Mosque going up in NYC building

[Machjo]

OK, 'Americanize' can have various meanings of course, but that's another matter. I'm guessing that he means 'integrate Muslims into American society'. If that's what he means, then I could see the point of building the mosque there, to send the message that Muslims are just as American as any other.

In this article though:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/zero_imam_mover_sheik_er_Saqw4jTP8glUr79BDxahqM

The idea that the Imam if funded by taxpayers does bother me mind you. I'm not an American myself, but I can say that I would not appreciate my tax dollars funding religious initiatives. Should the protesters be protesting in favour of a clearer separation of Church and state here with an end to public funding of religion?

[Machjo]

Yes, because that so accurately portrays "my wisdom." Except for the fact that I've neither said nor think any such thing. But don't let that stop you from claiming that I did. We wouldn't want the truth to interfere with your life in any way. A life which obviously is virtually overflowing with bliss.

So if there is no commonality, then why do you oppose the building of the mosque on that location? Can you not be sensitive to the members of that congregation who'd lost loved ones on 9/11? Do you asociate them with the terrorists? If not, then what relationship is there between 9/11 and the building of that mosque?

Now, if the protesters were proposing making a museum out of that building or making it a heritage site, I could see that. But right now they are targeting Islam specifically even though there are Churches even closer to Ground Zero than the Mosque is. You keep saying that there is no relationship between the Islamic centre and the terrorists, yet then turn around and say they shouldn't build there because of the terrorists. You're sending two contradictory messages. If that community has nothing to do with 9/11 then they should be sensitive to whom exactly?

[Machjo]

OK, American Woman, let me try to understand you point of view here, and correct me if I'm wrong.

1. You do not associate the local Muslim community with those who flew the planes into the buildings on 9/11.

2. The local Muslim community should be more sensitive to the victims of 9/11 because the terrorists claimed the same religion.

Now to me, that would seem like a contradiction since if you do not associate them, then the actions and claims of the perpetrators of the attacks have absolutely no bearing on the local Muslim community. But again, correct me if I missed something here. And why would anyone oppose the building of the centre of feel offended by it if they see no relationship whatsoever between the terrorists and the local Muslim community.

3. Some Muslims also oppose the building of that centre for various reasons.

4. Some Muslims themselves lost loved ones on 9/11, including the members of the local community.

Now I'll assume you agree with both points 3 and 4 above, but then the question is, seeing that the local Muslim community was more impacted than any other Muslim community overall, does it not have more of a say than Muslims from elsewhere? And even if some local Muslims oppose the centre, would this not be a decision to be made within the local Muslim community itself? After all, who am I to stick my nose in the affairs of another religious community I don't belong to? On that front, I must therefore defend their right to build the mosque unless they themselves decide against doing so. Again, correct me if I missed anything here.

I would also assume that if that local community supports building that mosque, and since it too had lost members to 9/11, that family and friends of victims of 9/11 also support building that mosque.

That being the case, should we not be sensitive to them too? Certainly it's offensive to them to suggest that their loved ones who died on 9/11 were somehow related to their murderers, no?

So it would seem that in the end, if that lcoal community has no relationship with the perpetrators of 9/11, then they should be free to build the mosque. And yes, you have said that too. However, on the topic of sensitivity, is it not insensitive to oppose the centre on the grounds that the terrorists were Muslim, in that it then implies a relationship between the Muslim victims of 9/11 and their captors?

How do we make sense of all of these contradictions?

[jbg]

The Saudi's sell oil to everyone around the world. Not just America. And America actually buys a lot more oil from Canada and Mexico than it does from Saudi Arabia. Get your facts straight.

Actually MSJ has a point. Oil is fungible and the U.S.'s consumption to some extent drives overall consumption. It matters little who buys from where.

A rare time you'll find me agreeing with MSJ.

