Mosque to be built at ground zero

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 201 - 220 of total 905 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
PAUL SOUZA

Trad climber
Clovis, CA
Aug 17, 2010 - 03:56pm PT
There is no mosque being built.

lol
Gene

Social climber
Aug 17, 2010 - 04:10pm PT
Thanks, Ron Anderson.

I've changed my mind on this proposed mosque. We should only allow religions with values that conform to the current majority opinion in this country.

Get real.

g
Roger Breedlove

climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Aug 17, 2010 - 04:12pm PT

Ron, your statements about Muslims applied to all Muslims the world over are not right. Besides being a disservice to that faith, it is a great disservice to our country to hold onto such factually incorrect views.

Turkey is almost 100% Muslim, and it is a wide mix of everything between secular Western beliefs to fundamentalist. Indonesia is secular and the largest Muslim country in the world. Saudi Arabia is 100% Muslim, very conservative, the source of some of the worst Islamic teachings--the Wahhabi sect--and the country of most of the 9/11 terrorist, yet has fought off its internal terrorist with heavy handed police work and the outrage of its citizens that terrorist were in their midst.


From a Western perspective all the criticisms of and resistance to radical Islamic belief are fair. But most Muslims agree.

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 17, 2010 - 04:30pm PT
Ground Zero Imam Helped FBI with Counterterrorism Efforts:


In March 2003, federal officials were being criticized for disrespecting the rights of Arab-Americans in their efforts to crack down on domestic security threats in the post-9/11 environment. Hoping to calm the growing tempers, FBI officials in New York hosted a forum on ways to deal with Muslim and Arab-Americans without exacerbating social tensions. The bureau wanted to provide agents with "a clear picture," said Kevin Donovan, director of the FBI's New York office.

Brought in to speak that morning -- at the office building located just blocks from Ground Zero -- was one of the city's most respected Muslim voices: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The iman offered what was for him a familiar sermon to those in attendance. "Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron," he said. "It is a fundamental contradiction in terms."

It was, by contemporaneous news accounts, a successful lecture.

Flash forward six-and-a-half years, and Feisal Abdul Rauf occupies a far different place in the political consciousness. The iman behind a controversial proposal to build an Islamic cultural center near those same FBI offices has been called "a radical Muslim," a "militant Islamist" and, simply, the "enemy" by conservative critics. His Cordoba House project, meanwhile, has been framed as a conduit for Hamas to funnel money to domestic terrorist operations.

For those who actually know or have worked with the imam, the descriptions are frighteningly -- indeed, depressingly -- unhinged from reality. The Feisal Abdul Rauf they know, spent the past decade fighting against the very same cultural divisiveness and religious-based paranoia that currently surrounds him.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/ground-zero-imam-helped-f_n_685071.html
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 17, 2010 - 04:37pm PT
Cabeza, you said...

Don't you think it would be the essence of who we are as Americans to allow freedom of religion?

THIS is why we argue... We are talking about two totally different things. Any eighth grader knows that the Imam's group has a right to build the mosque. BUT THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE...

The issue is how incredibly disrespectful it would be to do so. Like many have said, sensitivity was shown when the Catholic church was considered, and then rejected near the Auschwitz site. Sensitivity would be shown to Muslims if in a similar situation. The problem we're arguing is that so many (often the same who think our country owes apologies to the rest of the world) think we Americans just need to continue debasing ourselves, and that no sensitivity to American values or the friends and family of 9/11 victims need to be shown.

It's not racist or un-American to expect the same sensitivity to our wounds as we strive to show for others. And that has nothing to do with religious freedom or racism.
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 17, 2010 - 04:48pm PT
Fifty-three percent of Manhattanites side with their mayor in favoring the Cordoba Center's construction; only 31% of voters disapprove of the planned center, according to a Marist poll on 10 August 2010.

And how many of those polled Manhattenites are Americans?
Crimpergirl

Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
Aug 17, 2010 - 04:53pm PT
Sensitivity continues to be mentioned (and I mentioned it too).

