Mosque going up in NYC building

[Bob]

Machjo - The more I read about this story, the more I realize how prominent Rauf is to this project. He is clearly the project's spokesperson. So examination of his character is legitimate towards evaluating this project.

[Guest American Woman]

Machjo - The more I read about this story, the more I realize how prominent Rauf is to this project. He is clearly the project's spokesperson. So examination of his character is legitimate towards evaluating this project.

Of course it is, and it's legitimate in understanding how some people feel about the project. But even without him, it's a fact that Muslims were responsible for the death of thousands, for the property being available so close to the memorial, and extremist Muslims still very much exist, and of course no one is going to be able to prevent them from attending that Mosque, or ensure anyone that extremists won't be in attendance.

Again, I would expect moderate Muslims to empathize with how some might feel about a Mosque going up in that particular spot. I do not feel it will help mend bridges between Muslims and non-Muslims. I think the best thing they could do to set themselves apart from extremists is to empathize with non-Muslims, to put their feelings first, and not give extremist Muslims the opportunity to attend a Mosque that's in existence only because of 9-11.

Edited June 13, 2010 by American Woman

[Michael Hardner]

Pretty much every sign at that rally depicts something that is just an insult, or incorrect.

My favourite: `Barack Acbar`

[Michael Hardner]

Of course it is, and it's legitimate in understanding how some people feel about the project. But even without him, it's a fact that Muslims were responsible for the death of thousands, for the property being available so close to the memorial, and extremist Muslims still very much exist, and of course no one is going to be able to prevent them from attending that Mosque, or ensure anyone that extremists won't be in attendance.

Again, I would expect moderate Muslims to empathize with how some might feel about a Mosque going up in that particular spot. I do not feel it will help mend bridges between Muslims and non-Muslims. I think the best thing they could do to set themselves apart from extremists is to empathize with non-Muslims, to put their feelings first, and not give extremist Muslims the opportunity to attend a Mosque that's in existence only because of 9-11.

I guess my question would be `how can moderate Muslims reach out` and mend those bridges?

If we could ask the folks in those videos what would their responses be ? I suspect that they wouldn`t have anything to offer, in terms of bridge building, much like the extremists on the other side.

If that`s the case, really, why bother? Maybe they should just continue in their own way...

[Bob]

I guess my question would be `how can moderate Muslims reach out` and mend those bridges?

If we could ask the folks in those videos what would their responses be ? I suspect that they wouldn`t have anything to offer, in terms of bridge building, much like the extremists on the other side.

If that`s the case, really, why bother? Maybe they should just continue in their own way...

Are you implying that America has something to apologize for towards Muslims, or that America and its citizens need to do a mea culpa to obtain Muslim forgiveness?

Edited June 13, 2010 by Bob

[Machjo]

Here are some relevant videos regarding this matter:

Here's Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf making a presentation regarding the proposal to build the mosque.

Here's a video illustrating the demonstration against the proposal, the types of messages here are clearly prejudiced against Islam and unacceptable. Although there's no question there are problems with the way Islam is practised by many Muslims (i.e. endless acts of terrorism and terrible political perspective and cultural practices), the people at this demonstration display no nuance and clearly put all Muslims in the same bucket. When listening to the criticisms presented by some of the demonstrators, I'm left wondering if we were to follow their positions, we'd have to oppose every mosque all over the country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XAF47pA9Rg

I'll update my opinion on this matter as it's changed somewhat... the question here, as I see it, is whether or not the Muslim organization(s) motivated towards building this Muslim community centre feel that this is a battle worth fighting. In my view, this organization should be allowed to build this Muslim community centre, and should be permitted to do so without such adversity. The criticisms against this proposal are largely rooted in prejudice. The Islamic organization(s) behind this proposal, though, may feel that the time simply isn't right to fight this specific battle.

I watched both videos. And I must say I saw no jihad in the first, but the second was a jihad. The basic premise I see in the second video is a wide brush, nay a mob.

Just because hatred is taught at one mosque, it doesn't mean it's taught in all mosques. The same applies to Christian churches.

