unless you're willing to give it a schedule it's just hot air.
al Roumi
08-09-2010, 16:04
Here's the economist's analysis:
Build that mosque: The campaign against the proposed Cordoba centre in New York is unjust and dangerous (http://www.economist.com/node/16743239)
And Lemur, were it not completely inappropriate to use a word like this in this context, i'd call you a crusader. Although I fear your heroic efforts may prove quixotic... :wink:
al Roumi
08-09-2010, 16:15
Hagia Sophia still became a Mosque, and the Mosque on the Temple Mount was built over a Christian Church (former Roman Temple) after it was demolished by the invaders. The use of both was a sign a Muslim domination, whatever else it was.
Standard practice my friend, as I tried to point out, many places of worship have been re-cycled throughout history. Most churches in central or southern Spain are converted mosques, which were converted churches, which where converted temples. In any case, it's irrelevant - the mosque 2 blocks away from ground zero is not replacing a church and not being built by a conqueror.
As for how America will "lose everything," well, would you care to give a timeframe for that prediction? It's all very easy and fun to predict the end of civilization, but unless you're willing to give it a schedule it's just hot air.
Fast at least, you cannot rely on your government to protect you from it either way, they are already in your goverment. Look at England and their labour party, completely infiltrated.
Brussels Belgium, but any European city really. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-inob20I_Y0 France at least now realises the crap they are in, state of war
PanzerJaeger
08-10-2010, 05:15
Bonus question: Where were you hyperventilating alarmists when they built the Islamic prayer room in the other 9/11 target, the Pentagon?
I wonder if the Hassan incident has caused any critical reassessment of this. We've seen what happens when the military bends over to placate the Muslims. Real Americans get shot to death.
Here's the economist's analysis:
Build that mosque: The campaign against the proposed Cordoba centre in New York is unjust and dangerous (http://www.economist.com/node/16743239)
I don't appreciate the intellectual blackmail in which the authors are engaging. 'Build the Mosque or you'll radicalize your Muslims.' Our judgments on what is appropriate and what is not should not be held hostage to the ever-present threat of crazy Muslims waiting for a reason to radicalize.
Anyway, is there any truth to the accusation that this Imam Rauf refuses to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization?
Anyway, is there any truth to the accusation that this Imam Rauf refuses to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization?
The damning quote that I have seen repeated from Rauf is that he talks about the Islamic Brotherhood doing charitable work. Which they have done, in addition to politics and terrorism. Likewise Hamas, but throw in that they're now the elected government of 1/2 of the Palestinians, which just makes life more complicated.
PanzerJaeger
08-10-2010, 05:55
The damning quote that I have seen repeated from Rauf is that he talks about the Islamic Brotherhood doing charitable work. Which they have done, in addition to politics and terrorism. Likewise Hamas, but throw in that they're now the elected government of 1/2 of the Palestinians, which just makes life more complicated.
Yea, I have read the same accusation in three different articles but without any quotes. Saying that they do charity work certainly suggests a relativist mindset, but is much different than ‘refusing to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist group’.
Saying that they do charity work certainly suggests a relativist mindset, but is much different than ‘refusing to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist group’.
I don't understand how something that is factual can be "relativist." Hamas builds and runs hospitals and clinics; nobody contests this. They also blow innocent civilians up. The one does not invalidate the other.
Obviously, as Americans we see Hamas first and foremost as a terrorist organization, but the truth on the ground is a little more complicated. Likewise the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been several different things since 1928.
I wonder if the Hassan incident has caused any critical reassessment of this. We've seen what happens when the military bends over to placate the Muslims. Real Americans get shot to death.
I don't appreciate the intellectual blackmail in which the authors are engaging. 'Build the Mosque or you'll radicalize your Muslims.' Our judgments on what is appropriate and what is not should not be held hostage to the ever-present threat of crazy Muslims waiting for a reason to radicalize.
Anyway, is there any truth to the accusation that this Imam Rauf refuses to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization?
Yes, among other things. What they say to you tends to be a little different than what they say abroad, I bet there was no 'hoisting the flag of islam over Manhattan'.
I still want to know why Dutch (naturally labour) minister Bert Koenders is using development aid money to fund this thing. Not that I don't know as he's from the 100% pro-islam labour party but still.
We've seen what happens when the military bends over to placate the Muslims. Real Americans get shot to death.
Are you saying that Muslims can't be "Real Americans" (tm) ?
Btw, what's a "Real American"? While you're at it, are there also fake Americans? If so, are they made from plastic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNWh7dzrbKs
Real Belgians? Always the sames. Real Belgians shoot at the police with kalashnikovs when they enter their enclaves?
Incongruous
08-10-2010, 10:12
Are you saying that Muslims can't be "Real Americans" (tm) ?
Btw, what's a "Real American"? While you're at it, are there also fake Americans? If so, are they made from plastic?
Christopher Hitchens is a fake American!
Skullheadhq
08-10-2010, 10:28
Are you saying that Muslims can't be "Real Americans" (tm) ?
Btw, what's a "Real American"? While you're at it, are there also fake Americans? If so, are they made from plastic?
Obama is a fake American!!
Real Belgians
:laugh4:
Show me one when you find him :laugh4:
Maybe there's still one running around in some cave in the Ardennes, wearing some animal skin and drinking self made beer :laugh4: A moustache is mandatory, even if it's a woman :laugh4:
You know the type, these guys and girls that better not show their face in said enclaves. Or is it all fine and well in Belgium, all living the dream exchanging recepy's and cool stuff like that. All is fine in France as well, no problems in Sweden or Germany. Nothing to see here, move along it's all so wonderful.
You know the type, these guys and girls that better not show their face in said enclaves. Or is it all fine and well in Belgium, all living the dream exchanging recepy's and cool stuff like that. All is fine in France as well, no problems in Sweden or Germany. Nothing to see here, move along it's all so wonderful.
Did I say all is fine in Belgium?
I am merely pointing out the ridiculousness of notions as "Real Americans" and "Real Belgians". Not to mention what thinking that way and putting human beings in such categories can lead to.
Of course Belgium has immigration and integration issues, just like any other country. I won't deny that.
But making the distinction between "Muslims" and "Real Americans" or "Real Belgians" is not good. As if a Muslim can't be a "real American" and as if all "real Americans" are by definition good people. Don't you see how close that gets to considering a certain group of people inferior to another group?
Tell me Fragony, and Panzerjaeger, do you guys consider Muslims to be inferior to "Real Americans/Dutchies/Belgians"? Can a Muslim ever become a Real American in your opinion? Or are Muslims doomed to be forever less than "real Americans"?
Because that's what it comes down to, isn't it? Putting a certain group of people lower than "your own kind" and in the proces dehumanising that group, isn't it?
Aren't Islamo supremacists the ones doing that? Yeah my Turkish baker is absolutely Dutch, he sees it like that after all, he just wants to make living. He's a devout muslim and is a very nice person, doesn't let me go before I have sugar-poisening, why should I give crap about him. What makes you think I do? Going to Iran in october been invited by friends, guess they don't know how I really feel about them.
edit: more on the imam. http://www.shoebat.com/blog/archives/273
building bridges ya, you really had it coming when they destroyed the twin towers. That is what he says when not talking to the loonieleft who hungrily gob up every word he says.
Personally I don't think Americans deserved 9/11, kinda nasty. You do deserve this mosque though, ijjits tiqiyyayaya yes indeed
rory_20_uk
08-10-2010, 12:39
Did I say all is fine in Belgium?
I am merely pointing out the ridiculousness of notions as "Real Americans" and "Real Belgians". Not to mention what thinking that way and putting human beings in such categories can lead to.
Of course Belgium has immigration and integration issues, just like any other country. I won't deny that.
But making the distinction between "Muslims" and "Real Americans" or "Real Belgians" is not good. As if a Muslim can't be a "real American" and as if all "real Americans" are by definition good people. Don't you see how close that gets to considering a certain group of people inferior to another group?
Tell me Fragony, and Panzerjaeger, do you guys consider Muslims to be inferior to "Real Americans/Dutchies/Belgians"? Can a Muslim ever become a Real American in your opinion? Or are Muslims doomed to be forever less than "real Americans"?
Because that's what it comes down to, isn't it? Putting a certain group of people lower than "your own kind" and in the proces dehumanising that group, isn't it?
