Several commenters has stated that while the Park51 people have full legal rights to build their center where they propose, it is not wise to do so. Because building it as planned would offend the sensibilities of many, perhaps a majority of Americans, they should forgo exercising their right in order to better achieve harmony.
That was pretty much my thought before the center became a blazing political issue: Yes, the rights exist, but they need not be put into play as many could be expected to object.
As I later said, though, I believe the situation changed with its politization and backing away from building the center would be to say something which the builders do not want to say. It would, in effect, accept the premise that there’s something so noxious with Islam that it desecrates the memory of 9/11. I really don’t see many Muslims willing to say, “Yep, you’re right. Islam is the problem and an Islamic center certainly doesn’t belong here.”
Had the issue remained simply a matter of local politics, then it would have been relatively easy and relatively painless for the builders to simply back out. The issue is no longer local, however, and the problems disclosed by the controversy are not local.
As this article from The Washington Post points out, objections to building Islamic centers or mosques are not limited to geographic areas which attract heightened sensitivities. The article discusses the rhetoric flying around a plan to build a mosque in Murfreeboro, Tennessee. Now certainly, some do hold Murfreesboro ‘sacred’. It was the scene of a brutal battle in the American Civil War, in 1862. But as that battle ha nothing to do with Islam or Muslims, its ‘sanctity’ has nothing to do with the current uproar. Instead, what we see is blatant anti-Islamic bias.
Jump over to Riverside County, CA and we find another exercise in anti-Islamic bigotry. Those protesting the building of a mosque in Temecula are not dissembling, but make very clear that they argue purely on religious and political grounds.
Sheepshead Bay, in Brooklyn, NY is facing similar anti-Islamic demagoguery against the building of a mosque. So, too, are Georgia, and Sheboygan, WI.
Together, I think these protests—while certainly protected by the US 1st Amendment as free speech—are being carried out in such a way as to make it unmistakable that the issue is pure religious prejudice. Religious prejudice, I believe, should be fought always and constantly.
The issue of Park51, though, isn’t just a battle of words and feelings. There are those, still, who seek to use the power of the state to prevent the center’s being built. Eugene Volokh Ilya Somin, at Volokh Conspiracy law blog, points to efforts to use the state power of ‘eminent domain’ to seize the property and put it to a ‘better use’. He notes that this is unlikely to happen because it would be soon apparent that whatever reasons the state gave would be pretextual, merely trying to hide the anti-Muslim bias of those seeking to stop the center. [Attribution for the post at Volokh Conspiracy was mistaken. It's now fixed.]
UPDATE: On the matter of sensitivities, here’s an Associated Press piece of interest: 9/11 families, others rally in favor of NYC mosque
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
August:25:2010 - 21:14
Thanks to some of our politicians and media, this has blown up so much that instead of spreading goodwill as the imam wanted, this is now making many people hate Muslims more. As if some of them needed another reason. Uggggh!
August:25:2010 - 21:57
I agree with Susanne that the media has run like crazy with it…but I don’t think one has to be a rocket scientist to figure out this should have been better thought out. What did the Imam expect? I think most people could have predicted it would get out of control. The reason we have not heard of the other mosque issues is because nothing has happened there that would make it “news” other than blatant religious bigotry. (which of course is bad enough)
Though I am not in favor of Park51 being built there I do find the rising conflict very concerning. America has had a good relationship between it’s Muslims and non Muslims generally. They are pretty well settled, no one really bothers them (at least I have never witnessed it)etc. Relations have been peaceful and IMO hopeful. All this animosity will only serve to breed more extremism on our own soil I am afraid and pull us apart rather than together.
AND since I have been blogging for the last year it seems to have gotten very much louder in the last 4-6 months IMO. I feel very heartsick and worried about it.
August:25:2010 - 22:11
What did the Imam expect?
I think he expected this very much and was aiming for it. Only a tone-deaf person would have thought otherwise and what I have seen of him, he is not tone-deaf at all.
August:25:2010 - 22:41
John…
You might have seen this already on another blog. I wanted to post it here. What are your thoughts about the Imam and this piece?
http://www.slate.com/id/2264770/
August:26:2010 - 06:17
Maybe I’ve got things wrong—but the community center and prayer place called Park 51 is two blocks AWAY from ground zero and cannot be seen from the ground zero place. Muslims lost their lives at “Ground zero”, Many first responders were also Muslims. The project was approved by NY, since the building of it would have revitalized the neighborhood—one that already has some businesses. The Imam already had a prayer space in the area that got too small for the community and he looked for a larger place—and real estate in NY doesn’t pop up miraculously—The coat factory was an abandoned building. The Imam has been used by the U.S. government, both Bush and Obama for diplomacy…..the Pentagon, which was also attacked, already has a prayer space for Muslims…..
and if all of that is not enough….if Americans really cared about the “victims” of those plane attacks—the right thing to do would be to protest the use of “Drones” (Unmanned PLANES) that terrorized civilians in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan and whose deaths were so conveniently labelled “Collateral Damage”…….
August:26:2010 - 07:33
I’m not particularly perturbed by the Imam. I think he was using vocabulary that was suitable to his audience, using words and concepts that they could easily comprehend. That those same words, in other contexts, have nefarious meanings is only a limitation of how we process language. Where many are outraged at the Imam’s suggestion that US policy played some role in 9/11, well what can I say? I agree with him. I’m not saying that the US ‘deserved’ 9/11, but that its prior actions certainly provided motivation to bin Laden and others. That bin Laden and those others misperceived US policy is on their heads, though.
August:26:2010 - 08:05
I agree with John in the post and the comment, and with anon.
Cordoba House has been in formal planning for 4 years. The eruption happened after it began to elicit donations for execution of the plans and completion.
I also have had no problems with what I have read about the Imam, and since the State Dept doesn’t either, I assume he has been well-vetted. In the immediate aftershock of 9/11 anyone who intimated that US foreign policy was a part of the reason for the attack was vilified. Reactions are calmer now, but still this seems to rankle, although as John pointed out one can agree that it was, and disagree with the spin put on it by some. One might even agree with the spin, and disagree with the expression of their disagreement.
August:26:2010 - 14:18
John…
thanks…I do agree that US policies played a part in 9/11 so for him to say that is not a huge issue for me. That is not what I was focused on. I should have been more specific. I was a bit confused by this statement which seems to be a quote attributed to him:
“The more one reads through his statements, the more alarming it gets. For example, here is Rauf’s editorial on the upheaval that followed the brutal hijacking of the Iranian elections in 2009. Regarding President Obama, he advised that:
He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution—to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faquih, that establishes the rule of law.
Roughly translated, Vilayet-i-faquih is the special term promulgated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to describe the idea that all of Iranian society is under the permanent stewardship (sometimes rendered as guardianship) of the mullahs.* Under this dispensation, “the will of the people” is a meaningless expression, because “the people” are the wards and children of the clergy. It is the justification for a clerical supreme leader, whose rule is impervious to elections and who can pick and choose the candidates and, if it comes to that, the results. It is extremely controversial within Shiite Islam. (Grand Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq, for example, does not endorse it.) As for those numerous Iranians who are not Shiites, it reminds them yet again that they are not considered to be real citizens of the Islamic Republic.”
I am wondering why a man who is for interfaith dailogue and peace would want the president to endorse something that on the face of it seems divisive. If not to the Western way of thinking and his own supposed intent with Park51 then certainly to the Iranian people. In this case the Imam’s attitude seems purposely provocative.
Thanks for your thoughts.
August:26:2010 - 15:56
I’d read the article you excerpt. The quote you pull out is what I meant by his choosing a vocabulary that meant something to his audience. Yes, the writer’s interpretation of ‘vilayet-i-faquih’ can mean the way the current mullahs mean it. But those mullah bent the translation to meant what they wanted it to mean. At its core, it still means ‘community and law’, a term that permits the inclusion of democratic values. Just because the writer wants to use the term in the way the mullahs do does not mean that’s how Rauf meant it. Rauf’s use of the phrase–if he intended the broader meaning–is consistent with moderation.
Further, as Rauf is a Sufi, I don’t see him kowtowing to Iranian Shi’sm any more than he would to Saudi ‘Wahhabism’.
August:26:2010 - 21:42
What a hypocrisy!! When the Prophet cartoons were published, NO ONE accepted the argument of “religious sensibilities”! We, Muslims, were told to lighten up and that it is an issue of freedom of speech.
Now the same Nazi, white-supremacist scum is using the same reverse argumentation that their “sensitivities” are being violated!
August:26:2010 - 21:45
Have you bothered to read my posts on the subject? I’m not Muslim, but neither am I a ‘Nazi white-supremacist scum’. I hope.
August:26:2010 - 22:11
Thanks John…
I think I was reading it differently. I actually read it several times before asking your POV. I appreciate you pointing out a different perspective. The way I read it was that as an Imam or a clergyman familiar with such terms and therefore the meaning (and certainly I thought he would be familiar with the WAY it has been applied or meant by, Khomeini) it was an inflammatory statement to use to describe “law”. It struck me as odd that he would ask Obama to use the 1979 Iranian Revolution as an example. While I don’t expect him to cow tow to Shi’ite islam I thought it an unusual phrase to use considering it is so inflammatory amongst at least some Muslims.
I brought the article forth because it seemed like a middle of the road source. I have read so much pro vs con about the guy and I am trying to find moderate(read not too pro, not too con) sources about the whole thing (hence the article I posted from the the abu dhabi newspaper) that have the least amount of spin either way…
Thanks for your perspective.
August:27:2010 - 00:06
“Ayatullah Khomeini in 1970 gave a series of lectures that became a book Hokumat-e Islami: Valiyat-e faqih (Islamic Government) arguing that monarchy was “unIslamic”. In a true Islamic state those holding government posts should have knowledge of Sharia, and the country’s ruler should be a faqih who “surpasses all others in knowledge” of Islamic law and justice[16] – known as a marja` – as well as having intelligence and administrative ability.”—Wikipedia
Vilayat-e-faqih=Guardianship of the Jurists, is basically about the implemetation of the “rule of law/Justice”—and specifically, who is “authorized” to “interpret” and thus implement “rule of law/Justice”.
Anyone can take quotes and twist them around to mean whatever they want to mean—therefore, if you want to know what Imam Rauf meant—read his statement instead of relying on someone elses interpretation of his statement.
August:27:2010 - 15:43
I did not mean you, John. I meant the anti-”Muslim” crowd.
August:27:2010 - 17:01
Regarding ‘Vilayet-i-faquih’, some muslims love to use concepts, words with a historic specific islamic meaning, what they say is that their kind of ‘universalism’ hasn’t anything to do with western understanding and concepts. They don’t talk to us, but to themselves.
Let them talk.
August:27:2010 - 22:18
In general, I agree. But with so many people looking for a misstep, one has to be very careful to avoid allegations that you say one thing (in a foreign language) to one audience, but then something different, in English, to another. There are many who will be glad to throw a label of ‘taqiyya’ on that kind of behavior, even if they don’t actually know what taqiyya is.
August:29:2010 - 08:22
[...] Is Sentimentality a Reasonable Argument? [...]