Mosques No Where Near Ground Zero Meet Stiff Resistance

What does the credential of any US citizen have to do with the right to legally sponsor or build any building within the US?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did you misunderstand my point in the dialogue with Bells? Let me know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm looking for the point, actually. What is the point?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You should probably read the complete argument that Bells and I were having about El-Gamal, which is on the other thread.

Then again, discerning the point by jumping in at the last minute is a difficult maneuver at the best of times.

 

Its still a good point: Jews and synagagoues predate both Islam and Arab race in this region. Do Muslims not believe in reciprocity?

 

Will the real slim Sufi please stand up?

Of what?

Then demonstrate, or be silent thereof. :shrug:

Ah. And I still do. Do you follow yet?

More like: no one would be asking if his history of associations were not already sketchy, his claims of funding alternating between the United States (when in the US) and elsewhere (when abroad).

I said exactly that? Careful now. Why don't you take the time to examine what I actually write? For instance: where did I write "hallowed and sacred"?

Oh? And here I'd thought it was the message. If you don't like the website, that's fine: I don't like the ultra right wing, and I was interested in it only to the extent that it illustrated a few examples of some of the damage around Ground Zero, including right in front of the Burlington Coat Factory. However, your "StormFrent" throw-in is weasel language, as you know very well. I have no association with them whatsoever; I suppose in that vein I should bow to your greater experience.

Now that we've settled that, the author does make one or two good points. How much of that dust do you suppose is powdered human remains? Not much, I would guess, but it does seem a little insensitive of Rauf if he's simultaneously taking money from Saudi Arabia. Doesn't seem "proper". Insert whatever histrionics you prefer into the quotes.

Interesting. I like this idea. The same should go for the Dems, of course, as they strike me as extraordinarily fishy also. In point of fact, it appears that New York State may be financing much of the build: the proposed mosque appears to qualify for public financing. This may well be a good thing: a partially publically financed centre might be obligated to ensure that no hate speech is being disseminated within their building on peril of legal and financial penalty.

No, I just don't care about your point; it is extraneous to the discussion, as you know full well.

And? Frankly, whatever their objectives, I prefer to know.

Rather, I take the precaution to ward off tomfoolery, and the inevitable dishonest arguments that invite themselves to the party thereafter. There was a simple way to avoid it, Bells, which you did not take. Actually, a couple of ways.

That was possibly the most absurd argument on the thread yet. "You don't agree with me, so that proves your dishonesty." Councillor, give it a rest.

Very well. I wish you to take no insult from my comments: first, since that would be unfair to you. I also would hate them to be the centrepiece of some internal argument, dragged up in perpetuity for reasons of personal malice.

Please illustrate evidence that she didn't go to the police. At this point, neither of us are able to say. If not, why not? Is she, too, a Republican plant? Did she perhaps feel that nothing could or would be done?

Really? I see: I am encouraging vigilantism, personal violence and riot. Because I hold a contrary opinion. Questioning Rauf's support and intentions must unfairly indite all Muslims because of some bizarre guilt-by-association (regardless of his views or his money sourcing), but linking my opinions to a bunch of thugs is perfectly acceptable. Tell you what, we'll venture back into the fairness zone again: please demonstrate evidence of your argument. Thanks.

And, in so doing, to dismiss it. Otherwise why ask?

Sorry: what? I'm sorry, but I cannot believe you would be so ignorant as to think that this meant all Muslims, rather than conservative Muslims the like of the Saudis. I must expect that this is another tactic of yours.

Edit: Or I would, if not for...

And I can't believe you're trying to rephrase the argument this way. Although...initially I wasn't sure whether you were trying to base your argument on some seized-on association that you've created ("Muslims" as opposed to "Conservative Muslims in the Saudi style", the latter being obviously the intended target), or if you really believed this was my point. Then I saw your answer below:

First off, "those people" (the adherents of Conservative Islam) certainly exist. Are "these people" (Rauf, El-Gamal, etc) "those people" (Saudi philosophists)? It's a valid question, and one that deserves an answer.