Ye Gods' - since the dawn of time every tribs has considered themselves better than every other one! It's part of the human condition to think one's kids are better than others, one's town is better than others, one's footbal club is better than others. Every animal on their planet will fight for theirs against others. Those that don't... die. So, the ones that are left are bloody good at fighting their corner.
And you expect in the blink of an evolutionary eye for humans to all suddenly view each other as equals and play nice? Oh, we might talk the talk and some might even walk the walk, but the vast majority when the ordure hits the windmill will place their own above others.
~:smoking:
PanzerJaeger
08-10-2010, 14:21
I don't understand how something that is factual can be "relativist." Hamas builds and runs hospitals and clinics; nobody contests this. They also blow innocent civilians up. The one does not invalidate the other.
Obviously, as Americans we see Hamas first and foremost as a terrorist organization, but the truth on the ground is a little more complicated. Likewise the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been several different things since 1928.
It depends on the context, which is why I am withholding judgment until I have some time to actually research the whole statement.
For example, if I was asked to describe Stalin's reign in Russia and I focused on his introduction of free health care to the Russia people and a developed transportation system while 'refusing to acknowledge the bad', that might indicate certain bias.
However, if I mentioned those good things in a more balanced statement that also included the bad stuff, it would be factual.
The context is what matters.
Tell me Fragony, and Panzerjaeger, do you guys consider Muslims to be inferior to "Real Americans/Dutchies/Belgians"? Can a Muslim ever become a Real American in your opinion? Or are Muslims doomed to be forever less than "real Americans"?
I've discussed my feelings about muslims many times on this board, and I have the warning points to show for it.
Think of me as Winston sitting at the cafe at the end of 1984, capitulated and converted. I've no interest in heading back to The Ministry of Love.
Awwwwwwwww read the link I posted, it's much worse than just excusing Hamas, he excuses 9/11. You really had it coming. Why? Because you are the dominant power, an obvious humiliation of muslims that's so cruel. Your muslim brotherhood affiliated bridgebuilder also wants shariah in the US, that there is only one god and his name is Allah stuff. Leftist people know that that is respect. Or they really don't know it isn't, but they will ignore it anyway BAD WORLDVIEW NEINNEINNEIN. The leftist mind is still a puzzle to me.
edit: more on the imam. http://www.shoebat.com/blog/archives/273
This is a 100% re-heated meal. The first damning quote is about how he doesn't believe in "religious dialogue," in which he explains that he means the sorts of empty affairs in hotel conference centers where everybody eats a donut and talks about how much dialogue they're accomplishing. Classic example of a quote taken out of context. Hell, they even provide the context, while refusing to acknowledge that the Imam is making a fairly subtle point.
Then they're off to the races with another twisting of a quote:
“Throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians, it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more then just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Shariah that are required to govern. It is known that there are sets of standards that are accepted by [Muslim] scholars to organize the relationships between government and the governed.”
When questioned about this, Abdul Rauf continued “Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws.” He added “New laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of Muhammad…so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with Shariah.” [emphasis in translation]
In yet plainer English, Abdul Rauf’s goal is the imposition of Shariah law – in every country, including the U. S.
No, in "plainer English," that's not what he has said at all. The dude has just gone on at length about how democracy, moderation and new laws (i.e., modernity) are not incompatible with Islam. I don't know how a guy talking to a muslim audience could be less hostile to modern life, western civilization and pluralism. Sure, he couches the whole thing in terms of what is or is not Sharia, but if you'll take the hate bit from between your teeth, you'll see the man is arguing for compatibility between Sharia and modern, plural democracy. This qualifies him for a fanatic? Only in a fanatic's eyes.
The author then states, "In the Hadiyul-Islam article, Abdul Rauf reiterates that an Islamic state under Shariah law with no separation of church and state can be established even when the government is a kingdom or a democracy." Given how completely (and deliberately) he has misunderstood the previous two quotes, I'll take a pass on his interpretation this time. Give me an actual quote or go home crying, kid.
Lastly he quotes from a 60 minutes interview in which Rauf articulates the blowback theory, which was also put forward by such noted islamists as Ron Paul (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-blowback-undisputable-fact.html). Note that I believe the blowback theory to be utterly wrong, but it is not a particularly islamist or evil theory.
Personally I don't think Americans deserved 9/11, kinda nasty.
Wonderful misreading of the blowback theory. Let us know when you want to debate something that someone actually said.
The leftist mind is still a puzzle to me.
Are you sure you need the word "leftist" in that statement?
Posted it 10 minutes ago, you watched these 60 minutes really fast. You sure you are interested in honest debate?
edit: End yes I really do have to do that. I guess we have some more experience here by now. Don't worry you'll catch up.
PanzerJaeger
08-10-2010, 15:58
Throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians, it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more then just a single form or mold.
Is he arguing for the establishment of an Islamic state in the United States?
When questioned about this, Abdul Rauf continued “Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws.”
Is there any indication which governments Rauf is talking about?
There seems to be a bit more going on here than peace, love, and harmony.
Posted it 10 minutes ago, you watched these 60 minutes really fast. You sure you are interested in honest debate?
"60 minutes" is the name of a television program; if you read your own link, you would see that there is no hour of video footage. Just a rather short series of quotes from a program called 60 minutes. Cheers. I have quoted from and responded to your latest hysterical panic blog. Ball's in your court.
Best response to the mosque evar:
MY NEW GAY BAR (http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4696)
So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it's all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.
As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque - after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law - who can stop them?
Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I've decided to do the same thing.
I'm announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.
This is not a joke. I've already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.
As you know, the Muslim faith doesn't look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I'm building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.
The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps - but still want to dance.
Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.
My place, however, will have better music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q54LJ5RsqRw
-edit-
Is he arguing for the establishment of an Islamic state in the United States?
Not in the quotes provided. Maybe elsewhere, but not here.
Is there any indication which governments Rauf is talking about?
Not in the quotes provided, although the obvious targets of such quotes would be Egypt, Syria, Sudan, etc., which claim to be Islamic but are merely totalitarian.
So your argument is that there are modern muslims? We know that already there are 100%hallal sexshop here.
So your argument is that there are modern muslims?
Fragony, the moment you are willing to do me the courtesy of actually responding to something I have said, we'll be off to the races. In the meantime, stuff your strawmen on your own time.
Fragony, the moment you are willing to do me the courtesy of actually responding to something I have said, we'll be off to the races. In the meantime, stuff your strawmen on your own time.
I don't have to respond on how you think I think, the evidence is kinda more leaning to what I said isn't it, everyting I posted comes with sources, and these sources as well, filed and ready. What you got is the gaybar that changed the world.
edit, must admit I didn't read it, yes that is awesome.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-10-2010, 17:08
Are you saying that Muslims can't be "Real Americans" (tm) ?
Btw, what's a "Real American"? While you're at it, are there also fake Americans? If so, are they made from plastic?
Why don't you think about it, it looks like in your next few posts you didn't try to define it, but you know what "real" means surely.
It's not usually contrasted with "fake" when used this way. More like "there are x's, and then there are real x's". Like in sports when they say someone is a "real competitor" they aren't accusing the other players of only pretending to compete.
So you have americans, aka people who live here and have citizenship. And then real americans would be the set of americans who embody some features that make america distinct from other countries. Some kind of culture and beliefs thing. Same for real belgians. It's not hard to see that if someone moves to belgium and makes their wife wear a burkha etc, they aren't a real belgian. There's not much about them that you would describe as "belgian" right? Besides their citizenship.
You're also reading more than is said by pj:
I wonder if the Hassan incident has caused any critical reassessment of this. We've seen what happens when the military bends over to placate the Muslims. Real Americans get shot to death.
After the hassan shooting, the news story was that several people had noticed warning signs, but were not able to get enough done because of something like political correctness (whether this is true is a different discussion). Hassan was not a real american I think we can agree.
Adam Yahiye Gadahn, the American-born al-Qaeda spokesman, declared Hasan a "pioneer" whose actions at Fort Hood should be followed by other Muslims.
This guy isn't either...
But none of this is to say that the real americans who got shot couldn't have been muslims.
Probably pj believes the number of muslims who aren't real americans is larger than you believe, you could have focused on that instead of going for the rhetoric :sweatdrop:
Rhyfelwyr
08-10-2010, 18:14
Hassan was not a real american I think we can agree.