So, what are the thoughts about Glen Beck and Palin's proposed rally on the anniversary of, and exact location of, MLK's famous talk?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/16/AR2010081605042.html?nav=hcmodule

Clearly they have a right to do this (fact). But is it wise or sensitive (opinion)? Is this somehow different than the so-called Mosque that is proposed?
Roger Breedlove

climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Aug 17, 2010 - 04:53pm PT
As a proud American, I am against letting a relatively few Muslim wackjobs affect how I think about the 1 billion Muslims in the world. Just as I am against letting a relatively few American wackjobs affect how the rest of the world thinks about us.

Every Muslim I know from anywhere in the world is appalled that terrorist have highjacked their religion.

The comparison to the Catholic nuns at Auschwitz is specious in my mind.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Aug 17, 2010 - 04:54pm PT
Incredibly poor taste? As in the Westboro Baptist "Church", perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

A hell of a lot of tasteless things are done by all religious groups, and sometimes things that are worse than tasteless. Aren't you glad to have a constitution to protect you from them?

As for the Cordoba Centre, a clear majority of New Yorkers are OK with it. In a sense, it already exists, but not on the same site. There's no question that those involved do not promote or support fundamentalist "Islam" - quite the contrary. It is over two long Manhattan blocks (nearly a kilometre, I believe) from the former site of the World Trade Centre. If there were any skeletons in the closets of those promoting the centre - suspect funding or supporters, or that sort of thing - we'd long since have known about it.

The shrieking of the fundamentalist right on this serves only to further box them in as unconstitutional extremists.

The sad thing is that once the centre is built, it will probably have to be heavily guarded, to prevent attacks by fanatics of all stripes, including Muslims.
Mason

Trad climber
Yay Area
Aug 17, 2010 - 04:58pm PT
Shack wrote:

BTW: I do believe under the US Constitution and Federal law , they have every right to build a mosque wherever they want, even if it shows poor taste, bad judgement and offends many Americans.

Just to be fair here, I guess you don't see any problems with offending Muslims by drawing pictures of Mohammad with a bomb on his turban, or perhaps flushing Korans down the toilet in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib or the latest:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians_facebook

gtowey

Sport climber
Sunnyvale, CA
Aug 17, 2010 - 05:06pm PT
As a proud American, I am against letting a relatively few Muslim wackjobs affect how I think about the 1 billion Muslims in the world. Just as I am against letting a relatively few American wackjobs affect how the rest of the world thinks about us.

Quoted for truth. This ends the discussion =)
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Aug 17, 2010 - 05:06pm PT
Gene

Social climber
Aug 17, 2010 - 05:19pm PT
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/opinion/17dalrymple.html?src=me&ref=general

Please read this opinion piece. Thanks.

g
Roger Breedlove

climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Aug 17, 2010 - 05:28pm PT
Gene, this is a pretty good for the folks who need to get off the idea that there is one form of Islam. I had no idea that the guy behind this was a Sufi.

Here is the text in your link:

August 16, 2010
The Muslims in the Middle
By WILLIAM DALRYMPLE
New Delhi

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S eloquent endorsement on Friday of a planned Islamic cultural center near the World Trade Center, followed by his apparent retreat the next day, was just one of many paradoxes at the heart of the increasingly impassioned controversy.

We have seen the Anti-Defamation League, an organization dedicated to ending “unjust and unfair discrimination,” seek to discriminate against American Muslims. We have seen Newt Gingrich depict the organization behind the center — the Cordoba Initiative, which is dedicated to “improving Muslim-West relations” and interfaith dialogue — as a “deliberately insulting” and triumphalist force attempting to built a monument to Muslim victory near the site of the twin towers.

Most laughably, we have seen politicians like Rick Lazio, a Republican candidate for New York governor, question whether Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the principal figure behind the project, might have links to “radical organizations.”

The problem with such claims goes far beyond the fate of a mosque in downtown Manhattan. They show a dangerously inadequate understanding of the many divisions, complexities and nuances within the Islamic world — a failure that hugely hampers Western efforts to fight violent Islamic extremism and to reconcile Americans with peaceful adherents of the world’s second-largest religion.

Most of us are perfectly capable of making distinctions within the Christian world. The fact that someone is a Boston Roman Catholic doesn’t mean he’s in league with Irish Republican Army bomb makers, just as not all Orthodox Christians have ties to Serbian war criminals or Southern Baptists to the murderers of abortion doctors.

