• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Ground Zero Mosque (or cultural gathering centre for the politcally correct)

Sprintking

Well-Known Member
I have no problem with Muslims and realize that people like Al-Qaeda are in the minority, but what were they expecting to happen? They are building a mosque right next to the location of a devastating terrorist act committed by a Muslim extremist group? Did they really think Americans would be cool with it? And it's not like they're saying the mosque can't be built, just that it's very insensitive to build it at that location. Just move it somewhere else and everyone can be happy.
 

Kate

Banned
Not to mention that this "mega" mosque is set to be 15 stories high. Pretty sure that's visible from 2 blocks away. So it's not a "If you don't want to see it take a different route" thing.

Yes, but I'd like to know why this mosque is disrespectful. All I've really heard is because this building is Islamic, and so were the terrorists, even though this mosque has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TERRORISTS. This mosque does not represent terrorism, it does not glorify the hijackers in any way, so I don't se ehow it is inherently disrespectful.

Yes, we know. Not every Muslim is a terrorist blah blah blah. Cool. I get it. So does everyone else. The mosque doesn't have to be built by Osama Bin Laden himself and the rest of his cronies in construction hats and some jack hammers to make people feel uncomfortable. Honestly. A towering mosque overlooking ground zero is going to remind people about what happened and bring back ugly memories regardless of whether its built by moderate muslims, or radical muslims. It makes no difference. But it seems like you already know better anyway. You said you would understand if "the building was built on ground zero." but even then under your line of reasoning people shouldn't be offended or feel its disrespectful, because after all it still wouldn't be "connected with terrorists"
 
Last edited:

Fused

Shun the nonbeliever
They are building a mosque right next to the location of a devastating terrorist act committed by a Muslim extremist group?

A towering mosque overlooking ground zero

This is why I hate the media. It's a 13 story building, two blocks away (when I put it into Google maps, the route from one location tot he other came out to roughly a half-mile), in Lower Manhattan, which is nothing but tall buildings seeing as how its a business and government center, so the notion that this mosque is going to be overshadowing ground zero is a ridiculous one, and a misinformed one at best.

You said you would understand if "the building was built on ground zero." but even then under your line of reasoning people shouldn't be offended or feel its disrespectful, because after all it still wouldn't be "connected with terrorists"

Not true. The only things I think should be built on ground zero is a new WTC or a memorial to the victims of 9/11. I would be against anything else being built on that land, so don't assume that I would be okay with anything not connected to the terrorists.

However, this isn't the case. It's proposed to be two blocks away, and the only reason I've heard against this is that it is an Islamic building, and the terrorists were also Islamic, so anything Islamic would be disrespectful, when this mosque is not in anyway representing or glorifying the terrorists.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
Because people can't accept the fact that these Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11.

These Muslims didn't, Islam did, the sooner you can recognize the difference the better off you will be.


Because it's going to be the main reason why I don't really care what the majority wants.

If you are unable to unobjectivly look at a situation then you should take yourself out of the debate. I do not care if you are a minority or not.

You mean like how ending slavery or allowing interracial marriage were sensitive issues that the majority had absolute control of?

No they are issues the Government had control of, here is majority opinion on a sensitive issue that involves a very sensitive and deadly event that happened. You cannot compare Slavery or Interracial Marriage to this.

And you are not blind or ignorant for thinking that not allowing this mosque in no way affects Muslims, the people they lost, or what their feelings on this matter are, or for thinking that they should not have freedom simply because a radical group attacked thousands of innocent people, which the Muslims you argue against msot certainly do not condone.

I would only hope that the Muslims would be as level headed about this as Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid and realize the damage this mosque would do to their religion and the pain it would bring people. If they cannot realize that, then that is their problem, not mine.

Whether you realize it or not, you are being partially Islamophobic. How do I know? If you weren't, you wouldn't associate anything Islamic, especially a mosque close to ground zero, with 9/11 or terrorists.

Okay that is pathetically stupid on your part, Islamophobic means having a irrational fear of Islam. Saying that this Mosque, which preaches Islam, should not be near what was a attack by Islam on this nation and killed thousands, if stating the facts and a opinion, not being Islamophobic. Words have meaning.

However, you think this is a sensitive issue because Islam in general is responsible for 9/11, when it is Muslim extremists who are responsible.

And what were the Muslim Extremists reading from? Or is there now a Muslim Extremist religion that is separate from Islam?

The Muslims who want this mosque have nothing to do with 9/11 nor is their any solid proof that they wish to continue what 9/11 started,

Never said they did.

allowing this mosque isn't insesnsitive as nothing about the mosque or those who want to build it are inherently glorifying the attacks or inherently insulting people. And all of your rationalizations ultimately boil down to the fact that this building is Islamic, which somehow automatically equates them 9/11.

Because Islam was the driving force behind 9/11. I have never claimed these people want another 9/11. However the religion they preach is connected to 9/11 if you like it or not. To believe it is not insulting people is as stupid as it is ignorant of the situation.

Well, that's only supposing you wouldn't build a German Heritage Site near a former Concentration Camp because it would be insensitive to do so. The question is: is it? Would it be claiming the Nazi regime is cool, or would it say, "No. The Nazis were bad, bad people. Even if they were German, they were bad"? This is important stuff to know, I'd figure.

Except a German Heritage Site promotes German Nationalism which was pushed in a extreme way to bring about the Concentration Camps and the rise of Nazis. Just as a Islamic Mosque preaches Islam, which was pushed in a extreme way to bring about 9/11

I'd say that it might help him better comment on the position of a minority, but I'll leave ultimate explanation of that to Fused.

Fair enough but I do not care if he is a minority or not, nor is there any verifiable way to see if he is a minority or not. Thus I care more about the content of his arguments than anything else.

Whoops, reading in-depth, apparently Obama's been backing the right to build the Mosque, and refusing to comment on the wisdom of doing so. My mistake.

He backtracked and came out that the Mosque builders should respect the sensitivities of the people. Although a better example on my part would be Harry Reid.

Yeah, and you don't gain any credibility (or respect for that matter) for knocking him down without any kind of proof.

Attack the information, not the source.

Yeah kind of hard to disect a 12 min long video on my lunch break. Either way even the first minute of the video is enough damage to prove my point.

(when I put it into Google maps, the route from one location tot he other came out to roughly a half-mile)

I assume you drew it in one straight line from the edge of Ground Zero ( Which right now is just one big *** pit ) to the Park 51 Mosque? As having to add in turns and driving different directions to get there would add in more length.
 

Arctic ursarang

Gonzap's facial hair
two blocks is nothing, its a 30 second walk!
 

Fused

Shun the nonbeliever
These Muslims didn't, Islam did, the sooner you can recognize the difference the better off you will be.

If that were true, then anything Islamic created after 9/11 is responsible for 9/11.

Islam didn't do this. Extremists did.

here is majority opinion on a sensitive issue that involves a very sensitive and deadly event that happened.

Majority opinion on a sensitive issue that the government ignored because the majority opinion was not enough to override what was right? No, it sounds exactly like interracial marriage.

Okay that is pathetically stupid on your part, Islamophobic means having a irrational fear of Islam. Saying that this Mosque, which preaches Islam, should not be near what was a attack by Islam on this nation and killed thousands, if stating the facts and a opinion, not being Islamophobic. Words have meaning.

Islamophobia is the prejudice agaisnt Islam or Muslims. The great thing about "phobia" is that, in our culture, it doesn't just mean fear. Ever hear of the medical condition Photophobia? It's not a fear of light, it's an excessive sensitivity to light. Phobia doesn't just mean fear.

And what were the Muslim Extremists reading from? Or is there now a Muslim Extremist religion that is separate from Islam?

They read from the Qur'an. But if that is all that you wanted, then why haven't more moderate Muslims also blown up buildings? Is it because these extremists had other views on this faith that most other Muslims don't believe in?

Because Islam was the driving force behind 9/11.

And do you have proof that Islamic beliefs were the only motives for 9/11? I can't really deny that they didn't play a role, but I don't think the terrorists were like "We're Muslims, so we're blow you up."

However the religion they preach is connected to 9/11 if you like it or not. To believe it is not insulting people is as stupid as it is ignorant of the situation.

I realize it is connected, but you can't blame the entire religion. I also do believe that this mosque is insulting people. But I also believe that these people are being a little irrational.

Either way even the first minute of the video is enough damage to prove my point.

How so?
 

BigLutz

Banned
If that were true, then anything Islamic created after 9/11 is responsible for 9/11.

Islam didn't do this. Extremists did.

The extremists used Islam to justify their attacks and to even do their attacks. With out it they really wouldn't have been able to come together at all. And for all the good Islam is, it does have it's war like side in which it provides a ton of quotes for extremists to use to justify war.

IMajority opinion on a sensitive issue that the government ignored because the majority opinion was not enough to override what was right? No, it sounds exactly like interracial marriage.

Who ever said that what they were doing was right? Not to mention the Government isn't exactly ignoring it, Democrats are running scared from it right now. Hell Harry Reid just came out and said move it.

Islamophobia is the prejudice agaisnt Islam or Muslims. The great thing about "phobia" is that, in our culture, it doesn't just mean fear. Ever hear of the medical condition Photophobia? It's not a fear of light, it's an excessive sensitivity to light. Phobia doesn't just mean fear.

Yeah except I am not being prejudice against Islam or Muslims. If you want to go into Islam and discuss its dark side we can, maybe you will learn something. But as I have already suggested there is nothing wrong with them moving the Mosque elsewhere, infact with the community center it would do alot of good.

They read from the Qur'an. But if that is all that you wanted, then why haven't more moderate Muslims also blown up buildings? Is it because these extremists had other views on this faith that most other Muslims don't believe in?

It is because many of the moderate Muslims choose not to act on some of the darker areas of the Qur'an. Mohammad essentially had two faces in life, the peaceful man, and the warlord, the problem is that you cannot seperate one from the other, moderates tend to ignore much of the warlord stuff, yet can you say it won't be taught or mentioned at all at the Mosque? Of course not, because you cannot have one half with out the other, it would be like stopping a book half way through.

And do you have proof that Islamic beliefs were the only motives for 9/11? I can't really deny that they didn't play a role, but I don't think the terrorists were like "We're Muslims, so we're blow you up."

Yeah, that is essentially what it was, We're Muslim, you're not Muslim, convert to be Muslim, stop helping the Jews so us Muslims can kill them, or we will blow you up.

