Mosque going up in NYC building

[Machjo]

They'll be part of the planned museum and memorial. Just like everybody else.

The point is that that post implied that is was bad enough that the better option was to jump, but only for the non-Muslims. The Muslims were up there having a party and a BBQ I suppose?

[kimmy]

Then don't celebrate it. But nice going from "the Centre is a bad idea because Islamists may use it as a symbol"

which I continue to believe.

to "the Centre is bad because it,s Muslim"

And if Rauf is exploiting 9/11 to reach out and win more converts, then it's not quite the selfless peace mission its supporters are claiming. If his goal is making peace, fine, but if his goal is spreading Islam, then I certainly don't wish him well.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

They'll be part of the planned museum and memorial. Just like everybody else.

Exactly.

[Machjo]

Err... I may be wrong here, but I fail to see how kimmy was playing an ethnic origin card.

"As a North American..."

[nicky10013]

which I continue to believe.

And if Rauf is exploiting 9/11 to reach out and win more converts, then it's not quite the selfless peace mission its supporters are claiming. If his goal is making peace, fine, but if his goal is spreading Islam, then I certainly don't wish him well.

-k

There is absolutely no proof of any kind that he's trying to convert people to Islam. None.

[Shady]

He seems to be a believer in Sharia, eh? Any proof to back that up? The Imam is a Sufi Muslim. Good description of what they are here.

What Shariah Law Is All About

By Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

Link

[Machjo]

They'll be part of the planned museum and memorial. Just like everybody else.

So we can play it both ways here:

1. Since they'll all have a shared memorial anyway, we might as well just get rid of all the local religious buildings, or

2. Since they'll all have a shared memorial anyway at Ground Zero, then building a religious centre two blocks away does not matter.

Since i believe in freedom of religion, I go for option 2 above.

Now of course there is the third option of associating the centre with the terrorists based on all kinds of false logic.

[Guest American Woman]

He seems to be a believer in Sharia, eh? Any proof to back that up? The Imam is a Sufi Muslim. Good description of what they are here.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/08/my-take-whats-a-sufi-the-imam-behind-new-yorks-islamic-center-is-one/

http://www.mahablog.com/2010/08/11/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-is-a-sufi/

He's said that "America is a Sharia compliant state" .... You think he's saying that because he doesn't believe in Sharia?

[nicky10013]

I take it you didn't bother to read it.

At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.

Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah.

In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government - legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law.

The two pieces of unfinished business in Muslim countries are to revise the penal code so that it is responsive to modern realities and to ensure that the balance between the three branches of government is not out of kilter.

Rather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is. Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam.

What a radical. Lock the bastard up.

[nicky10013]

He's said that "America is a Sharia compliant state" .... You think he's saying that because he doesn't believe in Sharia?

Well maybe you should actually read what his definiton of Sharia is.

[CANADIEN]

Despite your claims that he is a liberal, he seems like a traditionalist, a firm believer in Sharia. His stated mission of building bridges seems more to me like making America more accommodating of Islam. Whether that's a good intention is highly subjective, and you already know how I feel about it.

-k

Who cares if he is a traditionalist or Libral? As long as he intents on building bridges (and I have yet to see proof to the contrary) and as long as he will obey the laws of his country...

[Shady]

I take it you didn't bother to read it.

What a radical. Lock the bastard up.

Actually, I've read it, several weeks ago. Apparently you didn't even know if its existence.

And actually, comparing Sharia law to the Delcaration of Independence sounds more than a little radical to me.

[DogOnPorch]

Islam was experiencing its Golden Age at the time, with many Jews and unorthodox Christians escaping to Moorish Spain for protection.

Only holds so much water apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre

[Machjo]

I take it you didn't bother to read it.

What a radical. Lock the bastard up.

Oh my God. He supports a just system of government. Terrible. Absolutely sacrilegious. We need to hang him for that. Or better yet, bring in the firing squad.

[Guest American Woman]

Well maybe you should actually read what his definiton of Sharia is.

You asked for proof that he believes in Sharia. I responded. Maybe you should actually try to follow the discussions you partake in. But I see you now that you have your proof, you've moved the goal posts.

[nicky10013]

Actually, I've read it, several weeks ago. Apparently you didn't even know if its existence.

And actually, comparing Sharia law to the Delcaration of Independence sounds more than a little radical to me.

Of course it does because you assume that whatever is in Sharia law must be woman hating garbage. This was his entire point. The spirit of any law is in it's interpretation. Sharia to him, can be interpreted in a liberal democratic tradition.

Then again, this is just yet another thing you've failed to understand.

[Machjo]

Only holds so much water apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre

Yes, notice it talked about Muslim mobs, not the Muslim government. In fact, the Muslim mobs opposed the Muslim government here seeing that they'd stormed the palace. Clearly on occasion, some Muslims were less tolerant of other religions. Sound familiar among both sides today?

[nicky10013]

You asked for proof that he believes in Sharia. I responded. Maybe you should actually try to follow the discussions you partake in. But I see you now that you have your proof, you've moved the goal posts.

I didn't see any. I saw it, and I saw his definition of it and he's just as liberal after me seeing his definition of shariah as he was before. Like I just said, liberalism or traditionalism are found in the interpretation of law.

Furthermore, I don't see how I could be the one moving the goalposts. Does he believe in Shariah? Sure. However, I'm not the one trying to downplay his interpretation of it to further my own belief system of what shariah actually is. That's where the goalposts are being moved.

Edited September 11, 2010 by nicky10013

[Guest American Woman]

Who cares if he is a traditionalist or Libral? As long as he intents on building bridges (and I have yet to see proof to the contrary) and as long as he will obey the laws of his country...

I've seen what can be perceived as proof that he doesn't intend to build bridges in his refusal to consider other locations when this one is doing the exact opposite of that intent. Normally when one wants to build bridges, they act in a way that's conducive to building bridges .....

[Shady]

Well maybe you should actually read what his definiton of Sharia is.

Classic!

It's right out of the "communism just hasn't been implemented correctly" playbook. Everywhere Sharia is practiced apparently doesn't really count for what Sharia is. I guess it's something better, in theory.

[Guest American Woman]

I didn't see any.

You don't see any proof of his believing in Sharia in his statement? -- He thinks America is Sharia compliant because he doesn't believe in Sharia ... and he doesn't believe in America, either? Is that it?

[nicky10013]

You don't see any proof of his believing in Sharia in his statement? -- He thinks America is Sharia compliant because he doesn't believe in Sharia ... and he doesn't believe in America, either? Is that it?

I didn't see any proof of it before, therefore I asked for it. That's what I was referring to.

[nicky10013]

Classic!

It's right out of the "communism just hasn't been implemented correctly" playbook. Everywhere Sharia is practiced apparently doesn't really count for what Sharia is. I guess it's something better, in theory.

It's not what it is to me, it's what it is to him. If he can interpret it as being liberal, then doesn't that mean that he is a liberal?

[CANADIEN]

which I continue to believe.

And if Rauf is exploiting 9/11 to reach out and win more converts, then it's not quite the selfless peace mission its supporters are claiming. If his goal is making peace, fine, but if his goal is spreading Islam, then I certainly don't wish him well.

-k

And what if he thinks that a climate of peace and tolerance may result in a few converts? The goal of any woman and man of faith, whatever their faith is, should be to bring people to their faith through the example of a peaceful and oving life?

What counts, the only thing that counts when gauging his intentions if whether or not he wants to build bridges, not what he thinks may be the results in terms of the numbers of Muslims in the United States ten or twenty years from now.

But I suspect this will be lost on you, because I get the growing feeling that the simple fact that we are talking about Muslims is sufficient for you o come with any argument you can find just to keep them up, like the incredibly inane "he`s exploiting 9-11" argument. I am surprised I don't see any flying sink yet.

[CANADIEN]

I've seen what can be perceived as proof that he doesn't intend to build bridges in his refusal to consider other locations when this one is doing the exact opposite of that intent. Normally when one wants to build bridges, they act in a way that's conducive to building bridges .....

(mandatory disclaimer, that will likely be ignored: the term "some people" used below does not refer to the opponents to the Cordoba Project, th majority of the opponents, or aw)

The primary reason why the project is not ahcieving the goal of building project is because some people are hijacking legitimate concerns about some of the symbolism of the site to foster controversy, if not intolerance.

The problem is not the 83% of Americans who think it's a bad idea. Not it is the promoters of the project. It's those people who exploit this issue to sow division.