TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm not a moderator, but may I suggest that this thread is approaching being a violation of Rule #11 of this forum.

FORUM RULES

11. Off-topic posts/threads: Since they tend to cause the most problems for other boards, our "off-topic" sub-forum is not an "anything goes" area. Absolutely no discussions of religion, immigration/border security, abortion, race matters, or any other hot-button political issues. (Gun-related political issues can be discussed in other areas.)

Because of my own religious faith, I take issue with Islam's theology. And I've already posted my opinion about the NY mosque story. But I'm not going to harass a member in good standing over his exercise of his First Amendment Right to believe in and practice the religion of his choice.

Beiruty has been a valuable contributing member of this board since Tue Aug 12, 2008, with 669 posts under his belt. Texas Dan Mosby has been a member of this board since Wed Jul 14, 2010, with 19 posts under his belt. When Texas Dan says...

I don't accept the "but we're not all homicidal cultists" excuse because it is MUSLIMS that have ALLOWED their "faith" to be usurped and hijacked by lunatics through inaction and silent consent. Until there is a unified front against violence and barbarism, and enough protests from muslims that make the cultists give up using violence, I will continue to have no respect for that particular "religion" and feel that the fewer muslims we have in our nation, the better.

...he is flaming a TexasCHLForum member for his religious choices. Beiruty did not flame him back, and he has exercised restraint in a thread that must be painful for him to read. May I suggest that folks cut him a little slack and show him a little more respect than that?

...he is flaming a TexasCHLForum member for his religious choices. Beiruty did not flame him back, and he has exercised restraint in a thread that must be painful for him to read. May I suggest that folks cut him a little slack and show him a little more respect than that?

Well put TAM! Thank you for posting that. I totally agree.

I think this thread has run its ugly course. I suggest the thread be locked. It's getting out of hand.

gemini wrote:

Beiruty wrote:As a Muslim, I wanted to post on this topic, however, I feel the flame war would just be ignited on high setting.
In Short, Moderate Muslims are like 95% to 98% of Muslims Population Worldwide. So do not aggregate and blame the whole Muslim community by the actions of the few.

What makes this country great is that we the US Muslims feel free to be Muslim, live as Muslims, Worship as Muslims with no bias, hate or bigotry.
If some want to make this country NOT great anymore by promoting hate and fear is only hurting this great country.

I have 2 questions sir:
Why doesn't the 95-98% of moderate muslim population and muslim clergy come forward and publicly condemn the violence against women, suicide bombings, honor killings and the theology and vows to kill all Infidels?
Do the 95-98% of moderate muslims believe in and endorse sharia law?
Thanks

1) Those are multiple topics that are lumped in single statement. Addressing each topic is time consuming but doable. For example, the so called "honor killing" is un-islamic and totally forbidden. It is the sole responsibility of the Islamic State (ruler/ governors) i.e. Islamic Officials to enforce the Islamic Law. Not us mere citizens. It is true, that adultery by married Muslims is punishable by death. However, the burden of proof is so high, that such convictions are extremely rare and if charged by such offense, only the State Officials have the burden and duty to prosecute and punish.
2) Majority of Observant Muslims will accept the Sharia Law as a first option. However, in countries where Muslims are Majority but have sizable Non-Muslims minority (e.g. Lebanon) full application of Sharia Law might not be possible. In countries like US, Muslims are bound by the laws of the land.

I hope that I did answer your questions.

As for the original post:

I have no affiliation with those NYers who want to build that center, however, some issues just come to mind.

NY City Real Estate is very expensive, if the place of proposed Mosque/Islamic Center is very sensitives to many. What is the alternative? who will provide a different location without said place being burden on Muslim fairhful who are eager to just have a Firday's Prayer without taking 4 hrs out of work to go from work place to newly proposed location.

Beiruty wrote: NY City Real Estate is very expensive, if the place of proposed Mosque/Islamic Center is very sensitives to many. What is the alternative? who will provide a different location without said place being burden on Muslim fairhful who are eager to just have a Firday's Prayer without taking 4 hrs out of work to go from work place to newly proposed location.

Thank you for your response. I hope that you are seeing that your initial post on this subject did not result in a flame war. Many of us appreciate hearing your point of view. In keeping with the boundaries of this forum, I'd like to continue the focus of this thread on the NY Mosque.

Your rational for the the NY Mosque placement seems reasonable and pragmatic. One of the counter arguments against the Mosque is that there are not sufficient numbers of Muslims who live or work in that specific area to warrant the size of the building. Do you know how we can determine the validity of either side of this point? I hope that we can rely on factual data rather than expectations and opinions.

