Two Muslims know real reason behind mosque proposal near Ground Zero

• jhay78

  

  BoatShoes;498770 wrote:Those are different questions; you can easily be an Islamophobe and yet tolerate islam. I mean, take yourself for example, you read websites that pander the idea that Islam comes from Satan and yet I'm sure you're perfectly tolerant of any Muslims you come across.
  
  (I kid, I kid. No ill will meant).

  
  I hastily referenced those websites in an effort to explain what Cordoba meant- I don't read them or even agree with most of what they say.
  
  I have multiple personal/theological differences with Islam, but that doesn't mean I (and they) can't coexist peacefully in a civil society. They have exactly the same rights to worship freely as I do.
  
  So are the Arabs who disagree with the GZ mosque Islamophobes also?
• jhay78

  

  Maybe the GZ mosque is the "other" 9-11 mosque?
  
  Interesting piece from the Canadian Free Press:
  http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28649
  
  From the National Park website:
  http://www.nps.gov/flni/parkmgmt/designquestions.htm
  
  Conservative blogger Pam Geller comments:
  http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/08/the-other-ground-zero-mosque.html
  
  Alec Rawls book: http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/
  
  This is the first I'd really heard about any controversy about this, and maybe it's Islamophobia or fear-mongering, but with the backdrop of the GZ mosque, it raises some interesting questions. Such as, why is it crescent-shaped and facing Mecca? Again, I'm hearing about this for the first time- maybe others can explain this better.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  jhay78;517328 wrote:Maybe the GZ mosque is the "other" 9-11 mosque?
  
  Interesting piece from the Canadian Free Press:
  http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28649
  
  From the National Park website:
  http://www.nps.gov/flni/parkmgmt/designquestions.htm
  
  Conservative blogger Pam Geller comments:
  http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/08/the-other-ground-zero-mosque.html
  
  Alec Rawls book: http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/
  
  This is the first I'd really heard about any controversy about this, and maybe it's Islamophobia or fear-mongering, but with the backdrop of the GZ mosque, it raises some interesting questions. Such as, why is it crescent-shaped and facing Mecca? Again, I'm hearing about this for the first time- maybe others can explain this better.

  
  Give me a break.
  This is absurd. It is not an Islamic crescent, its designer did not intend for it to be a mosque (of which to be a mosque it would have to have a congregation-which this would not), and is supported by the family members of the plane crash.
  Plus, it just plays into the stupid over exaggerated fantasies of some of the crazy right, including nutjob Frank Gaffney.
  
  Please, give me a break.
  This ranks up there with the crazy theory that the layout of Washington DC is in the form of a Mason square and compass, therefore Masons control the country.
• jhay78

  

  ptown_trojans_1;517350 wrote:Give me a break.
  This is absurd. It is not an Islamic crescent, its designer did not intend for it to be a mosque (of which to be a mosque it would have to have a congregation-which this would not), and is supported by the family members of the plane crash.
  Plus, it just plays into the stupid over exaggerated fantasies of some of the crazy right, including nutjob Frank Gaffney.
  
  Please, give me a break.
  This ranks up there with the crazy theory that the layout of Washington DC is in the form of a Mason square and compass, therefore Masons control the country.

  
  Fair enough. But why was the winning design called "Crescent of Embrace" and later changed to "Circle of Embrace"?
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_93_National_Memorial
  

  Controversy
  This design "drew criticism from some religious groups and online blogs."[12] A photojournalist wrote at zombietime that:[13]
  
  The winning design chosen to memorialize the heroes and victims of 9/11’s Flight 93 is in the shape of a red crescent that looks–either accidentally or intentionally–remarkably like an Islamic crescent.
  ...[A]n azimuthal equidistant world map ... seems to indicate that the crescent is oriented toward Mecca.
  Jury member Tom Burnett Sr., whose son was killed in the crash, said he made an impassioned speech to his fellow jurors about what he felt the crescent represented, "I explained this goes back centuries as an old-time Islamic symbol," Burnett said. "I told them we'd be a laughing stock if we did this."[14] Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado has opposed the design's shape "because of the crescent's prominent use as a symbol in Islam." Mike Rosen of the Rocky Mountain News wrote: "On the anniversaries of 9/11, it's not hard to visualize al-Qaeda celebrating the crescent of maple trees, turning red in the fall, "embracing" the Flight 93 crash site. To them, it would be a memorial to their fallen martyrs. Why invite that? Just come up with a different design that eliminates the double meaning and the dispute."[15]

  http://tribune-democrat.com/local/x519117030/Concerns-over-memorial-grow
  

  Somerset — Fundamentalist Christians aren’t alone in their concerns about an Islamic symbol being used in the design of the Flight 93 National Memorial.
  
  Muslims would take affront as well, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University said.
  
  Named “Crescent of Embrace,” the design by Paul Murdoch Associates of Los Angeles centers around a semicircular pathway of red maples leading to the crash site. Forty innocent passengers and crew were killed when four Islamic hijackers crashed the plane into a reclaimed strip mine near Shanksville on Sept. 11, 2001.
  
