The New York Mosque: Islamophobia or the Right to an Opinion?
The construction of a mosque in close proximity to ground zero, the site of the World Trade Center, creates discussion on the limits of free speech when it comes to religion.
It has already been suggested that an opinion poll revealing that 61 percent of Americans were against the project is proof of Islamophobia in the U.S. For 70 percent of Americans, the mosque would be an insult to the 9/11 victims. “[The reaction] was beyond Islamophobia. It's hate of Muslims, and we are deeply concerned,” said Daisy Khan, co-founder of the group that is planning the construction of the Islamic Center.
But she is missing an important point. She deliberately sees as hatred what is no more and no less an opinion on democratic principles: Respecting religion cannot mean the denial of public interest and state regulations. It is an attempt to demoralize any criticism of Islam, even that which is obviously based on defending the respect for the democratic constitutional state.
The opinion of the majority of Americans, who think it is unsuitable to build a mosque near the place where 3,000 lives were taken by Muslim fundamentalists, has to be seen in its proper context: the trauma of 9/11, and the ambiguity of Muslim leadership, which demands respect for Islam while preaching strong anti-American ideology.
To this purpose, Judea Pearl, father of American journalist Daniel Pearl — or “The Jew,” as Muslim terrorists called him when they decapitated him in 2002 — wrote a cutting article in the Jerusalem Post. He says the Muslims should put their mosque elsewhere. According to Judea, the construction at this site would only “prolong the illusion” that American Muslims can achieve public acceptance without sharing responsibility for allowing victimhood and justifying terrorism.
Judea goes on to write of vital issues, such as the fact that crimes by the Muslim terrorists are always “justifiable,” invariably attributing guilt to the victims:
Muslim leadership in the U.S. accuses the country of a “long chain of ‘crimes’ against humanity, especially against Muslims. Affirmation of these conspiratorial theories sends mixed messages to young Muslims, engendering anger and helplessness: America and Israel are the first to be blamed for Muslim failings, sufferings and violence. Terrorist acts, whenever condemned, are immediately ‘contextually explicated’ (to quote Tariq Ramadan); spiritual legitimizers of suicide bombings (e.g. Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi of Qatar) are revered beyond criticism; Hamas and Hezbollah are permanently shielded from the label of ‘terrorist.’ Overall, the message that emerges from this discourse is unambiguous: when Muslim grievance is at question, America is the culprit and violence is justified, if not obligatory.”
It has already been suggested that an opinion poll revealing that 61 percent of Americans were against the project is proof of Islamophobia in the U.S. For 70 percent of Americans, the mosque would be an insult to the 9/11 victims. “[The reaction] was beyond Islamophobia. It's hate of Muslims, and we are deeply concerned,” said Daisy Khan, co-founder of the group that is planning the construction of the Islamic Center.
But she is missing an important point. She deliberately sees as hatred what is no more and no less an opinion on democratic principles: Respecting religion cannot mean the denial of public interest and state regulations. It is an attempt to demoralize any criticism of Islam, even that which is obviously based on defending the respect for the democratic constitutional state.
The opinion of the majority of Americans, who think it is unsuitable to build a mosque near the place where 3,000 lives were taken by Muslim fundamentalists, has to be seen in its proper context: the trauma of 9/11, and the ambiguity of Muslim leadership, which demands respect for Islam while preaching strong anti-American ideology.
To this purpose, Judea Pearl, father of American journalist Daniel Pearl — or “The Jew,” as Muslim terrorists called him when they decapitated him in 2002 — wrote a cutting article in the Jerusalem Post. He says the Muslims should put their mosque elsewhere. According to Judea, the construction at this site would only “prolong the illusion” that American Muslims can achieve public acceptance without sharing responsibility for allowing victimhood and justifying terrorism.
Judea goes on to write of vital issues, such as the fact that crimes by the Muslim terrorists are always “justifiable,” invariably attributing guilt to the victims:
Muslim leadership in the U.S. accuses the country of a “long chain of ‘crimes’ against humanity, especially against Muslims. Affirmation of these conspiratorial theories sends mixed messages to young Muslims, engendering anger and helplessness: America and Israel are the first to be blamed for Muslim failings, sufferings and violence. Terrorist acts, whenever condemned, are immediately ‘contextually explicated’ (to quote Tariq Ramadan); spiritual legitimizers of suicide bombings (e.g. Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi of Qatar) are revered beyond criticism; Hamas and Hezbollah are permanently shielded from the label of ‘terrorist.’ Overall, the message that emerges from this discourse is unambiguous: when Muslim grievance is at question, America is the culprit and violence is justified, if not obligatory.”