Ground Zero Islamic Centre?

On a pragmatic note: who gave planning approval for the project? Surely New York City administrators could see this project was ill-advised politically even if morally justifiable.

Liberals and the politically correct stridently drive a wedge between Islam and terrorists who usurp and pervert Islam. But is a sharp distinction between mainstream Islam and fundamentalist, militant Islam fully justified? Some imams in the West have condemned terrorism and suicide bombings as unIslamic. However, worldwide there are clearly millions who see themselves as devout Muslims yet are sympathetic to, and supportive of militant Islam - violence in the name and cause of Islam. If the terrorists did not have widespread support from coreligionists how could they be so formidable? Has there yet emerged/evolved a mainstream Islamic denomination which officially and categorically renounces and denounces violence in the cause of Islam. What are ‘Al Qaeda’ and ‘Taliban’ but names for those Muslims who endorse or commit violence in order to, as they see it, promote the cause of Islam and hence the will of God? Have these Muslims been branded as heretics and excommunicated from mainstream Islam? Christian and Buddhist pacifism are well-known but is there yet an Islamic movement of ahimsa or non-violence?

We have to cut through the rhetoric and emotional bias and investment (on both sides) and acknowledge differences between cultures, societies, values, ideologies, and religions. Difference and disagreement, even at a deep level, need not be bad or frightening. We have to look at actual practice as well as what people preach.

Religion is still a sacred cow (!) even in the secular, democratic West. Someone who criticizes religion (or advocates serious upper limits on wealth, income, or inheritance, or parental power) is unlikely to be elected to political or public office. Religion is widely seen as the foundation for morality, and the gateway to an underlying spiritual reality. Religions are wealthy, powerful institutions offering group solidarity and a feeling of superiority to those who are not members of one’s own religion.

It is easy to assert that Islam (Catholicism, Baptism, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Jungianism, aboriginal culture, etc.) preaches love, tolerance, peace, respect, spirituality, a sense of connexion with one’s fellow humans and nature, and so on. Such motherhood, apple pie slogans sound lovely though gaseous – they give a warm, comforting glow. But what does the factual content of such claims amount to? How do they translate into specific positions on fundamental social issues such as the following?
Abortion, contraception, right of women to education, to hold political, religious, judicial, or administrative office, to wear rational dress, move freely and independently in public;
Separation of Church and State, laws based on open debate not on religious authority, the right to run for office as an alternative party – freedom of political affiliation;
Freedom of expression – including freedom to criticize religion or ideology or the ruling party, freedom to give offence to some (even members of a so-called disadvantaged group);
Punishment of criminals, the death penalty, conscientious objectors, gun control;
Assisted euthanasia, legalization with regulation of recreational drugs, censorship; Prostitution, animal rights, apostasy or conversion to a non-established religion.

It is fatuous, deceitful, and hypocritical to ignore that, at present, mainstream Islam (and conservative Catholicism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Baptism) is opposed to many values which are basic to the vision of liberal, democratic society – values which may be elicited by considering liberal positions on the aforementioned social issues, and are articulated by people like John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell, etc. Equally, it is ludicrous to maintain that Islam and Christianity (or Judaism) assert essentially the same Word of God (doctrines) except that for the former this Truth was channeled through Muhammad and for the latter through Jesus, and that both are essentially benign and simply preach love, brotherhood of man, social justice, peace, forgiveness, avoidance of greed, materialism, and selfishness, etc. If this were the case, why so much friction and bloodshed between the religions and various denominations over the centuries and which continue still? It’s no use trying to pass off the violence and hate as simply due to politics since without religious backing the political disagreements would not get such a ferocious grip. (Can one separate political from religious differences and disagreements anyway?)

It is not clear for instance that Islam agrees with some basic Christian moral doctrines. This is not to say that the Christian doctrines are superior (Nietzsche would say that they are inferior.) For example, is there anything in the Qur’an equivalent to the New Testament teachings of turning the other cheek, loving your enemy, doing good to him who hurts you, forgiving 70 times 7, not stoning the woman taken in adultery. Not for nothing do some Muslim scholars call Christianity the Buddhism of the West. Whereas there is a well-established Pacifist Christian movement and pacifism seems to be at the core of Buddhism ‘Pacifist Muslim’ may be as yet something of an oxymoron. Again, note I am not saying that pacifism is correct or superior.