The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
9/11 Families Divided Over Mosque, Community Center
SAMANTHA GROSS
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Talat Hamdani traveled to Mecca to pray that her missing son, an EMT, was safe in the days after 9/11. She held out hope that his Muslim background had led to his detention as a suspect, considering it better than the alternative.
(AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)
Related
New York City Commission Opens WTC Site for Mosque Construction
When part of his body was returned to her - his lower half shattered into 34 pieces - it was final proof he had indeed been killed when Islamic extremists brought down the World Trade Center. As Americans take sides over plans to build an Islamic cultural center and mosque blocks away, Hamdani says it feels personal.
"Why are we paying the price? Why are we being ostracized? Our loved ones died," she said at her Lake Grove, N.Y., home. "America was founded on the grounds of religious freedom," and opposition to the cultural center "is un-American. It's unethical. And it is wrong."
The thousands of relatives of the 2,976 victims have no single representative and no unified voice, even as another 9/11 anniversary approaches. The conflict is dividing a group that in many ways has never been united, with some saying the cultural center would reopen old wounds too close to hallowed ground and others say that opposing it is tantamount to bigotry.
And some, like Vandna Jain, walk a middle ground.
"It is unfair to persecute the group, however, in turn, there should be some respect for the feelings of the people that are forever attached to this site due to their losses," the New City, N.Y., resident, whose father, Yudh, died in the north tower, wrote in an e-mail. "I think people have a right to be upset about it, just as much as people have a right to build a mosque."
Jim Riches, a former New York Fire Department deputy chief whose son, Jimmy, was killed at the trade center, believes the dispute has nothing to do with religious freedom.
"We're not telling them not to practice their religion. ... It's about location, location, location," he said, asking why the mosque couldn't be built farther away from the land that he still considers a cemetery. "It's disrespectful. You wouldn't put a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor."
Liza Murphy feels differently. Her brother, Charlie, died at ground zero, but she says she doesn't lay claim to the sprawling, 16-acre site.
"It's a place where a terrible tragedy took place, but I don't see what makes it sacred," said the Brooklyn resident. "Nine years later, that now belongs to the public. And my brother and his death are private and belong to me."
Murphy says she has no objection to the planned mosque and wouldn't want to judge one group of Muslims based on the actions of another.
But Peter Gadiel says he owes no apologies for singling one group out. Since his son, James, was killed at the trade center, Gadiel has argued publicly that all Muslims should share some collective guilt for what happened on 9/11.
"The fact is that Islam does not coexist well with other religions, and you can't separate that from Islam," the Kent, Conn., resident said, explaining his stand against the mosque. "If that sounds intolerant on my part, that's too bad."
The families' impassioned responses to the prospect of the mosque have influenced the public debate.
Gov. David Paterson has suggested moving the project further away from the trade center site out of respect for opponents' feelings, while Mayor Michael Bloomberg came out in support of the mosque, calling it a test of the separation of church and state.
President Barack Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build the Islamic center as a matter of religious freedom, though he's also said he won't take a position on whether they should actually build it.
The imam leading plans for the center on Friday called extremism a security threat in both the West and the Muslim world. Feisal Abdul Rauf made his comments to Associated Press Television News in Bahrain during a Mideast tour funded by the U.S. State Department, but he wouldn't discuss the uproar over the Islamic center.
Relatives of those slain on Sept. 11 have made their diverging voices heard on a number of issues over the years _ from whether to try the suspects in a civilian court to the location of a proposed freedom museum at ground zero that is no longer planned for the site.
Charles Wolf, who lost his wife, Katherine, at the trade center, says emotions among family members are especially raw right now.
"This is anniversary season. It's really, really hard," the Manhattanite said. "Passions are up and this is bringing up a lot of hurt in people."
He says he worries that any decision to respond to public pressure and move the mosque would be used by extremists to paint Americans as intolerant.
"The powers of evil were piloting those airplanes," he said of the Sept. 11 attackers.
