Build that mosque! The campaign against the proposed Cordoba centre in New York is unjust and dangerous WHAT makes a Muslim in Britain or America wake up and decide that he is no longer a Briton or American but an Islamic “soldier” fighting a holy war against the infidel? Part of it must be pull: the lure of jihadism. Part is presumably push: a feeling that he no longer belongs to the place where he lives. Either way, the results can be lethal. A chilling feature of the suicide video left by Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the band that killed more than 50 people in London in July, 2005, was the homely Yorkshire accent in which he told his countrymen that “your” government is at war with “my people”. For a while America seemed less vulnerable than Europe to home-grown jihadism. The Pew Research Centre reported three years ago that most Muslim Americans were “largely assimilated, happy with their lives… and decidedly American in their outlook, values and attitudes.” Since then it has become clear that American Muslims can be converted to terrorism too. Nidal Malik Hassan, born in America and an army major, killed 13 of his comrades in a shooting spree at Fort Hood. Faisal Shahzad, a legal immigrant, tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square. But something about America—the fact that it is a nation of immigrants, perhaps, or its greater religiosity, or the separation of church and state, or the opportunities to rise—still seems to make it an easier place than Europe for Muslims to feel accepted and at home. It was in part to preserve this feeling that George Bush repeated like a scratched gramophone record that Americans were at war with the terrorists who had attacked them on 9/11, not at war with Islam. Barack Obama has followed suit: the White House national security strategy published in May says that one way to guard against radicalisation at home is to stress that “diversity is part of our strength—not a source of division or insecurity.” This is hardly rocket science. America is plainly safer if its Muslims feel part of “us” and not, like Mohammad Sidique Khan, part of “them”. And that means reminding Americans of the difference—a real one, by the way, not one fabricated for the purposes of political correctness—between Islam, a religion with a billion adherents, and al-Qaeda, a terrorist outfit that claims to speak in Islam’s name but has absolutely no right or mandate to do so. Why would any responsible American politician want to erase that vital distinction? Good question. Ask Sarah Palin, or Newt Gingrich, or the many others who have lately clambered aboard the offensive campaign to stop Cordoba House, a proposed community centre and mosque, from being built in New York two blocks from the site of the twin towers. Every single argument put forward for blocking this project leans in some way on the misconceived notion that all Muslims, and Islam itself, share the responsibility for, or are tainted by, the atrocities of 9/11. In a tweet last month from Alaska, Ms Palin called on “peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” the “ground-zero mosque” because it would “stab” American hearts. But why should it? Cordoba House is not being built by al-Qaeda. To the contrary, it is the brainchild of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a well-meaning American cleric who has spent years trying to promote interfaith understanding, not an apostle of religious war like Osama bin Laden. He is modelling his project on New York’s 92nd Street Y, a Jewish community centre that reaches out to other religions. The site was selected in part precisely so that it might heal some of the wounds opened by the felling of the twin towers and all that followed. True, some relatives of 9/11 victims are hurt by the idea of a mosque going up near the site. But that feeling of hurt makes sense only if they too buy the false idea that Muslims in general were perpetrators of the crime. Besides, what about the feelings, and for that matter the rights, of America’s Muslims—some of whom also perished in the atrocity? Ms Palin’s argument does at least have one mitigating virtue: it concentrates on the impact the centre might have, without impugning the motives of those who want to build it. The same half-defence can be made of the Anti-Defamation League, a venerable Jewish organisation created to fight anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry. To the dismay of many liberal Jews, the ADL has also urged the centre’s backers to seek another site in order to spare the feelings of families of the 9/11 victims. But at least it concedes that they have every right to build at this site—and that they might (only might, since the ADL hints at vague concerns about their ideology and finances) genuinely have chosen it in order to send a positive message about Islam. The Saudi non-sequitur No such plea of mitigation can be entered on behalf of Mr Gingrich. The former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives may or may not have presidential pretensions, but he certainly has intellectual ones. That makes it impossible to excuse the mean spirit and scrambled logic of his assertion that “there should be no mosque near ground zero so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia”. Come again? Why hold the rights of Americans who happen to be Muslim hostage to the policy of a foreign country that happens also to be Muslim? To Mr Gingrich, it seems, an American Muslim is a Muslim first and an American second. Al-Qaeda would doubtless concur. Mr Gingrich also objects to the centre’s name. Imam Feisal says he chose “Cordoba” in recollection of a time when the rest of Europe had sunk into the Dark Ages but Muslims, Jews and Christians created an oasis of art, culture and science. Mr Gingrich sees only a “deliberate insult”, a reminder of a period when Muslim conquerors ruled Spain. Like Mr bin Laden, Mr Gingrich is apparently still relitigating the victories and defeats of religious wars fought in Europe and the Middle East centuries ago. He should rejoin the modern world, before he does real harm.
