Michael Moore: "I Want Mosque Built on Ground Zero"

1 - You're the one leveling the accusations against innocent people, so the onus really lies with you to support it with evidence. But, as for why I might conclude that this community center is intended to serve a peaceful purpose, that would be because the main Imam behind it has a life-long public track record of being a moderate who has devoted his career to building bridges between cultures and faiths. He's been utilized as a representative of America in this capacity by both the Bush and the Obama Administrations. He's earned praise from prominent Rabbis, Priests, etc for the same, and was even invited to speak at Daniel Pearl's memorial service, where his entire talk was about how we can achieve interfaith unity. He's formed two non-profit organizations and written multiple books about how Islam and western society can peacefully co-exist, worked as Associate Professor of Islamic Studies at St. Joseph’s College in Brooklyn, and has been the Imam at Masjid al-Farah, a mosque in New York City, for 25+ years - all the while managing to avoid being involved with any terrorist activities.

In regards to your swastika analogy, a swastika is the actual exclusive symbol of the Nazi party who, as we all know, was a murderous regime bent on world domination with their "master race". For your analogy to have any relevence, a YMCA-style Islamic Community Center would have to be a similarly exclusive symbol for al Qaeda, the terrorist organization that actually attacked us on 9/11. And honestly, I've never seen any images of al Qaeda members training in a YMCA-style pool, or with a vigorous game of two-on-two basketball in a nice gym. A more accurate analogy would be if a German who had nothing to do with WWII simply moved in next door to a WWII veteran's house. Not all Germans are Nazis any more than all Muslims are al Qaeda members. As such, an innocent German moving in carries no inherent insult or disrespect to the WWII vet, just as innocent Muslims building a community center carries no inherent insult or disrespect to Ground Zero.

2. If you dispute the figures I presented along with their sources, then by all means offer objective evidence to counter it. That it would mean a large percentage of the Muslim population in America lives in New York wouldn't be unrealistic. It's very common for immigrant populations to establish sizeable ethnic pockets in bigger cities. There's a China Town in virtually every city. Boston has the big Irish and Italian populations, etc.

3. You said: "Your ignorance is overwhelming. What 'Christians' at the time of Moses?" Semantics is where you determine a person's level of competence? The Bible is the holy text at the foundation of Christianity. Because the Old Testament was all written pre-Christianity doesn't mean that it's contents are discounted by Christians. My offhand introductions to the passages were in reference to the simple fact that it's all about the same Christian God, whether Old Testament or New.

And in regards to your final comment - "Thanks to you and your soul mates, we are dragged into these wars again" - I beg to differ. First and foremost, don't assume that I'm a liberal. I voted for Bush, and I initially supported the wars in Afghanistan AND in Iraq, so you can blame me in that sense. But I'm objective enough to look at all the evidence that's come to light since then - about the reliabilty and validity of intelligence sources that played roles in justifying the war and such - and recognize that going into Iraq was a bad idea, and that Afghanistan, while justified, was inexcusibly mismanaged. But assuming you're aiming your ire at liberals, it's the actions of the more hawkish conservatives that have involved us in our wars, both now and historically. The liberals were the ones marching in the streets about NOT going to war. And this current controversy is another perfect example of it. A well-known and historically respected moderate, American Imam wants to build an Islamic Community Center for an existing Muslim population of up to 600,000 who currently have no such place available to them. Legally speaking, no one involved is known or even suspected to have been party to any kind of terrorist activities, and no crime has been commited. Liberals are by and large responding to these simple facts by saying "okay, enjoy!" The more hawkish conservatives are responding by protesting it, vandalizing American Mosques and assaulting American Muslims across the country in the name of opposition to it, and calling on these historically moderate American Muslims to willingly forfeit their first amendment rights over it - and all of it consistantly justified only by citing a few wildly misrepresented out of context quotes by Imam Rauf. Which response seems more likely to win the al Qaeda recruitment program more applicants?

Riyhad is not in America, so your question is irrelevant. But that aside, sure. I would have no problem with Christians in Riyhad building a community center. My position on this is not based on "favoring Islam" at all. It's based on favoring the right of people from ALL religions to worship freely in the United States as guaranteed by our Constitution, period. We don't single out specific religions that are and are not covered by the First Amendment here in America.

As for Quran burning, of course I recognize it for what it is - a protected form of free speech. But the equivalency some people have been trying to draw between burning Qurans and building this community center is ridiculous. Burning a Quran is an inherently confrontational act. Building a community center is inherently benign.

Now let's talk honestly about "calming down the tensions". If you remember, when this Islamic community center was first announced back in December of 2009, virtually no one had a problem with it. Even conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham, while filling in as host on FOX's O'Reilly Factor, said that "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it," and stated directly to Feisal's wife, Daisy Khan, "I like what you're trying to do." (watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?... ) Then there was nothing in the news about the center for around 6 months, because there was no reason for there to be. Everyone was fine with it.

UNTIL - the same blogger who once asserted that there's a "good chance" Obama is the "secret son of Malcolm X" decided to write a blog about the community center entitled "Monster Mosque Pushes Ahead in Shadow of World Trade Center Islamic Death and Destruction." And then the next day, her group, SIOA ("Stop Islamization of America"), launched "Campaign Offensive: Stop the 911 Mosque!", followed by plans for their first organized protest against it. And the outrage all took off from there. This blogger's ridiculous rhetoric is primarily where the "tensions" that exist today in regards to the center originated from. To call on the moderates planning the center to modify their actions to accommodate the hateful smear campaign that's been waged against them is an unjustified misdirection of blame.

Yes, both liberals and conservatives can be ignorant. But the fact remains that there was rightfully no controversy over this community center from ANYone until a popular conservative blogger began a blatantly dishonest smear campaign against it.

And unfortunately, that smear campaign has led us so far down a road of tangential misinformation that we never even get a meaningful chance to discuss the simple, basic facts surrounding this story. Like that in reality, this community center would present a great opportunity for us to take part in fighting back against Islamic extremists who's aim it is to hijack Islam for their own purposes. We don't get to discuss how there are many branches of Islam, just as there are of Christianity, and that groups like the Wahabists - who count bin Laden and most members of al Queda among their adherents - have been trying to usurp Islam from the majority of Muslims who don't subscribe to their radical interpretations. The Islamic branch known as Sufism in particular flies in the face of the extremist philosophy, and not surprisingly, Imam Rauf, who is behind the New York community center, is a Sufi.

So here we have an opportunity to embrace and collaborate with the moderate Muslims that so many of us have been saying we want to hear speak out against radical Islam since 9/11. But instead of embracing and collaborating with them, a certain segment of American society has chosen to embrace the unfounded smear campaign to demonize them, and wrongly lump these moderate Muslims into the same category as the extremists that both they and we desire to see marginalized. So rather than making meaningful progress in bridging the cultural divides between Islam and the west, we're being forced to watch as opponents of this center exacerbate the tensions al Queda has worked so hard to foster.

I can only hope that at some point, people like yourself can adopt enough objectivity and pragmatism to cut through the vile rhetoric that has served as a foundation for opposition to this benign community center. Until then, I've said all I have the time and inclination to say to you on it.

1. First, let’s tell the difference between “accused” and “not approved”. An accuser MUST prove the accused is guilty. On the contrary, if a person is advocating a socially impacting project, the burden is on him. You seem to follow the fallacy, similar to that prompted many people to vote for Obama. His advocates labeled the mentioning facts of his associations with bigots and criminals as building “quilt by association”. Being unqualified for a position (based on bad judgment, low moral standards, lack of basic knowledge and minimum experience, etc) – is not “accusation”!! Would any sane person claim that 300,000,000 American are accused of not being fit for the highest post?

In the case of the 911 Rabat project, very legitimate questions about the sources of financing are unanswered. You are saying: because Rauf is a good man (maybe so – but that is just a matter of your opinion) he will be able to dictate the radicals (who are going to finance the project). That is not how business plans are defended. “Who pays money – orders the music” the old saying tells.
“a swastika is the actual exclusive symbol of the Nazi party” – you are wrong – again. Swastika is an old symbol that the Nazis adopted (by they have no IP). I saw a swastika even in Israel – on an ancient rock that was excavated in Jerusalem. Not exposing swastika is a matter of decency and sensitivity, which you seem to ignore for the sake of political scoring.
And the last but not least: Rabbis and Priests can make mistakes and can have personal agendas.

2. You presented the Columbia ideologues’ “numbers”. I can show you a similar-value article from Baltimore Sun: “there are some 200 mosques on the island of Manhattan, two of which are within two blocks of Ground Zero and nearly eight hundred thousand (yes,800,000) mosques in New York City which could serve the local Muslim population.
She claims this so called cultural center will "contain recreation facilities for youth, a restaurant and culinary school, education programs, a library and child care services in addition to a prayer room (mosque)". I wonder what will be taught in education center (IED-making 101?). I wonder if the library will besides the Quran contain the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. I wonder if she is aware that this cultural center will also contain a room dedicated to the memory of the hijackers, those "brave soldiers of Islam" who gave their lives in the battle to defeat the Great Satan (the United States).”
http://articles.baltimoresun....

