Why is the Muslim Canadian Congress OPPOSING the Islamic Community center two blocks from the WTC?

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture
Why is the Muslim Canadian Congress OPPOSING the Islamic Community center two blocks from the WTC?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Somebody on Democratic Underground just started a thread where they linked to this:

 

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html

 

Aside from the presumptiousness of THESE two claiming to speak for "we Muslms"...why are these guys saying this?

What's in it for them?

Stockholm

"What's in it for them?"

Attention and publicity. That's all.

al-Qa'bong

I heard a woman from a Muslim organization (sorry, I don't remember which one) say last week that she opposes this centre because she thinks it's too provocative and that it invites backlashes against Muslims.

6079_Smith_W

al-Qa'bong wrote:

I heard a woman from a Muslim organization (sorry, I don't remember which one) say last week that she opposes this centre because she thinks it's too provocative and that it invites backlashes against Muslims.

If it is the same person I heard last week on CBC radio, she is Raheel Raza from the Muslim Canadian Congress. She was supposed to meet last week with representatives from the Mosque in New York to deliver the MCC's letter in person.

I can't remember her exact words, but I know she also said something along the line of it being insensitive to build the mosque. It was interesting hearing New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg speak strongly in favour of the mosque the next day.

It's 10 min long, but good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQsHc1EHgQY

 

Actually it is worse than I remember. Here she is on Bill O'Reilly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHg9gzo9o-U

 

sanizadeh

I agree that it was unnecessarily provocative (if that was not specifically the purpose from the beginning). Rights are rights no doubt, but I would have chosen to exercise my rights in a different way/location for the well being of muslim community. Not to mention that the 100 million dollars could have done a lot of good for Pakistan flood victims.

genstrike

If you look hard enough, you can always find some people willing to take stands which seem counter to their interests.  For example, you can have women opposing feminism or supporting feministy-sounding justifications for war and imperialism, or you can find Aboriginal people supporting eliminating grants for Aboriginal students, or you can find groups like the Muslim Canadian Congress who are willing to wade into this islamophobic bullshit.  Heck, it seems like the best way for a leftie (or allegedly leftie) writer to advance his career is to turn on the left and start with the paternalistic "I used to be just like you but then I got enlightened" bullshit.  Just look at the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Terry Glavin (although one must wonder if Glavin ever had any left cred to begin with, or if it is all just his schtick).  Or when the Liberals use Bob Rae as a point person to target the NDP.  This isn't anything new, it goes back to the days of slavery with Uncle Toms and House... well, you get the drift.

Because these voices serve the elite's interest, and in a small part because the media thinks they're more interesting (hey look!  A Muslim who supports Islamophobia!  That's pretty novel!), they are privileged way more than the other 99% of Muslims who see this issue for what it really is:  a non-issue meant to stoke the flames of Islamophobia.  The way the system works, it seems as though the best way for members of oppressed groups to have their voices heard is to agree with the oppressor, and in a prominent way.

Look, when IAW came to Winnipeg, who did the Zionist community bring in to oppose it?  Not a prominent Jewish Zionist or Christian Zionist (and there are many locally who would have sufficed), they brought in the Israeli-Palestinian Comedy Tour (and subsequently published Ray Hanania's inane drivel in their poorly-written newspapers) and a guy named Mohammed.

6079_Smith_W

sanizadeh wrote:

I agree that it was unnecessarily provocative (if that was not specifically the purpose from the beginning). Rights are rights no doubt, but I would have chosen to exercise my rights in a different way/location for the well being of muslim community. Not to mention that the 100 million dollars could have done a lot of good for Pakistan flood victims.

How are people ever going to learn that Islam is not to blame when there are Muslims who act like it is? She may think she is being sensitive, but all she is doing is providing a crutch for people who believe that lie of guilt by association.

I think their mayor cut right through that nonsense.

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

If it is the same person I heard last week on CBC radio, she is Raheel Raza from the Muslim Canadian Congress

 

That must be who I heard.

Quote:
Look, when IAW came to Winnipeg, who did the Zionist community bring in to oppose it?  Not a prominent Jewish Zionist or Christian Zionist (and there are many locally who would have sufficed), they brought in the Israeli-Palestinian Comedy Tour (and subsequently published Ray Hanania's inane drivel in their poorly-written newspapers) and a guy named Mohammed.

