So it begins - Opposition to Mosque Projects Across America

It's amusing to see people say "I don't hate Islam - just extremist Islam!!" but then argue against moderate Islam when it comes down to it. There's been no evidence that either the Tennessee or NY or other controversial mosques here have any connection to extremist Islam. If these people really aren't opposed to moderate Islam, why are they still opposed?

 

It is because people in the US don't trust Muslims. What do you expect when the only news/images you hear/see about these people is negative. It is kind of like marketing, it subconsciously alters your opinion without you even knowing it. Hell they show a guy praying and then an image of 9/11, your mind automatically associates one to another.

 

OK, who did it? What post in in this thread resulted in my company blocking this thread for 'Adult Material'? I can't wait to explain this to IT/HR.

 

What is the point of arguing this is against the 1st amendment.

 

There are many muslims (like the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan) who say "there is no such thing as moderate Islam" and "assimiliation is a sin". The clear message is: It's our way or the highway. Mathloom has the same message in some of his posts (e.g., the ones regarding that cartoonist). "Good luck, at some point we will outnumber you anyway." Major, you go ahead and define "moderate Islam" vs. "extremist Islam". Dubai: moderate or extremist? Making women cover their face: Moderate or extremist? Complaining about puppies in police ads: Moderate or extremist?

 

That's true, and great post overall. If all Muslims were as reasonable and non-aggressive as you, I would welcome any mosque being built. Sadly, I see a lot of the other posters here (not only BEAT LA and asidd1990) being very aggressive when it comes to someone even daring to question some things about their religion.

What? I'm in London all the time and have never heard anything like this.

Why do you think this is the case? Only prejudice, or also based on experiences with Muslims?

No, never.

If my statement came across like that, I would like to correct it. This is partly what I personally have seen, but as a generalized statement, it would be unfair to what I believe to be the majority of Muslims. I think my perception might be skewed by what I have seen in Germany and other countries of Europe, but that is not only a religious issue but also an issue of the background of these immigrants. The Turkish immigrants in Germany are on average a lot less educated than the Turks in Turkey. Unfortunately, despite efforts by educational institutions, this doesn't improve much in the next generation. Many of them (even second generation) do not try to assimilate, but rather to just make money but without integrating themselves into society (which would start by learning the language.

Again, I would probably agree with this observation, but what is your explanation? Is it all the evil people who are prejudiced against Muslims or does it have to do with what people have experienced with the Muslims they welcomed into their country previously?

I never said "those damn Muslims", just to make that clear, as you put it in quotes, and I don't think that way either. But you are laying the blame only on the country that allows the immigration ("typical cultural insensitivity"), what about those who immigrate? Do you not see any obligation on their part to make an effort to integrate themselves into the society that welcomes them?

But they do it based on their religious belief, so you cannot just disassociate religion from it. I agree that it is a-hole behavior.

Well, that is good, I appreciate that.

 

That's a shame, and I have to wonder if it is because you realized that you had no good answers to some of my questions. As you appear to be reasonable in the way you argue, I would welcome a response.

 

Is it not one religion? There are certainly varying interpretations of it, but I believe most Muslims themselves would tell you "there is only one Islam". When it is one religion and some of the same elements (e.g., condemnation of homosexuality (which I understand to be rooted directly in the Quran) with varying degrees of persecution of homosexuals, restriction of women's rights to varying degrees, etc.) are prevalent in most predominantly Muslim countries, then, to turn your question around, what makes you believe that the way it is practiced elsewhere is not relevant to what you would have to assume would be what would be taught in New York, Tennessee, and other places?

Also, please address the point that was actually brought up by Mathloom, that more than 90 % of Islamic teaching materials are funded by Saudis, who represent one of the most radical and backwards-oriented schools of Islam. If that is the case, then how is it not a legitimate concern that their teachings (which clearly are not compatible with the culture of a free western country) would spread further?

 

Yet, you have claimed in the past that you are only opposed to the extremist Islamists. Now, you argue there might not be a difference. Do you see a difference? If not, why the previous comments? If so, why are you opposed to an American mosque?