Yet many of our leaders have a tendency to see the Islamic world as a single, terrifying monolith. Had the George W. Bush administration been more aware of the irreconcilable differences between the Salafist jihadists of Al Qaeda and the secular Baathists of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the United States might never have blundered into a disastrous war, and instead kept its focus on rebuilding post-Taliban Afghanistan while the hearts and minds of the Afghans were still open to persuasion.

Feisal Abdul Rauf of the Cordoba Initiative is one of America’s leading thinkers of Sufism, the mystical form of Islam, which in terms of goals and outlook couldn’t be farther from the violent Wahhabism of the jihadists. His videos and sermons preach love, the remembrance of God (or “zikr”) and reconciliation. His slightly New Agey rhetoric makes him sound, for better or worse, like a Muslim Deepak Chopra. But in the eyes of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, he is an infidel-loving, grave-worshiping apostate; they no doubt regard him as a legitimate target for assassination.

For such moderate, pluralistic Sufi imams are the front line against the most violent forms of Islam. In the most radical parts of the Muslim world, Sufi leaders risk their lives for their tolerant beliefs, every bit as bravely as American troops on the ground in Baghdad and Kabul do. Sufism is the most pluralistic incarnation of Islam — accessible to the learned and the ignorant, the faithful and nonbelievers — and is thus a uniquely valuable bridge between East and West.

The great Sufi saints like the 13th-century Persian poet Rumi held that all existence and all religions were one, all manifestations of the same divine reality. What was important was not the empty ritual of the mosque, church, synagogue or temple, but the striving to understand that divinity can best be reached through the gateway of the human heart: that we all can find paradise within us, if we know where to look. In some ways Sufism, with its emphasis on love rather than judgment, represents the New Testament of Islam.

While the West remains blind to the divisions and distinctions within Islam, the challenge posed by the Sufi vision of the faith is not lost on the extremists. This was shown most violently on July 2, when the Pakistani Taliban organized a double-suicide bombing of the Data Darbar, the largest Sufi shrine in Lahore, Pakistan’s second-largest city. The attack took place on a Thursday night, when the shrine was at its busiest; 42 people were killed and 175 were injured.

This was only the latest in a series of assaults against Pakistan’s Sufis. In May, Peeru’s Cafe in Lahore, a cultural center where I had recently performed with a troupe of Sufi musicians, was bombed in the middle of its annual festival. An important site in a tribal area of the northwest — the tomb of Haji Sahib of Turangzai, a Sufi persecuted under British colonial rule for his social work — has been forcibly turned into a Taliban headquarters. Two shrines near Peshawar, the mausoleum of Bahadar Baba and the shrine of Abu Saeed Baba, have been destroyed by rocket fire.

Symbolically, however, the most devastating Taliban attack occurred last spring at the shrine of the 17th-century poet-saint Rahman Baba, at the foot of the Khyber Pass in northwest Pakistan. For centuries, the complex has been a place for musicians and poets to gather, and Rahman Baba’s Sufi verses had long made him the national poet of the Pashtuns living on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. “I am a lover, and I deal in love,” wrote the saint. “Sow flowers,/ so your surroundings become a garden./ Don’t sow thorns; for they will prick your feet./ We are all one body./ Whoever tortures another, wounds himself.”

THEN, about a decade ago, a Saudi-financed religious school, or madrasa, was built at the end of the path leading to the shrine. Soon its students took it upon themselves to halt what they see as the un-Islamic practices of Rahman Baba’s admirers. When I last visited it in 2003, the shrine-keeper, Tila Mohammed, described how young students were coming regularly to complain that his shrine was a center of idolatry and immorality.

“My family have been singing here for generations,” he told me. “But now these madrasa students come and tell us that what we do is wrong. They tell women to stay at home. This used to be a place where people came to get peace of mind. Now when they come here they just encounter more problems.”