I realize it is connected, but you can't blame the entire religion. I also do believe that this mosque is insulting people. But I also believe that these people are being a little irrational.

Just as I believe you are being narrow minded and ignorant. And yes you can blame the entire religion, when much of the second half of the religion is filled with war like quotes that are justified to go to war and destroy your enemy. And was used by the extremists to attack on 9/11. Now see you have two choices, acknowledge that because of Mohammad's time as a warlord, that Islam does have a dark side that has given rise to extremism. Or continue to ignore it and believe that Islam is all sunshine and roses, and I will start to break out the quotes.


Talking about how the Government came for the Jews, the Communists, and such and tying it into the Mosque. Is he really trying to make the disgusting and irrational point that because the people do not want a mosque built on this one location, it is akin to the Nazis rounding up people? Not only is that disgusting hyperbole, but it is ignorant of the fact that the Government already approved it.

Edit: Looks like the Mosque will be on the move, which will probably be the most likely thing that happens the political pressure being mounted here by the public is getting to extreme levels.

CBS News said:
There was a possible resolution in the works Tuesday night in the debate surrounding the proposed mosque and Islamic cultural center near ground zero.

CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer has learned it looks as if the developers of the mosque may be willing to budge and move away from the Park 51 location where they originally planned the construction.

So will the mosque be moving?

New York Gov. David Paterson plans to meet with developers of the controversial ground zero mosque as early as this week to offer them state land – at another location – for their cultural and religious center. Paterson told Congressman Peter King about the meeting, and King said the governor asked him to make it public.

“The purpose of the meeting would be for the governor to discuss with the leaders of the mosque where state property is available,” said Rep. King. “Whether or not people from the mosque would be willing to consider that property.”

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/08/17/paterson-king-hope-for-mosque-compromise/
 
Last edited:

Fused

Shun the nonbeliever
The extremists used Islam to justify their attacks and to even do their attacks. With out it they really wouldn't have been able to come together at all. And for all the good Islam is, it does have it's war like side in which it provides a ton of quotes for extremists to use to justify war.

Yeah except I am not being prejudice against Islam or Muslims. If you want to go into Islam and discuss its dark side we can, maybe you will learn something.

Just as I believe you are being narrow minded and ignorant. And yes you can blame the entire religion, when much of the second half of the religion is filled with war like quotes that are justified to go to war and destroy your enemy. And was used by the extremists to attack on 9/11. Now see you have two choices, acknowledge that because of Mohammad's time as a warlord, that Islam does have a dark side that has given rise to extremism. Or continue to ignore it and believe that Islam is all sunshine and roses, and I will start to break out the quotes.

Hang on: When did I say that Islam was nothing but Super Happy Fun Time?

And yes, every religion has its dark side: in the Bible, God allows one man to kill his brother, God floods the entire Earth, he sets fire to entire cities, Judah burns a harlot with a child, and yet with all of this cruelty and violence in the Bible, no one is blaming Chrisitianity when people are set on fire or drowned or kill their brothers or cause arson. That abortion clinic bomber killed in the name of Jesus Christ, but no one put the blame on Chrisitanity, did they?

When someone commits a crime, we don't hold their motives responsible, we hold the criminal(s) responsible. If we didn't, the US would in fact be guilty of causing 9/11 because they had a trade embargo with Iraq, which was a motive of the terrorists, just like a warped view of Islam was a motive.

Who ever said that what they were doing was right?

The majority did, simply because most people agreed with them.

It is because many of the moderate Muslims choose not to act on some of the darker areas of the Qur'an. Mohammad essentially had two faces in life, the peaceful man, and the warlord, the problem is that you cannot seperate one from the other, moderates tend to ignore much of the warlord stuff, yet can you say it won't be taught or mentioned at all at the Mosque? Of course not, because you cannot have one half with out the other, it would be like stopping a book half way through.

Sure they may teach it, but hopefully they would realize that the war commands actually hurt people. Plus, if this mosque teaches the war stuff, then so do all of the other mosques, but nobody (in America, at least) seems to be taking the war section seriously.

Yeah, that is essentially what it was, We're Muslim, you're not Muslim, convert to be Muslim, stop helping the Jews so us Muslims can kill them, or we will blow you up.

It seems odd that Muslims would want to kill Jews since Allah seemed to have a special place for Jews:

"O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me." [Qur'an, sura 2:40]

Maybe the Muslims are just jealous step-children.

Edit: Looks like the Mosque will be on the move, which will probably be the most likely thing that happens the political pressure being mounted here by the public is getting to extreme levels.

Not the outcome I would've liked to see, but as I said, it was only a matter of time until it became a non-issue, so I suppose there's nothing left for me to debate here.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Hang on: When did I say that Islam was nothing but Super Happy Fun Time?

And yes, every religion has its dark side: in the Bible, God allows one man to kill his brother, God floods the entire Earth, he sets fire to entire cities, Judah burns a harlot with a child, and yet with all of this cruelty and violence in the Bible, no one is blaming Chrisitianity when people are set on fire or drowned or kill their brothers or cause arson. That abortion clinic bomber killed in the name of Jesus Christ, but no one put the blame on Chrisitanity, did they?

And here is the wild thing that you seem to be unable or unwilling to get, it is not a Christian Church going up next to a Christian Extremist massacre, it is a Muslim Mosque going up next to a Islamic Massacre.

