-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mosque at Ground Zero
- Thread starter 6Michael6Bennett6
- Start date
gnomon
Well-Known Member
It's not a mosque.
Personally I cannot wait until the community center is developed and they allow receptions of gay weddings.
no i'm not.
where on EARTH did you get that from? how does a Salafi/Sufi/Hanafi Imam make Sharia Law enter American life through building a community center?
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
Salafi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Salafis view the first three generations of Muslims, who are Muhammad's Sahaba, and the two succeeding generations after them, the Tabi‘un and the Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in, as examples of how Islam should be practiced. Salafist follow the hadith attributed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad: "The best of mankind is my generation, then those who come after them, and then those who come after them."[4]
The principal tenet of Salafism is that Islam was perfect and complete during the days of Muhammad and his Sahaba, but that undesirable innovations have been added over the later centuries due to materialist and cultural influences. Salafism seeks to revive a practice of Islam that more closely resembles the religion during the time of Muhammad.[5]
The term Salafism is sometimes used interchangeably with "Wahhabism". Adherents usually reject this term because it is considered derogatory and because they believe that Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab did not establish a new school of thought but revived the original teachings of Muhammad as was practiced by his companions and the earliest generations of Muslims. Salafis will never self-describe themselves as "Wahabis." Nonetheless, modern-day Salafis do regard Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab as a great Islamic scholar and reformer, a fact that is confirmed by their close adherence to his doctrinal teachings. It is claimed that adherents of Salafi movements describe themselves as Muwahidoon, Ahl al-Hadith,[6] or Ahl at-Tawheed.[7] However, the most common appellation is for Salafis to simply refer to themselves as Salafis.
Salafism, or at least the so called "puritanical" forms of it, has been recently criticized by Professor Khaled Abou El Fadl of UCLA School of Law. El Fadl claims that the Salafi methodology "drifted into stifling apologetics" by mid-20th century, a reaction against "anxiety" to "render Islam compatible with modernity," by its leaders earlier in the century.[50]
Some Salafi writers would allegedly claim, for example, that "any meritorious or worthwhile modern institutions were first invented and realized by Muslims." The result was that "an artificial sense of confidence and an intellectual lethargy" developed, according to Abou El Fadl, "that took neither the Islamic tradition nor" the challenges of the modern world "very seriously."[51][52]
Egyptian scholar Tawfik Hamid says that Salafist Muslim fundamentalists believe that Saudi Arabia's petroleum-based wealth is a divine gift, and that Saudi influence is sanctioned by Allah. Thus this extreme brand of Sunni Islam that spread from the Saudi Arabia to the rest of the Islamic world is regarded not merely as one interpretation of the religion but the only genuine interpretation. The expansion of violent and regressive Islam, he continues, began in the late 1970s, and can be traced precisely to the growing financial clout of Saudi Arabia. He says "is puritanical, extreme and does, yes, mean that women can be beaten, apostates killed and Jews called pigs and monkeys."[53]
Salafism is intensely opposed by Hui chinese muslims in China, by the Hanafi Sunni Gedimu and Sufi Khafiya and Jahriyya. So much so that even the Yihewani (Ikhwan) chinese sect, which is fundamentalist and was founded by Ma Wanfu who was originally inspired by the Wahhabis, reacted with hostility to Ma Debao and Ma Zhengqing, who attempted to introduce Wahhabism/Salafism as the main form of Islam. They were branded as traitors, and Wahhabi teachings were deemed as heresy by the Yihewani leaders. Ma Debao established a Salafi/Wahhbi order, called the Sailaifengye(Salafi) menhuan in Lanzhou and Linxia, and it is a completely separate sect than other muslim sects in China.[54]
Salafis view the first three generations of Muslims, who are Muhammad's Sahaba, and the two succeeding generations after them, the Tabi‘un and the Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in, as examples of how Islam should be practiced. Salafist follow the hadith attributed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad: "The best of mankind is my generation, then those who come after them, and then those who come after them."[4]
The principal tenet of Salafism is that Islam was perfect and complete during the days of Muhammad and his Sahaba, but that undesirable innovations have been added over the later centuries due to materialist and cultural influences. Salafism seeks to revive a practice of Islam that more closely resembles the religion during the time of Muhammad.[5]
The term Salafism is sometimes used interchangeably with "Wahhabism". Adherents usually reject this term because it is considered derogatory and because they believe that Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab did not establish a new school of thought but revived the original teachings of Muhammad as was practiced by his companions and the earliest generations of Muslims. Salafis will never self-describe themselves as "Wahabis." Nonetheless, modern-day Salafis do regard Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab as a great Islamic scholar and reformer, a fact that is confirmed by their close adherence to his doctrinal teachings. It is claimed that adherents of Salafi movements describe themselves as Muwahidoon, Ahl al-Hadith,[6] or Ahl at-Tawheed.[7] However, the most common appellation is for Salafis to simply refer to themselves as Salafis.
