Aug
4
…EXCEPT ISLAM
Filed Under United States, religion
by M. Salahuddin Khan
Debates about mosques in different parts of the country are growing in number and intensity. As they do, fueled by conflating terrorist ambitions with the vast generality of Islam that is 20% of the world’s population, some fundamental questions arise about the moral and constitutional aspects of such debates and the forces that energize them.
We enjoy celebrating the greatness of this country and its hard won freedoms. Indeed such things are most worthy of celebration. And since its founding, the United States of America has always held that religious freedom is a cornerstone of this democracy as much as separation of church and state and the prevention of a tyranny of the majority. Yet, such an outlook has begun appearing almost foolishly naïve when set against the backdrop of the present so-called debate on places of worship. Most particularly these days, Muslim worship.
Muslims were the first community in the world to recognize the independent sovereign nation of the United States of America. Muslims have resided in the United States since before there was a United States, as both freemen and slaves and form a rich multi-racial tradition going back these several centuries. The first purpose-built mosque in the United States was built in 1934 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. And though admittedly out of an alliance of interests, and with significant American financial help but not a lot of American blood, Muslims even formed the decisive front-line against Communism and bled away thousands of lives in Afghanistan helping to win America’s Cold War, creating the only occasion where the Soviet Union’s forces had to leave in shame and defeat.
Only since a marked American foreign policy turn seen by Muslims on a world-wide basis as largely against them in the past half a century or so, has there even been a hint of Muslim antithesis toward America and only a minuscule fraction of a percent of the people with such feelings have been propelled to act on them in criminal ways.
Yet, here we are in the 21st century, giving vent and credence to the idea that a debate about the placement of a mosque has even any validity, much less which side of it anyone might be on. Everywhere up and down the country, the claim of freedom of religion is being undermined by the serious consideration given to the possibility of behaving as if “…except Islam” was an established qualifier.
Moreover, listening to people talk about this issue recalls for me the way the phrase “…the Jewish question” was once admitted as the intellectually legitimate face of a brutally ugly agenda in another far off land. It’s not whether a mosque should or shouldn’t be built in a given place, in the shadow of Ground Zero, or Temecula, California. It’s whether the question has any moral—leave alone constitutional—legitimacy at all.
Standing opposed to mosque construction (anywhere) there are those who argue that Islam itself is fundamentally incompatible with the American system and should thus be deemed criminal, neglecting to grasp its long standing presence without issue in this country.
Then there are those arguing against mosque construction who allege to have the common good in mind—to avoid an inflammatory presence. I can imagine a proposed new synagogue inflaming some Germans in the Munich of the mid 1930s and the project standing down to avoid “trouble”. If a mosque’s mere presence inflames people, the problem lies with those inflamed, not with the mosque. If we argue that a mosque’s presence might be inflammatory, then any claim to understand that terrorists and their acts should not be conflated with Islam and Muslims, are empty.
Generalization is gasoline to the flame of bigotry.
Then there are those who reach for the rule of the majority, blithely tossing away the spirit and intent of the Bill of Rights to protect against a tyranny of the majority. No theory of majority can set aside the particular rights guaranteed to minorities, unless that majority elects to repeal the Bill of Rights. If a municipal council holds that a place of worship can be allowed in a given location, it is morally and constitutionally reprehensible to deny Muslim worship in the same place.
An argument is also often made how mosques are to be “tolerated” at best and mistrusted at worst on account of their supposed breeding-ground behavior for spawning radical Muslims. This perspective doesn’t give a hoot about the countless (non-newsworthy) Friday sermons that routinely exhort Muslims young and old toward constructive participation and civic engagement in this great democracy. What becomes of such efforts when freedom of religion starts to ring hollow to these congregations? Wouldn’t this minority begin to feel beleaguered? Do we imagine such a situation diminishing or increasing acts of terror?
Looking across the vastness of the United States, it would be wrong to ignore the simple numerical facts, and only focus on the outliers like Fort Hood and Times Square. And yes, God forbid, we might hear about ten times as many examples yet to come, but it would still be a minority whose significance is made only by the creeping paranoia of ignorance, clamoring for a clamping down on the entire religion of Islam, as a result.
Wouldn’t such reasoning call into question the erection of Christian churches anywhere given the nature and origins of the Ku Klux Klan? Wouldn’t it be like saying that Christianity is where the problem lies because of the Klan’s behavior? “But that’s not who we are!” would be the response of a vast majority of law-abiding Christians and in the vast majority of cases they’d be telling the truth.
Lastly, there are those who claim that other countries around the world prohibit building of churches or the places of worship for other religions than the state-sponsored one and that the US should reciprocate. Indeed such prohibitions exist, and particularly so in parts of the Arab Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia but they amount to less five of the 47 Muslim majority countries in the world and less than 5% of their collective 1.4 billion population.
Yes, some Muslim-majority countries make it difficult to build churches even if they technically allow them, but erasing a fundamental value of this country’s democracy for the sake of such reciprocity seems like a very poor trade. Wouldn’t sustained, but forceful diplomatic pressure be the American way to address such an issue and what would happen to such pressure once we start denying mosque constructions per se? Or has Rambo finally come to represent the breadth and depth of our thinking about conduct of foreign policy? Have we decided to abandon the once-uniquely American way of evolving our democracy and hand the terrorists a victory not even of their seeking, in so doing?
It is time for the people of the United States to understand that radicalization isn’t coming from the mosques in this country but from the perceived injustices (yes, along with the innumerable positive acts) carried out or promoted in this country’s name around the world. Some of them are real, and some are not, but that’s what we have to address if we’re to make progress.
The moral imperative here is to educate and inform people about our respective faiths. This can only be done when we’re confident in the knowledge that none of the faiths is being singled out for some perceived association with those who allege to practice it while perpetrating acts which are both criminal and in conflict with the teachings of the faith in whose name they claim to act.
When we proclaim the freedom of religion and freedom to practice it, we must do it collectively and loudly, and while we can certainly prohibit a place of worship to be erected anywhere for all kinds of reasons, we can’t allow the identity of the religion to be one of them. To do so would be to lose this democracy to the forces of ignorance and bigotry. It won’t be the first time those forces have reared their heads in the history of this country.
Addendum on Aug. 3rd.
I learned with interest today that the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission voted unanimously to deny Landmark status to the 152 year-old building being proposed for the site of the Cordoba Initiative’s proposed mosque. This is a small victory as it simply allows the LPC to sidestep the controversy and avoid being the target of pro-mosque groups.
It has done little to affect the core issue in the debate which is whether constitutionally or morally the permission should depend on whether Islam is the religion being practiced at the that place or not. I don’t hear any arguments suggestion that any place of worship on that site is unacceptable.
In the shifting tactical landscape of this dispute we now have some new arguments that carry the odor of “opposition at any price”. For example some opponents are dropping the more untenable position of opposition on the grounds of the religion and moving to challenge and question the nature of the funding for the project and its origins.
The opponents will be happy to find anything that can arrest this project by any means necessary to accomplish the ends of “respecting the memory of the victims”. For them the presence of a mosque—not the legality of how it is funded—is the insult to that memory.
Their argument hinges on the concept that any mosque’s very presence is a glorification of the 9/11 murders. The only way this can be is for Islam to be blamed for 9/11.
Again, I’m drawn to the analogy of the cross-brandishing KKK and Christianity. However, just like any other human being who isn’t suffering from myopic bigotry, I’ve never had difficulty separating the two things.
Salahuddin blogs at Sikander Blog where this post first appeared.
Bio of M. Salahuddin Khan
Comments
7 Responses to “…EXCEPT ISLAM”
Leave a Reply
Excellent. Thanks for posting
[Reply]
I believe that events such as the building of a mosque and the one below will, more and more, call our faith into question. As a community we need to define and stand for what we believe is sacred to us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoaNwXW88hs&feature=related
[Reply]
The analogy of the cross-brandishing KKK and Christianity. If a human being has difficulty separating the two things, they are suffering from blatant bigotry (because they feel empowered too) or ignorant bigotry (because they are stupid).
[Reply]
MUSLIMS IN AMERICA NEED OTHER THINGS TOO!!! hospitals,retirement homes to name a few. Why just concentrate on masjids?
[Reply]
Fatima Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
I concur, indeed why don’t we get our act together and prioritize how what we invest our collective wealth?
The reason we don’t do this is because even though we are in the same boat as far as non-Muslims are concerned, to ourselves we do not identify us as Muslim Americans, but rather in narrower and narrower national and ethnic terms. Until we develop an identity we will be continued to be at the mercy of the whims of the media, and a source of derision of all.
Muslims are unlike any other community who migrated, they are more diverse in terms of language, culture and religion. The only common denominator that they share and are judged by are there religion. The days of indulgence that mine is better then yours are over, if we are to survive.It is crucial that we define a unique Muslim American identity, culture and goals, only then will we be able to counter the vultures who are hovering to devour us bit by bit.
[Reply]
Your title says a lot about the debate going on in the media. At its core is the ignorance on the side of majority in the US and the lack of social and political activism by American Muslims. A lot of work is needed on both sides to better understand each other. I find a lot of mosques in US shying away from having a minaret or dome so as not to inflame the neighbors. I don’t see any such sensitivity in churches in muslim countries.
Having said that, I lean more on the side of opinion that there need not be a mosque so close to Ground Zero. There is a lot of land in US other than there. The argument against the mosque is an emotional one and not an intellectual one.
[Reply]
Fundamentally, the right wing of this country is pushing for sanctioned racism-your “except Islam” argument. It is fueled by an American taliban that conflates all things Islam with terrorism. For political expediency the right- exemplified by Newt Gingrich who is now planning to run in 2012 (I guess the Mayans were truly onto something)-are creating a common platform of hate from which to run.
[Reply]