Ground Zero Mosque

[Darth Avlectus]

If moslems definitively condemn the extremists in their beliefs who carry out these terrible actions, as all others condemn the terrible extremists in their respective religions, then we have some common ground from which to move forward and build a framework for future unity that will be in trust.

 

Until then, mistrust will continue between one another.

[Ping]

@Evil Q: Quite honestly, I've never really cared how people perceive me.

 

Also, I believe that's the only time I've ever used a biased source.

[Totenkopf]

The entire argument in NYC would be completely legitimate if it wasn't for

 

A) every other mosque protest;

B) the conclusion that every Muslim holds the same outlook as their comrades within a radical minority;

C) the portrayal of a sample population of an entire religion and its adherents as a monolithic bloc by using sweeping, vague terms;

D) the irrational fear of the subjugation of American civilization by said religion, akin to antisemitism and McCarthyism;

E) the view that the U.S. Constitution seems to make an exception with this religious group, questioning whether even natural-born citizens should be allowed to exercise their natural rights as taxpayers.

 

Regardless of reasons A-E, the case vs the mosque in NYC is less b/c it's a mosque and almost exclusively b/c of location (as well as legitimate questions....Mayor Bloomberg notwithstanding...about its financing). I don't see the US or various state govts forbidding the building of mosques in the US on principle alone. Nor, for that matter, do I see the govt cracking down on and closing mosques throughout the US. As to anti-semitism, non-sequitur b/c when's the last time a radical Jewish group simultaneously attacked the US at multiple targets? Pre-911, most Americans could've given a rat's ass about where muslims settled or worshipped in the US. Ditto on McCarthyism. He was actually right about the level of penetration of the US by communists (Venona Papers), but managed to alienate too many people in the process of trying to ferret them out.

 

The problem with the "muslim issue" is the same as with the "immigration issue"......that people concerned about the problem are painted as irrational racists and nativists. I rarely see anyone saying that ALL moslems or even ALL immigrants are "evil", but you wouldn't know that from a lot of media coverage that carelessly or purposely confuses the issues by conflating all muslims as being viewed as radicals and all immigrants as illegal by large sections of the population. Thus, anti-radical Islam is portrayed as anti-Islamic sentiment in general and anti-illegal aliens is labeled anti-immigrant. This only poisons the well.

 

As for the NYC Mosque-civic center, Gingrich and others have actually made a legitimate observation. If it's merely about healing, there's enough room in a proposed 15 story structure to have an interfaith setup. The building could have multiple religious "buildings" w/in. Temples, chapels, mosques, etc.. that would lend credence to the aforementioned claim. Otherwise, perhaps they could take a page from the Catholic church and not build a convent near a former concentration camp site b/c it's in dubiuous form to do so.

[jrrtoken]

If moslems definitively condemn the extremists in their beliefs who carry out these terrible actions, as all others condemn the terrible extremists in their respective religions, then we have some common ground from which to move forward and build a framework for future unity that will be in trust.

 

Until then, mistrust will continue between one another.

The thing is, that's been happening immediately after 9/11. Pretty much every Islamic society in the U.S. and even throughout the world immediately denounced al-Qaeda & Co. It wasn't just affluent, Western Muslims, though; even the most conservative and prestigious ulema have labeled bin Laden as a literal apostate. The problem is not why Muslims haven't denounced Islamic terrorism, the problem is no one in the media seems to listen, or they're simply conveniently ignoring it.

 

This brings up a whole other issue: why should mainstream, moderate Muslims have to apologize for heinous, sinful acts committed by other Muslims near and far? When an abortion doctor is murdered, or a gay bar is bombed, do we see an entire Christian community rise and vehemently apologize for the act, assuring citizens that the crime is not representative of their own religion, in an attempt to dispel and prevent any violent backlash or sentiments of hate? No, that's silly and irrational; just why would it be incumbent on every individual Christian in the world to sound an alarm for a tragedy related by a single thread? Transport that same sentiment, and you can very well see why it's also unreasonable to expect Muslims to repeatedly do the same thing.

 

As to anti-semitism, non-sequitur b/c when's the last time a radical Jewish group simultaneously attacked the US at multiple targets? Pre-911, most Americans could've given a rat's ass about where muslims settled or worshipped in the US.

The contention is not the circumstance or the context, but the reaction to it. For the most part, it has not been singling out a specific minority within Islam, but Islam and Muslims as a whole. Given that; yes, there is a legitimate threat coming from radicalized Muslims, and yes, we Americans should try to combat it, both domestically, and when justified, internationally; this is also incumbent upon Muslims within the U.S.

 

What is happening is a massive overreaction to a surgical problem. Determining which Muslim is radical or not is difficult, simply put. Should we, however, assume that every Muslim is inherently radical? No, that's irrational; but that doesn't let fear and hysteria get in the way. See Japanese American internment, HUAC, and of course there's the motherload, but that's bringing up Godwin's, so... >_>

The problem with the "muslim issue" is the same as with the "immigration issue"......that people concerned about the problem are painted as irrational racists and nativists. I rarely see anyone saying that ALL moslems or even ALL immigrants are "evil", but you wouldn't know that from a lot of media coverage that carelessly or purposely confuses the issues by conflating all muslims as being viewed as radicals and all immigrants as illegal by large sections of the population. Thus, anti-radical Islam is portrayed as anti-Islamic sentiment in general and anti-illegal aliens is labeled anti-immigrant. This only poisons the well.

I agree; it's just as destructive as, say, labeling all Muslims as inherently violent. In reality, only a few, vocal individuals who oppose the mosque in NYC are bona-fide Islamophobes; the rest are either neutral or indifferent, which is probably the same attitude that mainstream America shares. Does this make the opposition inherently Islamophobic? Nope; most have legitimate concerns, and I think that those need to be addressed. That being said, I think that we can leave it safely at that.

As for the NYC Mosque-civic center, Gingrich and others have actually made a legitimate observation. If it's merely about healing, there's enough room in a proposed 15 story structure to have an interfaith setup. The building could have multiple religious "buildings" w/in. Temples, chapels, mosques, etc.. that would lend credence to the aforementioned claim. Otherwise, perhaps they could take a page from the Catholic church and not build a convent near a former concentration camp site b/c it's in dubiuous form to do so.

I also agree; the planning and PR from the Cordoba Initiative has been poor, to say the least, and much should have been considered and planned before the plans were finalized. So, yes, they're certainly at fault. However, I again feel that they're being criticized by many for completely different circumstances.

[Totenkopf]

The contention is not the circumstance or the context, but the reaction to it. For the most part, it has not been singling out a specific minority within Islam, but Islam and Muslims as a whole. Given that; yes, there is a legitimate threat coming from radicalized Muslims, and yes, we Americans should try to combat it, both domestically, and when justified, internationally; this is also incumbent upon Muslims within the U.S.

 

I think there are people that are taking a "damn them all and batten down the hatches" approach, but I don't believe it's the majority. I do realize that elements of the media are doing their utmost to color it that way, however. I'd agree with you in general that it's not fair to lump all people in a group, w/o proof to the contrary, into the same pot.

 

 

What is happening is a massive overreaction to a surgical problem. Determining which Muslim is radical or not is difficult, simply put. Should we, however, assume that every Muslim is inherently radical? No, that's irrational; but that doesn't let fear and hysteria get in the way. See Japanese American internment, HUAC, and of course there's the motherload, but that's bringing up Godwin's, so... >_>

 

I do wonder how much of the internment wasn't also motivated in part by a fear of how the civillian population at large would react to those Americans of Japanese and even Italian and German descent. I'd say that, in the case of the Japanese (nisei, sansei, etc..), the combat record of the 442nd Cbt Rgmt should have put to rest any suspicions about loyalty. Not to mention the fact that many of the Japanese in Hawaii were not sent to internment camps either.

[Darth Avlectus]

The thing is, that's been happening immediately after 9/11. Pretty much every Islamic society in the U.S. and even throughout the world immediately denounced al-Qaeda & Co. It wasn't just affluent, Western Muslims, though; even the most conservative and prestigious ulema have labeled bin Laden as a literal apostate. The problem is not why Muslims haven't denounced Islamic terrorism, the problem is no one in the media seems to listen, or they're simply conveniently ignoring it.

