“Ground Zero” Mosque
Two blocks from ground zero Feisal Abdul Rauf is attempting to build a community center that would house a swimming pool, a gym, conference rooms and Mosque but, for some two blocks is too close. The very idea of constructing a community center with a Mosque two blocks from ground zero has sparked an outcry of emotion from the families of 9/11 and the people who believe Rauf has the right to build. Joining George Kilpatrick in conversation is Imam Yaser Alkhooly, Islamic Society of Central New York, and Philip Arnold, Associate Professor Religious Studies at Syracuse University. Watch Central Issues, weeknights at 6:30PM, 8PM, and 10PM on WCNY. All times ET.
These two men are insulting. Do not tell me and the many other affected Americans how we should feel and promote our healing. The construction of this mosque in that area is the last thing to ever promote healing; rather, it is upsetting and they know it.
THE CENTRAL ISSUE AT THE HEART OF THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE PROPOSED MUSLIM CENTER JUST A STONE’S THROW AWAY FROM GROUND ZERO IS FUNDAMENTALLY A MATTER OF HOW WE UNDERSTAND AMERICAN RIGHTS AS GIVEN IN THE “BILL OF RIGHTS” IN THE CONTEXT OF WAR.
There are two basic arguments:
Those against construction of the Mosque argue that we are at war with Islam, that proponents of the faith of Islam perpetrated the terror attacks that created Ground Zero and other similar attacks worldwide, that Ground Zero is now hallowed ground, and that construction of any kind of Muslim Center so proximal to Ground Zero would represent a profound propaganda victory for our Islamic enemies.
Those supporting the right for the Mosque’s construction argue that the USA is distinguished in the world by it’s Bill of Rights, which includes Freedom of Religion, and that failure to allow construction of the Islamic Center would represent a surrender of American values of freedom to our terrorist enemies.
Both arguments are sound, meritorious, and based in morality, ethics, faith, and American Law. So which view should prevail or is there a view yet to be put forth that may integrate both perspectives.
I suggest there is an integrated view, and I propose that view here; LET THE ISLAMIC CENTER BE BUILT CONTINGENT ON THE FOLLOWING BASES:
1) The Islamic Center expressly (a) dedicate itself to the memory of all victims of violence perpetrated in the name of Islamic Holy War, making sure not to couch such dedication in terms of Islamic martyrdom, and (b) dedicate itself to the condemnation of Islamic Holy War;
2) The Islamic Center expressly dedicate itself to a reformulation of Islam in which Islam does not regard itself as the exclusive true faith as justification for waging Islamic Holy War against persons and peoples of other faiths than Islam;
3) The Islamic Center expressly dedicate itself to a reformulation of Islam that does not regard Christians, Jews, and others as “pigs, dogs, and monkeys” (as it is said in the Koran);
4) The Islamic Center expressly dedicate itself to a reformation of Islam that establishes equality of all persons and peoples regardless of race, religion, creed, or nationality;
5) The Islamic Center expressly dedicate itself to a condemnation of all proponents of Islam, who reject the above suggested reformations of Islam;
6) The Islamic Center expressly dedicate itself in all manner of thought, speech, and action to the end of all religious and political wars against others, be they Muslim against Muslim or be they Muslim against non-Muslim.
These enumerated principles are principles that all Americans may stand behind in supporting American Muslims. Many American Muslims came here to America for the same reasons that Americans of other faiths came here, especially for the opportunity to escape the religio-political persecutions of their places of origin. While many Americans may wax nostalgic for the “Old Country”, few would want to be faced with having to return there to live. American freedom is just too precious. The challenge is, how can America continue to grow with peoples of all faiths, creeds, nationalities, etc. and yet avoid (A) “balkanization”, and (B) recreation of the very repressive societies that were left behind? This is not an easy question, but, it must be posed.
It is critical to note that for a few hundred years America benefited by it’s physical separation from the “Old World” and by it’s physical size and resources, enabling mass assimilation under political principles advocating individual freedom. These freedoms have never been fully embraced by all, and there has been no shortage of terrorist evangelism in one form or another in America, be it the anti-slavery terrorist evangelism of John Brown or the Bible thumping movements of the Deep South or the Witch Hunts of Salem or any of a host of other such American internecine religious conflicts. And of course by not recognizing the religions of American Indians as true and unique religions, America never really made room for religious freedom of it’s native populations. Yet to one degree or another all religions including those of American Indians have found a place in the panorama of American faiths, have learned from each other’s faiths, have even accepted the non-exclusivity of faiths, and have appreciated religious tolerance. Americans therefore fail to perceive that beyond American borders such tolerance does not often exist. Americans often stare at other cultures through rose-colored glasses and glossy travel brochures until a daughter is kidnapped into slavery, a son is imprisoned for a minor drug offense, a deadly disease or infestation occurs, a Bible is burned, members of a mobile charity medical tour are brutally murdered, etc.
The remark was made by Professor Arnold that Timothy McVeigh, who perpetrated the Oklahoma City Bombing, was associated with various right-wing Christian religious extremist elements, and that yet the USA did not wage war against Christianity. This argument was used by Professor Arnold as an analogy to present the view that it is irrational to react to the Nine-Eleven Al-Quaeda acts as a basis for waging a war against Islam. Respectfully, this is a false analogy and is spurious. There was no organized movement similar to Al-Quaeda behind the actions of Timothy McVeigh that has been made public or that has publicly taken credit for the actions of Timothy McVeigh. If I am mistaken in this assertion, please prove me wrong, I am open to valid criticism. As well, the modus operandi of the Oklahoma City Bombing followed the modus operandi of Al-Quaeda. It is more likely — and this is at least my own speculation — that McVeigh may have been associated with neo-Nazis working hand in hand with Al-Quaeda. This is a plausible speculation, perhaps even accurate and precise. With the exception of the actions of Muslims, I do not recall any similar act to Nine-Eleven (other than the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Shinto Japan) having been perpetrated by Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahai, Catholics, Protestants, or any other religious demographic.
