NYC Ground Zero Mosque

[The Reaper]

Let's save the epithets and name-calling.

No one would allow those terms here towards Blacks, or Hispanics, or Asians.

Call Arabs and Muslims what they are.

Thanks.

TR

[T-Rock]

John Locke, Islamic Supremacism, and the Ground Zero Mosque
August 4th, 2010 by Andrew Bostom

Apropos to very legitimate concerns about the proposed Ground Zero Mosque—which today (8/3/10), unfortunately cleared a zoning hurdle, celebrated by the witless Mayor Bloomberg—John Locke, 325 years ago, discussed the predicament of Islamic supremacism in his first of four letters concerning religious tolerance “A LETTER CONCERNING TOLERATION” (John Locke, The Works, vol. 5 Four Letters concerning Toleration [1685])

Whether in the guise of the formal 17th century Ottoman Caliphate of Locke’s era, or currently, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, representing all 57 Muslim nations on earth, and the avatar of global Sharia as the oxymoronic “Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam,” timeless, totalitarian Islamic religious law is antithetical to the conceptions of religious tolerance formulated by Locke and other seminal Western political philosophers. Although Locke’s 1685 letter affirms that, “neither pagan, nor mahometan, nor jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth, because of his religion,” he appears to have understood the threat to a pluralistic multi-religious society posed by the eternal conception of a global Muslim umma, answerable in the end, only to Islam, and Islamic leadership.


That church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate, which is constituted upon such a bottom, that all those who enter into it, do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country, and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the court and the church afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute authority of the same person; who has not only power to persuade the members of his church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or as in order thereunto; but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a mahometan only in religion, but in every thing else a faithful subject to a christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the mufti of Constantinople; who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman emperor, and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure.

Source > http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/201...d-zero-mosque/

[Richard]

John Locke, Islamic Supremacism, and the Ground Zero Mosque
August 4th, 2010 by Andrew Bostom

A Letter Concerning Toleration
John Locke, 1689

http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm

Richard

[T-Rock]

A Letter Concerning Toleration
John Locke, 1689

http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm

Shariah, the Jizya, the penalty for Kufr, and the Kafiroon…

No-body therefore, in fine, neither single persons, nor churches, nay, nor even commonwealths, have any just title to invade the civil rights and worldly goods of each other, upon pretence of religion. Those that are of another opinion, would do well to consider with themselves how pernicious a seed of discord and war, how powerful a provocation to endless hatreds, rapines, and slaughters, they thereby furnish unto mankind. No peace and security, no not so much as common friendship, can ever be established or preserved amongst men, so long as this opinion prevails…

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=c...html&Itemid=27

[forward]

Hopefully I am within my lane and keeping the with spirit of this discussion.

Fareed Zakaria's response to the ADL's decision to object to the Mosque and the ADL's rebuttal.

Fareed's Letter to the ADL in regards to returning his Hubert Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms prize:

Dear Mr. Foxman,
Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. I was delighted and moved to have been chosen for it in good measure because of the high esteem in which I hold the ADL. I have always been impressed by the fact that your mission is broad – “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens” – and you have interpreted it broadly over the decades. You have fought discrimination against all religions, races, and creeds and have built a well-deserved reputation.

That is why I was stunned at your decision to publicly side with those urging the relocation of the planned Islamic center in lower Manhattan. You are choosing to use your immense prestige to take a side that is utterly opposed to the animating purpose of your organization. Your own statements subsequently, asserting that we must honor the feelings of victims even if irrational or bigoted, made matters worse.

This is not the place to debate the press release or your statements. Many have done this and I have written about it in Newsweek and on my television show – both of which will be out over the weekend. The purpose of this letter is more straightforward. I cannot in good conscience hold onto the award or the honorarium that came with it and am returning both. I hope that it might add to the many voices that have urged you to reconsider and reverse your position on this issue. This decision will haunt the ADL for years if not decades to come. Whether or not the center is built, what is at stake here is the integrity of the ADL and its fidelity to its mission. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain your reputation.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/06/f...o-the-adl.html

The ADL's response.

To which Foxman responded, in part:

I hope you have read our statement on the proposed Islamic Center at Ground Zero and, more importantly, understand our position. We did not oppose the right for an Islamic Center or a mosque to be built. What we did was to make an appeal based solely on the issues of location and sensitivity. If the stated goal was to advance reconciliation and understanding, we believe taking into consideration the feelings of many victims and their families, of first responders and many New Yorkers, who are not bigots but still feel the pain of 9/11, would go a long way to achieving that reconciliation.

ADL has and will continue to stand up for Muslims and others where they are targets of racism and bigotry, as we have done at the request of and on behalf of Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plu...rs_really.html

Pull the wool off and see the world.

