What are the Ground Zero protests really about?

[Min-Fadhli-Rabii]

:salam2:

What are the Ground Zero protests really about?
Here’s a clue; it’s not a mosque​

By Richard Evans

I've read several blogs and comment pieces over the past week about the proposed Islamic cultural centre in New York. You won't know of it by that name of course; the right wing media has decided to refer to it as the 'Ground Zero mosque' instead. The fact that the proposed centre is not on the site of Ground Zero nor is it a mosque is seemingly irrelevant. After all, why bother letting the facts get in the way of a media-friendly soundbite?

Now, I don't mean to sound egotistical but I think I can put an end to all the controversy that this proposal has sparked across the pond, and has resulted in thousands of people protesting at the former site of the Twin Towers.

Let's address the protesters' problems one by one.

Protestors: We are against the building of a mosque.

Solution: That's OK, as I've already said, it's not a mosque. The proposed plans are for a centre which would house a swimming pool, basketball court, restaurant and yes, a prayer room. It would be available to everybody of course, what with America being such a bastion of freedom and opportunity, and it would include a memorial to victims of the attack on the Towers.

Protestors: We don't want the mosque (it's not a mosque) to be built on the same site that the 9/11 Twin Tower attacks took place on.

Solution: The proposed centre would be built a three-minute walk away from Ground Zero, or ‘two blocks' if you speak American. Instead of being built on the rubble of the Twin Towers, it would be built on what used to be the Burlington Coat Factory. Hardly the same thing.

Protestors: But where will we get our coats from now?

Solution: Don't worry; Burlington Coat Factory has a website with a ‘store locator' and you can even order online.

Problems solved right? Afraid not. Because whatever these people say they are protesting about, it's most definitely not a mosque. Whether they realise it or not they are taking part in an anti-Muslim march. Some of them are using the ‘mosque' as an excuse to justify their xenophobia and some actually believe that a mosque will be built on the Ground Zero site - either way they're ignorant. There is a third group of people, who are less ignorant but more sensitive. What this group of people object to is the proximity of the centre to where the 9/11 attacks took place. They say it's ‘offensively close'.

As Charlie Brooker says in his (brilliant) article on the same subject, perhaps the protestors should elect a representative to point out on a map where it stops being offensive. If two blocks isn't far enough, is the third block less offensive? Perhaps make it five blocks just to be safe. As a result of the New York protests, similar marches have also occurred in places such as Wisconsin and Tennessee, so what's their excuse? Are mosques in Tennessee too close to Ground Zero too? No it's simply that they don't like Muslims. At least they're not even trying to dress their protests up as something else, I suppose.

Take a look at this video from the protests last week (Warning: video contains strong language). You'll see a black man walking through the crowd wearing a white hat. (How dare he?) It doesn't take long for the extremist protesters (not to be mistaken for the normal protestors) to start shouting anti-Muslim chants at him - despite the fact he's not Muslim.

They're not off to a very good start, are they? Protesting against something that hasn't even been proposed and now chanting anti-Muslim taunts to a random black man. They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble if they'd just hired a fact checker.

So who are they, these protestors? Well most of them appear to be Republicans but they officially go under the name of the ‘Tea Party', a conservative socio-political movement that emerged in the United States last year through a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests in response to several Federal laws.

Chief ignoramus Mark Williams (not the guy who used to be in ‘The Fast Show') is the spokesperson for the Tea Party. He recently said that the mosque would represent a "monument... for the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god." Well, that's a bit racist, isn't it? Not only that, but completely incorrect. It is Hindus that worship the monkey god Hanuman. And that's the spokesperson - imagine what the rest of them have been saying. Again, the need for fact checking in extremist groups is prevalent.

Not only has Sarah Palin called upon peaceful Muslims to reject the building but Newt Gingrich, a hopeful in the race to be the Republican candidate for President said: "The folks who want to build this mosque are radical Islamists." Again, I would refer Newt to my first solution and point out, it's not a mosque. Secondly, building a cultural centre with modern facilities doesn't sound so radical to me. What are they going to do that's so radical on a basketball court? They're not going to play lacrosse on it instead are they? The animals!

The 9/11 terrorist attacks are a very sensitive subject in America, and rightly so. Americans weren't used to being the targets of terrorism. Nor were we when the London bombings took place on 7th July 2005, but to dramatise an event such as the proposal for an Islamic cultural centre so hysterically to justify their own delusional response is the stuff of children.

Now, I don't mean for this article to descend into an American-bashing rant like so many I've seen on the same subject, because many of these people are far-right extremists, and by the very nature of the word ‘extremist' they do not represent the views of the masses. Just like the English Defence League, whose march on the Bank Holiday weekend ended in violence in Bradford, are not representative of most other English people. Extremists are extremists the world over. They don't speak for the rational people of this world - they shout over them.


Source:http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blogs/edit...out-heres-a-clue-its-not-a-mosque-p69768.html

 

[tabuzbr]

ITS REALLY IRONIC.in one way islam has become the fastest growing religion after 9/11 especially in U.S and here there r so many anti muslims protesting .:astag:

 

[ShahnazZ]

Wrong answer! Solution is: Why are you opposed? Why does building a mosque offend you? While it is not a mosque, what if it was? If it were a Jewish temple or a Catholic church, would you still be opposed?

Asking it like this exposes their true motive, which they cannot say out loud, because it exposes their bigotry.?

Well I think it's the right answer. I appreciate this article and I appreciate the author's intentions in writing it. He's not trying to express bigotry or racism. He's on the same side as every other liberal NON-MUSLIM whose defending the construction of this Islamic Cultural Center. I believe the same as them. It's not about the right to build a mosque. We all have that right. It's about fueling the flames of an already insane fire and referring to this project as something it isn't. There is chaos in the United States right now over this project and it is simply because people are getting their terms wrong. The need to get the term right is greater than the right to defend a "what if." The right is already ours. We don't need to defend it. If there WAS a mosque being built there, your words would be correct. But there isn't and going into "what ifs" will only exacerbate the situation. We need to pull out the hypotheticals if there were actual situations going on.

 

[Valerie]

I really liked the article. Too bad nothing like this will be on any major news station. It scares me that these extremists want to take over our country (Yes, I mean the tea party people).

 

[Valerie]

ITS REALLY IRONIC.in one way islam has become the fastest growing religion after 9/11 especially in U.S and here there r so many anti muslims protesting .:astag:

Because they listen to the media (particularly ones like Fox, ironic that their biggest non-Murdoc shareholder is Muslim). They are scared, even if they're irrational fears. And they think it is the job of their religion to take over the world, even though that's not the point of a relationship with God. I'll refrain from calling them "stupid" though

 

[abu'muhammad]

I've read several blogs and comment pieces over the past week about the proposed Islamic cultural centre in New York. You won't know of it by that name of course; the right wing media has decided to refer to it as the 'Ground Zero mosque' instead. The fact that the proposed centre is not on the site of Ground Zero nor is it a mosque is seemingly irrelevant. After all, why bother letting the facts get in the way of a media-friendly soundbite?

Assalaamu alaykum,

What haunts me is what’s the reason of naming it as mosque if the building is cultural centre ? Both are different from the view of usage and purpose. do included prayer room consistently transfer the place into mosque or the place need same rulings as for mosque. We need to know InshaAllaah ruling in this regard better to be on safer side. Hope someone could come up with that. If not then I believe Americans have equated both here.

Now, I don't mean to sound egotistical but I think I can put an end to all the controversy that this proposal has sparked across the pond, and has resulted in thousands of people protesting at the former site of the Twin Towers.

Let's address the protesters' problems one by one.

Protestors: We are against the building of a mosque.

Solution: That's OK, as I've already said, it's not a mosque. The proposed plans are for a centre which would house a swimming pool, basketball court, restaurant and yes, a prayer room. It would be available to everybody of course, what with America being such a bastion of freedom and opportunity, and it would include a memorial to victims of the attack on the Towers.

Here the writer refers it back as centre and not masjid. Whether public sentiments are raised deliberately with word mosque instead of cultural centre at a start ? As we hear 'ground zero mosque' most of the times through media and not 'islamic centre'. I suppose America’s administration is sure of what they want to do !

Problems solved right? Afraid not. Because whatever these people say they are protesting about, it's most definitely not a mosque. Whether they realise it or not they are taking part in an anti-Muslim march. Some of them are using the ‘mosque' as an excuse to justify their xenophobia and some actually believe that a mosque will be built on the Ground Zero site - either way they're ignorant. There is a third group of people, who are less ignorant but more sensitive. What this group of people object to is the proximity of the centre to where the 9/11 attacks took place. They say it's ‘offensively close'.

As Charlie Brooker says in his (brilliant) article on the same subject, perhaps the protestors should elect a representative to point out on a map where it stops being offensive. If two blocks isn't far enough, is the third block less offensive? Perhaps make it five blocks just to be safe. As a result of the New York protests, similar marches have also occurred in places such as Wisconsin and Tennessee, so what's their excuse? Are mosques in Tennessee too close to Ground Zero too? No it's simply that they don't like Muslims. At least they're not even trying to dress their protests up as something else, I suppose.

To provocate someone is easy. what each one will do as because of own less investigation and research.

Take a look at this video from the protests last week (Warning: video contains strong language). You'll see a black man walking through the crowd wearing a white hat. (How dare he?) It doesn't take long for the extremist protesters (not to be mistaken for the normal protestors) to start shouting anti-Muslim chants at him - despite the fact he's not Muslim.

They're not off to a very good start, are they? Protesting against something that hasn't even been proposed and now chanting anti-Muslim taunts to a random black man. They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble if they'd just hired a fact checker.

So who are they, these protestors? Well most of them appear to be Republicans but they officially go under the name of the ‘Tea Party', a conservative socio-political movement that emerged in the United States last year through a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests in response to several Federal laws.

Its that easy that the crowd especially ignorant can make anything out.

Chief ignoramus Mark Williams (not the guy who used to be in ‘The Fast Show') is the spokesperson for the Tea Party. He recently said that the mosque would represent a "monument... for the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god." Well, that's a bit racist, isn't it? Not only that, but completely incorrect. It is Hindus that worship the monkey god Hanuman. And that's the spokesperson - imagine what the rest of them have been saying. Again, the need for fact checking in extremist groups is prevalent.

Not only has Sarah Palin called upon peaceful Muslims to reject the building but Newt Gingrich, a hopeful in the race to be the Republican candidate for President said: "The folks who want to build this mosque are radical Islamists." Again, I would refer Newt to my first solution and point out, it's not a mosque. Secondly, building a cultural centre with modern facilities doesn't sound so radical to me. What are they going to do that's so radical on a basketball court? They're not going to play lacrosse on it instead are they? The animals!

surprised at the IQ level of American politicians. lately They discussion over obama’s religion to an extent and now over this. One interview from Mr obama will answer the people’s questions or suppositions about him. Baseless statements like this further stir things.

 

[abu'muhammad]

Well I think it's the right answer. I appreciate this article and I appreciate the author's intentions in writing it. He's not trying to express bigotry or racism. He's on the same side as every other liberal NON-MUSLIM whose defending the construction of this Islamic Cultural Center. I believe the same as them. It's not about the right to build a mosque. We all have that right. It's about fueling the flames of an already insane fire and referring to this project as something it isn't. There is chaos in the United States right now over this project and it is simply because people are getting their terms wrong. The need to get the term right is greater than the right to defend a "what if." The right is already ours. We don't need to defend it. If there WAS a mosque being built there, your words would be correct. But there isn't and going into "what ifs" will only exacerbate the situation. We need to pull out the hypotheticals if there were actual situations going on.

Assalaamu alaykum,

right ! Being not american I have a question which I have read in this regard is most of the times the building to be constructed is referred as mosque, in present time that too the same and not an islamic cultural centre. why ?
I suppose most of americans non-mulims do not know what's the situation all about and that is creating pressure and sarcastic environment for our muslims.