Muslim cultural center near 9/11 site causes distress

I modified my post :) we don't HAVE to have them fight in a bloody arena of death /interfaith center for our amusement - we could simply vote them out ala The USA's got Religion reality TV style :p
 
Last edited:
Why does it matter where it is? The reaction to it is silly. It's a cultural centre. There were Muslims in those buildings as well who were innocent victims. What of them?

Read the article you'll find the opinion of those who live in the area and those who lost loved ones in 9/11 stating the reasons behind their resistance to the center. Its mostly has to do with the symbolic nature of having it in that location more than that its a muslim center itself. Like I said if it had been moved two or three blocks over no one would even hear about it.
 
Last edited:
i agree, should all christan churches be knocked down and banned in tassmainia because Bryant was a christan?

Are similar calls being made in Oklahoma about churches because the bomber there went to church?

This is a fallacy (distributional or comparative, I guess). It would be more pertinent to ask: Are similar calls being made at the Federal Building bombed by Timothy McVeigh? I would hope that there are not; and anyone doing so, IMHO, ought to be shot for outright hubris.

did the christans do that after wako? oaklahoma? port aruthur?

Again: building churches right on the site of the crime? I would bloody hope not, and for the same reason as expressed in this thread: puerile, cynical, triumphalism.

Read the article you'll find the opinion of those who live in the area and those who lost loved ones in 9/11 stating the reasons behind their resistance to the center. Its mostly has to do with the symbolic nature of having it in that location more than that its a muslim center itself. Like I said if it had been moved two or three blocks over no one would even hear about it.

Quite: probably another reason the mosque is planned there (see the history of the planners; an interesting story).
 
Read the article you'll find the opinion of those who live in the area and those who lost loved ones in 9/11 stating the reasons behind their resistance to the center. Its mostly has to do with the symbolic nature of having it in that location more than that its a muslim center itself. Like I said if it had been moved two or three blocks over no one would even hear about it.

I think this guy has a better idea. From your link:

Many wholeheartedly reject such a stance. Among them is Charles Wolf, an energetic man who has been heavily involved in the discussions over what should be built at Ground Zero in place of the Twin Towers.

He says many of the victims' families - like him - believe the Islamic centre should be built.

"The Muslims are not responsible for 9/11. There have been extremists in all religions," he says.

"Denying them the ability to build a mosque… would be like London denying the Roman Catholic Church the opportunity to build a church during the years of the IRA bombings."

The actions of the few do not represent the whole. And what I mean by that is that the actions of the terrorists who flew those planes do not represent all Muslims. And just so we are clear about the sensitivity of this issue and how the owners of the land have handled it:

The project's leaders say they have gone out of their way to bring people living nearby on board with the plans.

They own the building and under city law have the right to build what they want there. Nonetheless, they spoke to the local community board and asked for its approval - something they didn't have to do. They got its support.

Sharif El-Gamal, the chairman of Soho Properties, which owns the building says he wants "a place where I could show off my hospitality, my culture, my background".

What he and the others involved envisage is a world-class facility - an environmentally-friendly building constructed with cutting-edge technology. It would be a place to show off what they consider Islam has to offer.

I'd see it as a counter balance.. showing that the terrorists have not won and cannot win. The reaction against this is based on pure bigotry. If it was Christians, for example, who flew those planes, there would not be a single issue. The protest against the building of this centre is indicative of just how Americans view Muslims. It's as if it is bad and/or evil to be a Muslim. It is as if all Muslims cannot be trusted and are viewed as being terrorists.

I wonder how many Christians or others protested when they put up a Jesus statue (which was erected by the local Catholic Church) near the memorial at the Oklahoma Bombing site when one considers that McVeigh was raised as a Catholic and still held strong core beliefs in Christianity and Catholicism when he bombed the Federal building?
 
I'd see it as a counter balance.. showing that the terrorists have not won and cannot win. The reaction against this is based on pure bigotry. If it was Christians, for example, who flew those planes, there would not be a single issue.

Actually, I'm certain there would be outcry from atheists and agnostics, and with good reason, if Christian terrorists crashed planes into the towers for reasons of Christian belief or theology. My previous examples illustrated the kind of discordant reasoning that would be behind such a move. There does indeed appear to be some kind of religious monument there:

Jesus_Wept_OKC_Memorial2.jpg


And Jesus Wept: On a corner adjacent to the memorial is a sculpture of Jesus weeping erected by St. Joseph's Catholic Church. St. Joseph's, one of the first brick and mortar churches in the city, was almost completely destroyed by the blast. The statue is not part of the memorial itself but is popular with visitors nonetheless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_National_Memorial

- but it isn't the same situation: First, St. Joseph's was an historical landmark. Second, if I were being uncharitable, I'd add: Tim McVeigh's religion seems to be in some question, whatever he might have said his 'core beliefs' were:

In a recorded interview with Time magazine[80] McVeigh professed his belief in "a god", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." Throughout his childhood, he and his father were Roman Catholic and regularly attended daily Mass at Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York. The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter to them claiming to be an agnostic and that he did not believe in a hell.[81][82] McVeigh once said that he believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He had also said, "Science is my religion."[83]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

But lastly and most importantly: what is the reason for the mosque going there? What are the motivations? I've alluded to the connections of some of the supporters and organizers previously; they don't inspire confidence. Who, for example, will control the purse-strings? The imam behind it claims on the one hand (to Americans) it will be financed by American donations. On the other (to Arab audiences) he asserts that the Saudis will pay. Why the duplicity? The families of the victims of 9/11 think that it will turn into another Hyde Park or Finnsbury, and they're probably right to do so. If peace and reconciliation are the actual objective, why not a memorial (as at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma) rather than a mosque? :shrug:
 
Aside from the gigantic size image of Jesus that just burnt into my eyeballs from the individual who obviously has reading and comprehension issues with an obvious fetish for conspiracy theories.. :rolleyes:

The point is that the people who own the land, didn't even have to seek permission to build it. That they did shows that they want the locals to have a say. They were given permission to build a place of worship and a cultural and education centre on the land they own. They are not doing anything wrong. I mean for goodness sake, the statue of Jesus was not 'rebuilt'. It was added in after the Oklahoma bombing. No one protested it, even though McVeigh was a Christian and has professed to having core beliefs in the Catholic religion. Did he represent all Catholics? No. The owners who want to build this mosque and cultural centre are not terrorists. They haven't done anything wrong. They were not involved with the people who flew those planes. So why punish all Muslims who live in the city and who may use the Mosque because some other Muslims committed a horrid crime down the road?

Radicalism exists amongst all groups. You can't punish the whole for the actions of the very few. There were Muslims in those buildings as well who also perished. What of them? Don't they count for anything? What of the Muslims who live in the US? How insulting is it to them to have this kind of reaction to a Mosque being built?

*Sigh*..

But then, I forget, we're talking about a country that in the lead up to the election there were calls that Obama was a Muslim and a terrorist (because he was apparently a Muslim) and he's still referred to as a Muslim. As though it is somehow now totally unacceptable to be a Muslim. So I guess this reaction is to be expected.:rolleyes:
 
The other thing about all this is the issue of sensitivity: surely, with so many families of the victims offended for the reasons outlined above, it would be more sensitive to place the mosque elsewhere?

I saw some highlights from the meeting that the owners had; not much "community say", and rather more "this is what's going to happen". I recall some idoit pronouncing that the owners didn't even have to seek permission, and that the meeting was just a courtesy. The pretense of community input, apparently. And you must understand that there is a vast difference between building a monument (and rebuilding a church, assuming that it was rebuilt) and adding in a mosque. This is kind of a marked difference. Those seeking to build the mosque have very curious ties; and the last I heard, Saudi Arabia meddles in something like 80% of the mosques in the United States. Is bowing to Wahhabis (or Salafis) really the most appropriate way in which to remember the victims of 9.11? It's astoundingly insulting to even consider such a proposal. Simon Deng and Nonie Darwish put the situation quite well in their speeches at the protest. The present proposal sounds very much like the historical record. I thought we were trying to break all humanity off of that tradition?
 
Bells also raises a good point about the Muslim victims of the attack: how happy would they be to hear that a mosque had been on their ashes by people with ties to extremists? I think they would be rather appalled; as should we all.
 
Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe mentions an interesting issue raised by Zuhdi Jasser, and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy:

"For us, a mosque was always a place to pray, to be together on holidays — not a way to make an ostentatious architectural statement,’’ Jasser said. “Ground zero shouldn’t be about promoting Islam. It’s the place where war was declared on us as Americans.’’ To use that space for Muslim outreach, he argues, is “the worst form of misjudgment.’’

He also covers an interesting comment by Stephen Suleyman Schwartz of the Center for Islamic Pluralism in Washington:

Schwartz notes that the spiritual leader of the Cordoba Initiative, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, describes himself as a Sufi — a Muslim focused on Islamic mysticism and spiritual wisdom. But “building a 15-story Islamic center at ground zero isn’t something a Sufi would do,’’ according to Schwartz, also a practitioner of Sufism. “Sufism is supposed to be based on sensitivity toward others,’’ yet Cordoba House comes across as “grossly insensitive.’’ He rejects Rauf’s stance that a highly visible Muslim presence at ground zero is the way to make a statement opposing what happened on 9/11. Better, in his view, is the approach of many Muslims “who hate terrorism and who have gone privately to the site and recited prayers for the dead silently and unperceived by others.’’

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e.../articles/2010/06/06/a_mosque_at_ground_zero/

Essentially exactly what I wrote earlier. As they say: if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....

And, on this forum: geniune is genuine.

GeoffP
 
The other thing about all this is the issue of sensitivity: surely, with so many families of the victims offended for the reasons outlined above, it would be more sensitive to place the mosque elsewhere?

So it's better to give in to the bigotry and have the underlying belief that all Muslims are somehow at fault for 9/11 continue to exist in the minds of people?

Okay.

