Ground Zero mosque wins approval !!

[inddef]

Sorry, but in this case you would have to illustrate that 'institutionalized hypocrisy' is practiced by the majority of US Muslims to make a valid argument.

Dragging in an example of Saudi Arabian laws for example does not justify attributing similar attitudes to American Muslims.

to me the case of the mosque is clear cut. american law works inside america and the mosque is legal.

however, legal discrimination largely exists in muslim majority countries(dictatorships and democracies included) and if the Cairo declaration is the best one can hope for, its not going to end anytime soon.

since the discrimintory laws in muslim majority countries come directly from the tenets of the religion itself, US muslims(like all others) are going to get some flak for this hypocrisy. let me say why.

i see no obvious grounds to believe that US muslims are an outlier to the OIC consensus and reject all of the UNDHR(assuming US law upholds UNDHR) incompatible ideas that exist within islamic law. i think the burden to demonstrate that such rejection is in principle and not under coercion of US law lies with US muslims. (wide ranging statements rejecting punishments for apostacy and blasphemy would be a good start)

until such is demonstrated beyond doubt, the idea of US muslims as some kind of champions of the sanctity of western law is almost laughable.

i believe that there are lots of muslims who bat for entirely secular legal thought and reject the legal authority of religion, but they seem to be rather the minority given the average state of law and the guiding principles in the OIC.

so even though its not entirely justified, US muslims will continue to suffer from the very low 'Secular Quotient' of muslim majority countries in a manner of guilt by association until they can demonstrate otherwise.

PS: This is written with the assumption that you are a secular thinker.

 

[fallstuff]

Does that Liberal have a Choice On this subject!!! There are 70% antagonist in America, regarding this ruling by the New York board......



Now, it becomes a racial argument, not even considering of how many Mosque that already exists in Manhattan, but to build it right here is so important for Muslims, not even considering one bit of sentiments of the families!!!! Fantastic Argument!!!!!!

Explain how it is going to hurt their feelings with reference to Clinical Psychology, and oh, leave the politics out.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

to me the case of the mosque is clear cut. american law works inside america and the mosque is legal.

however, legal discrimination largely exists in muslim majority countries(dictatorships and democracies included) and if the Cairo declaration is the best one can hope for, its not going to end anytime soon.

since the discrimintory laws in muslim majority countries come directly from the tenets of the religion itself, US muslims(like all others) are going to get some flak for this hypocrisy. let me say why.

i see no obvious grounds to believe that US muslims are an outlier to the OIC consensus and reject all of the UNDHR(assuming US law upholds UNDHR) incompatible ideas that exist within islamic law. i think the burden to demonstrate that such rejection is in principle and not under coercion of US law lies with US muslims. (wide ranging statements rejecting punishments for apostacy and blasphemy would be a good start)

until such is demonstrated beyond doubt, the idea of US muslims as some kind of champions of the sanctity of western law is almost laughable.

i believe that there are lots of muslims who bat for entirely secular legal thought and reject the legal authority of religion, but they seem to be rather the minority given the average state of law and the guiding principles in the OIC.

so even though its not entirely justified, US muslims will continue to suffer from the very low 'Secular Quotient' of muslim majority countries in a manner of guilt by association until they can demonstrate otherwise.

PS: This is written with the assumption that you are a secular thinker.

The American Muslim community is distinct, as are communities in other nations, with views formed as a result of the dynamics of the society they live in and are raised in. Therefore attributing viewpoints of other nations to this particular community merely because they share the name is illogical.

Guilt by association is a flawed and unfair concept, and if the West is to practice it WRT Muslims, that is a poor reflection on them, not on Muslims.

As for rejecting punishments on Blasphemy and apostacy, the fact that most American Muslims are not out on the streets calling for US law to be modified to cater to such punishments speaks volumes for the kind of society they wish to live in and believe conforms with their interpretation of Islam. I don't see demonstrating anything other than that to be necessary to illustrate the American Muslim POV.

 

[inddef]

The American Muslim community is distinct, as are communities in other nations, with views formed as a result of the dynamics of the society they live in and are raised in. Therefore attributing viewpoints of other nations to this particular community merely because they share the name is illogical.

Guilt by association is a flawed and unfair concept, and if the West is to practice it WRT Muslims, that is a poor reflection on them, not on Muslims.

As for rejecting punishments on Blasphemy and apostacy, the fact that most American Muslims are not out on the streets calling for US law to be modified to cater to such punishments speaks volumes for the kind of society they wish to live in and believe conforms with their interpretation of Islam. I don't see demonstrating anything other than that to be necessary to illustrate the American Muslim POV.

i think you missed the crucial point that desiring islamic laws contra UNDHR is not just an issue of label but rather the faith. i think there is a need for american muslims to repudiate such law explicitly.

i may me be misinformed, but apparently only 2 out of a 100 or so organizations claiming to represent american muslims agreed to repudiate death for apostasy in principle. doesn't cut it in my opinion.

 

[fallstuff]

to me the case of the mosque is clear cut. american law works inside america and the mosque is legal.

however, legal discrimination largely exists in muslim majority countries(dictatorships and democracies included) and if the Cairo declaration is the best one can hope for, its not going to end anytime soon.

since the discrimintory laws in muslim majority countries come directly from the tenets of the religion itself, US muslims(like all others) are going to get some flak for this hypocrisy. let me say why.

i see no obvious grounds to believe that US muslims are an outlier to the OIC consensus and reject all of the UNDHR(assuming US law upholds UNDHR) incompatible ideas that exist within islamic law. i think the burden to demonstrate that such rejection is in principle and not under coercion of US law lies with US muslims. (wide ranging statements rejecting punishments for apostacy and blasphemy would be a good start)

until such is demonstrated beyond doubt, the idea of US muslims as some kind of champions of the sanctity of western law is almost laughable.

i believe that there are lots of muslims who bat for entirely secular legal thought and reject the legal authority of religion, but they seem to be rather the minority given the average state of law and the guiding principles in the OIC.

so even though its not entirely justified, US muslims will continue to suffer from the very low 'Secular Quotient' of muslim majority countries in a manner of guilt by association until they can demonstrate otherwise.

PS: This is written with the assumption that you are a secular thinker.

Some of these posters here are beyond any help. Your first line is on context. After that you are going all over the world to find your case. You must make your case in context.

It has nothing to do with whether one is secular or not.

 

[inddef]

i don't have a case to make apart from 2 simple assertions.

1) i personally don't believe majority of american muslims repudiate all the contentious parts of sharia. (i don't believe the majority of any muslim population anywhere repudiate this in principle)
2) no one else should be expected to believe this either until clearly demonstrated.

therefore, the whole holier than thou defender of western law tone i've seen from muslim secularists on this thread doesn't work for me. there isn't enough proof for me to buy into that nor should anyone else be expected to.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

University of Minnesota Human Rights Library

just read this junk which is the guiding standard for oic countries.

i think you missed the crucial point that desiring islamic laws contra UNDHR is not just an issue of label but rather the faith. i think there is a need for american muslims to repudiate such law explicitly.

i may me be misinformed, but apparently only 2 out of a 100 or so organizations claiming to represent american muslims agreed to repudiate death for apostasy in principle. doesn't cut it in my opinion.

What exactly in the OIC statement do you find offensive, and give the different interpretations of Shariah around the world, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the actions and political advocacy of most American Muslims paint their opinion about Shariah law in a manner quite contrary to, say, the interpretation enforced in Saudi Arabia.

And I am not aware of any American Muslim organizations commenting on apostasy, or what their support base is. So you'll have to expound on that further.

 

[inddef]

What exactly in the OIC statement do you find offensive, and give the different interpretations of Shariah around the world, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the actions and political advocacy of most American Muslims paint their opinion about Shariah law in a manner quite contrary to, say, the interpretation enforced in Saudi Arabia.

And I am not aware of any American Muslim organizations commenting on apostasy, or what their support base is. So you'll have to expound on that further.

since all provisions of that declaration are subject to the sharia, they are pretty much high sounding non sense.

human rights cannot be subject to interpretation of religious tradition and its accompanying vagaries.

 

[fhassan]

 

[AstanoshKhan]

The Mosque "controversy" is proof that much of our population lives via TV

The "ground zero" Mosque controversy is a wake up call. It shows how deeply Television influences the mind of the common citizen. Many in our population are taking their "que's" on how to live life from the TV.

I have long felt that people were living vicariously through the TV. It first became noticable to me when I recognized that a lot of our social interaction mimics the passive/aggressive tone of our sitcoms. At work people often have to communicate through comedy, as if they are in a work related sitcom. In many marriages the interaction mimics that of what we grew up watching.

Our daily interactions are often centered around what we have all shared via TV recently, what shows we watch, what information is provided on news. Many even get their religious beliefs from the TV.

The trouble is that while TV includes and can show real life events, what we see on the TV can only be a 2 dimensional slice of a many faceted reality. In a way it is a fantasy, and never fully reflects reality. TV attempts to influence and replace reality, by subtly twisting reality to get an emotional response or add excitement. It's purpose is get you "hooked", so you will return day after day, or week after week.

At it's worst, TV purposely tries to influence the viewer, to make them think the fantasy they are providing is pure reality. In essence "manufacturing" a reality. Because when they actually manufacture the reality and tie the audience to it, they gain power over perception that can be used to sell products and lift salaries. This is where we are now.

The fantasy of the "ground zero" mosque, is a demonstration, that they *have control* of a large part of the population. It provides evidence that it is not simply the "Teabaggers" that are under this form of control, but much of the general population.

It is important to distinguish this phenomenon, in order to know how to counter it. It is essentially a mass illusion, a mental illness, from the politics that are gripping and trying to control it.

My point in mentioning this, is we do not have a "conservative nation", we have a heavily influence/controlled nation. Controlled by a media with a significant conservative/corporate, slant.

That is the issue we must find answers to. And the normal political approaches will not work to change it.

Now that corporate interests have acquired our government, they use their gargantuan media platforms to pacify, confuse, distract and deny the American people anything close to reality and relevance in regard to news reporting.

----------------------------

Combined with the mystical, magical, psychological power of TV; has lead it to become a most powerful tool in the art of brainwashing the people.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

since all provisions of that declaration are subject to the sharia, they are pretty much high sounding non sense.

human rights cannot be subject to interpretation of religious tradition and its accompanying vagaries.

That many of the 'human rights' have been clearly enunciated in the declaration, and have been associated with Shariah, that pretty much clears up what the interpretation of Shairah for the purposes of that declaration was.

I am surprised the Saudis and some other more conservative nations did not oppose the declaration or veto it.

So long as basic human rights are committed to in that declaration, who cares whether they are attributed to the Shariah or 'Judeo-Christian' traditions and scripture.

 

[gambit]

i don't have a case to make apart from 2 simple assertions.

1) i personally don't believe majority of american muslims repudiate all the contentious parts of sharia. (i don't believe the majority of any muslim population anywhere repudiate this in principle)
2) no one else should be expected to believe this either until clearly demonstrated.

therefore, the whole holier than thou defender of western law tone i've seen from muslim secularists on this thread doesn't work for me. there isn't enough proof for me to buy into that nor should anyone else be expected to.

Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK - Telegraph

Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.

The UK example is instructive in that being geographically separate from Saudi Arabia DOES NOT render a particular muslim community immune from the Saudi's interpretation of Islam. We have no evidence that the American muslim community is any more resistive to the Saudi's interpretation of Islam than their British brethens.

 

[SMC]

^ I don't buy these polls due to the manipulation that can be done. 4/10 looks ridiculously high.

Just an example - CNN did a poll in Pakistan about who was involved in terrorism in Pakistan. 75% said that they believed foreign powers was doing it. CNN automatically made that figure into 75% of people believing foreign powers was involved and 25% believing Taliban was involved. In fact, vast majority probably believe that foreign powers are using TTP to carry out their terrorism. That was a classic statistic manipulation technique.

I'd like to know what people were asked in this poll.

 

[fallstuff]

Folks opposing the Mosque simply doesn't have a case. If their was a case, it would be in the Courts today. Whats the next best course of action ? Make enough noise to make the issue a real hot potato that no one would go near it. Its very popular, happened with the Dubai Port Authority's bid to run a US port when GW Bush was president.

There is almost always some nature of protest at every new Mosque , Islamic center or School opening.

If this $100 million Center was proposed on a different location, there would be folks with banners against it. So what do you do when people are infringing on your rights to pursue happiness or simply minding your own business.

I don't really care how it is in Saudi Arabia or some other country. I don't live there. I am concerned with what happens here. How hard it is for some folks tapping away opposing it to understand ?

How ridiculous the argument is, " My opposition to the Mosque is because supposedly 40% Muslim in UK want Sharia Law."
Some other genius goes, " I oppose the Mosque because Muslims in US has covert negative feelings." Yet another says "I oppose it because US Muslims are guilty by association of the larger Muslim population"

The proposed project known as "Cordoba Initiative" takes its name from the Spanish city of Cordoba, which was the capital of Muslim Spain and was known as a center of tolerance, education, and excellence in quality of life. This is where people from all over Europe came and relearned the ancient Greek texts, learned about Muslim inventions, and architecture. These enlightened folks went back to their lands and helped pull Europe out of the "Dark ages" and propelled European Renaissance. Unlike many like to believe "European Renaissance" was not a natural progression of European history nor did it fall from the sky.

Cordoba Initiative will display Islamic history among many other propositions to build a bridge with the common people.

In my opinion the name has significance that once again its trying to show an unseen side of Islam, this time to American people.

 

[T-Rex]

Newt Ginrich has described Muslims as Nazis; people like those do not see the ghost of nazism in Israel and America itself. America, at present, is just another form of Nazi Germany to the Muslims and the Muslim World in general. The so-called champions of human rights think they and their allies like Israel have unlimited rights while Muslims have none whatsoever. They cannot say it directly for it will reveal their true colours, so people like Ginrich and their stooges say it in a differnet way. They portray all Muslims as Bin Laden and then move on to say that they have no rights whatsoever.