V/r,

Forward

[T-Rock]

Fareed Zakaria's response...

Isn't he one of the writers that influences Obama's perception - "The Post American World" ?

Obama_post_america_2.jpg

A Syrian's perception:

When Islam Acts Like a Conquering Army

By Farid Ghadry
Reform Party of Syria

One does not celebrate a victory by planting one's flag on the soil of the enemy unless he is occupying that land or intends to occupy it. If the Mosque is to be built in New York next to Ground Zero, then we might as well move Iwo Jima Memorial to Japan.

Some 25 years ago, I met at the infamous Le Fouqet in Paris with a Saudi national businessman who was very close to the al-Saud. It was a business meeting but because of few drinks the Saudi had, the conversation quickly turned to politics. Knowing I held a US passport as well as a Saudi one, he had a message for the US: Saudi Arabia will become the most powerful country and we will conquer all lands.

It was almost comedic hearing a Saudi, half inebriated, claim world dominance. The connect between his words and reality were so far apart, I did not give it too much thought at the time, nor did I fully understand what his words meant. These were the words of a drunkard fool after all.

Saudi Arabia controls Makah and Medina, the two Holiest Places in Islam. This means that 1.5 billion Muslims turn their heads and kneel for Saudi Arabia five times a day as a reminder of their piety but more importantly their submission. What the Saudi businessman was telling me twenty five years ago was "It's not the oil stupid, it's religion". If we let Saudi Arabia fund and build the Mosque in New York as a token of their triumphalism over the US for 9/11, we are in fact not applying the Freedom of Religion laws but rather, we are giving my religion the chance to conquer New York by planting its flag of victory.

Mayor Bloomberg is focused on one set of laws when he should be investigating every religious edict or Fatwa of Islam that emanated from our scholars the last 25 years. But what if religion acts like a conquering army? How could we reconcile this fact with our laws? Being an American, laws will always prevail, but being a Muslim also, I have a warning: We will conquer you if you do not change your laws accordingly.

The US better reconcile between Freedom of Religion and Islam as a conquering army soon. The two cannot co-exist for long.

http://www.aina.org/news/20100806211608.htm

[Sigaba]

The Economist's "Lexington" offers a POV that merits consideration. YMMV. Source is here.

Lexington
Build that mosque

The campaign against the proposed Cordoba centre in New York is unjust and dangerous

Aug 5th 2010

WHAT makes a Muslim in Britain or America wake up and decide that he is no longer a Briton or American but an Islamic “soldier” fighting a holy war against the infidel? Part of it must be pull: the lure of jihadism. Part is presumably push: a feeling that he no longer belongs to the place where he lives. Either way, the results can be lethal. A chilling feature of the suicide video left by Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the band that killed more than 50 people in London in July, 2005, was the homely Yorkshire accent in which he told his countrymen that “your” government is at war with “my people”.

For a while America seemed less vulnerable than Europe to home-grown jihadism. The Pew Research Centre reported three years ago that most Muslim Americans were “largely assimilated, happy with their lives… and decidedly American in their outlook, values and attitudes.” Since then it has become clear that American Muslims can be converted to terrorism too. Nidal Malik Hassan, born in America and an army major, killed 13 of his comrades in a shooting spree at Fort Hood. Faisal Shahzad, a legal immigrant, tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square. But something about America—the fact that it is a nation of immigrants, perhaps, or its greater religiosity, or the separation of church and state, or the opportunities to rise—still seems to make it an easier place than Europe for Muslims to feel accepted and at home.

It was in part to preserve this feeling that George Bush repeated like a scratched gramophone record that Americans were at war with the terrorists who had attacked them on 9/11, not at war with Islam. Barack Obama has followed suit: the White House national security strategy published in May says that one way to guard against radicalisation at home is to stress that “diversity is part of our strength—not a source of division or insecurity.” This is hardly rocket science. America is plainly safer if its Muslims feel part of “us” and not, like Mohammad Sidique Khan, part of “them”. And that means reminding Americans of the difference—a real one, by the way, not one fabricated for the purposes of political correctness—between Islam, a religion with a billion adherents, and al-Qaeda, a terrorist outfit that claims to speak in Islam’s name but has absolutely no right or mandate to do so.

Why would any responsible American politician want to erase that vital distinction? Good question. Ask Sarah Palin, or Newt Gingrich, or the many others who have lately clambered aboard the offensive campaign to stop Cordoba House, a proposed community centre and mosque, from being built in New York two blocks from the site of the twin towers. Every single argument put forward for blocking this project leans in some way on the misconceived notion that all Muslims, and Islam itself, share the responsibility for, or are tainted by, the atrocities of 9/11.

