Mosque going up in NYC building

[Guest American Woman]

Ok, this is getting ridiculous.

This was not "any" snippet about Muslims, it was one of direct, obvious relevance to this thread. You two don't really need to have it explained for you why the quote from the article was noteworthy in the context of this discussion.

Amen to that.

And AW is hardly someone who has made a reputation of going around singling out Muslims for abuse. There are a number of "case warriors" here on MLW whose devotion to their particular causes-- whether it be complaining about immigrants, complaining about Da Joos, posting LPC talking points, posting Republican talking points, discussing Jesus, declaring war on atheists, or whatever. AW isn't one of them. You guys have been around long enough to know her better than that.

Thank you; I really appreciate your pointing that out.

It's par for the course, though: if you don't support the supermegamosque, you must be a bigot!

It's really all they have. Their convictions are based solely on the idea that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a bigot. They can't come back with anything else, and ironically, they don't see how intolerant their behavior is ... as they accuse others of being bigots and not being honest with themselves, for views they don't have.

[bush_cheney2004]

....It's really all they have. Their convictions are based solely on the idea that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a bigot. They can't come back with anything else, and ironically, they don't see how intolerant their behavior is ... as they accuse others of being bigots and not being honest with themselves, for views they don't have.

That's the funny part...they love to label any opposition as bigotry while engaging in a consistent intolerance. My favorite excuse often offered is that they hate US government policies, but not Americans! LOL!

[Guest American Woman]

There are several logical reasons to oppose it...and these have been articulated well. You simply disagree and have pronounced them to be bigots.

Exactly. He can't "understand" how anyone could feel that way, so obviously they really don't feel that way, unless they are a bigot. Talk about small-minded ignorance/intolerance of anyone else's views.

How convenient...and I look forward to hoisting you by the same petard in the future.

Yep, evidently that's the way to play it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. No reason to give him any more respect than he gives others, and the same goes for the rest of his ilk.

Should make for really interesting, intelligent discussions, eh?

[Guest American Woman]

That's the funny part...they love to label any opposition as bigotry while engaging in a consistent intolerance. My favorite excuse often offered is that they hate US government policies, but not Americans! LOL!

Oh, I've heard that one over and over again. And of course it's ok to hate America as that's not the same as hating Americans. But boy, oh, boy. If you have one negative thing to say about Islam, you hate Muslims. You are a bigot. Pure and simple. No two ways about it.

But it's ok to have negative feelings about lots of things. Just not Islam. Or whatever else they decree is 'off limits.'

The ignorance is astounding, and made more so by the fact that they can't see they are the totally intolerant ones.

I don't hate Islam, much less Muslims. I spoke out just as strongly in support of the foot baths at U of M. But it would be so much more convenient for them if I did hate Muslims, which is why they try so hard to get me to "admit" something I don't feel, as they see themselves as the tolerant ones.

[kimmy]

If you don't have a logical reason for opposing it, there isn't really another explanation. CANADIEN for example, has a reasonable explanation.

I must have missed that; last time I checked in with this thread (some time ago, I admit) he was among those screaming "bigot!" the loudest.

Here's my objections to the superdupermegamosque:

1) This project is clearly divisive. Predictably so. That in itself makes it a bad idea. As the article AW just furnished points out, this has done nothing but raise tension. Did that really need to happen?

2) This project-- regardless of Imam Rauf's intentions-- will be hailed as a great victory by Islamists: "We smashed down their towers and built a mosque on the rubble!" Call me petty, but I just don't like the idea of giving those scumbags anything to cheer about. In fact, it disgusts me. ("OMG, kimmy is bigoted against Islamists!" Before you start shouting, get out your thesaurus and look up Islamist. It's not a synonym for Muslim.)

3) Imam Rauf is exploiting the notoriety of 9/11 to spread his message. In Muslim countries, his book "What's Right With Islam Is Right With America!" is published under the title "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11". Does it really seem a coincidence that he is now building is supermosque on what is, essentially, as close as he can get to that actual rubble? He's attempting to co-opt 9/11 for his own purposes. Do you not appreciate that this just won't go over well?

