Palestinian Researcher: A Legal Victory in Ground Zero Mosque Could Cause the Muslims to Lose the Battle that Counts – The One for Coexistence

 

In a recent article in the PA daily Al-Ayyam, Dr. Khaled Al-Haroub, a Palestinian researcher at Cambridge University, praised the freedom and tolerance enjoyed by the Muslims in the West, and criticized the Muslims for waging legal battles over marginal issues like the Ground Zero mosque, which provoke Western society and could end up ruining their relations with their neighbors in the West.

We Must "Not Let Marginal Issues Ruin the Relations between the Muslim Communities in the West and the Societies that Host Them"

 "There have been reports in the media that Muslims in Canada and Italy are holding their Ramadan prayers in churches [this year], because there are not enough mosques and Islamic centers to contain their great numbers. The most important point in these reports is the permission granted by priests and by those in charge of the churches to hold [Muslim] prayers there. [When asked about it,] some of the priests indicated that the Christians' experience with the Muslims in mixed neighborhoods has been positive, and that is what led them to welcome [the Muslims] into their churches and let them pray there.

"In Denmark, which has been the target of a vicious campaign throughout the Muslim world because of the rashness of some [Danish] cartoonists, there was a touching human story that was reported in the news about a Muslim Somali bus driver. One morning, when he came to work and got on the bus, he found it full of flowers, gifts and greeting cards. They were placed there by the people of the neighborhood whom he serves every day. Later he understood that it was all for his birthday, which passes every year without his noticing it. [There are many] such stories about coexistence, and about touching human gestures that Westerners have made towards Muslims out of personal regard, far from any consideration of religious or ethnic background. The problem is that the media  – both in the Arab word and in the West – focuses on negative and blood-soaked stories, on everything that [undermines] coexistence and perpetuates the belief that East and West have no common ground.

"We should think deeply about [this] civilized and progressive step of allowing the Muslims to hold their Ramadan prayers in the churches, and about what can be learned from this [affair]. First of all, we can say that it forces us to examine our priorities, and not to let marginal [issues] ruin the relations between the Muslim communities in the West and the societies that host them. These marginal [issues] do not interest the majority [of Muslims] and are not considered fundamentals of the faith. At the same time, they are seen as provocative, [because they] touch a nerve and stir up unnecessary hatred among the people of the West."

"A Legal Verdict Permitting [the Muslims] to Build a Mosque against the Will of Over Half the [City's] Population Cannot Be Regarded as a Victory"

"Here are two examples of issues that cause [people] to waste time and effort on meaningless battles: the [issue] of the niqab in Europe, and the issue of the mosque or Islamic center that is to be built in New York near [the former site of] the Twin Towers. Regarding the niqab: the Muslims, especially those who [were allowed] to hold their Ramadan prayers [in the churches], must oppose [the attempt] to reduce the image of Islam to [the narrow issue of] the niqab. [This issue] concerns only a small number of women who wear the niqab in Europe without even knowing why, so it is not something worth fighting for... As for the mosque that sparked so much opposition, and provided the conservative and Zionist right so much ammunition with which to attack the American Muslims – this too is a losing battle, politically and culturally, even if the [Muslims] involved in it win the legal [battle over it]. From a purely legal and theoretical perspective, the New York Muslims have the right to build a mosque and an Islamic center as they wish, within the boundaries of the municipal laws. They are citizens of this cosmopolitan city, just like any other citizens of any other religion. However, the principle that should guide those who wish to build the mosque transcends the [dry letter of the] law and the [goal] of scoring legal points. After all, a legal verdict permitting them to build a mosque against the will of over half the [city's] population cannot be regarded as a victory. Building a mosque near that place [i.e., Ground Zero], legally or illegally, is a provocation that hurts people's feelings, so it is inappropriate to insist on building it on that spot, of all places...

"The example of the mosque is similar to many [other] instances that occurred in the West, in which the Muslims hurried to turn to the law for protection and for help in pursuing some goal or interest. Taking legal action in pursuit of interests is a natural and usual option in the West, where the judiciary system is usually fair and is not controlled by the government. Nevertheless, it is not wise to take every issue, large or small, to the courts, and it is certainly [unwise] in the case of a marginal issue. A short-term victory in the legal arena will lead in the long run to a defeat in the cultural and political arenas. Provoking the other side will eventually create public opinion that will undermine the very laws that the Muslims evoke today. How do the Muslims benefit... from the legal victory of a nurse who does not wish work with her arms exposed, and therefore forces the health ministry to pass a new regulation [permitting her to wear disposable sleeves], when a Christian nurse loses the legal battle over the right  to wear a crucifix to work...? The battle over [our] image, [namely] the cultural and political battle, is much more important [than the legal battle], for it concerns worrying phenomena like the increasing provocations, the widening circle of [our] rivals, and the growing hatred. Sometimes, the racism and xenophobia experienced by Muslims increases in exact proportion to the legal victories they achieve over marginal issues..."