In a tweet last month from Alaska, Ms Palin called on “peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” the “ground-zero mosque” because it would “stab” American hearts. But why should it? Cordoba House is not being built by al-Qaeda. To the contrary, it is the brainchild of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a well-meaning American cleric who has spent years trying to promote interfaith understanding, not an apostle of religious war like Osama bin Laden. He is modelling his project on New York’s 92nd Street Y, a Jewish community centre that reaches out to other religions. The site was selected in part precisely so that it might heal some of the wounds opened by the felling of the twin towers and all that followed. True, some relatives of 9/11 victims are hurt by the idea of a mosque going up near the site. But that feeling of hurt makes sense only if they too buy the false idea that Muslims in general were perpetrators of the crime. Besides, what about the feelings, and for that matter the rights, of America’s Muslims—some of whom also perished in the atrocity?

Ms Palin’s argument does at least have one mitigating virtue: it concentrates on the impact the centre might have, without impugning the motives of those who want to build it. The same half-defence can be made of the Anti-Defamation League, a venerable Jewish organisation created to fight anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry. To the dismay of many liberal Jews, the ADL has also urged the centre’s backers to seek another site in order to spare the feelings of families of the 9/11 victims. But at least it concedes that they have every right to build at this site—and that they might (only might, since the ADL hints at vague concerns about their ideology and finances) genuinely have chosen it in order to send a positive message about Islam.


The Saudi non-sequitur

No such plea of mitigation can be entered on behalf of Mr Gingrich. The former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives may or may not have presidential pretensions, but he certainly has intellectual ones. That makes it impossible to excuse the mean spirit and scrambled logic of his assertion that “there should be no mosque near ground zero so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia”. Come again? Why hold the rights of Americans who happen to be Muslim hostage to the policy of a foreign country that happens also to be Muslim? To Mr Gingrich, it seems, an American Muslim is a Muslim first and an American second. Al-Qaeda would doubtless concur.

Mr Gingrich also objects to the centre’s name. Imam Feisal says he chose “Cordoba” in recollection of a time when the rest of Europe had sunk into the Dark Ages but Muslims, Jews and Christians created an oasis of art, culture and science. Mr Gingrich sees only a “deliberate insult”, a reminder of a period when Muslim conquerors ruled Spain. Like Mr bin Laden, Mr Gingrich is apparently still relitigating the victories and defeats of religious wars fought in Europe and the Middle East centuries ago. He should rejoin the modern world, before he does real harm.

[forward]

Fareed Zakaria's response...
Isn't he one of the writers that influences Obama's perception - "The Post American World" ?

One in the same. He isn't worth giving the time of day in my opinion yet many still will listen and take sides based at face value alone. It is tragic but true.

As for the BHO parallel...no comment.

[akv]

Originally Posted by T-Rock

Isn't he one of the writers that influences Obama's perception - "The Post American World" ?

T-Rock and forward,

Have either of you read Why Do they Hate Us, and what was your view on it?

If we see a picture of Zero holding a copy of Gates of Fire or Starship Troopers is that a positive on the chance he learns something, or reason to think less of Stephen Pressfield or Heinlein?

Folks have passionate views on this Mosque, but is your criticism of Zakaria linked to this issue alone, since he is hard to pigeon hole as anything other than a shrewd reporter. I certainly don't agree with his or any reporters views completely, yet he has taken both sides of the aisle to task on a variety of issues.

If you recall,

He was initially a supporter of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, His 2001 piece Why Do They Hate US, was a keen analysis of how to deal with the threat of Islam, He pulled no punches and basically blasted the Saudis and Arabs for the failings of the Islamic world. He tore Islamic violence nut Anjem Choudary a new one on his show, and ridiculed the Iranians on their election.

Folks often ask why don't Muslims denounce terror or speak up against tyranny, well what do you call his grilling of Choudary? Finally anyone who can tick James Carville off to the point of violent threats can't be all bad...

http://http://www.newsweek.com/2001/...y-hate-us.html

[T-Rock]

Why Do They Hate US, was a keen analysis...

I would respectfully disagree...why did they hate us in 1783 ?

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUuH2...ure=plpp_video

Finally anyone who can tick James Carville off to the point of violent threats can't be all bad

I can agree with this

ETA

FWIW, Fareed Zakaria thinks Hezbollah is a good model of Religious Tolerance...

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...gogue.cnn.html

Why color Hezbollah as a tolerant organization when its goals are to wipe Israel from the face of the earth?

[Richard]

Re: Occidental Soapbox as cited in post #70 (http://occidentalsoapbox.blogspot.co...-did-they.html)

America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collecti.../mtjprece.html

Richard

[forward]

akv,

Thank you for taking the time and writing several great points. They are issues worth discussing.