[Machjo]

Of course it is, and it's legitimate in understanding how some people feel about the project. But even without him, it's a fact that Muslims were responsible for the death of thousands, for the property being available so close to the memorial, and extremist Muslims still very much exist, and of course no one is going to be able to prevent them from attending that Mosque, or ensure anyone that extremists won't be in attendance.

Of course they can never guarantee that. After all, remember that case of the Christian walking into a church and putting a bullet into an abortion doctor's head? Do you blame the congregation for that? Certainly he was a Christian in name only, just as those terrorists were Muslim in name only. And why is it when we talk of 'loved one's', we insist on excluding Muslim victims as an inconvenient statistic?

Again, first off the centre is not being built on ground Zero. Hell, even on the video above it's mentioned that the local Jewish community approved the mosque. And no one is stopping Jews from building a synagogue there, or Christians from building a mosque there.

And consider a few years ago when Canadian soldiers were killed in an Israeli attack in Gaza that bombed the local UN headquarters. No one blamed Jews for that, or at least I didn't and certainly heard no one else do so anyway. Would it have been right to say that no more synagogues could be built near military bases after that since it would have been an affront to the Canadian army?

Again, I would expect moderate Muslims to empathize with how some might feel about a Mosque going up in that particular spot. I do not feel it will help mend bridges between Muslims and non-Muslims. I think the best thing they could do to set themselves apart from extremists is to empathize with non-Muslims, to put their feelings first, and not give extremist Muslims the opportunity to attend a Mosque that's in existence only because of 9-11.

Fine. Perhaps you are right. After watching those videos, I'd come to realize just how much hate there is there. And certainly if the feelings are that intense, it'd likely not to be very safe for the Muslim community.

Looking at it that way, I could see NYC arguing on the financial front that the NYCP does not have sufficient resources to protect the Mosque in the event of vandalism, etc. and to request that for the safety of the Muslim community that it not build the Mosque there, especially after what we'd observed for three weeks or so after 9/11. As I think more on this you might be right and I'm slowly changing my mind. Perhaps it would be too dangerous for them to build a mosque there for the safety of the congregation.

[Machjo]

Yes, I think those videos have certainly changed my mind. I'm starting to have my doubts about how well the NYPD could ensure the safety of that congregation and on that front, I think it would be wise for the local government to request that the mosque not be built there out of concern for the safety of the congregation, especially seeing that it would be a YMCA-style facility, thus potentially putting the safety of Muslim children at risk too, perhaps on the argument that the city has a duty to ensure children's safety and that the building of the mosque there is just too dangerous, as a safety issue.

In fact, citing safety concerns, the local government could likely legitimately deny permission to build the mosque.

[WIP]

Where do you find these fringe groups? How does some obscure group of perhaps five people factor into this story about the degree of public opposition to the construction of this mosque in this context?

Because the fringe groups are growing in number -- that's why! Check the growth in active "patriot" militia groups that have started since Barack Obama became president that are tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center. There is a confluence of factors that are fanning the flames of fascism right now: economic recession and uncertainty, a black president, the increasing size of the non-white portion of the population. Those two Egyptian Copts were beseiged by a mob who targeted them as enemies as soon as they heard them speaking Arabic...and they didn't listen to their claims of being Christians. Who knows what would have happened if police didn't move in and pull them to safety. But mobs who believe the conspiracy theories of the agitators and propagandists who spoke at that rally will graduate to more extreme actions eventually. There has been enough evidence presented in this thread to show that this mosque-opposition movement is based on nothing but lies, hysteria and misinformation, but facts don't matter to a movement that has needed a new foreign enemy since the fall of communism.

How can you even compare this fringe group website to your alleged mosque destruction of Hindus?

?????????????

I guess now we're equating fringe desires (remember that the Temple mount was built OVER the foundation of the destroyed Jewish Temple) to acts of desecration that allegedly took place. Would you describe the Muslims of the time who built the mosques over the remains of the Jewish Temple as zealots?

Read your history! The Romans destroyed the Third Temple when they sacked Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Two churches were built on the site afterward -- the last one was destroyed during the wars between Byzantium and Persia. By the time the first Caliph arrived in Jerusalem, the Temple Mount was being used as a garbage dump.........the mosque wasn't built there till about a hundred years later. What kind of zealotry is that?

How about the current Muslims who reside and manage the area barring non-Muslims from entry? When the messiah comes and this handful of people that somehow can afford to pay the ten dollar annual fee to maintain a website actually begin making moves to construct the third Jewish Temple, get back to me...

I can only imagine what sort of trashy websites you frequent that you come upon these ridiculous stories.

If you want to live in denial, that's your choice! But the writing was on the wall for the secular Israeli state as soon as the first Likud government was formed. There has been a gradual rise in size and power of the Orthodox Jews. Their religion cannot be fulfilled until a fourth temple is built on the Temple Mount. The only question is how many are going to wait for the messiah to come and destroy the mosque first, and how many want to go ahead and do it themselves. It's worth noting, that traditionally, the Orthodox Jews didn't believe in returning to the Holy Land until the messiah led them there. If most orthodox got tired of waiting for the messiah and decided to move to the man-made Israeli state, what are the odds that the majority will object to tearing down the mosque and building a new temple when they decide the time is right?

[Bob]

Of course they can never guarantee that. After all, remember that case of the Christian walking into a church and putting a bullet into an abortion doctor's head? Do you blame the congregation for that? Certainly he was a Christian in name only, just as those terrorists were Muslim in name only. And why is it when we talk of 'loved one's', we insist on excluding Muslim victims as an inconvenient statistic?

Although the Christian murdering the abortion doctor motivated by his perception of his faith has a commonality with the Muslim terrorists doing jihad on 9/11, let's not pretend that there is some sort of epidemic of abortion doctors being murdered on even the tiniest fraction of the scale that wholesale murder is being done by Islamic terrorists. Also, if a church and/or community is supporting/encouraging murderers and assaulter of abortion doctors, they need to be held to account - i.e. detain the entire congregation and eliminate these criminals. The main difference between these two examples between which you're trying to construct a parallel is the volume and venom of the two factions. When Christians start yelling out Jesus' name and going on wholesale mass murder sprees and teaching hatred of others on a widespread scale, you'll have a point. Until then, let's not pretend that Christian fundamentalism holds a candle to Islamic fundamentalism.

Again, first off the centre is not being built on ground Zero. Hell, even on the video above it's mentioned that the local Jewish community approved the mosque. And no one is stopping Jews from building a synagogue there, or Christians from building a mosque there.

And consider a few years ago when Canadian soldiers were killed in an Israeli attack in Gaza that bombed the local UN headquarters. No one blamed Jews for that, or at least I didn't and certainly heard no one else do so anyway. Would it have been right to say that no more synagogues could be built near military bases after that since it would have been an affront to the Canadian army?

You're right, the Jews aren't to blame for those deaths. The blame lies with Palestinian terrorists and their supporters. Out of curiosity, what story are you talking about? When were Canadian soldiers EVER in Gaza, let alone being killed in an Israeli strike?

Fine. Perhaps you are right. After watching those videos, I'd come to realize just how much hate there is there. And certainly if the feelings are that intense, it'd likely not to be very safe for the Muslim community.

Looking at it that way, I could see NYC arguing on the financial front that the NYCP does not have sufficient resources to protect the Mosque in the event of vandalism, etc. and to request that for the safety of the Muslim community that it not build the Mosque there, especially after what we'd observed for three weeks or so after 9/11. As I think more on this you might be right and I'm slowly changing my mind. Perhaps it would be too dangerous for them to build a mosque there for the safety of the congregation.

That's what I'm thinking. Certainly Muslims would never be in danger in NYC, or virtually any part of the USA - let's not pretend that the USA isn't the most multicultural and tolerant country. I do worry, however, that the anti-Islamic prejudice among many of the opponents of the proposal to build this Muslim community centre is so significant as to dissuade those who want to proceed with these plans from going forward. That would be a sad event for NYC.

[Machjo]

My mistake. It was Lebanon:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14029827/

[Machjo]

That's what I'm thinking. Certainly Muslims would never be in danger in NYC, or virtually any part of the USA - let's not pretend that the USA isn't the most multicultural and tolerant country. I do worry, however, that the anti-Islamic prejudice among many of the opponents of the proposal to build this Muslim community centre is so significant as to dissuade those who want to proceed with these plans from going forward. That would be a sad event for NYC.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter1.htm

Muslims have been victims of Islamophobia before, some paying with their lives, and even some non-Muslims looking too dark:

[Machjo]

After seeing those videos though, I do believe that public safety comes before freedom of religion, and so I do think it would be appropriate for City Council to deny the congregation the right to build near the 9/11 site, let's say 1 mile away or something of the sort, on safety concerns for the Muslim children going there owing to the Islamophobic sentiment in the city, but with a clear explanation on the part of City Council that it's decision has nothing to do with Islamophobia but rather with concern for the safety of the people who would attend that centre.

[Bob]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter1.htm

Muslims have been victims of Islamophobia before, some paying with their lives, and even some non-Muslims looking too dark:

I reject your supposition that the demonstrations represent a security threat to Muslim well-being, or even a perceived threat among Muslims in NYC or the broader USA. An obscure website with a short list of victims of crimes who happen to be of Middle Eastern and/or Muslim origin HARDLY qualifies as evidence of your supposition. Please try to be more serious in here. A victim of crime who is a Muslim or Middle Eastern may or may not have been targeted as a result of his/her ethnicity/religion, so you have no argument. Muslims are safer in the USA, and ESPECIALLY in NYC, than anywhere else in the world. Spare me the hysteria of "Islamophobia".

I will add, that I do find the messages at the demonstration disturbing and unsettling. They need to be addressed and disputed by strong leaders who stand up against discrimination. Signs that say "Islam = Terrorism", or other prejudiced labels have no place in a free country like the USA or place like NYC. Still, I doubt Muslims in NYC feel at-risk as a result of these demonstrations.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Bob

[Bob]

After seeing those videos though, I do believe that public safety comes before freedom of religion, and so I do think it would be appropriate for City Council to deny the congregation the right to build near the 9/11 site, let's say 1 mile away or something of the sort, on safety concerns for the Muslim children going there owing to the Islamophobic sentiment in the city, but with a clear explanation on the part of City Council that it's decision has nothing to do with Islamophobia but rather with concern for the safety of the people who would attend that centre.

That's the position of a spineless individual without principles. If your ultimate moral value is "no violence", then you will succumb to any force that threatens violence. You're unwilling to stand up in the name of what's right.

[Machjo]

I reject your supposition that the demonstrations represent a security threat to Muslim well-being, or even a perceived threat among Muslims in NYC or the broader USA. An obscure website with a short list of victims of crimes who happen to be of Middle Eastern and/or Muslim origin HARDLY qualifies as evidence of your supposition. Please try to be more serious in here. A victim of crime who is a Muslim or Middle Eastern may or may not have been targeted as a result of his/her ethnicity/religion, so you have no argument. Muslims are safer in the USA, and ESPECIALLY in NYC, than anywhere else in the world. Spare me the hysteria of "Islamophobia".

I will add, that I do find the messages at the demonstration disturbing and unsettling. They need to be addressed and disputed by strong leaders who stand up against discrimination. Still, I doubt Muslims in NYC feel at-risk as a result of these demonstrations.

I'm not saying that because such acts occurred after 9/11 (and it was a traumatic event) that they will necessarily happen again to this mosque a decade later when sentiments have cooled down somewhat. I'm just saying it's something to consider.

And you may be right that this particular group is just loud and obnoxious and not actually violent and that the Mosque, the NYPD, or the local city council have already run a risk assessment and concluded that there is no danger. If that's the case, then perhaps they should exercise their freedom of religion and go ahead and build the mosque anyway.

[Michael Hardner]

Are you implying that America has something to apologize for towards Muslims, or that America and its citizens need to do a mea culpa to obtain Muslim forgiveness?

No, neither one.

[Bob]

My mistake. It was Lebanon:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14029827/

It says that the killed were UN observers, is that the same thing as a Canadian soldier? More importantly, it happened in a warzone. Do I need to explain what can happen to you if you're in a war zone? The responsibility definitely does not like with Israel, but with Hezbollah and its supporters (i.e. Iran). More importantly, this is irrelevant to this thread.

[Machjo]

That's the position of a spineless individual without principles. If your ultimate moral value is "no violence", then you will succumb to any force that threatens violence. You're unwilling to stand up in the name of what's right.

You're right to a degree. Perhaps allowing the mosque to go ahead but not the entire 13-story Islamic centre would be reasonable, as the mosque itself comprises only one story of the building and so would be easier to defend, and this would in no way infringe on their freedom of religion.

Sometimes we have to determine how significant an event is. If they were prohibited from even building a mosque there, then it might be time to stand up and fight for freedom of religion. As for the centre though, though in principle they should be allowed to build it, in reality is it really worth putting people at risk over a simple activity centre?

I don't know the answer, but certainly that would have to be answered before we determine whether it would be worth hiring more police to patrol it more frequently.

But as mentioned above, it may be that City council had already conducted a study and determined that the threat was negligible, in which case this would be a non-issue and the entire centre should go on anyway.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Machjo

[Bob]

No, neither one.

Is that a joke? You don't think the broader Muslim community needs to do some serious introspection and more seriously tackle the problem of indoctrination and incitement? You don't think the broader Muslim world needs to liberalize many cultural practices that we find abhorrent (endorsement of terrorism, anti-semitism, advocacy of violence and propagandization of its people, intolerance of difference, misogyny, totalitarianism and restriction of political/social/religious freedoms, etc)? How can you expect Americans (or any other free nation) to look at you favourably when you practise things that we view as contrary to our most basic values? There's a gap to be bridged, for sure, but the primary responsibility for building this bridge lies with the broader Muslim world.

[Machjo]

Is that a joke? You don't think the broader Muslim community needs to do some serious introspection and more seriously tackle the problem of indoctrination and incitement? You don't think the broader Muslim world needs to liberalize many cultural practices that we find abhorrent (endorsement of terrorism, anti-semitism, advocacy of violence and propagandization of its people, intolerance of difference, misogyny, totalitarianism and restriction of political/social/religious freedoms, etc)? How can you expect Americans (or any other free nation) to look at you favourably when you practise things that we view as contrary to our most basic values? There's a gap to be bridged, for sure, but the primary responsibility for building this bridge lies with the broader Muslim world.

Yes, the Muslim world does indeed need to do that, but how can it do that when it must fight a two-front war between fanatics murdering in the name of Islam on the one hand, and Islamophobes persecuting them on the other. Instead of fighting them, how about helping them in their fight?

The same would apply with the KKK for example. Should we start persecuting Christians because of that or stand by them in their fight against racism?

The same applies. It's hard to win a war when fighting on two fronts simultaneously.

And again, there is only so much one congregation can do, and they are doing all that they can. What more can we expect from them? They've already spoken publicly about their opposition to terrorism. They've already announced that this community centre would be open to all and serve to educated both Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam (and since they renounce terrorism, it's reasonable to suppose that they'd be teaching Muslims about peace). Remember that they also work five days a week, have kids to raise, might even be converts themselves and so know little to nothing about Middle Eastern politics, etc. What more can they reasonably do?

[Michael Hardner]

Although the Christian murdering the abortion doctor motivated by his perception of his faith has a commonality with the Muslim terrorists doing jihad on 9/11, let's not pretend that there is some sort of epidemic of abortion doctors being murdered on even the tiniest fraction of the scale that wholesale murder is being done by Islamic terrorists.

Bob,

Not sure if you've seen the myriad discussions we've had on this board on that topic.