Although, see the bolded text above, where you make the unfounded accusation without any room for maneuver. So which really is your belief on this matter? Is it merely an argumentative ploy - as I suspect - or is it your actual belief? You seem to distance yourself from it underneath. It's a very twisted stance. You can PM me with the truth if you like - I give you my word not to reveal your answer.

 

Mod Hat - Inquiry

Mod Hat — Inquiry (of a sort)

I have been reviewing the thread in order to figure out just how much I need to cut away, but then I paused to wonder if it's really worth it.

Thus, a simple question: Is this discussion actually going anywhere?

Useful, I mean? I mean, of course I have my own inclinations and sympathies, but as far as this silly green hat is concerned, they're irrelevant.

Thus, I'm left looking at something that could be asserted as the Sciforums variation of gladiator sport. And while that can be entertaining, for a while at least, it seems we're getting away from the topic itself while carrying out this spectacle in its orbit.

Personally, I don't object; as a policy matter, though, I am inclined to notice, and in noticing, wonder.

 

Balancing acts, all around

Would you show the same scrutiny to the State Department?

In recent weeks, Mr. Abdul Rauf has barely been heard from as a national political debate explodes over his dream project, including, somewhere in its planned 15 stories, a mosque. Opponents have called his project an act of insensitivity, even a monument to terrorism.

In his absence — he is now on another Middle East speaking tour sponsored by the State Department — a host of allegations have been floated: that he supports terrorism; that his father, who worked at the behest of the Egyptian government, was a militant; that his publicly expressed views mask stealth extremism. Some charges, the available record suggests, are unsupported. Some are simplifications of his ideas. In any case, calling him a jihadist appears even less credible than calling him a United States agent.

(Barnard)​

Imam Rauf apparently cannot get a break. On this side of the Atlantic, he is accused of being subversive. Across the pond, in Egypt, he must disclaim that he is not a propaganda tool of the American government.

The act of questioning is not in and of itself problematic. The foundations of the question, however, are of paramount importance to assessing the inquiry itself, just as the basis of the answer one prescribes is essential to measuring its credibility.
____________________

Notes:

Barnard, Anne. "For Imam in Muslim Center Furor, a Hard Balancing Act". The New York Times. August 22, 2010; page A1. NYTimes.com. August 29, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregion/22imam.html

 

Arson at Murfreesboro mosque construction site

A story to follow:

Federal officials are investigating a fire that started overnight at the site of a new Islamic center in a Nashville suburb.

Ben Goodwin of the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department confirmed to CBS Affiliate WTVF that the fire, which burned construction equipment at the future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, is being ruled as arson.

Special Agent Andy Anderson of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told CBS News that the fire destroyed one piece of construction equipment and damaged three others. Gas was poured over the equipment to start the fire, Anderson said ....

.... Digging had begun at the site, which was planned as a place of worship for the approximately 250 Muslim families in the Murfreesboro area, but no structure had been built yet, according to Saleh Sbenaty, a member of the planning committee and a professor of engineering technology at Middle Tennessee State University.

"This is a shock," said Sbenaty. "We've had small act of vandals. But this is going to be a crime and whoever did it, they should be punished to the full extent of the law."

The center had operated for years out of a small business suite. Planning members said the new building, which was being constructed next to a church, would help accommodate the area's growing Muslim community.

"We unfortunately did not experience hostilities for the 30 years we've been here and have only seen the hostility since approval of the site plan for the new center," said Sbenaty.

Opponents of a new Islamic center say they believe the mosque will be more than a place of prayer; they are afraid the 15-acre site that was once farmland will be turned into a terrorist training ground for Muslim militants bent on overthrowing the U.S. government.

"They are not a religion. They are a political, militaristic group," Bob Shelton, a 76-year-old retiree who lives in the area, told The Associated Press.

Shelton was among several hundred demonstrators who recently wore "Vote for Jesus" T-shirts and carried signs that said "No Sharia law for USA!," referring to the Islamic code of law.

Others took their opposition further, spray painting a sign announcing the "Future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro" and tearing it up.

