The issue of the building of an Islamic center at 51 Park Place, two blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, has gone beyond controversial. It has, in my opinion, spiraled dangerously into a whirlpool of intolerance, ignorance, ill-will, and in some quarters, out-and-out, bigoted Islamophobia.
The decision by the real estate investment firm Soho Properties to build a center there seems to have been made in good faith. According to the company’s CEO, Sharif Al- Gamal:
Our hope is that by helping to revitalize downtown New York, this project will demonstrate to all Americans and to the rest of the world that the American Muslim community rejects the violence perpetrated on September 11 and wants to be a part of the healing and rebuilding process…
That decision may have been ill-considered, though. A lot of people have an emotional attachment to the World Trade Center and what happened there some nine years ago. As it is an emotional attachment, it is not necessarily a rational attachment. Dealing with the issues, dealing with history rationally can often be at odds with how people feel and behave.
The result of the controversy is the greatest rupture in American politics since the candidacy of John F Kennedy to become President, back in 1960. Then, there were those who were certain that were Kennedy to be elected, the US government would take its orders from the Pope in the Vatican. As it turned out, Kennedy was elected, but the secular nature of the US continued unabated.
Arguments against building the center and its encorporated mosque are held by some 68% of the American population, according to several polls. Reasons range from ‘sensitivity’ to fear of ‘the new Caliphate’. I think the reasons proffered, while many are heart-felt, are missing the point. In missing the point, Americans are feeding the dreams of Islamic extremists and spreading fear among Islamic moderates.
The facts are that building this center is supported both by American Constitutional law—both the 1st Amendment dealing with religious freedom and the 5th, dealing with private property rights. The would-be builders went through all the proper channels to receive zoning approval for its intended use. In sum, there are no legal barriers to its construction.
Matters covered by the Constitution are not open to interpretation by popular votes. The Constitution may be amended by popular vote, but it does not flex in the winds of popular opinion—or mob preferences.
Initially, I thought the decision to build the Cordoba Center at this location wasn’t the smartest choice. I pretty much still think that: Mr. Al-Gamal’s aspirations notwithstanding, he and his advisors just might have realized that this would be a very sensitive decision. Having the right to do something does not require that one do that thing, however. This is the same argument I’ve made about the ‘Mohammed Cartoons’.
The backlash over the proposed project, however, has changed my mind. Much of that backlash argues that Al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11, is synonymous with the totality of Muslims. That is utterly false.
If the builders now simply say, ‘Ok, bad decision’ and cancel their plans, they are accepting that false equation as true. That is not good for Islam, nor is it good for Muslims, American or otherwise.
It is yet possible that this center will not be built. The organizers do not have funding for it, currently, at least not enough. Their plan has caused so much anti-Muslim animus that potential donors may very well think it a bad investment or even a bad charitable donation.
Too, the State or City of New York could come up with an offer of other property that would be too good to refuse. I can’t think offhand what that might be—Seven floors of the Empire State Building? Ten acres of Central Park?—but it’s not impossible. Accepting such an offer would certainly provide adequate excuse for changing plans.
I am deeply dismayed that so much politics is being played with this issue and that the result is increased feelings of hostility toward Islam and Muslims. American Muslims, who would be the primary users of this center, did not fly those planes on 9/11. I fail to see how they should be blamed or forced to suffer unfair consequences.
The most distressing fact coming from this is that the new intolerance is coming from both Republican and Democratic parties and candidates. Arguments against the center, for example, have come from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed, a Democrat. As a member of a religious minority (Mormons) that has, in its history, suffered from popular and governmental intolerance, one would think he’d know better. A member of a different minority—Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who is Jewish and who just happens to represent this part of New York City—on the other hand, calls for the center to be built.
President Obama has not helped to clarify the issues at stake. While he made a strong statement of support one night—at an Iftar—the next day he ‘clarified’ by backing off that support.
A couple of days ago, I received an e-mail from the Republican Party in the county in which I live. The e-mail asked that I take part in a poll about whether or not the center should be built. I did not. Instead, I contacted the Party and told them that they should be ashamed to even ask the question. The point was to incite anger at Muslims and no American political party should be doing that, whether or not it gave them some advantage in upcoming elections.
I’m deeply unhappy to find that writers and friends whom I had respected have shown themselves to be simply insane on this issue. Balderdash about ‘sacred ground’ (there are already bars and strip joints equally distant from ‘Ground Zero’) or ‘sensitivity toward those who died’ (Some 9/11 families support the center; some don’t) or the sheer lunacy of ‘giving into Islamic triumphalism’ is truly depressing.
There were times in my career as a Foreign Service Officer, representing my country and its policies, where I was not thrilled with particular policies, but nevertheless had to find ways to make them understandable, if not palatable. This, though, is a far more difficult challenge. Too many Americans seem to have forgotten what this country and its constitution are about. That is depressing.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
August:19:2010 - 14:55
I think both sides have both strong and valid arguments! Thus, I am undecided on it. However, in keeping with the constitutional rights and freedoms yes, I agree with you John.
August:19:2010 - 15:25
Thank you John, for your post. I am very distressed by the whole thing- for reasons you have listed.
August:19:2010 - 21:27
Great post! I’ve been discussing this issue on FB the last couple of days. For those who make the argument about it being an Islamic “trophy” of some sort, I am confused. A trophy to the fact that crazies made people angry at your religion and the USA fight 2 Muslim countries? What’s to brag about that?
August:19:2010 - 22:34
Three things I am taking away from this (as a foreigner who does not belong to any of the judaeochristian faiths):
1. Obama has an unerring instinct for making things worse. His comments were unneeded and poorly thought out. Funny how liberal columnists like Maureen Dowd are now clamoring for Bush to pour oil on the troubled waters. Despite all the bad press, Bush really did manage post-9/11 to voice in a manner that was resonated with the average Joe the desire for retribution versus the need to protect innocent Muslims.
2. The organizers behind the mosque don’t give a shit about building bridges because to many, even with any controversy, the entire plan was grotesquely insensitive. When I first heard about it many months ago before it was a blip on anyone’s radar, my first response was “you gotta be kidding me.” This isn’t about banning mosques per se. There are already mosques in the area and no one is suggesting they be torn down or removed. But optics matter. If it had been a small mosque or extension of existing ones, I don’t think passions would have been this high. But to have a giant monument to a religion that, for unavoidable reasons, is linked to the tragedy in the near vicinity is painful (not to mention the dubious sources of funding, goal to open it on 9/11/11, AND name it after a Western city that represents the high-point of Islamic rule in Europe—yeah, ok). My gut reaction was that the organizers were positioning themselves to be major power brokers and thanks to this controversy, they have succeeded. Nice work guys! You have guaranteed yourself regular TV gigs as the spokesperson for the Islamic community for the long time!
3. It is heartening to see the mosque organizers so respectful of their their rights under First Amendment. I hope those supporting the Constitutional right to construct the mosque will be equally supportive of the right of cartoonists to draw and publish vulgar cartoons about Muhammad.
August:19:2010 - 23:30
Controversial as it is, I’m supporting the building of the center, and I’ll tell you why. It’s time to end all this politically correct tip toeing around these trigger issues. Is there a place for Islam in the US, or is it doomed to be a land of Islamophobes? Yes, this center will ignite a lot of feelings. But they are feelings we must learn to grapple with, and learn in which way they will take us. Will it be true freedom of thought (Muahammed cartoons notwithstanding) or the selective freedom of the mob?
As an aside, hearing Sarah Palin’s views on the subject left me feeling that the US populace may have dodged a bullet by failing to elect McCain.
August:20:2010 - 01:05
John, Glad you are back.
You are absolutely right to associate this to the cartoons. Nobody says Muslims don’t have a right to build the so-called Community Center. They have the permits, so they can build it. It is that simple.
What some Muslims are really saying, however, is that they are going to build it because they don’t care what infidel scum think. The message is loud and clear – these Muslims know what they are doing and they are no “moderates”. It is meant to be an “in your face” act.
You are wrong about the response. This new intolerance, as you put it, is a reaction to the arrogance, intolerance and insensitivity of Muslims – all Muslims. The time for being nice has passed. We must tell them (Muslims) the things they don’t want to hear. No respect for Islam, Muslims and their dear prophet and religion until we see some good faith on their side, preferably changes in the discrimination that Muslims practice against non-Muslims everywhere. Being sensitive to Muslims has gotten us nowhere. Germany just closed down the 911 mosque because they were still preaching hate toward us. It is always the evil infidel that have to change, be understanding, and tolerant. Screw that!
Saudi jawa. The answer is no. NO! There is no place for Islam in the West until you learn to respect others and are willing to be honest about the evils that Islam teaches and the vile things it has done. I hope you know what I am talking about. As to “Islamophobes” may I remind you that on any day of the week and any day of the year people in the West treat Muslims in the West much better than Muslims treat non-Muslims where they dominate. Perhaps you think that morals and simple standards of decency do not apply to Muslims? Note also there is a certain amount of hilarity in someone using the handle “saudi” lecturing anyone on tolerance. What next? Lions teaching sheep to eat grass?
John, nobody should think that Al-Qaeda is synonymous with the totality of Muslims. It is however, reasonable to believe that Muslims accept the ideology and mentality of the Quran, which is highly insulting to infidels. It is also logical to understand that the actions of Muslims in Islamic societies provide a much better indication of their feelings towards others than those in the West. I see absolutely no sign that Muslims have any ability to reflect on Islam or their own actions, much less live in peace, in numbers, with other peoples.
K
August:20:2010 - 07:27
U know what was the best thing that came out of this? Jon Stewart making fun of the bigots
mosque-raid was great.
August:20:2010 - 07:37
I like this Stephen Colbert clip better…
August:20:2010 - 08:13
We clearly disagree on this. As I said, it was perhaps a bad decision. Then it morphed–thanks to morons like Newt Gingrich–into something else: a threat against Muslims. Not just Al-Qaeda or other extremists, but all Muslims. The rancor against the center changed the playing field.
I really, really don’t think that we, as Americans, should be looking to Saudi Arabia as the model of how we deal with other religions, do you? Just because the Saudis keep ‘foreign’ churches out, we should too? What’s next, cutting off thieves’ hands?
Jay, I was never, ever hassled as a non-Muslim in most of the countries I lived or worked in. That’s some 30+ countries with majority or major minority Muslim populations. I’ve been in mosques in all of them. Yet, as a non-Muslim, I’ve somehow kept my head. I’ve certainly been hassled as a ‘foreigner’, particularly by ignorant security types, but not over religion.
I’d ask you to go back through the Old Testament. I think you’ll find more than a little hostility toward other religions there. Yet, as obnoxious as those parts might be, they’ve not been purged from the Bible. They’re simply ignored. It’s my experience that most Muslims ignore those parts of the Quran as well. Yes, some don’t, but then, we also have some Christians using Leviticus 18:22 as their guide toward dealing with gays. [See Fred Phelps, for instance.]
August:20:2010 - 08:25
What’s next, cutting off thieves’ hands?
Or paralyzing them by damaging their spines. Is there any truth to this? The judge must be bonkers.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h0qz2zZ5gZ99ZUq7htHvGD49co6gD9HMOAQG0
August:20:2010 - 09:58
John–thanks for dealing with this insanity so sanely.
Unfortunately Obama has a pattern of saying one thing to Muslim groups, and then “walking it back” to others.(eg his meeting with a Palestinian group, then AIPAC during the presidential campaign). Also many of the nutbars (a technical term) in the US think he is a closet Muslim or a Muslim anyway (and they don’t mean in the born of a Muslim father way). Apparently that group are growing according to Pew polling.
When originally proposed, and in the spirit of the name, Cordoba, this was a brilliant idea, and in the right place for reconciliation. Too bad it is being used as a political football and in an election year.
Harry Reid is about to lose to the Tea Party and so is “forgetting” his own ideals. Sad.
August:20:2010 - 10:04
‘Bonkers’ is a kind way of putting it.
August:20:2010 - 10:10
The number of politicians I respect can be counted on less than one hand. Expediency and the next election are all that seem to concern them. I have little but contempt for the US Congress, I’m sad to say. Given that, I’m not surprised–but am dismayed–that politicians of any party will seize anything as a football if they think it will help in the next election. Today, it’s Muslims; tomorrow? Who knows… maybe left-handed people. I mean, they’re going after toys in McDonald’s Happy Meals, salt in restaurant food, banning this, that, and the other thing, usually under the flag of ‘It’s for the Children!’ [TM].
If Harry Reid lost to a goat, I’d be equally happy. He is worse than most politicians, in my book. He can’t even stay consistent in his demagoguery as today he argues for ‘birthright citizenship’ but a few years ago argued against it. That’s hardly the sole issue.
August:20:2010 - 10:21
I think proceeding to build knowing how much ill will is felt shows how inconsiderate the decision makers are…I wouldn’t feel safe attending the Islamic center knowing this is the sentiment.
I am not getting the point of why they feel the need to put into a controversial spot.
August:20:2010 - 10:38
The spot wasn’t considered controversial until politics made it controversial. Watch this clip from the Jon Stewart program, as Qusay pointed out.
And as I said in the post, once the issue changed to politics, the arguments to continue with the project to build changed. To simply say, “Oh, okay, we won’t build” is also to say, “Oh, okay, you’re right… Muslims are all terrorists so we shouldn’t be building ‘Terrorist Central’ here.’”
August:20:2010 - 11:04
I am one who finds that name Cordoba an odd choice for the name of the project. It is a reminder to Christians of a Muslim empire. However advanced it was, it was an empire.
I am not saying that they shouldn’t have the right to build it, but names like Cordoba are a red flag.
August:20:2010 - 11:33
That’s one way of looking at ‘Cordoba’. Another way might be to see it as a high point of convivencia, a period when Muslims, Christians, and Jews worked together in general peace. For over 500 years.
August:20:2010 - 11:54
Needless to say, I am in the convivencia camp.
I do think that the way things have gone in terms of media cycles and close elections, it seems as if the US is perpetually in an election cycle, to everyone’s detriment.
I keep meaning to look up “Burlington Coat Factory” to see what sort of evil can be made out of that. I am sure someone will get to it.
