Sacred Ground and ‘Insensitivity’: Ground Zero Mosque and Mamilla Cemetery

There has been a lot of heated debated, passionate emotions, and not a little name calling recently between opponents and supporters of the Islamic community center and mosque to be built in the vicinity of Ground Zero here in New York. Reading and listening to all of it, I’ve heard a number of accusations from the opposition to the mosque that doesn’t entirely make sense, and seems to stem more from insensible hatred and a sense of burning self-righteousness than anything else. Claims have been made that the location of the proposed community center and mosque is insensitive to the victims of 9/11 and will serve as a monument to terrorism. These opponents apparently didn’t bother to take note of the fact that this center will include not only a mosque, but also numerous community spaces, such as a performing arts center, a gym, and even a pool. Is their complaint that a Muslim community center is going to be built in the area, or that it will include a mosque? Are they angry about the presence of Muslims, or an Islamic house of worship? Either way, they seem to have overlooked something essential to this issue.

Now who is being insensitive?

In their anger and their passion for a cause they consider to be so righteous, opponents of the mosque have disregarded the fact that through their tirades against Muslims, they are condemning an entire cultural and religious community without any rationale. The bitterness that rises out of opponents to the community center in New York takes the form of absolutes and stereotypes, unjustifiable fears, and yes, intolerance. The Muslim community en mass should not be associated with or held accountable for the actions of a handful of fanatics. The building of a mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero should not be interpreted as insensitive, but rather, as a progressive and healing step forward, away from the seething hatred engendered by that traumatic event ten years ago. Why can’t the location of this community center, with its close proximity to where the twin towers stood, be considered a sign of tolerance rather than of an affront? I am not only speaking about religious tolerance here, though that is certainly an issue. Consider instead that the presence of this community center – and yes, that would include the mosque – speaks in favor of unification against terrorism, and fanaticism, and bigotry.

Something doesn't seem quite right here...

Opposition to the community center fails to take into consideration the message that we would be sending – and are probably currently sending, what with all the raging media coverage. First, it screams a willingness to disregard our own moral values, such as freedom of religion, due to bigotry. Secondly, it would appear that even peaceful practitioners are unwelcome, which will further sully our supposedly-sparkling image of progressive tolerance in not just Islamic communities, but in other cultural and religious communities around the world. Finally, in rejecting so fervently this peaceful community of religious practitioners, we are more likely to encourage further distain and incite passions against us than future attempts at peaceful accord. The construction of this mosque, then, should not be greeted with such hostility. It should be interpreted as a sign that we can be inclusive and are capable of thinking beyond baseline associations such as Muslim = terrorist and mosque = hotbed of extremists. By accepting the construction of the mosque and the incorporation of the Muslim community into the larger downtown community of Manhattan, the new message would be an acknowledgement that Islam and Muslims are not equivalent to terrorism, and that we as a city and a country are above the biased hatred of fanatics. Surely what we want to arise from the rubble at Ground Zero is a symbol of peace and progressiveness, and acceptance and inclusiveness, rather than resentful bigotry.

Yes, that's right. It shouldn't be OUR responsibility to promote tolerance.
Let someone else do it first. Then, we'll think about it.

This should hold true for any community, not just the area surrounding Ground Zero. The constructions of mosques have been denied in a number of other New York boroughs, including Brooklyn and Staten Island, and for what reason? Those opposed to a mosque near Ground Zero lay claim to ‘insensitivity’ or that the building that would be torn down is supposedly a historic landmark. (I think we can all agree that buildings older than the 1850’s have been torn down to make way for far less. It’s not like Starbucks is merely filling up empty lots.) There has even been the claim that a piece of landing gear from one of the planes that hit the towers supposedly damaged this building, as if that random contact with debris somehow marks this as a sacred site. Paterson’s offer to provide state property in another location for the community center seems like a good compromise, except that now the issue has grown well beyond where the center is located, into a question of religious tolerance, civil rights, and unmasked bias against an entire cultural community. And I have to cheer Bloomberg, with whom I do not always agree – leave the artists in Union Square alone, please – for backing the rights of New York citizens to build a house of worship according to the law, even if he did crouch his defense in property rights lingo.

According to Democracy Now!, mosques around the country have come under attack in recent weeks. There is either opposition to having mosques and community centers built, or that they are somehow found to be offensive to the community. Therefore, it is hardly the case that this single mosque is such an issue because of the proximity to Ground Zero. It is apparently anti-American to be Muslim or practice the Islamic faith. And what exactly, to diverge onto a tangent for a moment, does it mean to be American? If I can be ‘insensitive’ for a moment, it would seem that to be American is also to be in favor of commercialism and consumerism; otherwise, surely people would be howling about the number of McDonalds and Starbucks that surround the supposedly sacred ground that is Ground Zero. Am I being insensitive? Am I, in being in support of religious tolerance and civil liberties, somehow un-American? Opponents to the community center would probably agree with that, but it seems far more likely, given their blatant disregard for these deeper concerns, that they are somewhat blinded by their loathing for a religious community that they inappropriately have come to associate with terrorism.

I would like to offer not exactly a counter to this story, but rather an addendum that provides a different perspective.

In February of this year, Democracy Now did a report on the violation of sacred ground in Jerusalem, in which 12th century grave sites – tombstones and bodies – were disturbed to make way for a museum that promoted tolerance. It sounds relatively familiar to the current problem here in New York, where the sanctity of hallowed ground is being overturned in favor of an institution claiming good intentions. The cemetery, in fact, is the Mamilla (also referred to as the Ma’man Allah) cemetery in Jerusalem, where centuries of Palestinian Muslims’ family members, as well as state politicians, artists, judges, scholars and saints, are buried. The Israeli authorities intend to build an extension of the Los Angeles-based Siman Wisenthal Center, and are in the process of bulldozing the tombs and supposedly re-interning remains in undisclosed locations. Despite protests from relatives of the deceased and the local community, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in November of 2004 to go ahead with the demolition of this scared site.

How can we reconcile these two events? Opponents of the Islam community center claim that the encroachment of Muslims on sacred ground is somehow insensitive to the deceased, and yet, similar claims made by the Muslim community in protection of a site sacred to them are dismissed. A potential defense of these events is that the latter is happening is Israel, not America, and therefore we cannot hold them to the same values of civil liberties and religious tolerance. But doesn’t that mean we should hold ourselves to them? In both cases, the intended construction claims to be one of tolerance and peace, and both are considered to be violating sacred sites. And yet, I cannot say, well if we allow the mosque, we have to allow the museum, because either way these buildings are disturbing grave sites. The difference between these two cases is that the community center being built near Ground Zero is not at Ground Zero or on Ground Zero, and is an attempt to rise beyond the dissident emotions engendered by the event of 9/11. In contrast, the Museum of Tolerance requires the demolition of a sacred site and the eradication of a cultural community from that portion of the city; their intentions appear to be those of exclusion rather than tolerance. How can we even consider these two events without linking the current of emotions and issues that bleed them together?

 

The emotions that frame the discussion of the community center near Ground Zero in New York seem to have bubbled up from one of the dark, festering wounds of this country. The anger and resentment expressed by opponents is a sharp knife, cutting away the ties to reason and leaving us afloat in a heavy pool of sensationalism and intolerance. The building of this center and its mosque should not be interpreted as an insensitive decision meant to reignite bigotry or wave some victory flag over the ashes of a national tragedy. Rather, it should be seen as a sign that ten years should be long enough for us to now be able to see beyond our initial anger, to recognize that we are not the only ones adrift in a world of intolerance and injustice, and reach out to others willing to promote peace. If an Islamic community center and a mosque are built near Ground Zero, it will not say that “the terrorists have won,” that we have allowed them to soil a sacred site. Rather, it will say to the world that we are a people that embrace freedom of religion, that acknowledges civil liberties, and are eager to celebrate acceptance and peace, in whatever form they may take.