Earlier this summer opponents criticized the planned mosque at hearings held by the Rutherford County Commission, as supporters held prayer vigils.

At one such prayer vigil, WTVF reported opponents speaking out against construction.

"No mosque in Murfreesboro. I don't want it. I don't want them here," Evy Summers said to WTVF. "Go start their own country overseas somewhere. This is a Christian country. It was based on Christianity."

(CBS and Associated Press)​

As of now, there are no suspects. The fire could be anti-Islamic terrorism as easily as it could be a disgruntled employee of the construction company or an insurance scam. But with tensions in Murfreesboro so high, and such vociferous opposition to the planned mosque, many are naturally suspecting that the arson targeted the site as a statement against Islam.

Let us, then, follow this story, and discover in time whether this was just an act of idocy or a defense of the "land of the free and the home of the brave".
_____________________

Notes:

CBS and Associated Press. "Fire at Tenn. Mosque Building Site Ruled Arson". CBS News. August 28, 2010. CBSNews.com. August 29, 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/28/national/main6814690.shtml

 

I liked the part "This is a Christian country, based on Christianity".

A real gold-plated crock is that one. I thought the founding principles were based on capitalism, hence "Christian millionaires" who chase the good dollars.

 

It's largely pointless. Essentially the majority is me defending myself against a round of the same baseless allegations as in a previous thread. You're correct when you call it gladiator sport: two posters enter, one poster leaves.

:shrug: Of course. If we're going to call the whole thing political, then the other side is face in the Arab world.

Actually I read this article a while back - there's this vague assertion by Rauf that he's had to deny that he's an American agent. I pressed Bells on this but didn't get anything; WRT the article it boils down to his denying it to a couple of students or the like in the audience of one of his lectures. The 'widespread accusation' appears to be sufficiently wide so as to be completely elusive.

The latter being debatable so far, who knows which way his wind blows? Schwartz wrote a while back on his questionable Sufist strategy here; I suppose it's rare that you meet one so determined to seem like an asshole.

I'm all for questioning the questioners, so long as the questioning of the questioners is open to question. But if the questioning of the questioners was carried out in a questionable way, then this would render those questioners subject to question. This is a question I've been dealing with recently; I haven't gone as far as to question those questioning the questioners, even if the answers they provide merely raise more questions.

 

Assuming that one accepts the central tenet of the opposing argument. Otherwise, it's highly offensive fallout.

Ar.

 

In search of reason

Demonstrate, in context.

Because governments - and in particular the American government - are so very hard to fool? The Taliban, bin Laden, Iraq, Afghanistan. Sure sure. Talk about failing arguments...

Actually, I'm requesting that you locate where I said it. Find it.

Good. I'm happy to shed delusion of any sort.

Let's pause a moment and examine here: which exactly is it I cited from there? Their rabid anti-Obama...section? Or whatever the hell it is you're referring to. Or was it rather a series of photos illustrating a lot of dust at the Burlington Coat Factory? So where does Ground Zero end? It's an interesting question.

Well, ok there, Salt/Tomb Raider/Sheena/Xena. I'll try to pretend to some concern.

Actually, that was a lie. I'm not going to even pretend that.

Not in the slightest. You could have ignored the post, or just stopped in and said "acknowledged, evil Geoff" or said you'd earnestly read my writings. Instead, here you are, carrying on with the same unsubstantiated nonsense as in the last thread. Virtually prophetic, wasn't I?

Given your record about "playing the martyr", I don't see what relevance your denials of the pattern have.

...

Uniformly? Hardly. That wasn't any small-box in-town comment about domestic abuse. Not the same thing.

Increased skepticism of conservative religious assholes? I'm sure you're right: no one really wants that, Bells. Let us not even ask. Clearly this, too, would be offensive.

Interesting: which of my words "mirror theirs"? (And is it through a mirror darkly?) Which of my intents are theirs? It's very easy to wave a hand at some shared political perspective without making any kind of functional connection. When you have evidence that I've advocated for a riot or random beatings-up, you let me know. In the meantime, I can argue as easily and accurately that opinions such as yours lead to the kind of rabid misogyny we could well do without. Would this be a fair comparison?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Conveniently ignoring the point of our entire argument, and my response to your unvarying attempts to make my comments about Islamic radicalism/Islamic/conservatism mean what you want them to mean. Pathetic.