August:20:2010 - 13:45
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=21980
August:20:2010 - 14:01
Another way to look at “Cordoba” would be to consider the history of medieval Spain. And why not start with the martyrs of Cordoba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_C%C3%B3rdoba
Then maybe consider what happened in Granada in 1066.
The fact is that if you want a good indication of the relationship between Muslims and their subjects in the early middle ages, I suggest one read the life of Maimonides – undoubtedly the greatest Jew of his time and certainly one who had far reaching contacts with the Muslims of his time, from Spain to North Africa and then to Egypt. His letter to the Jews of Yemen is the definitive commentary of how Muslims treat “the other”.
The much celebrated golden age of Andalusia has a very dark side also, with hate and wars flowing up and down the peninsula. It was really kind of crazy, with Christians fighting Muslims, Muslims fighting Muslims, Arabs against Moors, Christians fighting for Muslims against Christians, Jews trying to stay out of the way (without much luck!) and a general mess.
Note also that much of the great works of that time, in so many areas (astronomy, philosophy, medicine, law, etc…) done by the great Arab polymaths of Andalusia were based upon older greek sources. Note also that the Caliphs of the golden age also accepted both Christian and jewish intellectuals in Court, which, like it or not, was a major factor in the great thinking produced at that time. Sadly, even as great works were being written, Islamic theologians were working to subordinate all thought (scientific, philosophical, etc.) to the so-called “eternal truth of islam” – and out went the jews and Christians. Nobody better illustrates this than the great Ibn Rushd, known in the West as Averroes. Ibn Rush’s defense of reason was rejected by Muslims even has they inspired renaissance Christians. By 1200 AD, with the banishment and death of Averroes, Andalusia entered into a moral, military and intellectual decline even thought it managed to hand on in part for almost another 300 years.
August:20:2010 - 15:32
J: We can start there, if you like, but why end there? I think Cordoba–and Sicilly–at their best showed what could be achieved. I’d rather focus on that than beginnings and ends which are always ugly.
August:20:2010 - 15:34
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/08/arab_reactions_cordoba_mosque&fsrc=nwl
August:20:2010 - 20:03
I’d rather focus on that than beginnings and ends which are always ugly.
Both would give an inaccurate picture IMHO. There was a lot to be admired about Cordoba at its peak and a lot to be disliked. But there is no getting around it was the seat of Islamic power in Europe. For Muslims, it is a time when three religions lived together peacefully. For non-Muslims, it is a reminder of a time when Europe was under the Caliphate.
The spot wasn’t considered controversial until politics made it controversial. Watch this clip from the Jon Stewart program, as Qusay pointed out.
That is unfair. Jon Stewart is prone to facile interpretations and careful in his selection of facts. Many of those who knew of the mosque before it became a controversy, including me, had already been appalled. The public outcry is stemming from more widespread knowledge, not just because it has become political football. Even if every politician shuts up, the anger is not going to go away.
‘Bonkers’ is a kind way of putting it.
I did not want to be banned from this blog for saying what I really think.
August:20:2010 - 20:34
Not everyone in the heyday of Cordoba was equal, that’s for sure. But I don’t think the rest of Europe was doing quite so well on most counts, either. Slavery was still pretty standard, conquered tribes/groups didn’t live sweet lives. On the whole, it seems to me, even being a Christian in Cordoba was much, much better than being a Jew in France or Germany of the period.
Sure, Stewart is facile. But he did point to how the issue of the Cordoba Center has caused people to change their public stances for the sake of political expediency.
I didn’t want to have to ban myself, either!
August:20:2010 - 21:56
Olive the Oil,
You are on a wrong blog. You should visit American Bedu.
That blog has a lot more freedom of expression than this one and a lot more people visit it than this one. there you can appreciate, criticize, discuss, analyse Saudi Arabia as much as you like as long as you don’t behave like the blog-owner and don’t trail after commentators, making it unpleasant for them to comment.
As you said, this blog doesn’t allow its commentators that much freedom of expression nor does it protect them from those who behave as if they own the blog and trail after other commentators.
No wonder much less people read it than they do American Bedu.
I have been a silent reader of these blogs and this is my observation.
I’m not coming back here, so those who want to take up this issue with me, please don’t waste your energy.
August:20:2010 - 23:22
Kactuz:
You speak as if Muslims are one homogeneous entity under a central authority. That is clearly not the case. Some people will say; look at what Saudi Arabia is doing. So? Saudi Arabia is just one part of the Muslim community, and not nearly as important as it likes to think it is. Some Muslims condone horrible practices like child marriages, others don’t. Some Muslims are racist bigots, others aren’t.
I have never said that the all westerners are Islamophobes, or even a majority. I’ve been in the US now for three months and have met nothing but friendly and tolerant people. And while the Islamophobes remain a minority, they are a loud one. The very idea of an Islamophobe, or any bigoted movement, is against the western ideal of freedom of religion. An ideal that I, and many Muslims, hold dear.
August:21:2010 - 05:20
I’m curious to know in what ways you think I do not offer freedom of expression. That’s an honest question.
The only comments I block are obvious spam and those that resort to nothing but vulgar name-calling. I do, however, ask commenters not to engage in juvenile spats, including those posting from servers in the Asia-Pacific area. If you can guess whom I mean…
August:21:2010 - 14:33
On topic:
John–I appreciate the commenting moderation here. No one needs to read spam or spurious personal attacks.
Off topic:
John–I just wanted you and your readers to know about a post I just did, with an interesting theme for which they can contribute their own creations, and I will post them:
Fun with Food Art–Foodies and Photographers Do Your Thing!
I hope you and others will read, enjoy, comment, and contribute!
August:21:2010 - 18:09
Floridawaves.
You will find all the freedom of expression you need here, and then some. JB may not always (ever?) agree with me but he lets me speak my mind and say the stupid, mean, and /or honest things I try to say.
I am something of an expert on feeedom of speech, or better, censorship. I have been deleted, banned and censored hundreds of times, from the biggest and best. I guess that comes with the territory when you are a critic of certain ideologies and practices. Oh well. I even have a collection of screen shots with notices from hosts, websites, blogs, newspapers, etc telling me that I am suspended because I was a very bad boy and hurt somebody’s feelings.
I have a simple formula: If a website does not censor any opinion, including mine, it is ok. Let me also say that there are many Muslim sites that have never deleted my posts. Good for them, good for us.
August:22:2010 - 02:32
the cartoons were direct insults. the islamic conter is a /perceived/ insult.
August:22:2010 - 10:33
Me…
I guess it depends on which lens one views it through.
August:22:2010 - 14:44
“If the builders now simply say, ‘Ok, bad decision’ and cancel their plans, they are accepting that false equation as true. ”
Now that the dirt they have stepped in has turned to mud, they must be careful as to how they pull out, lest their feet remain soiled or splatter others.
“the State or City of New York could come up with an offer of other property that would be too good to refuse. I can’t think offhand what that might be—Seven floors of the Empire State Building? ”
I believe leasing a facility far away from the Twin Towers is a better solution, but not one the backers of Cordoba House may want.
“I contacted the Party and told them that they should be ashamed to even ask the question. The point was to incite anger at Muslims and no American political party should be doing that, whether or not it gave them some advantage in upcoming elections.”