It appears that the driving force behind the Mosque is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. I've waded through literally 100s of web pages with heavily biased statements about him and have found the least slanted account to come from Wikipedia. Here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feisal_Abdul_Rauf
Imam Abdul Rauf's stated purpose for the Mosque is the build a bridge between the US and Islam. To me, this acknowledges that the building has symbolic significant rather than just the pragmatic use that your reasoning suggests. I was unable to find a link that I felt was unbiased enough to use here for a specific quote of his words and welcome input from others for that.

In addition to the controversy surrounding the symbolic nature, there is the controversy surrounding Feisal Abdul Rauf himself. In the link that I provided, there are the following paragraphs.

"Speaking at his New York mosque in 2004, Imam Feisal said: "The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets." He also said that there could be little progress in Western-Islamic relations until the U.S. acknowledged backing Middle East dictators and give an "American Culpa" speech to the Muslim world, because there are "an endless supply of angry young Muslim rebels prepared to die for their cause and there [is] no sign of the attacks ending unless there [is] a fundamental change in the world".[2]

In a 60 Minutes interview shortly after the September 11 attacks Imam Rauf said, "Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam" and went on to say, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

The part that caught my eye was "unless there is fundamental change in the world."

So, I would like to solicit your Moderate input. How will a Mosque, built by an Iman who believes that the US is culpable for the 9-11 attacks and that the attacks will continue until there is a fundamental change in the world be a bridge to a better relationship between Muslims and the US? I agree with your initial post that there has been a good environment for Muslims in the US in the past. My question is whether the changes to that environment are coming because of the American people or the plans of Imam Rauf. His refusal to identify the funding source for the Mosque appears to be adding to the controversy.

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians.

That's exactly the OPPOSITE of what I encountered during about a year of service in Afghanistan, and 2 years in Iraq. I've seen everything targeted from SCHOOLS, to MOSQUES, to entire villages. That statement is either a bold faced lie, or a statement issued by one who knows NOTHING about "muslim war techniques". The LARGEST threat muslims face is from MUSLIMS. We policed up more bodies of those killed by muslims than by any killed by coalition.

But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima

That statement would have merit if it weren't for the fact that religion had exactly jack and squat to do with our involvement in WWII. What a delusional statement, however, fitting from the source.

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

Right...

The ONLY fundamental change that needs to take place is within the muslim community. When the "good" muslims protest senseless murders as they do those who publish a cartoon of Muhammad in a nation with freedom of the press, perhaps the lunatics among their particular cult will realize that murdering civilians in a market with a vest packed with explosives is NOT acceptable within their "religion". The ONLY saving grace for "muslims" is the fact that non-western nations have become FAR more tolerant than they once were. If not for this newly found "tolerance", it is quite possible that the west would take the same approach as the Islamofascists and deliberately target civilian populations with the full weight of their destructive power.

How will a Mosque, built by an Iman who believes that the US is culpable for the 9-11 attacks and that the attacks will continue until there is a fundamental change in the world be a bridge to a better relationship between Muslims and the US?

It won't.

I agree with your initial post that there has been a good environment for Muslims in the US in the past.

Of course there's been a good environment. Largely due to the limited number of muslims, and muslim influence, in our nation, and the fact that we embrace FREEDOM, unlike muslim nations. There is NO sunni / shia conflict. No lunatics trying to create a new "emirate", and ANY religious zealotry is subordinate to our constitution.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians.

That's exactly the OPPOSITE of what I encountered during about a year of service in Afghanistan, and 2 years in Iraq. I've seen everything targeted from SCHOOLS, to MOSQUES, to entire villages. That statement is either a bold faced lie, or a statement issued by one who knows NOTHING about "muslim war techniques". The LARGEST threat muslims face is from MUSLIMS. We policed up more bodies of those killed by muslims than by any killed by coalition.

But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima

That statement would have merit if it weren't for the fact that religion had exactly jack and squat to do with our involvement in WWII. What a delusional statement, however, fitting from the source.

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

Right...

The ONLY fundamental change that needs to take place is within the muslim community. When the "good" muslims protest senseless murders as they do those who publish a cartoon of Muhammad in a nation with freedom of the press, perhaps the lunatics among their particular cult will realize that murdering civilians in a market with a vest packed with explosives is NOT acceptable within their "religion". The ONLY saving grace for "muslims" is the fact that non-western nations have become FAR more tolerant than they once were. If not for this newly found "tolerance", it is quite possible that the west would take the same approach as the Islamofascists and deliberately target civilian populations with the full weight of their destructive power.