Bells also raises a good point about the Muslim victims of the attack: how happy would they be to hear that a mosque had been on their ashes by people with ties to extremists? I think they would be rather appalled; as should we all.
Oh please..:rolleyes:

Read the article. They don't care about the ties to the Saudi's. All they care about is that it's going to be a Mosque. That is what they find offensive. Or did you miss that bit? Here, have a read from Lucy's link:

It is not Islamaphobia, he insists - it's just that he and others do not want an Islamic institution nearby.

"I think the first concern for the families is that the religious beliefs of the terrorists who struck is going to have such a prominent place right around the corner from Ground Zero," he says.

"This is not an… anti-Muslim effort. It is understandably… emotional for them to be suddenly told that around the corner from where their loved ones were killed they're going to put a mosque."
 
Essentially exactly what I wrote earlier. As they say: if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....

It's obviously a retard with a brain injury...

And I wasn't aware being a couple of blocks away is now ground zero. I find that interesting.

The hypocrisy in this thread is astounding. As Sam nicely pointed out.. Jesus would approve. Next time I hear a single Christian harp on about turn the other cheek, I'll be sure to laugh more loudly in their face. Apparently it is only preferable in some cases, not all others.:rolleyes:

Go go hypocrisy.
 
The other thing about all this is the issue of sensitivity: surely, with so many families of the victims offended for the reasons outlined above, it would be more sensitive to place the mosque elsewhere?

My question is, why did they decide to pick THAT particular spot? Make a statement? Mark their territory like a dog pisses on a fire hydrant? Were they completely oblivious to the significance of their actions, and this is merely a weird coincident?

I seriously doubt the latter. I wouldn't put it past Muslims, judging by things they've done/said that this is a statement. They LOVE making statements. Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do about it, it's a matter of property ownership and Freedom of Religion. However, I also wouldn't put it past New Yorkers to give them an incredibly hard time about their decision to put it there.
 
So it's better to give in to the bigotry and have the underlying belief that all Muslims are somehow at fault for 9/11 continue to exist in the minds of people?

?? I thought you were ignoring me. You definitely said you wouldn't be talking to me any more, and then there were some assorted insults.

Well, anyway: is this the underlying belief of those opposed to the 9/11 mosque? How do you know? Assumption? There are actual connections between those trying to get it built and certain shady Islamic organizations. Even Muslims such as Schwartz and Jasser don't agree with it, and question the motives of those pushing this deal.

Read the article. They don't care about the ties to the Saudi's. All they care about is that it's going to be a Mosque. That is what they find offensive.

Er: did you read my article? Did you forget also where the mosque is intended to be placed?

It's obviously a retard with a brain injury...

And I wasn't aware being a couple of blocks away is now ground zero. I find that interesting.

Parts of the plane actually hit the site on which the mosque is intended, Bells. I find this objection of yours interesting.

The hypocrisy in this thread is astounding. As Sam nicely pointed out.. Jesus would approve. Next time I hear a single Christian harp on about turn the other cheek, I'll be sure to laugh more loudly in their face. Apparently it is only preferable in some cases, not all others.

My, my, my.

My, my.

Bells has been doing her homework! Is this part of the little "get Geoff" file? I'm truly honoured. :D Except that you didn't do your homework: the link has to do with death and oppression, not reasonable sensibility. But how interesting. And here I'd thought it was only Sam keeping a list of my literally years-old posts. Curious, no? "Wierd coincidence", perhaps? Or has someone been sharing her crib notes?

That was too funny. Please cite some more from the "Geoff vault": it contains nothing but pearls, I assure you. ;)

My question is, why did they decide to pick THAT particular spot? Make a statement? Mark their territory like a dog pisses on a fire hydrant? Were they completely oblivious to the significance of their actions, and this is merely a weird coincident?

I don't agree with linking it to Muslims per se: rather, the choice was selected by the relevant committee for the reasons you consider. Making a statement. Marking territory. Cynical supremacism. It's all the same thing.
 
Er, Bells, maybe you could answer this one: what would a real Sufi do, do you think, on the site? Maybe you could pot-shoot an answer about that. I have a couple thoughts on the matter, but I'm very curious to see what you might come up with.
 
My question is, why did they decide to pick THAT particular spot? Make a statement? Mark their territory like a dog pisses on a fire hydrant? Were they completely oblivious to the significance of their actions, and this is merely a weird coincident?

I seriously doubt the latter. I wouldn't put it past Muslims, judging by things they've done/said that this is a statement. They LOVE making statements. Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do about it, it's a matter of property ownership and Freedom of Religion. However, I also wouldn't put it past New Yorkers to give them an incredibly hard time about their decision to put it there.

Well according to Islam once a Mosque is built that land is Ummah forever more, and dedicated to Islam, very apt allegory Black Jack.
 
I'm still waiting to hear the fascinating tale of Bells' curious bookmarks. :D Or shall I believe instead it was fortuitous internet searches? If so, could I have the Google link that produced them? I'm so inexpert myself at it, you see. Just never seems to pan out: like surgery with a shotgun.
 
Back
Top