Attention: There Is Already a Mosque Near the WTC Site

reply to post by AceWombat04

reply to post by ~Lucidity



The Imam refused to talk or politicize the Israeli-Gaza issue. The main issue is that where he should have called for peace he refused to comment. That's the main suspicion. As one sees in numerous other religious facilities, one bad egg can spawn many bad people.

The simple solution, indeed the American solution, would be to replace yourself with an appropriate person with this much heat. But he refuses to respond or talk on the matter.

If he is a man of peace, why doesn't he take sides on one of the major genocides of the middle east?

You don't even have to take a side. Just condemn violence. Why did he not say anything?

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91

He hasn't condemned violence? I thought he had.

Perhaps he doesn't want to choose sides because, as he said, he is not a politician. Perhaps he sees the rights and the wrongs on both sides, as I do.

I don't know.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


There is no right in the Gaza Israel issue. They're a bunch of barbarians slaughtering each other.

maybe you don't know, but Islamic leaders like an Imam are suppose to be politicians as well as priests. because Islam is a way of life and to not take up an issue here is the main problem. People like Pat Robertson condemn violence on plenty of issues, but that does not change who they are. Evil men. Now I've not seen enough to view this Imam as an evil man. But I have seen enough to not make him a peaceful man nor a good man. To not condemn the violence specifically in the Israel-Gaza region, and more importantly, to refuse to comment to this day, is enough to not be a man of peace nor a good man. At best, he is a man with interests.

Originally posted by Gorman91
He chose to make no opinion on Hamas. That's simply fishy. A man of peace and especially a Muslim cleric, has much more responsibility to his congregation than a priest. He is expected to be leader, advisor, councilor, and many other positions. I've yet to hear of his funding and his refusal to comment on the evils of either the IDF or Hamas is disturbing to say the least. Like I said earlier. If it was a westbro baptist church member I would want him just as far away from desperate and needy people as possible.

Most of these questions have been answered already in this thread; not to your satisfaction perhaps, but that sometimes happens.

You haven't heard where the funding will come from yet because they are just starting their funding drive. It's hard to tell people where the funding will be coming from before you have definite commitments from the people you are hoping will give you money.

They have however promised that they will not accept any money from any organization on any U.S. government watchlist. In terms of policing their own sources I think that's the best they can do at this point.

His refusal to label Hamas a terrorist organization has also been addressed in this thread, but here's what I see:

He has explicitly condemned all violence done in the name of religion. He has condemned suicide bombings. He has refused to condemn an organization that was democratically elected to power in a very confused and charged situation. I condemn the U.S. government for some of its actions, but I refuse to label them a terrorist organization (at least for now ).

Other concerns you have raised in this thread include the concern that a community center led by Muslims will proselytize to children in its childcare program for instance. But the Park51 portion of this project will have board members from a variey of non-Muslim backgrounds as well. The Cordoba House Initiative will run the mosque/prayer space that will take up either one or two stories of the building (I've seen both numbers in reliable sources). The Park51 Project will run the rest of the stuff, and they will be an interfaith organization.

I'm not sure who the desperate and needy people you're worried about are; and I'm especially unsure about what relevance that has to the location of this project. Surely there are desperate and needy people everywhere?

[edit on 8/18/2010 by americandingbat]

reply to post by Gorman91


However, the leap from suspicion of one's lack of comment to proof that that person condones, incites, or plans violence, is a large one, logically speaking. Particularly when that person has already previously stated their condemnation of "all violence" in the name of religion.

Again, the question is not, "is there anything that makes you personally suspicious?" There are plenty of things that make me suspicious of lots of people. That isn't the point, though. The question is, "what is the proof that this particular Imam and his particular community plan, commit, incite, or condone violence? I have yet to see any. If there is some, I would surely like to see it, after which (before which, actually) it should be brought to the proper authorities.

That is the burden that has to be met before we deny someone's religious liberty in the United States.

reply to post by Gorman91

maybe you don't know, but Islamic leaders like an Imam are suppose to be politicians as well as priests.

Funny, I thought religious leaders were supposed to be concerned with spirituality and their religion's dogma not politics. Seeing as politics are an artificial creation and don't have much to do with one's spirituality.

Our planet would be much better served if all religious leaders stuck to their area of expertise as this Imam is.

reply to post by misinformational


Islam is more than a spiritual path. That's the point. It asks you to conform through personal jihad (not violent) into the ideal Muslim. I mean, that's the basics of the religion. Conform to the ideal Muslim Muhammad said to be. Do explain, how is politics not related?


reply to post by AceWombat04


reply to post by americandingbat



Well there in which lies my primary concern. To condemn so much on such a wide variety of things, then not a specific example, makes me wonder. If the Catholic church is asked to condemn the Sudan Christians for their use of child soldiers and they do not, but they condemn many other things, that's a problem. Likewise, to condemn so much but not speak of one example is a major problem.

Primarily, it is the authority of religious leaders to condemn anybody who seeks violence, elected or not. This does not mean act violently to those people. It means disagree with them. You can, very much so, condemn an elected government for acting evilly. In the situation of Israel and Gaza, where both elected governments commit murder, the words for the situation are simple. Don't do it. He can't say that because they are elected? He has a responsibility to condemn those of his own religion that act so wrongly.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by AceWombat04

 

reply to post by ~Lucidity

 

The Imam refused to talk or politicize the Israeli-Gaza issue. The main issue is that where he should have called for peace he refused to comment. That's the main suspicion. As one sees in numerous other religious facilities, one bad egg can spawn many bad people.

Is it something a Christian leader would be required to speak up on?

I don't know of any Christian leaders that are required to speak on political issues - like you are suggesting this guy does.

Just curious. Believe in a level playing field.

reply to post by Gorman91


I don't know him or his mind, and therefore can't defend or justify his choice of words, or his decisions on what he does and does not comment upon. How he chooses to conduct his responsibilities as a religious leader, so long as he does not cause or incite violence or break any laws, isn't really any of my business. I can personally disagree with him, or even find his lack of comment suspicious, but again, that isn't my purpose or point here. Ultimately, all I'm concerned with are facts and factual questions, personally.

Such as: "Is there any proof that he or his community incites, condones, or plans violence or violent radicalization of those who would patronize this center?" If the answer is yes, then absolutely lawful action should be taken. If the answer is no, then I'm at a loss as to the basis for opposition to its existence.

That's all I'm saying.

reply to post by Annee


To treat all religions as the same is blatantly ignorant. Some religions demand more than others. But at the end of the day, if you are asked your opinion on something that is obviously evil and you refuse to comment, something is wrong.

That said, Islam is very demanding. Hell I was very interested in it a ways back. Not like joining it or anything. Just interested in how it worked. It is a life style. A planned way to live every aspect of life. Some religions are that demanding, like Confucianism. Others are less demanding, like Buddhism. Some are really lazy, like Christianity. Believe, talk about it, and pray. No religion is equal nor the same. They are different in every way and form. and then have variants within the religion advocating different scales of that.

reply to post by AceWombat04


Like I said a loooong way back. Let him speak. But the second he incites something, he's out. What this is now talking about is if he is truthful or not in his claims to be a peaceful man and a good man. So far, I've seen evidence putting him dead center in nowhere-vile. Nothing says he's good. Nothing says he's evil. Some things say he is biased. That is all I'm saying.

reply to post by Gorman91

Islam is more than a spiritual path. That's the point. It asks you to conform through personal jihad (not violent) into the ideal Muslim. I mean, that's the basics of the religion. Conform to the ideal Muslim Muhammad said to be. Do explain, how is politics not related?

Just replace Muhammad with Jesus and Missions for Jihad and *poof* Christianity.

And all of what you've said constitutes the principles of a particular religion that its practitioner is expected to follow. Not necessarily the affair's of a state (politics).

