The majority of the arguments against the construction of an Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan — a structure that would include a mosque — seem to stem from simple outrage, racism, or a sense that, even if Islam is itself blameless, it remains nonetheless foreign to and directly at odds with the notion of Americanism. The latter is a step away from naked racism, but not a big one, because it necessarily fails the parity test. We can accept that the “American” identity should dominate over others near national monuments and war memorials, but Islam is the only identity that we actually ask to yield accordingly. No-one has yet, and no-one will, raise an eyebrow to the several churches within blocks of Ground Zero. While most of those churches predate 9/11 — some considerably — so does FiDi’s Islamic community.
Islam is not a new presence in America. While it can’t claim the connection to American history that Christianity can, that’s a chance of history that in no way disturbs the fact that Islam is also an established part of American life. When the Towers fell, it was an assault on “their” way of life as much as on “ours.”
Masjid Manhattan's website.
Perhaps more. Apart from direct victims, and their friends and family (many of whom were themselves Muslim), no-one has suffered more from Osama Bin Laden’s absurd war on America than moderate, mainline Muslims. Because Al Qaeda officiously claims to fight on their behalf, mainline Muslims are looked at with suspicion and fear by their fellow citizens, and forced to distance themselves not just from Al Qaeda, but from others attempting to more aggressively “fit in” with American culture (see right). In the post-9/11 world, any American can claim a degree of existential fear, because maybe next time, the ripple effects of the tragedy will reach their lives. But for any given American Muslim, that happened long ago. If we acknowledge that, the question shouldn’t be what right Muslim Americans have to participate in “our” process of grieving and rebuilding, but what right we have to deny them theirs.
We Americans have built a nation to which other cultures desperately seek to belong, and if we are to take seriously the stories we tell about ourselves, we must let them, especially when those newcomers so readily suffer the assaults of our enemies in kind with us. We are bound to accept a multiculturalism that, as in this case, challenges but does not subvert; that means acknowledging the stake that newcomers have acquired in this country. Such are the wages of hegemony, and really, it could be worse.
Ames,
I share your views, but how is this any different then the wave of anti-Japanese sentiment during World War Two, or the Irish – Italian – Polish – German – you name them fights of the previous century? and why, this time, do we need to be any more concerned about the outcome then on all those previous occasions? History strongly suggests that American Muslims will be brought back into the fold at some point, and then about 4 decades later we’ll go through another collective guilt trip about how they were treated, offer allsorts of meaning apologies, and try to move on.
Posted by Philip H | June 8, 2010, 8:37 amI think that’s probably true (“All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.”). That’s cold comfort in the short term though.
Posted by ACG | June 8, 2010, 11:10 am“The latter is a step away from naked racism”
Islam is a political, legal, economic and religious institution. It is an ideology. A world view. It is not a race, ethnicity or a people.
I can be anti-communist without being anti-Chinese. I can be anti-National Socialist without being anti-German.
To ignore the difference between race (people) and religion (ideology) is to deliberately obfuscate, dumb down or censor the debate. Indeed: perhaps many of those opposed to the mosque do dislike Arabs; or Africans; or Indonesians. Perhaps they are racist.
But to oppose the mosque on ideological grounds is enough to warrant discussion and debate without even mentioning the race of the people who follow that ideology. Its important to make that distinction.
Posted by Gary S | June 9, 2010, 1:03 amBut why oppose it it on idealogical grounds? Would you oppose a Synagogue, even though Jews in israel oppress Palestinians openly and seemingly without hesitation? Should Israeli’s oppose the Church built and maintained by Orthodox christians supposedly on Jesus’ tomb? Really? Does freedom of religious practice only apply to white Christians in New York?
Posted by Philip H | June 9, 2010, 9:00 amI’ll say it again: Islam is a religious, political, economic and religious institution. It is a world view; not just a religion.
Preventing the building of a mosque does not prevent freedom of worship; it prevents them building a mosque.
Would a ‘Womans Rights’ compaigner expect to build an abortion clinic next to a Baptist Church? Could they really co-exist?! NO. Would that same lady be able to build that clinic elsewhere? Probably. Are New Yorkers opposed to ALL mosques being built, or just the one at Ground Zero? That should tell you something.
Your Synagogue example is flawed: what you should be asking is ‘would you build a Synogogue in Palestine?!’.
Posted by Gary S | June 9, 2010, 10:36 pmThe “Islam isn’t just a religion” line is really a distinction without a difference. All religions are world views, and none.
And doesn’t your larger argument, such as it is, collapse to “Islam isn’t good for America and Americans don’t like it”?
Posted by ACG | June 10, 2010, 12:02 amIt’s interesting how some arguments are so fundamentally muddled that one struggles to find a proper response. This is one of them, so let’s just return to the basics: Are there any reasons for opposing this mosque which do not ultimately rest on blatantly equating 1.5 billion Muslims with terrorism, and are thus functionally, if not strictly speaking, racist?
Posted by lanfranc | June 10, 2010, 5:19 amIt is not muddled at all. It is clear and unambiguous – I suspect that is what you cannot respond.
In the West – in the USA – there is a separation of Church, State and the Judiciary and it is defended vigorously (ironically: the pledge of honesty when bearing witness is religious…!). Remember: that separation came about because the founding fathers observed the conflict Religion caused in Europe.
In Islamic countries – with, perhaps, the exception of Tunisia and Turkey – the judiciary, the legal authorities, the politicians and the economy – are run according (to various degrees) with Islamic law. In countries with significant Muslim minorities – France, Britain, Germany and Sweden – there is now pressure within those communities for Muslims to adhere to Sharia law and administer their own legal system – a ‘country within a country’. Historically, there is not one example of this ever ending well for the host nation. Not one.
If I prefer the separation of Church and State; if I prefer a legal system that evolves based on the needs of the time, the culture, rationale, debate and progress in other fields; if I prefer an economic system that (although not perfect) gives me scope for improvement; it is not ignorant or racist of me to oppose that. I oppose that ideology for good reason.
Posted by Gary S | June 10, 2010, 6:19 amIt is muddled because nothing of that has anything to do with the issue. You’re well within your rights to “oppose ‘Islam’”, if that’s what you wish, but what does that have to do with this particular mosque in this particular location? There are thousands of mosques in the US already, yet the country does not seem significantly at risk of submitting to “sharia” anytime soon. Why does this one make a difference?
Posted by lanfranc | June 10, 2010, 8:01 amACG: I will answer yours separately.
Communism was a world view that consisted of a legal system, a political system and an economic system. It was deemed ‘no good’ for America and it was deemed that Communists and Communism were no good for America.
Sharia is a legal, political and economic system. Having seen first hand the devastation it causes in Nigeria and Sudan and the way it keeps people in poverty throughout Africa (usually less than $1 a day) as well as the friction it causes between Muslims who adhere to it and non-Muslims who do not (Nigeria/Sudan), I deem it not good for the West. I deem it incompatible with the West. I deem it a step backwards. And I can form that opinion without mentioning terrorism or religion.
Posted by Gary S | June 10, 2010, 6:27 amThe facts that there exist A) Muslim countries where people live on much more that $1 a day, and B) non-Muslim countries where people also live on $1 a day might make a reasonable person suspect that more complex factors are at work here.
Posted by lanfranc | June 10, 2010, 8:04 amThen oppose Sharia law in the US, though it is not threatening to come about here. Mosques, and Islam generally, do not equal Sharia law. Opposing the mosque is beside the point unless you seek to squash the religion in this country altogether. You cite separation of church and state, but what about freedom of religion?
Posted by Kris | June 10, 2010, 12:27 pmlanfranc: Thankyou. I’ve made two points that are difficult to separate on here because of the way it is threaded, so I’ll answer them separately.
1. I agree with you that the opposition to the mosque in New York is not racist or anti-Islamic; it is simply about location. This contradicts the original statement in the article.
2. Not sure if you deliberately ignore the central point of the 1$ a day. Its about what happens when Sharia is implemented; it is fundamentally opposed to all other forms of Government (Sudan, Nigeria, Europe and the USA). It is legitimate to oppose an ideology without being branded racist (my central tenet – the need to separate the two).
Posted by Gary S | June 10, 2010, 8:36 am1. Now I’m even more confused. Are you opposed because of the location, which only makes sense if you do connect Islam with terrorism, or because they’re Muslims and you think they want to introduce sharia?
2. That is exactly what I addressed. Yes, you have countries which are crushingly poor and which use sharia to some extent. But you also have countries which are predominantly Christian, or Bhuddist, or Hindu, which are also crushingly poor. And you have other countries with sharia which are not particularly poor. So while it is certainly possible that under certain circumstances, particular implementations of sharia may in some way contribute to poverty, arguing that this is always the case is just begging the question.
By the way, could you be more specific about which particular type or types of sharia you’re talking about, and what specifically it is about them you’re opposed to?
Posted by lanfranc | June 10, 2010, 9:45 amAnd I’ll add that while few in the U.S. live on $1 oer day, we do have a fairly sizable poor population, and a fiarly sizable internally displaced/homeless population. Neither of those has lead to the imposition of religiously based law here.
Posted by Philip H | June 11, 2010, 1:13 pmYou seem to have misdirected what I said and fixated on the $1 issue: those countries under Shar’ia offer NO HOPE OF IMPROVEMENT and currently, many in those countries survive on $1 a day. That’s my point. They can never improve their lot under Shar’ia law; ever. Their resulting legal, political, economic and religious system – Islamic – ensures this and constrains them. In the USA you do at least have a system that allows room for self-improvement.
I find myself confused reading and answering questions because of the way this is threaded; I wont comment on this issue any more.
Posted by Gary S | June 12, 2010, 2:35 amRight, “confused by the threading”, sure.
But just in case you should manage to overcome your confusion anyway, don’t you think it’s interesting that Malaysia, which incorporates Sharia in it’s legal system, has seen pretty consistent growth rates of around 5-7% for the last 30 years or so? (And much greater rates in the years before that, but of course ffrom a much lower starting point.)
Oh, and do you know which other country also uses Sharia and is doing pretty well economically? Israel. (True story.)
Posted by lanfranc | June 12, 2010, 4:27 am