<-Adventures at Gyro's House |Main|CNN Somehow Makes Good Reporting Look Like Pandering->

This "Ground Zero Mosque" Thing Is Really Fucking Stupid

September 12, 2010 11:33 PM

he idea that private citizens shouldn't build a community center on land they own, regardless of its proximity to the place where something really awful happened simply because they adhere to the same religion that the people who did the awful thing claimed to follow, is entirely without support in law or logic. If you don't agree with that, then please comment. I'm inviting you to comment because, although I've tried, I haven't been able to find a single coherent argument for why there shouldn't be a Muslim community center near the former World Trade Center. If you can offer one that isn't based on ignorance and fear, I'd be extremely interested to hear it.

I admit, though, that I'm skeptical that such an argument can be made. A few weeks ago, I had a conversation with someone on Facebook about this issue. I tried not to be a jerk while asserting my position. I may not have succeeded at that, but I think that I won the argument. Although I'm open to considering non-stupid arguments, I think this argument typifies the stupid non-support people have asserted for their "Ground Zero Mosque" opposition. I want to excerpt this thing because I think the person I'm arguing with--a friend of someone I knew in high school--fails utterly. And I think that's amusing and possibly enlightening.

The whole thing started when my high-school acquaintance posted a link to some article about the controversy. Then someone I don't know posted this:

In the Muslim religion, they build things to show that they have conquered it. That is what they are trying to do and it makes me angry.

Now, I can't say for sure, but I'd bet that this person had seen this video or had heard something very similar to what it says:

You know what's stupid about the video, other than the sinister music should be enough to let you know that you're watching pure bullshit? Here's what's stupid about it: even if we grant that Muslims build mosques at every place they conquer, that doesn't mean anything. Because you know who else builds their religious buildings on lands they've conquered? FUCKING EVERYONE. I'm not completely sure, but I bet that two things happened fairly quickly after the Pilgrims came to America: they killed a Native American and they built a church. Whenever one culture moves to a new area--whether violently or not--they bring their culture and religion with them. It's not a victory thing, it's just what people do. Do we really expect all Muslims in the world to have to head back to the Middle East for each of their five daily prayers?

I pointed this out on Facebook. I got a response:

It isn't my opinion, it is what they do, research it before you say that it is wrong. To put a mosque there is a slap in the face to Americans. That is like going to a temple and sticking swastika's all over it. Same thing, same slap. Did you not read that the guy who wants to do this is a radical? You actually think he is doing this to be peaceful? If you think so, then you are a fool. He is trying to prove a point.

So now the guy's a radical. I honestly didn't know too much about Imam Rauf before this conversation, so I googled him. Here's part of what I posted after some cursory research:

I talked about being able to separate radicals from peaceful believers. So let's talk about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man who is apparently behind the community center. A quick glance at his Wikipedia entry--and I agree non-sarcastically that Wikipedia is the ultimate arbiter of truth--Mr. Rauf has been fairly critical of some parts of America's past and he called America an "accessory" to the September 11th attacks.

I think that his criticisms of America's actions during wartime are fair, especially his contention that it was questionable for America to bomb Hiroshima. His position on America's role in the September 11th attacks and his contention that Osama bin Laden was "made in the USA" are more controversial, but not radical. Although the situation is very complicated and I don't fully understand it myself, what I think is fairly non-controversial is that, America helped fund mujahideen soldiers in Afghanistan in their efforts to beat back the Soviets. At one point, President Reagan called the mujahideen "freedom fighters." Osama bin Laden was one of the members of the mujahideen during that time and may or may not have received training from the CIA. He was, however, absolutely a member of the organization that predates al-Qaida and that received American financial support.

America played a part in supporting the mujahideen, and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida grew out of that organization. I think that Mr. Rauf's claims that bin Laden was "made in the USA" is a huge rhetorical leap, but to the extent that he meant that America indirectly planted the seed that would become al-Qaida, I believe he is arguably correct.

All of this is to say that, while Mr. Rauf may have expressed unpopular opinions, he is not a radical. Indeed, his comments suggesting that terrorism and the killing of innocents is not in keeping with Muslim teachings strongly suggests otherwise.

Then came one of my favorite responses in the exchange. Emphasis is mine:

This isn't an intellectual thing. This is about principle. It is not RIGHT to put a mosque up where 9/11 happened. That would be the same as the Japanese wanting to build a shrine over the USS Arizona.

I pointed out that it's not at all the same thing as the Japanese building a Pearl Harbor memorial, and then I asked a question:

[G]iven that there is no connection between the September 11th terrorists and the community center other than the terrorists' claims to have acted in the name of Islam, what is it that makes it wrong to allow these people to build their building?

The response identified three things that make Imam Rauf a radical:

He believes in Sharia law and that OUR AMERICAN court system should allow for it as well. He never condemned 9/11. He agrees with Hamas.

I linked to this article on the Huffington Post written by Imam Rauf about Sharia law. What I take away from it is that Imam Rauf, as a religious guy, wants to follow his religion's law. And he wants others to follow it, too. I don't like that position, but the position that non-believers should act like believers isn't exactly radical in a country that prohibits people who love each other from getting married just because that's what it says we should do in certain religious texts. Imam Rauf also suggests that enforcing Sharia law through stoning of women, for example, isn't in keeping with Sharia's focus on "justice and fairness." The merits of Sharia law are questionable, but I don't think it's fair to say that the guy's a radical because he believes in his religion's laws.

While I was unable to find any source where Imam Rauf specifically condemned the September 11th attacks, I was able to find several statements he made condemning terrorism generally. He told 60 Minutes that "[f]anaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam." He told a radio interviewer that "[t]he targeting of civilians is wrong. It is a sin in our religion. Whoever does it, targeting civilians is wrong." Again, I don't see a basis for calling the guy a radical.

Finally, Imam Rauf did say that he did not want to put himself in a position where anyone--including Hamas--would see him as an adversary. He condemned terrorism, however, and identified himself as a supporter of Israel. I think that's an extremely pansy position to take, and I don't really respect it, but I think it's a huge stretch to say the guy agrees with Hamas.

I pressed for some support for the position that Imam Rauf is an anti-American radical. This was the response, which is my absolute favorite of the exchange:

The things that are documentated that he has said and what he has written in his book. I don't have to prove anything to you. Most American's know this guy is a radical trying to prove a point and because America's laws are for freedom of religion and assembly the radicals are using it against us. You are obviously a liberal and will never see the light as to what is true and good. You see things in gray and I see it in black or white. I don't think that there is ever a basis for a gray area and you have based your arguement on what you "think" he means.

This person thinks that seeing things in black and white is a virtue. This person thinks that because I asked for support for these propositions, that I am "obviously" a liberal who will never understand truth and goodness. This person believes that liberals can't understand truth and goodness.

This person is extremely comfortable with the original Star Wars where we know beyond all doubt that Luke Skywalker is the good guy and Darth Vader is the bad guy. But this person is completely confused by the later movies. As soon as Darth Vader becomes anything less than completely evil--the exact moment at which he becomes a person rather than a caricature--he becomes completely unbelievable to this person. This person cannot conceive that someone could change or evolve or be conflicted in even a slight way. In this person's mind, the delineations between good and evil are as clear in the real world as they are in a child's cartoon. That's not just stunningly simplistic, it's fucking scary.

I asked which page of which of the several books that Imam Rauf has written supports the claims that he's an anti-American radical. There were no further responses.



2 Comments


bush88 said:

8. ralph lauren polo shirts for both men and women release a sassy, highly modernistic and regal allure in a generous fit for the wearers. Highly fashioned yet classic vintage-inspired style, comfortable, body-friendly fitting make polo shirts of ralph lauren uk a modern favorite for casual wearing! And with only wholesale price now, you can easily order ralph lauren sale online for the most amazing shirts!

May 4, 2011 3:19 AM



Dive Sipadan said:

I'm so happy they finally caught Osama bin Laden, what a shame they couldn't catch him alive, we could have had some great photos of him in his undies like with Sadam

May 4, 2011 7:05 PM



Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.