Obama endorses the Ground Zero mosque

[Libertarian Muslim]

I love Ron Paul.. It was him who made me want to be an American and a Libertarian.. May God reward him infinitely and keep him in good health.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I notice that the people who disagree with my assessment of Margolis's piece did not deal with the ideas I mentioned.

They issued an opinion, I suppose.

I stand by what I wrote. One does not combat something like bigotry with more bigotry.

All you get when you do that is more tribes who hate other tribes.

From what I have seen so far, that is the world surrounding Margolis.

(Mergolis's bigotry is not against Muslims or Jews, although I strongly suspect he leans really hard against Jews--being careful to use euphemisms, of course. His bigotry--the one I am exposing to the light of day--is against anyone he believes might think George Bush or any neocon is a human being. And he does that by calling others bigots! Un-frigging-believable. For the record, I say that and at the same time I am strongly against the some of the core neocon ideas.)

I believe you combat bigotry by looking at facts--within context--and letting them fall where they may. Not by demonizing anyone and overlooking raw evil when it doesn't fit the bigoted opinion. And, of course, you combat bigotry by thumbing your nose at it whenever and wherever you find it.

If some people think I am making sacred cow burgers, I say get a sacred cow who does not write bigoted articles. If I don't see bigotry, there's no reason to say what I am now saying. But so long as I do see bigotry, I'm going to bash it.

I despise bigotry.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Actions Speak Louder than Pious Claims

> I think the Million American Muslim March Against Wahabite Extremism which never took place would have gone a long way to sweeten mainstream American attitudes towards Islam.

I often don't agree with Baal. But this is an excellent point.

Where were those moderate muslims? Did I miss a march? Or a full-page ad in the New York Times? Or a million dollar contribution to Jewish charities? Or to the 9-11 Survivors Fund?

Or a new university devoted to free and open inquiry?

Or a reprinting of the Muhammad cartoons by a mosque foundation in the name of freedom of speech?

Which of those six things - or their equivalent - happened?

Even given the relatively fewer muslims than other groups in this country, there should have been at least a TenThousand Muslim March against Sharia and Extremism. That's how you can tell if 'moderation' actually exists. Not by a few quotes from a few imams, but by a MASSIVE and GRASS ROOTS movement.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Philip Coates

[sjw]

Very good point Phil (Edit: I changed my mind on this, see below), perhaps *they* don't deserve any defense, but I want a government that has due process and equal protection, the Bill of Rights basically.

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." --Thomas Paine

Edited August 22, 2010 by sjw

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a start.

These statements are popping up all over the place.

The media prefers to give prime space to controversial and/or jihadist figures, though. Even when liberals kowtow to them. Hatred and fear sell more news than reason.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWmWKmRhIlk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWmWKmRhIlk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWmWKmRhIlk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Here is the organization mentioned in the interview:

American Islamic Forum for Democracy

... founded by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser (the guy interviewed by Levin).

He is one of the few people I have read/heard so far who looked at the audience President Obama made his statement supporting the mosque to. Most of them do not understand and/or agree with freedom.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is another:

A Muslim case against the mosque

by Stephen Schwartz

August 3, 2010

New York Post

From the article:

... the plan is obviously provocative and confrontational -- and it's hard to imagine that Rauf didn't know that long before it became public.

That's one big reason why American Muslims, like other Americans, should reject the project -- particularly if they really want to adhere to traditional Islamic principles. I say that as a Muslim convert since 1997.

. . .

American Muslim leaders, especially Sufis and other moderates who assert that peace may be attained through dialogue, cannot accept any alignment with Hamas or any similar organization.

Nor, for that matter, can Muslim leaders allow any accommodation with the clerical tyranny in Iran or with such extremists as the Saudi Wahhabis, Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is a branch) or Pakistani jihadism. Unfortunately, such groups now heavily influence American Islam.

The author is executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism.

He also wrote the following article:

Rauf's Radicals

August 4, 2010

Weekly Standard Blog

From the article:

Rauf is a permanent member of the board of trustees for the Islamic Cultural Center of New York (ICCNY), on Third Avenue between 96th and 97th Streets.

. . .

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the “96th Street mosque,” as ICCNY is typically known, became notorious for a more outspoken participant in its work. Its imam was another Egyptian, Muhammad Gamei’a. Shortly after 9/11, Gamei'a disappeared, resurfacing in Egypt on October 4, 2001, where he told an Egyptian website, regarding 9/11, “The Jews were behind these ugly acts, while we, the Arabs, were innocent. . . . If it became known to the American people, they would have done to the Jews what Hitler did!”

. . .