It's pretty difficult to quantify the misdeeds done by extremists for any religion, let alone to compare them. And how are you going to factor that in over time? Furthermore, how do you quantify these deeds as being attributable to religion and not culture.

It's a problem.

[Machjo]

Just to take an example, I remember meeting an Odawa Muslim a last year. So would you hold her accountable for what's going on in the Middle East even though her family roots go back to pre-European North America?

Remember, Islam is not an ethnic group, but a religious community. And even if it were an ethnic group, how can you blame an entire ethnic group for the actions of some of tis members?

Certainly we're not now going to say that a Canadian First Nations' member who adopts Islam is only allowed to do so if he accepts the blame for all Muslims are you?

[Bob]

Yes, the Muslim world does indeed need to do that, but how can it do that when it must fight a two-front war between fanatics murdering in the name of Islam on the one hand, and Islamophobes persecuting them on the other. Instead of fighting them, how about helping them in their fight?

Are you suggesting that the broader Muslim community is making serious efforts towards tackling problems within its society? Are you going to now show me examples of liberalization in the Muslim community that makes it more compatible with universal values of freedom and liberty? Are you suggesting that we are fighting those who are attempting to make positive changes in the Muslim community? Since when were we fighting positive reformers?

The same would apply with the KKK for example. Should we start persecuting Christians because of that or stand by them in their fight against racism?

Are you suggesting that we're persecuting Muslims somehow because of 9/11 or the thousands of other acts of Islamic terrorism the world has endured over many decades?

The same applies. It's hard to win a war when fighting on two fronts simultaneously.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

And again, there is only so much one congregation can do, and they are doing all that they can. What more can we expect from them? They've already spoken publicly about their opposition to terrorism. They've already announced that this community centre would be open to all and serve to educated both Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam (and since they renounce terrorism, it's reasonable to suppose that they'd be teaching Muslims about peace). Remember that they also work five days a week, have kids to raise, might even be converts themselves and so know little to nothing about Middle Eastern politics, etc. What more can they reasonably do?

Remember, I am not opposed to the construction of this Muslim community centre. Based on the little I've read about this Rauf guy, his perceptions of politics seems to be warped, although not crossing any extreme lines. His suggestion that the USA needs to make apologies to the Muslim world for the Muslim world's own inadequacies (totalitarianism, for starters) is absurd. On the one hand he condemns terrorism, on the the other hand he subtly implies that the USA has contributed to the motivations of terrorism against it and its interests - rather than the reality, motivations for terrorism are entirely rooted in a warped perception of the world and a screwed up sense of morality. Who generates this perception and messed up morality? The environment in wish they develop them - the Muslim world. To suggest that American involvement in the Middle East (i.e. buying oil from Saudi Arabia is somehow equated to "propping up" dictators) understandably brings terrorism upon itself, is absurd, but not an uncommon sentiment among many.

[Machjo]

Remember, I am not opposed to the construction of this Muslim community centre. Based on the little I've read about this Rauf guy, his perceptions of politics seems to be warped, although not crossing any extreme lines. His suggestion that the USA needs to make apologies to the Muslim world for the Muslim world's own inadequacies (totalitarianism, for starters) is absurd. On the one hand he condemns terrorism, on the the other hand he subtly implies that the USA has contributed to the motivations of terrorism against it and its interests - rather than the reality, motivations for terrorism are entirely rooted in a warped perception of the world and a screwed up sense of morality. Who generates this perception and messed up morality? The environment in wish they develop them - the Muslim world. To suggest that American involvement in the Middle East (i.e. buying oil from Saudi Arabia is somehow equated to "propping up" dictators) understandably brings terrorism upon itself, is absurd, but not an uncommon sentiment among many.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with Rauf. But from what I've read, tht congregation is intent on building bridges, so they are making efforts. What more do we expect from them? THey only have 24 hours in a day and many of them, born in the US, are in no position to really do much about the Middle East. They are not politicians after all.

And yes I agree that a religious leader ought to bow out of political commentary.