Well, now that is true. I do have a 67 year old friend (Persian Moslem) who immigrated here 30+ years ago. He and his mother came here so that they could enjoy liberty, and so that his mother could basically have a nicer place to spend her final years without stigma of being old and single, etc. where they used to live. (To the best of my understanding.)

 

He is like any other person I know and in fact would probably surprise people with his stances on many issues. Which, yes, would never get coverage.

 

This brings up a whole other issue: why should mainstream, moderate Muslims have to apologize for heinous, sinful acts committed by other Muslims near and far? When an abortion doctor is murdered, or a gay bar is bombed, do we see an entire Christian community rise and vehemently apologize for the act, assuring citizens that the crime is not representative of their own religion, in an attempt to dispel and prevent any violent backlash or sentiments of hate? No, that's silly and irrational; just why would it be incumbent on every individual Christian in the world to sound an alarm for a tragedy related by a single thread? Transport that same sentiment, and you can very well see why it's also unreasonable to expect Muslims to repeatedly do the same thing.

Very well.

 

As a whole, they shouldn't have to, unless as a collective whole group they are trying to go forward with something. Then at which point they would need to clarify. Otherwise, it should just be hinged upon the individual when asked of him/her in passing.

[Ping]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100814/ts_afp/uspoliticsreligionattacksobama_20100814172344

 

While the subject of the article is about Obama's support, the one thing that shocked me was the fact that a Church is going to hold a "Koran-burning."

[jrrtoken]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100814/ts_afp/uspoliticsreligionattacksobama_20100814172344

 

While the subject of the article is about Obama's support, the one thing that shocked me was the fact that a Church is going to hold a "Koran-burning."

I gotta give the guy credit; he brings forth a good argument. Basically, if you're Christian, you should burn the Qur'an. Islam is of the devil, because, well, Islam is of the devil. He's made some awesome lectures on YouTube, though:

 

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

 

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

 

Step aside, Fred Phelps; there's an new sheriff in town...

[Ten-96]

It's not only the location of the proposed mosque but also the religious leader for the center - Feisal Abdul Rauf. Rauf has been in print and on video as of late and believes the United States Foreign Policy was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Rauf also refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

 

What about some of the surviving family members of those who died in the 9-11 attacks? Are they racist or bigoted because they oppose? We have the freedom to practice any religion in this country. We do not have the freedom to place our respective religious centers anywhere we want.

 

I, too, am opposed to the location of this proposed center. Someone here mentioned location, location, location and I found it to be ironic. Let's say a white supremacist group decided they needed a new center for their members. They decide to build the new center in the immediate area of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. Would you all be in support of it? Remember, not all white supremacist group members have engaged in violence against blacks, jews or homosexuals. In fact, the majority of their members are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who just so happen to believe that the white race is superior to all others.

[Ping]

It's not only the location of the proposed mosque but also the religious leader for the center - Feisal Abdul Rauf. Rauf has been in print and on video as of late and believes the United States Foreign Policy was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Rauf also refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

 

What about some of the surviving family members of those who died in the 9-11 attacks? Are they racist or bigoted because they oppose? We have the freedom to practice any religion in this country. We do not have the freedom to place our respective religious centers anywhere we want.

 

I, too, am opposed to the location of this proposed center. Someone here mentioned location, location, location and I found it to be ironic. Let's say a white supremacist group decided they needed a new center for their members. They decide to build the new center in the immediate area of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. Would you all be in support of it? Remember, not all white supremacist group members have engaged in violence against blacks, jews or homosexuals. In fact, the majority of their members are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who just so happen to believe that the white race is superior to all others.

 

It sounds as if you think white supremecists are better than Muslims, quite frankly. The way I see it, that's pretty much a different case; Islam is not a religion of hate, but white supremecists do hate everyone who isn't white. To me, it appears as if you think all Muslims have been terrorists or broken the law.

 

Also, you're going to have to back-up the first part of your argument. I personally don't mind people's opinions on Hamas; yeah, they've done pretty questionable things, to put it mildly, though they pale in comparison to al-Qaeda. I have never seen an article saying the guy believed the U.S. State Dept. was behind 9/11.