 

Oddly enough, this is the same argument made by Zionists who condemn Norman Finkelstein as a Jew who speaks up for Palestinians. They say no non-Jew (Gentile? Goy?) could get away with what Finkelstein says, and that he gives the Palestinian side a certain cachet because he's Jewish.

6079_Smith_W

@ al-Qa'Bong #8

I can see the similarity, but it's not like Finkelstein is criticizing something he believes in.

Assuming Raza is observant I don't know how she can square her faith with being ashamed to build a mosque just to appease others' prejudices. Does she stand up for her beliefs or not?

genstrike

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Oddly enough, this is the same argument made by Zionists who condemn Norman Finkelstein as a Jew who speaks up for Palestinians. They say no non-Jew (Gentile? Goy?) could get away with what Finkelstein says, and that he gives the Palestinian side a certain cachet because he's Jewish.

I know this is going to sound like a cop-out, but I'm going to say that while there are maybe some similarities on the face of it, it's different when we do it.

What we're seeing on this issue is that the Israeli state and their cheerleaders are trying to tie the entire Jewish community to the politics of right-wing Israeli governments, and thus tie any criticism of Israel which they deem "illegitimate" (which is anything forceful like "the A-word" or anything advocating concrete action like BDS) to anti-semitism.  This, and the actions of the Israeli state as of late being more and more indefensible, have caused increasing numbers of Jewish people to stand up and say "Hey, wait a minute, war crimes in my name aren't cool," and perhaps because they are being committed in their name, decide to stand up to oppose it as Jews.  This is what I think organilzations like Independent Jewish Voices are all about.  I think we see a similar thing to some extent with QuAIA as well, given the Israeli PR machine's recent attempts to pinkwash apartheid.

Another big difference is that groups like Independent Jewish Voices don't really have their perspectives broadcasted, privileged and validated by the elite like the MCC or the Frontier Centre's token aboriginals do.  They're also likely to be written off as "self-hating Jews."  Also, the relations of oppressed and oppressor are fundamentally different with groups like IJV than they are with groups like the MCC.

KenS

I cant watch the Youtube clips.

But MCC spokespersons are generally absolutely obssesed with the influence of Islamists. Its the worst thing going on in the world, and they see their influence everywhere.

Not only do they see Islamists under every bed, they see Islamist enablers under the bed of every non-Muslim.

I'm open in principle to listening to an arguement that its intentionally provacative. But you have to wonder how it could be when Obama- not exactly known for taking chance- does not see it that way.

And as well as seeing Islamists under every bed, there is a strong whiff among members of the MCC of payback to Middle Eastern Muslims [and especially Saudis] for their undeniable racism against South Asian Canadian Muslims.

Unionist

KenS wrote:
But you have to wonder how it could be when Obama- not exactly known for taking chance- does not see it that way.

How does Obama see it?

[url=http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Obama+clarifies+mosque+support/3400901... clarifies mosque support[/url]

Quote:

U.S. President Barack Obama said Saturday he supports the right of Muslims to build a cultural centre near the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York, but he would not comment on the "wisdom" of such a move. [...]

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there," Obama told reporters while visiting the Gulf Coast. "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about."

On Friday, Obama said he believes Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as anyone else in the country.

I'm quite sure the MCC and Obama are fully agreed on these points. The MCC just goes further by commenting on the "wisdom" of such a move.

skdadl

The MCC is Tarek Fatah's group, yes?

Unionist

Yes.

KenS

OK on the point about Obama seeming to say the same thing.

But my point still stands: they question the "wisdom".

By that same token- I know that Tarek and they have axes to grind that make me unwilling to take their word on it. I need to hear more from others.

[Which wont be easy. Because there are axes to grind in every direction- making it hard for outsiders to come to their own understanding.]

Tommy_Paine

 

With the midterm elections not only in full gear but going into hyper-drive, there's angles and facets to this that would take a long time to sort out.

 

It could be the phenomena that genstrike describes.  It could also be that the MCC doesn't see this as a ground to fight on, that their battles are better fought on other ground.   But on that score, the die is cast, and I don't think it would be wise to turn back on the project just because it bothers some people's sensibilities.

 

 

KenS

And did the MCC at least do as much as Obama?

While question whether it was a provacative thing to do, did they at least point at the Islamaphobe hysteria which Obama is speaking to?

I dont see them doing that in other cases.

Unionist

I hold no brief for the MCC, for obvious reasons - they are the accompanying chorus for invasion and aggression.

But Obama is murdering the Afghan people, with more troops than ever in history. The MCC is not. I like to maintain that kind of perspective.

KenS

Geez, this isnt about Obama.

The point being that in this case they [apparently] cant even do as much as he. Its not about who is badder overall.

Unionist

KenS wrote:
Geez, this isnt about Obama.

POP QUIZ: Who first raised Obama in this thread?

ANSWER: ____

Quote:
The point being that in this case they [apparently] cant even do as much as he. Its not about who is badder overall.

Ok, KenS. "They [apparently] can't even do as much as he." So, what has he done and what have they done?

Here's what I think: Whatever you or I or Obama may think of the MCC's position, as North American Muslims it is more their business than yours or mine or Obama's to comment on what Muslims in North America should or should not do.

When Obama says that Muslims have as much right as Christians or Jews to build a place of worship (unaccountable called a "cultural centre" by some!!??) near "Ground Zero", I am not overwhelmed by his broad-minded democratic spirit. He may as well say that Muslims should not be hunted down and rounded up and tortured and shot without due process. Although, as I mentioned, that is exactly what is being done on his behalf.

In short, whatever you thought the topic of this thread was before someone mentioned Obama, I think perspective is important. To praise Obama and condemn the MCC is very very wrongheaded.

 

George Victor

It is only the discriminating Teapartyer , normally, that is obsessed with (wrongly)  associating Obama and Muslims. But that is what he has to contend with. That and his birthplace.  Both are serious subjects in the ranting atmosphere of U.S. political life, which sometimes slops over to discussions of Canadian positions, like the MCC.

Doug

It's two blocks away! How sensitive do muslims in NYC have to be?

Cueball Cueball's picture

George Victor wrote:

It is only the discriminating Teapartyer , normally, that is obsessed with (wrongly)  associating Obama and Muslims.

Is there a problem with associating Obama with Muslims?

George Victor

As a Canadian muslim I might be inclined not to rattle the cage of that element in the U.S - the element with the guns - and opinion hereabouts seems to be coming to the firm conclusion that they are a forward element of a nasty totalitarian or even fascist outcome. I'm not a Muslim, but I can respect folks who are not about to hang a red flag out there in the name of "freedom", or "liberty", or any of the other founding catchwards that have been ignored south of the 49th lately.  I would think first of my children and their chances in North American society.

Of course, one might say that thinking is just too self-centered and uncaring.  But if one is frightened enough about the goings-on down there, and considers the bolder, more pugnacious element of one's faith to be just asking for trouble, perhaps one could be forgiven.  I am struck first, however, by the fact that it is a Canadian organization making the appeal in Washington.  They are very, very serious.

George Victor

Cueball wrote:

George Victor wrote:

It is only the discriminating Teapartyer , normally, that is obsessed with (wrongly)  associating Obama and Muslims.

Is there a problem with associating Obama with Muslims?

In the sense that they make the association, from his middle name, and hoping to draw hatred?  Clearly, yes. 

And if you are here just to enter into another venemous rant as in our last exchange, Cue - as appears likely from your intro - feel free to play nasty little word games with yourself.  :)

Cueball Cueball's picture

George Victor wrote:

I'm not a Muslim, but I can respect folks who are not about to hang a red flag out there in the name of "freedom", or "liberty", or any of the other founding catchwards that have been ignored south of the 49th lately.  I would think first of my children and their chances in North American society.

Better just to let the insidious proto-fascist forces have their way and keep whistling in the dark?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Not rock the boat? Clean the apartments before getting on the train?

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

al-Qa'bong wrote:

I heard a woman from a Muslim organization (sorry, I don't remember which one) say last week that she opposes this centre because she thinks it's too provocative and that it invites backlashes against Muslims.

If it is the same person I heard last week on CBC radio, she is Raheel Raza from the Muslim Canadian Congress. She was supposed to meet last week with representatives from the Mosque in New York to deliver the MCC's letter in person.

I can't remember her exact words, but I know she also said something along the line of it being insensitive to build the mosque. It was interesting hearing New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg speak strongly in favour of the mosque the next day.

It's 10 min long, but good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQsHc1EHgQY

 

Actually it is worse than I remember. Here she is on Bill O'Reilly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHg9gzo9o-U

 

I heard that horrible woman on the CBC. When the interviewer said that Bloomberg and those closer to ground zero supported the buidling, she derided "bleeding heart liberals". My impression from her is that nothing less than a "muslim free zone" in New York would be good enough. It is ugly racism and that is all it is.

Unionist

George Victor wrote:

It is only the discriminating Teapartyer , normally, that is obsessed with (wrongly)  associating Obama and Muslims. But that is what he has to contend with.

They also call him a socialist. So why doesn't he spend his entire life, every minute, swearing his allegiance to capitalism, private health care, bailing out banks, etc.?

He does? Oh, sorry.

Quote:
That and his birthplace.

He should spend a lot more time disassociating himself from Africa. That's just as dangerous an association as being called Muslim.

Can't the poor fellow multitask??

Anyway, this thread isn't about Obama. It's about the United States, the aftermath of 9/11, Islamophobia, and its impact on the people of the U.S. and abroad. It isn't about Obama. At all.

NDPP

Damn it. For Once, Obama (Briefly) Happened to be Right

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/

Here's Arthur Silber on the topic:

"..Not a mosque. Not on Ground Zero. Therefore no controversy. Unless, that is, you're a vicious bigot..."

Stockholm

The thing I wish people would point out (especially the MCC) is the totally Islamophobic fallacy of buying into the idea what happened on Sept. 11 had anything to do with "Islam" in the first place. I mean, sure the bombers claimed to be Muslims - though they committed an act of mas murder suicide that every single solitary branch of the Muslim faith condemns as a sin and abomination of Islam. Osama Bin Laden is not a clergyman -  he is just a private citizen with some crazy ideas - but ultimately he is no more representative of the entire Muslim religion than is Rev. Phelps representative of all of Protestantism.

The entire Muslim religion should not be on trial here. If anything we should be going out of our way to embrace the buidling of mosques etc...and make the point that the perpetartors of 9/11 were acting on their own and that the 99.99999999999999% of Muslims in the world who totally abhor the blasphemy these people committed should not have apologize for waht was done in their name. In fact many of the people who died on 9/11 were Muslims hemselves who happened to work in the WTC - but I guess they don't count as "real" victims.

Apparently just a few weeks after 9/11, a Muslim prayer room was opened in the Pentagon (remember one of the planes flew into the Pentagon too!) - there was no controversy around it at all and i think I had that Bush even attended the opening. I guess these bigoted loons in the US only care about a Muslim community centre when it is opened while the President is a man named Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

Timothy McVeigh was a Christian and his twisted white supremacist ideology was full of KKK-style references to Christianity. I wonder why no one claimed that any church within a mile of the Oklahoma City federal building was some sort of an insult to the people who worked there?  I wonder if churches have been banned in Waco Texas because David Koresh was a Christian?

If the Muslim Canadian Congress actually gave a hoot about the place of Muslims in North American society - maybe instead of taking the side of all these racists in the US - they would instead make the case that what happened on 9/11 had nothing to with what Islam is all about and they would champion the construction of a Muslim Centre near Ground Zero as a place where Americans can learn more of the truth about Islam and where there can even be a memorial in the centre to the victims of 9/11 where Muslims can pray for their souls and (if they wish) pray that the souls of "Muslim imposters" who committed mass murder on that day will burn in hell until the end of time.

Instead the MCC just goes along with the idea that all Muslims in North America need to apologize for 9/11 and that the terrorists were somehow "typical of Islam".

Cueball Cueball's picture

I agree.

Stockholm

Is that the first time in 7 years that you've ever agreed with me?

Cueball Cueball's picture

No.

milo204

so does this mean they can't build churches by federal buildings in oklahoma?  What does this say about having a US base on cuban soil when the us carried out terrorist attacks in cuba?  of course, this is linked to a larger attack on muslims around the world.  Banning minarets, outlawing veils, opposing mosques all over the US, and now this one in NY.

The ridiculous thing, pointed out by a few others, is that it's two blocks away!  They make it sound like they're building it of bricks made from the rubble of the twin towers!

Also all the comparisons like "would they let us build a church in a muslim country!!??" are dumb.  Why is it that we love to compare ourselves to the countries we say are so bad (israel does this all the time)...isn't the point of a democracy that we have MORE freedom than in saudi arabia et al?  such a bad argument.

Also, wasn't this already a mosque?  where was the opposition BEFORE they decided to build a new building?

jrootham

It's not A mosque, it's a big building that contains a mosque.

Fivethirtyeight is as about a neutral observer that you could find on this issue.  The come down pretty hard on the constructed outrage side of the explanation about what is going on.

 

Stockholm

milo204 wrote:

Also all the comparisons like "would they let us build a church in a muslim country!!??" are dumb.

