Build that mosque

Build that mosque
The campaign against the proposed Cordoba centre in New York is unjust and dangerous

Aug 5th 2010

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.

Just copy-pasting my answer from SP.

bubblebliss wrote: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.

I take exception to elements of his actual words ("Dark Ages" is so 1950s and it is a common misconception that the period was completely devoid of culture and science), but I would be inclined to accept Feisal's explanation. Cordoba was the cultural centre of Islamic Spain for a long time. Gingrich is just attempting to stir up an emotional response through ignorance.

Bill O'Reilly had this Muslim woman on last night. She had some valid points. Check it out.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdnznzZuaG

I have a feeling that the differences between how Muslims integrate in America and in Britain are not due to the issues identified in the article:

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.

I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but in England I think part of the reason that some Muslims stay in their own communities and have a limited level of integration is that they aren't really encouraged to do otherwise. In America, it seems to me, that the values Americans share and the pride they have in their country is generally strongly felt. That's not the case in Britain - here patriotism is a dirty word. We have no constitution and no national dream, in their place is the sense that we lack a culture and ideals as a nation. This may seem like a small thing, but when people immigrate into this country there is no emphasis upon them taking up our values. It would be difficult to identify what those values were and any attempt to instil them in others would be seen as an imposition, a breach of civil liberty or even a form of racism.

BecMacFeegle wrote:I have a feeling that the differences between how Muslims integrate in America and in Britain are not due to the issues identified in the article:

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.

I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but in England I think part of the reason that some Muslims stay in their own communities and have a limited level of integration is that they aren't really encouraged to do otherwise. In America, it seems to me, that the values Americans share and the pride they have in their country is generally strongly felt. That's not the case in Britain - here patriotism is a dirty word. We have no constitution and no national dream, in their place is the sense that we lack a culture and ideals as a nation. This may seem like a small thing, but when people immigrate into this country there is no emphasis upon them taking up our values. It would be difficult to identify what those values were and any attempt to instil them in others would be seen as an imposition, a breach of civil liberty or even a form of racism.

I can't quite put my finger on any of it myself. I knew a couple Muslims (Iranians) when i lived in Texas and they were nice people. They owned a huge convenience store and made the best burgers. But they conducted themselves like any other American.

My opinion is that many Americans feel the way they do towards Muslims is 1) 9-11 and 2) some don't even want to integrate into the community (being an American). The 9-11 tag is unfair to say the least. Yet at the same time, there's not much written by the Muslim community on the 9-11 people or the loons in the middle east in general. So Americans, rightly or wrongly, feel as if the Muslims here share the same views as their brethren overseas.

The non-integration is the same thing that France dealt with on the Burka issue. Over here, people are free to dress as they want with no persecution. Fine and dandy, but don't complain when Americans scoff at you for not looking "western." Free speech isn't just for other people here.

I think the crux of the matter is that Americans don't like it when people come here for their freedom and take advantage of it. If i came here from a Muslim country for true religious and political freedom, i'd want to meld in with the American community.

As for the mosque, I've read the arguments on both sides. I think it's in bad taste. I know it's 2 blocks away and all the rest of the information. It appears as to say, "We're going to do this even if it pisses of 75% of America and we don't care what you think."

Most people on this issue are either left wing, or European. But i've met left wingers right here where i live that are pissed about it. So, it's not a "right wing" issue. The media (internet) is making it that way. And why most New Yorkers oppose it is telling. It's their city and their pride.

BecMacFeegle wrote:We have no constitution and no national dream, in their place is the sense that we lack a culture and ideals as a nation. This may seem like a small thing, but when people immigrate into this country there is no emphasis upon them taking up our values. It would be difficult to identify what those values were and any attempt to instil them in others would be seen as an imposition, a breach of civil liberty or even a form of racism.

More than that, I think there are elements in society now where we are all expeted to feel guilty or ashamed about a lot of things, including the British Empire and slavery. New Labour at one point really started to push the idea that Britishness=racist and Englishness=Even worse. We are now so cautious of not offending anyone that we bend over backwards to every whim in case they call us racist.

We seem so worried about being racist, as though any hint of racist thought makes you worse than paedophiles. What results is the rise of far right groups like the BNP. In the end, we are going to end up with a backlash against minority groups through our continued self-flagellation.

TexasBlue wrote:I think the crux of the matter is that Americans don't like it when people come here for their freedom and take advantage of it. If i came here from a Muslim country for true religious and political freedom, i'd want to meld in with the American community.

Somehow here, the opposite is true. In a perverse way, we encourage Muslims (and other minority groups) to feel like victims in order that we can flagellate ourselves even more for the evils of the Empire. You'd think sometimes that it was actually worse than Hitler's Nazi regime they way some people carry on.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:More than that, I think there are elements in society now where we are all expeted to feel guilty or ashamed about a lot of things, including the British Empire and slavery. New Labour at one point really started to push the idea that Britishness=racist and Englishness=Even worse. We are now so cautious of not offending anyone that we bend over backwards to every whim in case they call us racist.

We seem so worried about being racist, as though any hint of racist thought makes you worse than paedophiles. What results is the rise of far right groups like the BNP. In the end, we are going to end up with a backlash against minority groups through our continued self-flagellation.

Political correctness does give rise to hate groups. It gives rise to those like the KKK and it also gives rise to those we supposedly hate. PC needs to stop. The only thing regarding PC that i adhere to is the 'N' word... and justifiably so.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Somehow here, the opposite is true. In a perverse way, we encourage Muslims (and other minority groups) to feel like victims in order that we can flagellate ourselves even more for the evils of the Empire. You'd think sometimes that it was actually worse than Hitler's Nazi regime they way some people carry on.

Wanna hear a good one? My black friend in Texas and i were hanging out at his place. His wife was there. I didn't like her very much. She was the type who argued for the sake of arguing. Anyway, they watched a movie on slavery back then called Amistad. It was an ok movie by my own account. But she started in on all the stuff that happened and said, "It was your people that did all that shit back then." So, i got mad. I told her "my" people didn't do shit. "My" people were from Minnesota and "my" people didn't own slaves back then. Then i hit her with the fact that it was something that happened decades, if not hundreds, of years ago. Man alive, she got pissed at me. But i refused to be PC with her. She was throwing the 'guilt' trip on me. Didn't work.

Some just have a chip on their shoulder. We abandoned slavery for good in 1806, you guys what... 60 years later? None of us were alive then. She was never a slave and you were never a slave owner, so you owe her nothing.

TexasBlue wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Somehow here, the opposite is true. In a perverse way, we encourage Muslims (and other minority groups) to feel like victims in order that we can flagellate ourselves even more for the evils of the Empire. You'd think sometimes that it was actually worse than Hitler's Nazi regime they way some people carry on.

Wanna hear a good one? My black friend in Texas and i were hanging out at his place. His wife was there. I didn't like her very much. She was the type who argued for the sake of arguing. Anyway, they watched a movie on slavery back then called Amistad. It was an ok movie by my own account. But she started in on all the stuff that happened and said, "It was your people that did all that shit back then." So, i got mad. I told her "my" people didn't do shit. "My" people were from Minnesota and "my" people didn't own slaves back then. Then i hit her with the fact that it was something that happened decades, if not hundreds, of years ago. Man alive, she got pissed at me. But i refused to be PC with her. She was throwing the 'guilt' trip on me. Didn't work.

I get that with Nazism all the time. I tell em that I have no problem with Jews, I'm not racist and that I didn't have shit to do with Hitler or the Nazis. For some people that's good enough, for some people it's not. If you choose to view a society for what happened in the past, then I can't help you.

There is a simple answer to that: Ask them to name one country without something in its past to be ashamed of.

We have too much guilt in the west, and it isn't healthy.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:There is a simple answer to that: Ask them to name one country without something in its past to be ashamed of.

We have too much guilt in the west, and it isn't healthy.

Exactly. I'm all for aid for developing countries and that kind of stuff, but I don't like being guilt tripped. I mean, yeah we enacted it but we also abolished it yet some people choose to judge us because we enacted it.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Some just have a chip on their shoulder. We abandoned slavery for good in 1806, you guys what... 60 years later? None of us were alive then. She was never a slave and you were never a slave owner, so you owe her nothing.

Some people like to play the victim role to this day over here in this regard. The only thing she would have a foot to stand on was the lack of civil rights they had until 1965. But she was a little kid even at that time.

BubbleBliss wrote:I get that with Nazism all the time. I tell em that I have no problem with Jews, I'm not racist and that I didn't have shit to do with Hitler or the Nazis. For some people that's good enough, for some people it's not. If you choose to view a society for what happened in the past, then I can't help you.

That's as ignorant as the "slavers" here.