- which you deliberately misconstrue to mean what you want it to, despite repeated corrections to the contrary, which is the absolute definition of trolling, while pretending that I'm arguing some kind of blanket ban on this site rather than due process and reasonable investigation: yes, yes -

I think you really don't care either way, Bells. I think you're not interested in vetting this Rauf because you don't care where his funding comes from, and what those who will assume the financial reigns of this mosque do or don't believe. Why you don't particularly care is anyone's guess: this simplistic appeal to "thu Constitushun" is as ill-conceived as it is tiresome. But just ignore nuance, Bells. Pretend it never happened.

Truly pathetic, Bells. Pick up what little honour you have left in this debate and move on.

 

I think Rauf is an idealist.
His views are pro women's emancipation, and peace loving.
He may have a few ideas on the Middle East which don't toe the American line, but that is true of a lot of people.

The current UK Prime Minister has called Gaza a prison.
Tony Blair's own wife said that she could understand why people became suicide bombers.
She was quickly gagged, and avoided the subject thereafter.

This project should be shelved though.
It's a really bad idea, which can only cause greater conflict, and maybe bloodshed.

 

I much prefer you when you're less dishonest

Are you sure you read that article?

But one young Egyptian asked: Wasn’t the United States financing the speaking tour that had brought the imam to Cairo because his message conveniently echoed United States interests?

“I’m not an agent from any government, even if some of you may not believe it,” the imam replied. “I’m not. I’m a peacemaker.”

That talk, recorded on video six months ago, was part of what now might be called Mr. Abdul Rauf’s prior life, before he became the center of an uproar over his proposal for a Muslim community center two blocks from the World Trade Center.

(Barnard; boldface accent added)​

I guess recorded on video and reported by a journalist boils down to some vague assertion that is completely elusive.

And this is how it works. Misrepresent, downplay, then play ignorant.

Yes, we're quite familiar with this routine: Anything to doubt a Muslim.

Except for you: You're beyond being questioned, aren't you?
____________________

Notes:

Barnard, Anne. "For Imam in Muslim Center Furor, a Hard Balancing Act". The New York Times. August 22, 2010; page A1. NYTimes.com. August 29, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregion/22imam.html

 

Same to you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- or have we ever been there with you?

Er - one guy in the audience frowned at him. I see. While that may constitute massive support at your threshold, I was wondering if you had anything else. It's funny - I'm happy to accept your position, if you can support it. But if I don't go on what amounts to heresay at this point, I'm being obtuse? Please. Talk about playing ignorant. If you want to make this point, back it up. Otherwise back it up.

It's a surprisingly simple thing, Ti: question away. Then, when the accused responds, read what he says rather than making up your own dialogue to suit your pre-conclusions, which are obviously and patently wrong. It's not hard. I fail to see why you two are struggling so mightily with it. Would you have more skepticism for Mr. Rauf if he came from Alabama, say, or some other state deemed less-than-Tiassa-acceptable?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We're all old enough that we can reign in our juvenile angst; let's give that a shot now. I've already specified a few scenarios in which I would have no possible political objection, so let's not pretend - again - that it's some kind of blanket condemnation. Mmkay?

Anyway: Kremmen is on to something here. I don't know that it would promote bloodshed - or bloody hope that it would not - but perhaps there's some other ground.

As for Bells: don't give me this "hey a guy in Egypt though he were talkin' funneh" and expect that to constitute an argument. Let's explore here: even if he were treated with the general skepticism that you and Ti are pleading, what exactly would that matter to his backing and planned philosophy? Because...the Taliban were never funded by the US?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Brilliantly done.

Ah - so am I one of the majority or not? It's a good way to float a loophole in your flat condemnations so far, I admit. Very impressed. I guess I accept your oblique semi-not-quite apology or vetting...?