Good article. I was on the fence about this issue, but this made up my mind. Thanks for this.
The comments about Newt (what kind of parents named their kids like that?) really made my day.
The problem isn’t that people believe all Islamic believers are terrorists. The problem is perception. If your loved one was killed by men who are murdering people solely because of an image. And now that same image is being erected high and in public right near their act of terrorism, at the very least, it’s a very uncomfortable feeling.
iteracom: that’s the reason why we don’t let the victim’s families decide the punishment of a crime, we let a court do that. Same reason it’s up to us - society - to decide what should or should not be built in a given place, even if a few might feel offended (which is understandable of course)
Freedom of speech and assembly is really only important to defend in the cases where we are tempted to restrict it.
Of course the mosque should be built there. If we truly believe in freedom, then we need to practice what we preach. End of discussion. (Or maybe we only truly believe in the freedom of certain kinds of people, particularly those who are likely to turnout to vote in large numbers.)
As I and many others have said before, freedom comes with responsibility. In this case, it comes with the responsibility to exhibit a little common sense and compassion. NYC is a big place, is it really that hard to just find a less controversial location? It’s not like they’re using an existing building that is perfectly suited for their purpose. They have to knock the existing building down. From a practical standpoint, show me the union worker (all construction in NYC has to be done by union workers) who will agree to work on this project. I guarantee “unforseen delays” will quadruple the timing and cost of this project if they proceed.
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If we avoided doing controversial things, there would be no social progress. Black civil rights were far more controversial then this mosque, but ultimately, it served a greater good. Building this mosque is an act of goodwill. Putting it somewhere else would diminish its efficacy.
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just don’t care for brown people /fixed
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > higgmond Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > If we avoided doing controversial things, there > would be no social progress. Black civil rights > were far more controversial then this mosque, but > ultimately, it served a greater good. Building > this mosque is an act of goodwill. Putting it > somewhere else would diminish its efficacy. So you would support opening an office for the Sons of Confederate Veterans a couple of blocks from the former home, and assassination site, of Medgar Evers? Afterall, their stated mission is simply to “preserve the history and legacy of Confederate heroes, so future generations can understand the motives that animated the Southern Cause.”
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > higgmond Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I just don’t care for brown people > > /fixed My brown wife disagrees with your “fix”.
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > So you would support opening an office for the > Sons of Confederate Veterans a couple of blocks > from the former home, and assassination site, of > Medgar Evers? Afterall, their stated mission is > simply to “preserve the history and legacy of > Confederate heroes, so future generations can > understand the motives that animated the Southern > Cause.” I have no what the Sons of Confederate Veterans is, so I have no opinion about this.
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ohai Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > higgmond Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > > > If we avoided doing controversial things, there > > would be no social progress. Black civil rights > > were far more controversial then this mosque, > but > > ultimately, it served a greater good. Building > > this mosque is an act of goodwill. Putting it > > somewhere else would diminish its efficacy. > > > So you would support opening an office for the > Sons of Confederate Veterans a couple of blocks > from the former home, and assassination site, of > Medgar Evers? Afterall, their stated mission is > simply to “preserve the history and legacy of > Confederate heroes, so future generations can > understand the motives that animated the Southern > Cause.” If you can’t differentiate between the SCV, the Muslim religion, and the 9/11 hijackers, then we have bigger problems than your dislike of brown people, brown wife notwithstanding.
iteracom Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The problem isn’t that people believe all Islamic > believers are terrorists. > > The problem is perception. If your loved one was > killed by men who are murdering people solely > because of an image. And now that same image is > being erected high and in public right near their > act of terrorism, at the very least, it’s a very > uncomfortable feeling. the koran preaches inequality. it is incompatible with our political idealization of equality. this is why we cannot accept islam as a serious religion. it is built on physical, spiritual and mental slavery. this isn’t coming from an ignorant north american. this is coming from a man who has studied all of the prominant religions and their books, who has lived with two muslims, and has had numerous debates with them to which one agrees and one disagrees. btw, the one who disagreed was the same one who woke me up at 6am cursing george bush’s and america’s name when sadam was captured in a rat hole. true story. if anyone disagree’s i’d suggest you read the section of the koran titled “women” and it will make you sick to your stomach. as for the location of the mosque, its a stupid economic decision. the cost of security, insurance and repairs will make it one of the largest cash drains in the city. the fact that there is so much public distaste for it should dictate its location. this is democracy right? islam does not preach freedom, so any tribute to freedom or american victims is worthless.
I didn’t either so I did a quick google search (from there own website): What is the Sons of Confederate Veterans? The citizen-soldiers who fought for the Confederacy personified the best qualities of America. The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South’s decision to fight the Second American Revolution. The tenacity with which Confederate soldiers fought underscored their belief in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. These attributes are the underpinning of our democratic society and represent the foundation on which this nation was built. Oh yeah, your comparison is spot on. Here’s another: why can’t we put a KKK museum outside of MLK’s birthplace?
Sorry but I don’t buy this article. The economist is well known for being an apologist to Islam. First, let me state that I do not disagree with the right to put a mosque there. I will defend to the death for their right to do so. However, it is extremely insensitive and in poor taste to put it there. Are there no other places in NYC that are sufficient? I find this extremely offensive and I can’t understand why the economist and others think my feelings should just be brushed aside. How would Muslims feel if I opened up a store dedicated to showing pictures of their profit right next door? I would bet my entire savings the economist and others would come back and say my actions are insensitive and that my store should be shut down.
LBriscoe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I didn’t either so I did a quick google search > (from there own website): > > What is the Sons of Confederate Veterans? > > The citizen-soldiers who fought for the > Confederacy personified the best qualities of > America. The preservation of liberty and freedom > was the motivating factor in the South’s decision > to fight the Second American Revolution. The > tenacity with which Confederate soldiers fought > underscored their belief in the rights guaranteed > by the Constitution. These attributes are the > underpinning of our democratic society and > represent the foundation on which this nation was > built. > > > Oh yeah, your comparison is spot on. Here’s > another: why can’t we put a KKK museum outside of > MLK’s birthplace? Wonder why President Clinton wrote them a letter of commendation or why President Obama sent a wreath to the confederate soldiers’ memorial at Arlington National Cemetery? Clearly all confederate soldiers were slave beating racists.
CFABLACKBELT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry but I don’t buy this article. The economist > is well known for being an apologist to Islam. > > First, let me state that I do not disagree with > the right to put a mosque there. I will defend to > the death for their right to do so. However, it > is extremely insensitive and in poor taste to put > it there. Are there no other places in NYC that > are sufficient? I find this extremely offensive > and I can’t understand why the economist and > others think my feelings should just be brushed > aside. How would Muslims feel if I opened up a > store dedicated to showing pictures of their > profit right next door? I would bet my entire > savings the economist and others would come back > and say my actions are insensitive and that my > store should be shut down. do you mean profit or prophet? either way, i think they would be offended…