Now, with the mosque dispute, "here is where we're falling into the terrorists' trap ... trying to tear each other apart. Good people fighting other good people - does that sound like evil at work?"
___
Associated Press writers David B. Caruso and Karen Matthews in New York and Martha Raffaele in Philadelphia contributed to this report.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Talat Hamdani traveled to Mecca to pray that her missing son, an EMT, was safe in the days after 9/11. She held out hope that his Muslim background had led to his detention as a suspect, considering it better than the alternative.
(AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)
Related
New York City Commission Opens WTC Site for Mosque Construction
When part of his body was returned to her - his lower half shattered into 34 pieces - it was final proof he had indeed been killed when Islamic extremists brought down the World Trade Center. As Americans take sides over plans to build an Islamic cultural center and mosque blocks away, Hamdani says it feels personal.
"Why are we paying the price? Why are we being ostracized? Our loved ones died," she said at her Lake Grove, N.Y., home. "America was founded on the grounds of religious freedom," and opposition to the cultural center "is un-American. It's unethical. And it is wrong."
The thousands of relatives of the 2,976 victims have no single representative and no unified voice, even as another 9/11 anniversary approaches. The conflict is dividing a group that in many ways has never been united, with some saying the cultural center would reopen old wounds too close to hallowed ground and others say that opposing it is tantamount to bigotry.
And some, like Vandna Jain, walk a middle ground.
"It is unfair to persecute the group, however, in turn, there should be some respect for the feelings of the people that are forever attached to this site due to their losses," the New City, N.Y., resident, whose father, Yudh, died in the north tower, wrote in an e-mail. "I think people have a right to be upset about it, just as much as people have a right to build a mosque."
Jim Riches, a former New York Fire Department deputy chief whose son, Jimmy, was killed at the trade center, believes the dispute has nothing to do with religious freedom.
"We're not telling them not to practice their religion. ... It's about location, location, location," he said, asking why the mosque couldn't be built farther away from the land that he still considers a cemetery. "It's disrespectful. You wouldn't put a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor."
Liza Murphy feels differently. Her brother, Charlie, died at ground zero, but she says she doesn't lay claim to the sprawling, 16-acre site.
"It's a place where a terrible tragedy took place, but I don't see what makes it sacred," said the Brooklyn resident. "Nine years later, that now belongs to the public. And my brother and his death are private and belong to me."
Murphy says she has no objection to the planned mosque and wouldn't want to judge one group of Muslims based on the actions of another.
But Peter Gadiel says he owes no apologies for singling one group out. Since his son, James, was killed at the trade center, Gadiel has argued publicly that all Muslims should share some collective guilt for what happened on 9/11.
"The fact is that Islam does not coexist well with other religions, and you can't separate that from Islam," the Kent, Conn., resident said, explaining his stand against the mosque. "If that sounds intolerant on my part, that's too bad."
The families' impassioned responses to the prospect of the mosque have influenced the public debate.
Gov. David Paterson has suggested moving the project further away from the trade center site out of respect for opponents' feelings, while Mayor Michael Bloomberg came out in support of the mosque, calling it a test of the separation of church and state.
President Barack Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build the Islamic center as a matter of religious freedom, though he's also said he won't take a position on whether they should actually build it.
The imam leading plans for the center on Friday called extremism a security threat in both the West and the Muslim world. Feisal Abdul Rauf made his comments to Associated Press Television News in Bahrain during a Mideast tour funded by the U.S. State Department, but he wouldn't discuss the uproar over the Islamic center.
Relatives of those slain on Sept. 11 have made their diverging voices heard on a number of issues over the years _ from whether to try the suspects in a civilian court to the location of a proposed freedom museum at ground zero that is no longer planned for the site.
Charles Wolf, who lost his wife, Katherine, at the trade center, says emotions among family members are especially raw right now.
"This is anniversary season. It's really, really hard," the Manhattanite said. "Passions are up and this is bringing up a lot of hurt in people."
He says he worries that any decision to respond to public pressure and move the mosque would be used by extremists to paint Americans as intolerant.
"The powers of evil were piloting those airplanes," he said of the Sept. 11 attackers.
Now, with the mosque dispute, "here is where we're falling into the terrorists' trap ... trying to tear each other apart. Good people fighting other good people - does that sound like evil at work?"
___
Associated Press writers David B. Caruso and Karen Matthews in New York and Martha Raffaele in Philadelphia contributed to this report.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
I understand we are the land of the free, and we respect the right to freedom of religion. I also understand that those that were responsible for these horrible attacks were Islamic, but they were believers in EXTREME ISLAMIC belief. But it doesn't matter
So it's the land of the free...
You respect the right to freedom of religion....
But it doesn't matter.....
Yeah, that all makes sense.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
So Islamic extremists are not Muslims???
Please explain???
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Imagine if you or I made a comment, not only so pathetically ungrammatical but just the concept alone...NO UN-USA PEOPLE. Really, who would ever say, no un-usa people. I just fine the whole statement unpossible.
It is quite funny as hell, in a scary and frightening and 'heartland' kind of way.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
The Japanese did not build cultural centers next to the Arizona memorial at Pearl Harbor.
Here we go again. Well first, why would Japan even have a right to do so? After all they are still a seperate country and thus have no rights to do anything here in America. Whereas the Muslims looking to build near the WTC site ARE Americans and ARE afforded the same rights and freedoms, of which Japan does not have here.
-
-
John, how many times do we have to tell you that this isn't about "rights"???
So, where do you stand on the Okinawa military base naming issue?
Does your stance on the Japanese not having the right to build a memorial at Pearl Harbor also translate to the Japanese having a reason to complain that the U.S. is "insensitive" because they named an Okinawan military base for a U.S. Marine that killed Japanese soldiers? Because, John, the U.S. military clearly has the right to name their base whatever they want.
-
-
John, how many times do we have to tell you that this isn't about "rights"???
And how many times do I have to say that the analogy with Japan doesn't fit? And it absolutely IS about rights.
So, where do you stand on the Okinawa military base naming issue?
Funny since you yourself refused to answer that question....it was all apples to oranges right? Yet you made no reply nor debate about the sensitivities involved despite your hard stance here about everything being about sensitivities.
Unlike you though, I will answer the question.
Can the base name be viewed as insensitive? Absolutely. Does it matter in the grand sceme of things? No. Reason being, UNLIKE Pearl Harbor, the US does have a base on Okinawa as well as other locations in Japan. These bases are considered U.S. soil and the U.S. can name them as they please, the Japanese really don't have any say because of the base being on U.S. soil.
As it is, only recently the U.S. sent a nuclear powered aircraft carrier to Japan. For years only a conventional aircraft carrier was forward deployed, but since all those have been decommissioned, there are only nuclear carriers left. The change was not met without resistance and issues were explained, but that base as well is U.S. soil and the U.S. did as it pleased.
In this case however, this is not about an outside country, this is about Americans who fall under the same rights and freedoms, so in the end, it doesn't matter about sensitivity, in the end it is about rights.
Although this reply was before you added on to your's
-
Permalink Reply by brandon gottschalk on
-
i disagree with the Mosque being built on that site like LT Terry Sinclair said let honor those that died not those that killed them! i am not against the muslim faith but i think its spitting on the memory of those who perished on 9/11 ..... we need to build a memorial for those men and women not some religious building, because there was 2976 americans and 236 were foreigners. so there is many different religions that passed away in those towers so nothing religious should be built there nothing but a memorial park or something to rememeber those who lost there lives
-
-
"Funny since you yourself refused to answer that question....it was all apples to oranges right? Yet you made no reply nor debate about the sensitivities involved despite your hard stance here about everything being about sensitivities."
Actually, John, I did, three hours ago, here.
And it is apples and oranges, as I've explained to you several times before.
