What's new

The Ground-zero mosque, continued

Here is a Pakistani view, that questions the morality of this 'unnecessary provocation'. Worth a read. You can directly post comments on his blog here
--------------------------------------------------

The Manhattan mosque

- Yasser Latif Hamdani

The mosque in Manhattan has stirred a hornet’s nest. The issue now threatens to test the very ideals of western secular democracy that we admire and cherish and seek to emulate in the rest of the world. It is important, therefore, to weigh in logically and as reasonable people — though reason is hard to come by these days — on the unnecessary provocation in Manhattan created by Imam Feisal Abdel Raouf and his wife Daisy Khan that they refer to as ‘Cordoba House’ or ‘Park 51’, a $ 100 million Islamic centre in New York City.

I say unnecessary not because I oppose the good imam’s right to profess and propagate his faith as he deems fit, but because at this key juncture of the Obama presidency, this saga has delivered to the Tea Party Movement its biggest stick to beat liberals and civil rights activists with. Those of you who are unfamiliar with the Tea Party Movement, it is a populist right-wing conservative movement that broke out spontaneously against perceived government interference in economic life and backed largely by the libertarian think tanks and organisations like Freedom Works, etc. The name itself comes from the famous Boston Tea Party where Massachusetts’s men had thrown tea sacks into the Boston harbour to protest the British government’s taxes and economic policies. The modern day Tea Party Movement has already made great gains — such as the unseating of Democrats from their traditional power base in Massachusetts from where the late Ted Kennedy used to get elected. It is now set to use the mosque issue to appeal to the right wing religious sentiment. If the Tea Party manages to pull the rug from under the Democrats and moderate Republicans, the consequences for not just the US but the entire world will be extremely grave.

President Obama and his government are now under great stress because of the difficult position the mosque issue has put the Obama administration in. Logically, there should not be a problem with building a place of worship, a right guaranteed under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, but the issue is much larger than one of freedom of faith. Let us be fair. There are several mosques in New York City and no one would have done even a double take had an Islamic centre been built anywhere else. To choose the site of a building wasted by the 9/11 attacks is an act of deliberate provocation, not because Islam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, because that is not true. It is so because not only have the mosque’s backers, including the two aforementioned protagonists, failed to disclose the source of their funding, but have also failed miserably to win the confidence of a vast majority of New Yorkers and now indeed most Americans. Yet the issue of fundamental and constitutional rights is seldom subject to the whims of the majority.

That question is of course paramount. It is about constitutional rights, freedom of religion and all those big words that Muslims selectively appeal to whenever they are in a minority, but surely Muslims can better understand the feelings of Americans that have been outraged. Who else if not a Muslim, whose faith and religious sensibility can be outraged by something so seemingly benign as an Ahmedi saying Assalam-o-alaikum, can understand why church groups, right wingers and other anti-Muslim groups have reacted so strongly to the idea of having an Islamic community centre so close to the site of the World Trade Centre? Who else if not a Muslim can understand why equality sometimes means equality for all but that some are just inherently more equal, for, after all, constitutionally equal citizens of Pakistan who are from, say, a Christian background are forever barred from becoming president or prime minister of this Islamic republic of ours. Who else if not a Muslim can understand that neither religious freedom nor privacy are absolute concepts, for was it not in the holiest of holy Saudi Arabia, that 40 Pakistani Christians were thrown in jail for worshipping quietly in their own homes?

What about Park 51? Would this be a mosque — the mosque at Park 51 — for just one kind of Muslims or will it be open to all sectarian communities? Will it open its doors to the Shias or perhaps the Nation of Islam, which believes in the last prophethood of Elijah Muhammad aka Elijah Poole? Will Amina Wudud or Asra Nomani be allowed to lead prayers in this mosque? Will Ismailis, Bohris, Druze or the Ahmedis be allowed to worship in this centre? These are central questions that should be answered for the imam has pitched this as the great project for American Islam. It is a defining moment.

The truth is that Islam in the US is practised openly and freely, without any fear — or at least till there was a backlash by the Tea Party against the proposed project. That much is clear from the latest work of Dr Akbar S Ahmed, who not long ago travelled the length and breadth of the US visiting hundreds of mosques and communities, along with his team of enthusiastic students from American University. When asked about the Manhattan fiasco, his response was: “Here is a thought — Imam Rauf should say ‘enough of creating bricks and mortar’ and move for compassion. Let me give it [the money for the mosque] to those who need it, who are suffering and pray to the same God’, hand over the capital he plans to raise for the Park 51 project as a cheque in the hands of an interfaith American delegation, fly it to Pakistan, and contribute it to the relief efforts.”

Why not? Is that not what Islam teaches its adherents? Are the rights of people not a greater obligation under Islamic law?

Yasser Latif Hamdani is a lawyer. He also blogs at pakteahouse.wordpress.com and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com
 
Bigots are certainly not confined to the land of free.

If you were able to do reading/understanding 101 you would realize that I said they can build it... Asking questions about is background s legitimate, as it is with every mosque, since thats were Islamic terrorists cells are born.

Stating the fact that it is still an insult does not make me a bigot, you moron.

The reflexive accusation of racism when anyone is critical of Islam/Muslims or anything that they do is pathetic and you well know that this mosque has a questionable background etc.

FYI No.2, it's no where near Ground Zero... Learn to read maps!

Bullsh't, look at the video, it has a map in it. It is two blocks from it and the mosque on the 4th floor would be overlooking it...

Unbeliever

Don't fall for this "see your jihad and raise you a ..."

I'm not and he is not. Watch the video. As I said the centerpic is very misleading...
 
Here is a Pakistani view, that questions the morality of this 'unnecessary provocation'. Worth a read. You can directly post comments on his blog

Ahh, a Pakistani opposing the ground zero mosque. Now what happened, to his spine? Has he bent to the "Kuffars"?

Ofcourse I am not going to go through all the diatribe that some people went through; making comments and posting "poems" when a couple of Indian origin muslims in American raised the same point. Atleast they talked about relocation but here he is saying to not even build it and use that money to help the poor.

Wonder what people will have to say now
 
@Unbeliever
This is for misinformed people like you. Please read it in full

On Faith Panelists Blog: The great "Ground Zero mosque" hoax - James Standish
Anyone paying attention the last couple of weeks has heard multiple reports about plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. It's been labeled a "victory mosque", described as towering over the memorial to the victims of 9/11, and as being the pet project of a terrorist-sympathizing, Muslim imam. All of this would be cause for Americans to get upset, and no surprise, polls show we are.

But what if what we're being told are gross distortions mixed with bold faced lies?

Three simple fact checks help put the flap in context:

1) There is no "Ground Zero" mosque

If you take a minute to Google map the address of the supposed "ground zero" mosque, 45-47 Park Place, you'll find the proposed site is on a small city street buried in the middle of the block. It is separated by two full city blocks of towering buildings from the World Trade Center site. While the entire lower Manhattan might be considered "Ground Zero", the site of the mosque is separated visually and physically from the World Trade Center site. No one visiting the World Trade Center site will see it - unless they take a wrong turn on the way.

2) There is no "Victory" Mosque

The stated goal behind building the Muslim center in lower Manhattan is to recapture the spirit of mutual respect between Judaism, Christianity and Islam that existed in Cordoba, Spain, from 700 - 1200 AD. While Europe was trapped in the Dark Ages, marked by bloody religious repression, Cordoba thrived as a commercial and cultural center with what was, for the time, a high level of religious freedom. For example, in the 10th Century, Cordoba became the intellectual capital for Jews worldwide. The stated point of the project is creating a world where Jews, Christians and Muslims connect again in a way that builds mutual understanding and respect. This is precisely the opposite goal of the 9/11 terrorists.

3) There is no Terror-Loving Imam Behind the Mosque

The Imam behind the mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is reported to have good relations with the Jewish community and has strongly condemned terrorism. He is precisely the kind of Imam that violent Islamic radicals despise the most. He has been lambasted in some quarters in the US for stating that American support of corrupt and coercive regimes in the Middle-east motivated the 9/11 terrorists. While the precise motivation of the terrorists may be subject for debate, his analysis can only dismissed blithely by those unfamiliar with the deplorable practices of American "allies" in Middle-east ranging from the Saudi regime to Egyptian government. But this misses the point; we don't have to agree with his analysis or the way he expressed himself to agree that in a free society, unless someone is engaged in criminal activity, they have the same rights as anyone else to build and operate a house of worship.

Target the Saudi Government - Not Americans

Not only are the "facts" that have been widely reported gross distortions, but the arguments for banning the mosque are fatally flawed. Some have argued that America should not allow the mosque to be built until Saudi Arabia permits the building of churches. As someone on the forefront of pressing for full religious freedom in all nations - including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan - for almost a decade, I strongly support the view that Saudi Arabia must abide by its international commitment and permit people not only to build the houses of worship they choose, but to speak freely about their religious convictions and to change their faith should they so choose. But this misses a key point. If we want this to happen, we should target the Saudi regime, not Americans like Imam Rauf.

Specifically, the politicians currently railing against Imam Rauf, should rather use their influence and power to place conditions on the vast economic and security cooperation between the US and Saudi Arabia. The conditions should require the Saudis to end their egregious human rights violations - and most specifically, their abuse of religious minorities including Christians and Shia Muslims.

Don't Give the Government Power to Ban our Houses of Worship

But there is a second disconnect. Americans have the right to build our houses of worship wherever we choose, as long as we lawfully purchase the land and build to code. Indeed, in 1998 the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act was passed to ensure this right is robustly protected. Do we really want to give the government the right to pick and choose which religions get to build where? Do we want Evangelicals banned from building new churches in neighborhoods where they are an unpopular minority? Do they want the majority to be able to decide where Mormon churches can be built, or Synagogues or Adventist Churches, or Catholic? We are all minorities somewhere in this country. Do we want the majority to be able to squelch our plans to build a house of worship?

Where is the fear of intrusive government when we need it? Where is the dedication to the First Freedom found in our Constitution when it really matters?

Stop Damaging American Security

The so called "Ground Zero" controversy has no doubt effectively raised the profile and filled the coffers of the politicians and advocacy organizations misleading the public. Scapegoating unpopular minorities is generally an effective way to gain power and influence. But it comes at a price. In this case, the price is not only the integrity and credibility of the individuals and organizations that raced to jump on this bandwagon. It is deeper and it is broader. This controversy has done much to stoke hatred against American Muslims at home and in the process, has made peaceful Muslims around the world doubt our commitment to equality and liberty. In so doing, these attacks on American Muslims gives fuel to violent Islamic radicals.

The politicians and NGOs that have stoked the "ground zero" mosque hoax should be seen for what they are - security charlatans. Their intolerance weakens our society and our allies, while strengthening our enemies.

Conclusion

Even if we are willing to abandon our constitutional right to freedom of religion, even if we are willing empower the government to pick and choose between religions, even if our conscience doesn't bother us when inflammatory remarks are made about a vulnerable minority, even if all this is true, it is indisputable that America's self interest at home and abroad lays in supporting peaceful voices in the Muslim community, not employing distortions to whip up the fires of prejudice against them.

------------
James Standish
Represents the Seventh-day Adventist Church to the United Nations. Deputy secretary general of the International Religious Liberty Association.
 
If you were able to do reading/understanding 101 you would realize that I said they can build it... Asking questions about is background s legitimate, as it is with every mosque, since thats were Islamic terrorists cells are born.

Stating the fact that it is still an insult does not make me a bigot, you moron.

The reflexive accusation of racism when anyone is critical of Islam/Muslims or anything that they do is pathetic and you well know that this mosque has a questionable background etc.



Bullsh't, look at the video, it has a map in it. It is two blocks from it and the mosque on the 4th floor would be overlooking it...



I'm not and he is not. Watch the video. As I said the centerpic is very misleading...

big·ot (bgt)noun is defined as,

"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Strike 1:
"as it is with every mosque, since thats were Islamic terrorists cells are born."

Strike 2:
"Stating the fact that it is still an insult does not make me a bigot, you moron."
 
Feisal Abdul Rauf, the so called 'Ground Zero Imam' is a Religious Advisory Committee member at Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). CFR is an orgnization comprised of powerful people.

"The CFR Religious Advisory Committee is comprised of a distinguished group of religious and congregational leaders and scholars from across the United States."



Notable current Council of Foreign Relation memebrs:

Erin Burnett - CNBC News Anchor and hot as hell !!!
Timothy Shriver
Madeleine Albright, 64th United States Secretary of State
Sandy Berger (United States National Security Advisor under President Bill Clinton)
Michael R. Bloomberg (Current Mayor of New York City)
Bill Brock (former Republican United States Senator from Tennessee)
Edgar Bronfman (a member of the Bronfman dynasty, president of the World Jewish Congress)
Ethan Bronner (deputy foreign editor of The New York Times)
Zbigniew Brzezinski (United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter)
George H.W. Bush, 41st President of the United States
Jonathan S. Bush (healthcare CEO, son of Jonathan Bush, brother of NBC entertainment reporter Billy Bush)
Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States
Dick Cheney, 46th Vice President of the United States
Warren Christopher (former United States Secretary of State)
Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States
Hillary Rodham Clinton, 67th United States Secretary of State
Paul Cravath, name partner of law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore
Michael Crow (president of Arizona State University)
Peggy Dulany (fourth child of David Rockefeller)
Lawrence Eagleburger ( former United States Secretary of State under President George H. W. Bush)
Roger W. Ferguson, Jr.
Noah Feldman (academic and author)
Alan H. Fleischmann (Co-Founder of ImagineNations Group)
Mikhail Fridman (Russian oligarch, International Advisory Board member)
Thomas Friedman (journalist, The New York Times)
Robert M. Gates (United States Secretary of Defense, former Director of Central Intelligence)
Alan Greenspan (former Chairman of the Federal Reserve)
Chris Heinz (Heir to the H. J. Heinz Company ketchup fortune)
Warren Hoge (American journalist)
Sheila Johnson President of the Washington Mystics
Angelina Jolie (UN Goodwill Ambassador)[26]
Vernon Jordan (close advisor to President William J. Clinton)
Robert Kagan (cofounded Project for the New American Century)
Henry Kissinger, 56th United States Secretary of State
Paula Zahn - news media, formerly an anchor on CNN
Mario Mancuso, partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, and former senior national security official
John McCain, United States Senator from Arizona
Ken Mehlman[27]
Heather Nauert, journalist for Fox News
David Stern Commissioner of the NBA
Henry Paulson (United States Treasury Secretary)
Norman Podhoretz (former editor-in-chief of "Commentary", senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) signatory)
Steve Poizner (California businessman and Republican politician)
Colin Powell, 65th United States Secretary of State
Charles Prince (chief executive officer of Citigroup)
Condoleezza Rice, 66th United States Secretary of State
Kitty Pilgrim, Journalist for CNN
Keith A. Ridley, IV(Washington,DC Businessman)
Alice Rivlin (economist, former U.S. cabinet member)
David Rockefeller, Jr.
John D. Rockefeller, IV
Nicholas A. Rockefeller (Controversial banker)
Mark B. Rosenberg (President of Florida International University)
George Shultz, 60th United States Secretary of State
Walter B. Slocombe (former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy)
Paul Volcker (former Chairman of the Federal Reserve)
Shirley Williams, Baroness Williams of Crosby (International Advisory Board member)
Adam Wolfensohn
James D. Wolfensohn (former president of the World Bank)
Paul Wolfowitz (former president of the World Bank, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense)
James Woolsey (former Director of Central Intelligence and former head of the Central Intelligence Agency)
Robert Zoellick (President of the World Bank)


The members are not average Joes or Janes. They are the movers and shakers. Many a times, what they do affects 100s of millions of people around the world. These people would not want anything to do with the Imam if had had questionable issues. This Imam guy can't be an advisor at CFR and construct a symbol of Muslim triumph at the same time in USA.

This pretty much puts a lid on the irrational arguments of the opposers.

Case closed. Merchants of hate, beat it.



Link:

Advisory Committee - Council on Foreign Relations
 
Last edited:
The members are not average Joes or Janes. There are the movers and shakers.
Right...The appeal to authority/popularity argument. You assume that association mean consensus. Guess the 'sheeple' mentality works quite well.
 

That would indeed indicate that you are generalizing, since your comment was directed towards a British Pakistani, and in my case your arguments have been with a Pakistani American, and in the case of the NYC Community Center (and the various other mosques now being physically and verbally attacked by the right wing US zealots), it is an argument primarily with American Muslims, not XYZ Muslim country residents.

In both cases you won't find support for many discriminatory laws in place in Pakistan, for example, so what else is your comment (not that it is a surprise given the bigotry and prejudice you have already displayed with your previous arguments), but derogatory stereotyping and broad inaccurate generalizations.
 
Right...The appeal to authority/popularity argument. You assume that association mean consensus. Guess the 'sheeple' mentality works quite well.

Hardly - the arguments of the those who oppose the NYC community center have been debunked time and again.

There is no rational justification for opposing the center - prejudice and derogatory generalizations about Islam and Muslims are the main refuge for many non-Muslims opposing the Center, and appeasement and concerns about a 'political fallout' centering around the shift of US political power into the hands of right wing American zealots such as the Tea Party nutters and the extremist evangelicals ala Pat Robertson are the primary concerns of most Muslims opposed to the project.

What the post by fallstuff illustrates is that many sane intellectuals have sided with what is right, while many right wing intellectuals continue with their campaign of fear-mongering and inciting prejudice and hate against a particular community, both for the sake of political gain in the coming elections and out of a sincere pandering to their anti-Muslim prejudices.
 

You misunderstood, again.
Let me be clear.

I didn't say all mosque are terror-mosque.. but some or few ARE, as you well know.

That is why when a mosque is set up it is relevant who pays for it and who is telling people how to interpret their faith in that mosque.

"as it is with every mosque" referred to this. That every mosque in the west that is build with foreign money needs to be checked out, with regards to that. Because that is were possibly the radicalization happens (as seen in many examples in Pakistan for instance)

Don't take my statements out of context for your ridiculous racist accusations.
By the way, You are guilty of the same mindset you so wrongly accuse me off if you think I am a bigot just because I reserve the right to question and criticize.

I'm also more tolerant and open minded than you could possibly know (and probably 90% of people here)... I have friends of many different creeds and backgrounds (yes Muslims as well), live in a multi-cultural open society and have traveled and befriended people from many nations, so your accusations just don't stick. Thats why I called you a moron..


And for the very simple minded in very simple words:
Yes they have the right to build the mosque.
 
Last edited:
Muslims have all the right to build anywhere they want as long as the zoning laws are obeyed as they are in this case.

However they will not get any union workers to work on the project.It is is just not going to happen.

They won't build it! Hardhats vow not to work on controversial mosque near Ground Zero

this is how the republican party has been screwing blue collar america......... by confounding their puny little brain with 2nd amendment, gay marriage, religion issues ......... while working for the corporate america....

sad indeed...
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom