Islamic group to build mosque adjacent to ground zero

[Don Corleone]

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" 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]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[CountArach]

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?

[Don Corleone]

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 you mention was only included on Sunday evening, in advance of a critical vote by the Landmark Commission today.

[drone]

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.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

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.


Can you see us building a church in Lebanon or Tehran?

[Ser Clegane]

Can you see us building a church in Lebanon or Tehran?

yeah - unthinkable...

[Hax]

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 in new sects.

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!

[Beskar]

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.

[Andres]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[Lemur]

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.

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.

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]

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?

[Andres]

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.

[Ice]

Bad taste in my opinion, but if the zoning for it was correct, nothing NYC or anyone can do.

[al Roumi]

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.


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/issu...ilizations.php

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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]

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]

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]

I don't dissagree

You're not allowed to do that when we debate on Christianity.

[al Roumi]

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.