When someone commits a crime, we don't hold their motives responsible, we hold the criminal(s) responsible. If we didn't, the US would in fact be guilty of causing 9/11 because they had a trade embargo with Iraq, which was a motive of the terrorists, just like a warped view of Islam was a motive.

Actually the UN had a trade embargo against Iraq, I don't see why you keep forgetting that. That being said we do look at what caused the criminal to act out in a crime, what was the driving motivation, for this it is Islam.

The majority did, simply because most people agreed with them.

You don't seem to be getting what I am saying. You said 'the majority opinion was not enough to override what was right?' again I ask, who ever said those building the Mosque were right?

Sure they may teach it, but hopefully they would realize that the war commands actually hurt people. Plus, if this mosque teaches the war stuff, then so do all of the other mosques, but nobody (in America, at least) seems to be taking the war section seriously.

The problem is that you are teaching the war commands right down the street from where those war commands lead. I would hope you would agree that is pretty sick and twisted.

It seems odd that Muslims would want to kill Jews since Allah seemed to have a special place for Jews:

"O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me." [Qur'an, sura 2:40]

Maybe the Muslims are just jealous step-children.

And this is where the Qur'an contridcts itself, and why the Extremists find so many quotes for their rampage. As the Qur'an also talks at length about killing Jews.

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! Surah 9:30

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Surah 9:29

( In other words commands to fight against Christians and Jews )

Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves Surah 48:29

And of course the lovely verses about Jews

And thou wilt find them greediest of mankind for life and (greedier) than the idolaters. (Each) one of them would like to be allowed to live a thousand years. And to live (a thousand years) would be no means remove him from the doom. Allah is Seer of what they do.
 

Night_Walker

Well-Known Member
Lutz, would you actually stop and read the facts?

They don't want to build it on the site of the twin towers, merely near it on land they own.

It's not going to commemorate the attack, unless you're asserting these people actually supported the attack. That attack was a direct violation of the tenants of Islam, all but the extremists know that. This attitude merely furthers the divide between Muslims and the extremists have tried to create.

Um, actually no the Qu'ran acknowledges Christians and Jews as Children of the Book who do believe in Allah but whose teachings have been slightly altered, however they're not infidels and should be treated with respect. Okay they were viewed as lesser then Muslims but only people like the modern extremists treated them badly - and you'll find people who abuse their religion's teachings for their own ends in almost every religion so let's not single out Islam.
The only the extremists think they're infidels, because they think anyone who's not a particular kind of Muslim is a infidel.

Further the Qu'ran's allowances for external Jihad prohibit the killing of women and children, and suicide is another grave sin. Basically, the people who've given Islam such a bad name aren't actually following Islam's own tenants.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Lutz, would you actually stop and read the facts?

They don't want to build it on the site of the twin towers, merely near it on land they own.

Yes that is something we have already established already, thanks for catching up.

It's not going to commemorate the attack, unless you're asserting these people actually supported the attack. That attack was a direct violation of the tenants of Islam, all but the extremists know that. This attitude merely furthers the divide between Muslims and the extremists have tried to create.

Depends on who will see it as commemorating the attack. Taking out the violent and warlike aspects of the Qu'ran and Mohammad. As Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid has said the fact remains that this will be seen as a victory flag by those in the Middle East.

Um, actually no the Qu'ran acknowledges Christians and Jews as Children of the Book who do believe in Allah but whose teachings have been slightly altered, however they're not infidels and should be treated with respect.

And yet the Qu'ran also says to fight against them, which is another example of the bipolar nature of the Qu'ran.

Further the Qu'ran's allowances for external Jihad prohibit the killing of women and children, and suicide is another grave sin. Basically, the people who've given Islam such a bad name aren't actually following Islam's own tenants.

Problem is that going into war knowing you are going to die, is not considered Suicide by Islam but Martyrdom which is where the escape is for Jihadist.
 

Night_Walker

Well-Known Member
Depends on who will see it as commemorating the attack. Taking out the violent and warlike aspects of the Qu'ran and Mohammad. As Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid has said the fact remains that this will be seen as a victory flag by those in the Middle East.
Oh I see, so these law abiding American Muslims should lose their right to build a Mosque on their own land because extremists in the middle east will say it commemorates and celebrates the attack?

Give me a break.


And yet the Qu'ran also says to fight against them, which is another example of the bipolar nature of the Qu'ran.
Er, if you're gonna argue that how was the campaign led by Mohammed any different more bipolar then the crusades launched by the Christians? "As the good Lord said: Love thy neighbour as thy self... Unless he's Turkish in which case, kill the b***ard!"
All three religions of the book advocate violence to expand the reach of their religion - I mean let's face it all three books were written in a more violent time. Islam is the only one that has enough respect for the others to say, within its own holy book, that the people of the book can maintain and keep following their own beliefs.


Problem is that going into war knowing you are going to die, is not considered Suicide by Islam but Martyrdom which is where the escape is for Jihadist.
Sorry, no.
If you're gonna fight a desperate last stand in which you're likely to be killed that's one thing. You are not allowed to deliberately set out to kill yourself, which is what those people did.

The extremist interpretation is a highly selective and skewed one that they've created to get around the conventions.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Oh I see, so these law abiding American Muslims should lose their right to build a Mosque on their own land because extremists in the middle east will say it commemorates and celebrates the attack?