And John, you injected another straw man logical fallacy - "...despite your hard stance here about everything being about sensitivities."
Nowhere have I said that "everything" is about sensitivities. I have said that the Ground Zero mosque issue is about sensitivities.
It's not about rights, because the Muslims who own the property clearely have the right to build there, as I've said...well, so many times that it's becoming clear that you and a couple of others aren't really listening.
And John, when you point out that the U.S. didn't send nuclear aircraft carriers to Japan for years, you're arguing against your own point. That was a sensitivity issue, not a rights issue, and it involved the same country that you're arguing doesn't matter.
Please explain, because your example doesn't fit your argument.
-
-
John, how many times do I have to tell you - you're looking for the differences and I'm looking at the similarities.
I don't think that the differences are nearly as important as the similarities.
So, do you want to continue wasting bandwidth, or do you just want to admit that we will probably never agree and let it go?
-
-
It's not about rights, because the Muslims who own the property clearely have the right to build there, as I've said...well, so many times that it's becoming clear that you and a couple of others aren't really listening.
I'm listening and have stated the issue is about rights. I have addressed many others who fail to realize that. The reason things got so heated with you is you have adamently defended rights from Nativities on public grounds and so forth, despite sensitivities, but here you didn't chime in on any other posters contending the mosque can't be built, or it is to be a symbol of victory, or all Muslims are terrorist etc. It goes to credibility. One would think that if someone believes in those rights and freedoms they would chime in when others threaten it.
And John, when you point out that the U.S. didn't send nuclear aircraft carriers to Japan for years, you're arguing against your own point. That was a sensitivity issue, not a rights issue, and it involved the same country that you're arguing doesn't matter
I understood what I was talking about and understood the "sensitivity" issue involved. I was pointing out that when there were no conventional carriers left, a nuke carrier would be forward deployed. The issue was met with resistance and many Japanese didn't want a nuke carrier. Bottom line is that it didn't matter, the U.S. could send one because the U.S. bases there are considered American soil.
This is also why I was countering the Japanese erecting a monument at Pearl thing. The Japanese have no right to do so, they have no stake in Hawaii, they have no base, etc where they could erect some monument. So there would be no reason to worry about sensitivities regarding that.
Same thing with this issue. The sensitivities don't really matter because rights and freedoms trumps feelings with the mosque.
So, do you want to continue wasting bandwidth, or do you just want to admit that we will probably never agree and let it go?
Fine with me.
-
-
i am not against the muslim faith but i think its spitting on the memory of those who perished on 9/11
Even those Muslims who also died that day?
we need to build a memorial for those men and women not some religious building
You mean like the memorial already planned for the site? "WE" are not building the religious building, the building is already there and already owned by the Muslims who want to refurbish the building.
nothing religious should be built there nothing but a memorial park or something to rememeber
So they should stop building the buildings already being erected? Is a shopping mall, subway station, business offices, etc considered memorials?
Brandon, it doesn't seem as though you have done your homework on this matter nor familiarized yourself of what is going on at the WTC site. The proposed mosque you are against is 2 blocks away from the WTC site. Across the street from the WTC sits a church and another church about a block down. Out of the people who died on 9/11, there were also Muslims.
Also the proposed mosque is not just a mosque, but to be a community center, a learning center and so forth. It is proposed to be a place where people can come in and learn about Islam to learn it is not just a religion of hate or about harboring terrorists etc. So why not? In a few years the WTC site will be rebuilt, including the memorial, so why not have such a center to show the religion is not just hate etc, of which many are making it out to be?
-
-
The proposed mosque you are against is 2 blocks away from the WTC site.
John I've asked a few times in this discussion, an no one seems to be able to answer it, if not 2 blocks away, then how far away is acceptable?
It seems to be almost like a, "Build it anywhere, but not in my backyard".
Comen to think if it, I know the answer- let's just rid all of America of them pesky Musilims- that'll fix the problem and stop this debate. (Insert sarcastic emoticon here)
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
