Thread: Islam Ctr Planned Next to Ground Zero

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

A point not mentioned as yet here is respect for the 3K folks who were incinerated at ground zero.

Do you mean people like this:

Hamdani was born in Karachi, Pakistan and moved to America with his family when he was only 13 months old. He later became a paramedic, ambulance driver, and a New York City Police Department cadet. On September 11, 2001 while on the way to work, Hamdani witnessed the smoke coming from the Twin Towers and hurried to the scene to assist. He was killed while going to the aid of victims in the World Trade Center.

Mohammed Salman Hamdani - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before leaving their apartment Sept. 11, he gave Sudipta, as his wife is called, his cell phone -- in case she went into labor. He took his beeper.
He would never again call or come home.
The son he longed for was born Sept. 13.

IN MEMORIAM - Mohammed Salahuddin Chowdhury

There are quite a few more.

What the opponents to this abomination should do is let them build the Mosque.

Declare Islam the enemy of all humanity, civilization and culture.

Seize the mosque

Turn it into a center for Islamic truth and Muslim rehabilitation.

Originally Posted by mc2

ignorance.

A bit harsh there mc2. Earl is absolutely correct. Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia under sharia law is shocking. Only logical Saudi Arabia which has less than 2% of world Muslim population should be used to stereotype the other 98% of the world's Muslims.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by mc2

ignorance.

A bit harsh there mc2. Earl is absolutely correct. Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia under sharia law is shocking. Only logical Saudi Arabia which has less than 2% of world Muslim population should be used to stereotype the other 98% of the world's Muslims.

Yea maybe Somalia, or Indonesia will provide better examples of how Islam can integrate with humanity.

Even Malaysia is a bit harsh in their attitudes of cultural tolerance.
Iran, or Syria don't offer any shinning examples of tolerance as they hang homosexuals from lightposts

Looks like Obama is endorsing the mosque. Good for him, now he just needs to speak the truth about Islam.

President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully endorsed allowing a mosque near ground zero, saying the country's founding principles demanded no less.

link

Obama backs NY mosque
Aug 14, 2010


Construction cranes tower above One World Trade Center in New York.
PHOTO: AP

WASHINGTON - PRESIDENT Barack Obama on Friday defended controversial plans to build a mosque near the site of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks in New York, saying US commitment to religious freedom 'must be unshakable.'

'As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,' Mr Obama said at the White House, where he was hosting a Ramadan meal for Muslims breaking the fast. 'That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in low Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances'.

About 2,750 people were killed on Sept 11 when hijackers from the Muslim militant group al Qaeda crashed two passenger planes into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, an event that traumatised Americans and sparked the US invasion of Afghanistan and the Bush Administration's 'war on terror.' Families of those killed in the attacks have mounted an emotional campaign to block the mosque, saying it would be a betrayal of the memory of the victims.

Conservative politicians such as former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, a Republican former Speaker of the House of Representatives, have also called for the project to be scrapped.

With the rhetoric growing more heated, Obama decided on Friday to make his voice heard. He said the First Amendment of the US Constitution had established the freedom of religion 'and that right has been upheld ever since.' Al Qaeda also was not synonymous with Islam, Obama said.'Al Qaeda's cause is not Islam - it is a gross distortion of Islam,' he said.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has firmly supported the community centre project as have many religious organisations in the city. However, 53 per cent of New Yorkers oppose it, according to a Marist Poll this week.

straitstimes.com

It all boils down to one thing and nothing else.
All Muslims are being blames for the acts of a few. That's way out of order.

Originally Posted by mr Fred

It all boils down to one thing and nothing else.
All Muslims are being blames for the acts of a few. That's way out of order.

That isn't true. Note that the criticism is about Islam and not individual Muslims.
Muslims aren't to blame in fact they are victims of this vicious intolerant fascist and sociopathic religion. Most are born into it can fear for their lives if they tried to escape or convert.

Nope Muslims are the victims here too. That's why mosques should be taken over and converted to centers for Muslim rehabilitation. These poor people should have a chance for life outside of their fascist religion.

There is a giant need for this.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

What the opponents to this abomination should do is let them build the Mosque.

And build that Muslim Gay Bar right next door!

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

What the opponents to this abomination should do is let them build the Mosque.

And build that Muslim Gay Bar right next door!

And a sausage/bacon shop on the other side.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by mc2

ignorance.

A bit harsh there mc2. Earl is absolutely correct. Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia under sharia law is shocking. Only logical Saudi Arabia which has less than 2% of world Muslim population should be used to stereotype the other 98% of the world's Muslims.

You seem to accept that stereotyping is wrong, or is it only when applied to a small sample such as 2%? Would it also be wrong to stereotype more than 50% of a group as being typical of that group? For example, while there are exceptions and some people make a case by clinging to exceptions as though they are the rule, I'm sure you would agree that a ‘typical’ male farang coming alone to Thailand does so for sex and a good time. So stereotyping is not unconditionally wrong, but it needs to be fairly balanced.

As Saudi has only 2% of the world’s Muslim population, which of the other 98% of Muslim states would you offer as 'stereotypically' Muslim, or barbaric, or enlightened, or even as advocates of progress?

Btw, congratulations on your New York Times style of presentation. It may be true as you say that Saudi owns less than 2% of the world's Muslim population, but you conveniently forgot to consider its more important features of size, location, wealth and influence on the Islamic world, or that it promotes Wahabism on the international scene way out of proportion to its 2% head count. Then you compound the transparency by implying it is unfair to attribute more than 2% of any negative effect to Islam in discussion. In my view this is laughable from a normally reasonable and intelligent person.


Never mind. Let's remove Saudi from the 57 OIC member states, since you have conceded it is under Sharia and barbaric, though with the view that this can hardly be relevant since it owns a mere 2% of Muslims. Let's also remove the PA, since it is not a full member on account of not being a state, and also because it shares with Saudi a lack of redeeming features in the civility stakes.

Now that we have these two out of the way, which combination of the other 55 OIC member states would you confidently promote as successful societies under Sharia, or of being neither backward nor barbaric, or as worthy of being held up as typical Islamic states?

Originally Posted by Mid

'As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,' Mr Obama said at the White House, where he was hosting a Ramadan meal for Muslims breaking the fast. 'That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in low Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances'.

Not difficult to understand the Presidents view given the circumstances above.

Q. Is it permitted for residents in the US to oppose planning applications prior to approval, as in the UK, and if so did the local planning authority override such a force of opposition as currently displayed or was it simply very little opposition at the time?

I fear that, despite the Presidents diplomatic view, the majority of NYers will have the final say. Whether he has convinced some/most of the people who oppose the location of the mosque to change their stance remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by mr Fred

It all boils down to one thing and nothing else.
All Muslims are being blames for the acts of a few. That's way out of order.

And quite right, Islam should blamed for failing to convey Allah's message of peace and tolerance to its followers. Islam claims that god himself gave these words to man through Gabriel, and one should reasonably expect them to be crystal clear or at the very least vaguely comprehensible.

So, why do you suppose there are so many 'misundersanders' of Islam that believe they will go to Paradise if they kill nonbelievers or each other?

I have heard politically correct terms such as moderate Muslims (btw it says much when followers of a religion are proud to be tagged as 'safe') and extremist Muslims (misunderstanders of the clear word of god - huh??), but I was always under the impression there is only one Islam. Is this wrong?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10973459

One term Obama is backing it, there is a surprise.

^^ If they do, he'll make NYers pay somehow. He's got a really nasty streak with getting back at people who disagree with him.
If nearby bldgs are unavailable, there's always strolling vendors, but I'm sure at least one bldg will be made readily available for non-muslims. Heck, a gay bar would probably do well with after prayers, just like they do in Haad Yai.

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Q. Is it permitted for residents in the US to oppose planning applications prior to approval, as in the UK, and if so did the local planning authority override such a force of opposition as currently displayed or was it simply very little opposition at the time?

Yes. Local community can oppose. If however, local authority refuses permit for reason it is a mosque, the denial is unconstitutional and local authority would be forced to approve the permit if the case is brought to court.

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

I fear that, despite the Presidents diplomatic view, the majority of NYers will have the final say.

Not if the folks who want to build the Mosque take it to court.

Originally Posted by Norton

What I find laughable is the approx 1.5 billion members of the 2nd largest religion in the world are all dedicated to the over throw of western civilization when the only ones trying to do so are the fringe nutters within the religion.

Hardly... the Islamic religion has being hijacked by a relatively small number of well financed fanatics, namely the Saudi's.
Until Muslims find a way to take back their religion they need to be labeled "enemy's of civilization".
They really need to cease this passive acceptance of this hijacking and get with the modern world. I know Malaysia and Indonesia are making efforts in this area but they still allow their clerics to spout volatile separatist dogma. Islamofascism is very real I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

the Islamic religion has being hijacked by a relatively small number of well financed fanatics

No question. Most Muslims I talk with and their respective governments fear this probably more than western countries. They know it will be the ruin of their nations if the fundamentalist manage to succeed.

Originally Posted by jojo333

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10973459

One term Obama is backing it, there is a surprise.

I reckon they figure he has nothing to loose at this point.

Maybe they'll immigrate 100 million Muslims to help him win the next election.

Quite possible.

Originally Posted by Mr Lick I fear that, despite the Presidents diplomatic view, the majority of NYers will have the final say.

Originally Posted by Norton

Not if the folks who want to build the Mosque take it to court.

It indeed would be an interesting challenge for both sides in the conflict.

What really surprises me is that despite the opposition to the location of a Mosque (a towering 13 storey's) the Muslim leader/applicant doesn't appear to wish acknowledgement of the feelings of the majority of NYers over the issue.
He is expectng full cooperation from the local authority yet appears unwilling to listen to the views of the community. Is this what Islam is really about?


I'm also really not sure if the 1st amendment would be deemed an issue in the disagreement of a more suitable location. Apparently there are 30+ Mosques already located in New York so freedom of religion is there for all to witness. Additionally, i believe nobody is denying the Muslim community of building more Mosques, it is merely the sensitivity in the siting of this particular one.

One that the American people appear not ready to concede closure on as yet.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by keda

confidently promote as successful societies under Sharia

Presently there are only two nations fully practicing sharia law as a basis for national law. SA and Iran. Couple of others have partial sharia law incorporated but in the area of domestic law. I am totally against any country who imposes the barbaric practice of sharia law on it's citizens. So the answer is, none.

Originally Posted by keda

or of being neither backward nor barbaric, or as worthy of being held up as typical Islamic states

I have only lived and worked in four countries which are predominantly Muslim or members of the OIC. Turkey, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia. All of which are IMO progressive, not backward, not barbaric and worthy of being typical Islamic states.

Are there nutters who would like to see these countries pulled back into the middle ages? You bet but they represent a small minority of the population who want nothing to do with sharia law or Islamic fundamentalist hate rhetoric.

Although I have not lived in the UAE and Bahrain, I have visited many times so would throw them into the progressive, tolerant category.

As I mentioned in a previous post I personally know at least a hundred Muslims and have never once felt threatened or heard any say they desire the destruction of the west. With all the Islamic "terrorists" incidents highlight by our sensationalist media, which would lead us to think there is a terrorist around every corner, it's a miracle I have survived.

Originally Posted by keda

In my view this is laughable from a normally reasonable and intelligent person.

Interesting comment. Guess everyone has their opinion on who is an intelligent and reasonable person. What I find laughable is the approx 1.5 billion members of the 2nd largest religion in the world are all dedicated to the over throw of western civilization when the only ones trying to do so are the fringe nutters within the religion.

I have addressed all your questions to me so I have one for you. You clearly have strong opinions on the evil Muslims of the world. How many Muslims do you know personally and which countries have you lived in to form your opinion? Sorry, two questions.

Not sure how all the above relates to the OP because whether one likes Islam or not, the building of the mosque in question is a right protected under the US Constitution. Unless the constitution is changed doesn't matter if 100% of the people polled don't like the idea.

BTW, good post. Green on the way.

Partially off topic, so if unconstitutional I shall repost in the koran/allah thread.

I haven't been to every Muslim country, but Muslims believe Sharia is the law of god even if individual countries do not enforce it strictly to the interpretation of one or more of the 4 main schools of jurisprudence. Sourced mainly from the Koran (Allah’s words) and the Sunnah, Sharia either is or is not the word of god. I have yet to hear a Muslim claim that any part of either of these texts are less relevant than any other, and though the Muslim countries I have been to (two decades plus ago) had no problem with booze, women wearing (respectable) shorts, or a narghila heaped with killer hash, I don't think I would try my luck now and wouldn’t advise anyone else to do so except as a bad joke.

Of the countries you mentioned, Turkey started moving towards Islamism with Erdogan, Indonesia seems to be making mild Islamic noises though that may be little more than news noise, and Brunei, well, tiny population, wealthy and quiet, at least publicly. One country which intrigues me due to it being invisible on the world stage though it has wealth, prime location, and rests a stone's throw from the unholy Trinity of Saudi/Yemen/Iran, is Oman.

Your question unfairly assumes and implies that my problem is with Muslims because they are Muslims. Still, let’s answer and see if you feel the same before and after...before I moved here just under 10 years ago I knew many Muslims in the UK, personally, through family ties and connections, and through business that often relied on sheer mutual trust; my several visits to Cairo were hosted by a lawyer friend. Nowadays I still periodically help out Arab Muslims in Pattaya with UN status and immigration paperwork, about which I posted during the Nazi occupation. Note also that the Arab Muslims I have known from here (Pattaya) were introduced by the (now) few Muslims I know in the UK that are still in touch. So, I may be Islamophobic but not Muslimphobic. Ftr, I have only once felt threatened by a Muslim, but that was after a rather heated discussion on the afternoon of 911, though I have more than once felt threatened by non-Muslims.

To clarify if it's still needed, I have no problem with Muslims as a group, and any I do have with individual Muslims are not vastly different to what one might expect with non-Muslims, as business/personal relationships develop and decay. Each to his own, but in my experience there has been only one Muslim that I have ever been comfortable enough with to speak about his religion as freely as I post on here; he converted to Christianity more than a decade ago, though not directly influenced by our chats which were conducted under the cloak of heavy duty paranoia. I leave it to you and others to figure why, with the mild suggestion that it may have something to do with Islam.

While there may be what people call 'moderate' ('probably safe’) and 'extremist' Muslims, to me there is only one Islam and that is what must ultimately be confronted and defeated. Sure it won't, as I am ready to concede, but for some people it's because they see no need since Islam poses no threat to civilisation and progress.

...What I find laughable is the approx 1.5 billion members of the 2nd largest religion in the world are all dedicated to the over throw of western civilization...

You must be confusing me with someone else because I don't recall saying that, ever.

With all the Islamic "terrorists" incidents highlight by our sensationalist media, which would lead us to think there is a terrorist around every corner, it's a miracle I have survived.

Running close to 16,000 deadly (non-lethal attempts like crotchman and Times Square not included) acts of Islamic terror since 911 (thereligionofpeace.com for the list), are the ones you refer to real "terrorist" (your quotes) incidents, or are they made up by the conniving Islamophobic media for sensationalism?

If they are real “terrorist” incidents, why are you surprised or dismayed that they are highlighted by the media?

Then, are these "terrorist" incidents committed by Muslims and in the name or cause of Allah/Islam? If so, I find it difficult to describe them as anything but Islamic terrorism, which are two words that many sheeple would cut their foot off and eat it before using in the same sentence.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by Norton

What I find laughable is the approx 1.5 billion members of the 2nd largest religion in the world are all dedicated to the over throw of western civilization when the only ones trying to do so are the fringe nutters within the religion.

Hardly... the Islamic religion has being hijacked by a relatively small number of well financed fanatics, namely the Saudi's.
Until Muslims find a way to take back their religion they need to be labeled "enemy's of civilization".
They really need to cease this passive acceptance of this hijacking and get with the modern world. I know Malaysia and Indonesia are making efforts in this area but they still allow their clerics to spout volatile separatist dogma. Islamofascism is very real I'm afraid.

Wish I could agree with your first part, especially since that used to be more or less my view. Unfortunately it supposes many things, not least the touchy feely fantasy that highly devoted fanatics can be overcome by the huddled meek and peaceful.

Also, as posted earlier, how far do you think any person or group could carry the banner of protest when world leaders are individually and collectively incapable of using Islam and terror in the same sentence, and when both failed and successful Islamic terrorists are classified - from the top - as isolated extremists; not Islamic terrorists, and not even terrorists?

Just my view that the first phase of any confrontation with Islam, or Islamic terrorists, must be waged on the Western psyche.