Mosque Near Ground Zero Clears Key Hurdle

[Kathryn]

I'm sorry, when did "Muslim" become a race?

Sigh - I can see that subtlety and inference are not clear enough for you, so I'll spell it out:

When I said you were throwing the race card at the issue - I mean that in a broad sense. I mean that you are throwing accusations of prejudice based on creed, color, religion, etc (ie, protected classes) in a very common (and I must add, last ditch) effort to demonize those who disagree with you.

It's a tawdry tactic - but it doesn't surprise me.

Again, from what the Imam has said and from common sense.



Any chance you could give us examples of him being inflammatory

Why yes, I believe I can - thanks for the opportunity. And you really should broaden your sources of information if you haven't heard these yet.

In 2001, Rauf told CBS’s ’60 Minutes’ that the U.S. was partially responsible for the September 11th attacks.

“I wouldn`t say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States` policies were an accessory to the crime that happened,” Rauf said.

He wants sharia law to be implemented as an optional part of the legal process in the United States.

"For America to score even higher on the 'Islamic' or 'Sharia' compliance scale, America would need to do two things: invite the voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation's practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws."

Here is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, in his own words, after Christian churches were firebombed and angry protests took place in Malaysia this past January:

My message to the Christian community in Malaysia is that using the word Allah to mean the Christian God may be theologically and legally correct, but in the context of Malaysia, it is socially provocative."


The original Malaysian title for Imam Rauf's book was 'A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Da'wah From the Heart of America Post-9/11'. Robert Spencer explains:

"Da'wah is Islamic proselytizing. And in the Islamic law, da'wah precedes jihad. You call the nonbelievers to Islam. And if they refuse to accept it, then you initiate the jihad against them. But the whole goal of both da'wah and jihad is to impose Islamic law or Sharia upon the nonbelievers as a political system, not as a religious one."


​

 

[Magic Man]

Your own biases are clearly displayed when you continually try to twist my very clear words to mean something that better fits your own agenda.

I said that the feelings of those Americans who are angry at all Muslims because of the attacks aren't that important, but the feelings of Muslims are because they've had to deal with bigotry more than usual for the last 9 years. You then came out with this "Oh, yeah - and while you're at it - would you mind explaining just what it is that Americans are misunderstanding about 3000 people killed by a gang of radical (gasp) MUSLIMS on 9/11 two blocks from the proposed mosque?". What they're misunderstanding is what I've already said, and that is the "RADICAL" part. Who cares how many people have been killed by radical Muslims in recent years? What you and others are misunderstanding is that this is only a minority of Muslims. So, people are welcome to be angry at radical Muslim extremists, but that has nothing to do with an average group of Muslims building a center near gound zero.

 

[Magic Man]

Sigh - I can see that subtlety and inference are not clear enough for you, so I'll spell it out:

When I said you were throwing the race card at the issue - I mean that in a broad sense. I mean that you are throwing accusations of prejudice based on creed, color, religion, etc (ie, protected classes) in a very common (and I must add, last ditch) effort to demonize those who disagree with you.

It's a tawdry tactic - but it doesn't surprise me.

No, I get it. By "race", you didn't actually mean "race", you meant something else completely, which is why you used the word "race".

You accused me of using the race card even though we're talking about religion, and now you want to try to make it sound like you didn't make a mistake. That's what I get. If you meant something else you should have said, "This is no better than throwing around the race card", but you didn't.

Why yes, I believe I can - thanks for the opportunity. And you really should broaden your sources of information if you haven't heard these yet.

In 2001, Rauf told CBS’s ’60 Minutes’ that the U.S. was partially responsible for the September 11th attacks.

“I wouldn`t say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States` policies were an accessory to the crime that happened,” Rauf said.

He also said that there could be little progress in Western-Islamic relations until the U.S. acknowledged backing Middle East dictators and give an "American Culpa" speech to the Muslim world, because there are "an endless supply of angry young Muslim rebels prepared to die for their cause and there [is] no sign of the attacks ending unless there [is] a fundamental change in the world".[6]


In a 60 Minutes interview on September 30, 2001, shortly after the September 11 attacks, Abdul Rauf said, "Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam", and went on to say, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."[7] When the interviewer asked Rauf how he considered the U.S. an accessory, he replied, "Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA."[8][9][10] Peter T. King and Sarah Palin expressed concern about his remarks, when discussing Abdul Rauf as the driving force behind the Cordoba mosque.[9][11]

I just thought I'd give the context. He's right. Why shouldn't he say that?

