mostly because i find myself asking my very own FAQ:
then what? what gonna happen if i did comment then discussing and maybe debating with bloggers or even specialists on any of these topics?
the answer was always NOTHING!!
i dont wanna sound pessimistic, on the contrary, i even sometimes think i'm over optimistic than i actually should be. but our modern history was always pushing my "be realistic button" and supported my laziness.
however, this time i had a chance to take it out of my chest when a friend of mine participated in launching the two seas forum on islam comment with such an interesting topic
"Should the West welcome new mosques? Should the East welcome other places of worship?"
i read many of the topic's posts, dialogues and comments and it was then when i decided to share my opinion with others about the the Ground Zero project.
i'm personally against it, not for anything but the fact that the majority of both, eastern & western communities are neither mature nor educated enough to get over the recent past and accept each other's cultures and segregate between religions, terrorism and the potential political or economical hidden intentions.
so in my opinion, this project considering the current situation, wouldn't add anything but fire up. whether it’s a typical mosque with a minaret & dome or a community center or even a nightclub, it will still have the same impact on the opposition as long as it’s labeled as islamic entity.
true that 2010 is an election year in USA is 99.9% the main reason behind pushing this debate that high is a highly considered valid point, but on the other side, why the people behind this project, as moderate & highly educated as they’re known to be, choose this specific location which is a case sensitive to a majority that still doesn’t differentiate between a religion & terrorism which gives a chance to “the bad guys” (in many ppl’s opinion) to link islam AGAIN to a horrible memory that the west didnt get over yet? while at no doubt they knew it’ll create such a mess.
this project could have actually been a great initiative to correct the image of islam and help a lot of american muslims suffering the rejection of their society to get some acceptance, only if it was in a different location!
and whether the reasons behind this western hysterical panic of muslims and their hate to islam are right, logical & justified or not and even if the US law protects the freedom of worship, i still believe that such project in this specific location & even name is quite symbolic and conveying a provocative message to these people whom the majority is split between brainwashed and ignorant probably as much as most of the people in eastern dictatorships & authoritarian regimes.
true that 2010 is an election year in USA is 99.9% the main reason behind pushing this debate that high is a highly considered valid point, but on the other side, why the people behind this project, as moderate & highly educated as they’re known to be, choose this specific location which is a case sensitive to a majority that still doesn’t differentiate between a religion & terrorism which gives a chance to “the bad guys” (in many ppl’s opinion) to link islam AGAIN to a horrible memory that the west didnt get over yet? while at no doubt they knew it’ll create such a mess.
this project could have actually been a great initiative to correct the image of islam and help a lot of american muslims suffering the rejection of their society to get some acceptance, only if it was in a different location!
and whether the reasons behind this western hysterical panic of muslims and their hate to islam are right, logical & justified or not and even if the US law protects the freedom of worship, i still believe that such project in this specific location & even name is quite symbolic and conveying a provocative message to these people whom the majority is split between brainwashed and ignorant probably as much as most of the people in eastern dictatorships & authoritarian regimes.
which why it doesn’t surprise me when i see such laws as the veil ban in france or the mosques’ minarets ban in switzerland get proposed and at no surprise as well i observe the amount of anger rising in the entire muslim nation for such, while in most of these angry people’s countries, building a church is not allowed and if it is, the building has to look neutral without carrying any religious symbol or icon!!!
both sides feel rejected, hated and fearing each other’s power and intentions that might sometimes be overestimated, but who can blame any of them after all what happened and still happening?!
solving this endless conflict which its grounds were accumulated over the years and doubled up in the last decade, requires a lot of things that starts with a minimal understanding from both parties to the opposite point of view and perception the which has to be supported by a governmental honest approach that lacks all the prominent manipulations which of course and for a whole list of obvious reasons that can keep going on and on, will never happen!
Good point of view..... all respect to you.
ReplyDeletegreat topic of discussion... one which has been closely on my mind for some time now. i also agree with Hind Kabawat's comment on islamcomment.com blog. i feel the only way forward is always through dialogue. with both parts so far apart, like yourself, i doubt it will happen anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the mosque should be built there. period. i dont have any fancy reasons to give. i work with the basic principle of common sense.
the pastor was VERY wrong and disrespectful to threaten to burn the mosque. i would have slapped him, had he been the head of my church for flouting some of the major tenets of my faith.
i wrote a blog about this last week so i'll paste parts i deem relevant to this discussion here:
"My instinctive reaction to the proposed building story was, surely, that’s an insensitive move designed to anger New Yorkers & Christians worldwide, alike. Of all the locations in the city of New York, why have they chosen the immediate vicinity of the former Twin Towers’ site as a place to construct their place of worship? This can be construed by some, as a taunt and an attempt to desecrate the memories of those who perished on that fateful day, at the hands of vile Islamic terrorists.
...reading in between the lines, I’m able to deduce from the President’s decision to wade into the matter, his unabashed intervention definitely has political undertones; devised as a tool to help in building bridges with the Muslim world. Though, privately, Obama might himself believe in the very opposite of what he espouses publicly.
...a nation that predominantly identifies itself, as, implicitly, part of the Christian world. I vehemently support the authorities’ right to deny the building application, without any need for explanation nor remorse at their decision to do so. It is imperatively their right to decide what they want on their soil, and where it should be. Muslim nations are very clear about what rules churches must obey on their soil. Not to mention the persecutions of minority faiths.
on the other hand, i cannot justify the pastor's depraved, intended actions; nor can i permit him to hijack our peaceful and loving name as his pretext to trigger-off a Jihad (Holy War) between our fellow humans, who just happen to be Muslims.
Rather than fueling Islamophobia; a man in his position of leadership, if truly, he were a genuine servant of God, should be preaching Peace, Repentance, Forgiveness, Redemption and Love of our neighbors. In line with the good message of our good Lord & Savior, Jesus Christ.
Only one person is appointed to judge mankind for their sins, and that is Almighty God, Himself."
read your full blog and i can understand where you're coming from.
ReplyDeletewe actually both agree that the chosen location is wrong.
however we have different views and reasons on why.
as far as i understood, you're still one of those people, confusing islam and muslim world with terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda or Taliban and that the only moderate muslims are just "fellow human" who found themselves inheriting this religion.
which i don't really agree on that "not that it doesn't happen, of course it does" but this is not the only rule - a lot of truly and genuinely religious muslims are also moderate and against such organizations.
so coming back to the topic of debate, i'm totally against the location yes, but at the very same time i'm completely against moving it now!
coz simply backing off now after all what happened will make things worse. true that their picked location lacked the tactics but we're here now and i believe that considering the whole situation at the moment, they've got no options but resisting, fighting, take the risk, bear all the potential threats and cross their fingers that their project sees the light and prove its promised good-aim.
refer to Michael Moore's blog about the subject
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/if-mosque-isnt-built-no-longer-america
my only fear or doubt now is the capability of Imam Abdel Raouf in running the show!!
I think you've slightly misunderstood me, Marwa. I know that Muslims worldwide aren't all sympathizers of Al Qaeda and Talibans; except for a “vile” minority. I also know lots of fairly religious Muslims who despise the afore-mentioned groups. Islam doesn't equate to terrorism or fanaticism. Same tags, equally, can apply to other groups as well. Perhaps, with hindsight, I should have been more careful with my word phrasing in my last post and explained further what I meant. I apologize!
ReplyDeleteWhen I say fellow humans who happen to be Muslim – I was trying to say all humans are equal and the same. All deserve to be treated with love, respect and dignity - regardless of their religion, color, gender and social class.
Addressing the main topic, I read Michael Moore's blog with interest. To an extent I agree with you both on the matter. In an ideal world, this would be a non-issue. With groups free to build wherever they want so long as it is within the established laws.
Given the current factors we have at play and the sensitivity nature of things. In my humble (non-bigoted) opinion it would still be unwise to proceed with the Park 51 near Ground Zero. As majority of Americans reject the idea. Firstly, we must remember that the average American has limited understanding of cultural/world affairs. They see events in a simplistic manner: good guys versus bad guys. To them, the bad guys are trying to get a foothold on something they hold sacred - which they believe must be repelled at all cost.
Secondly, if we were to use a democratic model to decide this: we'll find 70% of Americans are opposed to Park 51. Even if most don't know much about what it actually symbolizes. Going ahead with the project, will only lead to further resentment and increased attacks of vulnerable Muslim communities there. Not to mention tit for that retaliations on ‘Christians’ worldwide. Surely, all this can be avoided if a less divisive location were proposed. That is the logical thing to do considering the fragile situation.
Pride is a terrible disease in mankind. Solutions to most conflicts are - communication, education and understanding. We need wisdom to do the right thing always.