The ground zero mosque is great for the anti-Islamist cause, so I am all for it. It has created a "teachable moment" for the dangers of Sharia to be understood more fully. Never has interest in studying about Islamism been so high. What a gift!

And, by the way, what people object to is politics, not religion. We have every right to criticize political groups. Putting political messages in a "holy" book does not make these messages immune from criticism. Not all Muslims are Islamists, but many, many are, and their Islamist agenda should be criticized by everyone. Since Islamists base their political ideology on passages of the Koran, we have every right to criticize those passages of the Koran, too. No one is obligated to think the Koran is holy except, apparently, Muslims. Non-Christians don't seem to think the Bible is holy. So what? If Muslims want us to respect their holy book, then they can start interpreting it in a way that does not lead to imposing Sharia law. The ball is in their court.

The ground zero imam is a big proponent of Sharia who thinks our laws should be Sharia-compliant and we should have laws against blasphemy. We are under no obligation to give him any encouragement, just as Democrats are under no obligation to give Republicans any encouragement in advancing their political agenda. If Democrats are not bigots when they criticize Republicans and their political beliefs, then the same is true for anti-Islamists when they criticize Islamists and their political beliefs.

There are some admirable secular Muslims out there, such as Zuhdi Jasser, who are attempting to reinterpret the Koran in a non-political manner. Tellingly, he is against the ground zero Mosque.

There are 90 comments on this article at http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/09-8 , most of them highly critical of the author's point of view. If there was one phrase to which the most people objected, I believe it was "crassly intruding with their conspiracy theories and raucous agendas," which showed the author's strong bias.

It is idolatry to burn Korans to end Islam.
It is idolatry to kill someone who shares religious identity with a Koran burner.
It is idolatry, for that matter, to persecute flag burneers.
The Koran is a symbol of Islam, the flag is a symbol of the republic. Neither symbol is what it symbolizes. To maqke a symbol the same as what it represents is idolatry.
If you choose to burn symbols to fight institutions you are, at least to me, a pagan well deserving my scorn.
You have every right to be a pagan. At best you amuse me.

America does not regulate mosques, but that does not mean people cannot speak out against one. America does not regulate that, either, does it? And aside from possible burn regulations, America does not regulate burning books, holy or otherwise, correct?

Yes, mosques are legal, even if within those mosques an ideology is preached that goes against the Constitution.

One thing we do regulate is immigration. It makes sense to allow immigration from countries where people have the same values that we have, support the Constitution, support freedom of speech (including freedom to blaspheme), support freedom of religion (including freedom of Muslims to change religion), etc. It does not make sense to allow immigration from countries whose cultural or religious beliefs are incompatible with the Constitution.

Yeah, but ain't it a great theme and time for the crazies to jump on it and get press coverage! Oh, fill in your own selection of names for "the crazies".

20:31

No, it is not idolatry to make a symbol the same as what it represents. It is idolatry to worship a symbol. The Koran burners are not worshiping Korans. Guess who is?

I've said it before; show me some evidence that makes sense and I'll change my views. Just because you put it on a website doesn't mean I have to believe it, just as you choose not to believe the "official" version. I can make the same "blinders" argument that you can.

The only "inside job" theory I subscribe to is that the Bush (and Clinton) administrations were informed that Osama Bin Laden was planning a strike on the US and they ignored it. After it happened, they used it as reasoning to shove the misnamed "Patriot Act" down our throats and invade Iraq on false pretenses.

In the two years following 9/11, Bush and other top gov't officials made 935 false statements. http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bush_lied124.html

But the official conspiracy theory is the truth. Really. Trust us. Who're you going to believe, your rulers who know what's best or your lying eyes?

9/11 is a day of shame

a day traitors attacked their own country

to support the whims of another nation that

sees others only as enemies

a day the rule of law, investigation and prosecution died

a day the media began conspiring to hide the truth

a day the brain-dead began to swallow the Big Lie

the real horrors of 9/11 are well researched and known

our country is dying a slow death from self-inflicted strangulation

stupidity is giving corruption a bad name

9/11 is a day of shame

01:03

Heidi,

It is a very good idea to read the Koran. Even better is to read Muslim commentaries to see how they understand it. Robert Spencer has put together a wonderful series, going through the entire Koran, showing what various Muslim commentaries have to say about the verses. If you read his series and read the Koran at the same time, you will have a very good understanding of how Muslims themselves interpret the verses.

Go to JihadWatch.org and then click, in the left column, "Qur'an Commentary". Scroll down to the bottom for the beginning.

Robert Spencer is not a popular figure among liberals, but if you read what he has to say you will see that he knows his stuff about the Koran, like it or not.

If you don't have time to do a thorough study of the Koran, at least read the 9th Surah. It's supposed to be one of the final Surahs Mohammed claimed to be "revealing", and thus many Muslims believe it cancels out all preceding verses that it may contradict. (The Surahs are not in any logical sequence except roughly longest to shortest.)

To the first anonymous; you are spouting the exact rhetoric we're talking about. No, the Imam is not in favor of instituting Sharia law in the US. He has made no such comment. He has encouraged predominantly Muslim countries to use it, but properly. Sharia law use today is as full of religious interpretation as the original adultery laws in this country were. Sharia Law, prior to the 19th century, treated women more like equals than western secular laws did. Things didn't change until later, when more extremist attitudes moved through the Middle East.
 
And being Muslim means being an adherent to Islam. So no, there are no Muslims who don't subscribe to Islam. That's like saying there are Christians who don't subscribe to Christianity. There are different kinds of Muslims, (i.e. Shiites and Sunnis), just like there are different kinds of Christians. And yes, those different kinds of Muslims have different versions of Sharia law. I'm could assume you meant not all Middle Eastern people are Muslim, which is obviously true. But your entire post being full of falsehoods, I believe you're just further proving your ignorance about Islam and it's teachings/practices/people. Maybe you're the one who needs to learn more about it. Because you also think there are political/legal messages in Islam which aren't in Christianity, which is also patently false. The same calls to arms and orders to "spread the word" are found in most western religious texts, including the bible, as well as laws about general behavior. Or are you not aware that both Deuteronomy and Leviticus say that all adulterers should be put to death? And do you also not know that breaking any of the ten commandments is punishable by death, including taking the lord's name in vain and worshiping other gods?

 
To Anonymous number 2; there is not a massive body of evidence, and I've rarely even heard conspiracy theorists make such a claim. Are there some specious facts surrounding 9/11? Yes, there are. But it's like the 'proof' that the moon landing never took place, because of the light reflections and the flag moving; those are people with no understanding of air motion in a LOW gravity environment and the reflective surface like the moons. Just because their theories sound good doesn't make them sound. 1277, really? That's funny, because that's the number of stress related illnesses reported in the 11 months after 9/11. Surely you mean 1270, since that's the number Gage and Gravel put all over the papers. But did you notice something about what happened after they revealed their evidence? Not much, because all their theories have already been debunked and sound scientific evidence has supported things like why Tower 7 went down without being hit. I suggest you google WTC & debunk and get some more information. 
 
But regardless, even if you are absolutely right and there were controlled demolitions and cover ups; the memorial of that day is NOT the place to scream about what you THINK might've happened. And it's not a day to scream about other political issues going on, even ones in NYC. Unless you're going to walk into the memorial and show them undeniable proof, not just theories with some supporting evidence, it's not the time. Winship isn't telling you to be quiet any other day of the year. In fact, I'm sure no one is going to give you too much crap if you go to Time Square and rant to the masses. But on a day when the families and victims (since the survivors are as much victims) gather to pay respects and remember, at the memorial it's not the time or place for those arguments. 
 

02:56

You aren't so clever after all. Here is a wikipedia definition of "islamism": "... a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system, and that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically." So, you see, it is possible for a Muslim to be an Islamist or not.

If you'd like to educate yourself further, google "asia news" "bangladesh bans islamic parties" (with both phrases in quotes) and you will see that Bangladesh has recently outlawed Islamism. This does not mean they have outlawed Islam as a personal religion, it means they have outlawed Islamist political parties. Get it?

Thomas Ellis:

#1: The Law of Gravity
#2: The steel girders weren't melted by the fire, but they were weakened enough that the thousands of tons above them caused them to collapse
#3: Can't answer that one, but do you have a reference?

On this anniversary, I reflect on my naivete for
believing the official narrative for over 4 years.
How I could believe that, knowing all of the lies that were foisted on us by the Bush administration is beyond me.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the building WERE brought down by explosive demolition, and the proof can be found here: http://ae911truth.org/

The barriers to understanding this are less about
understanding the physical evidence (that is now undeniable), but rather, emotional and psychological.
This is why the "debunkers" resort to name calling
in their responses to pleas to simply examine the evidence.

Nearly 1,300 Architects and Engineers are demanding a new, independent investigation. And, their numbers are growing daily.

And, if you still believe the official story, perhaps you might start here:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/09/anniversary-of-911.html

to see that even members of the 9/11 Commission
don't believe it.

Reflect, then demand a new investigation that includes the forensic evidence.

Sorry, I must've missed something. What exactly is the evidence that muslims did 9/11?

You pretend-Christians who want to burn the Koran - bookburning was proved fascist some time ago, or is your History as hit-or-miss as your Religious study? When you go to froth and flame with hate, I hope you notice Jesus the Master sitting close by, wanting nothing to do with you, drawing in the dust . . . and that He makes you hang your heads in shame.