He wants sharia law to be implemented as an optional part of the legal process in the United States.

"For America to score even higher on the 'Islamic' or 'Sharia' compliance scale, America would need to do two things: invite the voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation's practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws."

Here is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, in his own words, after Christian churches were firebombed and angry protests took place in Malaysia this past January:

My message to the Christian community in Malaysia is that using the word Allah to mean the Christian God may be theologically and legally correct, but in the context of Malaysia, it is socially provocative."


The original Malaysian title for Imam Rauf's book was 'A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Da'wah From the Heart of America Post-9/11'. Robert Spencer explains:

"Da'wah is Islamic proselytizing. And in the Islamic law, da'wah precedes jihad. You call the nonbelievers to Islam. And if they refuse to accept it, then you initiate the jihad against them. But the whole goal of both da'wah and jihad is to impose Islamic law or Sharia upon the nonbelievers as a political system, not as a religious one."
​

That's quite a mischaracterization of "da'wa" from what I've heard. From what I know, it's a call or invitation to follow Islam, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with jihad or any of that other nonsense. Looking up Robert Spencer, it's no wonder he chooses to give that inaccurate definition.

But I'm sorry, I forgot where you get your news from. Yes, I'm sure from all of the conservative right-wingers' news outlets, this imam is a terrible man bent on the destruction of America. From a normal point-of-view, he denounces radical Islam. Whether or not he wants to institute Sharia law is not relevant here. What's relevant is whether or not he agrees with terrorists' actions, and he clearly doesn't. He's been working for many years on improving Muslim-Western relations, and this center would seem by all accounts to be the next step in that process.

 

[Kathryn]

What's relevant is whether or not he agrees with terrorists' actions, and he clearly doesn't.

But I'm sorry, I forgot where you get your news from. Yes, I'm sure from all of the conservative right-wingers' news outlets, this imam is a terrible man bent on the destruction of America.

I must not be watching or listening to conservative right winger news outlets, because if they're saying this, I certainly haven't heard it. I've never heard ANY news source or commentator say or imply this.

Based on my own research, I believe that this particular imam has some rather unsavory friends and ties to some questionable groups - and I do believe that his insistence on building the mosque (one of HUNDREDS of mosques in NYC) in such close proximity to Ground Zero is meant to be, at the least, an attempt (successful one too) at publicity, and probably also inflammatory.

Whether or not he wants to institute Sharia law is not relevant here.

It may be irrelevant to YOU, but that doesn't make it irrelevant in general. Sharia law has some VERY disturbing components. Have you read up on the topic very much? If you had, you might find it a bit more "relevant."

He's been working for many years on improving Muslim-Western relations, and this center would seem by all accounts to be the next step in that process.

I'm unimpressed - but I've encouraged three of my children to serve in our military to protect ALL American citizens' and legal residents' religious freedoms - including his.

I have no problem with him building the Islamic center. Just because I think he's exhibiting insensitivity doesn't mean I don't think he should have the right to build it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

It may be irrelevant to YOU, but that doesn't make it irrelevant in general. Sharia law has some VERY disturbing components. Have you read up on the topic very much? If you had, you might find it a bit more "relevant."

On the other hand, Pat Robertson and others of his ilk push their own version of Sharia Law by advocating a Christian theocracy....

(Which has many disturbing components of it's own.)

 

[Kathryn]

On the other hand, Pat Robertson and others of his ilk push their own version of Sharia Law by advocating a Christian theocracy....

(Which has many disturbing components of it's own.)

I agree, which is why I don't watch, support, or agree with Pat Robertson and others of his ilk. And if Pat Robertson wanted to build a religious center at Ground Zero, I'd be appalled and fight it with every fiber of my being. But if he wanted to build a religious center two blocks from Ground Zero, I'd say "Have at it," and then probably roll my eyes at the distastefulness and vulgarity of the architectural style.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I agree, which is why I don't watch, support, or agree with Pat Robertson and others of his ilk. And if Pat Robertson wanted to build a religious center at Ground Zero, I'd be appalled and fight it with every fiber of my being. But if he wanted to build a religious center two blocks from Ground Zero, I'd say "Have at it," and then probably roll my eyes at the distastefulness and vulgarity of the architectural style.