Salafism, or at least the so called "puritanical" forms of it, has been recently criticized by Professor Khaled Abou El Fadl of UCLA School of Law. El Fadl claims that the Salafi methodology "drifted into stifling apologetics" by mid-20th century, a reaction against "anxiety" to "render Islam compatible with modernity," by its leaders earlier in the century.[50]
Some Salafi writers would allegedly claim, for example, that "any meritorious or worthwhile modern institutions were first invented and realized by Muslims." The result was that "an artificial sense of confidence and an intellectual lethargy" developed, according to Abou El Fadl, "that took neither the Islamic tradition nor" the challenges of the modern world "very seriously."[51][52]
Egyptian scholar Tawfik Hamid says that Salafist Muslim fundamentalists believe that Saudi Arabia's petroleum-based wealth is a divine gift, and that Saudi influence is sanctioned by Allah. Thus this extreme brand of Sunni Islam that spread from the Saudi Arabia to the rest of the Islamic world is regarded not merely as one interpretation of the religion but the only genuine interpretation. The expansion of violent and regressive Islam, he continues, began in the late 1970s, and can be traced precisely to the growing financial clout of Saudi Arabia. He says "is puritanical, extreme and does, yes, mean that women can be beaten, apostates killed and Jews called pigs and monkeys."[53]
Salafism is intensely opposed by Hui chinese muslims in China, by the Hanafi Sunni Gedimu and Sufi Khafiya and Jahriyya. So much so that even the Yihewani (Ikhwan) chinese sect, which is fundamentalist and was founded by Ma Wanfu who was originally inspired by the Wahhabis, reacted with hostility to Ma Debao and Ma Zhengqing, who attempted to introduce Wahhabism/Salafism as the main form of Islam. They were branded as traitors, and Wahhabi teachings were deemed as heresy by the Yihewani leaders. Ma Debao established a Salafi/Wahhbi order, called the Sailaifengye(Salafi) menhuan in Lanzhou and Linxia, and it is a completely separate sect than other muslim sects in China.[54]
gnomon
Well-Known Member
By what logical reach is there to assume that building a community center two blocks from the World Trade Center leads to Sharia law. If the Masjid Manhattan wasn't emanating enough juju along with the many thousands of Muslims in New York City to have the millions upon millions more of non-Muslims suddenly embracing Sharia law a community center open to the public will?
i know what Salafism is.
i fail to see your point.
the bolded is a bunch of propagandized nonsense, and the entire criticism is incredibly biased and not worth my time.
the center is NOT being built by Salafis anyway, so this conversation is useless.
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
Because we all know that institutions of any kind become corrupt through money, position, and power. What makes you so sure that Uncle al Qaeda eventually won't manipulate this 'community center' and create even further devastation and pain?
It would be a completely different story if Extremist Islam were eradicated.
How do we do this?
It would be a completely different story if Extremist Islam were eradicated.
How do we do this?
Alceste
Vagabond
The same talent for reason that lets me know Fred Phelps isn't the mastermind who is really running the Vatican. You can't seriously believe bin Laden is planning to hide in a swimming pool in Manhattan, two blocks from the WTC?
**heavy sigh**
then let's not build anything anywhere. any institution can be taken over by extremist anybodys. all institutions can become corrupt through money, position and power. what makes you think that a Sufi-lead community center is more vulnerable to Al-Qaeda? jumping the gun, don't you think?
gnomon
Well-Known Member
No one has provided any evidence that this community center is being built or funded by al-Qaeda. If an institution of any kind can be corrupted than they should protest every Islamic oriented building in New York City. Of course it's a funny thing that those who oppose the community center have no problem with actual mosques in New York City. A center open to the public is a soon to be terrorist training ground, or a monument to terror depending on which crying fool you ask, but existing mosques are okay. What is their reasoning. Islam itself.
It's surreal.
Sufi
Member
The vast majority of Muslims adhere to Ahlul Sunnah wal Jamaah (Traditional Sunni Islam).
Salafism/Wahhabism is a modern (minority) phenomenon.