After reading, Why Do They Hate Us, I concluded that Zakaria makes a very logical and concise case that the root of the "religious extremist" is a dysfunctional society brought about my the incompetence of leadership. -Makes sense, at face value. I agree with him on several points concerning the complexity of America appeal and the founded fears of Islamic countries for helping the US.

For what it is worth, evaluating a source, understanding the individuals background, and putting the person in context of the times, is important to understanding why something is presented as it is. In this case, an American who is the son of a Indian congressmen and Islamic scholar, and a Muslim who grew up in Bombay.

"The historian Paul Johnson has argued that Islam is intrinsically an intolerant and violent religion. Other scholars have disagreed, pointing out that Islam condemns the slaughter of innocents and prohibits suicide. Nothing will be solved by searching for "true Islam" or quoting the Quran. The Quran is a vast, vague book, filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible)."

(http://fc.yarmouth.k12.me.us/~david_...theyhateus.pdf)

I take issue with the above mentioned (see thread http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...ad.php?t=29876) and now further question his motives. It appears, MOO, that he is trying to keep this secular by removing the fundamental root causes of why Islam (as a form of governance) is in at least some small part responsible for the series of events that lead the Arab world astray from the "progress" they enjoyed during the fifties and sixties. (That however is an entirely different problem for another time.)

Every Islamic country in the world has condemned the attacks of Sept. 11. To many, bin Laden belongs to a long line of extremists who have invoked religion to justify mass murder and spur men to suicide.

(http://fc.yarmouth.k12.me.us/~david_...theyhateus.pdf)

This is flat out a slighting of fact to create a unified impression of condemnation. It is cleverly crafted and it leads the reader to believe that both the people and the heads of state abhorred the cowardly attacks of 9/11. Look at the footage coming out of Palestine and I believe it was Saddam Hussein who said, " "I don't think that your [US] administration deserves the condolences of Iraqis, except if it presents its condolences to the Iraqi people for the 1,500,000 Iraqis it killed, and apologises to them ..." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001...aq.afghanistan) Yes he gave the American people his condolences but to follow up with that trash? Thank you for your time see you in two years. But I digress.

There is no doubt that Mr. Zakaria is a brilliant man, but how can such a "secular" individual not address the issues and built a complete picture of the problem? He promotes and highlights facts, admittedly better than a politician, but in a matter to create subtle implications to guide a reader to a flawed conclusion. His motivations and end state are beguiling to me, though this is only my opinion and I have yet to read his four books to reach a formal conclusion.

As far as the conclusions concerning BHO reading his work... Well I am sure that he has learned something from his book, but unlike Gates of Fire or Starship Trooper the topic has a direct bearing on current events and more importantly contribute to the formulation of thoughts on the subject by our Commander in Chief. I would simply hope (against all reason in this case) that POTUS would formulate and take a deeper look at the motivations behind said information.

He supported "stirring the pot" prior to the invasion, condemned it during, and praised the surge for working. Flip flop.

He isn't all bad but I take what he says with a very large helping of salt. Like you said, "Finally anyone who can tick James Carville off to the point of violent threats can't be all bad."

Good points made though and it reminded me that I need to keep an open perspective. As Herbert Spencer once said:

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation.

[DJ Urbanovsky]

"The site was selected in part precisely so that it might heal some of the wounds opened by the felling of the twin towers and all that followed. True, some relatives of 9/11 victims are hurt by the idea of a mosque going up near the site. But that feeling of hurt makes sense only if they too buy the false idea that Muslims in general were perpetrators of the crime. Besides, what about the feelings, and for that matter the rights, of America’s Muslims—some of whom also perished in the atrocity?"

Horseshit, I say.

When the real victims of the 9/11 attack (the friends and families of those who died in the towers - the ones who are left behind to deal with it all) are saying "We oppose this. This is wrong. This HURTS us!" What then? Is that promoting healing? I think it's rubbing salt in the wound.

To hell with what we think. We should be listening to what THOSE people think.

[dadof18x'er]

Originally Posted by bubblehead

The motives behind building the Mosque are questionable, however, the people who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks were Islamic Terrorists.

In the US, we also have Right-Wing Christian Terrorists. Had the people who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks been Right-Wing Christian Terrorists, would you feel the same anger even though they were American and Christian?

Islamic Terrorists are the enemy not all followers of Islam.

here's another take on "motives" IMHO I think it nails it.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010...ound-zero.html

[The Reaper]

"Besides, what about the feelings, and for that matter the rights, of America’s Muslims—some of whom also perished in the atrocity?"

Does he mean the ones hijacking the planes?

TR