Mosque going up in NYC building

[Sir Bandelot]

The uncompromising approach towards moderates, along with the continued military ventures in the Muslim World do not help any groups attempting reform. All we'll get is endless war, which is unfortunately what believers in the "Clash of Civilizations" expect anyway.

That makes a lot of sense, we have to realize that the only useful solution for long-term peace is to nurture the moderate aspects of islamic culture, not drive them further underground. In a sense the moderates in islam are being attacked from all sides, by extremists in their own religion and by westerners who would paint them all with one brush. We need to marginalize the extremists. Wars are a short term solution that actually does the opposite.

The war on terror is a different kind of war, as there is no enemy nation. Yet our military is still using a traditional approach to fighting the enemy. We need to re-invent the methods of war to be more effective in dealing with an embedded, distributed enemy, while safeguarding those who are not the enemy. We need to realize that protecting and nurturing those who are not the enemy is just as important to victory as attacking the terrorists. Maybe even more so!

[Guest American Woman]

I'm wondering every time I read about another laser-guided drone missile going astray in Afghanistan or Waziristan, how many Rosemary's over there are feeling like taking revenge on America.

Which is understandable, right? It's understandable that they blame all of America, but damn anyone who can understand where the 9-11 victims are coming from; they are all prejudiced bigots. Not so the Muslims who actually blame all Americans, though, even though all Americans aren't to blame. They aren't prejudiced or bigoted in the least. It's understandable that they feel the way they do.

But I'm curious as to why you, a Canadian, don't wonder how many Rosemary's are in Afghanistan wanting to take revenge on Canada for its involvement? Interesting, to say the least.

The problem with the way the Neocons are presenting this Muslim problem is that the motivations for terrorist attacks and suicide bombings are not based on religion.

What does this thread, this issue, have to do with "Neocons" and the "way [they] are presting 'this Muslim problem?'" Try focusing on the issue, which is very specific.

Another point that needs to be made about this fingerpointing at Muslims, is that the rhetoric from Christian nationalists in the U.S. is getting more aggressive and creating Christian extremist militias planning terrorist attacks of their own.

No, that "point" does not need to be made in this thread as it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue is the Mosque going up in the area of Ground Zero; a Mosque made possible by the actions of Muslims. Extremists, yes, but Muslims just the same. All I'm asking is that moderate Muslims have some sensitivity regarding how those who lost loved ones there might feel about it.

That's the issue up for discussion in this thread.

Edited May 13, 2010 by American Woman

[WIP]

Which is understandable, right? It's understandable that they blame all of America, but damn anyone who can understand where the 9-11 victims are coming from; they are all prejudiced bigots. Not so the Muslims who actually blame all Americans, though, even though all Americans aren't to blame. They aren't prejudiced or bigoted in the least. It's understandable that they feel the way they do.

Trying to understand people on the opposite side of the divide is much more difficult. But when it comes to understanding the 9/11 victims, they haven't all come away with the same ideas on how we should deal with terrorists and terrorism. If conservatives are so concerned about 9/11 victims, why did several conservative spokesmen like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, make personal attacks to the small group of 9/11 widows that appeared at the Congressional hearings demanding release of information regarding possible cover-up of negligence? The right wing only has sympathy for victims who share their beliefs, just as widows and parents of sons lost in Vietnam were scorned by conservatives if they wanted troops pulled out of Vietnam.

But I'm curious as to why you, a Canadian, don't wonder how many Rosemary's are in Afghanistan wanting to take revenge on Canada for its involvement? Interesting, to say the least.

Up till recent years Canadian troops kept a fairly low profile in Afghanistan, but when Harper decided that we need to be going on search and destroy missions against the Taleban, our soldiers are going to be targeted as well; and likewise it is much more likely now that Canada is an option for more terrorist attacks than it would have been previously.

We are taking sides with a corrupt political regime that employs soldiers who are ethnically different and in many cases, don't even speak the same language as the Pashtuns in these so called Taleban strongholds. Who are the locals going to support: the people who are from nearby tribes and speak the same dialect? Or the foreign infidels and the government troops of Turkmen and Uzbeks? It's amazing how history keeps repeating itself! This story was already played in Vietnam, and no reforms or new strategies worked there either.