Personally, from my own perspective as a Jew and as an American, there are other terrors to be concerned about in addition to Muslim terror. I would not mind seeing an official end to the Inquisition, which is still in effect today in the Catholic Church; nor would I mind seeing less of a “my way or the highway” type of attitude amongst some Protestant movements. I see little difference when I measure these fundamentalisms against Islamism. But, when push comes to shove, America is dominantly a nation of Christians of one sect or another, and Island America has had it’s nose cut off at Ground Zero by an international Muslim movement of Holy War. The oceans are no longer the great divide they once were, keeping America safe and free to become America. Nine-Eleven was not a mere isolated event. It was one of many acts of Muslim Holy War against “The Great Satan” [America] and it’s Allies in a world that is ever smaller. Consider: Iran just unveiled it’s own unmanned military drone bomber, which bears the name “Ambassador of Death”; consider: Iran is just an Avogadro Unit away from having it’s own operational nuclear bomb.
The same JIHAD movement we face now as Al-Quaeda arose in Afghanistan at the turn of the first millenia, then known as the HASHASHIM. This movement of Muslim Holy War has been waged parallel to the Crusades, Inquisition, and other “Christian” wars. America has been oblivious to it. To a large degree so has Europe, to it’s own detriment. So we come full circle to the original question, should the Muslim Center be allowed by America to be built almost on top of Ground Zero?
[One has to wonder that President Obama, who saw fit to call a moratorium on both deep sea oil drilling and exploration in deep water off our Gulf Coast in response to the BP Oil Spill, has not similarly called for a moratorium on the construction of Muslim Centers or Mosques in response to Nine-Eleven.]
Especially to me as a Jew, the freedoms granted in our Bill of Rights are precious and not to be tampered with. At the same time, the Al-Quaeda perpetrated events of Nine-Eleven — and countless other acts of war before and after — do make Muslims a valid focus of scrutiny and the intentions of the faith of Islam suspect. Professor Arnold portrays a plausible but false basis for setting aside the significance of Nine-Eleven; Rabbi Fellman presumes an equality and friendship between Islam, Judaism, and all Americans that may have a basis in American Law, but, has no basis in Muslim Law; Imam Alkhooly defends, promulgates and represents Islam as a religion of peace and enlightenment, as if the left hand of the body of Islam has no knowledge nor responsibility for the actions of the right hand of that same body.
To my perception World War Three has yet to erupt into it’s full scale event horizon, and the clash of Islam with the West may be muffled, but, will not lessen simply because, like ostriches, we stick our heads underground. Unless the proposed Muslim Center by Ground Zero becomes an explicit spearhead (according to the six ideas I enumerated above) against the militant and complacent majority of Islam, then the proposed Muslim Center by Ground Zero ought to be regarded as nothing less than an affront to the sensibilities of the victims, dead and living, of Nine-Eleven — if not as an act of war from within against all that America stands for. On that basis there is no Right that may be taken for granted allowing for construction of the proposed Muslim Center.
Submission to Islam by America would be suicide, as the rights and freedoms of America are largely anathema to Islam. There are 1.3 billion Muslims spread out over the continents of Europe, Asia, Africa, and India, and all of these continents are embroiled in Holy War to one degree or another. This status gives the lie to the model of world peace as marketed by proponents of Islam.
In sum America must be open-minded, but, not so open-minded that it’s brains fall out to be trampled on from here to Mecca in the performance of the HAJJ (Holy Pilgrimage to Mecca)…. Freedom of faith in America does not mean anarchy of faith. Faith must show humble, living respect for the faiths and rights of others according to our Constitution. There is no room for the hidden agendas of peaceful facade and violent intent.
CONCLUSION: TO PRESERVE AMERICAN FREEDOM AS GIVEN IN THE “BILL OF RIGHTS” WE MUST NOT PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED MUSLIM CENTER, EXCEPT AND UNLESS THE CENTER SHALL EXPRESSLY BECOME A SOURCE FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF ISLAM AS A STRONG FORM OF ISLAM THAT, LIKE A CANCELING WAVE, WILL QUELL THE “WATERS” OF THE WORLD FROM THE DESTRUCTIVE WAVES OF ISLAMIC HOLY WAR. PERHAPS AS WELL WE MAY SEEK THE SAME OF OTHER FAITH INSTITUTIONS IN THE U.S.A. AND BLUNT THEIR MILITANT SWORDS AND PREJUDICES.
THE CENTRAL EMOTIONAL ISSUE AT THE HEART OF THE GROUND ZERO MOSQUES CONTROVERSY…
… is perhaps best felt by considering certain analogies to other similar events in our history, for example:
^ I remember Birmingham Sunday in 1963, when the 16th Street Baptist Church was bombed and four Negro girls were killed; and I ask, just how many blocks away from the site of that church would it be acceptable for the KKK to build a meeting house? (ANSWER: Nowhere!)
^ I remember the Weathermen bombing of Sterling Hall at the University of Wisconsin in 1970; a physicist lost his life; and I ask, just how close to the site of Sterling Hall would it be acceptable for the SDS to build an office? (ANSWER: Nowhere!)
* I remember the Kent State Massacre, and how that massacre led to the sentiment that caused may college and high school campuses to reject the presence of the ROTC; and whether that rejection may have been right or wrong, I ask, would it ever be acceptable to build an ROTC building on the site of that massacre? (ANSWER: Probably not.)
Sometimes sensibilities take precedent over rights, especially where rights have been abused or crimes committed.