Beware the no true Scotsman fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)
Although I actually I agree with you, I'm just pointing this out to show why I think the 'no true Scotsman fallacy' is often thrown at people unfairly, and I think this is what is leading Andres into conflict with PJ etc
Because when you talk about a nation like Scotland or the USA, there is usually more implied in the meaning than just citizenship and legal status. A Scotsman would be expected to exhibit certain traits, like wife-beating or a love for knife crime (yeah we have the best stereotypes :laugh4:).
Maybe the different approaches Andres and PJ have is due to the sort of state they live in themselves. Being Belgian can mean you are Flemish, a Walloon, there's no real Belgian culture, so 'Belgianness' is more a legal status. Whereas the USA has the whole WASP culture/history, and those criteria are seen as just as much a part of being American as your legal status.
I guess it's just the old civic v ethnic nationalism.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-10-2010, 18:28
Beware the no true Scotsman fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)
Although I actually I agree with you, I'm just pointing this out to show why I think the 'no true Scotsman fallacy' is often thrown at people unfairly, and I think this is what is leading Andres into conflict with PJ etc
heh, yeah, I never claimed that no american would do what he did. Several have. And the "true scotsman" or "real american" descriptor is pretty vague and not that useful a phrase or concept. I just don't think using it makes you a supremacist dehumanizer or whatever andres said.
Maybe the different approaches Andres and PJ have is due to the sort of state they live in themselves. Being Belgian can mean you are Flemish, a Walloon, there's no real Belgian culture, so 'Belgianness' is more a legal status. Whereas the USA has the whole WASP culture/history, and those criteria are seen as just as much a part of being American as your legal status.
I guess it's just the old civic v ethnic nationalism.
Well, I can easily understand that belgium is like that. I don't think it's really a "vs", or shouldn't be.
New board software won't let me embed the video, but let me say for the record that Trade Martin's We Gotta Stop the Mosque at Ground Zero (http://www.wootv.us/play.php?vid=725) is my favorite song of all time.
We’ve got “Freedom Of Religion”…., I understand….,
But Ground Zero is one location, where a Mosque shouldn’t stand…..!!!
(Chorus)
We’ve got to stop the Mosque at Ground Zero……,
From thumin’ its nose at every victim and hero……,
Thousands of Americans died in the attack……,
It’s a sacred place, and that’s a cold hard fact……!!!
There’s a painful memory in our minds……,
Our hearts keep breakin’ when we envision that tragic time.
(Chorus)
God help us retain the honor and trust…….,
For all the families…., who have suffered so damn much…!!!
Many Innocent Americans were killed
If we let them build it, can't you see...
They'll turn 9-11 to a mockery...!!!
(Chorus)
Sasaki, I interpreted PJ's and Fragony's posts as statements that Muslims can never be Real Americans, because they are Muslims.
If that was not what they meant, then I apologise to Panzerjaeger and Fragony :bow:
"Real Americans" also smells like nationalism, which I'm currently allergic to, but that has more to do with the current situation in my own country than anything else. Politicians here are so occupied with (partially self-created) Walloon-Fleming contrasts that nothing in this country moves or get done. A couple of years ago, I would have played along with that, but the more things continue like this in my country, I'm slowly entering the stadium of complete apathy. It's just too absurd to keep getting worked up about. But that's food for a different thread, one on Belgian politics. But I won't open one myself, because, as I said, I'm slowly getting to the past caring - apathy stadium.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-10-2010, 20:23
"Real Americans" also smells like nationalism, which I'm currently allergic to, but that has more to do with the current situation in my own country than anything else. Politicians here are so occupied with (partially self-created) Walloon-Fleming contrasts that nothing in this country moves or get done. A couple of years ago, I would have played along with that, but the more things continue like this in my country, I'm slowly entering the stadium of complete apathy. It's just too absurd to keep getting worked up about. But that's food for a different thread, one on Belgian politics. But I won't open one myself, because, as I said, I'm slowly getting to the past caring - apathy stadium.
I think the importance of patriotism is that it is an antidote to apathy...the caricature of it presented by politicians is often on the sickening side however.
That's ok but I still think they aren't real Belgians, they only dress like idiots once a year at carnaval. A little bit too much effort to celebrate it all year imho
PanzerJaeger
08-11-2010, 01:06
Sasaki, I interpreted PJ's and Fragony's posts as statements that Muslims can never be Real Americans, because they are Muslims.
Yes and no. I believe that real Muslims - those that strictly adhere to the Qur'an and any of the dominant interpretations of Sharia law - cannot be real Americans. The overarching concepts of the two differ to such an extent that overlapping membership is just not possible.
That being said, there are millions of what I'll call "ethnic Muslims" that have adopted the time honored American tradition of picking and choosing which aspects of their religion to embrace and which to completely disregard. Welcome aboard, I say.
That is really my concern with this Imam. Both Lemur and Frag have made good points, and I just don't know enough about him to make a judgment. If he wants to build a Muslim state in America he needs to be put in a camp somewhere and left to rot. If he wants to build a Muslim state in a country like Saudi Arabia because he believes it is a fraud, that is a different story completely. As I said, context is important - and I just don't have the time to try to look these comments up.
rory_20_uk
08-11-2010, 11:45
What about "real" Jews? We've got some coming for a meal with the senior partners. Ye Gods, what a nightmare! Rules about everything - how it's cooked, what it's cooked near, getting a sodding Rabbi to bless it to boot! I couldn't help thinking "do we need the business that much?"
Come to think of it, what about "real" Catholics? They are in essence swearing loyalty to the head of a foreign state.
~:smoking:
Perfectly reasonable http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/gov_paterson_offers_state_help_to_2JxWuBLAyGbLsDGVMt2sTP in a dialogue you consider each other grievances, and it's dialogue crave much no. So time to find out if they want a mosque, or a mosque near ground zero.
the developrs declined to comment, that's odd for people who want dialogue.
the developrs declined to comment, that's odd for people who want dialogue.
Mayor Bloomberg also declined to comment for that article, so he must be evil too. Seriouly, how can you slam them for avoiding comment to a Rupert Murdoch paper when they're in the middle of a whipped-up firestorm?
Sounds to me like Patterson is doing the right thing. Although a muslim-friendly gay bar still rocks.
he needs to be put in a camp somewhere and left to rot.
Wait, that reminds me of something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans)
Mayor Bloomberg also declined to comment for that article, so he must be evil too. Seriouly, how can you slam them for avoiding comment to a Rupert Murdoch paper when they're in the middle of a whipped-up firestorm?
Sounds to me like Patterson is doing the right thing. Although a muslim-friendly gay bar still rocks.
It's hilarious, but if they decide to see it as an act of agression (and they would be right, it is, that gay-bar is a big screw you) and play innocence lost the argument turns in their favor, funny as hell but not very smart. If you think it's a good idea that put a that gay-bar next to it you must already have some doubts about this mosque being what they say it is, as that would be pretty disrespectful if you don't care about the mosque's location.
If you think it's a good idea that put that gay-bar next to it you must already have some doubts about this mosque being what they say it is, as that would be pretty disrespectful if you don't care about the mosque's location.
I find your attempts to summarize my position amusing. Not very accurate, but good enertainment value.
I believe in the Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights) and the primacy of property rights (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html). You might want to read up on both before typing again.
Rauf has every right to create a mosque in a property which he or his foundation own. And someone else has every right to create a gay bar next to it. This is fighting freedom with freedom, rather than reverting to some sort of tub-thumping populist panic, the mode your quoted bloggers seem to prefer.
I find your attempts to summarize my position amusing. Not very accurate, but good enertainment value.
I believe in the Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights) and the primacy of property rights (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html). You might want to read up on both before typing again.
Rauf has every right to create a mosque in a property which he or his foundation own. And someone else has every right to create a gay bar next to it. This is fighting freedom with freedom, rather than reverting to some sort of tub-thumping populist panic, the mode your quoted bloggers seem to prefer.
Sure he does, but would you normally go all rofltov if they build a gaybar for muslims next to a mosque.
Sure he does, but would you normally go all rofltov if they build a gaybar for muslims next to a mosque.
Your use of pronouns is confusing at best. I'm fine with gay bars next to mosques, and I'd like to see them next to the Westboro Baptist Church as well. My chief complaint against Islam (as it is currently practiced in most of the world) has to do with the treatment of women and gays, so let's put some battered women's shelters next to Rauf's mosque as well.
That said, you're getting sidetracked. Remember, this is all about how Rauf's mosque is a secret triumphalist plot to humiliate America. Or something like that, depending on which hysterical panic-monger you're giving credence to.
Skullheadhq
08-11-2010, 14:50
I'm fine with gay bars next to mosques, and I'd like to see them next to the Westboro Baptist Church as well.
I would love to see that happen.
Sorry if my my English is kinda lacking Lemur, I just don't need it all that much. How do you know how someone pronounces what is written anyway. My French is much better.
Sure he does, but would you normally go all rofltov if they build a gaybar for muslims next to a mosque.
I remember Jon Stewart covering a similar event: a group of muslims bult a large mosque somewhere in the backwoods of rural Texas. Their neighbor, a cow farmer, didn't take very kindly to that and promptly switched from raising cows to raising pigs. Next thing you know, there were weekly pig races every Friday to coinside with the prayer schedule. Now, raising pigs in NYC is not practical, but like Lemur mentioned, a gay bar would do very nicely.
I remember Jon Stewart covering a similar event: a group of muslims bult a large mosque somewhere in the backwoods of rural Texas. Their neighbor, a cow farmer, didn't take very kindly to that and promptly switched from raising cows to raising pigs. Next thing you know, there were weekly pig races every Friday to coinside with the prayer schedule. Now, raising pigs in NYC is not practical, but like Lemur mentioned, a gay bar would do very nicely.
That ones are the people who are from whateversta they were just born there, they don't get millions from very shady people. USA is being just as naive as Europe.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-11-2010, 17:58
I wonder if the Hassan incident has caused any critical reassessment of this. We've seen what happens when the military bends over to placate the Muslims. Real Americans get shot to death....
Your post seems to imply that Muslims are not "Real Americans." I very SINCERELY hope that that was an accident of proximity in phrasing.
Failing to acknowlege that our current threats often stem from persons who are from an Islamic background and factor that into our response would be foolish. Marginalizing an entire religious tradition in a country that was, at least in part, FOUNDED on the ideal of religious freedom would be just as foolish.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-11-2010, 18:35
Failing to acknowlege that our current threats often stem from persons who are from an Islamic background and factor that into our response would be foolish. Marginalizing an entire religious tradition in a country that was, at least in part, FOUNDED on the ideal of religious freedom would be just as foolish.
I think that's a false equivalency seamus. And criticism of islam is only based in part on threats of terrorism--most people have issues with how common anti-semitism is and how women are treated in islamic cultures. Not acknowledging issues like that is much worse than painting with too broad a brush--why would it be just as foolish? One is essentially a failure of statistics, the other is blindly complicit with human rights violations.
PanzerJaeger
08-11-2010, 20:13
Your post seems to imply that Muslims are not "Real Americans." I very SINCERELY hope that that was an accident of proximity in phrasing.
Failing to acknowlege that our current threats often stem from persons who are from an Islamic background and factor that into our response would be foolish. Marginalizing an entire religious tradition in a country that was, at least in part, FOUNDED on the ideal of religious freedom would be just as foolish.
As I said in post #206, a true Islamic lifestyle is incompatible with the American (and Western) way of life. That's not to say that there aren't millions of 'Muslims' in America that adhere to a highly diluted Islam-lite.
Major Hassan was not what I would consider a real American; the soldiers he shot to death were. He was, however, a real Muslim – adhering to the proscribed Qu’ranic teachings about cultural deviance.
Reenk Roink
08-11-2010, 20:38
I think that's a false equivalency seamus. And criticism of islam is only based in part on threats of terrorism--most people have issues with how common anti-semitism is and how women are treated in islamic cultures. Not acknowledging issues like that is much worse than painting with too broad a brush--why would it be just as foolish? One is essentially a failure of statistics, the other is blindly complicit with human rights violations.
Your characterization of one as a "failure of statistics" and the other as "blindly complicit with human rights violations" is ABSOLUTELY laughable. Not marginalizing an entire religion based on the actions of a few members like Seamus so wisely suggests is the right and nice thing to do, and painting with too broad a brush is both factually and politically incorrect. In fact the one disagreement I might have with Seamus is that they are not just as foolish, no, the former is MUCH LESS foolish than the latter.
This is beginning to remind me of that ridiculous Church bashing thread. The ridiculousness of it only eased by the inefficacy of such criticisms on the two largest and most influential religions in the world, may God preserve them. :bow:
On the other issues except terrorism which you tried to give to justify this marginalization of Islam (? - that's probably (hopefully) not what you're doing, but damn, it sure sounded like it), the women issue is a legitimate problem in the Muslim world though overexagerrated, but as for Muslim anti-semitism, I posted before on this and it seems to have to do in most part with the geopolitical issue with Israel, which is why Lebanese Christians have the exact same view of Jews as Lebanese Muslims (0% favorable) and why Lebanese Christians support Hezbollah now more than Lebanese Sunni Muslims (all on Pew Global Research). Basing a criticism of Islam on Muslim anti-semitism feelings seems tenuous.
Either way, I'm pretty sure one could take the Seamus route and show that the actions of a minority. You're better off if you do want to criticize the religion itself attack at it's doctrines or scriptures than on actions of a minority of followers. Though of course don't be surprised when you are met with disagreements about your interpretations and exegesis.
The ONLY problem with Seamus's post is that he seemed to imply that the greatest threat to America with regards to terrorism is from Islamic terrorism. THIS IS a failure of statistics:
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terrorism2002_2005.htm
Pretty clearly shows that the number of terrorist attacks caused by Muslims is quite low.
In Europe, the proportion of attacks from Islamic terrorists is even lower:
http://www.europol.europa.eu/ (go to publications)
Of course, due to 9/11 being by far the most destructive attack on American soil in terms of loss of life, it's understandable why more attention is payed to radical Islam. But the facts state that since then terrorism really simply has not come from Islamic sources in any significant degree:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06/muslim.radicalization.study/
A small number of Muslim-Americans have undergone radicalization since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the study found. It compiled a list of 139 individuals it categorized as "Muslim-American terrorism offenders" who had become radicalized in the U.S. in that time -- a rate of 17 per year.
"Muslim-American communities have been active in preventing radicalization," said Charles Kurzman, professor of sociology at UNC, in the statement. "This is one reason that Muslim-American terrorism has resulted in fewer than three dozen of the 136,000 murders committed in the United States since 9/11."
150 odd some radicalized individuals and 36 murders seems quite low figures for the stress the media, the politicians, and society as a whole place on Islamic terrorism. Granted, terrorism is a much bigger problem in countries like Iraq, but again, this seems ultimately tied in to the geopolitical issue of the invasion in 2003 and so such a criticism of Islam on this basis is again is tenuous.
If this isn't enough and you want to go the way of trying to make a case of Muslim support for terrorism (like Sam Harris retardedly did to justify nuclear attacks in the Muslim world in The End of Faith - good god I was hoping that the Church would reinstate the Index when reading that book :rolleyes:), well, unfortunately, that avenue itself is a failure of statistics because it doesn't show much:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/05/23/polls/index.html/
As Kenneth Ballen noted in The Christian Science Monitor in February of this year, Americans express greater support for "attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria."
Sasaki Kojiro
08-11-2010, 21:56
You are completely wrong and off track reenk.
When people say "the problem with Islam", they mean, quite precisely, "the problem with "fundamentalist" islam as it is interpreted and practiced today". There are real problems.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali--Infidel
But the kids at madrassah were tough. They fought. One girl, who was about eight years old, they called kintirleey, "she with the clitoris." I had no idea what a clitoris was, but the kids didn't even want to be seen with this girl. They spat on her and pinched her; they rubbed sand in her eyes, and once they caught her and tried to bury her in the sand behind the school. The madrassah teacher didn't help. Once in a while he called her dammin, dunce, and kintirleey, too.
My teenage cousin Sanyar used to pick me up after madrassah. One day she arrived just as a girl hit me in the face. Sanyar took me home and told the story. "Ayaan didn't even defend herself," she said in horror. "Coward!" my family jeered.
The next day Sanyar waited for me outside the madrassah with another teenager, the older sister of the girl who had hit me the day before. They caught hold of the two of us and tugged us over to an open
11N1-1.U£L • ji
space, then ordered us to fight. "Scratch her eyes out. Bite her," Sanyar hissed at me. "Come on, coward, think of your honor."
