Welcome to a series from Culture Shock, Be Younonymous. Here, anonymous members of the BU community contribute their stories from campus life and beyond under the condition of complete secrecy. Have a story? e-mail it to Beyounonymous@bucultureshock.com . We’ll take it to our servers’ graves.

The controversy surrounding the “Ground Zero Mosque” has been receiving a great deal of media attention this summer, especially in New York City. Being a New Yorker, it has been literally impossible to avoid seeing coverage of it on television, in the papers, and on the internet. I thought I would share some of my personal reflections on the heated debate that has ignited around this issue (this would be a good time to take a moment and catch up on the issue. I recommend the articles written by Time Magazine and the New York Times.)

It seems like the criticism of this proposed cultural center is founded on the politicization of a number of things that should, for the sake of the families of the victims murdered on 9/11, never be subject to it. A review of the articles written by critics of the center, as well as interviews given by them, gives me this basic idea of their claim: The idea of building a mosque near Ground Zero is an insult to the memory of what occurred there, and to the families of those murdered there, because it will espouse the very ideology that caused the tragic attacks. Given the politicized nature of the statement, it needs to be looked at in piecemeal.

Firstly, the critics of the mosque, and by critics I mean those politicians and organizations that have taken up a side in this debate that they hope will further their aims, are very particular about using the term “mosque.” The basic definition of a mosque is simple: it is a place of prayer for Muslims, an Islamic church, if you will. Unfortunately, the vocal opponents of the Cordoba Center are using the word in such a way that one gets the feeling they want you to hear “headquarters” or “attack planning center.” This association is viciously crafted to fear-monger, and belies the reality of both the Cordoba Center and what a mosque is. A cursory look through the articles on the matter will show that the planned center will be a multi-story community meeting place with a swimming pool, art galleries, libraries, and office rooms from which to coordinate events and outreach. Of course, as an Islamic center, it will also include an area for Muslims to pray. So calling it a “mosque,” with the meaning intended by the critics (that meaning being: dingy basement somewhere in the dark recesses of the city where the next 9/11 is being plotted), is simply incorrect. What is more disappointing, in my opinion, is that the reality of a mosque has been smeared by this debate. Mosques have always been beautiful places for the community, as can be attested to by the many amazing mosques spread throughout the Muslim world, and their history. So maybe the Cordoba Center can be considered a mosque, but only when one knows what a mosque really is. Unfortunately, some want to use the fact that mosques were involved in planning an attack by fringe extremists to inform the public’s idea of mosques in general.

The second point to delve into is the idea that, by being a place that will allow others to learn about Islam, this center is desecrating Ground Zero, since Islam is the ideology that caused the attacks. Again, one can see a clearly particular and politically motivated usage of terminology here. A few media sources have already pointed out the fact that there are stores that sell pornography in the area, yet this does not seem to have been considered a “desecration.” But the specific issue here, as is clear from the words of the opponents, is the teaching of Islam at this center. Islamophobia, the baseless fear and suspicion of anything having to do with Islam and Muslims (a good article on the topic written by Georgetown University professor John Esposito can be read here), has blurred the vision of these critics, who can no longer distinguish between the rhetoric of a small cabal of extremists and militants, and the attempts being made by the majority of mainstream Muslims to propagate a purified understanding of their religion. No one can undo the association of terrorism with Islam; the terrorists, aided by aspects of our media, have made it impossible. But one can appreciate and benefit from places where Islam’s mainstream understanding is taught, standing opposed to the skewed interpretations of militants (see Time’s profile of the imam behind the project). Is this not, then, an honor to Ground Zero? The presence of a place that will engender understanding and push for interfaith dialogue and friendship, so close to the location of a tragedy brought about by the exact opposite of those ideals, should be welcomed. Many have understood this point and thrown their support behind the Cordoba Center, including New York City’s mayor Michael Bloomberg and Massachusetts’s governor Deval Patrick.

The final, and in my opinion most abhorrent, aspect of this issue is the politicization of the grieving 9/11 families themselves. Their pain is something only they really understand, and they deserve our compassion and respect. Know that the families that lost loved ones on September 11^th are not the people being addressed in this piece. This is a discussion of the underhanded propagandizing that is being carried out by politicians that stir the grief of these families to their own ends. And even in this stirring of their grief, one can see a clear politically motivated selectiveness. A couple simple questions arise: what of the Muslims that lost loved ones? How do they feel seeing their religion run into the ground as it tries to fend off the militancy and extremism that killed their own? This use of grieving families, in my opinion, is the worst thing to come out of this entire debate.

I believe I’ve made my opinion clear. I welcome the Cordoba Center, and anxiously look forward to its completion. I hope that it will act as a conduit through which followers of all religions, ideologies, and philosophies will be able to meet and interact in a constructive way. I also view it as one of the few legitimate strikes against terrorism to be made since the beginning of the global “War on Terror.” Terrorism is an ideology, and can only be defeated on the battlefield of ideologies, our minds and hearts. In that light, this center is a more fitting redemption for the lives lost on that tragic day than any military action.

13 people like this post.

Unlike