"We Keep Increasing Our Religious Demands Vis-a-Vis the West, While Refusing to Meet Even a Few of the Demands Made by Religious Minorities Living among Us"

"We must take stock and do some soul-searching by asking ourselves the opposite question, [namely] how people in a Muslim country would react if the Christians wanted to pray in a mosque on Sunday due to an insufficient number of churches. Or let's ask an even simpler [question]: What is the reaction in most Arab and Muslim countries to the demand of religious minorities – not only Christians but also Hindus and Sikhs – to build their own houses of worship? In practice, our countries exhibit hypocrisy and a double standard. We keep increasing our religious demands vis-à-vis the West, while refusing to meet even a few of the demands made by religious minorities living among us."

Reprinted from memri.org (Middle Eastern Research Institute)

Now, you must admit that for a Muslim scholar, this is a huge admission.

More crys of RASICM!!!!!!! from the revolutionary assholes who want to plunder our country and make us slaves.

NEW YORK --The proposed mosque near ground zero drew hundreds of fever-pitch demonstrators Sunday, with opponents carrying signs associating Islam with blood, supporters shouting, "Say no to racist fear!" and American flags waving on both sides.

Islam is a race? Where is the country of Islam?  What language do they speak in Islam?  Racist fear?  Really...Hard to put a color or face on Islam:

Here's what I know about the group Hamas who is a primary head nodder to this new mosque:

Taking out the trash

I am attending the San Antonio Libertarian Party meet and greet next weekend after being contacted by the Texas coordinator.  I love classical liberalism and all that it stands for.  If you don't know what that means, look it up before getting reactionary. 

Where my beliefs diverge from the Libertarians is Anarco-capitalism, and extreme pacifism.  I'm a preemptive kind of guy in certain situations.  I'm not saying that all Libertarians believe the things mentioned above, but many do.  It should be interesting to meet some of the candidates and people and discuss ideas with them.

One thing that was disturbing to me was a thread of discussion on their Facebook site.  One person said that if there are no Libertarian candidates that they wouldn't be voting this election and some agreed, but no one disagreed.  This mindset in an important election year is disturbing to me and it should be to you as well.  There is never going to be one pure candidate that everyone agrees with on every issue and anyone that thinks that is living a fool's folly.

That said, when it comes to presidential candidates, we really need to reconsider some of these people that are starting to come forward and hinting at a run.  Newt Gingrich needs to go to another country.  He's bad, bad, bad for us and will not be elected.  If he runs and wins the primaries, we are fucked.  Period.  I predict in an obama/Gingrich runoff that obama would win.  When I heard of his potential run on Bill Bennett's Morning in America, I almost threw my Macbook across the room.

Sarah Palin has a social stigma about her and even if current polls have her ahead of obama in a runoff, it just isn't happening.  She let herself come into the prospective VP spot and put herself out there for the media elite to pick apart and I think we learned something from it.  We know now that if the snarling elites in the media don't like a candidate, they will do anything, even out and out lie to tarnish them.  Palin's handlers should have been on the spot with this sort of thing.  Anytime professors at our college are losing the class, all they need to do is say, "Sarah Palin" and that brings snickers and temporarily restores order.  I know the indoctrinators aren't the end-all, I just want you to know it's out there.  I know there are plenty of Palin supporters in the blogosphere.  Know that this is my opinion.  She's damaged goods.

So, who's it gonna be?  Paul Ryan?  Bobby Jindal?  I'd like to discuss it with you and get ideas.   

DOH!!! Dr. Laura!!!

I just got done listening to the actual Dr. Laura rant.  Two things:

1.  She didn't and shouldn't have used the actual N-word.

2.  She blatantly disregarded the caller's problem and created a non-issue.  The caller left in worse shape than when she started.


The caller brought up a good point.  She (a black woman) was concerned or uncomfortable about racial remarks made by friends and relatives of her husband.  Dr. Laura used this as an attempt to illustrate that blacks use the N-word all of the time.  She did so by using the N-word (the actual word) 11 times in five minutes.  There was no need for the use of the actual word even once.  Also, I think the caller was right to be uncomfortable.  First of all, why would she marry a man that has friends and relatives like this, and why wouldn't she insist they not visit?