And yes Salafi's have the right to have their own Masajid(Mosques)
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
LOL, hey why not? They found a whole nest of al Qaeda one town over from me in Jersey City just days after 9 11.
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
It just so happens there are Muslim Extremists, of course there are other faiths with extremists, but for some reason these extremists are quite aggressive and employ terrorist tactics on a regular basis.
And I agree, why build anything anywhere . . . especially religious buildings, matter of fact let's do away with religion altogether, its done enough damage in the world.
And I agree, why build anything anywhere . . . especially religious buildings, matter of fact let's do away with religion altogether, its done enough damage in the world.
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
And where do YOU live?
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Isn't that an argument not to build anything?
Starsoul
Truth
Agree with what you say somewhat, but Not where you said ' Just because a coupla muslims are involved, doesnt mean all are'.
There is no substantial proof to this day as to who initiated the 911 episode, even some of the most intellectual Americans I know of, doubt their own govt for the secrecy and unclear evidence shoving so surely towards the muslims and blaming them just because one bearded guy SUPPOSEDLY said He did it. Nobody knows the truth and untill clearly proven guilty, muslims are innocent, if they were involved. Its quite strange that all the dead bodies in the plane got so burned nobody knew how to recognize them, plus the passengers supposed to be on that plane were all alive.
Not to mention, as any Engineer just laughed off the fact how the building fell from the 'building detonation demolishion equipment' and it had no reason to fall like that even if a missile hit it. Please refer to the buildings which get damaged by impact, you will not find such a planned ,systematic demolishion of any building by a missile fired even straight from the top.
And an Islamic centre is a religious worship place, i fail to understand how a worship place meant for a peaceful prayer affect the ground zero which is probably associated with the graves of many people.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
I give up. I try showing the potion of the offended, and you don't care or "don't get it" and that is the point I am trying to make. That you just don't get where they are coming from. You don't get it and you don't care.
Further, since you are not here this discussion as to whether or not it should be built is moot because you are not in NYC. You don't see both sides. You only see your own. Which is neither side involved in the issue.
YOu don't see the danger involved. and no I am not talking about Muslims pretending not to be al-quada coming in. I am talking about all that think al-quada will be involved. I don't want people hurt but I am just one. I see the raising tide coming. I see the hatred boiling. I see the that one day, someone scared enough(yes I said scared) will come along and go serial on any that go near any mosque.
Right now the only ones you will find protesting outside a mosque, here, are those who are fundamental Islam and feel that the imams are too moderate. They are largely ignored even by the imams. No one is worried about them.
And, yes, those that protest the new mosque/community center are also a minority, but we see them. What about the ones we don't see?
Further, since you are not here this discussion as to whether or not it should be built is moot because you are not in NYC. You don't see both sides. You only see your own. Which is neither side involved in the issue.
YOu don't see the danger involved. and no I am not talking about Muslims pretending not to be al-quada coming in. I am talking about all that think al-quada will be involved. I don't want people hurt but I am just one. I see the raising tide coming. I see the hatred boiling. I see the that one day, someone scared enough(yes I said scared) will come along and go serial on any that go near any mosque.
Right now the only ones you will find protesting outside a mosque, here, are those who are fundamental Islam and feel that the imams are too moderate. They are largely ignored even by the imams. No one is worried about them.
And, yes, those that protest the new mosque/community center are also a minority, but we see them. What about the ones we don't see?
averageJOE
zombie
All this because of religion.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
I don't think that's fair. Your question as to what if it were a different Islamic sect wasn't relevant. If it were a different group of people they'd be assessed on that individual basis (which may or may not give a different conclusion). To the opponents it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference as all they're seeing is Muslims.
Being in NYC certainly gives you a perspective that the rest of us don't have but I don't see how that prevents a blinkered assessment of the situation. In fact, a distance from the emotional centre of the debate can be an advantage.
I see that danger. My argument is that submitting to the objectors and having the centre prevented from being built one way or another could be more dangerous. It, if unintentionally by some, creates the perception that no Muslim should be near Ground zero, that all Muslims are associated with the terrorism, that it is legitimate to treat all Muslims as second class citizens with additional restrictions on them.
If the centre goes ahead, it will take years before they even broke ground, let alone completed. Most of us will have long forgotten it by then (even those of you living in NYC). Only the worst extremists from any point will be responding by then and they'll be doing that regardless of what happens.
I suspect the vast majority, when properly informed of the facts, couldn't really give a damn either way.