The other girl got the same encouragement. We flew at each other, fists tight, hitting, wrestling, pulling each other's hair, biting. "Ayaan, never cry!" Sanyar called out. The other children cheered us on. When they let us stop, our dresses were torn and my lip was bleeding, but Sanyar was delighted. "I don't want you to ever let another child hit you or make you cry," she said. "Fight. If you don't fight for your honor, you're a slave." Then, as we walked away, the other girl shouted after me, "Kintirleey!" Sanyar winced. I looked at her, horror dawning on me. I was like that other girl? I, too, had that filthy thing, a kintir?
In Somalia, like many countries across Africa and the Middle East, little girls are made "pure" by having their genitals cut out. There is no other way to describe this procedure, which typically occurs around the age of five. After the child's clitoris and labia are carved out, scraped off, or, in more compassionate areas, merely cut or pricked, the whole area is often sewn up, so that a thick band of tissue forms a chastity belt made of the girl's own scarred flesh. A small hole is carefully situated to permit a thin flow of pee. Only great force can tear the scar tissue wider, for sex.
Female genital mutilation predates Islam. Not all Muslims do this, and a few of the peoples who do are not Islamic. But in Somalia, where virtually every girl is excised, the practice is always justified in the name of Islam. Uncircumcised girls will be possessed by devils, fall into vice and perdition, and become whores. Imams never discourage the practice: it keeps girls pure.
Many girls die during or after their excision, from infection. Other complications cause enormous, more or less lifelong pain. My father was a modern man and considered the practice barbaric. He had always insisted that his daughters be left uncut. In this he was quite extraordinarily forward-thinking. Though I don't think it was for the same reason, Mahad, who was six, had also not yet been circumcised.
Not long after that first fight of mine at the madrassah, Grandma decided that the time was right for us to undergo the necessary and proper dignity of purification. My father was in jail and my mother was away for long periods, but Grandma would ensure that the old traditions would be respected in the old ways.
After she made the arrangements, Grandma was cheerful and friendly all week long. A special table was prepared in her bedroom, and various
•^ J^ " ^ iVUUtL 1 lit^i JL iti
aunts, known and unknown, gathered in the house. When the day itself came I was not frightened, just curious. I had no idea what was going to happen, except that there was a festive atmosphere in the house and we— all three of us—were going to be cleansed. I wouldn't be called kintirleey anymore.
Mahad went first. I was driven out of the room, but after a while I stole back to the door and watched. Mahad was on the floor, with his head and arms on Grandma's lap. Two women were holding down his spread-eagled legs, and a strange man was bending down between them.
The room was warm and I could smell a mixture of sweat and frankincense. Grandma was whispering in Mahad's ears, "Don't cry, don't stain your mother's honor. These women will talk about what they have seen. Grit your teeth." Mahad wasn't making a sound, but tears rolled down his face as he bit into Grandma's shawl. His face was clenched and twisted in pain.
I couldn't see what the stranger was doing, but I could see blood. This frightened me.
I was next. Grandma swung her hand from side to side and said, "Once this long kintir is removed you and your sister will be pure." From Grandma's words and gestures I gathered that this hideous kintir, my clitoris, would one day grow so long that it would swing sideways between my legs. She caught hold of me and gripped my upper body in the same position as she had put Mahad. Two other women held my legs apart. The man, who was probably an itinerant traditional circumciser from the blacksmith clan, picked up a pair of scissors. With the other hand, he caught hold of the place between my legs and started tweaking it, like Grandma milking a goat. "There it is, there is the kintir," one of the women said.
Then the scissors went down between my legs and the man cut off my inner labia and clitoris. I heard it, like a butcher snipping the fat off a piece of meat. A piercing pain shot up between my legs, indescribable, and I howled. Then came the sewing: the long, blunt needle clumsily pushed into my bleeding outer labia, my loud and anguished protests, Grandma's words of comfort and encouragement. "It's just this once in your life, Ayaan. Be brave, he's almost finished." When the sewing was finished, the man cut the thread off with his teeth.
That is all I can recall of it.
But I do remember Haweya's bloodcurdling howls. Though she was the youngest—she was four, I five, Mahad six—Haweya must have
struggled much more than Mahad and I did, or perhaps the women were exhausted after fighting us, and slipped, because the man made some bad cuts on Haweya's thighs. She carried the scars of them her whole life.
I must have fallen asleep, for it wasn't until much later that day that I realized that my legs had been tied together, to prevent me from moving to facilitate the formation of a scar. It was dark and my bladder was bursting, but it hurt too much to pee. The sharp pain was still there, and my legs were covered in blood. I was sweating and shivering. It wasn't until the next day that my Grandma could persuade me to pee even a little. By then everything hurt. When I just lay still the pain throbbed miserably, but when I urinated the flash of pain was as sharp as when I had been cut.
It took about two weeks for us to recover. Grandma tended to us constantly, suddenly gentle and affectionate. She responded to each anguished howl or whimper, even in the night. After every tortured urination she washed our wounds carefully with warm water and dabbed them with purple liquid. Then she tied our legs again and reminded us to stay completely still or we would tear, and then the man would have to be called again to sew us back up.
After a week the man came and inspected us. He thought that Mahad and I were doing well, but said Haweya needed to be resewn. She had torn her wound while urinating and struggling with Grandma. We heard it happening; it was agony for her. The entire procedure was torture for all of us, but undoubtedly the one who suffered the most was Haweya.
Mahad was already up and about, quite healed, when the man returned to remove the thread he had used to sew me shut. This was again very painful. He used a pair of tweezers to dig out the threads, tugging on them sharply. Again, Grandma and two other women held me down. But after that, even though I had a thick, bumpy scar between my legs that hurt if I moved too much, at least my legs didn't have to be tied together anymore, and I no longer had to lie down without moving all day.
It took Haweya another week to reach the stage of thread removal, and four women had to hold her down. I was in the room when this happened. I will never forget the panic in her face and voice as she screamed with everything in her and struggled to keep her legs closed.
Haweya was never the same afterward. She became ill with a fever for several weeks and lost a lot of weight. She had horrible nightmares, and during the day began stomping off to be alone. My once cheerful, playful little sister changed. Sometimes she just stared vacantly at nothing for hours. We all started wetting our beds after the circumcision. In Mahad's case, it lasted a long time.
etc.
The issue with the debates on this topic are that some people (almost pigheadedly) act as if "Islam" is being used a sentence in the same way that "Christianity" would be used. This is a blatant comprehension error that should be obvious. Arguing technical definitions is facile. Words are defined by their usage.
So what happens is:
Person A: "I criticize islam thus, *something about the above passage for example, or anti-semitism or terrorism (which I de-emphasized in my post so I don't know why you talked about it so much)* aka practices in various countries that are culturally tied to the religion of islam
Person B: There's no basis for that in the koran. Islam can be a beautiful "secularized" religion like christianity is today, and has been in history and often is today.
Basically, person B is focusing on the fact that person A's list of problems of islam could be misinterpreted. This is true, and many people do. Many people overgeneralize when they talk about it. Over generalization is pervasive. Atheists paint christians with a broad brush, christians paint atheists with a broad brush. Sometimes it leads to friction. And I'm sure it's nasty and stuff to have that kind of friction in our own precious little countries. But all too often Person B goes "eww I don't want to associate with "islamaphobes", retreats into lazy relativism, and doesn't speak out against very legitimate problems (even if you think they are "overexaggarated" as you dismissively say).
You have to understand exactly what you're saying reenk. That someone who doesn't have precise knowledge of how many secular-islam muslims there are is more foolish than someone who ignores female circumcision because they have accepted relativism for stupid reasons.
You are completely wrong and off track reenk.
When people say "the problem with Islam", they mean, quite precisely, "the problem with "fundamentalist" islam as it is interpreted and practiced today". There are real problems.
Is that really so?
If it is, well, when people say "the problem with Islam" while they mean "the problem with "fundamentalist" islam", then they need to learn to be more specific and to chose their words more careful.
"Islam" is not = " "fundamentalist" Islam as it is interpreted and practiced today"
Yes, there are real problems. Let's not create an additional problem by using "Islam" and "fundamentalist Islam" as synonyms. It's important to make the distinction between religious fundamentalist nutjobs and moderate, reasonable muslims. That's got nothing to do with "political correctness", but more with intellecutal honesty and fairness.