On June 23, 2004, Rauf told Chris Hedges, then a writer for the New York Times, that, in Hedges’s words, “Islamic terrorists do not come from another moral universe--that they arise from oppressive societies that he feels Washington had a hand in creating.”

To be clear, I focused on selective quotes--and Rauf's comrade in arms Gamei--in excerpting the article. I did that just to show that they exist. They do not represent Rauf's full thought, but this ugly side is usually ignored in mainstream media reports on him.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Subject: Actions Speak Louder than Pious Claims

> I think the Million American Muslim March Against Wahabite Extremism which never took place would have gone a long way to sweeten mainstream American attitudes towards Islam.

I often don't agree with Baal. But this is an excellent point.

Where were those moderate muslims? Did I miss a march? Or a full-page ad in the New York Times? Or a million dollar contribution to Jewish charities? Or to the 9-11 Survivors Fund?

Or a new university devoted to free and open inquiry?

Or a reprinting of the Muhammad cartoons by a mosque foundation in the name of freedom of speech?

Which of those six things - or their equivalent - happened?

Even given the relatively fewer muslims than other groups in this country, there should have been at least a TenThousand Muslim March against Sharia and Extremism. That's how you can tell if 'moderation' actually exists. Not by a few quotes from a few imams, but by a MASSIVE and GRASS ROOTS movement.

LOL..

A lot of the work the Muslim community does against extremism is in house work. We don't do marches just for show to please non-Muslims and to reassure them that we're not all terrorists nor are we the supporters of terrorists..

Would it be a good idea to do such a thing? Yes, perhaps it would be.. But then again it'd also be dismissed by most as doing it for the benefit of non-Muslims and as being insincere and therefore, is an impossible position to be in, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't..

Also, to expect Muslims to be openly against Shariah is to then also assume that all Muslims also have the same interpretation of Shariah as you do which is a very poor assumption that ignorant people (like yourself) make. We don't have the same opinions and understanding as you do about Shariah because the majority of Muslims that know anything about Shariah understand that the way that you interpret it is in fact incorrect and unislamic.

Next, many Muslims have given to 9/11 victims funds, however we don't do it as something public because we believe that when you publicize your good deeds, you lose the blessings from God in your charity as you're then only doing it for show..

And why on earth would you ever assume that any right minded Muslim would reprint those cartoons? They were very offensive to us. Yes, we believe in freedom of speech and won't stop you from printing them, but we won't humiliate ourselves by reprinting them..

What you want Philip, and I suspect many people like you also want the same is not Muslims to be anti-terrorism or anti-extremism.. What you want from Muslims is complete and utter submission to you.. You want to subjugate us and you want us to feel inferior to yourself.. What you want, is for Muslims to feel humiliated.. That is very evident from your comments..

You're just like a Wahhabi..

[sjw]

What you want Philip, and I suspect many people like you also want the same is not Muslims to be anti-terrorism or anti-extremism.. What you want from Muslims is complete and utter submission to you.. You want to subjugate us and you want us to feel inferior to yourself.. What you want, is for Muslims to feel humiliated.. That is very evident from your comments..

Edit: I was partly wrong here, see below.

I can't speak for Philip, I can only speak for what I got from what he said, which is this: I don't want submission from anyone, but to one thing: individual rights. I want to know that a person is committed to keep their hands to themselves, to accept the concept of individual rights as a rational, objective, scientific concept that unites all mankind in harmony, to not violate it for anything, especially for your religion.

I asked you a question on this very issue several posts back which you didn't answer. How should I interpret that?

I had a Mormon "friend" once who I once asked whether he'd murder me and my family if the prophet told him to. I expected him to say no. He said yes. This frame of mind has no place in any human being.

Shayne

Edited August 22, 2010 by sjw

[Libertarian Muslim]

I can't speak for Philip, I can only speak for what I got from what he said, which is this: I don't want submission from anyone, but to one thing: individual rights. I want to know that a person is committed to keep their hands to themselves, to accept the concept of individual rights as a rational, objective, scientific concept that unites all mankind in harmony, to not violate it for anything, especially for your religion.

I asked you a question on this very issue several posts back which you didn't answer. How should I interpret that?

I had a Mormon "friend" once who I once asked whether he'd murder me and my family if the prophet told him to. I expected him to say no. He said yes. This frame of mind has no place in any human being.

Shayne

Shayne, if someone told you, an Objectivist (if you are of course) that the only way for you to prove yourself as a good American, you had to insult all of your own beliefs and in particular insult Ayn Rand, how would you take that? Of course it's subjugation and asking you to not only submit, but to humiliate yourself also.

