For once, the president and I agree on something. However, there is something to be said about the wisdom of this plan -- he's just not the one who ought to say it.
The Islamic community center that is being built near Ground Zero has stirred a lot of controversy. Many from the neocon, Islamaphobic right such as Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Joeseph Farah, etc. have turned this issue into a national debate. Though many of these individuals' arguments are ludicrous, some do make a point -- especially many of the 9/11 victims.
It is not only insenstitve for Imam Rauf to continue with this project, but also potentially harming the overall American Muslim community. It's safe to say that ever since this project was initiated, many anti-mosque individuals and groups are on the rise in our country. Yes, the Constitution does guarantee religious freedom, but the wisdom behind this inept PR move is obvious; it's doing more harm than good.
9/11 is recent memory for all Americans. After all, it occurred only nine years ago. Many people still feel its effects every day. To ignore the cries of the victims' families is irresponsible, inconsiderate, and unfair. Many New Yorkers also oppose (or feel uncomfortable about) this Islamic community center/mosque.
I'm not saying Imam Rauf is some a secret jihadist or terrorist sympathizer (as fanatics like Geller and Spencer say), but rather that this potential Islamic community center is already doing more harm than good. Imam Rauf needs to consider that if this was such a brilliant idea, it would not be such a polarizing issue.
Many families of the victims see ground zero as a graveyard for their loved ones. This should already raise red flags for Imam Rauf and supporters of this community center.
I do have to say, however, that the opposition side is just as ridiculous as the proponents' side (excepting 9/11 victims, whose emotional involvement is understandable). Devout neocons like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are using this issue to promote their hatred and intolerance of religious freedom. Many of these fanatics are going as far as calling it an "Islamic supremacy mosque." That idea alone qualifies them to be on the wall of shame. Calling Imam Rauf a terrorist sympathizer or supporter of Hamas is absurd. It's no surprise that these people are always using issues like these to gain more publicity of their fearful, totalitarian agenda. Imam Rauf and others who support this comunity center should realize that this is adding the fuel to the fire and people like Geller and Spencer profit pretty well from the community center plans. So why not just stop and stop giving irrational neocons like Geller and Spencer something to talk about?
Either way, as "liberty loving" Pamela Geller says, it would be "beautiful thing" if the supporters of this ccommunity center ceased buliding it. We all know that to the Islamaphobes who oppose this to the detriment of religious liberty, it would also be a victory. Inside they would be jumping up and down, cheering and rejoicing.
But that is not the ultimate matter here. What matters is the right thing and to me, building this Islamic community center would be the wrong thing to do.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
This is a really interesting post Jihan, especially because (and correct me if I'm wrong) you're a practicing Muslim. While I of course think the central issue is private property, I would agree with you that this is an ill-conceived idea which will do more harm than good for both American Muslims and our political culture's relationship with the Muslim world. Thanks for writing.
You're welcome. =)
This was a good piece but we have to keep in mind that 9/11 was a criminal act and not an Islamic act. If we forbid the creation of any religious establishment we would only be denying the credibility of the constitution. 9/11 has embedded xenophobia within the majority of the american mentality or as Jihan put it Islamphobes. I'm sure residents of Oklahoma would be quite permissive for the creation of a church while being well aware that Mcveigh was a christian. Great piece Jihan, I hope you give me back some insight.
I don't think she's advocating that anyone -- least of all the government -- forcefully stop the construction. Instead, she's saying that while it's certainly within their rights to build this mosque, it isn't politically or culturally wise. In other words, it's without question legal, but a bad PR move.
Excellent post. Liberty and responsibility go hand in hand, and that's something that both sides in this discussion need to recognize.
Interracial marriage in 1968 was something seen as a potentially bad PR move or politically and culturally unwise. As you said its in their rights to build this mosque but we shouldn't be influenced by whether or not it fits under the popular opinion realm.
Excellent write-up!
We must safeguard the right to private property and the sanctity of religious freedom -- even for those whom we do not agree -- lest we too become subject to such prejudices; though, one could definitely recognize these plans as irresponsible to some degree. Concurrently, we must also recognize local and State government's right to -- as the Founders believed -- limit anything that is not explicitly protected from the States within the Constitution. In this case -- with regard to the Constitution -- the right to private property or even religious freedom is not protected from the States, albeit more than likely protected within New York's State Constitution as probably the other 49. Of course any prudent liberty minded individual would be against such infringement, but we must recognize that the right to private property and religious freedom -- while protected from the Federal government via the Constitution -- is not protected from the people - via the State of New York. That's an entirely different debate for an entirely different time; however, I get a little knee jerk when we start invoking the Constitution of the United States for a State issue.
Again - excellent write-up, with excellent points! =)
I don't really understand why the mosque should be an issue. Because the 9-11 terrorists were muslims does not mean that all muslims are terrorists.
I suppose if the mosque were one that espouses wahabbi rhetoric, as those the 9-11 terrorists attended and cited as an influence in their various statements' then I would be offended.
But SO WHAT???
I find 300 lb grandma's wearing eency weency yellow polka-dot bikinis to be offensive. I find spandex to be generally offensive.
I find the condescending grins of the pompous jerks on TV to be offensive. I find it even more offensive on the rare and offhand occasions when I may agree with them. It seems so wrong that they should besmirch their nearly perfect record of idiocy with the occasional ounce of sense while wearing their preening little sanctimonious smirks.
But then I am a grumpy guy.
So. How many of those talking about the ground-zero mosque have an ownership interest in the property?
Thought so.
"But we are simply advising the parties involved of our opinions!!", some cry.
No. Actually not. Every act of government is backed by the full faith and credit of the gun. EVERY ACT.
So, when a gibbering wild-eyed idiot tells you that unlicensed emissions of carbon on the part of individuals (a.k.a. breathing) threaten the planet you say, "Yeah, sure bud." And you saunter on your way.
But when a gibbering wild-eyed and HEAVILY ARMED idiot tells you the same, you're likely to hold your breath until the idiot goes on his merry hot-air expelling way.
Political discussions of things in which one has no interest contain an implicit threat.
Mosque? What mosque?
I totally disagree. I would like to make it very clear that I respect the victim's families and their emotions, and at the same time the world needs to understand that the 9/11 attackers were "TERRORISTS" and a terrorist has no religion.
You mentioned that this project would add fuel to the fire. However, I think it would actually add fuel to the fire of Muslim's negative image by giving in to the popular opinion and stopping the project. A halt to this project would symbolize American hatred towards Muslims which may incite and offend many devout Muslims. It will send a wrong message to the American Muslims.
If giving into the popular opinion was the "right thing to do" as you mentioned, then we would be living under slavery and as Andrew Smith mentioned inter-racial marriages would be a social taboo.
Thank you to all those who liked my post. I understand this is a sensitive issue.
@Shahbaz:
1) No where have I stated on this blog or my previous ones that Islam is a religon of terrorists, or vice versa. I work hard to discredit that myth.
2) I didn't say that it "would" add fuel to the fire, rather I said that it already is. I did not dismiss the fact that good would come out of this project. However, I said that more harm is potential than the good, especially with what is happening around the country. I did mention that there is a rise of anti mosque activity around the country because of the Islamic center/mosque.
3) Maybe most American Muslims would be offended if this project ceased OR maybe not. That is not my main concern. If we are "American Muslims", we should also at times consider the opinions of others within our society/community. Of course, I am not saying that public opinion is always important. Many people are opposing other mosques around the country. However, those local incidents are seperate from the "Ground Zero" Islamic center/mosque. 3,000 people [including 300 Muslims] died two blocks from there. Many of the victims' families view that site as sacred and a grave site. Does this not even concern you? Put yourself in other peoples shoes.
And I cannot even believe you brought slavery into this.
Just for the record... Andrew Smith said nothing about inter-racial marriages... that was somebody else. I was just saying it's a bad idea for the mosque to be built given right there, but I also feel very strongly that if they want to put it there they have that right. I think there is a time and a place to assert your rights, but there are some times when it is best to just let it go. I think it would be great if they built that mosque somewhere else in New York City, just not so close to so sensitive of an area.