:shrug:
Sasaki Kojiro
08-11-2010, 22:35
Is that really so?
If it is, well, when people say "the problem with Islam" while they mean "the problem with "fundamentalist" islam", then they need to learn to be more specific and to chose their words more careful.
"Islam" is not = " "fundamentalist" Islam as it is interpreted and practiced today"
Yes, there are real problems. Let's not create an additional problem by using "Islam" and "fundamentalist Islam" as synonyms. It's important to make the distinction between religious fundamentalist nutjobs and moderate, reasonable muslims. That's got nothing to do with "political correctness", but more with intellecutal honesty and fairness.
:shrug:
I don't have an issue with that really andres. It is certainly potentially misleading--although I think you have to be obstinate not to see what people are really referring too.
My beef is the people who hijack any critism of fundamentalist islam and yammer on about how the criticism is islamaphobic. It's a footnote that has been elevated to being the whole debate. Can't we focus on what's really important? We have had threads on this very forum where an issue with fundamentalist islam was raised and people were unwilling to criticize because (to paraphrase) "I'm uncomfortable that islamaphobes are supporting it".
Focusing on a relatively unimportant part of the argument is not intellectually honest. Relativism is a disease of the mind.
*****
Look, there have been quite a few anti-muslim attacks in our countries. I remember seeing a bit on 60 minutes about one how one of our best cia agents was falsely accused and her citizenship revoked after 9/11 due to anti-muslim sentiment. Combating that is important. But you have to have a sense of perspective when you decide on what to emphasize. The incidents are in the 100's--and they don't happen as a result of the reasoned arguments made against fundamentalist islam that just say "islam" instead. It is not a reason to stifle debate--but that's what I have seen consistently. The political lines have been drawn, and many peoples sole comment on issues far more serious than local anti-muslim sentiment is to chuck a rock with "right wing nutjob islamaphobe" written on it over to the other side.
Reenk Roink
08-11-2010, 23:15
You are completely wrong and off track reenk.
No, I don't think I've ever been more right in my entire life. You CERTAINLY haven't shown me otherwise either, as we will deal with below... :juggle2:
When people say "the problem with Islam", they mean, quite precisely, "the problem with "fundamentalist" islam as it is interpreted and practiced today". There are real problems.
OK?
For god's sake who the hell is denying that there are real problems? Who? The problem comes with people who make sweeping generalizations in feeble attempts "to show the real problems". It is sad, as I think some of them are unaware of how much their approach is backfiring on them. :juggle2:
Hirsi Ali quote - etc.
See, one thing I don't like about myself is that I actually bother to read what people post when I get engaged into a discussion out of courtesy even though my brain screams don't waste your time. When I saw the name of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I knew what to expect. As I read, the thing that I instantly drew parallels to was Louis's graphic story about a child being sodomized by a priest (and him smuggling in the 10000 kids figure there to somehow imply that 10000 cases were all of the most grotesque sodomy that he described). I mean, do you guys think this is at all convincing to your interlocutor? They just get annoyed by the appeal to empathy and the unnecessary length of the content. :wall:
So there is FGM practiced the Muslim world. It does even get support from Muslims, including leaders. Does this in any way excuse the flagrant factually and politically incorrect generalizations made by some posters? No. When the root causes of Problem X are shown to be something different from the religion of Islam and the majority of it's followers, is the criticism of Islam based on the occurrence and justification of X by some Muslims still valid? No, it is rightly called tenuous. Of course people like Hirsi Ali will still go and spout off incorrect factoids about the frequency and proportion of Islamic terrorism in America for a very clear political agenda, but people who are actually aware of the truth will call out such demagoguery.
The issue with the debates on this topic are that some people (almost pigheadedly) act as if "Islam" is being used a sentence in the same way that "Christianity" would be used.
First, who is being pigheaded about it? Second, they shouldn't be pigheaded about it? Rather, I say people should be more particular about their choice of words...
This is a blatant comprehension error that should be obvious. Arguing technical definitions is facile. Words are defined by their usage.
Trust me, in my discussions with you I know that you are...causal... with your terminology. I wanted to nitpick your terms, I would have done so. That was not at ALL what my post was about Sasaki, and you may have to reread it to understand. The only person bringing up semantics here is you.
I understand it is hard to argue against the quantitative evidence I pointed out, but are you serious with some of these responses? :no:
Person B: There's no basis for that in the koran. Islam can be a beautiful "secularized" religion like christianity is today, and has been in history and often is today.
Who the hell in this thread is person B? :huh:
Sometimes it leads to friction. And I'm sure it's nasty and stuff to have that kind of friction in our own precious little countries.
This is why people shouldn't paint things with broad brushes. Because then they will be dismissed as 1) wrong and 2) inflammatory and not worth the time. People who do this have got to realize how much this doesn't do anything for their case.
But all too often Person B goes "eww I don't want to associate with "islamaphobes", retreats into lazy relativism, and doesn't speak out against very legitimate problems (even if you think they are "overexaggarated" as you dismissively say).
I don't blame anyone for not wasting their time with islamophobes. So again, who is this person B? Who.
You have to understand exactly what you're saying reenk. That someone who doesn't have precise knowledge of how many secular-islam muslims there are is more foolish than someone who ignores female circumcision because they have accepted relativism for stupid reasons.
Actually, I think you need to understand what I'm saying Sasaki, instead of reading something in that you may think is at all sympathetic to relativism and jumping on it. My point is clear from my last post: The problems frequently attributed to Muslims and Islam are VASTLY overexagerrated. Painting Muslims and Islam with broad strokes is wrong, mean, and counterproductive to the problems these people seem to want to solve, and it shouldn't be done.
Do people ignore pedophilia because they don't buy into the Church bashing broad strokes of others? Are people retreating into "lazy relativism" because they argue against the notion that the Church was a persecutor and an hindrance to scientific progress. A lot of buzzwords, no substance.
Lastly, do all of your posts get into tirades against relativism? We get it, you don't like moral relativism. We have since the morality thread or before.
PanzerJaeger
08-11-2010, 23:30
On the other issues except terrorism which you tried to give to justify this marginalization of Islam (? - that's probably (hopefully) not what you're doing, but damn, it sure sounded like it), the women issue is a legitimate problem in the Muslim world though overexagerrated, but as for Muslim anti-semitism, I posted before on this and it seems to have to do in most part with the geopolitical issue with Israel, which is why Lebanese Christians have the exact same view of Jews as Lebanese Muslims (0% favorable) and why Lebanese Christians support Hezbollah now more than Lebanese Sunni Muslims (all on Pew Global Research). Basing a criticism of Islam on Muslim anti-semitism feelings seems tenuous.
One small independent clause couched between two other points in such a long defense of Islam(And its sole purpose was to understate the problem!) is all these women merit? They don’t even deserve a complete sentence? And what of the gays… and really anyone who isn’t and upstanding Muslim male? What does Islam proscribe for them?
If it is, well, when people say "the problem with Islam" while they mean "the problem with "fundamentalist" islam", then they need to learn to be more specific and to chose their words more careful.
Fundamentalist Islam is Islam. Everything else is just a diluted exercise in maintaining cultural tradition.
Tellos Athenaios
08-11-2010, 23:33
It is certainly potentially misleading--although I think you have to be obstinate not to see what people are really referring too.
Or just never giving anything more than a cursory glance, accepting any opinion as fact without questioning its merit. If a person does that long enough when reading “Islam” and “fundamentalist Islam” in one sentence, is that person going to see a difference between the two, able to distinguish meaning in the context? Especially when that person comes across the occasional opinion maintains all Islam is fundamentalist Islam or at least just as bad?
Tellos Athenaios
08-11-2010, 23:36
Fundamentalist Islam is Islam. Everything else is just a diluted exercise in maintaining cultural tradition.
Thank your for proving the point. By the way: substitute religions as you see fit here, and you can still make a case for the result. (Fundamentalist Christianity is Christianity. Fundamentalist Hinduism is Hinduism.) All the fundamentalists do, they live off that sentiment.
Reenk Roink
08-11-2010, 23:40
One small independent clause couched between two other points in such a long defense of Islam(And its sole purpose was to understate the problem!) is all these women merit? They don’t even deserve a complete sentence? And what of the gays… and really anyone who isn’t and upstanding Muslim male? What does Islam proscribe for them?