What does this thread, this issue, have to do with "Neocons" and the "way [they] are presting 'this Muslim problem?'" Try focusing on the issue, which is very specific.

Specifically the us vs. them approach that loads all Muslims into the same boat and declares we have an inevitable "Clash Of Civilizations." I can't see anything but more of the same coming from that approach, and what I find most alarming, is the militancy that is growing in right wing Christianity south of the border. You don't want to address that topic, but the increase in Christian nationalist themes is going to lead to more groups like the Hutaree Militia. And then it becomes a matter of Christian extremists vs. Muslim extremists.

No, that "point" does not need to be made in this thread as it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue is the Mosque going up in the area of Ground Zero; a Mosque made possible by the actions of Muslims. Extremists, yes, but Muslims just the same. All I'm asking is that moderate Muslims have some sensitivity regarding how those who lost loved ones there might feel about it.

That's the issue up for discussion in this thread.

I've been reluctant to mention this, but part of my discomfort with the hysteria about a mosque being built near Ground Zero is that ground zero is being treated as a holy site. You and the others who are outraged by a possible mosque being placed nearby may deny it, but this reaction doesn't make sense unless Ground Zero is considered to be holy ground.

This reminds me of the Hindus who destroyed a mosque they claimed was where the Hindu God Rama ascended to heaven. Or the Palestinian outrage over Jewish zealots that want to build the Third Temple on the Temple Mount where the Al Aqsa Mosque sits now. They are very adamant that even if nothing is done to the mosque, it is still an abomination. This outrage over a mosque near ground zero is being treated in a similar manner. Secular thinkers are at pains to understand what all of the commotion is about, and I don't think it makes any sense unless ground zero is treated like a holy relic by some people.

[ToadBrother]

You said exactly what I just said Bob. Her position is understandable given the circumstances, but let's not sugar-coat what it is. Lets at least face what it is. Look it right in the face. Human nature- bigotry.

Kinda ugly, aint it

It's one of the routes of prejudice. "So-and-so did such-and-such to my relative/friend/co-religionist, so I hate everyone in so-and-so's tribal grouping."

In fact, it is a naked sort of tribalism. It asserts that Muslim Americans are essentially a separate tribe from non-Muslim Americans, and from there naturally flows a special kind of treatment; aka. Muslim Americans should not build a Mosque near the 9-11 site. It argues that a larger group whose chief, possibly only meaningful connection with the Islamists responsible for 9-11, is a shared religion, somehow must bear some special, prejudicial treatment.

On the one hand it's clearly fallacious thinking (in this case a Hasty Generalization). On the other, it's pure prejudice. So not only is it illogical, it is also morally wrong.

[DogOnPorch]

WIP: I've been reluctant to mention this, but part of my discomfort with the hysteria about a mosque being built near Ground Zero is that ground zero is being treated as a holy site. You and the others who are outraged by a possible mosque being placed nearby may deny it, but this reaction doesn't make sense unless Ground Zero is considered to be holy ground.

It's a grave site actually. See below for similar event.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8274043.stm

[Bob]

This reminds me of the Hindus who destroyed a mosque they claimed was where the Hindu God Rama ascended to heaven. Or the Palestinian outrage over Jewish zealots that want to build the Third Temple on the Temple Mount where the Al Aqsa Mosque sits now. They are very adamant that even if nothing is done to the mosque, it is still an abomination. This outrage over a mosque near ground zero is being treated in a similar manner. Secular thinkers are at pains to understand what all of the commotion is about, and I don't think it makes any sense unless ground zero is treated like a holy relic by some people.

What "Jewish zeolots" want to build the Third Temple on the Temple Mount? I'm not a particularly religious Jewish person, but the I must've missed the notice in the weekly Jewish bulletin of the return of the Messiah...

[ToadBrother]

What "Jewish zeolots" want to build the Third Temple on the Temple Mount? I'm not a particularly religious Jewish person, but the I must've missed the notice in the weekly Jewish bulletin of the return of the Messiah...

Sounds more like something some crazy church like the Pentecostals would want to do.

[sharkman]

The Jews have a religion. They used to have a temple. They want to rebuild it so that makes them zealots? Speaking of bigotry...

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm wondering every time I read about another laser-guided drone missile going astray in Afghanistan or Waziristan, how many Rosemary's over there are feeling like taking revenge on America. The problem with the way the Neocons are presenting this Muslim problem is that the motivations for terrorist attacks and suicide bombings are not based on religion. Religion can provide the sanctification for carrying out terrorist attacks, but the incentive for terrorist attacks is revenge. Declaring that 9 -11 is caused by reading the Quran is a claim made by people who don't want to factor in real-world issues, like resentment of the American Empire: military bases in the Middle East, along with carrier fleets controlling the shipping channels, supporting Western-friendly puppet dictators...are a few things to factor in to the discussion.

Well said, although i disagree that the motivations of 9/11 weren't religious. They were based on American foreign policy as you stated, particularly the US stationing military bases in Saudi Arabia near the 2 holiest sites in Islam, however radical fundamentalist interpretations of Islam (such as Qutbism and the idea of "offensive jihad") were also a large factor. But these interpretations of Islam are as they are described: radical, and not what most Muslims believe.

People fear what they do not understand. This is, in my opinion, the primary source for most bigotry, racism etc. From her statement, it seems Rosemary is quite likely a bigot. I'd also make a fare wager that she knows very little about Islam or Muslims in general. Instead of resenting Islam and the Muslim population for what happened on 9/11, Rosemary (assuming i'm right about her) and people like her should make an effort to attend a Mosque and/or mingle with the Muslim population and realize that the vast majority of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world are not bad, scary people who believe in bad, scary things.

If people want to expand the war on terror into a war against Islam, uhhm good luck with that. We aren't at war with Islam. Islam did not attack the U.S. on 9/11. If most of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world aka over 20% of the global population hated the West and wanted to kills us, we'd sure as heck be feeling it a a lot harder than a few rogue groups/individuals trying to blow up planes.

Equating Islam to 9/11 would be similar to Muslims equating Christianity to the Iraq War. During his State of the Union speech in early 2003 (2 months before the Iraq invasion) which he used largely to make his case for the war, George Bush, in classic neoconservative rhetoric, said:

"Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity."

Among many other examples of referencing God with the Iraq War & the war on terrorism, it's quite clear that Bush framed the invasion & the war vs terror at least partly in the name of God/religion/Christianity. But does that mean that the Muslim population should blame the Iraq War and all of Bush's foreign policies in the middle-east on all Christians? Or should they rather place the blame on those actually responsible? This same logic can be compared to blaming/equating Islam to terrorism and 9/11.

People need to get out more, meet new people, read more books, and stop being so freaking STUPID. Unless Westerners actually want to continually "clash" with 1.5 billion people and vice-versa, we're going to have to learn to live with each other. Ending the asinine missile drops and getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan (in a responsible manner) would be a great start on our part.

[WIP]

It's a grave site actually. See below for similar event.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8274043.stm

Noted. Nobody would object to a memorial at ground zero, but some of the thinking here is close to turning the place into some sort of holy shrine that will be defiled if an unclean group of people get too close to it.

[WIP]

What "Jewish zeolots" want to build the Third Temple on the Temple Mount? I'm not a particularly religious Jewish person, but the I must've missed the notice in the weekly Jewish bulletin of the return of the Messiah...

There's at least more than one temple movement such as this one, that want to build the Third Temple. I don't know if they work loosely together or would get into a big fight if the day came when they actually had a chance to build it. And about eight years ago, I came across this fascinating story about some Christian Zionistranchers that are trying to breed a red heifer -- an acceptable unblemished red heifer considered worthy as the first sacrificial offering by the presiding rabbi, would be the catalyst for an attempt to blow up or tear down the mosque and get that third temple built....and WWIII would right around the corner, I suppose.

[WIP]

The Jews have a religion. They used to have a temple. They want to rebuild it so that makes them zealots? Speaking of bigotry...

That would be fine if it wasn't for the demolition project that will be necessary before they build that temple.