How will a Mosque, built by an Iman who believes that the US is culpable for the 9-11 attacks and that the attacks will continue until there is a fundamental change in the world be a bridge to a better relationship between Muslims and the US?

It won't.

I agree with your initial post that there has been a good environment for Muslims in the US in the past.

Of course there's been a good environment. Largely due to the limited number of muslims, and muslim influence, in our nation, and the fact that we embrace FREEDOM, unlike muslim nations. There is NO sunni / shia conflict. No lunatics trying to create a new "emirate", and ANY religious zealotry is subordinate to our constitution.

I know nothing about Iraq having only been to Afghanistan, but from what I saw, I agree. Iraq was actually a fairly developed country until we stomped it into oblivion. Afghanistan never has been and unless some Western nation wants to dump trillions of dollars into it, it never will be.
The Afghans I dealt with told me that the worst enemy they had was Pakistan. I came away from Afghanistan with the belief that their worst enemy was simply themselves. They have no history of being one country. Afghanistan is simply one of those psuedo-nations created by the British Empire in its heyday. It is composed of at least 5 major ethnic groups with the Pashtun being among the largest. The Pashtun themselves are a tribal grouping of warriors. Unfortunately this means that they like to kill and steal from anyone, including the neighboring Pashtun tribe just over the next ridgeline.
In my opinion, the Afghans in general are only Muslim because they had it forced on them almost a thousand years ago. The religion doesn't make much difference to them. They are still going to go on living in the stone age with white Toyota's and cell phones, and kill, rob and take bribes from the highest bidder (or all bidders at once).

The rest of the Islamic world simply has one final agenda, be they radical, fundamental or even moderate. It is that one way or another Islam has to dominate the world. The Koran allows for infidels and Jews to exist in the world, but that is to allow for a pool of labor and tribute. Being productive is simply not a necessity for the common Muslim.

We need to listen to the Dutch "Alarmists" that are coming over to the US and lecturing about what has happened in Amsterdam, Malmo (Sweden) and other Islamicized cities. It really is alarming. I am not a big fan of Israel, but when I read about what Israel really represents in regards to the West vs. Sharia law it gave me pause.

A Mosque at the 9/11 site is simply an exercise in demonstrating political power by the Liberal Elite and the Islamic fundamentalists. I cannot see any valid reason for anyone proposing this construction that couldn't be done elsewhere. I wonder if it wouldn't be simpler under a different regime (ahem, adminstration) to declare the area a national monument and nip this in the butt before it happens.

Moderators: I hope that I have not violated any rules with this post.

Beiruty wrote:As a Muslim, I wanted to post on this topic, however, I feel the flame war would just be ignited on high setting.
In Short, Moderate Muslims are like 95% to 98% of Muslims Population Worldwide. So do not aggregate and blame the whole Muslim community by the actions of the few.

What makes this country great is that we the US Muslims feel free to be Muslim, live as Muslims, Worship as Muslims with no bias, hate or bigotry.
If some want to make this country NOT great anymore by promoting hate and fear is only hurting this great country.

As much respect and cordule this discussion has been, the understanding of the participants in this website and their respect for the Constitutionality of the issue, I have to interject one point...

Imagine the future, when on a September 11th, 2011 and beyond, after this mosque is completed, and a memorial service is being conducted a block or so away from this place of worship...And the call to prayer is made over the speakers...And that call to prayer drowns out or distracts from the proceedings at "ground zero", specifically the reading of the names of the people murdered by radicals of this faith...

I would be hard pressed to be understanding at that particular moment, and wonder if the sensitivity on both sides of this issue is genuine...

So I am just going to write this...

If you are a follower of this faith, and you have no intentions of radicalizing or being influenced by the radical members of this faith, then why is their no definetive or absolute corrective measures being done to control the mis-interpretations and preachings by those who influence and radicalize certain followers of this faith???

Because I do not believe there is ANY measure, or real effort that can be taken to clean up the destructive nature of these elements within this faith...

I do not know if I could be ashamed or even be allowed to be ashamed of my beliefs in this faith at this point...I cannot get a straight answer from anyone I know to be friends of mine who are muslims...Even to get an honest "no", there is no way to correct this radicalization within the islamic faith...I can't even get that...

So if a mosque is built, then all I can say is there is not going to be a lot of sympathy or real meeting of the minds to smooth out anything, and this war will continue unabated long after we are all gone...

Thats just my honest evaluation of this situation...

The Moderators wholeheartedly agree with the members who pointed out that this thread should be locked as it violates forum rules.

We apologize for not having done so earlier.

Chas.