Moderate Islam: Islam as practiced primarily in the west. No encouragement of violence. No focus on jihad (in the east vs west sense). No focus on "death to the west". No stoning of gay people.

Extremist Islam: Islam that promotes violence/death/hatred/etc as a solution to issues.

Really? Because lots of Muslims on this very board denounce the corrupt Islamic dictatorships that use religion to promote other agendas. Do you think MadMax associates his version of Christianity with the Westboro crazies? After all, it's just one religion with different interpretations, right?

What makes me believe that it would be practiced differently here? How about the fact that there are millions of Muslims in America and you don't see them calling for stoning of gay people? That there are mosques all over the the US that are no different than these and no one sees the need to shut them down?

I have no idea the source of that information, but what gives you the impression that those materials are what would be used at these mosques? 90% leaves 10% that are NOT funded by the Saudis. And given that the US has something like 1% of the Muslim population of the world, I don't see anything here except you assuming the worst because of your own prejudices and equating all Muslims as extremists by default.

 

I am not opposed to an American mosque, but I can see how people have legitimate concerns that should not just be brushed away by labeling them as racists/extremists or whatever. Plus, I am not the one who argues that - I was quoting the Turkish prime minister. Apparently, some prominent Muslims argue that there is no difference. If they say it, one has to at least consider why they say it and what that means.

So if it is less than stoning, that is already moderate to you? What about other types of discrimination?

Agreed. Now how would you suggest to deal with it when it turns out that a preacher in a mosque preaches exactly that? (This has happened several times in European countries) Clearly, firstly, you have a problem even detecting it if it is a very tight-knit community, secondly, you have a problem of a conflict of freedom of religion vs. security considerations. I am not saying this to advocate against allowing a mosque, but it is simply a practical consideration and scenario one has to think about, as it will inevitably happen (hopefully, and I would assume that, this would be an absolute exception, as I would hope that most Imams would only preach peace).

There are differences: I do not think that Christianity has anything in its core teachings that would denounce homosexuality (even though the church later adopted that approach). If I understood some of the posts of our Muslim posters here correctly, they say that their opposition against homosexuals is derived directly from the Quran. Same with the "death to infidels" quote that can unfortunately be abused by those within Islam who have that on their agenda. Also, "the Westboro crazies" are some isolated, small group. Again, you ignore the fact that there are several predominantly Muslim countries with the Sharia in place where terrible things are done "in the name of Islam". This is not comparable with a few crazies going nuts.

Again, you seem to think that it's ok if it is at a level below stoning. There are other forms of discrimination. But fair enough, you would give them the benefit of the doubt, and I think that is how it will turn out. But again, that doesn't mean that any legitimate concern is based only on xenophobia or racism or whatever you want to call it.

This is simply untrue, and you are getting way too excited in your attempt to smear me here, buddy. I never equated all Muslims as extremists by default. As to the source of the information, Mathloom has posted this repeatedly. I just did a quick Google search, and Wikipedia seems to confirm it:

According to Western observers like Gilles Kepel, Wahhabism gained considerable influence in the Islamic world following a tripling in the price of oil in the mid-1970s. Having the world's largest reserves of oil but a relatively small population, Saudi Arabia began to spend tens of billions of dollars throughout the Islamic world promoting Wahhabism, which was sometimes referred to as "petro-Islam".[44] According to the documentary called The Qur'an aired in the UK, presenter Antony Thomas suggests the figure may be "upward of $100 billion".[45]
Its largess funded an estimated "90% of the expenses of the entire faith", throughout the Muslim world, according to journalist Dawood al-Shirian.[46] It extended to young and old, from children's madrasas to high-level scholarship.[47] "Books, scholarships, fellowships, mosques" (for example, "more than 1500 mosques were built from Saudi public funds over the last 50 years") were paid for.[48] It rewarded journalists and academics, who followed it; built satellite campuses around Egypt for Al Azhar, the oldest and most influential Islamic university.[49]
The financial power of Wahhabist advocates, according to observers like Dawood al-Shirian and Lee Kuan Yew, has done much to overwhelm less strict local interpretations of Islam[46] and has caused the Saudi interpretation to be perceived as the "gold standard" of religion in many Muslims' minds.[50]
The Saudis have spent at least $87 billion propagating Wahhabism abroad during the past two decades, and the scale of financing is believed to have increased in the past two years, as oil prices have skyrocketed. The bulk of this funding goes towards the construction and operating expenses of mosques, madrassas, and other religious institutions that preach Wahhabism. It also supports the training of imams; domination of mass media and publishing outlets; distribution of Wahhabi textbooks and other literature; and endowments to universities (in exchange for influence over the appointment of Islamic scholars). Some of the hundreds of thousands of South Asians expats living in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf have been influenced by Wahhabism and preach Wahhabism in their home country upon their return. Agencies controlled by the Ministry of Islamic, Endowments, Call (Dawah) and Guidance Affairs of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are responsible for propagation to the non Muslim expats and are converting hundreds of non-Muslims into Islam every year.
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