[Ten-96]

I never inferred that white supremacists are better than muslims. I gave an example. As far as white supremacy being based on hate, just ask and they'll tell you they do not hate - they believe themselves to be superior to all other races, per se. Nowhere in my post did I allude that all muslims are terrorists nor did I mention the U.S. State Department. However, all of the recent terrorist attacks or plots against the United States have been carried out or attempted by muslims with the exception of Timothy McVeigh. As far as islam not being a religion of hate, we will have to agree to disagree. There are other posts on these boards where I make my opinion known about the islamic faith.

 

Here is just one article about Feisal Abdul Rauf.

 

Here is another.

[jrrtoken]

It's not only the location of the proposed mosque but also the religious leader for the center - Feisal Abdul Rauf. Rauf has been in print and on video as of late and believes the United States Foreign Policy was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Rauf also refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Yeah, I've heard that, too. Do I think that he was explicit in citing 9/11 as an inside job? No; I think he's trying to say that U.S. foreign policy has served as a catalyst for Islamic terrorism. When looking at the history of the Middle East in the 20th century, that isn't really a far-fetched claim, to say the least.

 

He phrased it in a completely horrible manner, but his point still stands.

 

However, all of the recent terrorist attacks or plots against the United States have been carried out or attempted by muslims with the exception of Timothy McVeigh.

Terrorism isn't exclusive to any particular age or ideal; it's a perennial phenomenon. Fifty years ago it was communist sympathizers and white supremacists; a hundred years ago it was federal anarchists; 150 years ago it was radical abolitionists and southern nationalists. Twenty years from now, it might be firearms activists, or PETA militias; stating "Well, we don't see terrorists coming from [insert group]" is fallacious, because chances are that we have seen or we will see terrorists produced by some ideology.

 

As far as islam not being a religion of hate, we will have to agree to disagree. There are other posts on these boards where I make my opinion known about the islamic faith.

If this debate is going to be about the mosque and the mosque alone, then any conceptions, right or wrong, about Islam should be addressed here before we move any further.

[Ten-96]

He phrased it in a completely horrible manner, but his point still stands.

 

I'm confused - are you saying you agree with Rauf that United States foreign policy was a catalyst for the 9-11 attacks; ie. we brought this on ourselves?

 

Terrorism isn't exclusive to any particular age or ideal; it's a perennial phenomenon. Fifty years ago it was communist sympathizers and white supremacists; a hundred years ago it was federal anarchists; 150 years ago it was radical abolitionists and southern nationalists. Twenty years from now, it might be firearms activists, or PETA militias; stating "Well, we don't see terrorists coming from [insert group]" is fallacious, because chances are that we have seen or we will see terrorists produced by some ideology.

 

The difference is white supremacists, PETA and environmental groups aren't attempting to bring about the destruction and downfall of the United States. Those groups do not hold the United States as the purveyor of all ills in the world. Call them extremists or radicalized, they get their start in islam.

 

If this debate is going to be about the mosque and the mosque alone, then any conceptions, right or wrong, about Islam should be addressed here before we move any further.

 

This debate isn't about the mosque, it's about the location of the mosque. I'm sure there are numerous places in Manhattan where they could build this new mosque.

 

Therein lies the problem. How can someone convince someone else that their view of a particular subject is right or wrong? I'm sure my view of islam differs from yours. It doesn't make my views right or wrong because there's a consensus on the subject.

 

My posts in the Fort Hood Shooting Thread.

[jrrtoken]

I'm confused - are you saying you agree with Rauf that United States foreign policy was a catalyst for the 9-11 attacks; ie. we brought this on ourselves?

No; I am not in any way implying that the U.S. contributed to the 9/11 attack directly, nor Islamic terrorism as a whole. What does factor into the terrorism equation is the development of the narrative behind it; i.e. perceived Western aggression towards Islam, imperialism in the Middle East, etc. All of this propaganda is founded upon the influence of Western powers in the Middle East during the 20th century, which is an undeniable fact.

