Islamic group to build mosque adjacent to ground zero

[seireikhaan]

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 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.

[Husar]

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]

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.

[Beskar]

As for my "arguments based on nothing", this is my friend, Jim Greenleaf. 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.

[Fragony]

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

[Lemur]

As for my "arguments based on nothing", this is my friend, Jim Greenleaf. 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 appears to be next door to the WTC site. They predate 9/11/01, although I'm not sure why that matters.

[Fragony]

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]

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]

Too many emotions and ignorance in this issue for anyone to be making a truly rational argument here.

[Incongruous]

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.

[Andres]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[seireikhaan]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[Lemur]

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:

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[Lemur]

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]

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-gro...adical-dreams/

Up to you to descredit it now

[drone]

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?

[Lemur]

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 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.

[Fragony]

One of my posts up, edited it.

edit: look up what 'taqiyya' means.

[Lemur]

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 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.

[Fragony]

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]

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.

[rant]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. [/rant]

[Fragony]

[rant]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. [/rant]

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]

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.

I argee with the last part, but try telling that to our nice muslim friends.

[Hax]

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!

[Andres]

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

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.