Skin pigmentation has become more of an issue in the last few years than it was back when I was growing up in the 70's and 80's.  Throughout our U.S. history, we have watched black Americans go from slaves to freed people to actual citizens.  The rapid transition wasn't without frequent errors and disasters.  Between the lack of zeal of early Republicans (the Radical ones) to actually plan out a path to integrate these new citizens and an economic depression after the Civil War, blacks weren't exactly set on a path to true freedom.  Don't get me wrong, the Republicans at the time started out with good intentions when abolishing slavery, but good intentions only get you so far.  Were it not for early black northerners who stayed on in the south opening what are now historically black colleges and universities, and other schools, freed slaves would have never even come out of the slave mentality that many were born into.  I do feel that the transition from slave to freedmen was slower than it had to be due to over regulation and less concern for what to do post-abolition than getting there in the first place.  Then we have the social spending of the 60's which brought much of southern black progress to a screeching halt.  Modern day evidence of this is the number of people waiting outside in Atlanta for subsidized housing most recently.  This is not to say that there aren't many examples of black-Americans breaking through this barrier and becoming prominent leaders in the U.S. and in local communities.

Dr. Laura did more than make a slight mistake.  She tried to use deductive logic (in this case a deductive fallacy) that implies that because some blacks use the N-word that it is prevalent in our society.  Even though Dr. Laura won't admit that she is paying for what she said (and I firmly believe that she was quietly asked to leave) she has broadcast her leaving far and wide.  That implies to me that there is more at work here than her "1st amendment rights" being under attack. 

Use of the N-word is wrong.  Yes, you can say it in public, but why?  It's an outdated term that implies ownership of another person and comes from a time that no longer has context with present day social values.  The caller wanted some advice on how to handle her situation and got derision and anger from Dr. Laura.  I personally think that Dr. Laura still needs to answer the callers question.  But, that's just me.

Obama throws support behind controversial Islamic center, and it ain't just Fox covering this...

 Sorry for the abrupt return, but stories like this irritate me to no end:

 

Obama throws support behind controversial Islamic center

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• NEW: Republican congressman says Obama "caved into political correctness."
• NEW: Muslim who attended White House event surprised Obama touched "hot potato"
• New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg praises Obama's remarks
• Obama said that "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else"

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama threw his support behind a controversial proposal to build an Islamic center and mosque near New York's ground zero, saying Friday that "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country."
"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," Obama said at a White House Iftar dinner celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
The president's remarks drew praise from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who announced his support for the Islamic center last week.
Bloomberg compared Obama's speech to a letter President George Washington wrote in support of a Jewish congregation in Newport, Rhode Island. "President Obama's words tonight evoked President Washington's own august reminder that 'all possess alike liberty,' " Bloomberg said in a statement.
"I applaud President Obama's clarion defense of the freedom of religion tonight," he said.
To learn more about the "ground zero" mosque, see CNN's Belief Blog
Critics of the proposed Islamic center quickly denounced Obama's remarks. "President Obama is wrong," said Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.). "It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero. Unfortunately, the President caved into political correctness."
"While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque, they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much," King said in a statement. "The right and moral thing for President Obama to have done was to urge Muslim leaders to respect the families of those who died and move their mosque away from Ground Zero."
Obama, who said he was speaking both as a citizen and as president, invoked the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which critics of the Islamic center cite as the main reason for preventing its construction.
"We must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan," Obama said, according to his prepared remarks. "The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country."
"The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable," he continued. "So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground."
But Obama said one "reason that we will win this fight" against terrorism is "our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us -- a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today."
Repeatedly invoking the nation's founders and examples of religious tolerance from American history, the president argued that national ideals and the Constitution demanded that the project proceed.
He noted that Thomas Jefferson hosted the the first Iftar dinner at the White House more than 200 years ago and said that the country had previously seen "controversies about the construction of synagogues or Catholic churches."
"But time and again," he said, "the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues."
"This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable," Obama said. "The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure."
The proposed Islamic center has provoked vocal opposition from some families of 9/11 victims and other groups. Nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose the plan, according to CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Wednesday.
"Obama came out for the Islamic supremacist mosque at the hallowed ground of 911 attack," Pamela Geller, a leading foe of the Islamic center, wrote on her blog Friday night. "He has, in effect, sided with the Islamic jihadists."
Muslim Americans, meanwhile, applauded the speech. "It was pitch perfect and it was cut and dry," said Eboo Patel, executive director of the Interfaith Youth Core and a Muslim adviser to the White House on faith issues. "He said that our Founding Fathers built a nation on religious freedom where people from different faiths can pray and thrive and that is that."
Some Muslims said they were surprised to hear the president weigh in on the controversy.
"It's such a hot potato and he's already got so much on his plate and people jumping on him for any hint of an Islamic connection," said Akbar Ahmed, an American University professor who attended Friday's White House dinner. "But he plunged in and took a very bold position."
The Islamic center's leaders say they plan to build the $100 million, 13-story facility called Cordoba House three blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks. The developer, Sharif El-Gamal, describes the project as an "Islamic community center" that will include a 500-seat performing arts center, a lecture hall, a swimming pool, a gym, a culinary school, a restaurant and a prayer space for Muslims.
On Wednesday, the project's developers declined an offer by New York Gov. David Paterson to relocate the project to a state-owned site.

Earlier this month, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission unanimously denied landmark status for the building where the proposed Islamic center would stand, allowing the project to move forward.

I've been watching this story for a while now, and it just keeps getting more and more bizarre.  Now the president shows his true colors and inability to lead according to the will of the people.  The building of a mosque in the proximity of the Ground Zero site is a slap in the face to America.  Muslims that support this aren't Americans in anyway other than on paper (and even then, some of them are just here to use our rights against us and laugh in our faces).  In the past 50 or so years, we've watched our constitution be trampled on by anyone that wants to live far outside the boundaries of what's normal (and yes, there is a standard.  It's just lost) and what's right.  Now all of the progressive (liberal) leftists have handed this power irresponsibly to an outside invader and are too stupid to know what they've done.  

Realistically, this started with Qut'b's visit back in 1949 and his dictatorial stance over how America should conduct itself morally and has been passed down through generations of people who have perverted the Islamic religion and used it for their own perverted purposes be it to hurt people, or for their own pleasure.  

From 1948 to 1950, he went to the United States on a scholarship to study its educational system, studying for several months at Colorado State College of Education (now the University of Northern Colorado) in Greeley, Colorado. Qutb's first major theoretical work of religious social criticism, Al-'adala al-Ijtima'iyya fi-l-Islam (Social Justice in Islam)SOUND FAMILIAR??, was published in 1949, during his time in the West.
Though Islam gave him much peace and contentment, he suffered from respiratory and other health problems throughout his life and was known for "his introvertedness, isolation, depression and concern." In appearance, he was "pale with sleepy eyes." Qutb never married, in part because of his steadfast religious convictions. While the urban Egyptian society he lived in was becoming more Westernized, Qutb believed the Quran taught women that `Men are the managers of women's affairs ...'  Qutb lamented to his readers that he was never able to find a woman of sufficient "moral purity and discretion" and had to reconcile himself to bachelorhood.

This turning point resulted from Qutb's visit to the United States for higher studies in educational administration. Over a two-year period, he worked in several different institutions including what was then-Wilson Teachers' College in Washington, D.C. and Colorado State College for Education in Greeley, as well as Stanford University. He also traveled extensively, visiting the major cities of the United States and spent time in Europe on the return journey to Egypt.

On his return to Egypt, Qutb published an article entitled "The America that I Have Seen." He was critical of many things he had observed in the United States: its materialism, individual freedoms, economic system, racism, brutal boxing matches, "poor" haircuts, superficiality in conversations and friendships, restrictions on divorce, enthusiasm for sports, lack of artistic "animal-like" mixing of the sexes (which "went on even in churches"), and lack of support for the Palestinian struggle.

That's from wikipedia since I'm far too lazy to post good info.  This will do.  This dude went on to advocate global islamization as a way to enforce his foreign standards on everyone, especially the west (America).  If you think for one second that the building of this mosque is anything less than what I mentioned above, you are as short-sighted as the politicians now destroying our country via Washington DC.  They have forgotten what happened at the Ground Zero site and they have forgotten, or perhaps never cared about the will of the people.  They will continue to ram bad legislation down the throats of the public while they're lapdogs in the joke of the press provide scant cover for them. 

Obama wants this mosque to be built not just out of political expediency, but because he is one of the American hating crowd that grew up during the political turmoil in the 60s - 70s and is one of the indoctrinated if not an Islamist himself.  I've watched his disregard for the will of the people over the last few months go from just ignoring us to blatantly giving us the finger.  This latest act seems to be the pinnacle of this, I hope.