4) Considering the immense sums of Wahhabi money that will inevitably be involved, it's entirely reasonable to wonder whether this project will really be the super-inclusive bridge-building exercise its proponents claim it will. It seems more likely that it'll end up as a 13-story monument to stone-age Saudi ideology. Given some of Imam Rauf's statements, it seems that his notion of "bridge-building" would more accurately be described as "making America more friendly to Islam", which isn't quite the same thing. He's apparently a big proponent of Sharia law.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

I must have missed that; last time I checked in with this thread (some time ago, I admit) he was among those screaming "bigot!" the loudest.

He hasn't changed his tune since his "burning a koran in WRONG AND HEINOUS" spiel. He's "opposed" to the mosque because of the increased danger to Muslims from the opposition, or some such thing. Which is the only "logical" reason for opposing it. So I hope you don't think your views are anything other than the views of a BIGOT!

[Shady]

Well, well, well. Look what we have here.

Mosque Investor Donated to Hamas-Linked Charity

MYFOXNY.COM - A Fox 5 investigation by Charles Leaf revealed ties between a terrorist organization and Hisham Elzanaty, an investor in the property where a group plans to build a community center and mosque two blocks from the world trade center site.

Fox 5 uncovered and confirmed with his attorney that Elzanaty, an Egyptian born long island businessman, contributed $6,000 a Muslim charity called the holy land foundation in 1999.

But the federal government shut down the charity in 2001 and accused it of funneling money to Hamas, a designated terror organization.

Link

[Guest American Woman]

Well, well, well. Look what we have here.

In all fairness, he could very well have been unaware that the charity was channeling money to Hamas; in fact, most likely was. He didn't give the money to Hamas, but to an orphanage.

Mr. Elzanaty gave restricted money to the group for orphans, unaware of its links to Hamas, according to Park51, the group behind the proposed 13-story center in downtown Manhattan.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Elzanaty said, "I'm very tired emotionally and physically from all of this and I'm very concerned about my family because of this ."link

[Shady]

In all fairness, he could very well have been unaware that the charity was channeling money to Hamas

I agree, it's certainly possible. I just found it a heckuva coincidence. And probably not the only possible instance of impropriety.

[nicky10013]

I agree, it's certainly possible. I just found it a heckuva coincidence. And probably not the only possible instance of impropriety.

So, with absolutely no evidence, and from the same news company that found terrorist links to the director of the Kingdom Foundation, whom they never named publicly (hilariously because he also happens to be part owner of Fox), you're willing to throw around these kinds of accusations? Smart.

[nicky10013]

I must have missed that; last time I checked in with this thread (some time ago, I admit) he was among those screaming "bigot!" the loudest.

Here's my objections to the superdupermegamosque:

1) This project is clearly divisive. Predictably so. That in itself makes it a bad idea. As the article AW just furnished points out, this has done nothing but raise tension. Did that really need to happen?

The people building mosques aren't the one raising the tension. It's the ones who are accusing them of terrorism.

2) This project-- regardless of Imam Rauf's intentions-- will be hailed as a great victory by Islamists: "We smashed down their towers and built a mosque on the rubble!" Call me petty, but I just don't like the idea of giving those scumbags anything to cheer about. In fact, it disgusts me. ("OMG, kimmy is bigoted against Islamists!" Before you start shouting, get out your thesaurus and look up Islamist. It's not a synonym for Muslim.)

So? Let them claim victory. Why do peaceful muslims in North America have to live and die by what makes fanatics overseas happy or sad?

3) Imam Rauf is exploiting the notoriety of 9/11 to spread his message. In Muslim countries, his book "What's Right With Islam Is Right With America!" is published under the title "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11". Does it really seem a coincidence that he is now building is supermosque on what is, essentially, as close as he can get to that actual rubble? He's attempting to co-opt 9/11 for his own purposes. Do you not appreciate that this just won't go over well?

No, it seems to me that with the title of the book isn't an attempt to profit off of 9/11 but to portray Islam as the peaceful religion it is in the face of ignorant morons who believe otherwise. Why is it always the muslim person who has the sinister methods? Can't it just be, like with other religions, that perhaps they just want a community centre and a place to pray? No one questions any other religion about their prayer spaces. Unless we want to start a 1789esque revolution against all men and women of the cloth, it seems particularly unfair to pick out muslims when they've done absolutely nothing wrong. Indeed, I find the people who are really sinister in this issue are the people who have used people's fear of terrorism to stoke islamaphobia purely for political gain (Sarah Palin, I'm looking at you).

4) Considering the immense sums of Wahhabi money that will inevitably be involved, it's entirely reasonable to wonder whether this project will really be the super-inclusive bridge-building exercise its proponents claim it will. It seems more likely that it'll end up as a 13-story monument to stone-age Saudi ideology. Given some of Imam Rauf's statements, it seems that his notion of "bridge-building" would more accurately be described as "making America more friendly to Islam", which isn't quite the same thing. He's apparently a big proponent of Sharia law.

-k

Holy assumption, Batman! If Saudi money is good in every other aspect of society, and the person actually preaching is pluralistic and not radical at all (which he is, the state department sent him to preach liberal islam in the middle east), then what influence do "wahhabis" really have? Yet another scare tactic with absolutely no base in reality.

[Smallc]

Thank you Nicky, for putting it so eloquently. The excuses that those in opposition use to avoid appearing biased are quite a stretch. There are very few if any logical reasons to be against this community centre. The only real logical one that I've heard deals with fear of retribution by bigots.

[Guest American Woman]

The people building mosques aren't the one raising the tension. It's the ones who are accusing them of terrorism.

Holy assumption, Batman! So everyone who is against the mosque going on that property is "accusing them of terrorism?"

So? Let them claim victory. Why do peaceful muslims in North America have to live and die by what makes fanatics overseas happy or sad?

Since when did all the fanatics move overseas?

No, it seems to me that with the title of the book isn't an attempt to profit off of 9/11 but to portray Islam as the peaceful religion it is in the face of ignorant morons who believe otherwise. Why is it always the muslim person who has the sinister methods? Can't it just be, like with other religions, that perhaps they just want a community centre and a place to pray?

She said "exploiting," not "profiting," which are two very different things. So, care to address what she actually said?

No one questions any other religion about their prayer spaces.

No one questioned them when this building was simply a "prayer space" either. Furthermore, no other religion's prayer spaces are in buildings that became available only through the murderous actions of other members of their religion; in the shadow of a memorial to thousands of deaths due to those actions.

Unless we want to start a 1789esque revolution against all men and women of the cloth, it seems particularly unfair to pick out muslims when they've done absolutely nothing wrong.

No Muslims have done anything wrong? Holy shit, Batman! Methinks you best come out of your cave once in awhile.

Indeed, I find the people who are really sinister in this issue are the people who have used people's fear of terrorism to stoke islamaphobia purely for political gain (Sarah Palin, I'm looking at you).

I don't care for Sarah Palin any more than you do, but I don't think it's any less "sinister" than Rauf et al continuing to use this mosque to politicize his agenda when the result is what we are seeing. Fact is, his actions have put both Muslims and non-Muslims in greater danger with his politicizing of this issue; using 9-11 and this mosque the way he is ... in spite of all the hard feelings on both sides, the increased danger to both sides. But yeah. Let's just single out Sarah Palin.

Just as you single out only the increased danger to Muslims, it works the other way around. And fyi, the increased tension affects both sides, and there wouldn't be any "tension" in the first place but for the acts of terrorism. Carried out by Muslims. Why do you think Muslims are concerned about some Muslims retaliating if they are provoked? Because they aren't living in a cave.

Edited September 5, 2010 by American Woman

[BubberMiley]

Holy assumption, Batman! So everyone who is against the mosque going on that property is "accusing them of terrorism?"

Certainly "associating" them with terrorism.

[Guest American Woman]

Certainly "associating" them with terrorism.

You do realize there's a difference between "Islam" and individual Muslims, right? So no. Not "associating them with terrorism," either.

[BubberMiley]

You do realize there's a difference between "Islam" and individual Muslims, right? So no. Not "associating them with terrorism," either.

Then why dost thou protest where they choose to worship?

[Guest American Woman]

Then why dost thou protest where they choose to worship?

I'm not protesting where they choose to worship. They already worship at that site and have been for a year or so. I'm protesting a mosque going up on that property for the reasons I've stated over and over and over again. The fact that you are still asking "why" tells me that you have no ability whatsoever to listen to/pay attention to what others say.

You might want to give that a try .....

Until then, there's absolutely no point in repeating, yet again, "why."

[Smallc]

I'm not protesting where they choose to worship. They already worship at that site and have been for a year or so. I'm protesting a mosque going up on that property for the reasons I've stated over and over and over again. The fact that you are still asking "why" tells me that you have no ability whatsoever to listen to/pay attention to what others say.