Give me a break.

No one is saying they have lost their right, they are saying that to be sensitive to the concerns of the city they should move it. Since you seem to be backing the Muslims so much I will put it in terms you can understand. Lets say Israel bombed the hell out of a city in Lebanon for some extremist reason. Then lets say a few years later, a Jewish group decided to set up a Synagogue down the street from the epicenter of the bombing. Those citizens in Lebanon would be outraged by it and rightfully so.


Er, if you're gonna argue that how was the campaign led by Mohammed any different more bipolar then the crusades launched by the Christians? "As the good Lord said: Love thy neighbour as thy self... Unless he's Turkish in which case, kill the b***ard!"

All three religions of the book advocate violence to expand the reach of their religion - I mean let's face it all three books were written in a more violent time. Islam is the only one that has enough respect for the others to say, within its own holy book, that the people of the book can maintain and keep following their own beliefs.

Difference here is we are not talking about a Christian Slaughter or a Jewish Slaughter but a Islamic one, and a Islamic Holy Center being erected. Trying to divert it to Christianity has been one of the weakest tactics used in these debates. Yes the Qu'ran has a very bi polar nature toward well almost everything because of Mohammad becoming a warlord. And because of that it wouldn't be right to teach some of the more war like tendencies the Qu'ran has just done the street from Islam's greatest attack on American soil.

Sorry, no.
If you're gonna fight a desperate last stand in which you're likely to be killed that's one thing. You are not allowed to deliberately set out to kill yourself, which is what those people did.

The extremist interpretation is a highly selective and skewed one that they've created to get around the conventions.

I have never said it is extremely selective, the problem is that they are selecting from the Qu'ran and not out of thin air, and because of that it is one of the numerous reasons why building a Mosque down the street from Ground Zero is inappropriate.
 

Night_Walker

Well-Known Member
No one is saying they have lost their right, they are saying that to be sensitive to the concerns of the city they should move it. Since you seem to be backing the Muslims so much I will put it in terms you can understand. Lets say Israel bombed the hell out of a city in Lebanon for some extremist reason. Then lets say a few years later, a Jewish group decided to set up a Synagogue down the street from the epicenter of the bombing. Those citizens in Lebanon would be outraged by it and rightfully so.
Well you're all acting like it, they put up this proposal and they've been firmly slapped down with comments like "How dare they?!" "They have no respect!"

I'm not backing Muslims I'm backing the right Americans hold so dear that a group of people should be allowed to build what they want to their own land. They're not breaking any planning permits so why should they not be allowed to do so?

Er, no I'm sorry I'd back the Jews who wanted to set up their Synagogue if it was their own land.


Difference here is we are not talking about a Christian Slaughter or a Jewish Slaughter but a Islamic one, and a Islamic Holy Center being erected. Trying to divert it to Christianity has been one of the weakest tactics used in these debates. Yes the Qu'ran has a very bi polar nature toward well almost everything because of Mohammad becoming a warlord. And because of that it wouldn't be right to teach some of the more war like tendencies the Qu'ran has just done the street from Islam's greatest attack on American soil.
I'm sorry. I see no difference between a slaughter committed by people claiming to act in the name of one religion to another slaughter committed by people claiming to act in the name of another.

Ah yes here we go again.
I find it disgraceful that people claim to wish to act in the defence of democracy by claiming "it wouldn't be right" for one particular religion to be taught simply because a few people with an atypical interpretation of it committed an atrocity.

Especially when the fact is these terrorist organisations are not representative of Islam because it's means and actions are in direct contravention of that religions' tenants.

And are the more warlike elements of the Qur'an any different to the hideously violent nature of the Old Testament? No.


I have never said it is extremely selective, the problem is that they are selecting from the Qu'ran and not out of thin air, and because of that it is one of the numerous reasons why building a Mosque down the street from Ground Zero is inappropriate.
It is a very selective interpretation of what has been written by people seeking a way to cause mass causalities yet lacking the conventional means to do so.

Suicide is forbidden in Islam, just as it is in Christianity and Judaism, suicide bombers thus act against the tenants of Islam and thus do not represent what the religion stands for. Believers who find their actions every bit as abhorrent as you and I shouldn't have their freedom to worship restricted because of those people - end of story.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Well you're all acting like it, they put up this proposal and they've been firmly slapped down with comments like "How dare they?!" "They have no respect!"

I'm not backing Muslims I'm backing the right Americans hold so dear that a group of people should be allowed to build what they want to their own land. They're not breaking any planning permits so why should they not be allowed to do so?

Er, no I'm sorry I'd back the Jews who wanted to set up their Synagogue if it was their own land.

Except that right is not being challenged it is utterly ignorant on your part to believe it is, as the Government has already approved the permit as you have pointed out. What is being challenged is the morality of it. The 70% of Americans who are against it cannot force them to not build, they cannot take away the right to build there, they can however protest and raise their voice and say "This is inappropriate" It is up to those Muslims who wish to build it if they are going to be insensitive and tone deaf or listen to the overwhelming majority against it.


I'm sorry. I see no difference between a slaughter committed by people claiming to act in the name of one religion to another slaughter committed by people claiming to act in the name of another.

Except we are talking about this specific slaughter. If it were a Church going up near a Christian Slaughter we would be talking about the inappropriateness of it and the problems taught in the Christian bible that brought it out.

Ah yes here we go again.
I find it disgraceful that people claim to wish to act in the defence of democracy by claiming "it wouldn't be right" for one particular religion to be taught simply because a few people with an atypical interpretation of it committed an atrocity.

Strawman Argument, no one is saying that they shouldn't teach their religion, they are saying it is inapropriate to teach it down the street of one of that religion's bloodiest acts. If they were to move the Mosque to a different place I guarantee you the outrage would not exist.

Especially when the fact is these terrorist organisations are not representative of Islam because it's means and actions are in direct contravention of that religions' tenants.

Some of the tenants, others they are perfectly aline with.

And are the more warlike elements of the Qur'an any different to the hideously violent nature of the Old Testament? No.

No, but Christians tend to not follow the Old Testament, they followed Christ Teachings in the New Testament. But I find it ironic that in a discussion about a ISLAMIC MOSQUE, near the site of a ISLAMIC ATTACK, the only way you can defend the ISLAMIC HOLY BOOK is by providing misdirection and attacking the Old Testament.

It is a very selective interpretation of what has been written by people seeking a way to cause mass causalities yet lacking the conventional means to do so.

Suicide is forbidden in Islam, just as it is in Christianity and Judaism, suicide bombers thus act against the tenants of Islam and thus do not represent what the religion stands for. Believers who find their actions every bit as abhorrent as you and I shouldn't have their freedom to worship restricted because of those people - end of story.

Again as I have stated they are not seeing themselves as committing suicide but martyrdon, I do not get why you cannot understand that other than the fact that it tears down your argument.

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."

It is disingenuous of you to claim that Suicide is against Islam, seeing how Mohammad continued to push his men and make a point in knowingly dying in battle.

"I would love to be martyred in Allah's Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred."

"Surely, the gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords."

"Nobody who enters Paradise will (ever like to) return to this world even if he were offered everything on the surface of the earth (as an inducement) except the martyr who will desire to return to this world and be killed ten times for the sake of the great honour that has been bestowed upon him."

By telling his men this, he is essentially telling them to enter a battle in which they know they will die, but that they will be given a great honor and become a martyr
 
Last edited:

Night_Walker

Well-Known Member
Except that right is not being challenged it is utterly ignorant on your part to believe it is, as the Government has already approved the permit as you have pointed out. What is being challenged is the morality of it. The 70% of Americans who are against it cannot force them to not build, they cannot take away the right to build there, they can however protest and raise their voice and say "This is inappropriate" It is up to those Muslims who wish to build it if they are going to be insensitive and tone deaf or listen to the overwhelming majority against it.
Ehem.

Does it violate planning laws as a building? No.
What right then do you have, to say because of your very particular interpretation of what its building actually means (ie your assertion that it's a slap in the face to the city and that they are knowingly doing so), that they can't build it there?

Also, kindly do not call me ignorant because my view of the situation does not match yours.


Except we are talking about this specific slaughter. If it were a Church going up near a Christian Slaughter we would be talking about the inappropriateness of it and the problems taught in the Christian bible that brought it out.
I fail to see the connection because this was a hideous crime committed by people acting outside the very conventions of the religion they claim to follow.
I'd have the exact same view if a 'Christian' terrorist organisation committed a suicide attack then a mainstream Christian group wanted to put up a Church near that site on land they owned.


Strawman Argument, no one is saying that they shouldn't teach their religion, they are saying it is inapropriate to teach it down the street of one of that religion's bloodiest acts. If they were to move the Mosque to a different place I guarantee you the outrage would not exist.

What you are saying is that it is inapproriate for them to teach their religion on their own land because of where it happens to be located, that is (in my book) a restriction of their religious freedom.


Some of the tenants, others they are perfectly aline with.
In pursuit of an external Ji'had followers may not kill civilians. Muslims may not commit suicide.
These are absolute laws for the religion, there's nothing in there that contradicts that - that's why these groups create such inventive interpretations that they say allow them to do so.


No, but Christians tend to not follow the Old Testament, they followed Christ Teachings in the New Testament.
The old testament is still there and still taught to Christians. If it's so out of line with what they believe then why has it not been removed?

But I find it ironic that in a discussion about a ISLAMIC MOSQUE, near the site of a ISLAMIC ATTACK, the only way you can defend the ISLAMIC HOLY BOOK is by providing misdirection and attacking the Old Testament.
You claim that the Qur'an is bipolar and provides justification for these sorts of things, I'm pointing out that it is not that different from the holy books of other religions.

As for Sept 11, I maintain as I have since day 1 it was not an Islamic attack. It was an atrocity committed by people who claimed they acted in accordance with Islamic teachings - something that has been contradicted by the mainstream Islam community world wide.


Again as I have stated they are not seeing themselves as committing suicide but martyrdon, I do not get why you cannot understand that other than the fact that it tears down your argument.

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."

It is disingenuous of you to claim that Suicide is against Islam, seeing how Mohammad continued to push his men and make a point in knowingly dying in battle.

"I would love to be martyred in Allah's Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred."

"Surely, the gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords."

"Nobody who enters Paradise will (ever like to) return to this world even if he were offered everything on the surface of the earth (as an inducement) except the martyr who will desire to return to this world and be killed ten times for the sake of the great honour that has been bestowed upon him."