:laugh4: I considered omitting the part about women because I didn't have the research in front of me to argue more thoroughly against it like with terrorism. Then I realized that I would be called out for not mentioning it by people in the thread who would likely ignore the rest of the post. But I wasn't feeling like spending time actually doing the google, so I just went ahead and conceded what my general impression is, the problem exists but is overexagerrated.
Of course look at the content of the response. Not even a complete sentence! :rolleyes: :laugh4:
Do realize this Panzer, though I have not touched on women/gays, I haven't seen any good statistics backing it either. All I know is that women aren't exactly treated well in many parts of the world, especially in Africa and Asia, and all of the countries are certainly not Muslim. I also know of an Ugandan anti gay bill that prescribes some pretty tough penalties. But hey, I'll admit it when I'm shown that Muslims are significantly more homophobic or misogynistic than other people with similar cultural backgrounds.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-12-2010, 00:44
So there is FGM practiced the Muslim world. It does even get support from Muslims, including leaders. Does this in any way excuse the flagrant factually and politically incorrect generalizations made by some posters? No.When the root causes of Problem X are shown to be something different from the religion of Islam and the majority of it's followers, is the criticism of Islam based on the occurrence and justification of X by some Muslims still valid? No, it is rightly called tenuous. .
It is used as justification. Fundamentalist religion is like that. This makes it problematic. This is what makes your argument facile--what was that comment earlier where you excused the 100% anti-semitic number for jordanian muslims because the christians there were 100% anti-semitic too? Do you imagine that it's some competition, where we only speak badly of islam if at least 20% more of the women in those countries are beaten than in other countries? I know you're religious, but get with the 20th century, fundamentalist religion has been used to justify many terrible things and that is undeniably a problem with it. Neither "religion is fine when modernized" nor "there are other things that cause wife-beating" are excuses.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-12-2010, 01:04
so I just went ahead and conceded what my general impression is, the problem exists but is overexagerrated.
Do realize this Panzer, though I have not touched on women/gays, I haven't seen any good statistics backing it either. All I know is that women aren't exactly treated well in many parts of the world, especially in Africa and Asia, and all of the countries are certainly not Muslim. I also know of an Ugandan anti gay bill that prescribes some pretty tough penalties. But hey, I'll admit it when I'm shown that Muslims are significantly more homophobic or misogynistic than other people with similar cultural backgrounds.
Reenk are you seriously going with this last line? :embarassed: misogyny is a problem no matter the cause. Historically it's been part of every culture, hasn't it? The institutions that encourage and enforce it are bad, that's common sense. Sad thing is it's quite likely that the only reason the world is focusing on misogyny in islam right now is because of the terrorist attacks. It's clear that in muslim societies the fundamentalist islam is bad for women (among other things). I don't know what you say about that. Are you just pissed that islam is being singled out at the moment or something? Your protests about the flagrant factual errors fall flat.
Reenk Roink
08-12-2010, 01:13
It is used as justification. Fundamentalist religion is like that. This makes it problematic. This is what makes your argument facile--what was that comment earlier where you excused the 100% anti-semitic number for jordanian muslims because the christians there were 100% anti-semitic too? Do you imagine that it's some competition, where we only speak badly of islam if at least 20% more of the women in those countries are beaten than in other countries? I know you're religious, but get with the 20th century, fundamentalist religion has been used to justify many terrible things and that is undeniably a problem with it. Neither "religion is fine when modernized" nor "there are other things that cause wife-beating" are excuses.
So essentially, your only real point to be made is that Islam is used as an justification for things like FGM, which also leads you to the larger point that religion is used as an justification for many bad things. And that this is problematic. Great. Well, just so you know, I like religion, and I'm not going to rage against religion because it it used to justify bad things, just like I don't rage against, well, anything because it justifies something. I know you aren't religious and you have an axe to grind against it but that's just silly.
The rest of your post really is telling Sasaki. I'm becoming more and more convinced that you blasted through my posts (and probably Seamus's post to boot), read some gist INTO it about moral relativism which got you predictably outraged, and then replied. Now you are either really clueless about what I wrote or are constructing the worst strawman ever.
The purported 100% anti-semitism thing is actually a 0% "favorable" opinion - and it's in Lebanon. The point of the comment wasn't to "excuse it" as you ridiculously assert, it was to show how dumb the idea of there being some kind of simplistic link that Islam caused anti-semitism, when it is pretty obvious that geopolitical concerns play a big part. Then you rhetorically ask some more dumb questions, like about their being competitions and put some statements cleverly in quotes like I actually said or implied them. How boring. Still, I guess I'll take this weak attempt at a smear over a rant on semantics.
Do yourself a favor and try to actually understand what the hell you post about before posting. Don't rage against things that aren't even meant to be written between the lines.
Reenk are you seriously going with this last line? misogyny is a problem no matter the cause. Historically it's been part of every culture, hasn't it? The institutions that encourage and enforce it are bad, that's common sense. Sad thing is it's quite likely that the only reason the world is focusing on misogyny in islam right now is because of the terrorist attacks. It's clear that in muslim societies the fundamentalist islam is bad for women (among other things). I don't know what you say about that. Are you just pissed that islam is being singled out at the moment or something? Your protests about the flagrant factual errors fall flat.
Well this post is a big improvement over the first one (though I guess that isn't saying much). But honestly, you're repeating what I've already answered in the thread. Misogyny may be a problem. Islam may be used to inspire and justify it. OK????? What does that have to do with Seamus's or my positions on things?
If you haven't read the original post I made, then the first reply to you, here it is again:
My point is clear from my last post: The problems frequently attributed to Muslims and Islam are VASTLY overexagerrated. Painting Muslims and Islam with broad strokes is wrong, mean, and counterproductive to the problems these people seem to want to solve, and it shouldn't be done
You know for a person who was so worried about this:
But all too often Person B goes "eww I don't want to associate with "islamaphobes", retreats into lazy relativism, and doesn't speak out against very legitimate problems
You haven't demonstrated ONE example of it. On the other hand, it's become clear that you yourself simply view any defense of Muslims/Islam as lazy relativism/justifying atrocities/other crap, even if that 'defense' is just a nuancing of ridiculously wrong generalizations.
Since you seem to like to portray yourself as concerned about atrocities, do realize how much the hate crimes against Muslims (and Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, any one who "looks" Muslim or Arab) due to simplistic, factually and politically incorrect statements. On the other hand, the problems you're speaking about aren't going away because of this rhetoric.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-12-2010, 01:24
No, the relativism comments weren't directed at you. I was making general statements about the debate--we've had dozens of threads on it and it's in the news. I thought you understood that when you said that "who's person B???" stuff but were just being argumentative :p but if you think i'm strawmanning you then I guess not, but remember this?
My beef is the people who hijack any criticism of fundamentalist islam and yammer on about how the criticism is islamaphobic. It's a footnote that has been elevated to being the whole debate. Can't we focus on what's really important? We have had threads on this very forum where an issue with fundamentalist islam was raised and people were unwilling to criticize because (to paraphrase) "I'm uncomfortable that islamaphobes are supporting it".
My general point was about the negatives of underestimating the problems that islam contributes to with the negatives of overestimating.
Painting Muslims and Islam with broad strokes is wrong, mean, and counterproductive to the problems these people seem to want to solve, and it shouldn't be done
Well yes--
Look, there have been quite a few anti-muslim attacks in our countries. I remember seeing a bit on 60 minutes about one how one of our best cia agents was falsely accused and her citizenship revoked after 9/11 due to anti-muslim sentiment. Combating that is important.
Still, I guess I'll take this weak attempt at a smear over a rant on semantics.
You've been a bit antagonistic too :sweatdrop:
Reenk Roink
08-12-2010, 01:32
No, the relativism comments weren't directed at you. I was making general statements about the debate--we've had dozens of threads on it and it's in the news. I thought you understood that when you said that "who's person B???" stuff but were just being argumentative :p but if you think i'm strawmanning you then I guess not, but remember this?
My general point was about the negatives of underestimating the problems that islam contributes to with the negatives of overestimating.
Fair enough point here in theory, but the impression I get from following news is that the "overestimating" goes on a lot more than the "underestimating", obviously both are problematic, but one seems to be a lot more problematic than the other.
