Be Tolerant at ground Zero

[dianaiad]

I would question the assertion that this Imam is less wise than Pope John Paul II but in any case, I do not think that wisdom has anything to do with this issue.

What if the situation was reverse i.e. instead of the Pope telling the nuns to move the convent, what if it was the nuns who told the Pope to move the convent if it was his own land that he himself wanted to build the convent on?

Would that instead be appropriate behavior for either the Pope or the nuns?

The point that I am making here is that Islam views property rights in a far different way than Christians seem to do.

From an Islamic point of view, the Pope had no right, none whatsoever, to tell the nuns to move the convent because it was their private property.

It was not even appropriate for him to publicly advise them to move the convent.

Perhaps he advised them privately on this matter and they acceded to his request… but it was not good advice in my opinion because it infringed on the property rights of the nuns.

What difference does that make? How is an offensive act LESS offensive because it is done legally?

For instance, not too long ago a man drew some cartoons of Mohammad. His property. His mind. His acts. His absolute right to draw/write as he wished. He is living in hiding because Muslims didn’t see that his ownership of such things excused his offense.

A few weeks ago a Christian minister proposes purchasing some copies of the Koran, and intended to burn them. Why not? They were his property. He was going to burn them on his property.

Yet…he was threatened with violence. Muslims all over the world reacted very badly to this proposed action, because it was an insult, and intended to be offensive. The preacher didn’t do it, in the end, for whatever reason…

But according to your logic, above, Muslims had no right to be offended at his proposed actions. They were, though, and made that rather obvious.

…or is it only Muslims who have the right to be offended at things like this?

 

[Sufjon]

Sufjon;7171383:

Now your reasoning seems to have changed. I would appreciate it if you would concede that you posted misinformation previously. You were wrong to state that the US sold WMD to Iraq, that Saddam’s government did not produce WMD, and that Saddam didn’t intend to produce more WMD in the future. These are crucial points which you must consider in order to reach the proper conclusion about the conflict.

The pope’s opinion about the Iraq war is not doctrine. In retrospect, it seems clear that removing Saddam was the right move and the Iraqi people now have hope for the future.

Without military intervention Saddam’s regime would still be in power torturing, killing and enslaving the Iraqi people.

Dear CHESTERTOWN RULES: It is a fact that we sold chemical weapons to Iraq durng the 1980’s. It is in the congressional record. He had no WMD at the time of the invasion that we could find. I can’t see where I have changed my stance. I don’t beleive that there was a reason for a war. I did add the fact that on points such as the sanctity of life I usually agree with your church. I do not believe in the taking of any life. I pointed out that I agreed with your prior Pope on te issue of the war. I am just surprized that you didn’t agree with him on that matter or that it was generally acceptable to disagree with the Pope on such matters as a Catholic. These dialogs help me to learn these things. So I am learning, that’s all.

Your friend
sufjon

 

[sedonaman]

What difference does that make? How is an offensive act LESS offensive because it is done legally?

For instance, not too long ago a man drew some cartoons of Mohammad. His property. His mind. His acts. His absolute right to draw/write as he wished. He is living in hiding because Muslims didn’t see that his ownership of such things excused his offense.

A few weeks ago a Christian minister proposes purchasing some copies of the Koran, and intended to burn them. Why not? They were his property. He was going to burn them on his property.

Yet…he was threatened with violence. Muslims all over the world reacted very badly to this proposed action, because it was an insult, and intended to be offensive. The preacher didn’t do it, in the end, for whatever reason…

But according to your logic, above, Muslims had no right to be offended at his proposed actions. They were, though, and made that rather obvious.

…or is it only Muslims who have the right to be offended at things like this?

It seems that taking offense is a one-way street. No one cares when people of other religions are offended.

 

[sedonaman]

… I don’t beleive that there was a reason for a war. …
sufjon

It’s kinda OT, but,

quote …the case for the war in Iraq … was, and remains, extremely straightforward and reasonable:1. Saddam Hussein was required, as part of the treaty which ended the first Gulf War, to disarm himself of certain weapons, especially WMD, to remain so disarmed, and to agree to regular inspections intended to verify his compliance;

1. He repeatedly violated the terms of this treaty; so,
2. The recommencement of hostilities was prima facie justified. (The question of the legitimacy of “pre-emptive” war is thus utterly irrelevant; the action against Iraq was no more “pre-emptive” than is the arrest of a convicted felon for violating the terms of his parole.)

Furthermore, whereas there may sometimes be good reasons for refraining from war even when it is justified,

1. The risk of Iraqi WMD someday being slipped to terrorists for use against the United States was, post-9/11, plausibly seen as significant enough that continued Iraqi non-compliance could no longer be tolerated. (The question of whether the threat was “imminent” is thus also irrelevant; and the threat was, of course, never claimed by the President to be imminent in the first place.) Also counterbalancing any possible reasons for refraining from war were:
2. The fact that modern methods of war make possible to an unprecedented degree the avoidance of civilian deaths (though of course these can never be avoided entirely);
3. The liberation of the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship would, in the short and long runs, save more lives than would be lost in a military campaign and produce other obvious benefits for the Iraqi people as well;
4. The elimination of the Baathist regime would put the fear of God into the hearts of other dictatorships who might think to produce or use WMD (as it in fact has in the case of Libya – though this has not stopped some anti-war types from denying the obvious);
5. It would eliminate an important source of funding and/or training for Palestinian and other terrorist groups; and,
6. It would allow the United States finally to pull its forces out of Saudi Arabia, their presence being, however justifiable, a source of resentment within the Arab world and a rationalization for terrorism on the part of the likes of Osama bin Laden.

… no one, including the intelligence services of governments opposed to the war, doubted before the war that he had WMD [he used them against Iran]; and only a fool would have interpreted his years-long non-compliance with the inspections regime as implying anything other than that he had something to hide.

unquote.

– “The Mustache on the Left”, by Edward Feser, ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2004/01/the-mustache-on-the-left.html

 

[hamba2han]

This is a brief explanation of why it is difficult for Muslims to respect the sentiments of those who oppose the Park51 project near Ground Zero.

God Almighty says in the Qur’an: “Oh you who believe! Avoid suspicions, indeed some suspicions are sins. ” (49:12)

In a hadith, Abu hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said, “Beware of suspicion, for suspicion is the worst of false tales.””

Also in the Qur’an, Allah says:
**“Oh you who believe! Let not a group scoff at another group; it may be that the latter are better than the former. Nor let (some) women scoff at other women; it may be that the latter are better than the former Nor defame one another, nor insult one another by nicknames. How bad is it to insult one’s brother after having Faith . And whosoever does not repent are indeed Zalimun (wrongdoers) ” (49:11)

“Woe to every slanderer and backbiter.” (105:1)

You see, all of this opposition to the Park51 project from people who say that they do not mind it being built somewhere else, stems from mistrust and suspicions about the true motives of the people who are behind this project… and this is plainly wrong from an Islamic perspective because there is no evidence at all of wrongdoing on their part with regard to the events of 9/11.

And so, it is simply wrong to ask American Muslims to not build a mosque/community center near Ground Zero based on the mistrust and suspicions of the opponents of the project.

It is therefore not a question of wisdom and respect but rather, it is just morally wrong for the opponents of the Park 51 project to ask the people behind the project to move based on their unsubstantiated suspicions and prejudices against these Park51 developers.**

 

[TEPO]

This is a brief explanation of why it is difficult for Muslims to respect the sentiments of those who oppose the Park51 project near Ground Zero.

God Almighty says in the Qur’an: “Oh you who believe! Avoid suspicions, indeed some suspicions are sins. ” (49:12)

In a hadith, Abu hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said, “Beware of suspicion, for suspicion is the worst of false tales.””

Also in the Qur’an, Allah says:
“Oh you who believe! Let not a group scoff at another group; it may be that the latter are better than the former. Nor let (some) women scoff at other women; it may be that the latter are better than the former Nor defame one another, nor insult one another by nicknames. How bad is it to insult one’s brother after having Faith . And whosoever does not repent are indeed Zalimun (wrongdoers) ” (49:11)

“Woe to every slanderer and backbiter.” (105:1)

You see, all of this opposition to the Park51 project from people who say that they do not mind it being built somewhere else, stems from mistrust and suspicions about the true motives of the people who are behind this project… and this is plainly wrong from an Islamic perspective because there is no evidence at all of wrongdoing on their part with regard to the events of 9/11.

And so, it is simply wrong to ask American Muslims to not build a mosque/community center near Ground Zero based on the mistrust and suspicions of the opponents of the project.

It is therefore not a question of wisdom and respect but rather, it is just morally wrong for the opponents of the Park 51 project to ask the people behind the project to move based on their unsubstantiated suspicions and prejudices against these Park51 developers.

Do you suppose it would be safe to build a mosque near ground zero…?

You do understand that there are “terrorists” who are anti-Muslim in the U.S. don’t you…?

So why risk the safety of such a mosque and those inside if not to merely entertain the idea of a prospective conflict…? Why not entertain peace instead…?

Conflict, conflict, conflict…

 

[sedonaman]

…“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said, “Beware of suspicion, for suspicion is the worst of false tales.””…

Then why does Islam suspect that every non-Muslim is at war with it?

 

[TEPO]

It would be: “oh those Christians are no better than the Muslims, they are equally violent”…

Maybe that’s the goal.
Or am I just a sinner for even pondering on such an idea…

 

[hamba2han]

Most of the conspiracy theory evidence that I have seen over the years has indeed turned out to be proven true and so conspiracy theory has become conspiracy fact… and this reminds me of another verse in the Qur’an:

O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done. … (49:06)

Wicked people like Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel, Frank Gaffney and also the people at FOX News have been spreading lies about the developers of Park51 and after checking the veracity of their “news” like the supposed planned ground breaking on Sept. 11 of next year, they have indeed shown themselves to be shamelessly deceptive liars.

And we need to ask → If FOX News can continually lie about these matters, then what else have they lied about in their reporting of 9/11 all these years?

 

[hamba2han]

Do you suppose it would be safe to build a mosque near ground zero…?

You do understand that there are “terrorists” who are anti-Muslim in the U.S. don’t you…?

So why risk the safety of such a mosque and those inside if not to merely entertain the idea of a prospective conflict…? Why not entertain peace instead…?

Conflict, conflict, conflict…

From what I have seen, there have been a number of arson and even bomb attacks on mosques in far away places like Florida and Tennessee to name just a few.

And so, how would moving the Park51 project make it safer against these kind of “terrorist” attacks?

In this case, I would say that appeasement is not the answer to this problem.

 

[sedonaman]

What we have is the exact opposite of intellectual integrity and honesty:

“…The degree of thought control, of limitations on freedom of speech and expression is without parallel in the Western world since the eighteenth century and in some cases longer than that. … It seems to me it’s a very dangerous situation, because it makes any kind of scholarly discussion of Islam, to say the least, dangerous. Islam and Islamic values now have a level of immunity from comment and criticism in the Western world that Christianity has lost and Judaism has never had…” americanthinker.com/2010/10/geert_wilders_and_the_rise_of.html

 

[TEPO]

the people at FOX News have been spreading lies about the developers of Park51 and after checking the veracity of their “news” like the supposed planned ground breaking on Sept. 11 of next year, they have indeed shown themselves to be shamelessly deceptive liars.

And we need to ask → If FOX News can continually lie about these matters, then what else have they lied about in their reporting of 9/11 all these years?

Can you prove that FOX news actually “lied”…?

If not then your claim sounds like suspicion… “whoh to every slanderer and backbiter”

 

[hamba2han]

Actually, it is just not FOX News which has lied about the events of 9/11.

The BBC has been found to be complicit as well in spreading lies about 9/11… but perhaps I digress.

War is a HUGE business folks, if evil people are willing to kill innocent lives in war, then producing and spreading a lie in order to get the country into that war would not be a big deal at all for them.

 

[TEPO]

From what I have seen, there have been a number of arson and even bomb attacks on mosques in far away places like Florida and Tennessee to name just a few.

And so, how would moving the Park51 project make it safer against these kind of “terrorist” attacks?

In this case, I would say that appeasement is not the answer to this problem.

Havent you noticed a lot of animocity towards the construction of park51 in particular… I think it’s obvious that if this mosque gets built, it will become target number 1.

Almost all Americans are strongly against it.

 

[TEPO]

Actually, it is just not FOX News which has lied about the events of 9/11.

The BBC has been found to be complicit as well in spreading lies about 9/11… but perhaps I digress.

War is a HUGE business folks, if evil people are willing to kill innocent lives in war, then producing and spreading a lie in order to get the country into that war is not a big deal at all.

I would call you a hypocrit, but instead I’ll just excuse myself from this thread…

goodbye.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Second warning.
Get back to the topic and post with charity.

 

[thedarknight]

The point that I am making here is that Islam views property rights in a far different way than Christians seem to do.

Hello there,

Could you please explain the Islamic view on property rights further?

 

[JHow]

With all due respect, wisdom does have much to do with it. But it is also an issue of respect. The story I recounted took place many years after WW2, 40 plus years or so after the horrors that Germany inflicted on the Jews. Yet, Pope John Paul saw that because of the fact that Catholics 40 years EARLIER rejected the Holocaust, these Jewish surviviors and their descendents did not want anything to do with Catholicism near a site of an old concentration camp, he had the nuns ove it somewhere else.
John Paul himself never rejected the horrors of the Holocaust, but he saw the pain that this was causing others. He took the absolute correct path…

I have to point out here that while your analogy of JP II asking the convent not to build next to the Auschwitz camp is apt, your story about Catholics of forty years prior does not make sense to me. Which Catholics do you think “rejected” (your words) the Holocaust? The Auschwitz camp is located in Poland (Oswiecim), not very far (short train ride away) from Krakow, the town were JP II lived and was bishop. I have never met a Catholic Pole (or any for that matter) who didn’t know what took place where in that regard. Unlike muslims and 911, however, Polish Catholic nuns did not cause the Holocaust. And unlike 911 (which was perpertrated in the name of Islam), the Holocaust was not perpetrated in the name of the Catholic church.

 

[jfmarm81]

I have to point out here that while your analogy of JP II asking the convent not to build next to the Auschwitz camp is apt, your story about Catholics of forty years prior does not make sense to me. Which Catholics do you think “rejected” (your words) the Holocaust? The Auschwitz camp is located in Poland (Oswiecim), not very far (short train ride away) from Krakow, the town were JP II lived and was bishop. I have never met a Catholic Pole (or any for that matter) who didn’t know what took place where in that regard. Unlike muslims and 911, however, Polish Catholic nuns did not cause the Holocaust. And unlike 911 (which was perpertrated in the name of Islam), the Holocaust was not perpetrated in the name of the Catholic church.

I guess what I was trying to say is that JPII was not Pope during WWII, and could have said, ‘I’m sorry for what happened, but I was not a Church official during WWII who turned a blind eye to the Holocaust, so we are building this convent.’ Instead, he took a wiser course.
In relation to that, the Imam may not have had anything to do with 9/11, but he could take the wiser course and not build this center there.
I’m sorry, sometimes I can’t clearly convey what I’m trying to say…lol

 

[hamba2han]

Hello there,

Could you please explain the Islamic view on property rights further?

The property rights of American Muslims should be the same as the property rights of other Americans.

The point I am making here is that someone’s rights would be subject to the laws of the land they are living in and this would be my understanding of property rights for American citizens from a Muslim perspective.