After hovering over Danish cartoons, Swiss minarets and French burqas, the epicentre of the ongoing culture clash between Islam and the West has crossed the Atlantic. Now the United States finds itself in the midst of a gut-wrenching debate about Islam. The impetus: a controversial proposal to build a 13-story mosque and Islamic community centre two blocks from Ground Zero, the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York.
For critics, the proposed centre – initially called Cordoba House in a nod to Muslim Spain, but since renamed Park51 – represents a slap in America’s face. Last month, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin famously called on “peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” the project because it stabs Americans “in the heart.” Newt Gingrich, former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, likened the proposal to displaying a Nazi sign beside Washington’s Holocaust Museum.
Indeed, for many conservatives the proximity to Ground Zero of the Park51 site – parts of one of the aircraft that slammed into the World Trade Center landed there – marks it as hallowed ground. To them, celebrating Islam so close to where radical Muslims carried out an infamous terrorist attack in the name of their faith appears both insensitive and provocative.
Conservatives such as Gingrich point to a pattern of marking Muslim military victories by building a mosque on ground sacred to non-Muslims. Among the most famous examples: the Dome of the Rock, built on the Jewish Temple Mount in Jerusalem; the Umayyad mosque in Damascus, built atop the church of St. John the Baptist; and Istanbul’s Ayasofya mosque, currently a museum, which, until the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453, was Hagia Sofia, one of the most revered churches in Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
For conservatives, the initial decision to name the building after Cordoba, the first major Spanish city to fall to Muslim armies during their eighth-century conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, was no coincidence. Nor do they regard the man behind the project, Kuwait-born Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, as a moderate. In a television interview shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Rauf suggested that “US policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” Rauf has also demurred from labeling the Palestinian group Hamas a terrorist outfit, which puts him at odds with views of the US government.
By contrast, many liberals see attempts to deny Muslims the right to build wherever they please as a violation of one of America’s most cherished principles. In a landmark speech in early August, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg evoked the Statue of Liberty and called freedom of worship the most important of the city’s “precious freedoms.”
Rather than dwell upon history, liberals tend to see the project as part of the fabric of contemporary American life, a community centre that will help heal the wound of 9/11 by extending a Muslim hand of friendship to members of all faiths. To the extent that they consider the past at all, they see Cordoba, where Jews, Christians and Muslims once lived in harmony, as a symbol of coexistence and creative flowering.
To raise questions about Park51, supporters insist, besmirches a great religion and confuses Islam with the handful of terrorists responsible for the 9/11attacks. As for Rauf, the liberal narrative emphasizes his belief in a gentle Sufi form of Islam rather than the austere Wahhabism of the 9/11 hijackers. In short, he’s exactly the kind of Muslim the US needs on its side as it battles his radical co-religionists around the world. In this view, Rauf’s criticism of US foreign policy – common enough on the left – can hardly be seen as exceptionable. Moreover, even the Bush administration, hardly known for its warmth toward radical Islam, used Rauf for outreach to Muslim countries.
Both sides have strong arguments. The liberal appeal to America’s founding principles carries both historical and moral weight. As Mayor Bloomberg put it, New York’s diversity is what makes it “special and different and strong.” Muslims too died on 9/11, liberals correctly point out, and the moderate majority has the right not to be stigmatized for the actions of a handful of their co-religionists. In the absence of clear evidence that Imam Rauf has radical sympathies, his stated desire to build bridges must be taken at face value. Whether his views on the Middle East are out of synch with most Americans is beside the point. Other clergy face no such litmus test.
For their part, conservatives distinguish between opposition to a mosque at a particular location and opposition to all mosques, much less to Islam itself. Indeed, in general, conservatives question the wisdom of Park51’s location rather than the legal right to build it. They also have a more accurate read of the importance of triumphalist symbols to radical Islamists, those Muslims who seek to order 21st century society by the medieval norms enshrined in sharia law, and of the impact of such symbols on the proverbial Muslim street. Conservatives also point out that, more often than not, the interfaith understanding preached by the likes of Rauf cuts only one way. Where are the Muslim proposals to foster dialogue in Riyadh, Karachi or Tehran?
For now the conservative argument appears ascendant in the court of public opinion. Despite their city’s famed liberalism, more than six in ten New Yorkers oppose the Park51 project, as do seven in ten Americans nationwide. With Congressional elections approaching in November, leading Democrats, fearful of a backlash from voters, have begun to backtrack. After offering a ringing endorsement of freedom of religion at a Ramadan dinner for Muslims, President Barack Obama clarified his stand the next day by emphasizing that he backed only the Muslim right to build the mosque at the proposed site, and had no comment on the wisdom of doing so. Senate majority leader Harry Reid and former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have come out in opposition to the project at its current location.
In the long term, if the US wants to protect freedom of worship while combating the real threat of radical Islam, both conservatives and liberals will need to alter the nature of their discourse.
Conservatives must cease to see religious pluralism as a weakness rather than a strength. The US won’t defeat radical Islam by becoming more like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Conservatives also need to distinguish between the Islamist minority and the majority of ordinary Muslims, and give the latter the benefit of doubt until proven otherwise.
For their part, liberals need to recognize that debate about Islam is now global. Social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, and a plethora of interconnected blogs, blur national boundaries and fuel a global consciousness about the issue. Unless they take a leaf out of the conservative book and begin to actively question Muslim-majority countries for their generally tawdry treatment of religious minorities – legal discrimination, apostasy laws, and restrictions on freedom of worship remain all too common – they will be accused of double-standards.
In short, Western conservatives and liberals need to find common ground on one of the most pressing issues of our time. The failure to do so weakens both the West’s culture of individual rights and the struggle against radical Islam.
Sadanand Dhume is the author of My Friend the Fanatic: Travels with a Radical Islamist. Follow him on Twitter @dhume01 Rights: Copyright © 2010 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. YaleGlobal Online
>> That's why you had to invent malicious lies and post them in this forum. And you never apologized when you were caught red-handed in your lies.
This from the guy who gave a fake link to try and prove that Nalanda was destroyed by Hindus.
You do not know America any better than LB does. That's why you had to invent malicious lies and post them in this forum. And you never apologized when you were caught red-handed in your lies. Actually 99% of your comments in this forum are designed to smear Muslims. People who fan the fires of communal hatred, like you, LB and Ghai, are the worst enemies of India.
Welcome back Lailt Bagai ji . We all missed you badly !
Now to friend Anwaar 'You don't know America! "
As if Anwaar knows America after spending major part of life.You were so elated that mosque that too at 9/11 site of Shadat of Atta Mohamad Team will give opportunity to offer thanks giving prayers .
You were so sure that USA citizens will allow the Muslism to construct a mosque at the cite where 10000 innocents killed by the Islamic Zealots !!
Logic becomes the first casuality when you become a Cari and you start demanding a Mosque at the site where the helpless human beings were burnt all in name of teh Religion .
Scroll down your comments on the topic in OutLoook in other Articles too on the topic.
So where is the Mosque at ground Zero ?? Your Cair training has simply confused your mind .
Where is Ground Zero Mosque ??
"Manhattan Project" - Wasn't that the code word for the effort to build the first atom bomb?
Judge nixes suit over mosque plan near Ground Zero
New York: A judge has tossed out a lawsuit aimed at stopping a proposed mosque about two blocks from ground zero.
The American Center for Law and Justice said Monday it plans to appeal the ruling. The conservative legal group filed the lawsuit on behalf of former firefighter Timothy Brown.
The suit challenged the city Landmarks Preservation Commission's decision to let a building be torn down to make way for the mosque. A judge ruled Friday that Brown didn't meet legal criteria to sue over such decisions.
City lawyers say they appreciate Brown's heroism in responding to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center , but that wasn't a basis for him to sue.
“The mosque is still in planning stages”, said the developer's lawyer, hailing the court decision as “a victory for America.” (Indian Express)
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT