"After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September 11th will finally face justice," said Attorney General Eric Holder eight months ago. Soon after, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his accomplices were to be flown from Guantanamo Bay onto U.S. soil to face a civilian trial in a Manhattan Federal Courthouse. However, overwhelming opposition -- ranging from projected annual security and logistical costs totaling more than $200 million, to the belief that such a trial would embolden al-Qaeda and invite further attacks against New York City -- forced the Obama Administration to reconsider its position. Eight months after Mr. Holder's statement above, the trial's location, method and details are still far from certain. With progress thwarted, delivering justice, too, has run dry. Looking back, however, I believe part of the opposition towards the location of the trial had much deeper roots in the psyche of some Manhattanite Americans: a now-crystallized aversion and agitation towards anything-Islam.
First, I do believe President Obama when he characterizes U.S. efforts and military engagements worldwide to combat terrorism as one aimed at countering perverse religious ideologies leading to violent extremism and the murder of innocents, rather than a war against Islam. However, given the flurry of controversy in New York City over the proposed building of a Muslim community center and mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero, one questions whether or not those opposed truly understand the implications of their opposition. In other words, do they understand that their attitude have international consequences. On one hand, the President of the United States unequivocally states to the Muslim world that the U.S. is not at war with Islam, and, on the other hand, some Americans are repressing constitutional rights to religious freedom by opposing such plans of the Muslim people to exercise that freedom to rebuild those very relations. The potential consequences of this disconnect are both simple and dangerous: al-Qaeda and its' affiliates can and will use such internal discord to recruit, rally, and regroup. It's not hard to envision an al-Qaeda recruiter in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, or here in the United States, pointing to the rejection of building a Muslim community center and mosque as yet another indication of American contempt towards Islam. Certainly, those who oppose this initiative do not want to embolden the enemy and invite further attacks, as was the argument against trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I cannot begin to imagine the lifelong anguish tattooed upon those who lost their loved ones on September 11th, but outright rejecting a peaceful gesture and proposal to better U.S.-Muslim relations here at home, and therefore abroad, is an action to be welcomed and embraced, not slandered and marginalized.
Lacking knowledge of the Islamic world, an inadequate understanding of core religious principles, and a vengeful attitude towards Muslims following 9/11, combined, is the continued source of this conflict -- domestically and abroad. Indeed, instability in one sphere can destabilize the other. Breaking the barriers of intolerance requires one to internalize the fact that the majority of Muslims around the world -- 1.2 billion of them and increasing -- do not engage in violent extremism. Moreover, there are several million Muslim-Americans living in the United States, peacefully contributing to the betterment of their respective communities and the nation as a whole, every single day. There is no future in division. It is absolutely imperative that we come to understand 'the other.' Outright rejection en masse on this issue is counterproductive, and could very well cost more American lives.
There are a number of sound and sane voices in this debate, including that of Mayor Bloomberg. And in addition, several unique propositions have come to the forefront during this controversy. For example, calls for an interfaith cultural center at the site of Ground Zero to study and promote religious tolerance, similar to the currently-developing Global Centre for Pluralism in Ottawa, Canada. The center, an initiative of His Highness the Aga Khan, is "founded on the premise that tolerance, openness and understanding towards the cultures, social structures, values and faiths of other peoples are now essential to the very survival of an interdependent world." Stephen Prothero, a religion scholar at Boston University, believes that "a small mosque ought to be integrated into the redesign of the World Trade Center site itself -- a reminder in steel and stone that the United States is not at war either with Islam or with our core values." What supporters of the concept all have in common is that social cohesion, domestic relations, and the international security and stability of the world moving forward are all very much interconnected, and interdependent. We must amplify the positive impact of faith to alleviate the negative, and this movement forward begins right here at home.
Cross-posted with RahimKanani.com
Follow Rahim Kanani on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rahimkanani
Denying NYC mosque is denying God
Bloomberg, Palin Agree to Disagree on Ground Zero Mosque Plans
Sarah Palin's Facebook Post Against Ground Zero Mosque Vanishes, then Reappears
Mosque Plan for Staten Island Suffers Setback
If You Build It, Nothing Bad Will Happen
GOP candidate for NY gov calls for mosque inquiry
Bomb near Iraq mosque kills 15; US soldier dies in road blast
http://article.nationalreview.com/438616/raufs-dawa-from-the-world-trade-center-rubble/andrew-c-mccarthy?page=3
The Islamic center does not demonstrate the contrition that would be the appropriate gesture. Muslims could move to establish respect by showing how appalled they are at the acts of their co-religionists. They could recognize that their faith did indeed play a part in that awful crime. A somber monument recognizing deep sorrow might be appropriate. Instead we get a building that invites non-Muslims to make a gesture to learn about Islam. It is a mockery.
Many have been killed and injured in Iraq and Afghanistan by US force. Would it be appropriate at a site of destruction and death in one of those countries, for the US to erect a visitor's center celebrating the virtues of Christianity? Such a gesture would cause a howl of indignation, and rightly so.
Please, respect the sanctity of the site. Respect the innocent dead, and their grieving families. Build your Islamic center, but build it somewhere else.
I tend to consider myself a reasonable person. I favor compromise when compromise is respectful of each party involved in any dispute.
This proposal however, is not respectful, it is dominance. Though it is "small", it is not subtle, it's message is loud and clear.
That is unfortunate, but it is what it is, and must be recognized for what it is. It will continue the acrimony, and incriminations.
I am uncomfortable with this statement and others.
It is potentially using the threat of bin laden, and continuing violence against undersevring Americans, as a means to bring about capitulation, or, as some night see it, subjugation. It is accusatory of those Americans who are protesting, and have reasonable concerns. It is carrot and stick.
One of those concerns has been addressed, and the name of the proposed mosque has been changed. That is progress. Let's hope it continues and each side comes to an understanding of the others needs, and resolution is found.
Having said that, statements such as the above won't help, it will only cause more acrimony, and incriminations.
Breaking the barriers begins with dialog. Dialog includes, hearing, listening, speaking, hearing listening, speaking, again and again, until we come to an understanding of the other, or it involves force, violence, subjection. Which will it be?
Tolerance is a two way street, not one way. Tolerance requires that one not defend what they hear the other saying, even if it hurts, but listen. We can't comprehend what another is saying if we are forming a defence while they are speaking.
Tolerance is change.
Change isn't one sided.
Opposition to ground zero mosque = America is at war with Islam.
Opposition to anything Muslims want in America from now on = America is at war with Islam.
The Muslim's choice of a mosque site reminds me of:
Happy birthday, Mom.
But Timmy, it's a catcher's mitt and a baseball. I don't know how to play.
But, Mom, don't you love me?
And, as far as I know, Montezuma would never have heard of the Rede and though he was pagan I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Wiccan.
To be legal is one thing; it is necessary to be sensible. If you are destroying places of worship of others, your legal status will be deemed as doubtful.
"According to Jagmohan Kumar, the head of the Hindu community in Rawalpindi, the templewas being used by Hindus and Sikhs to perform last rituals of their dear ones.
According to the plaque fixed on the building, Lala Tansukh Rai, the Raees-e-Azam Rawalpindi, had constructed the temple in memory of his wife. “The ‘Shamshan Ghat’ is not only used by the locals but by the foreign missions of China and the Buddhist community as well”, Kumar said.
“The land for ‘Shamshan Ghat’ was allocated to the Hindus during the first tenure of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto when Kishan Chand Parwani was the federal minister for minorities in her cabinet. The temple is now being demolished while the open area is being maintained for the community”, he added"
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_pak-to-demolish-87-yr-old-temple_1412526
Legal does not make it right. Also, there is no such thing as a peaceful Muslim religion. Just read the Koran, Quran or whatever you want to call it. These are not the writings of a peaceful religion, one that calls for the killing of infidels. Or in other words people who are not obedient to the teachings of the Koran and worship in other religions.
In my opinion, anyone who approves of this kind of behavior from the Muslim community should be ashamed of themselves.