[WIP]

Well said, although i disagree that the motivations of 9/11 weren't religious. They were based on American foreign policy as you stated, particularly the US stationing military bases in Saudi Arabia near the 2 holiest sites in Islam, however radical fundamentalist interpretations of Islam (such as Qutbism and the idea of "offensive jihad") were also a large factor. But these interpretations of Islam are as they are described: radical, and not what most Muslims believe.

I've heard that both the Islamists and the reform movements consider the Saudi government to be a corrupt despotic regime that's supported by the U.S. military. Also, I didn't know much of anything about Islam or the MiddleEast before 9/11. From what I've gathered, most of the Muslim World was moving in the direction of secularization until Europe moved in after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and established colonies. The colonial governments didn't last long, but they, along with the American who were invited in by the Saudis, set up Western-friendly governments that made sure that their oil companies got control of developing the oil fields. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic movements has to be credited somewhat to a reaction against Western economic domination and the installation of puppet dictators. If there is a problem with Islamic theology, as Daniel Pipes insists -- that they have to go through some sort of reformation process similar to that which happened after the breakup of the Catholic Church, then it would still make more sense to have less of a footprint in the MiddleEast and less dependence on getting oil from the region. I've read some progressive and liberal Muslims, many of whom are trying to promote an open process of Ijtihaad, frequently say it's virtually impossible to talk about reform in the current climate while war goes on in Iraq and things get worse in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan.

Equating Islam to 9/11 would be similar to Muslims equating Christianity to the Iraq War. During his State of the Union speech in early 2003 (2 months before the Iraq invasion) which he used largely to make his case for the war, George Bush, in classic neoconservative rhetoric, said:

"Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity."

Among many other examples of referencing God with the Iraq War & the war on terrorism, it's quite clear that Bush framed the invasion & the war vs terror at least partly in the name of God/religion/Christianity. But does that mean that the Muslim population should blame the Iraq War and all of Bush's foreign policies in the middle-east on all Christians? Or should they rather place the blame on those actually responsible? This same logic can be compared to blaming/equating Islam to terrorism and 9/11.

This is why I take the fingerpointing at Muslims by fundamentalist Christians with a grain of salt. All of the talk by conservatives in the U.S. of America being a Christian nation and such, is a clear sign that the boundaries between religion and politics have become blurred. As one U.S. general said after the success of the initial invasion: "I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol." There have been many Christian fundamentalist extremists who have used 9/11 to advance the notion that Christianity is imperiled and Christians need to become militant and fight for control of government (seems to be Glenn Beck's theme on most nights). The Christian theocracy movements are a more imminent threat here to democracy than worrying about Islamic government.

People need to get out more, meet new people, read more books, and stop being so freaking STUPID. Unless Westerners actually want to continually "clash" with 1.5 billion people and vice-versa, we're going to have to learn to live with each other. Ending the asinine missile drops and getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan (in a responsible manner) would be a great start on our part.

A few years ago, when I used to listen more to conservative radio, I can only recall one interviewer sticking Robert Spencer with the question of what do you suggest we do in the West about Islam, if it's really an unreformable movement bent on world domination. Not only didn't Spencer provide a straight answer, he stumbled around like he never even prepared for or thought about the question. And that's where this 'clash of civilizations' thinking falls apart. If they do believe in the Apocalypse or unending war, they refuse to say it out loud. From my perspective, there is no single Christianity or Islam to begin with. These are complex belief systems, not singular entities, and within each there are competing sects, and schools of thought with their own interpretations.

[Sir Bandelot]

Equating Islam to 9/11 would be similar to Muslims equating Christianity to the Iraq War.

Or blaming all the Jews for the miserable situation in Germany in 1938, and responding with the Kristallnacht that followed.

In the situation they have built up to now in the US, all it takes is for one more major event, like the assassination of some prominent public individual in US society, for this latent hatred and anger to explode into real physical violence. The event would be the trigger, and media propaganda will be the fuse. That's the danger of this "free speech" rhetorical garbage being espoused by the Limbaughs and Coulters, that portrays all these people as sharing some responsibility or guilt for 9/11.

And being defended here by the OP.

As though no muslims also died there, on that day!

Among those killed in the Twin Towers were an estimated 70 Muslims.

[sharkman]

Here we go again with the bending over backwards for anyone save the families of Americans who were lost in the attack on the WTC. They take precedence over those who want to build a 13 story mosque. It's not that complicated, and one can come to that conclusion without bigotry.

