Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Right to build vs. right to ask questions
President Obama, after saying that building a mosque at Ground Zero fit our "commitment to religious freedom," backtracked, saying he wasn't commenting on the 'wisdom' of building it so close to 'hallowed ground.'
A Fox News poll showed that while 61 percent of Americans believe that Cordoba House has a constitutional right to build near Ground Zero, 64 percent believe it is not appropriate to do so.
Does Obama's hedging show a lack of ethical convictions? Does Hamas' endorsement change the debate? What is behind public opposition to the site? Can you believe in religious freedom but not believe the mosque is appropriate?
As with many contemporary subjects, we were at the front end of this tempest a la mosque here at On Faith. I wrote on July 20 on this issue of sectarian worship at Ground Zero, and daresay that I find the view that I put forth turns out now to be in consonance with polls of most Americans and corroborated now by the President! As this issue has percolated, however, there is no stance without risk, controversy and the attacks of partisans.
Specifically, I posited that it is an absolute American right to build a place of worship anywhere in this country if a request complies with local zoning ordinances and city regulations. The Cordoba mosque meets that bar and therefore can most certainly be built at Ground Zero or any so-called hallowed ground. Hindu Americans have fought too much bigotry building temples cloaked behind excuses of zoning or noise ordinances and would stand in solidarity in the exercise of religious freedom.
But the initiative to purposefully build a mosque at the very site where religion was defamed and thousands of lives destroyed, is curious. Prayer is most certainly apropos at Ground Zero, but consider an interfaith center rather than a temple, mosque, church or synagogue I had argued. Indeed, the Pentagon offers its own alternative, balancing the need for prayer and reflection with the plurality of its believers: an interfaith chapel at its own Ground Zero. Services for all religions are regularly scheduled there and the faithful find their needs tended.
I also argued that building a mosque at this site in Lower Manhattan--within the 16 acre bounds of Ground Zero--is a call for attention. It strains feasibility to contend otherwise. Many questions have been raised as to where the $100 million dollars would come from, Malaysian ties and to the ideological statements that the mosque's imam made in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. We do not argue as to the merits of that ideology, but when one puts their project and foundation squarely within the national consciousness, it is difficult to eschew legitimate calls for some details. It is doubtful that any initiative to build this mosque elsewhere would have generated the same furor.
Despite the concerns raised a month ago, it does seem ludicrous now that the controversy continues. That some Muslim Americans find themselves in the midst of a polarizing debate and on the defensive on an issue entirely separate from the daily dose of extremist Islamist terror they are already always having to condemn is indeed tragic. And the manipulation of this issue for electoral gain by the Republican Party, or the crass denigration of legitimate questions by the extreme left do our fellow citizens no favors. Rush Limbaugh, as he is wont to do, took the issue to a new height of farce as he offered the analogy likening the mosque at Ground Zero to a Hindu temple being built at Pearl Harbor!
The lid over this teapot must be lifted to allow this foolish tempest to defuse. Either build outside of the bounds of Ground Zero or answer some legitimate questions as to how and why. Let the steam blow off and the healing begin.
Views expressed here are the personal views of Dr. Aseem Shukla, and do not necessarily represent those of the University of Minnesota or Hindu American Foundation.
By
Aseem Shukla
|
August 18, 2010; 2:43 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Who's inside the Muslim box? |
Next: "Knowing" what's right
Posted by: marybimala | August 24, 2010 1:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Republican hate mongers who want to "follow the money trail" fail to mention one of the investors in the "mosque" is none other Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, one of the biggest shareholders of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp that also just gave a million dollars to the GoP.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/ 08/23/stewart-fox-prince-alwaleed_n_692234.html
Posted by: areyousaying | August 24, 2010 1:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Dr. Tawfik Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West, said in an April, 2007 WSJ article:
"It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.
"The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. ...
"Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand--but so far haven't--that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered "moderates." ...
"Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us."
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009890