Roundtable
A Mosque on Ground Zero?
The Roundtable Open Forum # 42, August 18 - 24
EDITOR
The Rules of the forum are posted here on the right, and need to be followed strictly by all participants.
The following is this week's (August 18 - 24) topic for discussion, which should focus on the questions posed therein:
A MOSQUE ON GROUND ZERO
Ground Zero marks the site of the 9/11 attack on America by jihadists - three thousand innocent men and women died in the outrage. The ground is, as a result, sacrosanct.
A few blocks away, Muslim-Americans have announced plans to build a mosque. It is not the first mosque in the area. And it will not be the only religious site in the area - churches and synagogues, as well, other mosques, pre-exist in the vicinity.
There is no law to prevent the building of the mosque on this site. In fact, all relevant American authorities have reviewed the application with a tooth-comb, and approved it unequivocally.
America, however, is divided on whether there should be a new mosque or even an Islamic center built in the vicinity. Many express outrage at the idea, because the attackers on 9/11 were Muslims - they see the construction of a Muslim place of worship in the area as an affront to the memory of those who died there, and to America.
Others - including the President of the United States and the Mayor of New York - see no reason to oppose the mosque. It is the constitutional right of all American citizens to do whatever they want within the requirements of the law - there is nothing in the American Constitution which allows the singling out of Muslims - or, for that matter, any other religious group - as an exception.
Public emotions are running high.
It's not the first time.
Sikhs, for example, know that every time they plan to build a new gurdwara anywhere in America - including Canada - 'concerned citizens' suddenly emerge from the woodwork, objecting to the idea, using a variety of seemingly ‘valid' reasons. Muslims, Hindus and other groups have the same experience.
Opposition to such religious institutions is the norm, not the exception. The opposition to the Ground Zero project is but another one in an endless string of such oppositions, even though this one has a unique reason. [Texan Sikhs are currently faced with a court order - obtained by 'concerned citizens' - requiring the tearing down of a new gurdwara!]
POINTS TO PONDER
What do you think? Should there be a mosque on Ground Zero, if Muslim-Americans wish to have one there, or should their rights be over-ruled by public sentiment?
How far should the restriction, if any, apply? What radius from the Ground Zero, that is? To all of New York? Washington D.C. too? Pennsylvania?
Should similar restrictions be applied to other communities, depending on who the U.S. is at loggerheads with at any given point in history?
Should this become the rule, to be applied by a majority vote of the public, or should the Constitution remain supreme?
Remember, though - any measures applied willy-nilly against ANY minority then become potentially applicable to us - Sikhs, that is. The original reasons are quickly forgotten - but the action becomes embedded in public memory!
There is an age-old truism well known to law-makers - "An easy fact situation makes bad law!" It means that sometimes a congruence of facts may seem to justify a quick change of the law, but beware - stop and look at the long-term ramifications of what you change!
Please do share YOUR thoughts on this very difficult issue.
Conversation about this article
1: Ujagar Singh (Bimingham, United Kingdom), August 19, 2010, 5:27 PM.
I think it is a bad decision on the part of the Muslim community to build a mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero ... but it is for them to decide. Certainly, it would be equally, if not more, inappropriate for others to prevent them from doing so. Now that it has been announced and so many Americans have opposed the idea, the matter has become infinitely complicated. I can see no option but for the Muslims to proceed ... certainly, they cannot cower to the narrow-minded demands of the mob. At the same time, the mosque supporters will have to bear the brunt of the fall-out, if they do proceed. A fine mess!
2: I.J. Singh (New York, U.S.A.), August 19, 2010, 6:16 PM.
There is a fine distinction in what is legally correct and what is the wise thing to do. I think that this distinction is being lost in the debate. Legally, the Muslims have the right to build - incidentally, it is a Community Center they have planned with a prayer room, not a full fledged mosque. But the Muslims would reap a richer harvest of goodwill if, instead of this, they built a truly Multi-faith facility in which people of different faiths could come together, pray, discuss and debate, and thus honor the over 3000 Americans of many faiths (including Muslims) who were killed on 9/11. It would not diminish their initiative but will enhance it much more meaningfully.
3: Sangat Singh (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia), August 19, 2010, 7:30 PM.
An excellent suggestion by I.J. Singh: make a gurdwara with four doors, but name it differently. And, let all of them have a whale of time fighting over it!
4: Harinder Singh (San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A.), August 19, 2010, 8:05 PM.
The camping against the proposed "mosque" (actually, Cordoba House) in Manhattan is unjust and dangerous spin by the likes of Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. They are erasing a vital distinction between Islam and Al-Qaeda. Where are the U.S. civil rights leaders today for the new "Negros" are Muslims and Arabs, and those perceived to be looking like them? The site was selected precisely to heal the wounds and Imam Feisal named it Cordoba in recollection of a time when Muslims, Jews and Christians created an oasis of art, culture and science. Please build the Cordoba!
5: G.G. Singh (Unionville, Ontario, Canada), August 19, 2010, 10:35 PM.
This is America at the crossroads, it's time to draw the line in the sand or become the laughing stock of the Islamic world. It's a classic Muslim move funded by oversea interests ... it's not against the law but it's definitely in bad taste. If the roles were reversed, do you think Saudi Arabia would engage in such a dialogue, hell no ... the Muslims are taking advantage of the very freedoms that they detest.
6: Parmjit Singh (Canada), August 20, 2010, 12:29 AM.
If the logic of those opposed to the mosque was followed, many existing mosques and churches around the world would have to be removed.
7: Sunny (London, England), August 20, 2010, 8:28 AM.
Would we, the Sikhs, object to the building of a church near Jallianwala Bagh? This sounds like the persecution of minorities by the majority!
8: I.J. Singh (New York, U.S.A.), August 20, 2010, 11:16 AM.
Sangat Singh ji: I am afraid you have misinterpreted what I suggested. I categorically did not advocate that someone should "make a gurdwara with four doors, but name it differently. And, let all of them have a whale of time fighting over it!" Please, this is not helpful at all.
9: R. Singh (Canada), August 20, 2010, 1:42 PM.
G.G. Singh ji: Saudi Arabia is a friend of America, a former protege of the British. Secondly, a bizarre theocracy and an enlightened democracy better have different norms, or we might soon have evangelists fill the same shoes in the free world, the mullahs do so in the Islamic one.
10: M.K.S. (New York, U.S.A.), August 20, 2010, 2:09 PM.
While the Muslims have the constitutional right to build the mosque or community center (whatever they want to call it) near Ground Zero, they should be made aware in no uncertain terms that the non-Muslims (kafirs) backing them expect their support in Muslim countries where the rights of kafirs are being violated. I want Gurdwara lands currently occupied in Pakistan and Afghanistan to be returned ... not just historic gurdwaras, but also the neighborhood ones. I want the Arab countries to allow gurdwaras, mandirs, synagogues to be built as a matter of policy.
11: Sangat Singh (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia), August 20, 2010, 4:07 PM.
I.J. Singh ji: I am sorry - it got wrongly attributed to you. What I meant to write was that "Perhaps, we should make a gurdwara with 4 doors ... the missing "perhaps", dropped in a hurry, conveyed a wrong meaning. My sincere apologies.
12: Peejay (Victoria, British Columbia, Canada), August 20, 2010, 9:22 PM.
There is no doubt that Muslims have a constitutional right to build a community centre with a mosque in it, but they should be aware of the sensitivity of the community at large. How would Sikhs feel if a statue of Indira Gandhi or a monument for her was proposed to be built near Darbar Sahib in Amritsar?
13: Gurmeet Kaur (Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.), August 21, 2010, 10:25 PM.
I am really ticked off that the media, right wingers and hate mongers are calling it 'A mosque at/or Ground Zero' for their own selfish reasons. First off, it is not a mosque. It is designed as a multi-use cultural center complex with a space set aside for prayer - no minarets, no muezzin calls to prayer. Secondly, it is not on or at Ground Zero. From 45 Park Place, the former Burlington Coat Factory building that will make way for the Cordoba House, it's two blocks, around a corner, to get to the Ground Zero construction site. Nobody, regardless of political or religious leanings, would tolerate a mosque at ground zero. "Near" is not the same, as anyone who paid attention back in the fourth grade should know. I guess Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich need some English 101. If Muslims having a prayer room qualifies Cordoba house as a mosque: by the same logic you can qualify Ground Zero as an already existing mosque. Muslim prayers are already taking place right on the edge of the construction site. Families are going there to pray - for the souls of the innocent Muslim victims who also died on 9/11 along with their other American brothers and sisters.
14: R. Singh (Canada), August 22, 2010, 2:34 AM.
Peejay ji, this is a case of apples and oranges. A community centre, two blocks away is not a statue nor is it on ground zero. The centre was supposed to be a throwback to "Cordoba", about a harmonious period in the past. Secondly, what about the Muslims who died along with others in the twin towers, do they deserve disrespect? Many a Rajiv and Indira colonies exist near gurdwaras, and gurdwaras in or near such colonies. The holy city of Amritsar itself has a replica of the Darbar Sahib in the form of the Durgiana mandir. My question: How do Sikhs feel about demolishing a gurdwara in Texas because someone does not like it in their neighbourhood? Where does it stop?
15: Jagdeep Singh (London, England), August 22, 2010, 7:32 AM.
I support their right to build the mosque, but I think they should have done more to address the sensitive nature of it, and perhaps not have made such a fuss over its proximity to the 9/11 site.
16: Kamaldeep Singh (London, United Kingdom), August 23, 2010, 7:51 AM.
I read the comments that support the Muslim centre with interest. Coming from the U.K., this is, for want of a better word, a tried-and-tested tactic to expand Islamic interests. By way of example, Queen Mary University, London had a multi-faith conference room for everyone. This was then block booked from 12pm to 6pm for Islamic based activities, essentially creating a monopoly on the room and pushing others to the sidelines. Hindus wanted to use the room after 6pm to help organize/celebrate a festival but were stopped by Muslims who refused to vacate the room and created havoc. They now have access, but only after umpteen demonstrations, petitions, etc. This was of course to the disdain of the people who had a monopoly on the room in the first place. My personal feelings on the matter are they will be raking up this up in the near future, incorrectly pushing forward the image of them being victims. Moral of the story: Know your history. Do not be surprised when the so-called new Cordoba becomes dysfunctional.
17: R. Singh (Canada), August 26, 2010, 4:33 PM.
Kamaldeep Singh ji, First of all U.S.A. is not England. Secondly, our history is not about hatred of groups, just the misdeeds of oppressors, whoever they may be. Perhaps things are done differently in Britain. It is the historical grouses that make for acrimonious situations in the first place. Therefore misplacing our history and prejudices from the Indian sub-continent to North America is not the wisest of decisions, for the backlash against any one group is not confined by our history but by local popular concepts in a whipped up xenophobic environment. And then it matters not who hates who or who will not co-operate with who, if the law will not protect you, especially one that supported its demise in the first place, trying to get even for some smaller trespass against our favoured group of the moment.
18: Jagdeep Singh (London, England), August 29, 2010, 6:38 AM.
R. Singh ji: perhaps counseling Muslims to be less triumphalist, and taking the time to delineate and criticize the extremist ideology in some factions of Islam, will help the problem not occurring in the first place, rather than sweeping it all under the carpet. Remember, some young Muslim men from Canada have just been charged with plotting terrorist attacks. We need to be open about this issue, not defensive. That is the lesson you can learn from what has happened in Britain over the last 20 years.
19: R. Singh (Canada), August 29, 2010, 6:40 PM.
Once again, let me remind you that the last case was cracked due to co-operation of the Muslims themselves. Secondly, couselling or any other means to re-educate is not exactly the job of a minority like us, that spends more time aplogizing for our existence, yet still be labeled whatever whenever it is expedient. Our experiences are not that of the British. Those of us know the nature of the right wing, also know the value of the laws that give us equal rights and freedoms. Thus advocating on behalf of those who can barely hide their intentions, just because we have some quarrels from the old country, can very well come back to haunt us. We need not cut off our noses to spite our faces.
20: Jagdeep Singh (London, England), August 30, 2010, 11:00 AM.
R. Singh ji: You know that Sikh society in the diaspora, especially in Canada, is greatly influenced by issues from the "old country". That is an inescapable fact of our existence. But it actually has nothing to do with the point that I made. Which is that there is a tendency to sweep under the carpet issues to do with extremism on the basis of fear of what the 'right-wing' says. This culture of 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil' is dangerous because the problem does not go away. It persists until confronted ideologically and openly. And that is something that the Left and minorities have to take ownership of. Contrary to your belief that Canada is not Britain, the issues are not only very similar, they are almost identical, its just the timescale that is different. If the dissemination of extremist ideology in sections of Britain's Muslim community was addressed when it first reared its head 15 years ago, rather than not speaking about it for fear of offending, the society then, including the Muslim community, could have dealt with it in the nascent stage, saving lives and preventing the degeneration of trust in a society in which suicide bomb plots are now a reality.
21: R. Singh (Canada), August 31, 2010, 1:15 AM.
That is exactly the issue here. Left or right, the laws keep us safe from mob-rule. What ails the Islamic world is too complex a subject, to be fixed by wishing away a building two blocks away, which is not ground zero by any stretch of imagination. And those of us who lump all people, law-abiding and lawless, together need to get our own attitudes in order. Whatever grouses or attitudes some of us carry from wherever will not matter in the end, if we are to go back to the turn of the century norms, when we were at the receiving end of the very xenophobia currently directed at the Muslims. Canada has something good going for it, we need to keep it that way. When some hapless politicians tried to allow religious laws to govern Muslims, it was Muslims themselves who opposed it along with other Canadians. It was not a hatefest. Let Britian take care of its massive problems linked to its colonial past. Americans on the other hand have no such problems that law enforcement agencies cannot handle or education cannot fix, except its volatile, racist, right wing. Care to comment on Beck's speech? Perhaps diaspora Sikhs need to rethink their attitudes for it is our kids who will pay for our fixations. Even the Hindus with their grouses have no problem with doing business in the Muslim world.