Amen...

 

[Troublemane]

You know, two blocks in NY is pretty far. I had to walk a couple blocks in NY once, and it took about half an hour(?? I think). Where exactly is it going to be? cuz,....if its not right across the street from 'ground zero', then I think this is really a complete non-issue, IMHO.:angel2:

 

[Magic Man]

I must not be watching or listening to conservative right winger news outlets, because if they're saying this, I certainly haven't heard it. I've never heard ANY news source or commentator say or imply this.

That's what your quote-mining was all about. Don't play innocent now.

Based on my own research, I believe that this particular imam has some rather unsavory friends and ties to some questionable groups - and I do believe that his insistence on building the mosque (one of HUNDREDS of mosques in NYC) in such close proximity to Ground Zero is meant to be, at the least, an attempt (successful one too) at publicity, and probably also inflammatory.

It depends on what you mean by inflammatory. He obviously knows it's going to inflame many people, but that's why he wants to build it. He's not doing it to **** people off, though; he's doing it to educate people.

It may be irrelevant to YOU, but that doesn't make it irrelevant in general. Sharia law has some VERY disturbing components. Have you read up on the topic very much? If you had, you might find it a bit more "relevant."

You can tell yourself you know more about Islam and that's why you feel the way you do all you want, but it's never going to be true. Sharia law isn't relevant here. What's relevant is whether or not he denounces the actions of terrorists and seeks to end terrorism.

I'm unimpressed

Of course you are, because that's what your conservative sources tell you to be.

I have no problem with him building the Islamic center. Just because I think he's exhibiting insensitivity doesn't mean I don't think he should have the right to build it.

I understand that you aren't saying he shouldn't be able to build it, but you are saying he shouldn't build it because of insensitivity. I'm telling you that's wrong. He's not being insensitive, except to those who feel bigotry.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

You know, two blocks in NY is pretty far. I had to walk a couple blocks in NY once, and it took about half an hour(?? I think). Where exactly is it going to be? cuz,....if its not right across the street from 'ground zero', then I think this is really a complete non-issue, IMHO.:angel2:

I'm from rural Maine, and I was thinking the same thing. Whenever I visit Boston, two blocks seems pretty far in terms of the vast amount of buildings between two places.

Cities are culturally diverse. If someone expects to see nothing Muslim--how far is far enough?--anywhere near Ground Zero in a city as large and diverse as New York, I think they need to reevaluate why.

Also, if this is truly meant to be an educational center then I truly hope it will actively work towards healing the wounds and helping people understand that not all Muslims are extremists. Hopefully, that will keep the folks always asking "Where are the moderate Muslims and why aren't they saying anything?" quiet.

 

[Smoke]

In 2001, Rauf told CBS’s ’60 Minutes’ that the U.S. was partially responsible for the September 11th attacks.

“I wouldn`t say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States` policies were an accessory to the crime that happened,” Rauf said.

Is there anybody alive who's fool enough not to know that? Why does the obvious become inflammatory when it's said by an imam?

He wants sharia law to be implemented as an optional part of the legal process in the United States.

"For America to score even higher on the 'Islamic' or 'Sharia' compliance scale, America would need to do two things: invite the voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation's practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws."

Really? Because he doesn't say, either in the quote you give or anywhere in the book from which it's taken, that that's what he wants. He says American would need to do those things to score even higher on a Sharia compliance scale. But you conveniently left off what he said right before that:

Many American Muslims regard America as a better "Muslim" country that their native homelands. This may sound surprising if not absurd to many Americans, and Muslims outside America, but it is founded on the argument that the American Constitution and system of governance uphold the core principles of Islamic law.

Muslim legal scholars have defined five areas of life that Islamic law must protect and further. These are life, mind (that is, mental well-being or sanity), religion, property (or wealth), and family (or lineage and progeny). Any system of rule that upholds, protects, and furthers these rights is therefore legally "Islamic," or Shariah compliant, in its substance. Because these rights are God-given, they are inalienable and cannot be deprived of any man or woman without depriving them of their essential humanity.

What I am demonstrating is that the American political structure is Shariah compliant, for "a state inhabited predominantly by Muslims neither defines nor makes it synonymous with an Islamic state. It can become truly Islamic only by virtue of conscious application of the sociopolitical tenets of Islam to the life of the nation, and by an incorporation of those tenets in the basic constitution of the country." By the same token, a state that does incorporate such sociopolitical tenets has become de facto an Islamic state even if there are no Muslims in name living there, for it expresses the ideals of the good society according to Islamic principles.​

(Emphasis added.)

For America to devolve into some kind of millet system might strike Rauf as an improvement, which shows that he's got **** for brains. But he doesn't actually call for that to happen, and even if he did it would fall far short of the intolerant ravings of Catholic, Evangelical and Mormon leaders. Compared to those guys, he's practically Dr. King.

Here is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, in his own words, after Christian churches were firebombed and angry protests took place in Malaysia this past January:

My message to the Christian community in Malaysia is that using the word Allah to mean the Christian God may be theologically and legally correct, but in the context of Malaysia, it is socially provocative."

But that's not all he said. You've cut a snippet that, in isolation, makes it sound as if he just doesn't give a damn, or even as if the Christians had it coming. Again, here's a little context:

My message to the Christian community in Malaysia is that using the word Allah to mean the Christian God may be theologically and legally correct, but in the context of Malaysia, it is socially provocative. If you want to have influence with people in Malaysia, you must find a way to convey your message without provoking this kind of response.

If you want to reach the Malays, then use the Malay word for God, which is Tuhan.

At the same time, I urge the Malays to act in accordance with the ethical values of Islam. You must recognise that we do not own Islam but Islam owns us. We do not own Allah. Allah owns us.

We live in a globalised era where events in Malaysia have consequences around the world. Some people in Christian-majority countries will see Muslims mistreating Christian minorities and use that to justify mistreating Muslim minorities in their countries.

In the Hadith, the Prophet taught us: “Cursed is the one who curses his own parents.”

A companion to the Prophet said: “Messenger of God, how can a man curse his own parents?”

The Prophet replied: “He curses the parents of another man, and out of anger, that man curses his own parents.”

So if Muslims curse the Christians, then the Christians will curse the Muslims. And people will curse Allah, and Allah will hold us responsible for that.

The Quran is even more explicit on this point when it says: “Do not curse the gods of those who do not believe in Allah, lest they unknowingly curse Allah out of their hostile feelings.”

That means that even though we may have the right belief, if we treat non-Muslims wrongly, they will have ill will toward Allah and Islam, and Allah will hold us responsible for that.

Fire bombing churches? From the beginning of Islam, the Prophet said our faith requires us as Muslims to protect houses of worship of all other faith traditions. Islam was able to spread throughout the world, not only because of its own ideas, but also because it protected people’s rights to practise religion freely.​

The original Malaysian title for Imam Rauf's book was 'A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Da'wah From the Heart of America Post-9/11'. Robert Spencer explains:

"Da'wah is Islamic proselytizing. And in the Islamic law, da'wah precedes jihad. You call the nonbelievers to Islam. And if they refuse to accept it, then you initiate the jihad against them. But the whole goal of both da'wah and jihad is to impose Islamic law or Sharia upon the nonbelievers as a political system, not as a religious one."​

Oh, for Christ's sake. Dawah is the preaching of Islam. Anybody who belongs to a religion as aggressive as Christianity ought to understand that apart from the Jews all the Abrahamics think their religion is the one for everybody, and consider it part of their duty to preach it. This is one of the things that makes the whole lot of you so tiresome and offensive to everybody else in the world. For Spencer to imagine a threat in the mere use of that word, and for you to pass it along in such an alarmist manner, is as ridiculous as if you were to say that Billy Graham's calling his rallies "Crusades" proves he wants the Christians to invade and conquer non-Christian lands, and hopes to make the streets of Jerusalem flow with the blood of Muslims and Jews.

I despise Islam. The Abrahamic religions are bad religions in general, and with the possible exception of Judaism the world would be better off without any of them, but Islam is the worst of a bad lot. There's very little that's as distasteful to me as defending a ******* imam, and frankly I resent the fact that your deceptive and inflammatory quotemining makes it necessary. There's plenty to criticize Islam about without resorting to this kind of shabby tactics.

