The Ground-zero mosque, continued

[gambit]

I am assuming you didn't read the rest of the post, because if you did, what I said makes perfect sense and several other Americans have acknowledged that.



Yes.

But your point is? I am assuming you meant that muslims tried to impose their sensitivities on the westerners in the case of Prophet Muhammad cartoons, but I don't see how that's the case unless you mean those who made death threats represent all muslims.

It is irrelevant to what I said anyway, and bringing in irrelevant points (i.e. making a diversion) is not a good argument technique.

When I said 'trumps' I do not mean it in the legal sense. That is the point. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, muslims demanded that we infidels respect muslims sensitivities BEFORE exercising our legal right to free speech, which includes speech that could be construed as offensive or deliberately offensive. Yes...That demand was after the fact, meaning after those cartoons were released into the wild. Nevertheless, that was the intent of the muslim objections -- that infidels should respect muslims' sensitivities BEFORE we contemplate our rights. But when there is a request for reciprocity, we American infidels are called 'bigots' and 'intolerant'. Muslims rallied together and exhorted each other to consider their legal rights BEFORE non-muslims' sensitivities. That is what 'trumps' mean.

America is 'The Great Satan', a Christian 'crusading' nation bent on exploitation of muslim lands and theft of muslim resources. But you have no problems with that, right?

 

[Skeptic]

Not really. From what we saw with the prophet Muhammad cartoons, muslims' sensitivities were brushed aside and cartoons were continued to be drawn and freedom of speech was implemented. In other words, your own laws were followed.

So to be consistent, the sensitivities in this case should be irrelevant in front of the law. The law should be followed. If the mosque does not go ahead, the opposite of what you said will be done - i.e. Non-Muslims' rights trumps Muslims' sensitivities and Non-Muslims' sensitivities trumps Muslims' rights.

So for staying consistent, more cartoons should be published while the mosque is built - and you will have no objections.

 

[gambit]

So for staying consistent, more cartoons should be published while the mosque is built - and you will have no objections.

The counter argument is that the Muhammad cartoons were deliberately insulting while this 'mosque' is supposedly for peaceful religious observances. Do you object to peace? Who is? So if the intention is benign, regardless of how others may feel, then muslims' rights and sensitivities should trump non-muslims' rights and sensitivities.

 

[Skeptic]

The counter argument is that the Muhammad cartoons were deliberately insulting while this 'mosque' is supposedly for peaceful religious observances. Do you object to peace? Who is? So if the intention is benign, regardless of how others may feel, then muslims' rights and sensitivities should trump non-muslims' rights and sensitivities.

Maybe it is just me - for the last few years Peaceful Religious Observance has positioned itself in the column of paradoxes and inclining strongly to become an oxymoron.

 

[SMC]

When I said 'trumps' I do not mean it in the legal sense. That is the point. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, muslims demanded that we infidels respect muslims sensitivities BEFORE exercising our legal right to free speech, which includes speech that could be construed as offensive or deliberately offensive. Yes...That demand was after the fact, meaning after those cartoons were released into the wild. Nevertheless, that was the intent of the muslim objections -- that infidels should respect muslims' sensitivities BEFORE we contemplate our rights. But when there is a request for reciprocity, we American infidels are called 'bigots' and 'intolerant'. Muslims rallied together and exhorted each other to consider their legal rights BEFORE non-muslims' sensitivities. That is what 'trumps' mean.

But this can be turned around. The infidels were saying that their freedom of speech comes before muslim sensitivities in the case of cartoons. Now they're saying that their sensitivities come before the freedom of religion.

Now the first point is undeniable - infidels said that their freedom of speech comes before muslim sensitivities and now muslims are saying that freedom of religion comes before infidels' sensitivities.

The 2nd point can be contested, but it can also be contested both ways. You can say that Americans, by inlarge, don't want their sensitivities to come before freedom of religion, but the same can be said about cartoons.

America is 'The Great Satan', a Christian 'crusading' nation bent on exploitation of muslim lands and theft of muslim resources. But you have no problems with that, right?

The relevance of this?

---------- Post added at 07:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:46 PM ----------

So for staying consistent, more cartoons should be published while the mosque is built - and you will have no objections.

I don't see how that is consistent. Because there was no islamic center being built while the cartoons were being drawn. One has already occurred, one hasn't. Perhaps if there were more cartoons drawn, then to be consistent, another islamic center should be built in the area. And I personally don't mind any cartoons.