I think the question of the source of the funds for the Ground Zero mosque was discussed and at least some reputable sources seem to believe the money comes from the Saudis.

 

Oh trust me, the answers were good...no, they were damn good

Mathloom and others responded to the majority of the critiques, and as I previously stated, it just didnt seem like it was worth going down the cycle.

The one point I will respond to is this, only because I feel that out of all your points, it holds the most merit and is more worthy of a response:

I think we can agree that 90% was a bit of an exaggeration, but the point holds nonetheless that there is a significant amount of literature that comes out of Saudi that represents a particular ideology that, in many instances, is at odds with the social/cultural dictates of modernity, especially in its western manifestation.

Let me begin by stating that just because Saudi Arabia funded the publication of a book, it does not automatically deem that book as radical and backwards-oriented. In fact, many books that Saudi funds the publication of deal with the ABC's of Islam- giving in charity, basic beliefs (God, messengers, etc), repentance, et al. I would go so far as to say around 50% of Saudi literature funding goes towards producing Qurans in Arabic as it is their most populous export, which is nothing more than the Quran itself.

Casting those aside, the question then arises as to which issues we merely disagree with versus those issues that represent "radical and backwards-oriented schools of Islam." For example, if someone were to believe that he/she isnt supposed to get married, we may not necessarily agree with that belief, and it may be backwards-oriented, but it is by no means a threat to anyone's way of life. This is particularly relevant in a number of topics that people might find issue with- if a book espouses the virtues of women staying at home and dressing themselves in a veil and cloak, and a woman chooses to do that, then its her prerogative. Your dislike of it bears no consequence as to individual commitments.

Then there are issues that should and need to be put to a halt, immediately. For example, any religious figure/institution espousing domestic violence should get cracked down on. The same goes for a figure who would call for its members to go out and commit violence against anyone.

All of that said, I think your concern comes in response to issues that you dislike (due to their conflicting with prevailing social/cultural norms), and the fear is that when those beliefs become widespread doctrine, they form a threat to the 'western' (be it American, British, German, or what have you) way of life. To this, I can only say that there are no guarantees, and that we owe that uncertainty to a free and open society.

Social and cultural constructs are not static; they are dynamic, and have been shaped through the shared experiences of the melting pot of individuals from diverse backgrounds with various religious and cultural traditions. Muslims have already had a profound impact on the social and cultural constructs of our time (often times for the wrong reasons), and will continue to do so.

The real question becomes whether or not they will do so under a regulated political order- one that attempts to deny them their fundamental legal rights, refuses to treat them as equal citizens, and alienates them by way of legislations and provisions aimed at keeping them out of the public sphere, or one that engages their experiences head on, with the NY Islamic Center being emblematic of this dichotomy. The former approach reeks of insecurity and displays a lack of confidence in the ability of the western narrative to endure. I, for one, dont lack that confidence, but I sense that you do.

A final point I will end with is whether or not you've ever considered evaluating the positive affect that muslim cultural/religious ethics could have on a society like ours (rather than continually fearing the negatives). Perhaps a little more social conservatism wouldnt be such a bad thing; we have the highest prison rate in the world and have created an environment that completely objectifies women. Not to mention the amount of working professionals that hail from Muslim backgrounds (especially doctors and engineers lol).

Not sure if that answer suffices, but the question required a slightly more sophisticated response than the others. Whether I did justice to it remains to be seen....

 

I've had a tough morning, so forgive me for summing everything up..

1) I don't think it has to do with experiences with Muslims. I think it has to do with the stupidity of linking all Muslims to the groups who engaged in 9/11 and other terrorist activities.

2) Immigrants are immigrants. All you need to do is speak to an Arab Christian immigrant to understand that Europe is not welcoming to certain people. Even they are constantly linked to terrorists.

3) I know you didn't say "those damn Muslims", I wasn't referring to you, my mistake.

4) The blame is on each individual, not on any group of people IMO. There is no obligation to integrate into someone else's culture either IMO. It is either your culture (and it may need tweaking to suit new variables) or it's someone else's culture and you have to respect it (this is in the case of visitors, not asylum seekers). Take Germany for example - it would be silly to assume that the culture has never changed or that it will not change or that it should not change. Now that there are X million Turks in Germany, there will be more mosques, more Halal/Kosher restaurants, and there will be different angles in ethical/moral debate. This has been the case for every immigration situation in the history of mankind. I'm not saying that there are no Muslims at fault, I'm just saying that it has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. It's about individuals with a unique set of values who immigrate - where they get those values is none of my or your business. What is your business is whether they have a right to ask for such things, whether they have a good point, whether cultural assimilation is ethical at all, and whether the speed of cultural mutation is being overestimated - the Turks you are talking about have only been in Germany since the 1970's-80's. The Turks who settled in Germany a century ago have no problem blending in.

We also know that it doesn't help to have people like this around :

 

Unfortunately, that's where I think you are completely wrong (and in contrast to you I can speak of first-hand experiences). People are not so stupid to link all Muslims to 9/11. It is more about how those that are in the country behave. And it is simply not good in way too many cases.

While this is an unflattering picture of a generally ugly guy and the guy goes overboard sometimes, he is right at times as well. I'm surprised you would have heard of him, though. How come?

 

Agree to disagree on the first part then.

As for dude in the picture, I'm part Turkish and part Arab and work at a regulator lol why wouldn't I hear about him?

Edit: Just wanted to add that if I spew hate-filled speech out and one sentence out of 40 is factually correct, that means absolutely nothing. The guy is a douche, and he has shown a pattern of being a douche, which is a terrible thing for a public official. A former senator or mayor of Berlin as well I believe? I urge you not to defend him in any way, shape or form. If there was a line which, when crossed publicly, makes you a racist bigot... this guy dances on that line with joy. That should send the alarm bells ringing for anyone.

Example: "Dubai is a financial mess." >> That's ok.... "It's a mess because they are Arab and Arabs have low IQ." >> That is not ok.

 

Wow, I'm surpised that some of you are still trying with ATW. LOL Vaids, I thought you learned your lesson .

 

Spoiler

 

i don't know what this is in reference to, but i don't think its a moderate v. extremist issue, but a stupid people issue.

and to use it as a moderate v. extremist issue is also stupid.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...turing-cute-puppy-sitting-policemans-hat.html

 

lol, I did too.

 

What constitutes a terrorist? I would say its someone who commits violence against others in the hopes that it raises fear in the victim. Bombings, hate crimes all that sort are acts of terrorism.

What saddens me is that America is now saying that Muslims are all terrorists all they do is bomb buildings and wage war on non-muslims. Whats even sadder is that these same acts have happened against muslims. I go to a mosque on Old louetta road. About 4 years ago some men bombed our mosques mail box, dumped fish heads on our door and tried to get into a fight with kids playing in the parking lot. Would these not constitute acts of terrorism as well? It's great to see hypocricy alive and well and its sad to see that the these radicals who proclaim they are fighting for islam are really just hurting it more.

Every different religion has to go through this in a land where they are the minority. To everyone who loves peace, prosper on turbulent times bring out the best and worst in people and to face this hurricane as a muslim is a blessing in disguise. We can show the world that the extremists have it wrong, we can educate the people on the truth, and most importantly we can act and show America we are americans too. We can show empathy and sympathy and patience and hold off on these projects. GOd is everywhere we dont just need a building to embrace him. So hold off on the projects show the world we understand where theyre coming from. Patience and peace result in better results