You know, two blocks in NY is pretty far. I had to walk a couple blocks in NY once, and it took about half an hour(?? I think). Where exactly is it going to be? cuz,....if its not right across the street from 'ground zero', then I think this is really a complete non-issue, IMHO.:angel2:

Well, you walk pretty slow then. However I used to work at 75 Park Place, which is one block over from 45-47 Park Place. I walked right past the proposed site of Cordoba House five or six days a week for several years. If you can see it from Ground Zero, you must be way over 200 feet tall.

Also, if this is truly meant to be an educational center then I truly hope it will actively work towards healing the wounds and helping people understand that not all Muslims are extremists. Hopefully, that will keep the folks always asking "Where are the moderate Muslims and why aren't they saying anything?" quiet.

Maybe they don't say much because every time a moderate Muslim says anything, immoderate Christians take quotes out of context to portray them in a bad light. If there's one thing Christian extremists just won't stand for, it's is a moderate Muslim.

 

[tumbleweed41]

What Smoke said...

 

[beenie]

what Smoke said too, except for this part:

I despise Islam. The Abrahamic religions are bad religions in general, and with the possible exception of Judaism the world would be better off without any of them, but Islam is the worst of a bad lot. There's very little that's as distasteful to me as defending a ******* imam, and frankly I resent the fact that your deceptive and inflammatory quotemining makes it necessary. There's plenty to criticize Islam about without resorting to this kind of shabby tactics.

 

[Kathryn]

That's what your quote-mining was all about. Don't play innocent now.

I STILL to this day haven't heard a thing about this on any "conservative media TV or radio shows" because I haven't been tuning in to any of them. You don't believe it? There's not much I can do about that - and it makes no difference to the quality of my life.

When I saw the thread on this forum, I started researching the subject and I read about it from a wide variety of sources - liberal, conservative, European/international perspectives, Jewish perspectives. Based on my own research, I reached my own conclusions.

Unlike a lot of people, I enjoy researching the viewpoints of people whose opinions and mindsets differ from mine. I'm not at all threatened by those differences, and I usually learn a lot in the process - becoming a better person for it, I might add.

"Seek first to understand."

I understand that you aren't saying he shouldn't be able to build it, but you are saying he shouldn't build it because of insensitivity. I'm telling you that's wrong. He's not being insensitive, except to those who feel bigotry

Well, no - you've got my perspective and opinion wrong AGAIN (no surprise there).

I don't give a rat's *** whether he builds it or not. No, in fact, I think he SHOULD build it, if that's his personal conviction and he's got the funding available, and he's not breaking any laws. GO FOR IT, BUDDY.

All I said is that I believe he's being intentionally inflammatory, and there's no law against being insensitive, inflammatory, or just plain tacky.

You know what - there are a lot of Baptist hell fire and brimstone preachers out there who have good intentions - they want to save the lost from hell. They genuinely believe that their style of preaching and evangelism is saving souls from eternal damnation.

That still doesn't excuse their bad suits, their worse hair, and their abrasive, insulting style - let alone their often crazy ideas.

Their intentions are good, their method is lacking, and it's all in the name of religious freedom. Have at it, big guy. My kids will lay their lives on the line for your freedom to be just who you are, build whatever you want to build, and proselytize whoever will listen to you.

Just don't expect me to revere you - or attend your services.

That's how I feel about this imam and this mosque/community center.

 

[Kathryn]

I suggest that every one of you read "While Europe Slept" and then we can sing some kumbaya around the campfire.

The reason why there's such a nervousness about Islam and the spread of it in the US, is NOT because of moderate Muslims (many whom I know, and who have been regular guests in my own home) - but because of these damn fool radical Muslims with their unnerving habit of strapping bombs to themselves.

People keep trying to compare Christianity's past offenses with Islam's current offenses as if somehow that makes things OK - but this is simply not true. For one thing, the offenses of Christianity were never right, and still aren't right. The offenses of Islam are not justified by Christianity's past, and are just plain wrong.

The difference is this - that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and it also happens to "house" and even foster the largest, most prolific, most active group of terrorists the world over. There's not a day that goes by that a group of radical Muslims isn't terrorizing another group somewhere - in the most horrific ways imaginable.

My gosh, I feel sorry for moderate Muslims. I truly do - my heart goes out to them. It must be incredibly difficult for them to watch the ongoing, recurring, and extremely violent actions of mad men intoning the name of Allah and have to feel constantly defensive about their faith.