Politics is defined as follows:

The word "politics" comes from the Greek word "Πολιτικά" (politika), modeled on Aristotle's "affairs of state", the name of his book on governing and governments, which was rendered in English mid-15 century as Latinized "Polettiques". Thus it became "politics" in Middle English c. 1520s (see the Concise Oxford Dictionary). The singular "politic" first coined in English 1430 and comes from Middle French "politique", in turn from Latin "politicus", which is the romanization of the Greek "πολιτικός" (politikos), meaning amongst others "of, for, or relating to citizens", "civil", "civic", "belonging to the state", in turn from "πολίτης" (polites), "citizen" and that from "πόλις" (polis), "city".

Religion is defined as follows:

Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Which definition fits Islam? Hint - it's the same as Judiasm and Christianity:

Islam (Arabic: الإسلام‎ al-’islām) is the monotheistic religion articulated by the Qur’an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Arabic: الله‎, Allāh), and by the Prophet of Islam Muhammad's teachings and normative example (which is called the Sunnah in Arabic, and demonstrated in collections of Hadith). Islam literally means "submission (to God)." Muslim, the word for an adherent of Islam, is the active participle of the same verb of which Islām is the infinitive

By definition and design, Islam has little to do with politics. Now there are religious states (e.g. Iran) who's politics (like the Vatican) are structured after the religion. But this is was not the intent of either religion.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by misinformational]

Originally posted by Gorman91
Well there in which lies my primary concern. To condemn so much on such a wide variety of things, then not a specific example, makes me wonder.

From what I've seen, he has condemned actions rather than organizations, across the board. It's not a matter of refusing to condemn one example among many, it's a matter of choosing the level at which he is willing to condemn.

Originally posted by Gorman91

That said, Islam is very demanding.

. . . . It is a life style. A planned way to live every aspect of life. Some religions are that demanding,

I was Mormon for several years. You just described Mormonism.

And Mormonism is a Fundamental type Christian religion - - whether anyone wants to accept that or not.

And some might think all Mormon stakes are the same - but they're not. They differ depending on the person running it - - the location - - the culture - - etc.

I find your fears unfounded - - - because of prejudice.

reply to post by mothershipzeta


I am correct and so are MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, MOSTLY BUT NOT ALL AMERICAN
I don't like porn but would rather a porn shop and strip clubs etc over allowing bug muslims erect a trophy where they
MURDERED THREE THOUSAND INNOCENT PEOPLE.
Anyone still thinking this has to do with the constitution is intentionally clueless

WE DON'T WANT A MOSK ON SACRED GROUND WHERE THEY MURDERED THOUSANDS .....
f)(*&%%@#U*&$%%$@#C_)&KE^%$@RS

They say this mosque is actually a community center.

Can someone please explain what is meant by the word "community"?
Will they accept infidels?
Will they accept Jews?

Ah hail nah, this is deliberate provocation and another step towards world domination.

This "war" began long before the events of 9/11. 9/11 just brought the whole conflict back to the lime light. The fact is the majority of conflict in the world at the moment centers around the spread of Islam. These people who say they just want to live in peace with the rest of us are either ignorant of Islamic teachings or are being deceitful.

Do you not realize these unalienable rights you cherish so much would be the first thing to go if Muslims controlled the world? Look at the countries currently under Islamic control, are they bastions of tolerance and understanding? Look at what's going on "across the pond" they want to live by THEIR LAWS not the laws of the country they live in! Their religion does not tolerate the existence of other religions or authority higher than their own. The Koran quiet plainly describes how to deal with "non-believers" or those who reject Islam. Even though we are already seeing honor killings and things of that nature in America, people are some how convinced that that's not what is going to occur here. Will they succeed? I don't know but that doesn't change the motives. Don't forget, if you are not a Muslim, lying to you, deceiving you, and even killing you doesn't make them bat an eye. You are second rate to them. I have experienced this first hand by other Muslims while me and my fiance were attending college.

HELLO PEOPLE, they have to run the world by any means necessary, it's a part of their religion! Allah has commanded it! If they can't do it militarily they will do it politically. How else would they be able to usher in the great era of peace to the world (which is quiet funny to me because if they were willing to live in peace with their neighbors, there would be almost no war at the moment)? Easy, by the elimination of all opposition. It's not that "some" have perverted their religion into this monster that's terrorizing the world, it's just that some are willing to go further to than others to achieve their agenda. It's funny when they say oh we condemn acts of terrorism. What they don't tell you is what they consider to be terrorism. What we are calling terrorism, they are calling holy war.

I'm engaged to a Muslim. We are in hiding because her father or his family WILL kill us if he finds us. He shot and killed her sister's husband in "self defense"(in his back) and to which he was only witness. My statements are not the result of what the big media men have told me to believe. These observations are MY own. The truth is I'm not a fan of any religion. In my mind none of them can satisfactorily answer all my questions without a cop out, "god works in mysterious ways" type thing. Until someone can rationally and logically answer those questions, it's just the blind leading the blind. Your religion is not right because you say it is. If there is a god, I don't think he really cares the manner in which you worship him. God is not a Muslim, Christian, Buddist or w/e. Religions were created by men. If there is a god I'm sure he is either laughing his ass off and/or highly disgusted with what we have done.

In short, I'm against the spread of any religion or creation of any more places of worship until we grow the f up.

reply to post by Alxandro


Who ever said that they wouldn't allow persons of other creeds into this establishment? The Imam even stated in the video Lucidity posted that one the center's aims is to strengthen interfaith relations. The dude was standing there with a Jewish community leader, whom he thanked for support.

Here's an idea:

In stead of all you assuming what this establishment's policies and procedures will be, why doesn't a New Yorker head on down to the Imam's mosque and check it out. I'd bet you'd walk away with a completely different perspective if you attempted to civilly discuss your concerns with an actual member of this community

[edit on 18-8-2010 by misinformational]

reply to post by misinformational


Not really. Christ does not ask you to put aside your differences. Christianity asks you to follow a very small selection of rules and use your differences for God. Islam asks you to jihad your differences and conform to a select way of life.

Most of the texts of Islam speak of how to act in any situation, politics being one. Where do you think Muhammad's rulings to not harm Christians and Jews came from? He was seeking political security for the future. Islam is a guide book to a select way of life. It's closer to Judaism than Christianity. Christianity basically can be summed up in follow Christ, talk about Christ, believe in Christ and his golden rules. Done.



reply to post by americandingbat



Alright, I can understand that to some extent. After all, Nazi Germany had all the potential to be one of the best societies on Earth under the right leadership. But they did not get it. Condemning the sin rather than the person committing it can work sometimes. But you still have to realize that when a person does wring, they are responsible for their sin and should be called out as what they are. So I would still rather he condemn Israel and Gaza for their actions which have been as of late nothing short of barbarianism.

reply to post by Annee


Well thanks for ignoring where I flat out said the person is at charge, not the religion, and where I spoke about how each religion is different and has variable scale on what it teaches. Real nice for you to just skip over that, and replace it with ... in the quote. Thanks.

That said, most Mormons do have life styles that are questioning to logic and the simple fact is that I would prefer you state your terms when you are asked rather than deflect and not speak at all.

I would agree. And I'm going to admit it. I would feel safer near an average Muslim than a Mormon. I can admit when I have a prejudiced and I very much so do have one against Mormons and their wacky faith. It's basically 19th century Scientology. Islam wins flat out over Mormonism for actually making sense.



[edit on 18-8-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Infinityobserver


You do realize there are sects of Islam, right?

This Muslim community are Sufi. Did you know they, themselves, have been the target of violent attacks (suicide bombings) by Muslim Extremist?

Do some research, and perhaps then, you'll actually attain some knowledge on this matter so you may then speak intelligently about it.

Here's a good place to start: en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 18-8-2010 by misinformational]

reply to post by AmericanDaughter


Who is this "they" to which you refer? Do you have proof that these particular Muslims espouse, teach, encourage, incite, plan, of threaten violence of any kind? Do you have proof that this particular center is or will be a front for radical or militant activities?

And to those suggesting that Islam as a whole seeks to control the world or institute Islamic law globally, do you have any proof that these particular Muslims seek those ends?

[edit on 8/18/2010 by AceWombat04]