ShareThis Page

Mosque plans near Ground Zero stir emotions, opposition

| Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Several proposed Islamic centers, including one near ground zero, have touched off a heated nationwide debate that raises questions about the state of religious tolerance in post-9/11 America.

A planned mosque and Islamic center, just a stone's throw away from the World Trade Center site, prompted Sarah Palin to send a series of Twitter posts Sunday asking peace-seeking Muslims to "pls reject it in the interest of healing."

The possibility of an Islamic center in California compelled a Baptist minister, whose church would sit next door to the mosque, to compare the plan to putting cats and dogs in the same cage. In Murfreesboro, Tenn., a proposed mosque led to heated outbursts at public hearings, including threats to boycott any builder who works on it.

Opposition to mosque building appears to be at a new high and follows a recent string of thwarted terror plots involving American Muslims, experts say. Muslim leaders say the protests are built on bigotry and ignorance, while opponents say they have legitimate concerns over Islamic militancy.

"Anytime a Muslim raises his head in society, a cottage industry of Muslim-bashers comes against them," says Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington. "These debates seem to have liberated the inner bigot in a number of people."

Protests about the building of mosques are relatively new, says Joe Feagin, a professor on racial and ethnic relations at Texas A&M University in College Station.

"I don't remember seeing any discussions of protests and attacks on mosques until 9/11," he says. But since then, he says, much of the discussion of Middle Eastern people is negative. "We're talking extreme stereotypes circulated by the right-wing talk shows," he says.

Longtime observers of Muslim communities in America say opposition to mosques used to be relatively minor and would typically be more about zoning issues than politics. Now, groups are protesting against mosques because of opposition to Islam, says Ihsan Bagby, an associate professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky.

"The level of anger is at new heights," Bagby said. "Groups are feeding that anger based on ignorance."

Some of the opposition is a reaction to the recent string of Muslim Americans arrested on terror charges, he says. However, Bagby adds, the American mosque is not an incubator of militancy, but a bulwark against radicalization.

Opponents to proposed mosques give reasons that range from concerns over parking to anti-Muslim views. Some complain that the Islamic centers or mosques may become a place for jihadists to gather. On one YouTube video that has been viewed by 2.2 million people, David Wood, a student at Fordham University, shows a photo-shopped image of downtown Manhattan filled with mosques and minarets that he says indicated the terrorists had cleared downtown for the construction of new mosques.

The most public and heated discussion is over plans to build an Islamic center, Cordoba House, about two blocks from ground zero. The pros and cons have been discussed on television around the world. It's become part of the gubernatorial race in New York. And websites such as You Tube are filled with rhetoric about the proposal. At a recent public hearing, some relatives of 9/11 victims said it would be a "slap in the face."

However, Father Patrick Ryan, a professor of religion and society at Fordham University, says 40 to 50 Muslims lost their lives at the World Trade Center. "Why shouldn't they have a mosque there?" he asks.

It's resulted in lots of hyperbole: Wood's video was dissected by, which pointed out that the photo of downtown Manhattan came from a comedy website with no religious affiliation.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has defended the right of Muslims to build the center, which the local imam describes as being similar to Jewish centers or YMCAs. Bloomberg says political attempts to stop the construction would be "un-American."

The mosque proposal appears to be set for approval, barring a red light from the city's Landmark Preservation Commission.

The mosque debate is going on in Temecula, Calif., where a Muslim community has purchased property to build a new facility for their growing membership.

"We have applied for a building permit, we've been working with the city and planning commission for the last three years on the design to minimize noise and traffic, and now that it's in the public hearings, all of a sudden people come in to say something so negative," says the imam, Mahmoud Harmoush.

Bill Rench, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, which sits next to the proposed mosque site, has come out against its construction. Rench says that as an "independent Baptist," he would fight for freedom of religion in America. But, he adds, "We don't want to do anything that encourages Islam."

He worries about the prospect of loudspeakers at the mosque when people are called to prayer. And he points to places such as Dearborn, Mich., which he says is "under the power and influence of Islamic immigrants."

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.