[jbg]

I think it's a really good sign that Hamas has put its support behind this mosque; I'm sure it's because of their undying belief that it will be a moderate mosque, with the purpose of building bridges between the Muslim world and the rest of the world. Because that's so important to Hamas.

I'm sure Hamas is more moderate than Robert Picton or Paul Bernardo.

[jbg]

This is why I'm 99% sure you're a woman-less individual. Women are just an abstract concept to you.

Usually I agree with you but you're 100% wrong on this one.

[Shady]

Actually MSJ has a point. Oil is fungible and the U.S.'s consumption to some extent drives overall consumption. It matters little who buys from where.

A rare time you'll find me agreeing with MSJ.

As does China's demand.

[Shady]

I'm sure Hamas is more moderate than Robert Picton or Paul Bernardo.

What does this have to do with anything?

[jbg]

What does this have to do with anything?

I'm just pointing out that there is nothing moderate about Hamas.

[jbg]

As does China's demand.

I personally believe that China's demand is in large part government speculation in the commodity markets. In other words faux demand.

[DogOnPorch]

Usually I agree with you but you're 100% wrong on this one.

Met Mrs Dre? OK...I'll bite. Where?

[jbg]

Met Mrs Dre? OK...I'll bite. Where?

In Kuglugtuk, NU.

[Machjo]

At the end of the day, the builders of the Mosque should accept that if they do build that mosque, they're likely to encourage more acts like this:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_WHbJaoFjYrsEoH2jzSmveP;jsessionid=3BB099701CC8EBF9E6CB3C2B8FB84929

[Machjo]

Or this:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_WHbJaoFjYrsEoH2jzSmveP;jsessionid=3BB099701CC8EBF9E6CB3C2B8FB84929

[Machjo]

And Sikhs had better run for their lives too if that mosque is built:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.hate.crimes/

[Shady]

I personally believe that China's demand is in large part government speculation in the commodity markets. In other words faux demand.

China just suprassed Japan as the second largest economy in the world. Their energy demands have multiplied over the last several years because of an expanding economy. There isn't really anything faux about it.

And Sikhs had better run for their lives too if that mosque is built:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.hate.crimes/

Yeah, because hate crimes in 2001 must be on the same level as in 2009.

Anyways, I was just reading that under Islam, converting to another religion is a sin worse than murder. Moderates FTW!!!

[Guest American Woman]

And Sikhs had better run for their lives too if that mosque is built:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.hate.crimes/

Let's just hope they don't run for the Canadian border!

link

Edited August 22, 2010 by American Woman

[Machjo]

Yeah, because hate crimes in 2001 must be on the same level as in 2009.

Then here's one from many moons ago in 2010:

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-05-12/story/pipe-bomb-used-jacksonville-mosque-blast

And from Canada, again many moons ago in 2010:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/01/04/hamilton-mosque-firebomb.html

Freedom of expression? Right.

Anyways, I was just reading that under Islam, converting to another religion is a sin worse than murder. Moderates FTW!!!

Reading it from where? Let's get it from the horse's mouth, shall we:

Let there be no compulsion in Religion.

(The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura 2 - The Cow)

But hey, how ridiculous it must be to judge a religion by its sacred texts, from the horse's mouth. It makes much more sense to judge it by how others, including many Muslims, have chosen to corrupt it of course.

[Machjo]

Let's just hope they don't run for the Canadian border!

link

What just happened there? I agree with you! It's been awhile that I've agreed with your posts, but I have to agree with this link without a doubt.

[Machjo]

It would seem anti-Muslim murders are still occurring in the Western World:

[Machjo]

So with all the mosque burnings, murders after 9/11, and still today, could we just not call it even and let the local NYC community build their mosque near Ground Zero? After all, they're not calling for a ban on the building of Christian churches near where their mosques have been firebombed or their members murdered now are they? Likewise with abortion doctors. I'm not aware of any call for a ban on Christian churches near where abortion doctors are killed (then again, one was killed in a church). So why the double standard?

As Churchill once said, though I may be paraphrasing here:

When one person dies, it's a tragedy. When a million die, it's statistics.

[Shady]

So with all the mosque burnings, murders after 9/11, and still today, could we just not call it even and let the local NYC community build their mosque near Ground Zero?

Even? Are you joking? There haven't been many burnings or murders.

After all, they're not calling for a ban on the building of Christian churches near where their mosques have been firebombed or their members murdered now are they? Likewise with abortion doctors.

Nobody is calling for a ban on building mosques. Are you people purposely being obtuse?

I'm not aware of any call for a ban on Christian churches near where abortion doctors are killed (then again, one was killed in a church). So why the double standard?

I'm unaware of an church being built beside a murdered doctor. However, in the history of America, only 3 doctors have ever been killed. So your analogy kind of falls apart. Let us know when 3000 doctors are murdered in a building all at once.

[Machjo]

Not many mosques firebombed:

I've already posted the firebombings in Hamilton ad Jacksonville. Now:

Luton

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=4064

Sydney

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/09/13/attack.australia.muslims/index.html

Columbia:

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2010/3/26/white-supremacist-who-firebombed-mosque-is-sentenced.html

Edinburgh:

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/evening-news-edinburgh-scotland/mi_7832/is_2001_Oct_3/firebomb-city-mosque/ai_n32944125/

And I especially like the symbolism of this one in Bosnia:

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/evening-news-edinburgh-scotland/mi_7832/is_2001_Oct_3/firebomb-city-mosque/ai_n32944125/

Tit for tat I see. And so back and forth it goes.

And another attempted attack in Arlington:

http://thesop.org/story/religion/2009/06/12/possible-fire-bomb-found-at-mosque-site.php

Need I go on?

Now for attacks:

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=3323

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tribute-to-modern-muslim-murdered-at-home-442557.html

And in the US:

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/muslim-attacked-and-beaten-to-a-pulpin-brooklyn-is-it-a-hate-crime/

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Now I understand that you're not saying to prohibit building the mosque there, but you are saying it shouldn't be built there owing to 'sensitivities'. Well, firebombing mosques ain't sensitive either, anymore than killing and beating Muslims.

Looking at it that way, at least Muslims have been responsible enough not to tarnish all Westerners with the same brush and aren't harassing Westerners for showing a Western presence in area where mosques have been firebombed and Muslims beaten or killed. So why stoop so low as to do it to them? Why the double standard?

[Machjo]

I'm unaware of an church being built beside a murdered doctor. However, in the history of America, only 3 doctors have ever been killed. So your analogy kind of falls apart. Let us know when 3000 doctors are murdered in a building all at once.

I see. So they all have to be doctors and be killed all at once or it doesn't count. Well, I guess the KKK is OK then, since they'd never killed 3,000 doctors at once. They killed off regular folk over time, kind of like the anti-Muslim attacks today. So, should we not be sensitive towards Muslims in return? Were are the anti-Mosque burning and anti-murder protesters? Oh yes, Molotov and baseball bat experts are likely among the protesters' main funders. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

[Machjo]

By the way, here's another way of looking at the 9/11 incident:

Those Msulims who were beaten or even killed in various cities around the world as a direct result of the 9/11 attacks could also be legitimately viewed as victims of 9/11, and that their attackers were perpetrators of the attacks on 9/11. If we look at it that way, then not all the terrorists are Muslim anymore.

You might argue that's a stretch, but it's not entirely so. If the perpetrators of these attacks on Muslims and firebombings were directly motivated by the 9/11 attacks, then their victims are by extension 9/11 victims. Yet it would be foolhardy to put 100% of the blame for these attacks on the terrorists who flew the planes. Therefore, we must conclude that the attackers in these cases are unwitting accomplices to the 9/11 attacks, even if the attacks occurred days or years later if they were in fact motivated by the 9/11 attacks.