The uneasy part is that because of the Constitution this is no longer a political issue that can be dealt with through existing democratic mechanism. Society must choose the path it will take, and politicians are left chewing fingers.
“I am deeply dismayed that so much politics is being played with this issue and that the result is increased feelings of hostility toward Islam and Muslims. ”
Much to my surprise, the attitude is different than towards Muslims immediately after 9-11. I’m not sure if that is because Americans now have greater familiarity with Islam and Muslims or if there is another reason. I do not think it is because Americans “seem to have forgotten what this country and its constitution are about.”
August:22:2010 - 15:22
To answer your last question, I think it’s because virulent Islamophobes like Spencer, Geller, and Schlussel have gained traction. Whenever anything bad happens in a Muslim state, or just involving a Muslim, they’re happy to point to it with an “I warned you! Be very afraid, because they’re coming for YOU!” Too many politicians seem to really think that popularity should be the deciding factor on constitutional issues when the Constitution exists in part to protect the unpopular, the minority against the majority, the mob.
August:22:2010 - 15:35
Citing those three is convenient, but does it really wash? Because in that case they would have found mainstream “traction” on other issues first. Why did you think of them rather than, say, Charles Krauthammer?
August:22:2010 - 16:31
John,
While I obviously oppose Islamophobes, I do believe that we are sufficiently numerous and powerful to with stand such people’s efforts to describe everything bad that happens amongst us Muslims, if such descriptions are truthful.
I will not quarrel with the truth, though I will request and insists that similar truths be proffered for the rest of humanity so that a balanced perspective may be available.
I have no thoughts on politicians supporting ochlocracy, except to note that I would think it to be natural that politicians would easily confuse ochlocracy with politics, as ocholocratic rule is a form of politics.
Skilled politicians presumably use ochlocracy as a means to achieve their ends.
August:22:2010 - 18:37
Why think of them first? Because they’ve been blowing that brass horn louder and longer than even Krauthammer. Maybe Stephen Schwartz pre-dates them, but not by much.
August:22:2010 - 18:40
Yes, appealing to lesser natures, to nativist, xenophobic tendencies has long been a feature of politics. The American ‘Founding Fathers’, however, chose to make mob rule difficult: the US is not a democracy, but a democratic republic. Elected representatives are supposed to understand that. It’s dismaying when they don’t.
August:23:2010 - 00:44
Me,
Why are the cartoons direct insults? Maybe indirect…
Actually, how is a non-Muslim drawing a picture any different from a non-Muslim enjoying a margarita? Are they both insults?
The fact is you are insulted by cartoons but you don’t give non-Muslims the benefit of being insulted by building a mosque / Community Center next to where Muslims murdered 3000 people.
Is insulting a one-way street?
Andrew, do you oppose infidelophobes, like those everywhere in Islamdom, or is that another one-way street? Also, what is with the “if” – maybe that depends on what you mean by “descriptions”…
John, we have not “forgotten what this country and its constitution are about.” Much to the contrary – we are fighting for our rights and constitution. Once again for you people who can’t seem to read … Most people who oppose the building of the so-called ground zero mosque understand that Muslims have a right under our laws to build it. To oppose the building of it is a right, also, called freedom of speech. For this we are called “Islamophobes” as if we have some irrational fear of islam. Do you want us to shut up and accept things we don’t like?
Perhaps you Muslims can tell me why our dear president didn’t say a word about religious freedom in other countries, particularly those in Islamic societies? All he had to do was add 5 words to his recent statement on religious freedom – but he did not. He took the usual Muslim position, taken by most Muslims in the West, that freedom and human rights do not apply to Islam.
August:23:2010 - 03:31
Kactuz:
I don’t think anyone here is complaining about the protesters right to … er … protest. What we are concerned about is what seems to be a rise in irrational fear towards Muslims and Islam. Like I said before, Muslims are not a homogeneous lot. And they don’t have a central authority to represent them, as opposed to the Catholic Church for instance. So you can’t really say; look at what this bunch of Muslims are doing and generalize it to the whole population. Yes, many (most?) Islamic countries aren’t as tolerant to other religions. But guess what? Most of these countries are totalitarian states in all but name. These other countries aren’t the US. A country that prides itself in its freedom of thought and religion. That’s what we’re talking about here. If, for instance, Milosevic era Serbia had a loud anti-Muslim faction I doubt you’d find any of us that dismayed about it.
August:23:2010 - 05:54
Kactuz:
I actually do not know what an infidelophobe is.
Do you mean one who hates all non-Muslims, or all non-Muslim religionists, or all non-Muslim ideologists, or perhaps something else?
I assume that your question is directed to me as a Saudi Muslim with the thought that an infidel means a non-Muslim (though I never use the term infidel and never hear it used at home when speaking English).
August:23:2010 - 07:59
J: I certainly don’t claim or believe that all who oppose 51 Park are Islamophobes. Too many are, however. They equate 9/11 with Islam in its entirety, not with Al-Qaeda and its noxious interpretation of Islam.
I think you’ve been reading Crossroads Arabia long enough to know that I think human rights are an important issue with and within Islam. Freedom of religion, of expression, freedom from oppression, freedom for women to make their own choices… these only have tentative support in many Islamic countries. That is a state that certainly needs reform.
I’m aware of Freedom of Speech to condemn 51 Park. I welcome it, in fact. But I also have the freedom to criticize speech that I think is flawed in its logic. Here, the flaw is a category error, confusing the part for the whole. Most critics of the center are not acting in bad faith, I think, but are mistaken in their assumptions. Others, like Schlussel and Geller, do manifest mala fide.
August:23:2010 - 08:21
Doing unpopular things like picking your nose in front of people will make you unpopular. The way I am interpreting things is that if Muslims want to build bridges this is a hell of way to start. I’ve read some of the decision makers have already starting thinking of another spot to build. Muslims have never tried to be popular!
If I were a pigeon man and decided to stand in central park and let the pigeons climb all over me that is my constitutional right. Chances are the birds are going to take a bird dump on me. I will most likely get unkindly looks and be told to go somewhere else. I can choose to stay claiming my constitutional right esp. if I weren’t entering any type of popularity contest.
August:23:2010 - 10:22
“Here, the flaw is a category error, confusing the part for the whole.”
Category error, I like that description. Yet I am quite aware it applies both ways, that on some forums Muslims are declaring that it is their absolute right to build Cordoba House because they too were victimized by 9-11, it’s just Americans need to change their thinking and “the sentiments of the 9-11 families are wrong” – in other words, they wish to create a category error of their own by denying that the 9-11 terrorists were Muslims of ANY sort. So if you don’t challenge these fine fellows they will end up writing the history books, but if you do they will refer to any criticism as an “attack” and call for unquestioning support from their fellow Muslims. (Rauf may be a nice guy, but “moderate” Muslims are often easily co-opted by their radical fellows, or lose control of their mosques.) Which course do you prefer, John?
“Most critics of the center are not acting in bad faith, I think, but are mistaken in their assumptions.”
I cannot apply the “bad faith” label to the opponents of Cordoba House as long as the backers make so little effort at community outreach.
“Others, like Schlussel and Geller, do manifest mala fide.”
Do they? Geller’s been deeply fearful of Islam since 9-11 and Schlussel receives a lot of death threats. Are they supposed to hide under their beds? Why the assumption that only non-Muslims are at fault here?
August:23:2010 - 11:23
I fault Muslims for many things, but on the issue or Cordoba Center, I think their errors of argument pale in comparison. I think, too, that they are right in pointing out that not all Muslims a) took part in, b) applauded, c) now support the 9/11 attacks. They are correct in pointing out that Muslims were killed in the WTC. I haven’t seen them trying to deny or obfuscate that Muslims attacked, only that the actions of those Muslims was not in keeping with the true tenets of Islam.
I’m unmoved by Geller’s fear. People fear all sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons. The irrational reasons are called phobias. I think it more than applies. Schlussel’s death threats might come because she levies vile attacks on anyone who disagrees with her, including trying to take down, through the force of law, blogs that she finds disagreeable. I think she’s pure loony-toons.
August:23:2010 - 11:24
I agree that, at the start, this was a badly considered decision. But when it turned into a judgment on all Muslims, the argument changed.
August:23:2010 - 12:24
It’s of course ironic, that the NY mosque debate is turning into a cartoon situation in reverse, but that’s the way it is.
What’s bothering me most is the name of the ‘ Cordoba’ foundation. Those people live in USA, where every man is equal for the law, every citizen has rights and there is religious freedom ( even muslims of different sorts are free to live out their religion without being harassed, jailed or killed)
and they use a society, where none of the above was true ( and besides that was a slave economy) as their ‘golden age’. Thats bothering me.
August:23:2010 - 12:58
Well, the Islamic world doesn’t exactly have any period of universal democracy, religious freedom and free speech! I think the organizers are going for the closest thing they can find, the convivencia of a particular period in Andalusian history.
August:23:2010 - 15:10
Andrew and jawa,
My position is simple and clear: I don’t like the ideology of Islam. I also do not like the way that Muslims treat others, particularly in those countries where they dominate. I consider this a good indication of what Muslims REALLY believe and how they would act if the had political power to enforce their values.
I would be willing to put aside the hate and violence in the Quran and hadith if Muslims would: 1. recognize that many things in those writings are disturbing and imoral, 2- treat others as they want to be treated. Since I see no indication of either, I see no reason to believe that Muslims accept personal responsibility, freedom of religion and speech, equality and separation of religion and state.
Thus, this “fear”, as you put it (or better, dislike) is not irrational, much to the contrary. It is based on facts and very sound logic.
Understand that the Park 51 mosque / community center will be built because Muslims have a right to do it. It will be built because a lot of muslims see it as a statement of victory over non-Muslims, in this case Americans, particularly those who oppose Islam. It will be built because these people are not moderates, in spite of what the government and media tells. The people behind this know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it. If you think this building is about reconciliation and peace, you had better lay off the bottle, or something.
Andrew, I have a simple question to you as a Muslim: Do you recognize that non-Muslims may be offended with things that are said about us in the Quran and with the treatment received from your prophet? That is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question and you can elaborate.
John, I think it is time for a “national debate” on Islam (and by extension, Muslims). This is for us, Europe, Canada and other places. I would like to see Muslims answer for their beliefs (quran and hadith) and for their actions (discrimination practiced in Islamic societies). Muslims, however, want on to focus on American intolerance, American bigotry and American dislike for Islam, as if it were unrelated to what Muslims believe and do.
Jawa, I don’t generalize what a “small bunch” of Muslims are doing – I generalize from what a large bunch – that is most Muslims – do and say. Perhaps you might tell me why I cannot generalize when Muslims in geral, almost without exception, discriminate and oppress others when they are in control.
Now a word of comfort to you two: you are winning. Islam is advancing and imposing its values on the West. Never for a minute did I ever think that anything I have said or done would make any difference. I do this because I believe it is the right things to do, that I must stand-up for freedom (OK, let me also confess that deliberating with Muslims has a certain entertainment value. They are so cute when trying to defend the undefensible and explain the unexplainable). I hope this makes you happy. As a student of history, this is part of life – empires rise and fall, ideologies come and go, not always for the better. If good people do not believe that our freedoms are worth fighting for, and are willing to except silly arguements in return for false feelings of happiness and coexistence, so be it. If you turn on a TV or read any major media website, you will find our leaders and so-called intellectuals telling us how stupid and evil the people are that oppose the mosque. I find it all amusing.
Take care….
J.
August:23:2010 - 15:52
kactuz brings up good points. Oddly enough, they mesh pretty well with the Cordoba Project’s stated purpose of “thinking introspectively about each side’s place” in furthering “cross-cultural engagement.”
Their promise to do so “with forethought” makes me wonder just how carefully Cordoba’s backers considered the consequences of their actions as well as what they are trying to do.
August:23:2010 - 15:52
“Andrew, I have a simple question to you as a Muslim: Do you recognize that non-Muslims may be offended with things that are said about us in the Quran and with the treatment received from your prophet? That is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question and you can elaborate.”
Yes, of course.
Religions are often like that, and exclusivist monotheistic ones especially.
See, for example from Christianity Matthew 10:34-36.
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. “For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.”
Non-Christian groups were persecuted by Christians using that and other Christian references as proof of the correctness of such persecutions.
I like many Muslims am no literalist. And I do not worship Muhammad as a divine being (there are no divine human beings in Islam).
And Islamic history is and has been filled with intolerance, bigotry, etc.
Indeed Islam is like Christianity in that regard as a monotheist exclusivist religion that has had political power and justified such power on theological ground. For example, the Papal document on the two swords provided justification for political power vested within Christianity.
However, I think that you are fundamentally wrong when you say that the freedom of conscience found in Muslim-majority countries indicates what “Muslims REALLY believe and how they would act if the had political power to enforce their values”
What is shows me is how a largely maleducated populace can be easily swayed and appealed to using bigotry.
Such appeals to bigotry are especially easy I would agree within the context of monotheist, exclusivist religions.
But, I do not think one should demonize such people.
Their maleducation is generally the result of governmental collusion with a clerical establishment that seek to mutually reinforce one another’s power.
And, such appeals to bigotry occur in the other globally prominent monotheist, exclusivist religion as well (the history of Europe is proof of that).
So, it is likely right that maleducated people can be easily swayed. Yet, I would assert, the solution should be to encourage freedom from a clerical establishment that is backed by the power of the State.
There are many things in the teachings of Christianity that outsiders find objectionable and hateful, and yet that has been rendered nugatory in many respects by the development (admittedly only recently by historical terms) of a sundering of linkages between government and religion.
Such a sundering must be a goal for my society.
But, the issue is NOT whether one likes or dislikes Islam — the overwhelming majority of my people will always love Islam.
It is whether the clerical establishment has the ability with the power of the State to impose its will, including through maleducation, the use of violence to enforce religious edicts that have no other societal benefit, etc.
August:23:2010 - 16:03
Kactuz,
I would disagree with that thought that Islam is winning.
The West has had a profound impact on Muslim-majority societies (the regular election of women to positions of prominence in Bangladesh or its movement to support secularism [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11054231] are but one example of that.
Rather, Islamic societies are influencing the West and the reverse is also true.
The movement in Muslim-majority societies towards a society completely based on an ahistorical and inaccurately glorified understanding of Islamic history and religion is NOT winning, notwithstanding its ardent support among the clerical establishment.
Indeed, such a movement is likely in decline.
I view those who assert that Islam would overtake the West to be similar to those who once asserted that Communism would soon overtake the West.
The West has sources of intellectual and cultural strength that are extremely resilient and dynamic and that should not be underestimated.
August:23:2010 - 17:27
#48
Of course, you are right. The western world did in different periods also also have an idea of an golden age ( Mircea Eliade has written on this idea), but the scientific historical research from the late 19. century brought an end to this. – And it was a tough fight at least in Scandinavia.
Some times the new historians was viewed as godless quislings, but at least they didn’t lose their heads !
By the way there is a good and important exhibition on pre islamic ( and early islamic) art and artifacts from Saudi Arabia in Louvre ( and it’s a good thing), the bad thing is of course that the companion book(s)
isn’t identical in arabic and french according to the review I’ve read, there’s a couple of things that isn’t fit for arab eyes – yet.
August:23:2010 - 17:40
J: I’ve yet to see that ‘Muslim triumphalism’ over 51Park. I mean, even it stands for everything Al-Qaeda is fighting. Here’re some opinions on that, from both the left and the right of American politics.
I don’t think the US is ready for–should ever be ready for–a debate on any religion. Today, we outlaw Islam. Tomorrow, whose religion? Shall we go after extremist Baptists and demonize the entire Baptist congregation? Then who?
Nor do I think how the citizens of one country behave toward one another a burning topic of American interest, beyond a minimal human rights level. But, since the US isn’t about to go in, guns blazing, to enforce equality for the sexes, I think it more appropriate to use words.
August:25:2010 - 13:33
“I agree that, at the start, this was a badly considered decision. But when it turned into a judgment on all Muslims, the argument changed.”
Ah, that’s where we are on tough ground. However, the claim that “We cannot judge all Muslims” is also a kind of category error, isn’t it? Hardly anyone says, “We cannot judge all Al Qaeda”, yes? If Americans take on faith rather than experience that Muslims are a group just like any other that may be good for an initial assumption, but why shouldn’t it be modified by actions, facts, and context?
There are lots of people out there whom, when the Nazi-induced Holocaust of Jews is mentioned, or the violence in Darfur, reply by saying, “That’s terrible and the Israels are just as bad, just look at what they do to the Palestinians.” These people are invoking a social convention that no group is any worse or better than any other, so the actions of Israel or America MUST have been as bad as their relatives, countrymen, or co-religionists were in similar situations.
While you can’t blame 9-11 on EVERY Muslim, a significant percentage of Muslims endorsed their violence, and an even larger percentage of Muslims do not see it as their duty to oppose such terrorism. In my opinion, that should not be forgotten, especially not by Muslims themselves, some of whom want the Cordoba House site so they can portray Muslims as primarily victims of the 9-11 assault. That’s about as honest as the Japanese claim that they were victims of WWII due to the fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Cordoba House can be built, or not. Either way, what matters is the effect upon Muslim and non-Muslim communities. Will it radicalize America’s Muslims, causing division between them and non-Muslim Americans? Is that the purpose of its backers? I imagine that purpose could also be served even more cheaply by canceling the project, with the backers citing American intolerance as the reason.
But if Cordoba House is truly open – if it is planned as a real public facility with prayer areas for all, a mission statement in its lease (for that ownership needs to be changed), and a humbling and apologetic attitude by its spokesmen, then Cordoba House could be a real instrument of healing. Mosques can always have their management changed, by fair means or foul, so what the Rauf-of-the-day says matters little. Instead, the backers can make a voluntary yet binding declaration and contract with the community. It’s their choice, and nothing in the law or Constitution compels them to go either way.
August:25:2010 - 15:58
Some thoughts on reading the comments above:
I have never seen it written anywhere that Cordoba House claims to be a prayer space for all. It will be a community centre for all, has a mission of interfaith dialogue, and includes a mosque, for Muslim prayer.
Whatever the total percentage of Muslims in NYC, the more pertinent question is where are they for Friday jummah prayers? Working in Manhattan? Where would be a central location with good public transit access for all to gather for most prayer times which are in the daylight hours, ie when many more people are in Manhattan than at night?
As such a highly visible Muslim presence,I doubt whatever teachings there will be unknown to the US powers that be, Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI, whomever is on terrorist propaganda watch.
The Auschwitz nuns move is an incommensurate example. The nuns were inhabiting the Auschwitz gas supply building. Cordoba House is not in or at Ground Zero, it is at least 2 blocks from it, more like 4-5 from the actual site where the twin towers were, and the building will not be visible from ground zero.
Houses of worship may allow others to visit, or attend services, but they don’t allow them to participate in rituals or all of them. That is true for non-Jews in synagogues, non-Christians in churches, non-Catholics at a Catholic mass. Some mosques do allow non-Muslim visitors, but why should any mosque provide prayer rooms for others? How well would it go over if a group of Muslims arrived with prayer mats and performed salat during mass at Notre Dame?
All this “it may be legal” but they should “do the right thing” reminds me of the comment made on a panel by a Columbia professor in support of Cordoba House. He said that “sensitivities” shouldn’t preclude upholding the Constitution and Civil Rights. He also said that there were sensitivities about him moving into a white neighbourhood. One needs to get past some types of “sensitivities”.
And now, at the risk of offending some sensitivities, I have been struck since 9/11 by how many people, American and Canadian, claim to have been directly affected by the violence, in the sense of losing someone or being at risk of losing someone. There is a bit of rubber necking or trying to be part of a big story it seems to me for some. If 3000 died, how many is that who were directly affected? Add in the injured and the first responders, how many more? Directly affected, not just: “My son was working in Manhattan at the time”; “I know a lot of people who work for the airlines”; “My husband was supposed to have an interview there that day but he didn’t go for medical reasons”; etc. ie all explanations I have heard from people “very affected” by the loss. The same one whose son was in Manhattan working at the time, was far less “affected” when the same son was working in London, and taking the tube at the time of the London bombings. Maybe someone should be looking into her son’s activities? Maybe the 9/11 story is a bigger one, and so she is way more “affected” by that?
I agree, even more now than I did at the beginning, with John’s observation that Cordoba House is bringing out very disappointing responses from people. “Irrational fear” is the term that comes to mind.
August:25:2010 - 16:09
“Will it radicalize America’s Muslims, causing division between them and non-Muslim Americans?”
No, of course not.
Its construction, or alternatively its non-construction, would have no such strong effect on American Muslims.
It is unlikely that it would even have any such effect on any of the Muslims who work or live in New York City.
Human beings are too complex to generally be radicalized by such a single factor.
August:25:2010 - 16:10
by that reasoning Chiara then those who draw pictures of Mohammed should not have to worry about the sensitivities of anyone they might offend. They should stand by their constitutional rights and the heck with who is hurt. I still think that in a global world where many different people live together it is better in some cases to try and put our own feelings on the back burner to the feelings of others. It helps grease the wheels of life…
More later gotta go now…
August:25:2010 - 16:14
Yes, you did offend me. Really your argument is so much below …….. .
But I will not comment on it.
August:25:2010 - 17:45
“The plan for Park51, a US$100 million (Dh367 million), three-building complex located at 45-51 Park Place in Lower Manhattan, envisages a community centre, open to all faiths, which would include a 500-seat auditorium, restaurant and cooking school, library, pool, gym and basketball court.
There would be a place of prayer – not strictly a mosque, as critics have misleadingly suggested – and a September 11 memorial space.”
As you can see from the quote above it is not supposed to be strictly a mosque.
From a newspaper from Abu Dhabi: (Perhaps they have it wrong…but it is from the Muslim world…I’m thinking they might try to get it correct considering the subject.)
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100821/WEEKENDER/708209811/1678
On the nun/Auschwitz example I think we will just have to disagree. Even though the particulars are different I think it is a good example of how people, given a very traumatic event, can claim a place where it happened as “theirs” and feel ownership in it. The Holocaust in a perverse way binds the Jews together in commanality of experience. Countless people can trace family back to that event. Obviously with 9/11 it is vastly smaller numbers, but much like the Kennedy shooting people feel a sense of collective grief and a binding together in experience because it was so traumatic for the nation. I think the Pope was right to call the nuns out of the convent even though they could legally stay I think. I think it would be a gracious gesture, though not a legal requirement, for 51Park to relocate if they can. It is hurting a whole bunch of people. I think THIS particular mosque has extenuating circumstances attached to it and that should be taken into consideration. The example you gave about your professor moving into a white neighborhood is not even close to the same thing. Hell, I am sure my neighbors said that about me and my husband when we moved into where we now live. That is not a life altering event for my neighbors…a source of gossip I am sure, but not life changing. I think you underestimate just how much Americans were devastated by 9/11.
Sometimes, as I have argued about the drawings of the Prophet, even if one can do it legally it is better not to poke a finger in the eye of your neighbor. It makes for smoother relations all around. Maybe it is a Kumbaya attitude but hurting our neighbors if we can avoid it is a wise thing to do, IMO. Having said that, there needs to be some sort of perimeter that constitutes “hallowed” ground(I say “hallowed” tongue in cheek). It is not fair to Muslims to put too much space off limits to build. Of course it would be a “gentleman’s” agreement as legally they can build there if they choose.
HOWEVER, if this was a mosque being built in any neighborhood, let’s say mine for example, then I think those who would oppose it are tough out of luck. Muslims have the right to build a place of worship and as long as it doesn’t break any zoning codes and it is all legal then I say they have as much right as anyone else.
“Houses of worship may allow others to visit, or attend services, but they don’t allow them to participate in rituals or all of them. That is true for non-Jews in synagogues, non-Christians in churches, non-Catholics at a Catholic mass.”
Sorry, once again I have to disagree. I have not only been to synogogues I was once invited by the members to read from their holy book(not the Torah) When I protested that I can’t read Hebrew I was gently told to read the English beside the Hebrew. I did and I was thanked.
My husband, as a Hindu, has participated fully in our masses with the exception of receiving communion..but even here he did once the first time he went and NO ONE questioned him and they gave him communion. It wasn’t until I told him he probably shouldn’t receive that he didn’t. Had I not said something I am sure he could have received many more times.
As to those who “rubberneck” on 9/11 whether they were personally affected by it or not does not diminish their feelings of horror, dismay or shock. So in that sense they were “personally” affected by it. Many many people were affected by it whether they knew someone who died or not. But to use your line of logic I guess all the millions of Muslims in the world who are upset about the Palestinians situation should just “get over it”. After all, they aren’t personally affected or have family there. Why should they feel any kinship to them. no one thy know actually died.
To set the record straight as I wrote, I grew up going to sleep looking at the WTC. My father worked in NYC at the time and recorded the building of it in slides that to this day I still have. I have been to the WTC several times and have gone to the top and felt them sway in the wind. I have felt my ears clog due to the speed of the elevator as it went up at such a rapid speed. I have family that stood on their front steps and watched the smoke. I spent many a day in NYC touring and going to plays etc. So having grown up in the shadow of the WTC it was very personal to me. But thank god not on a “I know someone that died” level.
“irrational fear” is not a word that I would have ever applied to this situation. I didn’t even think of that. I feel insensitive, insulted or hurt is more appropriate… perhaps maybe angry. even bruised might be appropriate.
Having said all that, when it is built, because I don’t doubt it will be, I hope that Americans will be able to rise above their feelings of hurt and anger. But “forcing it through” says to me it isn’t really a sign of “goodwill” or an attempt at healing. Seeing the reaction of the people and the determination of the builders for that particular place makes me feel that goodwill was not the real reason, but labeled that to make it more palatable.
August:25:2010 - 17:47
If the situation was reversed and do you think Muslims would “have to get over their sensitivities?”
August:25:2010 - 17:51
Oby #57-I disagree but I will wait until you have time to reply more fully.
NielsC#58–I’m sorry you find my comment “so much below…” I find the commenting on this topic surprisingly below the usual standards of the regular commentators (with the exception of John, Andrew). Dr Marc Lamont Hill is the Columbia professor who made the original “sensitivities” comment, including the part of getting beyond sensitivities on civil rights issues. The quotations from the “affected” are from friends and colleagues, and years later. They were shocked, as we all were, but to turn that into a decade of being “involved” in an event is overreaching it seems to me.
Btw I did 2 posts, one in French and one in English on the Saudi Archeology exhibit at the Louvre. with multiple pictures and information on it.
August:25:2010 - 18:36
Oby #59 #60–You were back fast!
From the Cordoba House website description of its facilities (from before the “reaction” ie I read it the same there then, and have it copied for a post I was planning to do):
a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park 51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community
“Open to” is not the same as “a prayer space for”; and no such prayer space for all is listed among the planned facilities.
Non-Jews are welcome to attend certain services and to participate in certain aspects of the rituals but are precluded from others. Anyone is welcome to attend a Catholic mass, only Catholics (not just Christians) are allowed to take communion. That I am aware no one would be so rude as to question someone doing so. Similarly, at the request of Muslim family, I visited a Muslim cemetery; not really permitted, but no one else said a thing, even though I obviously don’t “look like” a Muslim (in Morocco they go by appearance on who is Muslim or not).
I understand you feel a personal attachment to the WTC; and I do realize how traumatized the USA was by 9/11. Perhaps you don’t realize how odd that looks to the rest of the world–at least all the Europeans, and non-Westerners I have talked to, and everything I have read. Others are used to wars on their own soil, and massive losses of people and mass destruction of property.
I do perceive an irrational fear on the part of many opponents (not all of course) who see an Islamist invasion, Islamist propaganda, terrorist training, deliberate effrontery, etc. I didn’t state that you did.
I don’t in tne least approve of the violent responses to the Danish Cartoons. I also don’t approve of the deliberate and open invitation to create them knowing it was an offense tantamount to a hate crime as perceived by Danish Muslims ie to provoke part of the country’s community in a very direct manner against the essence of their belief system. I don’t see an institution with an overt agenda of interfaith understanding and community building as being in the same category, even if there is a small mosque attached but distinct from it–and 2 blocks above the perimeter of the “hallowed ground” ie above Vesey Street:
The site [the WTC site, sometimes called Ground Zero] is bounded by Vesey Street to the north, the West Side Highway to the west, Liberty Street to the south, and Church Street to the east.
Please don’t falsely attribute bias to me. Of course, if there were similar circumstances, one would have to put “sensitivities” (the word used by some critics) in the type of context that Professor Hill (not my professor btw) described for the Civil Rights enactments and the rights of Cordoba House to pursue an interfaith dialogue, and community outreach (in a neighbour that sorely needs it), while having a prayer space for their religion, practiced within the bounds set by their country, the USA.
August:25:2010 - 20:53
Perhaps you don’t realize how odd that looks to the rest of the world–at least all the Europeans, and non-Westerners I have talked to, and everything I have read.
Perhaps you don’t realize that there are plenty of non-American, non-Westerners like me who DON’T find the outrage odd and who are appalled by the insensitivity and crassness displayed by the organizer of the Islamic center? Opinions differ on the wisdom of building the mosque/Islamic center at that site and opposition is not based on nationality or racial or religious origin. That your friends don’t see anything strange, fine, but don’t extrapolate their opinions on the rest of the non-Western world.
I also don’t approve of the deliberate and open invitation to create them knowing it was an offense tantamount to a hate crime as perceived by Danish Muslims ie to provoke part of the country’s community in a very direct manner against the essence of their belief system.
If I understand this correctly, you are saying though both the cartoonist and the Park51 organizers are relying on their right to freedom of speech, we should criticize the cartoonist because they are open about their desire to be critical while we should not criticize the Imam because his “overt” intent is to “build bridges
although both his words and actions belie that alleged intent? Hypocrisy should be admired over frankness when the same right is at issue, is that what you are suggesting?
August:25:2010 - 20:59
No, it’s not a category error at all. It’s recognition that are are, in fact, multiple categories in which Muslims can be placed. Draw it out on a Venn diagram and you see the set of all Muslims contains but is not synonymous with the set labeled ‘Al-Qaeda’. Nor is the set ‘Extremist Muslims’ synonymous. Al-Qaeda, however, is subsumed in the set ‘Extremist Muslims’.
How are you defining ‘significant percentage’? More than 10%? More than 50%? How do you include people like me who think that while the US did not ‘deserve’ 9/11, its prior actions certainly played a role in the development of a political situation that led to 9/11? I don’t even have to get into the matter of culpability. If the US does X and Extremist Y thinks that blameworthy, then of course Extremist Y is primarily responsible. Would he have acted in such a manner in the absence of behavior X? I think that’s a valid question to ask if one seeks to understand what makes extremists.
August:25:2010 - 21:01
“I understand you feel a personal attachment to the WTC; and I do realize how traumatized the USA was by 9/11. Perhaps you don’t realize how odd that looks to the rest of the world–at least all the Europeans, and non-Westerners I have talked to, and everything I have read. Others are used to wars on their own soil, and massive losses of people and mass destruction of property. ”
But maybe we are traumatized by this because we haveN’T experienced the massive losses of people. So we aren’t used to it like in other places. Perhaps we are odd for this, but I’d rather not get used to such things. I think all people should be traumatized by loss of life. I don’t want to be desensitized to it and shrug it off as normal.
And I think Oby makes a great point. If people feel personally attacked or attached to what happened on 9/11/01, so what? Muslims do it all the time with their “my people, my brothers” statements concerning Palestinians and Iraqis even when they are not directly attacked. If they were, I sure hope they would do something to help their brothers. At least the Americans had the guts to do something…not saying that was a wise move, but we didn’t sit back and merely talk and cry about our losses and watch more of our own get slaughtered on our own turf.
We saw people like us murdered just because they were Americans, meaning people like US, how can we not feel personally attached to this? (Samer contributed the last paragraph after I asked him to approve my comment.
We are chatting now and discussing the comments on this post.)
August:25:2010 - 21:32
@Susanne…
You said it very nicely and I agree.
Thanks Samer!
August:26:2010 - 00:32
Olivetheoil #63–Please don’t take my words and run with them tangentially in directions never implied nor stated.
What looks odd to many, including tourists to my city where we get all the US channels, or who have visited the US, according to their words is that there is such great ongoing attention given to 9/11, whereas according to them no one else goes on that much in the media about an equivalent or worse event that happens in their own country. THEY find it uniquely American. I was not addressing the current raging debate over Cordoba House, as you misinterpret.
I stated the relationship to Cordoba House of my commment about the Danish cartoons very clearly, in the the very next statement which you chose not to quote:
I don’t see an institution with an overt agenda of interfaith understanding and community building as being in the same category, even if there is a small mosque attached but distinct from it–and 2 blocks above the perimeter of the “hallowed ground” ie above Vesey Street:
The site [the WTC site, sometimes called Ground Zero] is bounded by Vesey Street to the north, the West Side Highway to the west, Liberty Street to the south, and Church Street to the east.
I said none of what you misinterpret or project onto my comment. Nothing about freedom of speech, or hypocrisy. I juxtaposed the Danish Cartoons being a deliberate and overt invitation to hit publicly at a core Islamic belief, and a community centre not at the core of Ground Zero and not making a deliberate and overt request for Muslims to submit their insults to 9/11 for publication (since you seem to need further explication).
August:26:2010 - 00:57
Susanne #65–It seems I got lost in emotion, translation, or chat! LOL
That 9/11 was heinous and demanded an American response is not in question. The world agreed at the time, and Canada was in Afghanistan from the beginning and is still there now because of it.
In the case of 9/11 it isn’t a question of desensitization or normalization, though that happens as a psychological defense mechanism in places of ongoing violence, eg Belfast during the most recent troubles, where to function one had to wall up reactions to the potential of imminent unpredictable violence, as people who lived there have told me. It is a question of how much attention the media, politicians, and activists give to it and for what agenda.
It is one thing to mourn with the US about 9/11 as all countries did; it is another to denigrate it by making it an excuse for an agenda such as getting elected in November, stoking anger against and limitations on American Muslims (there are more attacks on Muslims, and more demands not to build mosques around the country since the Cordoba House debate escalated), etc.
Ironically, in light of the comments here, many of the “9/11 families” do support the building of Cordoba House as originally and currently described in the Cordoba House initiative.
Hello to Samer, and I hope he sees the Israeli film Lebanon. Unsettling, and anti-war, showing the brutality against Lebanese and Syrian civilians of the 1982 war, and the trauma to IDF soldiers–based on the director’s own PTSD.
September:05:2010 - 13:27
Although the vast majority of Muslims who will use the mosque and donated money to build the mosque are moderate, there may be a few Muslims with extremist views who donated money because it is to be built next to ground 0. Not all money donated can be tracked, and moderates will not be able to stop extremist from going to the mosque. The Mayor of New York City offered property farther away from the ground 0 to build the mosque. I am for religious freedom, but for the sake of the victims of 911 and relations with others, I think moderate Muslims should consider building the mosque in the alternate location.