 

Take T.E. Lawrence; why do you think the British sent him to Arabia to spur a revolt? To weaken the Ottoman Empire, which collapsed, and was partitioned by the Allies. The nations formed by various Allied powers were eventually installed with Western-friendly governments, like Iran, Iraq, etc. During the Cold War, those reigning were staunchly anti-communist, and those that had presumed communist sympathies were usually overthrown by Western-backed coups; see the re-installment of the Shah. The anti-communist leaders usually weren't better; see Saddam Hussein, and the former example.

 

I'd go on, but here's the point: America has indirectly contributed to the rise of Islamic terrorism in the 20th century and beyond, and by extension, could be considered a factor to 9/11. This notion does not mean "The U.S. allowed 9/11 to happen" or "It was an inside job", but it does state that the U.S. is very loosely responsible. Now, terrorist organizations have used U.S. influence in the Middle East as propaganda, and the implications of the U.S. have been exaggerated beyond belief, but all propaganda is based on some truth, no matter what.

 

The difference is white supremacists, PETA and environmental groups aren't attempting to bring about the destruction and downfall of the United States. Those groups do not hold the United States as the purveyor of all ills in the world. Call them extremists or radicalized, they get their start in islam.

That's too coddling; many neo-Nazi groups have advocated anarchy on a national level; see The Turner Diaries. Even then, this is a bad argument; totalism like this abstractly redefines "terrorism", and saying that some groups are or are not "terrorist" enough to be considered bona-fide terrorists is rather dangerous. Assassinating a head of state due to political beliefs is as "terrorist" as plotting to detonate a nuke in D.C.; there is no room for subjectivity.

 

This debate isn't about the mosque, it's about the location of the mosque. I'm sure there are numerous places in Manhattan where they could build this new mosque.

Maybe, but there might be other factors considering the location, as others have noticed. Personally, they should've been much more wary of the proximity to the WTC, but that's a dead point. Even if it was built three blocks away, or six blocks away, or nine blocks away, there would probably still be a controversy.

 

There's a strip club three blocks away from the WTC. I ask you, would that also be seen as an affront to the victims of 9/11?

 

Therein lies the problem. How can someone convince someone else that there view of a particular subject is right or wrong? I'm sure my view of islam differs from yours. It doesn't make my views right or wrong because there's a consensus on the subject. I will look for the posts I made and provide a link to them when I get a chance.

Subjectivity is not equal to objectivity. If you'd noticed when researching Islam, it shares many parallels with Judaism and Christianity, including the "violent" parts. Now, if Islam is considered a "violent religion", then by extension, would this also be applicable to the former two faiths?

 

And before you respond "Well, in the context of...___... it's OK", then would this not be the same for Islam? if you've read a reliable and objective biography of Muhammad, you'd realize that early Islam has much in common with the perennial plights of the Israelites, or the life of Abraham, or the Exodus. Yes, there's violence, but the adherents of all of these faiths have dutifully denounced these allegations with theological and physical arguments. This is the just same for Islam.

[Ping]

The difference is white supremacists, PETA and environmental groups aren't attempting to bring about the destruction and downfall of the United States. Those groups do not hold the United States as the purveyor of all ills in the world. Call them extremists or radicalized, they get their start in islam.

 

By this comment, I'm inferring that you believe all Muslims want the U.S. to be destroyed. That's a narrow-minded view, to put it politely (now, I normally don't sugarcoat things, but I'm doing it to stay on the moderator's good side). Have you even met a Muslim before? They're normal people like you and me. The terrorists are the ones who want to destroy the U.S., not the religion. If you can't or refuse to see that - I'm sorry, but there's no nice way to say this - then that's just plain stupidity on your part.

[Ten-96]

No; I am not in any way implying that the U.S. contributed to the 9/11 attack directly, nor Islamic terrorism as a whole. What does factor into the terrorism equation is the development of the narrative behind it; i.e. perceived Western aggression towards Islam, imperialism in the Middle East, etc. All of this propaganda is founded upon the influence of Western powers in the Middle East during the 20th century, which is an undeniable fact.

 

I'd go on, but here's the point: America has indirectly contributed to the rise of Islamic terrorism in the 20th century and beyond, and by extension, could be considered a factor to 9/11.

 

I may be reading you wrong, but to me; you sound as if you think we're partly responsible for 9-11. I don't mean the "inside job" or "allowing the attacks to happen" - I mean you sound as if you believe our way of life and the things we do here made us a target for terrorism.

 

That's too coddling; many neo-Nazi groups have advocated anarchy on a national level; see The Turner Diaries. Even then, this is a bad argument; totalism like this abstractly redefines "terrorism", and saying that some groups are or are not "terrorist" enough to be considered bona-fide terrorists is rather dangerous. Assassinating a head of state due to political beliefs is as "terrorist" as plotting to detonate a nuke in D.C.; there is no room for subjectivity.

 

Those groups target single individuals and corporations, not an entire nation.

 

Maybe, but there might be other factors considering the location, as others have noticed. Personally, they should've been much more wary of the proximity to the WTC, but that's a dead point. Even if it was built three blocks away, or six blocks away, or nine blocks away, there would probably still be a controversy.

There's a strip club three blocks away from the WTC. I ask you, would that also be seen as an affront to the victims of 9/11?

 

Was the strip club already there and did the strippers and management happen to have killed about 3000 people beforehand?

 

Subjectivity is not equal to objectivity. If you'd noticed when researching Islam, it shares many parallels with Judaism and Christianity, including the "violent" parts. Now, if Islam is considered a "violent religion", then by extension, would this also be applicable to the former two faiths?

 

And before you respond "Well, in the context of...___... it's OK", then would this not be the same for Islam? if you've read a reliable and objective biography of Muhammad, you'd realize that early Islam has much in common with the perennial plights of the Israelites, or the life of Abraham, or the Exodus. Yes, there's violence, but the adherents of all of these faiths have dutifully denounced these allegations with theological and physical arguments. This is the just same for Islam.

 

There are numerous references to violence in the Bible. Most are either directed by God or carried out by God. Conversely, the qur'an has even more references to violence directed at those who are not islam believers.

 

Muhammed married an 8 year old child. I'll leave this discussion with a few questions: If islam is a religion of peace, where are the extremists getting their ideas? Are they getting their ideas from a person or group of persons who have corrupted the tenents? Or, are they getting their ideas directly from the qur'an?

 

It's obvious to me that the majority here still believe islam to be a religion of peace as I used to believe. I know I won't change anyone's opinion of islam but I've had my say and thank you all for haring me out.

[Ping]

@Ten-96: You fail to realize that the Koran actually says to show tolerance to Christians and Jews.

 

And you're just giving up? That's telling me you know you can't win, from my point of view. It's tempting to say because of that, you're in denial.

[mimartin]

Was the strip club already there and did the strippers and management happen to have killed about 3000 people beforehand?

Please list the future members of the Mosque that killed 3000 people?

[jrrtoken]

I may be reading you wrong, but to me; you sound as if you think we're partly responsible for 9-11. I don't mean the "inside job" or "allowing the attacks to happen" - I mean you sound as if you believe our way of life and the things we do here made us a target for terrorism.

U.S. foreign policy has inadvertadly earned the ire of would-be terrorists. Does this mean that America has erred, and should be held responsible for it? No, because few foresaw the consequences, and the intentions weren't "evil" to begin with. You're reading far too much into this.

 

Those groups target single individuals and corporations, not an entire nation.

You're dodging the point. Violence is violence and murder is murder and terrorism is terrorism; ideology doesn't matter, the depravity does. It's like comparing Fatah and Hamas, and arriving at the conclusion that Hamas is "more terrorist" just because A) they're more active and more powerful currently; and B) they're Islamic-based while Fatah is nationalist. That's dangerous way to think, because in the end, they're both terrorists.

 

Was the strip club already there and did the strippers and management happen to have killed about 3000 people beforehand?

By that analogy, you're implying that Muslims as a whole are directly responsible for 9/11?

 

There are numerous references to violence in the Bible. Most are either directed by God or carried out by God. Conversely, the qur'an has even more references to violence directed at those who are not islam believers.

That's debatable, and is possibly reliant on misinformation. Besides, that's exceptionist; is it more morally acceptable for, say, the Israelites to massacre the city of Jericho than for the Muslim equivalent of the massacre of the tribe of Banu Qurayza? On what grounds, then; context? The pretty much the same.

 

Muhammed married an 8 year old child.

Ah yes, the hedonist clause. Are you unaware that polygamy and young marriages were common among affluent Israelites, and even by patriarchs?

 

I'll leave this discussion with a few questions: If islam is a religion of peace, where are the extremists getting their ideas? Are they getting their ideas from a person or group of persons who have corrupted the tenents? Or, are they getting their ideas directly from the qur'an?

I'd say it's both. Terrorists like bin Laden and Hasan have been directly influenced by the teachings of radical clerics. These clerics have based their views on the already multi-faceted doctrine of jihad. As your studies of jihad have pointed out, it has been divided upon "lesser" and "greater" jihad, one of which is based on physical defense of Islam and Muslims, and the other representing the daily struggle of temptation and evil, respectively.

 

You'd also understand that the context of jihad within the Qur'an is based on purely self-defense and defense of others; it explicitly mentions that any wanton slaughter or excessive combat is a grievous sin, as it makes the defender just as sinful as the invader. The period of self-defense must also be in proportion to offense, and if the attacks cease, then so should the defenders declare armistice. This contradicts Islamic terrorism directly, and exposes the illegality of al-Qaeda & Co. within Islamic jurisprudence.

[Tommycat]

I'll leave this discussion with a few questions: If islam is a religion of peace, where are the extremists getting their ideas? Are they getting their ideas from a person or group of persons who have corrupted the tenents? Or, are they getting their ideas directly from the qur'an?

Actually, this is one area you really don't want to go. They get their extremist ideas from the same place that Extremist Christian groups get their ideas. Misinterpretations of select passages. They make up their own rules based on how they want to interpret it.

[VeniVidiVicous]

I mean you sound as if you believe our way of life and the things we do here made us a target for terrorism.

 

With respect, you missed the point here.

 

It's not the American way of life he was refering to, it was American involvement in Middle-Eastern affairs.

[jawathehutt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0&feature=player_embedded

Usually I avoid 24 hour propaganda channels but this was actually decent, and compared to glenn becks response to it, it makes Keith Olbermann look like a god of debate.

[Totenkopf]

Yeah, one more example of a far left lib pundit trying to cast opposition to the proposed location of an Islamic Mosque/Center as mob mentality. Way to go Keith. Seems to me that many of the public figures rallying to the defense of this building are intent to mischarachterize the opposition as to it's being built at all rather than where it's being built. While there are those that would like to see Islam thrown out of America on its backside, most Americans seem to be merely asking for a little sensitivity on WHERE rather than if. Had the Japanese decided to build a Shinto shrine near Pearl Harbor in the 1950s, I'm sure people would have been equally offended. The main questions I've heard from serious people is why the developer is tone deaf on the location issue and where the sources of $$ for the building will be coming from in the end.

[jawathehutt]

All right since Islam in not the majority religion in the US, lets use a hypothetical situation and tell me what the country's reaction would be to it. A high percentage of those involved with drug cartels in Mexico are Christian. Hundreds to thousands of people are killed in Mexico, the boarder and the boarder states every month. What if people started demanding that churches not be built because their funding was coming from Mexico and possibly sources with vague connections to cartels in the 90s and because its a victory monument to for the Christian cartel monuments. After all, how is this different? So the 9/11 attacks happened 1 day, the drug war has been going on for years. Probably a lot more dead from the drug wars. Isnt it a little insensitive to build churches that cartel fighters and leaders could worship in, even after killing American citizens?

[Totenkopf]

Perhaps if the drug cartels were committing their violence in the name of Jesus or somesuch you might be better able to make your case. Here, you're merely reaching. I should also add that the majority of the US population IS Christian, so does that mean by extension that all (future?)Christian (or perhaps, more specifically, Catholic) Churches should somehow be banned in the border states under your scenario? I'd agree that in cases where any funding of a church could be linked to specific criminal enterprises that such funding be refused or the project be abandonned (much like the question of where the Park51...ie Cordoba... project funding is coming from). Besides, as an aside, the intransigence that the developers are putting up belies any claims of wanting to "heal" anything.