Read also this – about the “peaceful” islamisation in America.
http://island-adv.com/2010/05...

17 mosques in Manhattan as of 1990s is the Columbia numbers – now there are much more. Only an atheist who is out of touch with believers can think that a new mosque/rabat in Manhattan (with its traffic problems) would be attractive to Bronx Muslims for regular praying.

China towns do not constitute even 5% of any city population. I live in the Boston area – surrounded by Irish and Italian Americans There are 23% of the Irish ancestry population in MA – about 1.4 million out of 34 million of the US Irish. That is roughly 4%. Use your common sense. 20% of the US Muslims in NYC is propagandist BS. Not to mention,

3.
I’d appreciate you showing me what quotes of imam Rauf are “misrepresented”.
I already showed you that the Rabat has nothing to do with the need of Muslims communities where the bulk of NY Muslims live that lay many miles away from downtown Manhattan.

Considering context – that is exactly what I have been trying to ask you about. “Fighting infidels” is not just a line in the BOOK for the Muslims – it is the issue they have to deal with daily. Every step by the Western “doves” that sends the signal that the powerful enemy is going to submit to the Islamic rule is a factor that works against Peace. Every time you (for the sake of depriving terrorists of their recruiting tools) is working in the opposite direction. Even moderate Muslims get convinced that Allah WANTS Islam to capture the world – when they witness the concessions that they can explain only by the divine intervention. German Nazis once convinced skeptics by defeating European doves in the 30s. Islamo-Nazis (with your help) are going to convince the “Muslim street” that sits on the fence so far.

1 - You're accusing those behind the Islamic Community Center of having sinister intent. You have not supported these accusations with objective evidence. That's why the onus lies with you to support them.

Regarding the swastika - really? The fact that it existed before Nazis is irrelevant to the fact that it was adopted as one of the premier symbols of Nazi Germany. To equate the inherent, hateful symbolic value of a swastika to the inherent, benign symbolic value of a YMCA-style Islamic Community Center is simply baseless, no matter how hard you try to veer the point off on a tangent.

And yes, Rabbis and Priests can make mistakes and have personal agendas. But it's pretty telling that before this faux controversy over the community center erupted, the praise and recognition of Rauf as a moderate Imam working to build bridges between Islam and the west was as unanimous as it gets.

2 - Next, "Columbia ideologues"? What are you basing that on? I cite the results of a six year study conducted across the fields of anthropology, media studies, political science, religion, psychology, sociology and social work ( http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ne... ), and then you claim that a speculative piece containing statements with absolutely no basis in fact like "what will be taught in education center (IED-making 101?)" and "...this cultural center will also contain a room dedicated to the memory of the hijackers, those 'brave soldiers of Islam' who gave their lives in the battle to defeat the Great Satan (the United States)" to be "a similar-value article"? Is that a joke? Are you honestly incapable of differentiating between the findings of a six year interdisciplinary study and baseless speculation?

Once again, if there are more accurate figures regarding the Muslim population of New York, then by all means, offer them up. So far, you've offered nothing with any objective basis in fact on it though, so until you do, I'll stick with the estimate of 600,000. Realistically though, there's no reason to be getting so hung up on that one detail. The fact is, whatever the exact number is, there's a large Muslim population in New York, and no Islamic Community Center for them unless this one goes up. Christians have the YMCA. Jews have the JCC. Why shouldn't Muslims have one as well?

And the fact that there are mosques (actual estimates put the number of mosques at between 100 and 200, NOT 800,000) around the city is irrelevant due to the simple fact that THIS IS AN ISLAMIC COMMUNITY CENTER, NOT A MOSQUE! See, that's the problem with basing so much on rhetoric and outright lies. When you have a compromised foundation, the entire argument built upon it simply cannot stand. For example, dubbing this center the "Ground Zero Mosque", or your inane insistence on calling it a "911 Rabat project" and the like immediately puts you at a disadvantage. You spend your time arguing how New York Muslims already have plenty of mosques, all the while missing the entire point, which is that this plan is for a community center, not a Mosque.

And it's not a "Rabat project" either. It's just a community center.

3 - Most everything you wrote under your last number 3 has no meaningful relation to the points that have been raised under number 3. Those points have primarily been in regards to the fact that the Bible contains numerous calls to violence just as the Quran does, and in neither case should we use these out-of-context blurbs to define their respective adherents. If you can't counter that or anything else we've been discussing with any substantive points, then I'd say we're done here.

1. Not true – I am just stating the fact you cannot deny – Rauf doesn’t have money and he said he might take it from Iranians and Saudis.
The fact that Islam is at least a pretext to absolute majority of the terrorist crimes is undeniable. Thus, adopting swastika by the Nazis doesn’t differ too much from “adopting” Islamist pretexts by terrorists. In both cases, the connection is symbolic but obvious. Your “YMCA-style” assumption is just an assumption. Modern JCC is an absolutely secular establishment (it is Jewish rather in ethno-cultural sense than religious. I used to go to JCC that didn’t have any room for prayers at all and they were happy to embrace members of any race, without regard to religion). I was in Prague YMCA swimming pool – nobody ever asked about my denomination). Both have nothing in common with the heavily religious Rabat.

2. Columbia is a collection of far left ideologues – is it what you hear first time in your life? How relevant is the longevity of leftist/pro-islamist “research”?
But most important – and you make me repeat it again and again: the Mosque/masjid (FYI: “The mosque serves as a place where Muslims can come together for salat (prayer) (Arabic: صلاة‎, ṣalāt) as well as a center for information, education, and dispute settlement). Thus, those hundreds if not thousands of the mosques already built are “community centers” by the definition.
In addition, his “center” is not going to be built in the places of high concentration of the Muslims population and that is why the reference to “600,000” is irrelevant at best . The location is a purpose, not a function.
Nobody is saying that Muslims have no right to build mosques – they have been using this right for decades – and very successfully. The location of the Rabat is very provocative – that is the point. Your and other leftists’ (along with Islamists’) insistence on that location is most disturbing. You have legal rights to build – but it would be immoral and insensitive. Who would believe your words about peace and tolerance, if you are arrogantly ignoring other people’s pain?

3. Sure, you were totally defeated in the #3 – that is why the arguments you are not able rebuff are “irrelevant”. :)
You are referring to the phrases from the Old Testament that lost their literal meanings centuries ago. When your opponents remind you that the calls to murder Jews are very up to date – you are creating smog …

For me to be "totally defeated" in number 3, you would have had to substantively respond to any of the arguments I presented. You did not. It became a pointless exercise in me raising legitimate issues, and you responding with irrelevant tangents. You continue to do so here, claiming your victory in part on the erroneous assertion that I only offered up Old Testament quotes when the fact is, I also included New Testament quotes from Jesus himself. And then you fall back on the same old, tired accusations based on out-of-context quotes from the Quran.

So as my final reply to you here, I'll offer full context of at least one of the quotes most frequently used to illustrate the Quran's supposed instructions to kill non-Muslims, "...kill them wherever ye catch them...". Here are a couple examples offering a fuller context:

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

and:

“They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them)."

Simply put, your an idiot.
America was founded as a Christian nation, our western values and system of law is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
The biggest fact that has eluded you liberals is that this is a religious war. The enemy has no problem identifying it as such, but, for some reason, we do. This is not a law enforcement issue, it is nothing less than the continuation of western culture. The end-game here is a world dominated by Islam (submission). Now, this may be perfectly fine to candy-ass liberals with no principles, morals or values but it is not to me. Christianity has a concept called "free will". All kinds of folks can call themselves a Christian and do bad things, it is just humans screwing up and trying to justify it. You know, secularists like you. Islam is based on submission to Allah's will, as handed down by some bearded con man with bad fashion sense.

***Let's look once more at Christianity. It's holy book is absolutely riddled with calls to murder, rape, and steal from non-Christians.***

If I recall correctly, among the 10 Commandments are phrases like, "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not kill", and "Thou shalt not commit adultery". Ok, I admit the last one is a stretch, but I think you get my point. I think it's the "Thou shalt not...." part that hangs you liberals up.

I'm not sure which Bible you read (if at all), but I know mine does not say anything like what you claim. If your going to paraphrase a book, have the common decency of reading it first.

Well, this has been fun but arguing with idiots is Beck's thing, you turkeys are incapable of learning. Keep on defending the enemy right up to the point your gurgling through your slit throat while one of 'em hacks your head from your body with a dull knife because your an atheist. As for me, I'm calling a spade a spade.

Deuteronomy (essentially "the giving of the Law), has to be read in it's entirety, from the beginning, to have the correct context.
This book is when Judaism went from the Covenant of Abraham
to the Covenant of Moses with the Lord. Chapters 1 through 3 outline the hardships and punishments of the Lord for the sins of the Israelites.
Chapter 4 Moses exhorts Israel to keep the Commandments, to teach them to their children and to be exemplary before all nations. They are forbidden to make graven images or worship other Gods. Israel will be scattered among all nations to witness what they have heard (the voice of God), they shall be gathered together again in latter years when they seek their God, Moses extols the mercy and goodness of God on Israel.
Chapter 5 Moses tells of the covenant God made with Israel in Horeb, Ten Commandments reviewed, Sabbath Observance also commemorates also the deliverance from Egypt, God talks with man, reinforces that blessings flow from obedience to His Word.
Chapter 6 Moses proclaims The Lord our God is one God, Israel commanded to teach their children, Moses also exhorts Israel to keep the Commandments and statutes of the Lord that they may prosper.
Chapter 7 Israel has a mission as a holy and chosen people.
Chapter 8 The Lord tested Israel in the wilderness for 40 years, eating manna taught them that man lives by the word of God, if Israel shall serve other Gods it will perish.
Chapter 9 Other nations persished because of their wickedness, recounts the rebellions of Israel and his mediation between them and God.
Chapter 10 Tablets of Stone containing the Commandments are placed in the Ark of the Covenant, all that God requires is that Israel love and serve Him.
Chapter 11 If Israel obeys they will be blessed, they must teach their children God's Laws, cursings attend disobedience.
Chapter 12 Israel's worship must conform to divine standard.

And now, Chapter 13 - The Lord tests his people to see if they will worship false gods - Prophets, dreamers, relatives and friends who advocate worship of false gods shall be put to death, idolatrous cities shall be destroyed.

So, the proper context of this chapter is it was a test of the Jews of the Old Testament at the time of Moses to see if they had repented their rebellious ways, not a command to Christians to kill anybody (lucky for San Francisco, huh....).

Nice try, sparky, but no cigar. Show me one place in the New Testament that tells Christians to kill anybody. The New Testament is what separates Christians from being just another sect of Judaism.

Oh, yeah, I'm not an insane bigot because I have morals, standards and convictions, nor am I one because I recognize who the enemy is. Do you put this much effort into debunking Islam or is it just Christians you find offensive for their faith?

In order to establish that two groups are being treated unequally, comparable situations must be weighed against each other.

The first few issues you raise are not indicative of anyone "going after Christians". They are simply examples of keeping church and state separate. Personally, I would be against our money saying "In Allah We Trust", or "In Buddha We Trust", or "In Yaweh We Trust" just as much as I am against it currently saying "In God We Trust". And the same goes for the 10 commandments in courthouses, "under God" in the Pledge, and so on.

The prayer in school issue is less straightforward. Where I personally stand on it is that I don't support any school sponsored prayer regardless of what religion it is, but I do support the rights of individual students to observe their religious beliefs. So having the whole class stop to say a Hail Mary - no. But allowing an individual student to say a Hail Mary in a non-disruptive time and place, or to honor afternoon Islamic prayers in a non-disruptive time and place - sure thing.

The story of the cross in the desert is one that troubled me too. I remember it pretty clearly, and it went over the top for me. If I remember correctly, it wasn't meant as a government endorsement of Christianity - rather it was meant to reflect the religious beliefs of the soldier(s?) it was put up in memorial to. So I disagree with it being taken down.

But I certainly would not have an issue with a Christian Community Center being built on private property. And obviously, neither does anyone else really, because there are YMCAs (Young Men's Christian Association) all over the country.

So ultimately, on the one hand, your best example of Christians being victimized is the cross on public land out in the desert being taken down. And on the other, we have the examples of Muslims being victimized by being coerced to forfeit their first amendment rights, having mosques around the country burned down and otherwise vandalized, Muslim individuals being beaten and stabbed, and frequent calls for all Muslims to leave the country. I think that an objective comparison makes it highly difficult to maintain that Christians are being victimized while Muslims are being coddled.

All that being said, no, you haven't answered my question. You answered the question that you WANTED to answer by again regurgitating the same old tired accusations based on out of context quotes from the Quran, not the question that was asked of you. So let me try a third time:

I provided a small portion of examples from the Bible in which God (and Jesus) unequivocally commands his followers to murder, to rape, to steal, to take non-followers of his as slaves, etc. You went to great lengths to contextualize these direct quotes as a means of justifying them. And yet you seem almost eager to seize upon comparable out-of-context quotes from the Quran to support your assertions that Islam is a violent religion. There is an obvious and major inconsistency between your approaches to these two religions, and I would like to know why you seem unwilling or incapable of applying the same consideration to Islam as you do to Christianity. I mean, why does context matter to you in the Bible, but not in the Quran?

And if you feel that the quotes from the Quran are somehow worse, then by all means, provide a specific quote or two, and explain specifically how you conclude there is no context to justify them.