Now, if your friend said he'd kill you if the prophet told him to, then your friend follows things blindly and neither uses logic nor reasoning.. If the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him told me to kill an innocent person.. I wouldn't believe he was a prophet.. In fact there was a statement I think from the Mufti of Syria if I'm not mistaken that said if the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him told us to do terrorism or commit murder, he wouldn't consider him a prophet because that is not the behavior of a prophet.

Next, you say you asked a question.. What question was that? I will assume it was:

Adonis I agree with what you're saying but how exactly does the Muslim religion square with the individual rights you seem to at least implicitly support? I mean, if you consistently stood for individual rights, how could you also be a Muslim? Don't you want Sharia everywhere? I could ask the same thing of a serious Christian, but in America since it's so easy to be a Christian I think most of them are not serious, whereas if one is Muslim in America I will assume that they take their religion somewhat seriously because they bear an extra social burden. Also America has a long secular track record, I'm not aware of Islam nations that have this, for example in Dubai they have debtor's prisons and are throwing failed businessmen into prison, which is something America abolished around the time of the Constitution.

Let me admit (again) up front that I'm very ignorant of Islam.

I partly answered this, but perhaps you were not satisfied with the answer so I'll go into more depth on the issue.

Islam stands for individual rights.. During the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's life he did stand for individual rights including the rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, women's rights, no spying programs on citizens etc. I don't see how being a Muslim I couldn't stand for individual rights..

Also, you ask, do I want Shariah everywhere? What is your understanding of Shariah? It's important to define this I believe as a yes or no could be misinterpreted.

Lastly, I'm not sure what you've been informed of but I don't consider Dubai to be a place that has Islamic law.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Brief Responses to Adonis

> We don't do marches just for show to please non-Muslims and to reassure them that we're not all terrorists nor are we the supporters of terrorists. [Adonis]

That wouldn't be the purpose.

> it'd also be dismissed by most as doing it for the benefit of non-Muslims and as being insincere

If you are correct, that would be a deep pathology within the Muslim community.

> We don't have the same opinions and understanding as you do about Shariah

I'm perfectly willing to change the word to whatever term you chose to signify the more extreme forms.

> we believe that when you publicize your good deeds, you lose the blessings from God

Makes no sense.

> those cartoons? They were very offensive to us.

Actually, they weren't objectively very offensive but comparatively mild. You see a lot worse in any political campaign. Parody and cartoons are a valid tradition and one has to develop a thicker skin.

> we believe in freedom of speech and won't stop you from printing them

Even if there were a tiny, tiny minority threatening or trying to kill the cartoonists and the reprinters, was there a movement among the majority of Muslims to say "you shouldn't kill people or threaten their lives because they offend you" and "sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me"?

Did I miss that grass roots movement in the Islamic countries and in the West to defend civil liberties and freedom of speech?

> What you want, is for Muslims to feel humiliated.

How is it "humiliating" to stand up publicly, to march for, to organize for, to be unafraid about the fight for human rights. Which are threatened all across the world, not just in many Islamic countries. I would think it would be the opposite: a badge of pride, an emblem of honor, an anthem of self-esteem!

> You want to subjugate us and you want us to feel inferior to yourself.

??? What you are leading me to suspect is that this was the answer when called upon to defend civil liberties and oppose the extreme forms of Shariah, etc.

> You're just like a Wahhabi.

Adonis, I've been reading your posts -- and have been willing to engage you -- because you often reason calmly and have stood up to ad hominems and tried to be calmly logical in places like SoloP, but when you in turn descend to exaggeration and insult, you lower yourself.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Philip Coates

[sjw]

I take back most of my agreement with Philip. It is wrong to assign any kind of guilt by association. It is wrong to ask Adonis to march for rights, when most of America doesn't give a damn about them anyway. In my lifetime, I have received far more harm from Americans dedicated to stamping out my rights than from Muslims.

I think the biggest threat to America is from within. In general, Americans, including Objectivists, are hypocrites. They say one thing about rights and then do another, and don't care if they contradict themselves. If you want a march Philip, why don't you call on all hypocrites everywhere to join in, Americans should be ashamed of themselves for taking this fantastic start given to us by the Founding Fathers and utterly destroying it.

On the other hand, this is not to put Muslims on a pedestal. I have no reason not to believe that if they were the majority here, then things would be far worse than they already are. Unlike for most Americans, this is not a source of pseudo-pride for me, but yet another rebuke to the American hypocrites, because if Americans embraced the legacy that has been handed to them, they would be a shining beacon to the world for what the best kind of government should be, and I am certain that the Muslim world would follow suit. Why am I certain? Because they are human beings first, Muslims second, and truth in action is far more potent than their religion.

And this is where American hypocrites, including Objectivists, have it wrong. You cannot transform Muslims at the barrel of a gun. You can only anger them or destroy them. I am not arguing for pacifism, I am arguing for evidence-based retaliation. If somebody attacks or plans to attack us, then certainly our government's duty is to defend us. But it has gone much farther than that.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Purely linguistic argument rather than substantive

> It is wrong to ask Adonis to march for rights, when most of America doesn't give a damn about them anyway. [sjw]

Hmmm...It would be wrong to ask most Germans to have marched against murdering the Jews, then, because most Germans didn't give a damn about rights?

> It is wrong to assign any kind of guilt by association.

And, then, I guess to have marched would be a form of 'guilt by association'? By marching against x, you imply you are guilty of x?

> In my lifetime, I have received far more harm from Americans dedicated to stamping out my rights than from Muslims.

So, if you're rights have been violated in some small way, that's a reason not to be concerned about massive rights violations of others?

> You cannot transform Muslims at the barrel of a gun. You can only anger them or destroy them.

So, I guess (i) you can't raise the question whether the failure to do a long list of things is evidence of moderation? And (ii) To suggest or ask whether anyone would march against injustice is equivalent to 'the barrel of a gun' or to asking for complete 'transformation'... or to destruction?

> American hypocrites, including Objectivists

And I guess what you are saying is that because we don't have total freedom here, have to pay taxes and have drug laws, we should not march against religious dictatorship, murders in the name of religion, stoning, cutting off body parts because a woman had the bad luck to have someone rape her, etc.?

Edited August 22, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I like that phrase, "truth in action."

I keep harping on the old saw that you judge a man by what he says and by what he does. If the two do not line up, go with what he does as a better indicator of what he truly thinks.

"Truth in action" nails that thought in a delightfully succinct manner.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

There are mosques and Muslims all over the place, including the Pentagon. Ground Zero Mosque is just election-time politics and Obama was stupid enough to get involved damaging his party nationally and ruining any small chance he had of being re-elected. The Middle East is a mess with competing religious, economic, ethnic, political and other interests. Tenuous stability keeps giving way to out-right violence with the United States continually acting like the bull in the china shop. I don't think any significant public figure has ever pointed out that the purpose of 9-11 wasn't just symbolic on the part of the attackers, but to bait the U.S. into granting them a war they couldn't lose and it had to sooner or later. Even if this supposition wasn't true it should have been treated as true regarding U.S. responses which could have been much more intelligent, less expensive in all respects and more effective.

--Brant

Edited August 22, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

> In my lifetime, I have received far more harm from Americans dedicated to stamping out my rights than from Muslims.

So, if you're rights have been violated in some small way, that's a reason not to be concerned about massive rights violations of others?

You are so clueless.

And I guess what you are saying is ...

No, I wasn't saying that.

Shayne

[sjw]

Thanks Michael.

Even if this supposition wasn't true it should have been treated as true regarding U.S. responses which could have been much more intelligent, less expensive in all respects and more effective.

--Brant

Indeed. The folly that was actually achieved was a ramping up of the totalitarian state. Following Rand's advice not to question a folly, one has to wonder this is just Rahm Emanuel's dictum in action: "Don't let a crisis go to waste."

Shayne

[sjw]

Shayne, if someone told you, an Objectivist (if you are of course) that the only way for you to prove yourself as a good American, you had to insult all of your own beliefs and in particular insult Ayn Rand, how would you take that? Of course it's subjugation and asking you to not only submit, but to humiliate yourself also.

I stopped calling myself an Objectivist several years ago, I prefer "rational individualist" for various reasons.

I think it is sufficient to express agreement with the principle -- that you may insult Ayn Rand all you want and I won't kill you. Many Muslims do not have this attitude. It only helps Muslims to come out in favor of the principle of freedom of speech behind publishing the cartoons. Instead they (generally) have called the publishers "insensitive", all while their apparent brethren are making threats of violence and death.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I strongly believe we have to look at all sides as objectively as possible, so here is an interview that Christiane Amanpour (who is now at ABC) just did with Rauf's wife, Daisy Khan, and Rabbi Joy Levitt, who is supporting the project.

If the project is implemented as they say, it does not sound offensive except for the unfortunate proximity to Ground Zero. The problem is judging whether the project will be implemented as they say--and there are warning signs that need to be examined.

On a personal level, the double-speak Ms. Khan did on a few tough questions did not really convince me to ignore the warning signs. At those moments, she sounded to me just like any run-of-the-mill politician making a campaign promise and sidestepping the hot topics. (Sort of like when politicians say, "We need to be as objective as possible and consult with all bases before we screw you all make a decision. But you know that decision has already been made. They are merely in damage control mode.)

See and judge for yourself. And please don't take my word for anything, nor my evaluation.

<img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://counters.gigya.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEyODI1MDE5MTIxMDkmcHQ9MTI4MjUwMjMzNzU2MiZwPTEyNTg*MTEmZD1BQkNOZXdzX1NGUF9Mb2NrZV9FbWJlZCZn/PTImbz*xNWZmN2QxMzczOTY*NmE5YTg2ZjhiNGM*YTY3MDcxOCZvZj*w.gif" /><object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,124,0" width="344" height="278" id="ABCESNWID"><param name="movie" value="http://abcnews.go.com/assets/player/walt2.6/flash/SFP_Walt.swf" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="flashvars" value="configUrl=http://abcnews.go.com/video/sfp/embedPlayerConfig&configId=406732&clipId=11455250&showId=11455250&gig_lt=1282501912109&gig_pt=1282502337562&gig_g=2" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://abcnews.go.com/assets/player/walt2.6/flash/SFP_Walt.swf" quality="high" allowScriptAccess="always" allowNetworking="all" allowfullscreen="true" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="344" height="278" flashvars="configUrl=http://abcnews.go.com/video/sfp/embedPlayerConfig&configId=406732&clipId=11455250&showId=11455250&gig_lt=1282501912109&gig_pt=1282502337562&gig_g=2" name="ABCESNWID"></embed></object>

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> I strongly believe we have to look at all sides as objectively as possible, so here is an interview that Christiane Amanpour (who is now at ABC) just did with Rauf's wife, Daisy Khan, and Rabbi Joy Levitt

Which is exacty what ABC -didn't do- on its only weekly hour long news interview program by interviewing two supporters of the mosque.

And not a single opponent

[sjw]

Michael,

I watched the video. I am appalled at Americans. People should not have to crawl on their hands and knees and beg the collective for the permission to exercise their property rights. And I think this is very scary -- this is exactly what happened in Germany to the Jews, it is the first step down that path.

A is A. Either these Muslims participated in 9/11 or they did not. Either they participate in terrorism or they do not. Either they incite crime and an overthrow of the government or they do not. If they do these things, bring them to justice now. If they do not, then leave them the hell alone.

Shayne

[sjw]

Anti-Islam sentiment fanning the flames of extreme Islam:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38795716/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times

Hypocrisy has consequences.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I wish it were that easy to say, "I want a decision now!"

Some things are short-term, some medium-term and some long-term.

If this thing is a Trojan Horse for organizations that actually do want to overthrow the USA, it needs to be looked at. I don't think you are going to get an accurate survey of facts short-term.

btw - I skimmed the article. I don't agree with the logic. Everything plays into the hands of extremists. They spin everything--and that means extremists on all sides.

Trying to preemptively appease the thinking of violent extremists is no argument in my way of thinking. It is certainly not based on any principle I can discern other than appeasement.

But I agree that Gingrich did not do anyone any favors by his boneheaded statements of triumphalism. Ironically, if this center does get funding and covert guidance from Islamist sources, I believe his statement comparing them to Nazis would be accurate, since Islamism is partially based on Nazi ideology.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Anti-Islam sentiment fanning the flames of extreme Islam:

http://www.msnbc.msn..._new_york_times

Hypocrisy has consequences.

The fact that unbelievers exist fans the flames of extreme Islam.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

I watched the video. I am appalled at Americans. People should not have to crawl on their hands and knees and beg the collective for the permission to exercise their property rights. And I think this is very scary -- this is exactly what happened in Germany to the Jews, it is the first step down that path.

A is A. Either these Muslims participated in 9/11 or they did not. Either they participate in terrorism or they do not. Either they incite crime and an overthrow of the government or they do not. If they do these things, bring them to justice now. If they do not, then leave them the hell alone.

The proper question is whether these people are unregistered agents of a foreign government.

I think we are going to get worse consequences of bad government resulting in more pandering to the alligator brains amongst the electorate resulting, finally, in out-right dictatorship and more wars.

--Brant

inevitable consequences?

[sjw]

Michael I agree that if something is up then something should be done, but it doesn't take half the population of the US to figure that out on national TV, that's what, say, the FBI is for. I certainly don't object to investigating who and what are behind this mosque or any mosque.

I don't see the issue as appeasement, I see it as unjustly -- without due process -- stripping Muslims of rights, and it causing justified hatred, followed by unjustified lashing out. I don't condone the blowback, but I don't condone the prior acts that precipitate it either.