  “Given the political ramifications, it’s not an apt name,” Professor Bernard Haykel said Friday, a day after a Somerset County street preacher declared he is considering filing for an injunction to stop the design.
  
  “I could see a Muslin taking offense to this by saying this could be a slight to Islam. It could cut both ways.”
  
  The Rev. Ron McRae, self-proclaimed bishop of Bible Anabaptist Church near Jerome, is vowing to fight the design, contending a red crescent is a major Islamic symbol.
  
  “I think it’s shameful,” McRae said. “These people were killed in the name of religion.”
  
  In Islam, the crescent moon symbolizes the beginning and end of a calendar month. Crescents are prominent on mosques and are used on ambulances similar to red crosses in America.
  
  “It is the symbol of ritual and religious life for Muslims,” Haykel said.
  
  “The name (of the memorial) itself is not bad, but people can read into it all kinds of things.”
  
  Murdoch has said the word is used generically in an architectural sense to describe the walkway around the bowl-shaped depression surrounding the plane’s point of impact. He maintains no religious implications were intended.
  
  But even the second-stage jury that selected the design recommended changing its name to steer clear of religious overtones. Rather than crescent, the jury suggested using circle or arc of embrace instead.
  
  “It shows how insulated Americans are about 9/11,” Haykel said. “They should think how Christian fundamentalists and Muslims are going to see this. This is not a neutral context.”
  
  Fouad El Bayly of Somerset, leader of the Islamic Center of Johnstown, has said Muslims immediately would recognize the symbolism in the design.
  
  The crescent is a symbol of Islamic faith, El Bayly said.
  
  “You pick something to be identified with,” he said

• CenterBHSFan

  

  Ever find yourself wondering why certain threads just don't wither away and die?
• BRF

  

  Many times, oh wise one, many times!
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  jhay78;517589 wrote:Fair enough. But why was the winning design called "Crescent of Embrace" and later changed to "Circle of Embrace"?

  
  Probably because they knew idiots would associate it with Islam?
  This is really the stupidest thing I've read all day.
• BRF

  

  I am now in the mood for a croissant. Thanks!
• CenterBHSFan

  

  BRF;517675 wrote:I am now in the mood for a croissant. Thanks!

  I had chicken salad on a croissant today for lunch! Very tasty
• jhay78

  

  CenterBHSFan;517597 wrote:Ever find yourself wondering why certain threads just don't wither away and die?

  C'mon- you know you'd like to see a thread reach 30 pages, don't you?
  

  ptown_trojans_1;517637 wrote:Probably because they knew idiots would associate it with Islam?
  This is really the stupidest thing I've read all day.

  
  So is this guy an idiot for recognizing it as hinting at Islamic symbolism?
  

  Fouad El Bayly of Somerset, leader of the Islamic Center of Johnstown, has said Muslims immediately would recognize the symbolism in the design.
  
  The crescent is a symbol of Islamic faith, El Bayly said.
  
  “You pick something to be identified with,” he said

• ptown_trojans_1

  

  No. Recognizing it as something is different than implying it was purposefully done, which was/ is implied by Gaffney and crew.
  
  Again, back to DC. It is like someone saying "Gee those streets in DC look awfully like a Square and Compass. Isn't that interesting, but a convenience."
  And another person saying, "Wow, those streets look like a square and compass, that means the Masons control DC!"
• jhay78

  

  ptown_trojans_1;517872 wrote:No. Recognizing it as something is different than implying it was purposefully done, which was/ is implied by Gaffney and crew.
  
  Again, back to DC. It is like someone saying "Gee those streets in DC look awfully like a Square and Compass. Isn't that interesting, but a convenience."
  And another person saying, "Wow, those streets look like a square and compass, that means the Masons control DC!"

  The CFP article addressed the intentional vs. innocent argument:
  

  Islamic imagery is certainly not foreign to Murdoch, having worked with award-winning architects Charles Moore and Arthur Erickson who did major design work in Islamic architecture, the latter of whom designed an open-air mosque in the centre of the campus for the Islamic University of Medina. Erickson’s design appears to be the original model for Murdoch’s outdoor mosque (according to Rawls writing to blogger Hesperado). Furthermore, one of the Park’s design consultants, an expert in the history of mosque design and professor of Islamic architecture at MIT, did his Masters in Architecture at UCLA with Murdoch. Interestingly enough, the crescent and star are featured as the logo for Davis Langdon, the global construction consultant company that assisted Murdoch with the design. His landscape architect Nelson Byrd Woltz, also had a thing for crescents, according to Rawls, and incorporated many in earlier projects. Is it possible that Murdoch’s associates enabled him to properly incorporate mosque features into his design? Or was the design innocently conceived?

  If it was in fact innocently conceived, then these professional architects might've thought about possible controversy, given Americans' sensitivities to 9/11. The fact that the National Park website had to explain away the controversy proves to me that the designers left room for doubt- much like Imam Rauf's controversial past leaves room for doubt about his intentions on the GZ mosque.
• I Wear Pants

  Take off the foil hats already.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  jhay78;518245 wrote:The CFP article addressed the intentional vs. innocent argument:
  
  
  
  If it was in fact innocently conceived, then these professional architects might've thought about possible controversy, given Americans' sensitivities to 9/11. The fact that the National Park website had to explain away the controversy proves to me that the designers left room for doubt- much like Imam Rauf's controversial past leaves room for doubt about his intentions on the GZ mosque.

  
  The fact that the family member of the victims see no problem with the design should squash anything hint of a hidden agenda.
  Trying to equate the memorial with a hidden agenda of Islam is insane to me and has no basis or foundation.
  
  What was the Park supposed to do, not address it? Right, then the crazies would be saying they are denying it and hiding the agenda. Damned if they did and damned if they didn't with those nutjobs.
  
  I bet I could go around some of this country's monuments, find a "crescent" and come up with some crazy theory myself on how it is Islamic and bad.
  Give it up already.
• fish82

  

  Wild Bill FTW here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/10/14/whoopi_joy_behar_walk_off_set_during_oreilly_interview_over_mosque.html
  
  After receiving a brisk spanking on their oversized asses from Bill-O, Whoopi and Joy melt down completely and walk off stage. Priceless!!!!!
• jhay78

  

  fish82;519540 wrote:Wild Bill FTW here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/10/14/whoopi_joy_behar_walk_off_set_during_oreilly_interview_over_mosque.html
  
  After receiving a brisk spanking on their oversized asses from Bill-O, Whoopi and Joy melt down completely and walk off stage. Priceless!!!!!

  
  Definitely Wild Bill at his best- dude is confrontational, even if he comes down on the right side of an issue.
  
  The best part was Barbara W. criticizing Whoopi and Joy.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  fish82;519540 wrote:Wild Bill FTW here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/10/14/whoopi_joy_behar_walk_off_set_during_oreilly_interview_over_mosque.html
  
  After receiving a brisk spanking on their oversized asses from Bill-O, Whoopi and Joy melt down completely and walk off stage. Priceless!!!!!

  
  I don't know if those two broads are what make the show popular, or if they are what makes it repulsive (which is my opinon).
• I Wear Pants

  -1 for Joy and Whoopi walking off like children
  -1 for Bill being an asshole
  +1 for Barbara calmly being an adult.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;519621 wrote:-1 for Joy and Whoopi walking off like children
  -1 for Bill being an asshole
  +1 for Barbara calmly being an adult.

  How was Bill being an asshole? Behar was in his face yelling and he responded.
• I Wear Pants

  He purposely never mentions that it is Muslim extremists doing attacks.
  
  He did take Behar and Whoopi being shouty bitches better than I thought he would. He's usually the one shouting down his opponents.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;519650 wrote:He purposely never mentions that it is Muslim extremists doing attacks.

  Wrong. He did clarify that it was Muslim extremists after Barb settled things down. You can't even say with certainty that his initial words were purposeful. We all say things in the heat of the moment. In the end he clarified. I will take him for his word.
• I Wear Pants

  Fair enough, I was making that assumption based on my knowledge of his position and opinions from different shows and interviews. It was as you said in this interview so I guess I've got to take the guy at his word there.
  
  I still don't like him but he seems to have calmed a little bit in the past year or so. Seems like he might want to be the newscaster with a conservative opinion rather than the partisan GOP hack that he could be/sometimes has been. (An example of him chilling down is when I saw him do a story about the "liberal media" and mention that CNN usually does a pretty decent job at presenting the story sans too much spin to either side. Which I thought was surprising coming from him). Hopefully he continues down the path of chilling out and maybe some other members of the media can follow (I'm looking at you Olbermann).
• jhay78

  

  majorspark;520002 wrote:Wrong. He did clarify that it was Muslim extremists after Barb settled things down. You can't even say with certainty that his initial words were purposeful. We all say things in the heat of the moment. In the end he clarified. I will take him for his word.

  
  I agree. He could've initially said "self-proclaimed Muslims killed us on 9-11" to avoid a meltdown, but he did clarify. I would've said it a little differently to avoid the shouting match, but it wouldn't have been as fun to watch.
• fish82

  

  jhay78;520050 wrote:I agree. He could've initially said "self-proclaimed Muslims killed us on 9-11" to avoid a meltdown, but he did clarify. I would've said it a little differently to avoid the shouting match, but it wouldn't have been as fun to watch.

  He clarified after the damage was already done, and the Heifers had already made themselves look stupid. (For Behar, more than usual) It was a brilliant move on Bill's part. He said nothing that was factually incorrect, and he knew they would come unhinged. It was merely a lesson in how a professional goes about making drooling idiots show themselves for what they are.
  
  Actually, it was just the final straw for her Joyness. Her meltdown started when she was unable to deal with the fact that a significant majority of the country doesn't want the center built there. She was already foaming at the mouth before Bill even went down the "Muslim" path.
• I Wear Pants

  Here's my problem with the "significant majority of the country doesn't want it" argument. It has no place in the discussion. There are tons of things where a majority of the country would disapprove of if polled on. But it doesn't matter. A majority of people don't have to approve of something for it to be allowed, thank god.