Then, one morning in early March 2009, a group of Pakistani Taliban arrived at the shrine before dawn and placed dynamite packages around the squinches supporting the shrine’s dome. In the ensuing explosion, the mausoleum was destroyed, but at least nobody was killed. The Pakistani Taliban quickly took credit, blaming the shrine’s administrators for allowing women to pray and seek healing there.

The good news is that Sufis, though mild, are also resilient. While the Wahhabis have become dominant in northern Pakistan ever since we chose to finance their fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, things are different in Sindh Province in southern Pakistan. Sufis are putting up a strong resistance on behalf of the pluralist, composite culture that emerged in the course of a thousand years of cohabitation between Hinduism and Islam.

Last year, when I visited a shrine of the saint Lal Shahbaz Qalandar in the town of Sehwan, I was astonished by the strength and the openness of the feelings against those puritan mullahs who criticize as heresy all homage to Sufi saints.

“I feel that it is my duty to protect both the Sufi saints, just as they have protected me,” one woman told me. “Today in our Pakistan there are so many of these mullahs and Wahhabis who say that to pay respect to the saints in their shrines is heresy. Those hypocrites! They sit there reading their law books and arguing about how long their beards should be, and fail to listen to the true message of the prophet.”

There are many like her; indeed, until recently Sufism was the dominant form of Islam in South Asia. And her point of view shows why the West would do well to view Sufis as natural allies against the extremists. A 2007 study by the RAND Corporation found that Sufis’ open, intellectual interpretation of Islam makes them ideal “partners in the effort to combat Islamist extremism.”

Sufism is an entirely indigenous, deeply rooted resistance movement against violent Islamic radicalism. Whether it can be harnessed to a political end is not clear. But the least we can do is to encourage the Sufis in our own societies. Men like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf should be embraced as vital allies, and we should have only contempt for those who, through ignorance or political calculation, attempt to conflate them with the extremists.


William Dalrymple is the author, most recently, of “Nine Lives: In Search of the Sacred in Modern India.”

Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 17, 2010 - 07:11pm PT
The comparison to the Catholic nuns at Auschwitz is specious in my mind.

How so? Both are legitimate religions with millions of followers, including the benevolent and dangerous. And both Islam and Christianity, though not directly on trial, were rallying idealogies to those committing the atrocities in question. The convent was canceled due to this and due to its conspicuous proximity to Auschwitz...why not follow that lead and cancel the mosque plans?

Anderson's analogy of the Enola Gay at Hiroshima hits even closer to the mark. How about a 300' flag pole with a huge Star Spangled Banner right on the spot where Fat Boy landed?

You have to scratch your head about why anyone would want to do this. It's even more disturbing when considering the Imam's comments about us bringing 9/11 onto ourselves.
Gene

Social climber
Aug 17, 2010 - 07:17pm PT
Anderson's analogy of the Enola Gay at Hiroshima hits even closer to the mark. How about a 300' flag pole with a huge Star Spangled Banner right on the spot where Fat Boy landed?

Fat Boy was dropped on Nagasaki. Little Boy destroyed Hiroshima. But what do troublesome facts have to do with credibility?

g
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 17, 2010 - 07:21pm PT
I understand the proposed Mosque would NOT be built at "ground zero".

In fact, the location is somewhere more than two blocks away from the outside limit of the ground zero attack location.


How far is far enough to build a Mosque?

Six blocks?

10 blocks?

18 blocks?

the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Aug 17, 2010 - 07:24pm PT
The above analogies don't hold water.

A decent analogy is: would it be ok to build a Catholic Church a few blocks from the Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta?

If you are opposed to a mosque a few blocks from ground zero, then you must oppose a Catholic church near another terror attack from a nutjob from that religion.... right??
Gene

Social climber
Aug 17, 2010 - 07:28pm PT
You have to scratch your head about why anyone would want to do this. It's even more disturbing when considering the Imam's comments about us bringing 9/11 onto ourselves.


He's got company about "bringing 9/11 onto ourselves."
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Aug 17, 2010 - 07:29pm PT
I don't think anybody is opposed to the building of a mosque in a different spot. You have to wonder why they are insistent on going against public opinion to put it where they are planning.

Don't they claim to be trying to promote tolerance and understanding? A good way to do that would be to heed the will of the public.
Messages 201 - 220 of total 905 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta