Posted on 04/19/2004 2:30:37 PM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
HAMTRAMCK, Mich. (AP) -- Long known for pierogi and polka, this bustling city is now debating whether to add an amplified Arabic chant to the local sights and sounds.
In a sign of the deep changes in this once predominantly Polish town, City Council is expected Tuesday to pass a noise ordinance amendment that would permit mosques to issue the traditional Islamic call to prayer over loudspeakers.
But some longtime residents are resisting what they consider an affront to non-Muslims.
Hamtramck, a city of 23,000 completely surrounded by Detroit, has an old-fashioned, small-town feel, with mom-and-pop stores and American flags adorning many of the tightly packed houses. Polish groceries and restaurants abound, and if you stop someone to ask for directions, there is a good chance that person speaks only Polish.
But in recent years, the city has become much more diverse. Stores selling saris and halal meat have opened, and signs in Bengali, Arabic and Bosnian compete with signs in Polish and English. Only 23 percent of the city's residents specified Polish ancestry in the 2000 census. The town also has a sizable black population - 15 percent.
The relationship between old Hamtramck and new Hamtramck has not been without friction. On Election Day in 1999, members of a residents group questioned would-be voters of Middle Eastern or Asian appearance on their eligibility to vote. In response to complaints of discrimination, the Justice Department sent monitors during local elections in 2001.
Now the request by the Bangladeshi al-Islah mosque for permission to air the Arabic call to prayer via loudspeakers five times a day has again revealed tensions.
City Council president Karen Majewski said she expects the council to unanimously approve the amendment allowing the call to prayer - which was traditionally sung from a minaret but today is generally recorded - despite some protests at a hearing last week.
Joanne Golen, a lifelong Hamtramck resident, said she finds the content of the call to prayer offensive.
"It says Allah is the one and only God. I am Christian. My God is Jesus Christ. That is my only objection - that I have to listen to a God other than the one I believe in praised five times a day," said Golen, 68.
Caroline Zarski, 81, said allowing the call would put Islam above other religions.
But Masud Khan, secretary of the al-Islah mosque, said the purpose of the call, which lasts less than two minutes, is not to proselytize.
"We are not inviting" non-Muslims, he said. "We are calling our Muslim people, reminding them they are obligated to come to pray."
Hamtramck's Bosnian and Yemeni communities each have their own mosques, but neither has raised the issue of the call to prayer.
Many Hamtramck Muslims said the call to prayer is equivalent church bells. And Hamtramck has several churches that ring their bells.
Opponents take issue with that comparison, saying that church bells today are used to mark the time of day and have no religious significance. If the bells are the issue, then turn them off, they say.
The call to prayer can be heard elsewhere in metropolitan Detroit. The city of Dearborn, home to one of the largest communities of Arab Americans, has allowed the call under its general noise ordinance, without a specific amendment.
Hamtramck's amended ordinance would prohibit the call before 6 a.m. or after 10 p.m. That will not always fit in with the Islamic schedule, but it is a compromise the mosque says it is willing to make.
The Michigan chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee urged tolerance over the issue, condemning the "resentment and negativity" expressed during the debate.
City Council member Shahab Ahmed, who is Bangladeshi and attends al-Islah, said he was surprised the call to prayer turned into a big issue. But he said he previously experienced anti-Muslim sentiment in Hamtramck - particularly during his 2001 council bid following the Sept. 11 attacks.
But Majewski, the City Council president, said: "I think the people of Hamtramck are extraordinarily tolerant, just as evidenced by the fact that they choose to live in Hamtramck with people from all over the world."
When a neighborhood goes to hell, it literally goes to hell.....
Betaille; CatoRenasci; TonyRo76; Papatom; chuckwalla
I would like to ask you folks a question: how do you reconcile you're proposed actions regarding Muslims with the principles our country was founded on?
It angers me when people such as yourselves are willing to throw away all the sacrifice and noble effort that has made our nation the best in the history of the world. We are better than the Taliban, we are better than the Saudi royals, and we are better than Hamas because we are DIFFERENT than them. The things you are proposing would change that.
When you fantasize about gun owners "going after" Muslims, propose kicking them out of the U.S., or advocate starting a new crusade, you are betraying the ideals of our country. Not to mention the rule of law. (BTW, the whole Crusade thing? What the hell century do you think this is?)
I am eager to hear how you reconcile your positions with the spirit of our country.
My reply:
I don't fantasize about gun owners going after Moslems.
I do think that unless Moslems living in the United States and the Western democracies are willing to assimilate and truly give their allegience to the classical liberal premises of our polity: separation of church and state, religous tolerance (and I don't mean Moslem notions of dhimmitude), capitalism and individual liberty, they should not be here. The sort of medieval customs of forced marriage, honor killings and the murder of apostates must be expressly eschewed. Moslem citizens of the Western countries and the United States must become ACTIVE in assisting the federal and state police authorities against Islamist terrorists. They haven't to date.
In a war, and I believe we are in a war, sometimes civil liberties are infringed. Even Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War. I regret it, but I do believe that Moslems in America (and Europe) must make a choice whether their primary loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States or to some pan-Arab Islamist dream of a world dominated by Islam in its current form: which means mistreatment of Christians and Jews -- there is no religious freedom in Moslem countries -- the murder of apostates, medieval laws and an intellectual backwardness that astonishes anyone who truly understands it.
If Moslems here cannot in deed, not just word, be firm supporters of our secular democracy, they cannot object it society, in order to defend the liberty of all, removes them from the society until the war is won.
The record to date, both here and in Europe, suggests that many Moslems here and there actually support Islamism, and that the vast majority is unwilling to do anything to aid the government in the prevention of terror here and abroad.
Cheers,
Cato
Expressing resentment and negativity during a debate is something that most of us feel is part of the democratic process. Of course, many of us feel that western government and eastern religions will never coexist.The country was founded on the rejection of the absolute power held by kings and popes, and needless to say that would be extended to imans as well.
If they want to call the cattle to the house of hate let them do it without reminding others who's name was invoked when they killed 3,000 Americans. Or who's name was invoked when they killed the Spanish. Or who's name was invoked when they have killed Jews. Or who's name has been invoked when they have been killing American soldiers, soldiers from other countries and contractors. Or who's name has been invoked when they bombed the night club in Bali. Etc,etc,etc.
When are they going to do a "call to prayers" then have the Imam tell them to stop violence? To repudiate the killings I mention above? When will the Muslims come out of their Mosques and say murdering innocent people in the name of Allah is wrong?
According to Ask the Imam it's OK for a non-muslim to go into a Mosque as long as the person comes in peace. When are the handlers of Islam going to demand that things go the other way? That when Muslims leave a Mosque they are told not to murder?
"I don't fantasize about gun owners going after Moslems"
Someone on this thread said just that, and you didn't chide him. If I use your logic, you are responsible for his proposal unless you actively speak out against it. Why do you hold your fellow FR's to such a low standard?
"the murder of apostates, medieval laws and an intellectual backwardness that astonishes anyone who truly understands it"
If you truly understand the horrors of religious fundamentalism, why are you supportive of a course of action that would put us on the same path. What do you think happens when law-abiding citizens are treated differently based on their religion? Bad things, that's what.
"In a war, and I believe we are in a war, sometimes civil liberties are infringed."
That is true. What is also true that we would have long ago lost all our freedoms if we went along with those who would take them away every time they are frightened of people worshiping God differently than themselves.
It seems that you want to establish a orthodoxy instead of the orthopraxy that is the foundation of our country. I don't give a damn if you are loyal in your heart to Allah, Yahweh, or Bob Dobbs; if you follow the laws of our nation, you're fine by me. That's the way our system works.
Are you suggesting something like loyalty oaths? Who has to prove their bona fides? Just Muslims? Or do we throw Catholics, Mormons, and Greek Orthodox in as well?
I don't think you answered my question either. Why do you support unconstitutional measures when you are ostensibly a conservative?
And, my reply:
I'm not sure why you've singled me out.
I'm not in favor of unconstitutional measures. The removal of enemy aliens in time of war is clearly consititutional and the removal of the Japanese from the West Coast was expressly approved by the Supreme Court. Apologies aside, Korematsu is still good law.
I am not suggesting any religious orthodoxy, but I do require those who would live here to act consistently with our principles of classical liberalism. If one's religious beliefs conflict, one must choose to act contrary to those beliefs or live elsewhere.
It is only Islamic terrorism that seeks to harm the US, not Christians or Jews. When the Mormons were a threat, the US dealt with them appropriately in the 19th century. Utah did not become a state until the Mormons agreed to play by normal American rules. As long as it is just Moslems who are causing the problems, then, I guess we need to focus on Moslems and their behavior. If Moslems don't inform on each other and give aid and comfort to terrorists rather than aid the country against the threat of Islamist terrorism, then they are breaching the social contract and placing themselves BY THEIR BEHAVIOR outside the law. Every society has the right to defend itself against those who would destroy it. Those who would turn America into an Islamic state are indeed enemies of America.
Koran Surah 8:12:
Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: 'I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!'
... one Hamtramck at at time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.