Violent Anti-Mosque crowd turns on Black Carpenter

Originally posted by sweetliberty
I question why no one else is helping this imam to calm the people here in the United States.

Why is this completely on his shoulders?

Edit to add, I'm fully aware Daisy Khan is the founder of the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA) and that she has spoken to the public but it seems not to have had much of an impact.

I'm also searching further as to who the other partners are, the links above, as far as I've read, don't elaborate to who the other partners are.

The main other partner is Sharif el-Gamal, the owner of SoHo Properties, who bought the buildings. He seems to be both stepping forward and trying to clarify the distinction between the Park51 community center (the main part of the project) and the Cordoba Initiative in recent days. I don't feel like looking for the links right now, but I read it in the New York Times.

Mayor Bloomberg has also been very outspoken on the issue, and several other politicians have addressed it also (Ron Paul and Obama come to mind). In addition, several Jewish and Christian organizations have made their support known, as have various non-religious groups (including one of the groups for families of 9/11 victims).

Honestly I think the problem is something you identified: "it seems not to have had much of an impact."

Now, obviously they're not going to be addressing people like the Jihad Watch or Atlas Shrugs bloggers, so if that's where people are following the story they're not going to see it. And the chances of those people blogging about something that runs counter to the narrative they've constructed is pretty slim.

And no matter how much they tell their side of the story, certain politicians, pundits, bloggers, and news organizations know that they have their hands on a story they don't want to let go of. If America was reassured, those people would lose this emotionally manipulative piece of meat they're gnawing on.

Mayor Bloomberg made an interesting prediction when he was on the John Stewart show: the issue will quietly die after the election season is over. Personally, I think he might be right.

US Muslims should be American first

By Mansoor Ijaz

newsweek.washingtonpost.com...

I have also been posting Muslims who are opposed, I don't know why their voices are not considered.

Cordoba House, as the Ground Zero Islamic Center is to be named, should not be cast as an issue of religious tolerance in America, or the right of American Muslims to build a mosque. It should be cast as a question first of American Muslim responsibility in fixing what has gone wrong inside Islam. Muslims living in America should make clear to their fellow Americans that they understand the cultural and emotional wounds left open by the terrorist attacks.

Neither Cordoba House's detractors nor its supporters understand this central point in the increasingly polarizing debate.

Some opponents just stick with me,

Is he a liar and a bigot?

What would you label this man?
www.iheu.org...

Simon Deng, Former Sudanese Slave, Human Rights Activist
______beforeitsnews/story/73/993/Stop_the_Mosque_at_Ground_Zero_Rally_-_Part_I.html

Others who are opposed and their reasons.
www.boston.com...

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, a devout Muslim, there are other Muslims opinions who are opposed on this link as well.

Schwartz notes that the spiritual leader of the Cordoba Initiative, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, describes himself as a Sufi — a Muslim focused on Islamic mysticism and spiritual wisdom. But “building a 15-story Islamic center at ground zero isn’t something a Sufi would do,’’ according to Schwartz, also a practitioner of Sufism. “Sufism is supposed to be based on sensitivity toward others,’’ yet Cordoba House comes across as “grossly insensitive.’’

I really don't have a voice, or much else to add to the subject that hasn't already been said, let their voices speak.

[edit on 113131p://bFriday2010 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I would not label them bigots -- but then I haven't labeled any of the people opposing this community center on ATS bigots either (though some of them deserve the name).

I would note that they're not New Yorkers as far as I can see, and don't understand the neighborhood. That at least some of them seem to be unaware even of the fact that Imam Rauf has led a mosque in the neighborhood for decades.

It's not like this is some outsider Muslim who just up and decided to build an Islamic community center in Tribeca. It is a man who has been active in that community for 27 years.

I know this is hard for people who don't know New York to understand, but it's really not at the WTC site.

I would also note that if I was a Muslim American, watching the Islamophobia that has reared its head during this debate, I would be scared and tempted to just draw back into a shell. I might even speak out against the idea out of that fear.

Originally posted by americandingbat

Originally posted by sweetliberty
I question why no one else is helping this imam to calm the people here in the United States.

Why is this completely on his shoulders?

Edit to add, I'm fully aware Daisy Khan is the founder of the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA) and that she has spoken to the public but it seems not to have had much of an impact.

I'm also searching further as to who the other partners are, the links above, as far as I've read, don't elaborate to who the other partners are.

Now, obviously they're not going to be addressing people like the Jihad Watch or Atlas Shrugs bloggers, so if that's where people are following the story they're not going to see it. And the chances of those people blogging about something that runs counter to the narrative they've constructed is pretty slim.

I agree. So you think there are people who get their news of this only from these places you mentioned?
Actually, I know some pro PARK51/Mosque members on here who follow those sites for their own personal agenda.
Regardless, I doubt many people use those places soley for the news of this.
sl

Originally posted by sweetliberty
Regardless, I doubt many people use those places soley for the news of this.
sl

Considering that commentators on some stations seem to use those blogs as the major sources for their talking points, I don't think it's only dedicated readers of Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs that are getting most of their news about this from them.

And I've noticed that they seem to be very popular sources for links and snippets about the issue here at ATS too

As for supporters of the community center following those blogs: would you prefer we not expose ourselves to any arguments against our position?

Really, the biggest issue about the Park51 community center is the coverage of it in the media and blogosphere. There was no outcry about it when the NYTimes wrote about it and when Laura Ingram at Fox News did a segment on it in December. It wasn't until May (with thoughts of election season looming and the Atlas Shrugs blog hitting it hard) that first the NYPost and then the rest of the media decided to run with it.

Interesting rundown of the timeline here


edit for typo

[edit on 8/27/2010 by americandingbat]

Originally posted by americandingbat

Originally posted by sweetliberty
I question why no one else is helping this imam to calm the people here in the United States.

Why is this completely on his shoulders?

Edit to add, I'm fully aware Daisy Khan is the founder of the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA) and that she has spoken to the public but it seems not to have had much of an impact.

I'm also searching further as to who the other partners are, the links above, as far as I've read, don't elaborate to who the other partners are.

The main other partner is Sharif el-Gamal, the owner of SoHo Properties, who bought the buildings. He seems to be both stepping forward and trying to clarify the distinction between the Park51 community center (the main part of the project) and the Cordoba Initiative in recent days. I don't feel like looking for the links right now, but I read it in the New York Times.

This link shows a picture of the Cordoba Initiative staff. Who are they and why aren't they competant enough to speak while Rauf is on the other side of the world? Those are the people I am referring to. When I click on the "Who are we" tab, then onto the "Bios".... all they show is Rauf. www.cordobainitiative.org.../about-ci

I don't think there has been much of an impact with the mayor either and I seriously doubt this will quietly die after the election.

I think this because just like on 9/11, no one is solving anything, people have questions and they aren't being answered.
One more thing, regardless of Atlas Shrugs or any of those sites or people... we all have our own independant thoughts and as I've seen here on ATS, when it's time, people make up thier own minds and aren't as sheeple as others want them to be.

sl

[edit on 27-8-2010 by sweetliberty]

Originally posted by americandingbat

Originally posted by sweetliberty
Regardless, I doubt many people use those places soley for the news of this.
sl

As for supporters of the community center following those blogs: would you prefer we not expose ourselves to any arguments against our position?

I was speaking about the extremists who went rabid dog crazy creating threads all at once. They jumping at the very chance to attack "Christians" but for the sole purpose of dispising Christians or God or both and not for the purpose of the issues at hand.
If it was for the current issues at hand, they wouldn't have grouped so many people with such hateful names.
This causing members to have to defend theirselves greatly. This attacking even created a thread on ATS about the anger issue.

I feel EVERY member here on ATS is above the horrible labels they were called.
I feel until someone gets to know me and until I get to know them, there should be NO reason to call someone such names.

As for the timeline of this.
Personally, I was concerned in the very beginning but I didn't think it would be approved. Once it was approved, thats when I began to ask questions and I believe many more stayed quiet for the same reason.

Each and every individual pro or not, have their individual reasons and questions and their actions SHOULD NOT be blamed on the media, the name calling or anything else.
We are personally responsible for our actions and our decisions. We aren't as sheepy as many would like to think.

sl

At this piont in the thread I thought a little levity would be welcome.

Jon Stewart on the Mosque...IN NYC and TN.

Building the Mosque emboldens Extremists...It's a "Victory Center"

Not building the mosque affirms what Extremists have been saying...America is intolerant of Islam..

He suggests a third approach...

How about we don't give a *&^% what they think!

www.thedailyshow.com...

reply to post by I AM LEGION


I wish i could give more than one star and flag... I agree with everything you said in the OP

I will leave it at that... for now

reply to post by I AM LEGION


well to start, I don't think the ENTIRE crowd was getting nutty on this poor guy but there were a few.
Next, this is the kind of thing that tends to happen when liars like glenn beck, hannity, limbaugh and fox news gets people riled up. Is that an excuse ? Of course not but based on all the fear mongering, is anyone surprised?
People need to STOP being part of the republican reigh's IGNORANT masses and start thinking for themselves.

Originally posted by maybereal11
Shall I now list the current Christian Groups designated as terrorists? And the number of Americans they have murdered in Gods name? Old argument isn't it? My religion is better than yours?

Every religion has it's extremists...martydom is not just a component of Islam...

But why does Islam have have more extremists than all other religions put together and multiplied by a factor of 10?

Could you provide actual facts instead of your own biased opinions? Numbers and reliable sources.

I'm still (very patiently, given that it's been many weeks now) waiting for a reply to this post. People keep dodging it in every thread concerning this issue, and it's really beginning to make me wonder why. I respect everyone's views. You don't need to fear a heated argument or personal attacks from me. The worst thing that can happen is that I will ask more questions or disagree with you. Politely. Can't someone give me a real reply?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Could you provide actual facts instead of your own biased opinions? Numbers and reliable sources.

Yes, surely.

www.thereligionofpeace.com...

For instance, Jihad attacks in Sept 2010

Jihad Attacks: 172

Countries: 23

Religions: 5

Dead Bodies: 703

Critically Injured: 1454

The above site, while often accused of being biased (cleary it is anti-Islamic), does document terrorist attacks by Islamic militants around the world and those attacks are reported by news sources elsewhere. The attacks did take place as the site documents.

I researched the first day of Ramadan's attacks and found 9 out of 10 of the attacks (1 attack was impossible to narrow down due to so many killings on that day in that location),

I actually came to the conclusion that if anything, Islamic terrorist attacks are under reported on the web page.

Certainly, Islamic attacks are most certainly under-reported in normal news outlets (finding links to the 10 attacks was a lot of work, but they checked out).

Perhaps that is why people tend to under-estimate the extent of the killings done by Islamic extremists around the world?

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I'm still (very patiently, given that it's been many weeks now) waiting for a reply to this post. People keep dodging it in every thread concerning this issue, and it's really beginning to make me wonder why. I respect everyone's views. You don't need to fear a heated argument or personal attacks from me. The worst thing that can happen is that I will ask more questions or disagree with you. Politely. Can't someone give me a real reply?

The reason why the Ground Zero Mosque Iman isn't being held innocent until proven guilty, is because of the perceived insensitivity of his actions wanting to build a mosque on the site ( it is on the site of Ground Zero as perceived by most people) of a terrorist attack carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam (according to the attackers).

It's all about perception.

reply to post by ollncasino


With respect, I never asked why he isn't being considered innocent until proven guilty. I asked if there was any proof that this particular Imam and his particular followers or the prospective patrons of this particular prayer space, take a radical or violent interpretation of the Qur'an, or are planning, threatening, or committing violence, terror, or the espousement thereof.

I then stated that if the answer to that question is no, then in the United States of America, there is no basis for denying them their religious liberty or taking away their building permit.

Please respond to my actual post. Much thanks.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
reply to post by ollncasino

 

With respect, I never asked why he isn't being considered innocent until proven guilty. I asked if there was any proof that this particular Imam and his particular followers or the prospective patrons of this particular prayer space, take a radical or violent interpretation of the Qur'an, or are planning, threatening, or committing violence, terror, or the espousement thereof.

I then stated that if the answer to that question is no, then in the United States of America, there is no basis for denying them their religious liberty or taking away their building permit.

Please respond to my actual post. Much thanks.

With respect, perhaps if your question was less pointed in its motivation, people would perhaps reply.

People perceive the Imam to have displayed a great lack of sensitivity in respect of this issue.

For instance,

Imam says NYC mosque site is not 'hallowed ground'

"It's absolutely disingenuous, as many have said, that that block is hallowed ground," Rauf said, noting the nearby exotic dance and betting businesses. "So let's clarify that misperception."

Some Sept. 11 victims' families and others view the proposed mosque site — in a building damaged by debris from the attacks — as very much part of the terrain of death and sorrow surrounding the trade center.

"I just think he's being very insensitive to say it's not hallowed ground because of who's occupying the buildings," said Jim Riches, a former New York City deputy fire chief whose son, Jimmy, was killed at the trade center. "The strip club didn't murder my son."

Source: Wall Street Journal

Read more: online.wsj.com...

He has also made a number of comments which have been perceived as preaching anti-American propaganda

For instance,

US worse than al Qaeda: imam

"We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims," Rauf said in 2005.

Debra Burlingame, head of 9/11 Families for a Strong America and a vocal opponent of the mosque, said she was disgusted when she heard the remarks.

"This man is out there preaching politics and advancing [anti-American] propaganda," she said.

Source: NY Post

Read more:
www.nypost.com...

He has also refused to answer the question, "Do suicide bombers go to heaven or not?", which has been perceived as being evasive

For instance,

Suicide Bombers in Heaven? Imam Rauf Won't Say No

When you detonate explosives attached to your torso, simultaneously decapitating people on a bus or disemboweling little children at a kindergarten, do you go to heaven or to hell? Are you a martyr or a murderer? Heroic or heinous?

While the answer might seem straightforward to some, it clearly flummoxed Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, he of the ground zero mosque controversy, when it was asked of him by Barbara Walters in her 2006 TV special on heaven.

In response to the question as to whether suicide bombers go to heaven, Imam Rauf said, "One of the things that we are taught is never to say somebody will go to hell or somebody will go to heaven. It is up to God to decide."

Source: AOL News

Read more: www.aolnews.com...

reply to post by ollncasino


So should I infer from your response that the answer is "no?" I don't want to make any assumptions, which is why I'm asking rather than simply making that inference.

I'm aware of what people's perceptions are. That is why I asked a very simple yes or no question concerning hard facts. For some reason which I have yet to ascertain, no one seems willing to answer it.

Why is that? And please consider answering it with a yes or no rather than with elaborations on people's perceptions and personal feelings. I would also appreciate clarification on what it is you feel my "pointed" motivation is? Thank-you.

Originally posted by AceWombat04

I'm aware of what people's perceptions are. That is why I asked a very simple yes or no question concerning hard facts. For some reason which I have yet to ascertain, no one seems willing to answer it.

I would also appreciate clarification on what it is you feel my "pointed" motivation is? Thank-you

The fact that your ‘question’ contained a narrow proposition and then a conclusion - that if your narrowly framed proposition was factually correct, then the Ground Zero Imam should be allowed to build his mosque.

I contend that your proposition is indeed framed too narrowly - it ignores many important aspects of the controversy, not least the following factors:

(1) Wahhabi/Salafi Islam is an intolerant branch of Islam according to a NY Police Department Report

(2) The Ground Zero Imam supports Wahhabi/Salafi Islam and the introduction of Sharia law in the USA

(3) The Ground Zero Imam refuses to reveal the source of his funding for the $100 Million mosque.

(4) The Source of Funding is highly likely to come from hard-line Wahhabi Saudi oil money sources and hence the need to conceal the source of funding

(1) Wahhabi/Salafi Islam is an intolerant branch of Islam

Behind the Mosque: Extremism at Ground Zero

In August 2007, the NYPD released "Radicalization in the West -- The Homegrown Threat."

The report noted that Saudi "Wahhabi" scholars feed the jihadist ideology, legitimizing an "extreme intolerance" toward non-Muslims, especially Jews, Christians and Hindus.

In particular, the analysts noted that the "journey" of radicalization that produces homegrown jihadis often begins in a Wahhabi mosque.

Source:
NY Post

www.nypost.com...

(2) The Ground Zero Imam supports Wahhabi/Salafi Islam and the introduction of Sharia law in the USA

Behind the Mosque: Extremism at Ground Zero

At least two of Imam Rauf's books, a 2000 treatise on Islamic law and his 2004 "What's Right with Islam," laud the implementation of sharia -- including within America -- and the "rejuvenating" Islamic religious spirit of Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Wahhab.

He also lionizes as two ostensible "modernists" Jamal al-Dinal-Afghani (d. 1897), and his student Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905).

In fact, both defended the Wahhabis, praised the salutary influence of Ibn Taymiyyah and promoted the pretense that sha ria -- despite its permanent advocacy of jihad and dehumanizing injunctions on non-Muslims and women -- was somehow compatible with Western concepts of human rights, as in our own Bill of Rights.

In short, Feisal Rauf's public image as a devotee of the "contemplative" Sufi school of Islam cannot change the fact that his writings directed at Muslims are full of praise for the most noxious and dangerous Muslim thinkers.

Source:
NY Post

www.nypost.com...

(3) The Ground Zero Imam refuses to reveal the source of his funding for the $100 Million mosque.

(4)The secret source of funding is highly likely to come from Saudi Wahhabi sources hence the need to conceal the source of funding.

Of the more than 1,200 mosques in America, more than 80-percent were built with Saudi money, according to author Reza F. Safa.

In fact, Safa writes that the Saudis have spent “$87 billion since 1973 to spread Islam throughout the United States and the Western hemisphere.”

Elsewhere in the world, it is believed that Saudi Arabia finances some 85-percent of the world’s mosques, where the vitriolic and violent Wahabbist interpretation of Islam is taught.

Source:
National Review

www.nationalreview.com...

The Boston mosque's Saudi connection

Many mosques are funded by Saudi Arabia, which spends heavily to propagate Wahhabism, a fanatic and aggressive strain of Islam.

The Saudi government, reported the 9/11 Commission, "uses zakat" -- Islamic charity -- "and government funds to spread Wahhabi beliefs throughout the world, including in mosques and schools.

Some Wahhabi-funded organizations have been exploited by extremists to further their goal of violent jihad against non-Muslims.

Source:
Boston Globe

www.boston.com...

I feel the need to clarify before responding again: I am aware of his past writings regarding Wahhabism, and am greatly concerned by them. And I feel that the appropriate authorities should thoroughly investigate him because of them, to ensure the safety of the people and to ensure that he is in fact not supporting, financing, or concealing terrorist activity. That's just prudent, given his writings. All I'm saying is that there is a difference between doing that - due process - and denying he and his community their religious and property rights based solely on the possibility that they might be a threat.

Originally posted by ollncasino
The fact that your ‘question’ contained a narrow proposition and then a conclusion - that if your narrowly framed proposition was factually correct, then the Ground Zero Imam should be allowed to build his mosque.

My question did not contain any narrow proposition. It was a yes or no question. It was then followed by a statement of opinion consistent with the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America, which I do not consider to be a narrow proposition at all, but rather the founding principles and rule of law underpinning the very existence of our nation. Are you saying that you believe the community center should not be allowed to exist where it does even if there is no proof that this particular Imam and his particular followers or the prospective patrons of this particular prayer space take a radical or violent interpretation of the Qur'an or are planning, threatening, or committing violence, terror, or the espousement thereof? This is why I asked the question. Because in the absence of such proof, there is no legal or constitutional basis for denying them their rights. That isn't a narrow proposition but a statement of legal fact. Do you disagree?

(1) Wahhabi/Salafi Islam is an intolerant branch of Islam according to a NY Police Department Report

Wahhabism is indeed a violent and radical movement within the larger religion of Islam. That is a well established fact.

(2) The Ground Zero Imam supports Wahhabi/Salafi Islam and the introduction of Sharia law in the USA

I will again stress that his books (to which you linked articles referencing) are very concerning to me. I do have great concern about some of what he has stated in those books regarding Wahhabism. And I do think that authorities should be rigorously investigating him, his finances, ties, etc. But in America, what someone says, unless they directly threaten someone, is not legally tantamount to what they do. Which is why I keep asking the same question. This would fall under the part of my question where I asked, "Is there any proof that this particular Imam and his particular followers or the prospective patrons of this particular prayer space take a radical or violent interpretation of the Qur'an...?" I consider his writings evidence, but not proof.

No one has answered this yet. Everything I can find on the man suggests that, today, he is a moderate Sufi, HOWEVER, as you have pointed out, some of his writings can be interpreted as contrary to that moderate image. And that concerns me greatly. But the issue is, there has to be SOLID PROOF of criminal intent, terrorist intent, support for terrorist activity, etc. in order to deny he and his community their constitutional rights.

Does such proof exist? Beyond what he wrote in some books?

(3) The Ground Zero Imam refuses to reveal the source of his funding for the $100 Million mosque.

I personally feel that he should be transparent about the funding. I am always an advocate of transparency and information. I feel the more there is, the more we all know, and knowledge is always a good thing in this man's opinion. However, I do feel compelled to ask: do we insist on knowing the source of funding for churches, synagogues, and temples? Don't misunderstand my meaning: I absolutely believe that the funding should be investigated by the authorities. But why do we need to know them publicly when we don't demand the same of other religious institutions? If the authorities truly believe there is criminal wrongdoing or ties to terrorism here, would they not fully investigate the finances involved like they always do? That's what I want to see happen. But I am not interested in seeing people's constitutional and property rights trampled on the basis that they're Muslim and might or might not be supporters of Wahhabism today. There is a difference.

At least two of Imam Rauf's books, a 2000 treatise on Islamic law and his 2004 "What's Right with Islam," laud the implementation of sharia -- including within America -- and the "rejuvenating" Islamic religious spirit of Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Wahhab.

And this is what concerns me most. I absolutely agree that there needs to be an investigation into his dealings, associations, and finances. And if proof is found that this community center, he, or anyone associated with it are supporting, planning, financing, or committing acts of terror or subversion, then the community center should cease to exist in my personal opinion, and he and others should be arrested and tried on terrorism charges.

But again, this brings us back to the question I keep asking. Is there any proof? Yes or no? Can you answer this question now?