The New York Mosque

Published in Folha
(Brazil) on 23 August 2010
by Joao Pereira Coutinho (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Perola Vieira. Edited by Patricia Simoni.
Here are the facts: Nine years ago, approximately 3,000 people were massacred at the World Trade Center by Islamic fanatics. It has been nine years, and now a cultural and religious Islamic association, undeniably “moderate,” wants to build a mosque two blocks away from the attack. The United States is split in half. Worse: Most Americans do not want a mosque in that area. Period!

I followed the debate. I listened a lot. And read too. I respect, with pure reverence, the American Constitution and the freedom of worship it grants to the sons of the republic. But, with the proper salute to loyalists, I am with most Americans. The law is useless and sometimes harmful when it is insensitive to common sense.

And before you insult me or threaten with the usual emails, I reaffirm three truths: Yes, Islam is a religion of peace; yes, Muslims are not all terrorists; yes, there are extremists and fanatics in all religions. But, curiously, no one would be debating the issue if the construction plans for the area dealt with a church or a synagogue. The simple reason: Nine years ago, the dawn broke on Manhattan, not with fundamentalist Christians or Jews taking down the twin towers because of fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible or Torah.

We discuss the mosque, because — like or dislike reality — Manhattan dawned with Muslim terrorists, a tragedy for the world, no doubt, but also for the Islamic religion. Because the terrorists themselves, and not any kind of “hysterical Islamophobia," are the ones who deface Islam with the colors of death and jihad. If U.S. authorities had shown good sense from the beginning of the process, the mosque would be built in Manhattan, certainly, but never in the vicinity of Ground Zero, where the city's memory is still raw. To forget the obvious and discuss the beauty of the Constitution, as Barack Obama tried to do, is evidence of blindness or cowardice or an unfortunate combination of both.


A mesquita de Nova York
Eis os fatos: nove anos atrás, cerca de 3.000 pessoas foram massacradas nas torres gêmeas do World Trade Center por fanáticos islamitas.
Passaram nove anos e agora uma associação religiosa e cultural islâmica, inegavelmente "moderada", deseja construir uma mesquita a dois quarteirões do ataque. Os Estados Unidos racharam ao meio. Pior: a maioria dos americanos não quer uma mesquita na zona. Ponto final.
Acompanhei o debate. Escutei muito. Li idem. Respeito, com reverência impoluta, a Constituição americana e a liberdade de culto que ela concede aos filhos da República.
Mas, com a dévida vénia aos legalistas, eu estou com a maioria dos americanos. A lei é inútil, e por vezes nociva, quando é insensível a qualquer bom senso.
E antes que me insultem ou ameacem com os emails habituais, reafirmo três evidências: sim, a religião islâmica é uma religião de paz; sim, os muçulmanos não são todos terroristas; sim, extremistas e fanáticos existem em todos os credos.
Mas, curiosamente, ninguém estaria a debater o assunto se os planos de construção para a zona lidassem com uma igreja ou uma sinagoga. Motivo simples: nove anos atrás, Manhattan não amanheceu com fundamentalistas cristãos ou judeus a derrubarem as torres gêmeas com interpretações fundamentalistas da Bíblia ou da Torah.
Discutimos a mesquita porque, goste-se ou desgoste-se da realidade, Manhattan amanheceu com terroristas muçulmanos -uma tragédia para o mundo, sem dúvida, mas também para a religião islâmica. Porque são os próprios terroristas, e não qualquer tipo de "islamofobia histérica", quem mancha o islã com as cores da morte e da jihad.
Tivessem as autoridades americanas mostrado bom senso desde o início do processo e a mesquita seria construída em Manhattan, sim; mas nunca nas proximidades do Marco Zero, onde a memória da cidade ainda está em carne viva.
Esquecer o óbvio e discutir a beleza da Constituição, como Barack Obama tentou fazer, é prova de cegueira, ou de cobardia, ou de uma triste combinação de ambas.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

South Korea: Precarious US-China Rivalry: Risky Game of Chess

Australia: US President Donald Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping End Unipolar Age in Beijing

Austria: Xi Waits and Trump Stumbles

Israel: Has Trump Had Enough?

India: When Corporate Interests Take Over Diplomacy: Inside Trump’s Transactional Approach

Topics

Japan: US-China Leadership Summit: Are the US Economic Results Exaggerated?

Poland: ‘Trump Brand Is Toxic.’ Australia Will Not Get Its Tallest Skyscraper*

South Africa: Trump’s China Visit Was a Diplomatic Disappointment

Israel: Has Trump Had Enough?

South Korea: Precarious US-China Rivalry: Risky Game of Chess

Australia: Donald Trump’s Latest Trophy Proves His Power over His Party — Despite the Polls

Related Articles

Saudi Arabia: From the US to Brazil, Key Polls Will Reshape the World Order

Thailand: Brazil and the US: Same Crime, Different Fate

Sri Lanka: Trump Is Very Hard on India and Brazil, but For Very Different Reasons

Colombia: US Warships Near Venezuela: Is Latin America’s Left Facing a Reckoning?

Germany: Learn from Lula

1 COMMENT

  1. Please read the Koran. Muslim peace will only exist when the entire world has submitted to islam. Until then, there are muslim nations, comprising the House of Peace, and all other nations comprising the House of War. Of course muslims say they oppose “terrorism”, but you need to ask them to define terrorism, their definition does not include murdering innocent infidels, because that is an impossibility. All infidels are guilty and must be subjugated. Any muslim who does not believe that is an apostate and that crime requires death. The only terrorism they acknowledge is any opposition to islam. But you are right, we do not want a mosque at Ground Zero.

    Best regards,
    Gail S
    http://www.backyardfence.wordpress.com