 

[Skeptic]

I don't see how that is consistent. Because there was no islamic center being built while the cartoons were being drawn. One has already occurred, one hasn't. Perhaps if there were more cartoons drawn, then to be consistent, another islamic center should be built in the area. And I personally don't mind any cartoons.

Your argument itself is self defeating.

Infact not paying attention to religious or any other sentiments is very much unlikely of Muslim populace who have shown their protest from trivial issues like Burger King Ice cream cones to books to music to cartoons to food items to even emoticons - basically almost everything under the sun. And surprisingly they have had their ways on most of the issues. Now when the instance arrives of being conscious to other's sensitivities a sudden faith in democratic rights arises which incidentally is disallowed in Islam (or so is claimed)

Going against the popular opinion is also very much against the grain of Democracy. Also keep in mind that these New York muslims are the one's who will need to face upto the community and there are several muslim individuals and group that are opposing construction.

Even Feisal Abdul Rauf, cleric in a new york mosque and one of the primary promoter of the mosque has stated "If I knew this would happen, this would cause this kind of pain, I wouldn't have done it. My life has been devoted to peacemaking."

 

[SMC]

Your argument itself is self defeating.

I don't see how so. If you're saying that it's OK to keep making cartoons, I don't see why it's not OK to keep making islamic centers.

Infact not paying attention to religious or any other sentiments is very much unlikely of Muslim populace who have shown their protest from trivial issues like Burger King Ice cream cones to books to music to cartoons to food items to even emoticons - basically almost everything under the sun.

I haven't even heard about any of these things except for the cartoons. And if you're going attribute a small issue in which few muslims were involved to all muslims, that's your own problem.

And surprisingly they have had their ways on most of the issues. Now when the instance arrives of being conscious to other's sensitivities a sudden faith in democratic rights arises which incidentally is disallowed in Islam (or so is claimed)

I don't see how muslims had their way with the cartoons. And I don't see how they they had their way on "most of the issues" anyway. What are the other big issues? Perhaps you could talk about Quran burning - that it didn't talk place - but there were Qurans burnt in other parts of US anyway and plus there was more pressure from within US to not burn the Quran than there was from muslims.

Going against the popular opinion is also very much against the grain of Democracy.

Nope, not really. Perhaps you're talking about voting and selecting the leadership. But in a democracy, majority cannot impose its' will on a minority. i.e., just because the majority thinks that it's OK to allow slavery of minorities, democratic principles will not allow for that.

For instance, the argument that 70% of Americans are against the mosque is a weak one since it will not stand the US constitution and basic democratic principles.

Also keep in mind that these New York muslims are the one's who will need to face upto the community and there are several muslim individuals and group that are opposing construction.

Even Feisal Abdul Rauf, cleric in a new york mosque and one of the primary promoter of the mosque has stated "If I knew this would happen, this would cause this kind of pain, I wouldn't have done it. My life has been devoted to peacemaking."

Well look whose making it painful. If anything, the hypocrisy of those who criticized muslims for not wanting cartoons to be drawn under the pretext of freedom but then themselves use the sensibilities and sensitivities argument in this case stands exposed.

In fact I think this is why this project should be cancelled. Because more than anything else, it will reflect the hypocrisy of the infidels (as gambit called them).

 

[Skeptic]

I don't see how so. If you're saying that it's OK to keep making cartoons, I don't see why it's not OK to keep making islamic centers.

I have never supported those cartoons - it was a hypothetical situation and I dont see why you would do that either. If we are discussing personal opinions I have no issues with mosque as well, but sometimes it is the views of majority that has to be considered. Specially considering the magnanimity of incident.

I haven't even heard about any of these things except for the cartoons. And if you're going attribute a small issue in which few muslims were involved to all muslims, that's your own problem.

Oh there are many of those mentioned, but quoting source would lead to offtopic discussion. The question is not whether all muslims are involved. However strong the brotherhood might be Muslims have a dual opinion on most issues including this one.

The question is why should we listen only to the muslim voices asking for the mosque to be made - Why dont we listen to who do not want it to be made as well? That might serve the desired objective of increasing communal harmony more.

I don't see how muslims had their way with the cartoons. And I don't see how they they had their way on "most of the issues" anyway. What are the other big issues? Perhaps you could talk about Quran burning - that it didn't talk place - but there were Qurans burnt in other parts of US anyway and plus there was more pressure from within US to not burn the Quran than there was from muslims.

How frequently have the cartoons been published?

A student newspaper editor who published a controversial cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammed is today said to be 'devastated'.

