Feisal Abdul Rauf
There are two basic reasons why the proposed mosque in New York should not be built near Ground Zero. The first is the questionable imam who is pushing it, and the second is a simple case of showing proper sensitivity to the victims of 9-11, their families and Americans in general. The mosque should be moved to another location.
First of all, this imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, portrays himself as "a moderate" and that the mosque would represent "reconciliation". I don't buy either argument. It has been reported over and over from various sources that Rauf will not condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, indeed, that he has ties to Hamas and that he has often expressed a wish for America to become a "shariah compliant society". First of all, anyone who thinks that America can accommodate shariah law is a fool. All you have to do is look at how shariah views women, homosexuals and other religions to see that it is against every freedom we hold dear in this country.
Some say, "why not just allow Muslims to practice shariah within their own communities? The Brits are doing it."
We are not the Brits. We cannot abandon Muslim women and homosexuals to be subject to the tender mercies of shariah law behind closed doors--as is happening in Europe. Every person in the US is entitled to our constitutional freedoms. That includes Muslims.
Secondly, if Rauf and his supporters cannot respect the sensitivity of Ground Zero, then it suggests that they simply don't care. They are determined to build that mosque at Ground Zero whether anybody likes it or not. After all, they have freedom of religion and freedom to build a place of worship. That is, of course, true. However, why can they not build it somewhere else in New York? The argument arises that a mosque at Ground Zero would represent a "victory" and "humiliation" of the non-Muslim West. I cannot state that is Rauf's intent, but I sure have my suspicion that there is something to that.
If that mosque is built, one can only pray that it will always be under the auspices of truly peaceful Muslims. Imagine the outrage, however, if it is ever revealed, even 50 years from now, that hate-filled words are coming out of that place just yards away from the site where that hatred was translated into action on 9-11. The supporters of the mosque should reconsider their choice of site. They are only alienating themselves from the rest of society.
22 comments:
Except it's neither a mosque nor would it be at ground zero.
It's an Islamic cultural center and it's two blocks away from the WTC site, with no view of it.
Thinly-veiled Islamophobia is all this is.
An excellent take on the matter here.
To Anonymous number 2. I will stand on my reservations about Mr Rauf.
To Anonymous number 1; That's right. Call it Islamophobia, however you define that tricky term. As things stand now, they have the approval and the support of the mayor; thus, it will probably be built-ignoring the obvious sensitivities. Who will be the real losers? Those good Muslims who truly are peaceful and want to asimilate and be accepted into American society. This is yet another divisive issue that we don't need.
"Those good Muslims who truly are peaceful and want to asimilate and be accepted into American society."
Um, these ARE those good Muslims! You just don't want to accept that.
Not only do they have the support of the Mayor, but also the board that votes on the matter, various Rabbis, the nearby Jewish Community Center (which this project is modeled after), the larger NYC religious community as a whole, etc. Need I go on? It's only a small, shrieking minority that are opposed to the non-Mosque at not-ground-zero.
I'm not quite sure what sensitivities are being violated since as I pointed out, this is neither a Mosque (it is an Islamic cultural/community center) and it is not at ground zero, but two blocks away from the site, with no view of it, even. Not to mention the fact that a few hundred Muslims also died in the 9/11 attacks.
Oh and there's also something called the 1st amendment involved here. Look into it some time.
Absolutely they have the First Amendment right to build a mosque and practice their faith. I never disputed that. I also know who is supporting them. My points are that I am suspicious of Rauf and that they should respect the sensitivities involved here. They could build the mosque someplace else.
Did you not notice that I just completely debunked all of your supposed "sensitivities?" Allow me to reiterate, for a third time:
-the project is not a mosque, but an Islamic cultural/community center modeled after (and supported by) the nearby Jewish community center
-the building would not be at ground zero, it would be two blocks away and have no view of the WTC site
-a few hundred Muslims were also murdered on 9/11
So, what specific sensitivities are you exactly concerned about then?
Greeks must not be allowed to revive their tsar-build islamo-sviet temple on world trade center sacred ground! Greeks have always harbored islamosoviet terrorists. On the Thursday before Easter Greeks chant pogrom inciting Beatitudes against "godslaying lawless Jews"in Greek, but change it to "Assemby of Jews" in English. They removed American Archbishop Iakovos because he was too American and Jerusalem Patriarch Irineos because he was too friendly with Israelis. Old witches who used to work at diners until they dropped now slip "Elder Protocols" and other terror claptrap in the pews. When I was growing up priests, would bathe, shave, wear pants - Robed, bearded, stovetopped priest is terror sympathist by definition. Greece was only euronation not to vote for 1947 Israel creation. In such time of war, we should insist that any public assembly of more than ten mandatorily be only in English! We have freedom of worship and speech, but not language.
They could build the mosque someplace else.
Ummm...didn't the guy (girl?) tell you that it's not even a mosque in the first place? And if it's not at ground zero, then isn't this whole point kind of moot?
Lucky Archer,
Huh?
Anonymous,
Is there a difference between a radical mosque and a radical Islamic Center?
I am not familar with the Ground Zero neighborhood. Isn't there controversy about the present site of the mosque that it suffered collateral damage on 9-11?
As for the Muslims killed on 9-11, I grieve for them as well. People of many nationalities and faith died ion 9-11. We all recognize that. I suppose the terrorists thought of them as "collateral damage."
There is another side of Rauf I didn't mention. He has laid part of the blame of 9-11 on American policies.
Frankly, I don't think you have
debunked anything. In the end. they will probably get their mosque because it has been approved, there is no legal argument against it. As for the jewish rabbis who support it, they are probably the same ones who are being drawn into these interfaith councils, many of which are designed for the gullible into thinking there is no threat.
Bottom line: The what it is will be built, but a lot of New Yorkers will be bitter. A lose-lose for all.
Lucky Archer is some sort of spambot. I googled the first sentence of what he/she wrote, and this exact same bit of gibberish has been posted on various blogs - whether relevant or not. It reminds me of a "Superb Jon" who posted on my blog a while ago. He had some sort of weird conspiracy theory about the Catholic Church and the Chinese.
I like Newt Gingrich's answer to this question... When they allow Churches and Synagogs to be built 2 blocks from Mecca then we should allow the construction of this Muslim building. ... I presume the condition would be YMCAs or JCCs for Muslim "Cultural Centers" as well.
I place more importance on the Muslim practice of building mosques on the sites of places they have attacked and I don't like it one bit.
If the Muslims truly want to be part of our society and integrate like all other minorities, they will have to learn and appreciate the customs and courtesies our society has. The citizens in our society respect each other and avoid offense. This is a general rule and notwithstanding the well known list of things we have done wrong in the past that the Left knows by heart. The Muslims, as a rule, seek to impose their rules, their religion, on everyone else. Just look at what is going on in Europe now.
Let these Muslims that are supposed to be the moderate ones display some common courtesy and sensitivity to the bereaved as an obvious first step. Apparently, they are intent on imposing their will on this project no matter what the consequences.
The kind hearted people once again will spring to their defense for all kinds of reasons and again refusing to even consider the consequences.
"When they allow Churches and Synagogs to be built 2 blocks from Mecca then we should allow the construction of this Muslim building."
Yes, because we should certainly seek to emulate authoritarian states such as Saudi Arabia.
What a completely immature and idiotic attitude to take.
(Part 1 of 2)
"Is there a difference between a radical mosque and a radical Islamic Center?"
Except these aren't radical Muslims. They've been praised by various groups, including high-profile Jewish groups, for their moderate and peaceful views. Get that through your head.
"I am not familar with the Ground Zero neighborhood. Isn't there controversy about the present site of the mosque that it suffered collateral damage on 9-11?"
Yet another moot point in this debate. Pretty much all of lower Manhattan suffered some form of collateral damage on 9/11.
And anyways, what of it? Should we turn each and every building that was touched by the slightest bit of debris into some sort of shrine? Give me a break.
"As for the Muslims killed on 9-11, I grieve for them as well. People of many nationalities and faith died ion 9-11. We all recognize that. I suppose the terrorists thought of them as 'collateral damage.'"
My point was that you and your little group of hysterical allies want to paint 9/11 as a clear-cut case of Muslims murdering non-Muslims, when in reality it was radical Islamists murdering Americans, of all ethnicities and faiths, including peaceful American Muslims. Thus the idea that any sort of Islamic structure should be barred from some certain radius of ground zero (still haven't seen anyone specify how far away is enough) is absurd.
"There is another side of Rauf I didn't mention. He has laid part of the blame of 9-11 on American policies."
And the man is correct. Or do you really believe that Al Qaeda just appeared out of nowhere and decided they ought to attack us because... what? Because they "hated our freedoms?" Are you still buying into that crap? The causes of 9/11 are nuanced and many-fold, and I know how you hate nuance, but one of those causes is US policy in regards to the Middle East and the Muslim world. Blowback.
(Part 2 of 2)
"Frankly, I don't think you have
debunked anything. In the end. they will probably get their mosque because it has been approved, there is no legal argument against it."
Actually I've debunked everything, quite neatly in fact. And once again, repeat after me:
THIS IS NOT A MOSQUE
And if there's no legal argument against it then what are you and your little friend whining about? We're a nation of laws.
"As for the jewish rabbis who support it, they are probably the same ones who are being drawn into these interfaith councils, many of which are designed for the gullible into thinking there is no threat."
That's not the point of interfaith councils at all, but I'm not surprised that you're ignorant enough to believe that. Fact of the matter is, most Jews are great, smart people. Only a small minority are dense conservatives.
"Bottom line: The what it is will be built, but a lot of New Yorkers will be bitter. A lose-lose for all."
Oh boo-hoo, cry me a river. Most New Yorkers are either ambivalent towards it or support it. It's only a small shrieking minority of numbskulls who oppose it on irrational and Islamophobic grounds. And it isn't a lose-lose for all, it's a victory for peaceful, moderate Muslims and most of all for the 1st amendment and the constitution of the United States.
Anonymous,
It is my understanding that the building at the proposed site was struck by the landing gear of one of the planes.
Survey indicates New Yorkers oppose the mosque by a 3-1 ratio.
Did you see the protest about a month back in front of Ground Zer? Yes, the one Pam geller was at. Thousands were there. Were they all Islamophobes?
Let me tell you, this guy Rauf is no "moderate". I wonder where he and his group got 130 million for this project anyway. But anyway, go ahead and ram it down our throats. Then we'll have an Islamic Center where spomebody like Rauf will be calling for the US to become Shariah Compliant and that we were to blame for 9-11.
Not exactly the way to win the hearts and minds of the American people.
As for the jewish rabbis who support it, they are probably the same ones who are being drawn into these interfaith councils, many of which are designed for the gullible into thinking there is no threat.
That's a bit of a big assumption you're making there, don't you think? You've basically just insulted them without really looking into what they have to say.
Lance,
I do speak with some degree of experience. I follow these interfaith events and have attended a couple of them. To me, they are meetings between the gullible and those that seek to lull them to sleep. That doesn't mean that some of the Islamic leaders who partipate are not sincere. Of the two I attended, one imam acted as host and translater in the 1990s to the Blind Sheihk Omar Adbul Rahman as he gave a violent speech about jihad. In the other, the imam gave me a ludicrous answer to my question about the Hadith of Hate (The Jew hiding behind the tree on the day of Judgement).
As to the Jewish and Christian participants in those events? Both of them impressed me as extremely gullible.
"Sensitivity" to the victims and survivors of 9-11 is a red herring. A fair number of those who died in the collapse of the World Trade Center WERE Muslims. Deal with it. After all, it was a WORLD trade center.
Whether this guy is truly promoting mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence is a valid question. I've heard over and over that it is a question. I haven't seen much to enlighten anyone on the accurate answer.
Under no circumstances can we graft sharia law into the civil law of the United States, any more than we can graft Roman Catholic canon law into the civil law of the United States (which, incidentally, some Roman Catholic authorities desire). Individuals of the Islamic faith have the same right to practice sharia in their private lives that individuals of the Roman Catholic faith have to obey the edicts of the Bishop of Rome, in their private lives, or individuals of the Jewish faith have to practice kosher in their private lives -- no more, and no less.
The Brits are behaving stupidly -- they foster religious ghettoes, then reinforce them, and breed suicide bombers. We don't have so much of that, because, the incompetent Times Square car bomber notwithstanding, America tends to absorb Muslims just like it did Catholics, Jews, and "Palatine boors" as Benjamin Franklin once described German immigrants.
"Whether this guy is truly promoting mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence is a valid question. I've heard over and over that it is a question. I haven't seen much to enlighten anyone on the accurate answer."
Siarlys, see for yourself what the Imam had to say at the public hearing.
Note the heckling of the "more civilized" people in the audience.
Also, check out the site loonwatch.com
Oh and here's a story about what's really happening in the UK, at least in the mainstream.
The horror... the horror...
I'm not getting the video at this link the way I get the picture and sound when Gary has them posted on his posts.
One of Gary's previous posts about this cultural center featured a photo with a woman carrying a sign inscribed with that canard about when a synagogue is built in Mecca. I noted at the time that this is a bad analogy, starting with the fact that Saudi Arabia doesn't have a First Amendments, and we do. Besides, the USA is not "the Jewish state," Israel is, and in fact, mosques do exist in Israel, including a rather large and ancient one in Jerusalem. The builders reverently incorporated every bit they could find of the Temple destroyed by the Roman Empire. Saudi Arabia IS founded on Islam, or some version of it, as their state religion. So is the Vatican, which doesn't stop us from allowing Roman Catholic churches in New York, or anywhere else in the USA.
As for the rest:
http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/muslims-and-christians-and-jews-oh-my/
Post a Comment