As a Christian, I am often embarrassed by the actions and behaviors of other Christians. We don't have an unblemished track record by any means. But let's keep things in the present, shall we? Presently - the vast majority of terrorist activity worldwide is perpetuated by radical Muslims shouting "Allah Akbar!"

We'd be fools not to be alarmed. And when I say "we," I am including moderate Muslims, who I am assuming make up the vast majority of Muslims.

I sincerely, sincerely hope that this imam and this community center are truly focused on interfaith and intercultural healing and unity. But forgive my skepticism - He could have accomplished the same thing a little further from Ground Zero in my opinion - and avoided a lot of controversy and hurt. It's this action and decision, more than any other, that makes me distrustful of his goals and agenda.

Time will tell, though, won't it?

Meanwhile, let him build. Let him speak. Let him proselytize. He's in the United States of America, and so far, we still have freedom of religion.

 

[Smoke]

I suggest that every one of you read "While Europe Slept" and then we can sing some kumbaya around the campfire.

I've read it. Actually, I've read it twice. He raises some legitimate concerns. But it would be a mistake to let fear drive us to dishonesty and blind bigotry.

 

[Kathryn]

I've read it. Actually, I've read it twice. He raises some legitimate concerns. But it would be a mistake to let fear drive us to dishonesty and blind bigotry.

True and I'm not being dishonest (if so, it's unintentional, believe me). Furthermore, I am not bigoted - at least not blindly.

What I mean by that is that I believe my concerns about radical Islam are well founded and justifiable. I AM alarmed by the spread of - not simply Islam - but RADICAL Islam.

I believe that Europe has irretrievably missed their opportunity to control the growth of radical Islam, by their insistence on being so politically correct and doggedly secular that they suppose anyone who immigrates there will automatically embody these same attributes.

Unfortunately, the outrages of the few will cause problems for the many peaceful, law abiding Muslims. I do not and never will condone persecution or bigotry toward those Muslims - but at the same time, I refuse to bury my head in the sand as most of Europe has for so long.

There's a difference between bigotry and vigilance. I'm going to stand watch. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[beenie]

I suggest that every one of you read "While Europe Slept" and then we can sing some kumbaya around the campfire.

The reason why there's such a nervousness about Islam and the spread of it in the US, is NOT because of moderate Muslims (many whom I know, and who have been regular guests in my own home) - but because of these damn fool radical Muslims with their unnerving habit of strapping bombs to themselves.

People keep trying to compare Christianity's past offenses with Islam's current offenses as if somehow that makes things OK - but this is simply not true. For one thing, the offenses of Christianity were never right, and still aren't right. The offenses of Islam are not justified by Christianity's past, and are just plain wrong.

The difference is this - that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and it also happens to "house" and even foster the largest, most prolific, most active group of terrorists the world over. There's not a day that goes by that a group of radical Muslims isn't terrorizing another group somewhere - in the most horrific ways imaginable.

My gosh, I feel sorry for moderate Muslims. I truly do - my heart goes out to them. It must be incredibly difficult for them to watch the ongoing, recurring, and extremely violent actions of mad men intoning the name of Allah and have to feel constantly defensive about their faith.

As a Christian, I am often embarrassed by the actions and behaviors of other Christians. We don't have an unblemished track record by any means. But let's keep things in the present, shall we? Presently - the vast majority of terrorist activity worldwide is perpetuated by radical Muslims shouting "Allah Akbar!"

We'd be fools not to be alarmed. And when I say "we," I am including moderate Muslims, who I am assuming make up the vast majority of Muslims.

I sincerely, sincerely hope that this imam and this community center are truly focused on interfaith and intercultural healing and unity. But forgive my skepticism - He could have accomplished the same thing a little further from Ground Zero in my opinion - and avoided a lot of controversy and hurt. It's this action and decision, more than any other, that makes me distrustful of his goals and agenda.

Time will tell, though, won't it?

Meanwhile, let him build. Let him speak. Let him proselytize. He's in the United States of America, and so far, we still have freedom of religion.

i think i love you. well said, and as a moderate Muslim, i couldn't agree more.

 

[Kathryn]

i think i love you. well said, and as a moderate Muslim, i couldn't agree more.

Ssainhu, thank you.