Tom Wellingham, editor of Gair Rhydd, Cardiff's University Students' Union paper, was suspended after publishing the caricature, which sparked protests across the world when it was previously published by a Danish newspaper.

The Gair Rhydd copies were hastily pulled off the news stands over the weekend.

The paper, the winner of the Best Student Newspaper of the Year 2004/2005, is so far the only newspaper in the UK to have published any of the offending cartoons.

Most American news outlets, caught in a dilemma between showing controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad and offending the religious sensibilities of Muslims, have declined to publish the drawings...

How frequently has it been reproduced??? How did muslims lose out on this? Just that it has become an eternal tease for some muslims is another matter.

Nope, not really. Perhaps you're talking about voting and selecting the leadership. But in a democracy, majority cannot impose its' will on a minority. i.e., just because the majority thinks that it's OK to allow slavery of minorities, democratic principles will not allow for that.

I can give an apt example of majority opinion being against constitution, which you support - but again will be off topic.
This is not a call for slavery or an extreme case - it is simply honouring views of the majority population to maintain better relations.

For instance, the argument that 70% of Americans are against the mosque is a weak one since it will not stand the US constitution and basic democratic principles.

But a 75% vote in the parliament can change that very principle. I hope you would not want that happening. What issues like these do is polarization of opinion. The moderates are forced to make a choice and this in turn leads towards fundamentalist tendencies.

Well look whose making it painful. If anything, the hypocrisy of those who criticized muslims for not wanting cartoons to be drawn under the pretext of freedom but then themselves use the sensibilities and sensitivities argument in this case stands exposed.

Look at who is pained. The families and friends of those who lost their lives in terrorist attack, you can not bring them back but at-least make it less painful for them.

In fact I think this is why this project should be cancelled. Because more than anything else, it will reflect the hypocrisy of the infidels (as gambit called them).

I think it can be more amiable than that.

 

[somebozo]

Moore raises $60,000 for Muslim community center

By BARBARA FERGUSON | ARAB NEWS

Published: Sep 21, 2010 23:52 Updated: Sep 21, 2010 23:52

WASHINGTON: Just when one thought the controversy over the construction of a Muslim community center in New York had died down, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore announced that he has raised over $60,000 for its construction.

Read More:
Moore raises $60,000 for Muslim community center - Arab News

 

[Al-zakir]

I wasn't aware of this fact myself until recently. It turn out that here was a Masjid inside the world trade center. So what is this nonsense that these neo con barking about?

It turns out there was a Muslim prayer room on the 17th floor of the south tower of the World Trade Center, where Americans and other traveling Muslims prayed every day.

On September 11th, 2001, when a handful of terrorists flew planes into the towers, some of the folks who used the room evacuated in time. Others probably didn't.

In other words, there already was a "ground zero mosque"--used by Muslim Americans who were murdered just like everyone else.

So isn't it time we stopped framing this discussion as "us versus them"?

There Already Was A Ground-Zero Mosque -- On The 17th Floor Of The World Trade Center

 

[Skeptic]

I wasn't aware of this fact myself until recently. It turn out that here was a Masjid inside the world trade center.

It was a prayer room. Every modern mega structure has one. If this is the criteria then IGI airport infact every major airport is a mosque, and the Motorola office, and the Audi office. They all have "prayer rooms" so that devout Muslims can . . . pray. It's what Muslims do, several times a day. They usually look like offices. They're usually labeled "Prayer Room."

Every Western company in a Muslim country has a Prayer Room. Are all of these offices really Mosques?

And if we want to be consistant: will the proposed structure also be a prayer room with no cleric, no religious sermons and no friday congregation. Let it stay as it was and noone would have a problem with the structure.

Will the proposed structure have a minarlet as well???

Will only activity in the room be prostration??

So what is this nonsense that these neo con barking about?

Was there an argument with bhabhjiji?? Was the food too spicy??

Else why so bitter?

Recommended: http://www.defence.pk/forums/members-club/73331-your-wife-mad-you-she-wont-cook.html

 

[Al-zakir]

Every Western company in a Muslim country has a Prayer Room. Are all of these offices really Mosques

Yes they are. Masjid mean place of worship. So if a room dedicated to prayer only then we can call it Masjid. It doesn't require minar or dome to be a Masjid.

Nevertheless if Christian, Jews, Hindus has the right to have a place of worship by world trade center(now to be called freedom tower) then by all right, we Muslim have the equal right to have our Masjid/Islamic center. You should not have any problem with it.