On the one hand it’s not at the WTC site even though it is (perhaps uncomfortably) close.

On the other, while there should not be legal impediments to such liberties, it really is an unnecessary consternation — even though the goals and initial reactions were positive.

Personally here’s what I think: Given that “officially” the Centre has been supported (President Obama/the Mayor of NYC) this can’t be made into a matter of an intolerant government. Rather, it’s the case of many citizens of a nation objecting to this on a personal front. As such, I think it gives more than enough reason to move the centre without the Muslims feeling like they’ve lost a great and important front in personal freedom. Even if they build the Centre today they’re going to have to co-exist through the future — and given current tensions, there is going to be some lingering resentment (ill-informed it may or may not be) and perhaps even continued occurrences of “vigilantism”.

I’ve not been on Facebook much at all so I haven’t had the time to pen a response. Better late than never though, eh?

When I first heard about the “Ground-zero mosque” I immediately thought it was an unnecessary provocation. But delving deeper into there are some points that need to be clarified.

First and foremost, this is not at ground-zero. It is two blocks away, surrounded by different buildings and businesses. How far away do things need to move for it to become “okay”. 2 blocks? 10 blocks? 50? Who decides these numbers? Perhaps all of NYC should be avoided?

Then there is the issue of the “mosque” which isn’t a mosque – it’s a community centre with a prayer room. That might sound mosque-like to non-Muslims unfamiliar with the religious beliefs and practices of Muslims, but to Muslims it means something quite different. Typically, every Muslim house (or building) has a prayer room as Muslims stop to pray 5 times a day (if it DIDN’T have a prayer room you would need a mosque in the vicinity so they could go there instead — see the conundrum?). On the other hand, a mosque is a place which is purely dedicated to prayer and further conducts Friday sermon and prayer.
No Muslim would consider a community centre with a prayer room to be a mosque. This issue is clearly blown out of proportion by the media, and by being viewed through lenses unfamiliar with the culture/religion. We see too much of this type of bias in the media. IF a man commits a crime and he happens to be a Muslim, the headline reads “Muslim kills x” but if the man is a Christian or a Jew or something else, then his religion is ignored. Perhaps they should state the religious association (or lack thereof) of this stabber right there in bold letters in the headline: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1306276/Ground-Zero-mosque-New-York-cab-driver-stabbed-saying-Muslim.html?ITO=1490
That’s no good though, because it wouldn’t sell as a well. As a scientist I’m sure you appreciate the type of bias this introduces in the minds of less-than-rational observers.

Back to the issue – So a prayer room is a ubiquitous feature in a building owned by a Muslim, owing to pragmatic reasons. Should then houses having prayer rooms also be banned from the vicinity of Ground-zero because they contain prayer rooms? I think what people do with their property in the seclusion of their buildings ought to be their own business. One cannot do lip-service to tolerance and freedom and then not uphold the tenets they are grounded upon. The other camp often cites Saudi Arabia as an example. This is all well and fine, but there aren’t many Muslims in the world who see Saudi Arabia as a paragon of Islamic virtue. In fact the Royalty is quite unislamic in every sense, and so are the laws of Saudi Arabia which is intolerant to other religions. Case-in-point: the prophet and his followers actually helped followers of other religions with the building of churches and such. Perhaps a better point: the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and Egyptians. In spite of these points, the US went to war with Iraq and found no WMDs while it remains allied with Saudi Arabia.

Oh, and Hospitals house Chapels, as do Universities. Does this mean that these should be barred from the vicinity as well? We can argue back and forth about religion all day, but spirituality and religion is a human phenomenon. We cannot escape it. To deny its existence it in the name of secularism strikes me as being counter to secularism. And Ground-zero will remain a secular shrine to the lives lost whether or not a Community Centre with a prayer house springs up two blocks away, out-of-sight and out-of-mind.

Here’s a more interesting question. You say Ground-zero should remain secular. But if someone had planned to build a synagogue or a church in the area could you deny that the matter would have passed by without commentary? Clearly Muslims are being singled out in this particular manner. And that is dangerous for two reasons.

1. First it infringes on freedom and tolerance that America was ostensibly founded to uphold. I disagree that crying fire in the middle of a theatre is somehow comparable to building a mosque some distance from Ground-zero. The mere notion is offensive in itself. The two are very dissimilar. Humans feel no need to shout fire in the middle of a mosque, while one-fourth the world feels the need to pray five times a day.

2. Second, it makes it an “us vs them” type of scenario. I know many Muslims, but I do not know any who identify with Osama Bin Laden and his cause. Whatever America’s past grievances may be from the perspective of the Islamic World (the Palestinian issue figures most prominently), I don’t know any Muslim who could support the methods of Bin Laden or his thugs. But when you go singling out Muslims for a mosque that is not a mosque being built not at ground-zero, the subtext is rather clear. We’ll do lip-service to all this tolerance business really you lot are the same – cut from the same cloth – “and we don’t take kindly to you types around here”. It undermines effort by both Muslim leaders and by Muslims to distance Islam (the religion) from militant Islamism (the political ideology).

Now we come to the matter of why the community centre, and why there. The reason for its naming was not some symbol of conquest as some have suggested, but quite the contrary. I can really understand what the guy behind the “mosque” idea had running through his head because this is a dream I share with him — a return to the glory days of Islam when Islamic philosophers developed secularism, science, learning, and in a spirit of tolerance co-existed with other cultures and religions to a degree unparalleled in the ancient world. To any Muslim this is what Cordoba House stands for, and to most of us, this return to roots is long overdue. Cordoba House is not meant for just Muslims even though it is about Muslims (as a culture). It’s doors are open to everyone. Thus it is an attempt to recreate the Library of Cordoba, Spain (albeit) in a very small way that continued the legacy of the Islamic Golden age which began in Baghdad and Damascus, and also invigorated an emaciated Europe. To give this name a meaning that it never implied and then attack that is no better than a reductio ad absurdum or a straw-man argument, and to tolerate or give support to such arguments is irresponsible at best. (As Newt Gingrich has done.) A few more points on history related to this are mentioned in this blog article: http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html

Now more than ever Muslims need to proactively emphasise the spirit of tolerance and cooperation between them and the Jews, Christians and other cultures. They also need to educate OTHER Muslims — many of whom just want to earn and take care of their families, get on with their daily lives and thus never look into anything beyond the surface. Or on why Osama Bin Laden and his ideology are entirely anti-thetical to Islamic law. If Muslims are denied their community centre, it will only become harder to do so.
Cordoba House would have been a good step in the right direction if people could see it as what it is, rather than what they think it ought to be.

In my view, the name change was lamentable.

With that said, perhaps it would have been better if they could move the site further away to have avoided any association, but I’m guessing they picked the site for pragmatic reasons. Either way, two blocks away from Ground-zero isn’t Ground-zero as voices have suggested – these voices seeking only to inflame, no doubt.

Perhaps on this matter we will just have to agree to disagree, as you said.

I haven’t had time to proof-read or edit. I’m sorry if I’ve rambled.