By telling his men this, he is essentially telling them to enter a battle in which they know they will die, but that they will be given a great honor and become a martyr
No. This doesn't tear down my argument at all, all you're doing is quoting these things through the interpretation they actually mean something else.

There is a difference between charging into battle against large odds and committing suicide - which is what suicide bombers do. In a battle, even against a much bigger force, you actually have a chance to survive.

To say those rallying cries from Mohammed to give his men courage for those tough battles actually said "go ahead, kill yourselves" is a skewed interpretation. Every bit as much as it is to say the speeches officers gave in WW1 before sending their men over the top was advocating the men kill themselves.

The Qur'an forbids the killing of non-combatants/civilians/women and children and willing acts of suicide - nothing you quoted changes that.
 

Fused

Shun the nonbeliever
And here is the wild thing that you seem to be unable or unwilling to get, it is not a Christian Church going up next to a Christian Extremist massacre, it is a Muslim Mosque going up next to a Islamic Massacre.

How is offering an example equal to the inability to understand something? I just told you about something that actually happened in the name of Christianity (which you completely sidestepped), but no one held the entire religion responsible, and yet we’re doing the exact opposite now with 9/11 and Islam.

Actually the UN had a trade embargo against Iraq, I don't see why you keep forgetting that.

Then why was the US attacked and not the UK or the Bahamas or Egypt or Canada or Germany or Mexico or Spain?

That being said we do look at what caused the criminal to act out in a crime, what was the driving motivation, for this it is Islam.

And yes we do look at the motivation, but to what extent do we hold the motivation responsible for the criminal’s act?

You don't seem to be getting what I am saying. You said 'the majority opinion was not enough to override what was right?' again I ask, who ever said those building the Mosque were right?

The First Amendment’s guarantee to Freedom of Religion. Morally right is a different answer, since there isn’t a conclusive one. But like with interracial marriage, there wasn’t a morally conclusive answer either, while there was certainly a legal answer.

And this is where the Qur'an contridcts itself, and why the Extremists find so many quotes for their rampage. As the Qur'an also talks at length about killing Jews.

Every holy book contradicts itself. The Qur’an contradicts itself about how to treat Jews, but you can’t just look at one side of the coin. If it says to kill Jews but also that Allah deeply respected Jews, what do we listen to?

Problem is that going into war knowing you are going to die, is not considered Suicide by Islam but Martyrdom which is where the escape is for Jihadist.

Except an important aspect of martyrdom that you don't seem to mention is that martyrdom is when one dies of their own free will as a penalty for refusing to renounce their beliefs, their people, etc. So I think the important question here is: What did the hijackers die for? And how was the US in particular a threat to that?

Also, about Jihad:

"(They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is God". Did not God check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure. God will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily God is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will)." [022:040]

...and God in Islam:

"And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our Allah and your Allah is One, and to Him do we submit." [029:046]

No one is saying they have lost their right, they are saying that to be sensitive to the concerns of the city they should move it. Since you seem to be backing the Muslims so much I will put it in terms you can understand. Lets say Israel bombed the hell out of a city in Lebanon for some extremist reason. Then lets say a few years later, a Jewish group decided to set up a Synagogue down the street from the epicenter of the bombing. Those citizens in Lebanon would be outraged by it and rightfully so.

Except, for a more apt comparison, you need to have some of the Lebanese think "Well the Jews here didn't send the bombs" and you also have to take into account the Lebanese Jews in the area who certainly did not appreciate an attack from their own community against their home.

Difference here is we are not talking about a Christian Slaughter or a Jewish Slaughter but a Islamic one, and a Islamic Holy Center being erected. Trying to divert it to Christianity has been one of the weakest tactics used in these debates.

Its not so much a diversion as it is a comparison to a similar scenario.

Strawman Argument, no one is saying that they shouldn't teach their religion, they are saying it is inapropriate to teach it down the street of one of that religion's bloodiest acts. If they were to move the Mosque to a different place I guarantee you the outrage would not exist.

So they can still preach the religion responsible for a bloody assault, just as long as it isn't nearby, like the one four blocks away?

Again as I have stated they are not seeing themselves as committing suicide but martyrdon, I do not get why you cannot understand that other than the fact that it tears down your argument.

Again, martyrdom is when you willingly recieve death as a penalty for refusing to denounce your beliefs. However, I don't see how killing yourself is the same as willingly recieving death as a penalty for refusing to denounce your beliefs. America did not pose any threat to the hijacker's religious beliefs, did we?
 

BigLutz

Banned
Does it violate planning laws as a building? No.
What right then do you have, to say because of your very particular interpretation of what its building actually means (ie your assertion that it's a slap in the face to the city and that they are knowingly doing so), that they can't build it there?

Also, kindly do not call me ignorant because my view of the situation does not match yours.[

Well for one I will call you ignorant if you say ignorant things. And to twist your words around what moral right do they have to erect a Islamic Mosque so close to Islam's greatest attack on America? What right do I have to call them out on their horrible building, I believe its called Freedom of Speech?

I fail to see the connection because this was a hideous crime committed by people acting outside the very conventions of the religion they claim to follow.
I'd have the exact same view if a 'Christian' terrorist organisation committed a suicide attack then a mainstream Christian group wanted to put up a Church near that site on land they owned.