You've been a bit antagonistic too :sweatdrop:
Given that you basically went off on every little tangent and read things into my posts I didn't say, can you understand why?
Sasaki Kojiro
08-12-2010, 01:45
Fair enough point here in theory, but the impression I get from following news is that the "overestimating" goes on a lot more than the "underestimating", obviously both are problematic, but one seems to be a lot more problematic than the other.
It seems like underestimating by some feeds overestimating by others--and vice versa. I have more of a personal beef with someone who underestimates than someone who overestimates.
Given that you basically went off on every little tangent and read things into my posts I didn't say, can you understand why?
Sure. I meant to make it clear that I wasn't putting words in your mouth, but rather thinking of all the arguments that I've heard made on both sides and looking for a common trend.
PanzerJaeger
08-12-2010, 01:56
Do realize this Panzer, though I have not touched on women/gays, I haven't seen any good statistics backing it either. All I know is that women aren't exactly treated well in many parts of the world, especially in Africa and Asia, and all of the countries are certainly not Muslim. I also know of an Ugandan anti gay bill that prescribes some pretty tough penalties. But hey, I'll admit it when I'm shown that Muslims are significantly more homophobic or misogynistic than other people with similar cultural backgrounds.
In your estimation, what is the main justification given for hatred and mistreatment of gays, for example, in predominantly Muslim parts of the world. I know what it is in the United States, and I doubt it’s any different over there.
Reenk Roink
08-12-2010, 02:16
It seems like underestimating by some feeds overestimating by others--and vice versa. I have more of a personal beef with someone who underestimates than someone who overestimates.
OK, well if I hear someone say "the Church has no problems with molesting children at all and such actions are completely against" I consider that to be less offensive than saying "A majority of priests molest kids and the Church's teachings lead to and support it" It seems to me that hiding the dirty laundry of someone is just a more classy thing. Is it better to let guilty men free or punish innocents? I prefer the former. Further in my estimation, the whitewashed statement is closer to the truth.
But here's the thing, I really don't see this happening. People who would defend the church would likely say "The Church's allegations of pedophilia are vastly overblown, as statistics have shown that the occurrence rates are about the same in other religious communities, and the Church certainly does not condone this practice."
This third approach is definitely one the good guys take. It's factually correct, but it also is done in a tactful way. This also is a lot more likely to be successful in remedying the problem, rather than exaggerate which leads like you pointed out to flat out denial, but also feelings of exclusion and anger, and which can exaggerated the problem.
If however these type of people were then accosted and accused of excusing and justifying pedophilia, moral relativism, and playing semantic games, you can probably guess they would be pissed off. ~;) Especially if this kind of stuff came from a guy you expected a lot better from in your prior experience.
PJ: The justification is Islam.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-12-2010, 02:43
Oh, I read a book recently (tyranny of guilt) and the guy was very convinced that underestimating is a pervasive and serious problem in europe. I figured he's european so he probably knows more about europe than I do. His psychoanalysis was a bit broad and sweeping so I gave it a test run on the forum. His basic idea seemed pretty sound.
The problem with the Islam is first and foremost leftists who want to fold it in their loving embrace, like an overly protective mother they hiss at everyone who bring up even the remote possibility of a problem, and when they see it themself they ignore it because there can't be trouble in their perfect family. I AM A GOOD MOTHER.
Cute Wolf
08-12-2010, 06:39
The problem with the Islam is first and foremost leftists who want to fold it in their loving embrace, like an overly protective mother they hiss at everyone who bring up even the remote possibility of a problem, and when they see it themself they ignore it because there can't be trouble in their perfect family. I AM A GOOD MOTHER.
they never know, when this child gains majority in a country, they will systematically strip everyone that sasn't muslim form their rights, right now is Ramadhan, the muslims are fasting, and no food shop opened except in downtown and that was pretty much annual misery that I endure here, eating on the open will made me fined, and I didn't have much beer left right now.... dammit, and you leftist still said muslims are different from "fundamentalist muslims"... geez....
heh, you are a minority in a muslim country, do you really think you know more about it than a selfcongratulating morally superior pipesmoking gutmensch with a degree in sociology.
Things are different here though, there are many moderate muslims who don't want all that, but it changes once the beards get a hold, then the intimidation of these muslims begins. The rather sinister named 'uncles'.
edit: for fairness of argument I'm tossing some ammo at the other side http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/?ArID=123569 Patterson's proposal is taken into consideration
al Roumi
08-12-2010, 12:03
Fundamentalist Islam is Islam. Everything else is just a diluted exercise in maintaining cultural tradition.
No, "fundamentalist Islam" is not teh Islam, or Islam in its Acme form. Saying this you are doing a massive favour to fundamentalists. There are many forms of fundamentalist islam (most notoriously Wahabism/Salafism), and many forms of non-fundamentalist Islam (e.g. Sufism). To say one is more "Islamic" than another is as wrong as to say 7th day Adventists are more "Christian" than Anglicans, Catholics or Greek Orthodox. Clearly, each will consider themselves as Islamic or Christian as the other (if not more so, as of course THEY are right).
In saying that the only true Muslim is a fundamentalist (e.g. Wahabi in favour of AQ), you simultatneously insult and impair the non-fundamentalist, while bolstering the arguments of both AQ and fundamentalist Muslims.
Some may see the issue of AQ and fundamentalists/extremsists as an East/West contest, they are blind to the greater, and far bloodier, East/East contest that is internal to the Muslim world. There is a risk that if the west shuns non-fundamentalist muslims, they will lose their "battle" with the extremists.
Rhyfelwyr
08-12-2010, 13:46
No, "fundamentalist Islam" is not teh Islam, or Islam in its Acme form.
People do the same with Christianity, If I had a penny for everytime someone told me real Christians don't eat pork...
Well actually such an interpretation would be more literalist than fundamentalist, but anyway.
rory_20_uk
08-12-2010, 13:57
According to Timothy 2 Christians should all eat meat:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
002: Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
003: Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
004: For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
005: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
~:smoking:
Skullheadhq
08-12-2010, 15:28
they never know, when this child gains majority in a country, they will systematically strip everyone that sasn't muslim form their rights, right now is Ramadhan, the muslims are fasting, and no food shop opened except in downtown and that was pretty much annual misery that I endure here, eating on the open will made me fined, and I didn't have much beer left right now.... dammit, and you leftist still said muslims are different from "fundamentalist muslims"... geez....
That sucks, you get fined for eating?
Seamus Fermanagh
08-12-2010, 15:49
Panzer:
Like you, I am less than sanguine about Islamic fundamentalists. To be fair, I also get a little cockeyed over Christian fundamentalists as well -- Westboro Baptist and Appalachian snake services for example. I would no more claim the latter to be inherently "not real" Americans than I would the former.
Please Note: I am actually unsure of how much of the misogyny associated with Islam is a product of Islam as opposed to a product of traditional Arabian/West Asian cultural practice. I am not going to assume the religion to be the sole/primary source here, though I note the possibility. The mis-treatment of women all to prevalent in many Islamic countries is not acceptable to me.
What I want from a "real" American is for you to emigrate to this country legally, learn its civic traditions, and work for the betterment of your community, your state, and your country. By preference, you should be involved and aware and not reveling in your own ignorance, and it would be appropriate for you to vote in elections. Serving in the military is a plus. Religion, skin-color, or your preference for copulating with your own lawn furniture is pretty much irrelevant to this (providing appropriate social decorum is observed).
al Roumi
08-12-2010, 15:57
Please Note: I am actually unsure of how much of the misogyny associated with Islam is a product of Islam as opposed to a product of traditional Arabian/West Asian cultural practice. I am not going to assume the religion to be the sole/primary source here, though I note the possibility. The mis-treatment of women all to prevalent in many Islamic countries is not acceptable to me.
With respect to FGM (and only FGM), this is certainly not an "Islamic" -in the sense of appearing in the Qu'ran or Hadith - concept. It is popular in East African cultures, of which Hirsa Ali is descended, being Somali. I've never heard of Asian or Middle Eastern Muslims practicing FGM. My understanding is that FGM is an east African cultural concept, not directly related to Islam as it is also present in non Islamic East-African cultures.
But that is only FGM.
I guess FGM means forced girl marriage?
Rhyfelwyr
08-12-2010, 16:47
I guess FGM means forced girl marriage?
Female genital mutilation, I never got it till I went back and read the bit in Sasaki's spoilers.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.