I hope you will still feel this way when I continue to express my reservations about Islam. I've been reading the Qu'ran and I truly am alarmed by the general tone of it, though I am also impressed with the beauty of some of the passages.

I'm no scholar - just an average person trying to understand things.

I know that the Old Testament is full of similar language, so the tone isn't unfamiliar to me. However, I am a Christian, and we balance the fury and harshness of the Law/Old Testament with the grace and loving gentleness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We're far from perfect and our history is as blemished as any other group of people in history - more than some - less than some. I'm not defending the errant actions of some Christians over the centuries by any means.

But PRESENT TENSE I am alarmed by the spread, not of peaceful Islam, but of radical Islam, which seems to run alongside the more peaceful members of Islam, even warring against those peaceful sects.

This truly is distressing not for just me, or "my country," or "western freedoms," but also for what I believe to be the great majority of Muslims who really, truly do wish that these bomb-happy radicals would please, PLEASE stop the madness.

Unfortunately, they're not stopping - showing in fact no sign of stopping, from one end of this world to the other. This sets up a knee jerk, yet predictable, negative reaction from many non-Muslims who don't really care about the minutia of various doctrines, political struggles, ethnic divisions, etc - they just see more Muslims somewhere else seemingly raising hell and brutally slaughtering everyone in their path.

When the violence from places like Nigeria, Malaysia, the Phillipines, China, Russia, North Africa, East Africa, etc starts manifesting in Europe and the US...I mean, sheeze, it's alarming.

The reason why I am reading the Qu'ran (again - I read it through from cover to cover a few years ago) is because I truly want to try to understand the mindset and theology (much of which, as a Christian, I can agree with by the way). I'll be reading along, nodding my head, agreeing, and then suddenly be taken aback by the tone of the passage a few verses down.

I know that the New Testament seems intolerant to some people, but nowhere, NOWHERE is there a call to actual proactive battle here on this earth, a call to go to physical war and conquer groups of people thru violence.

This is what is so unsettling to me about the Qu'ran - that and the continued and persistent calling out of Jews and Christians specifically - in one breath wooing and pleading, and in the other calling them blasphemers and vowing to wage war upon them. I sense a great deal of hurt and anger and a sense of betrayal in these passages - and yet during the time the Qu'ran was being written, and within a hundred years of Muhammed's death, the new Islamic empire extended from the Atlantic Ocean to Central Asia - and much of that territory was gained through aggressive warfare. So the plea of victimization and betrayal seems unsettling to me.

I have a lot of questions - ESPECIALLY since I live around and work with a good number of Muslims - some of whom are friends, others who are customers and business acquaintances. Without exception, the Muslims I interact with more regularly and have known for a long time are warm, friendly, polite, and intelligent. I genuinely enjoy getting to know them and working with them.

However, I have had anumber of negative interactions with Muslims I didn't know though - which surprised me a lot. These negative happenings have slowly picked up in occurrance. I am sincerely hoping this isn't a pattern, but I am seeing more anger and what I can best describe as sullen hostility from some local Muslims (not the ones who have been living in this area for a long time, but new or unfamiliar residents).

It's disturbing and I hope it's an anomaly. I want immigrants who move here to love it here, to be accepted, and to accept the local community and people as well.

I am truly trying to understand all of this. I want peace and prosperity for every person living in the United States - I don't want this division.

 

[Magic Man]

Unlike a lot of people, I enjoy researching the viewpoints of people whose opinions and mindsets differ from mine. I'm not at all threatened by those differences, and I usually learn a lot in the process - becoming a better person for it, I might add.

Yes, I hear this from you all the time. Actions speak louder than words. You can say you do this, but when you keep coming up with the same tired conservative lies, misinformation and irrational arguments, there are only two options: either you read the liberal views on things and ignore the, or you just don't read them. I'm guessing the latter, but either way it amounts to the same thing.

Well, no - you've got my perspective and opinion wrong AGAIN (no surprise there).

No, I didn't. You just seem to be misinterpretting what I'm saying about your perspective and opinion. (No surprise there)

All I said is that I believe he's being intentionally inflammatory, and there's no law against being insensitive, inflammatory, or just plain tacky.

I know. This is why I've been trying to explain to you that he's not being insensitive. He's being inflammatory in a way, but only in the same way MLK Jr. was or Rosa Parks or Harvey Milk.