Speaking of which, I wonder how hard it would be to build a Christian church in a Muslim country? It's next to impossible, but America is happy to let you build whatever mosque, temple or church you want. Why don't some of you hand wringers analyze the apparent bigotry in this case and compare it with NYC allowing not one but 2 mosques in the area of the WTC attack. It's right there in the linked story that started this thread. There are 2 existing mosques and both are in use.

If there was bigotry then both of those mosques would have been closed by the city.

Edited May 15, 2010 by sharkman

[Sir Bandelot]

Here we go again with the bending over backwards for anyone save the families of Americans who were lost in the attack on the WTC. They take precedence over those who want to build a 13 story mosque. It's not that complicated, and one can come to that conclusion without bigotry.

As stated in the previous post, Muslims, and Muslim American familes lost their loved ones in the attack on the WTC.

Speaking of which, I wonder how hard it would be to build a Christian church in a Muslim country? It's next to impossible

By your reasoning you are advocating that USA should become like them. Show me how your logic is any different.

[WIP]

Here we go again with the bending over backwards for anyone save the families of Americans who were lost in the attack on the WTC. They take precedence over those who want to build a 13 story mosque. It's not that complicated, and one can come to that conclusion without bigotry.

It's too bad that trying to see the world from another perspective is a bad thing. I'm still waiting for someone to inform us of why building a mosque near the WTC is an unholy act.

Speaking of which, I wonder how hard it would be to build a Christian church in a Muslim country? It's next to impossible, but America is happy to let you build whatever mosque, temple or church you want.

And that's only the case until conservatives have their way and separation of church and state becomes a distant memory. Some of us unreligious folk have noted that it is Christian fundamentalists who raise this point. Since proponents of Christian Nation ideology would take away religious freedom from all non-christians, I am guessing that they would prefer no mosques be allowed to be built here, rather than churches built in Saudi Arabia.

Why don't some of you hand wringers analyze the apparent bigotry in this case and compare it with NYC allowing not one but 2 mosques in the area of the WTC attack. It's right there in the linked story that started this thread. There are 2 existing mosques and both are in use.

In my neighbourhood there are three churches within two blocks of each other; why can't they all go to just one church?

Here's why the proponents of the new mosque want to build the new one according to the link you mentioned:

Two Muslim organizations have partnered to open the mosque and cultural center in lower Manhattan, saying the $100 million project will create a venue for mainstream Islam and a counterbalance to radicalism. It earned a key endorsement this week from influential community leaders.

But the growing number of congregants at the only other nearby mosque, open only one day a week, created a need for an additional space for Muslim prayer in the neighborhood, said Daisy Khan, the executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement and a board member of the Cordoba Initiative, the two organizations sponsoring the project.

The post-opener only quoted from the outraged, and said nothing about the reasons why the advocates wanted to build a new mosque. Seems a lot of people want to be continually in a state of outrage, and only hearing one side of a story makes it easier to create a black and white world.

[sharkman]

As stated in the previous post, Muslims, and Muslim American familes lost their loved ones in the attack on the WTC.

By your reasoning you are advocating that USA should become like them. Show me how your logic is any different.

I really don't know how you can suggest my comments imply that the US should become like them. Seriously. So you must be trolling. Can't you take the issue seriously? Again, the US has freedom of religion. You can build any religious structure you want. In Muslim countries you can't. Can you look at those two facts and find one to be better than the other? I seriously doubt you can.

Yes, I know that Muslims died in the attack. Should a holy shrine be built for every religion whose members were lost in the attack? That would be the only way to be 100% fair. You seem unable to realize that they all died in an attack that killed thousands of Americans, in an American city in an American structure that was the centerpiece of the state.

I see no point in exploring this further with those such as you on this thread who seem to want to play devil's advocate for any issue simply to argue. But I'm sure others will entertain you.

[WIP]

I see no point in exploring this further with those such as you on this thread who seem to want to play devil's advocate for any issue simply to argue. But I'm sure others will entertain you.

It's not playing devil's advocate! It's a simple matter of either you allow religious freedom or you don't. Some Christian fundamentalists are up front about their hopes of imposing Christian values on the rest of society, while others deny it and pretend that resisting Christian domination is an attack on the rights of Christians.

Edited May 15, 2010 by WIP

[sharkman]

Gee, WIP, in your neighborhood was there an airliner attack by christian extremists that knocked down a Muslim structure? No? Oh, then why would you compare apples and oranges?

Building a mosque near the WTC is not holy nor unholy, and I find it strange that you would respect such reasoning if only it could be explained to you. Your comments on christian groups is based on fearmongering and nothing else. Christianity has had reduced sway on the political scene since they kicked prayers out of the classroom. Get back to me when Roe v Wade is overturned, or businesses are again closed on Sunday or homosexuality is again considered abnormal or rock and roll is outlawed.

As far as the issue of the 2 mosques already in use, I pointed this out several pages ago, but why can't they simply fix the structure that got damaged? If they are using it, and they are, then it has been deemed safe by the city. It's obvious they are only using the damage as an excuse to put up a 13 story structure, and any low level city clerk can see through the strategy. The other mosque can be opened more than 1 day a week to meet demand, if there is any. But for some reason you can't see any of this and I am really puzzled as to why. It's obvious that you have reasoning and an intellect, but you can't analyze the situation and simply ask why on the Muslim side as you have on the side of the opponents. Weird.

[DogOnPorch]

It's too bad that trying to see the world from another perspective is a bad thing. I'm still waiting for someone to inform us of why building a mosque near the WTC is an unholy act.

Do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea to build a hotel @ Babi Yar?

[WIP]

Do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea to build a hotel @ Babi Yar?

According to that article you linked earlier, they are planning to build a hotel in the middle of the site, not nearby as in this case, so where's the comparison. How far away from WTC does a mosque have to be before you would consider it acceptable?

[Sir Bandelot]

I really don't know how you can suggest my comments imply that the US should become like them. Seriously. So you must be trolling.

Not at all. If a person is polite I am polite in kind. If a person makes provocative statements, I respond in kind. But only a little. I try to make a point, not just come here for silly arguments.

Now back to your comment, maybe not you but the implication is that these things are not considered acceptable at the wtc. That is the attitude of some people here, that's what's implied in this thread. And while it's a far stretch from being "like them", it's still a step towards it. And my view is, this attitude is prejudiced. Even when we know innocent muslims died there too, that some could still hold this view, demonstrates a thinly veiled contempt for anyone who would dare go near the wtc sight and say, "Allahu Akbhar..."

Should a holy shrine be built for every religion whose members were lost in the attack? That would be the only way to be 100% fair.

No, only a muslim shrine should be allowed there. No christian shrines should be allowed.

In truth I think this is the best possible choice they could make, a place for all religions to come and worship, not just muslims. Maybe that's too smart for these city planners or whoever to figure out.

I see no point in exploring this further with those such as you on this thread who seem to want to play devil's advocate for any issue simply to argue. But I'm sure others will entertain you.

Oh come now. I think you're just feeling a little agitated today for some reason. You've made some good points, please continue. It's not a contest.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[DogOnPorch]

According to that article you linked earlier, they are planning to build a hotel in the middle of the site, not nearby as in this case, so where's the comparison. How far away from WTC does a mosque have to be before you would consider it acceptable?

Before I consider it acceptable? Best ask someone who lost somebody in the attack THAT question. My question was...

Do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea to build a hotel @ Babi Yar?

[Guest American Woman]

According to that article you linked earlier, they are planning to build a hotel in the middle of the site, not nearby as in this case, so where's the comparison. How far away from WTC does a mosque have to be before you would consider it acceptable?

Far enough away so as the land/building isn't available due to the attacks; as a direct result of the attacks. Far enough away not to have been part of the destruction caused by the Muslims who carried out 9-11. The building that the Mosque is being built in IS part of the site/area/call-it-what-you-will that was damaged on 9-11.But for the attacks, by Muslims, the Mosque would have had to have been built elsewhere, so I think, out of sensitivity to that fact, the Mosque should be built elsewhere. What if the attacks hadn't occurred? That's exactly what would have to be done-- the Mosque would have to be built elsewhere. Do you truly not get that?