Obama backs mosque near ground zero

  • Thread starter Thread starter Musicadmirer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheTrueCentrist said:
So lets review my summary, you started with 1, I followed with 2, you’ve gone straight to 5 and 7a.

Just repeating that “it is insensitive,” “he could have moved it,” “they’re fanning the flames,” and “victims say so” does not explain why it is insensitive in the first place. An acceptable reason looks like this:
I feel this is insensitive because:
–The imam has made some specific hurtful claim.
–Here is a donation from a known terrorist organization.
–Here are those involved making disparaging remarks about victims.

Unacceptable reasons look like this
I feel this is insensitive because:
–Other people feel that way. (why do they feel that way?)
–Muslims are fanning the flames (there are no flames until someone declares it insensitive, what is the reason for the initial declaration?)
–Islam has teachings x, y, or z. (Teachings x, y, and z must be both a justification for the terrorists and also believed by the imam or this is a red herring)
Click to expand...
ok…yesterday evening, I watched a clip of this Imam in 2002 stating that: (1) It was because of America and it’s policies that 9/11 happened in the first place.
(2) that Osama Bin Laden was “made in America”. (what he meant by that, I am not sure:rolleyes:)
I also heard confirmed reports that he was going to be getting money from (1) Iran and (2) Saudi Arabia
(3) He also stated that he would like to see America become Sharia compliant.
DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SHARIA LAW???

Now…possibly you do not see anything offensive about all this, and possibly you think these facts are true enough, so why be offended?..I NOT ONLY FIND THEM OFFENSIVE, BUT DANGEROUS. And I don’t know how some of the families that lost people wouldn’t. Put aside the comments that America caused 9/11, and I find it offensive that he is conjuring up money from countries that help sponsor terrorism and that HATE AMERICA WITH A PASSION. I ALSO FIND IT UNNERVING THAT HE WANTS AMERICA UNDER SHARIA LAW.

I also heard that moderate Muslims in this country are asking him to move the location. THEY DON’T WANT THE DIVISIVENESS THAT THIS IS CREATING. So far, he is refusing. There are not many Muslims in that particular area, so why is he so determined to overlook ground zero?

I will be anxious to find out what else they might uncover about this Imam. So far, in my HO, I find it offensive and dangerous, and I didn’t even loose anyone in 9/11 except for my fellow Americans which sickened me, and still does when I think about it.

Maybe these are not good enough reasons for some to object. For me, I already have enough to totally object to this project being built overlooking ground zero.
 
Here’s an idea. Put the ten commandments in a shrine at whatever memorial is built on private property at the ground zero site. Then watch the hyprocracy. Since when do liberals give a flying hoot about religious freedom?
 
markbrumbaugh said:
Here’s an idea. Put the ten commandments in a shrine at whatever memorial is built on private property at the ground zero site. Then watch the hyprocracy. Since when do liberals give a flying hoot about religious freedom?
Click to expand...
😃 Good point. And true enough. Better yet…put an image of the Risen Christ next to it, and on private property of course, and watch the firestorms begin.😃
 
Giuliani is right. Lauer not so much.

"Giuliani on Mosque: “This Project Is Divisive”
Former mayor acknowledges developers have “right” to build, but defers to question, “should they?”

The former mayor who helped lead the city through the tragic aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, came out in opposition of building a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero.

“This project is divisive,” Rudy Giuliani said on the “Today” show this morning as he commented for the first time on the controversy that has swept the nation. “This project is creating tremendous pain for people who’ve already made the ultimate sacrifice. All you’re doing is creating more division, more anger, more hatred.”…

Entire article: nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Giuliani-on-Mosque-This-Project-Is-Divisive–101062444.html
 
Teelynn said:
ok…yesterday evening, I watched a clip of this Imam in 2002 stating that: (1) It was because of America and it’s policies that 9/11 happened in the first place.
(2) that Osama Bin Laden was “made in America”. (what he meant by that, I am not sure:rolleyes:)
Click to expand...
Do you also find Glenn Beck offensive? Because he made those same claims.
mediamatters.org/blog/201008180078

I tend to agree, the motivations for the attacks were political. Terrorists complained about unfair American intervention, not American “freedoms” or “religions.”
Teelynn said:
I also heard confirmed reports that he was going to be getting money from (1) Iran and (2) Saudi Arabia
(3) He also stated that he would like to see America become Sharia compliant.
DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SHARIA LAW???
Click to expand...
So you think that Iranians and Saudi Arabians are inherently prone to extremism and violence?

Further, I highly doubt his version of sharia law is the horrible construct you have in your head. Watch this talk he gives and then tell me that you think he supports stoning women or its equivalent.
ted.com/talks/view/id/676
 
markbrumbaugh said:
Here’s an idea. Put the ten commandments in a shrine at whatever memorial is built on private property at the ground zero site. Then watch the hyprocracy. Since when do liberals give a flying hoot about religious freedom?
Click to expand...
I think that would be a true monument to hypocrisy. After all, the 10 commandments remind us not to bear false witness against our neighbours. Unfortunately many unkind, untrue, and unsubstantiated claims have been shouted from the Christian community at our Muslim neighbours.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Do you also find Glenn Beck offensive? Because he made those same claims.
mediamatters.org/blog/201008180078

I tend to agree, the motivations for the attacks were political. Terrorists complained about unfair American intervention, not American “freedoms” or “religions.”
Click to expand...
I’ve already covered this. Islam is a polity AND a faith. If you’ve read Sayyid Qutb (al Qaeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhodd all take a great deal from Milestones regarding Islamic society) you’d realize what the motivation was.
40.png
TheTrueCentrist:
So you think that Iranians and Saudi Arabians are inherently prone to extremism and violence?
Click to expand...
No, but as I pointed it out before, I would argue that Islam lends itself more to violent interpretation than Shintoism or Buddhism.
40.png
TheTrueCentrist:
Further, I highly doubt his version of sharia law is the horrible construct you have in your head. Watch this talk he gives and then tell me that you think he supports stoning women or its equivalent.
ted.com/talks/view/id/676
Click to expand...
What is or isn’t Sha’riah is determined by Fiqh Council, not an individual. It would be like saying “X’s version of Catholicism allows sacramental same sex marriage”

I’ve discussed these issues here;

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6964498&postcount=466

here;

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6964303&postcount=452

and here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6964280&postcount=449
 
scipio337 said:
I’ve already covered this. Islam is a polity AND a faith. If you’ve read Sayyid Qutb (al Qaeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhodd all take a great deal from Milestones regarding Islamic society) you’d realize what the motivation was.

No, but as I pointed it out before, I would argue that Islam lends itself more to violent interpretation than Shintoism or Buddhism.
Click to expand...
Yes, but does that make Muslims inherently more violent than anyone else?
scipio337 said:
What is or isn’t Sha’riah is determined by Fiqh Council, not an individual. It would be like saying “X’s version of Catholicism allows sacramental same sex marriage”
Click to expand...
So you’re saying that a Figh Council like that would propose the terrible sharia law that you envision?
More like X’s version of Christianity allows sacramental same sex marriage.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Yes, but does that make Muslims inherently more violent than anyone else?
Click to expand...
Inherently? No. People are the same. But as I said before, certain interpretations of Islam make the chances of violence based on religious principles than some other faiths.
40.png
TheTrueCentrist:
So you’re saying that a Figh Council like that would propose the terrible sharia law that you envision?
More like X’s version of Christianity allows sacramental same sex marriage.
Click to expand...
No, these Fiqh councils, who are considered Madhhab “schools of law”.

4 Sunni:

Hanafi: qa.sunnipath.com/browse.asp?id=1

Maliki: usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muwatta/

Shafi: shafiifiqh.com/

and Hanabi: philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/islam/sunni/hanb.html
hanbali.org/wiki/

They’re not as iron-clad or singular as the Magisterium, but its very similar in its philosophy in what is “right” and “wrong” belief/practice.
 
NEW YORK, N.Y. – Opponents argue that building a mosque so close to Ground Zero is an insult to those killed on September 11, 2001, and they are raising questions about who will fund the Islamic center.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan weighed in on the controversy during a news conference with reporters Wednesday.

“I don’t know if I’d use the word inappropriate. I think there have been sensible reasons raised in a thoughtful way by the other side, who said, ‘wait a minute. We need to ask these questions and think about these sensitivities,’” said the archbishop. “What we got are two ‘goods’ here and when you got two ‘goods,’ somewhere in between I hope we can come to a prudent compromise.”

Dolan cited the intervention of Pope John Paul II in a dispute over a convent near the site of the former Auschwitz concentration camp. The former pope ordered the nuns to move.

“He’s the one who said, ‘Let’s keep the idea and maybe move the address.’ It worked there, it might work here. I don’t know,” said Dolan.

centralny.ynn.com/content/all_news/514577/archbishop-dolan-weighs-in-on-mosque-controversy/
The Archbishop gets it. The developers of the mosque have an opportunity to build the understanding they claim to want. Let’s hope they take advantage of the the Archbishop’s offer
 
Excerpt from commentary at American Thinker:

"Obama’s Point of No Return

…With Obama, we have an abundance of riches: the multiple vacations, the legal harassment of the state of Arizona on behalf of illegals, the clownish response to the Gulf oil blowout. But when historians come to select the moment when Obama went over the edge of the world, I think they’ll find the great Iftar mosque speech of August 13, 2010 hard to beat.

During a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan, the president found it appropriate to come out in favor of religious freedom. Not in support of Christians being attacked by janjaweed gunmen, or Bahá’ís tormented by Iranian mullahs, or Jews being stalked by assassins, or even American citizens being told that they cannot pray in public, but in favor of a shadowy foreign foundation with suspicious financing and disturbing jihadi connections that wishes to build some kind of victory monument congruent to the site of the 9/11 massacre."…

Entire entry here: americanthinker.com/2010/08/obamas_point_of_no_return.html
 
scipio337 said:
I’
What is or isn’t Sha’riah is determined by Fiqh Council, not an individual.
Click to expand...
Patently false- these councils have no true authority in Islam.

Sharia law refers to any law which has the Quran or Hadith as its basis- beliefs about what laws based in the Quran or Hadith are not exclusive to any one group.
 
estesbob said:
NEW YORK, N.Y. – Opponents argue that building a mosque so close to Ground Zero is an insult to those killed on September 11, 2001, and they are raising questions about who will fund the Islamic center.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan weighed in on the controversy during a news conference with reporters Wednesday.

“I don’t know if I’d use the word inappropriate. I think there have been sensible reasons raised in a thoughtful way by the other side, who said, ‘wait a minute. We need to ask these questions and think about these sensitivities,’” said the archbishop. “What we got are two ‘goods’ here and when you got two ‘goods,’ somewhere in between I hope we can come to a prudent compromise.”

Dolan cited the intervention of Pope John Paul II in a dispute over a convent near the site of the former Auschwitz concentration camp. The former pope ordered the nuns to move.

“He’s the one who said, ‘Let’s keep the idea and maybe move the address.’ It worked there, it might work here. I don’t know,” said Dolan.

centralny.ynn.com/content/all_news/514577/archbishop-dolan-weighs-in-on-mosque-controversy/
The Archbishop gets it. The developers of the mosque have an opportunity to build the understanding they claim to want. Let’s hope they take advantage of the the Archbishop’s offer
Click to expand...
Interesting that the Archbishop sees “two goods” here rather than a good and an evil.

At this point, I think we have gone way beyond courtesies and considering sensitivities though…whichever side wins, there’s likely to be crowing by the more polarized parties in this debate.

The story of the convent, on the other hand, exemplifies the Christian response to such a dilemma…food for thought in this heated debate.
 
scipio337 said:
Inherently? No. People are the same. But as I said before, certain interpretations of Islam make the chances of violence based on religious principles than some other faiths.
Click to expand...
When, in your opinion, was the most recent act of violence that Islam was responsible for?
 
"One more reason (as if you needed it) to oppose Ground Zero mosque

The New York Post is reporting that Iran may help fund the mosque overlooking Ground Zero:

*"The developers of the Ground Zero mosque are refusing to flat out reject cash for the project from Holocaust-denying Iranian nuke nut Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“I can’t comment on that” was the reply of mosque spokesman Oz Sultan yesterday when asked specifically if the fund-raising would extend to Iran and Saudi Arabia. “We’ll look at all available options within the United States to start.”

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the leader of the project known as Park51, has said at meetings with downtown officials that he would raise money for the 13-story mosque from local Muslims, foundations and the sale of bonds.

But in an interview with a London-based Arab newspaper earlier this year, he admitted his fund-raising would also extend to Muslim nations around the world.
The possibility of tapping the radical rogue Islamic state of Iran for funds comes as the United States is stepping up sanctions on the regime in retaliation for its support of terrorism and what is feared to be an illegal nuclear-weapons development program."*

It would be just as horrific if the mosque developers tapped the moneybags in Saudi Arabia considering that 14 of the 19 9/11 terrorists hailed from The Kingdom.

I’m sure we will be informed by mosque proponents that money from Iran to fund the project is just one more indication that the people behind it want to promote “dialogue and understanding.”

Source: americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/one_more_reason_as_if_you_need.html
 
tjm190 said:
Patently false- these councils have no true authority in Islam.

Sharia law refers to any law which has the Quran or Hadith as its basis- beliefs about what laws based in the Quran or Hadith are not exclusive to any one group.
Click to expand...
Not so…
Muslims believe all Sharia is derived from two primary sources, the divine revelations set forth in the Qur’an, and the sayings and example set by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Fiqh, or “jurisprudence,” interprets and extends the application of Sharia to questions not directly addressed in the primary sources, by including secondary sources.
Click to expand...
There are several “gray areas” regarding the hadiths and sunnah, say, on the penalty for apostates.

The four major Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Madh’hab) differentiate between harmful apostasy and harmless apostasy (also known as major and minor apostasy) in accepting repentance

In “civil law”
Sharia relies on medieval jurist’s manuals and collections of non-binding legal opinions, or fatwas, issued by religious scholars (ulama, particularly a mufti); these can be made binding for a particular case at the discretion of a judge.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Origins
 
With all of the knowledge of the Muslim faith set forth in these last couple of posts, I guess I still do not understand one thing: why there can not be a compromise! Respect the feelings of those who have lost loved ones at 911 and move this mosque from this particular area. I have heard (and this may or may not be a true statement) that there are no Muslims living within this immediate area anyway and there are numerous other mosques within the existing Muslim communities. (compromise??) Do they have a right to build on private property?..of course they do; however, it may be prudent to aim for a peaceful solution rather than stomping one’s foot and say…it is our “right”…If I knew that I was doing something in my life that would bring pain to another, I would hope and pray that I would do anything within my power to eliminate that pain…isn’t that what we are all called to do for our brothers and sisters?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top