We're asking why because the reasons that you give make no sense. The above ^ again makes it even more complicated.

[nicky10013]

Holy assumption, Batman! So everyone who is against the mosque going on that property is "accusing them of terrorism?"

Not all, but A LOT of them are. You can't deny that.

Since when did all the fanatics move overseas?

So you're saying these people are fanatics?

She said "exploiting," not "profiting," which are two very different things. So, care to address what she actually said?

You're playing semantics. In this case, I think both can mean the same thing. My answer before stands.

No one questioned them when this building was simply a "prayer space" either. Furthermore, no other religion's prayer spaces are in buildings that became available only through the murderous actions of other members of their religion; in the shadow of a memorial to thousands of deaths due to those actions.

ahahahah so how many people did Burlington Coat Factory murder? In all honesty, this is a pretty much disgusting pile of trash right here. You're assigning blame on all of muslims what happened on 9/11. We live in a society of individual responsibility, not communal blame. The people who are going to be worshipping there had absolutely nothing to do with terrorist attacks. You're playing a game of guilt by association, even though they aren't even associated.

No Muslims have done anything wrong? Holy shit, Batman! Methinks you best come out of your cave once in awhile.

What have the people who want a place to pray have done? That was my point. You've gone again and assigned responsibility for the events of 9/11 to people who had nothing to do with that. It's irresponsible.

I don't care for Sarah Palin any more than you do, but I don't think it's any less "sinister" than Rauf et al continuing to use this mosque to politicize his agenda when the result is what we are seeing. Fact is, his actions have put both Muslims and non-Muslims in greater danger with his politicizing of this issue; using 9-11 and this mosque the way he is ... in spite of all the hard feelings on both sides, the increased danger to both sides. But yeah. Let's just single out Sarah Palin.

Just as you single out only the increased danger to Muslims, it works the other way around. And fyi, the increased tension affects both sides, and there wouldn't be any "tension" in the first place but for the acts of terrorism. Carried out by Muslims. Why do you think Muslims are concerned about some Muslims retaliating if they are provoked? Because they aren't living in a cave.

I said this before in another thread, I'll say it again. If you're going to blame "muslims" for 9/11, you might as well blame all men. There are almost 2 billion muslims, there are 3 billion men. The corrolation is about the same. The people who committed those acts are people who are using the religion for political gain and for absolutely nothing religious. To paint with THAT broad of a brush is just wrong.

As for the Imam, what politicisation? This mosque and this project have been on the books for a WHILE. No members or the Imam himself never made a deal of it in the national press. It was picked up by Sarah Palin and Fox News and the tea party ran with it. Even since then, how many times have you seen the Imam on tv? I've been following this issue pretty closely and I've still yet to hear him speak on the issue. Indeed, all I've seen are angry people claiming that all terrorists are Muslim.

So, how can their side try to politicise the issue when they haven't been attempting to politicise the issue? This argument makes absolutely no sense.

[nicky10013]

I'm not protesting where they choose to worship. They already worship at that site and have been for a year or so. I'm protesting a mosque going up on that property for the reasons I've stated over and over and over again. The fact that you are still asking "why" tells me that you have no ability whatsoever to listen to/pay attention to what others say.

You might want to give that a try .....

Until then, there's absolutely no point in repeating, yet again, "why."

With the logic of the side that is against it, even muslims praying there is a victory for terrorists. How you can approve of people praying there and not a mosque is hypocritical to the point of hilarity.

[nicky10013]

You do realize there's a difference between "Islam" and individual Muslims, right? So no. Not "associating them with terrorism," either.

Yes, you blatantly are tying all muslims to terrorism. I'm sorry, but you are.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, you blatantly are tying all muslims to terrorism. I'm sorry, but you are.

No...you are doing this. You just did it again.

[nicky10013]

No...you are doing this. You just did it again.

Doing what?

[bush_cheney2004]

Doing what?

Repeating the false association not made by AW at all. I'll bet you learned this technique from Fox News.

[nicky10013]

Repeating the false association not made by AW at all. I'll bet you learned this technique from Fox News.

This is what she said.

No one questioned them when this building was simply a "prayer space" either. Furthermore, no other religion's prayer spaces are in buildings that became available only through the murderous actions of other members of their religion; in the shadow of a memorial to thousands of deaths due to those actions.

She's explicitly tying peacful muslims to 9/11. Try again.