On top of that, there ARE churches in many Muslim countries. Egypt has a large Coptic population and has churches and synagogues and I haven't seen the Palestinian Authority try to take a wrecking ball the to the church of the Nativity in Bethlehem! The one place in the Muslim world where churches are banned is indeed Saudi Arabia - and Saudi Arabia also the US's closest ally in the region!

I just don't get these people's point. Are they now going to advocate public executions of adulterers in the US on the grounds that "the Saudis get to have them so why can't we??"

skdadl

Stockholm wrote:

Is that the first time in 7 years that you've ever agreed with me?

I agree with you sometimes too, Stockholm. It's an interesting experience.  Wink

Tarek was on babble for a while years back, and through one extended discussion I was actually agreeing with him -- in opposing public funding for private schools, which I do oppose.

But then we got on to the subject of Muslim women, and he became puzzling to me, and eventually deeply boring. It was like reading Hirsan Ali or whazzername, the Canadian equivalent. I locate fixations on entire "religions" or on alien cultural customs somewhere in the neighbourhood of neurotic, so I ended up losing all interest.

Unionist

jrootham wrote:

Fivethirtyeight is as about a neutral observer that you could find on this issue.

Doesn't sound too neutral to me. Basically, he's saying it won't really be a mosque, it's not really at Ground Zero, it won't be very showy or visible, it sounds pretty reformist, so he's moving toward supporting it from his previous position of not liking it but grudgingly recognizing the right to build it. He'd like to see it built to see how New Yorkers react to it.

One is left to speculate what this "neutral" observer might say if it really looked like a mosque - heavens forfend.

 

sanizadeh

Stockholm wrote:

 The one place in the Muslim world where churches are banned is indeed Saudi Arabia - and Saudi Arabia also the US's closest ally in the region!

In Iran also permits are typically not issued for new churches, and there has been calls from officials for cracking down on "home churches", i.e. people holding religious gatherings at home.

sanizadeh

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Assuming Raza is observant I don't know how she can square her faith with being ashamed to build a mosque just to appease others' prejudices. Does she stand up for her beliefs or not?

Don't know about her, but the wisdom of the action (building of the mosque) is in question; not to mention that building a 100-million dollar mosque while millions of Pakistani muslims and elsewhere are suffering from floods and other problems is clearly against Islamic teachings.

jrootham

Sorry, I forgot about the Unionist definition of neutral.  :)  

Stockholm

sanizadeh wrote:

Don't know about her, but the wisdom of the action (building of the mosque) is in question; not to mention that building a 100-million dollar mosque while millions of Pakistani muslims and elsewhere are suffering from floods and other problems is clearly against Islamic teachings.

 

Haiti is an overwhelmingly Catholic country and was almost destroyed by that earthquake in January. Does this mean that no Catholic churches are to be built anywhere in the world until Haiti has been rebuilt and that any money raised to build or renovate any Catholics achurches anywhere on the face of the earth should be turned over the Haitian relief?? Maybe the Vatican should melt down all the gold in St. Peter's Basilica and have a rummage sale of all the art in the Sistine Chapel and send all the proceeds to whatever country has had the most recent natural disaster.

Seriously, what the hell do the floods in Pakistan have to do with building a mosque in Manhattan?

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

sanizadeh wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

 The one place in the Muslim world where churches are banned is indeed Saudi Arabia - and Saudi Arabia also the US's closest ally in the region!

In Iran also permits are typically not issued for new churches, and there has been calls from officials for cracking down on "home churches", i.e. people holding religious gatherings at home.

Certainly, prevening Mosque building in New York will make the Iranians see the light, and this will open the door to all kinds of Church and sysnagogue constrution all over Iran.

sanizadeh

Stockholm wrote:

Haiti is an overwhelmingly Catholic country and was almost destroyed by that earthquake in January. Does this mean that no Catholic churches are to be built anywhere in the world until Haiti has been rebuilt and that any money raised to build or renovate any Catholics achurches anywhere on the face of the earth should be turned over the Haitian relief?

I am not a catholic and don't judge how Catholics view their own church. As a Muslim I find building of a 100-million dollar mosque at this time anywhere quite deplorable. More particularly this one as the largest muslim community in New York are of Pakistani origin, whose mother country is suffering the worst floods in their recent history. In Islam, prayer houses don't have any special requirements; any room or house can be used for that purpose. So spending this much money needs a great deal of judtification.

Additionally, while we perfectly have the right to build the mosque there, Creating sensitivity over a location that does not really matter to muslims is foolish at best and smells of trying to pick up an unnecessry fight.  There are more important issues in the community and this battle is the least important of them. I understand that the issue would be important to those (especially non-muslims) who want to preserve religious freedoms, however I am not sure if it is wise for muslim community to allow itself to become the focus of such battle.

sanizadeh

Cueball wrote:

Certainly, prevening Mosque building in New York will make the Iranians see the light, and this will open the door to all kinds of Church and sysnagogue constrution all over Iran.

I wish so, considering that Iran is home to some of the oldest Christian and Jewish communities in the world. Even older than most parts of Europe.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Quite right. " Intollerance is the hand maiden of tollerance", so said... uhh... umm... come to think of it I can't think of any famous intelligent person who said that.

George Victor

Writing in the June 26, 2008 issueof The Hamilton Spectator, Tahir Aslam Gora, a Pakistani-Canadian writer livng in Burlington dscribed the movement for Islamic reform in Canada:

"Today, in a time when Islamic reforms are needed, we don't find any notable momentum across Muslim nations. But in Canada, interestingly, we can find some streaks of Islamic reform...

"Ijtihad is a widely used term in talking about reforming Islam. It means an intellectual effort by Muslim jurists to reach independent religio-legal decisions.

As to the MCC : "The Muslim Canadian Congressis another strong voice to challenging Islamists in Canada and around the globe. This network of progressive Muslims, along with Homa Arjomand's  International Campaign against Sharia Court in Canada, was the real resistance on the ground to the potential imposition of Islamic sharia law in Ontario.

"Asra Nomani, a well-known U.S. Muslim author, was an organizer of unprecedented Islamic prayer led by a woman, Amina Wadud, in the United States in 2005. Later on, the Muslim Canadian Congress organized woman-led prayer by Toronto Islamic scholar Raheel Raza. But these few happenings haven't led to regular prayers led by women.

"There is another dilemma for Islamic reform, i which, as in any movement, you can find divisions. Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, at one point said Irshad Manji's book, The Trouble With Islam Today, was not addressed to Muslims but, he wrote, 'aimed at making Muslim-haters feel secur in their thinking.'

"Today, Fatah says he regrets that. 'Looking back to the time I slammed Irshad Manji's book, I now realize I was unfair to her. There were many redeeming points in her memoir, which I overlooked in my rush to judge it.  For example, she was right in identifying systemic racism in the Muslim world as one of the caners impeding a Muslim resaissance. I was wrong in overlooking that fact. Having said that, her allegation that I am anti-Jewish was amusing, considering the fact that some Islamist bloggers charge me with being a Zionist.' "

 

 

 

sanizadeh

I think that the article's point about the role of Canadians like  Tarek Fatah and Irshad Munji in reforming Islam is exaggerated. They don't have much following.

Stockholm

sanizadeh wrote:

I am not a catholic and don't judge how Catholics view their own church. As a Muslim I find building of a 100-million dollar mosque at this time anywhere quite deplorable.

 

You know what? I find it deplorable that one penny gets spent anywhere on the world on any houses of worship - churches, mosques, temples synagogues - as long as even one human being on this planet is living in poverty. In my personal opinion ANY money spent on houses of worship is money flushed down the toilet because I consider all religions to be a crock! Why do you only find the building of a 100-million mosque deplorable "at this time"? Why not all the time? Any day o the week there are better ways to use the money. I think a new mosque is being built right now somewhere in Brampton. I assume it will cost millions - as would any largish building. Maybe you should picket the construction site and demand that plans for the mosque scrapped and any money raised instead be sent to fee the starving children of Zimbabwe. While we are at it - some people think that any money spent on the arts is deplorable as long as there are mouth to feed somewhere in the world. So let's just end all arts funding in Canada and send all the money to help flood victims in pakistan instead?

Come to think of it maybe Canada shoudl offer to match the $1 billion spent on G20 security by sending $1 billion to emergency relief in Pakistan?

Or better yet, why doesn't the Muslim Canadian Congress suspend all operations and fire all its employees and send all the money it has for its operating budget to help the flood victims in Pakistan. Mayeb Tarek Fatah can set an example by cashing in all his RRSps and sending all the money to the flood relief in Pakistan and maybe he shoudl lead a mission of Canadian Muslims to help rescue victims of flood and bringing food and medicine to them?

Pages

Topic locked