And I would tell you that it would be wrong for the Christian group to do that, as it would be insulting to the people that died there, and hurtful to the people of that city as well as the families that died.

What you are saying is that it is inapproriate for them to teach their religion on their own land because of where it happens to be located, that is (in my book) a restriction of their religious freedom.

Never said they did not have the right to do it, it is inappropriate and morally wrong, but that isn't a restriction on their religious freedom it is a view point, learn the difference.

In pursuit of an external Ji'had followers may not kill civilians. Muslims may not commit suicide.
These are absolute laws for the religion, there's nothing in there that contradicts that - that's why these groups create such inventive interpretations that they say allow them to do so.

The contradictions would be what Mohammad had done during his War Time massacres in which included killing civilians and becoming martyred. Which goes to the Bipolar aspect of the Qu'ran, as they say one thing and then do another when it is convenient.

The old testament is still there and still taught to Christians. If it's so out of line with what they believe then why has it not been removed?

Not really, you can go to any Church of Christ and it will be based on New Testiment teachings, stories may be taught from the Old Testament like Gensus and Noah, but overall the teachings of Christianity are Christian not Old Testament. Because the Qu'ran does not have two different books that differentiate Mohammad the man of peace, and Mohammad the Warlord, it is different from Christianity.

You claim that the Qur'an is bipolar and provides justification for these sorts of things, I'm pointing out that it is not that different from the holy books of other religions.

Difference is that it is immaterial to the debate as it is a Islamic Mosque, not a Christian Church being put up next to a Islamic attack site.

As for Sept 11, I maintain as I have since day 1 it was not an Islamic attack. It was an atrocity committed by people who claimed they acted in accordance with Islamic teachings - something that has been contradicted by the mainstream Islam community world wide.

Yeah you can believe that, but they were acting in accordance of some of the more radical and dangerous of Islamic teachings.

No. This doesn't tear down my argument at all, all you're doing is quoting these things through the interpretation they actually mean something else.

Interpretation is up for each person, the problem is that they are open for interpretation, and that makes it insulting for them to be taught near Ground Zero.

There is a difference between charging into battle against large odds and committing suicide - which is what suicide bombers do. In a battle, even against a much bigger force, you actually have a chance to survive.

You have very little to no chance of surviving. By that logic you can survive a plane crash into a building because of the very minuscule chance you could survive.

To say those rallying cries from Mohammed to give his men courage for those tough battles actually said "go ahead, kill yourselves" is a skewed interpretation. Every bit as much as it is to say the speeches officers gave in WW1 before sending their men over the top was advocating the men kill themselves.

They essentially were saying it, they knew that the vast majority of their men would be cut down by machine gun fire, and that a few of them would maybe survive to make it to the machine gun nest.

The Qur'an forbids the killing of non-combatants/civilians/women and children and willing acts of suicide - nothing you quoted changes that.

Except Non Combatants were killed in Mohammad's quest and they were not committing suicide by Martyrdom. Again you have the Bipolar aspects of the Qu'ran.

The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared,
'Kill any Jew who falls under your power.

"I went into a cave with my bow and arrows. While I was in it, a one-eyed man from the Banu Bakr came in driving some sheep. He said, 'Who's there?' I said, 'I'm a Banu Bakr.' 'So am I.' Then he laid down next to me, and raised his voice in song: 'I will not believe in the faith of the Muslims.' I said, 'You will soon see!' Before long the Bedouin went to sleep and started snoring. So I killed him in the most dreadful way that anybody has ever killed. I leant over him, struck the end of my bow into his good eye, and thrust it down until it came out the back of his neck. After that I rushed out like a wild beast and took flight. I came to the village of Naqi and recognized two Meccan spies. I called for them to surrender. They said no so I shot and arrow and killed one, and then I tied the other up and took him to Muhammad."

"I had tied my prisoner's thumbs together with my bowstring. The Messenger of Allah looked at him and laughed so that his back teeth could be seen. Then he questioned me and I told him what had happened. 'Well done!' he said, and prayed for me to be blessed."

"Hassan was with the women and children. A Jew passed by and began to walk around his settlement. There was no one to protect them while the Apostle and his Companions were at the Meccans' throats. So I said: 'Hassan, this Jewis walking around. I fear he will point out our weakness while the Muslims are too busy to attend to us. So go down to him and kill him."

"The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza Jews among the Muslims."

"The Jews were made to come down, and Allah's Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men."
 
Last edited:

Night_Walker

Well-Known Member
Lutz,

I have said NOTHING that is ignorant or stupid, I have merely disagreed with you, but I have provided reasons as to why I disagree and thus I take great offence from your statements that I been stupid or ignorant.
Frankly, I can see we're at logger-heads so I'm going to leave this thread.

I disagree completely with you about the Mosque being an insult to the city and the people killed in the Sept 11 attack but I am at least glad to see that you would have the same attitude to a Christian church being built near the site of an atrocity carried out by people claiming to act in the name of Christianity. If nothing else at least you are consistent there.

I still think you are approaching this entire discussion from a PoV that is biased against Islam to a greater extent than Judaism or Christianity.

Violent people will always find a way to twist something in such a way as to claim it justifies their actions. And all three of these religions do provide things that people like that can interpret/twist/mangle and claim justify their own actions - none of them are inherently any worse than the others.
 
Top